LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI understand that, but who has effectively captured Russia?Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar
-Tink
You don't have to capture every square inch of a country to beat it or make it surrender unconditionally.
I understand that, but who has effectively captured Russia?
-Tink
Indeed. In establishing almost-300-year Иго (Yoke) – yes.
But not in conquering.
They were wise enough to keep local Slavic bosses at bay and collect regular tribute.
When, eventually, Mongols decide to come and make good residence in Moscow, to take full control, they faced Kulikovo.
http://www.kulpole.ru/ENG/KUL_BIT_E.htm
There always are nice folks desperately eager to try.
Try and try, try and try...
Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd and Deep Purple.
Yup, they were successful .
p.s.
Waiting for tread “Warsaw Pact vs Leslie Nielsen” and “NATO vs Mike Tason”
Last edited by Prosto ILya; 13 Apr 05, at 23:10.
And the Soviets could have destroyed that with their forces in place. So in order to be effective, the Chinese would have had to replace those losses, otherwise they have lost their offensive capability. China is attacking here, at least in the outset.
Because they had them, and the Chinese really didn't have much of a response. It's the smart thing to do. Personally, I don't think the Soviets required nukes to defend Siberia, but they were going to use them if necessary.1) The Soviets were going to rely on nukes to take Manchuria.
Which could be bypassed, or didn't even have to be reached. All the Soviets had to do was take sections of Manchuria, to round off the front and make it a little more defensable.2) The Chinese had set up several Stalingrad type fortresses.
What ever happened to a force being irrelevant without it's reserves? I feel we've had this arguement before except from other sides.3) Only the strategic reserves would be annihalated, the main forces would still be viable and still had to be overcome.
Besides, the Soviets merely needed to destroy China's offensive capability. They aren't trying to conquer China here, merely defend Siberia until the situation in the West has been resolved.
For defending Siberia? For limited offensives to round out the frontier (many portions of Manchuria are not heavily populated, and could be held with a minimum of difficulty)? Why wouldn't 45 divisions cut it? Fewer than that were deployed against NATO, and we were (and are) far stronger.4) Without nukes, Soviet manpower and firepower requirements just jumped through the roof - 45 divisions just ain't going to cut it.
The Chinese are attacking. It is at the border where the main force engagement would be, is it not? Even if it isn't, the Soviets would just do their best to hold Siberia, until the conflict in the west was resolved.5) It is still 100 miles from the Sino-Soviet border to a main force engagement.
I'm assuming that the Soviets would take the initiative, once the original Chinese attack had been destroyed. They would not use that initiative to push into China without substantial reinforcements, I agree. However taking portions of Manchuria, and using limited offensives to destroy Chinese forces was not beyond Soviet capabilities. The 8th army was logistically stretched out, somewhat dispersed, and surprised by the appearance of the Chinese. The Soviets had none of these problems.You're assuming that the Soviets still had the initative. Mao had the iniative against a superior 8th Army in Korea.
Last edited by lwarmonger; 14 Apr 05, at 00:15.
Who's Mike Tason?
1st, understand the committement. The Chinese are only committing two corps to the attack. Behind them are another 3 corps waiting in static defence (forts don't move). And there is another 7 Military Regions that would yet to see combat. The Soviets may be able to destroy the 38 and 39 GAs but that does not mean that they could wipe out two Military Regions at the same time.
Two different things here. Repelling the attack and eliminating the threat. To take out the threat, the Soviets had to invade Manchuria. Actually two Military Regions (Beijing and Shenyang) with a combined strength at the time of about 5-6 corps (if you include the independent units).
And where do you think those PLA GAs were sitting?
Except in this scenario, the roles are reversed. The strategic reserves became the offensive force and the main force became the reserve, even strictly by geography. The 38 and 39 GAs are out front while the main defensive static force laid back.What ever happened to a force being irrelevant without it's reserves? I feel we've had this arguement before except from other sides.
No, they need to destroy China's ability to wage war. Two different objectives. The former merely fixes the status quo. The latter releases your forces to the West (or at least eliminate additional re-enforcement requirements).
They're fortified.
Think you better check your numbers. There were 173 Warsaw Pact divisions against 87 NATO divisions.
And what is stopping the Chinese from marching out with another GA? Even on foot? And before you say a mech force would kill a foot force, how would you know where the foot force is sitting in Siberia?
Invalid assumption. The Chinese are not amateurs in warfare though they may be not be as experienced with alot of modern aspects. Once they achieved battle momemtum, it is death if they lose it. No matter what the costs, they will have to keep the battle momentum on their side. The assumption that the Soviets automatically retreived the initiative once the 38 and 39 GAs are destroyed is invalid. The Chinese still had assets to which to act with. How they would act is entire speculation but it is unfounded that they would surrender the initiative so easily.
Again, invalid assumption. If you have the initiative and the battle momentum, you have to push it to its logical conclusion. Otherwise, it's suicide.
You've missed the point altogether. Had 8th Army stood and fought and even attacked, they would have killed the PVA. Instead, the shock and momentum was on the Chinese side and they exploited it to no end, despite facing a superior force.
Chimo
If those armies aren't attacking, then they don't need to be destroyed right away. The Soviets are on the defensive, they need only destroy the attacking force, and hold Siberia.
This is a war waged by the Chinese on the Soviets. What the Soviets had to do to repel the threat was beat back the attacking force, and round out their frontiers in order to make defense a bit easier. Eliminating the threat entirely could have waited until after things had been brought to a conclusion in the West.Two different things here. Repelling the attack and eliminating the threat. To take out the threat, the Soviets had to invade Manchuria. Actually two Military Regions (Beijing and Shenyang) with a combined strength at the time of about 5-6 corps (if you include the independent units).
The Manchurian-Siberian border is extremely long and uneven. Defending every little jink in the border is impossible (for both sides), and therefore rounding it out becomes essential. Those group armies are sitting well back of the border, or they have just been destroyed in their assault into Siberia. They are not defending every salient along the border.And where do you think those PLA GAs were sitting?
Point taken, I was just yanking your chain.Except in this scenario, the roles are reversed. The strategic reserves became the offensive force and the main force became the reserve, even strictly by geography. The 38 and 39 GAs are out front while the main defensive static force laid back.
Not immediately they don't. The west is the bigger threat, and must be dealt with first. The Siberian front merely needs to be held until forces can be transfered back from Western Europe. Conquering China is beyond the means of the Soviet Siberian forces, and would not be attempted. In the long run, the Chinese ability to wage war needs to be destroyed, but right then and there NATO is the far larger threat (only NATO had the capability to defeat the bulk of the Soviet military).No, they need to destroy China's ability to wage war. Two different objectives. The former merely fixes the status quo. The latter releases your forces to the West (or at least eliminate additional re-enforcement requirements).
The Chinese could not fortify and defend the entire border in strength. Not with 5 or six corps they couldn't. And once those fortifications are penetrated, the rest are surrounded and destroyed. Stay away from the populated areas, and make their front more defendable until additional forces can be brought in theater.They're fortified.
There were 173 Soviet (read reliable) divisions in Eastern Europe (Think you better check your numbers. There were 173 Warsaw Pact divisions against 87 NATO divisions.
How do you hide an entire army from an enemy with infrared and complete air superiority (the supply train alone would be trackable, even a foot army has to eat, and it can't get very far on foot in a few days... porters in large numbers can be located as well)? Not to mention that they're fighting on their own territory (and I'm sure the KGB had border guards set up, didn't they?).And what is stopping the Chinese from marching out with another GA? Even on foot? And before you say a mech force would kill a foot force, how would you know where the foot force is sitting in Siberia?
The Soviets are mechanized, with complete air superiority and interior lines (Manchuria isn't very developed at this time). Assuming that the Soviet commanders are even halfway competent (or rather, that their Chinese equivalents are no more competent than they), with advantages like that they should be able to get, and then retain, the initiative fairly quickly.Invalid assumption. The Chinese are not amateurs in warfare though they may be not be as experienced with alot of modern aspects. Once they achieved battle momemtum, it is death if they lose it. No matter what the costs, they will have to keep the battle momentum on their side. The assumption that the Soviets automatically retreived the initiative once the 38 and 39 GAs are destroyed is invalid. The Chinese still had assets to which to act with. How they would act is entire speculation but it is unfounded that they would surrender the initiative so easily.
How is it suicide? Against an equal force, perhaps, but the Chinese were no way near equal, and lacked the means to become equal. Pushing deep into China without adequate forces would be suicide, destroying the occasional Chinese thrust, and waiting for reinforcements so that the Chinese ability to wage war could be eliminated later on is definitely the prudent course of action (and the one the Soviet leadership would most likely have taken, as their main effort was in the West).Again, invalid assumption. If you have the initiative and the battle momentum, you have to push it to its logical conclusion. Otherwise, it's suicide.
What I was saying was that the United States was unprepared to meet the Chinese. While they probably could have beaten the Chinese if they had stood and fought, they did not feel that they could have (because they were strung out, and disorganized), and that enabled the Chinese to push forward. The Soviets do not have any of these psychological difficulties, and there was no uncertainty as to what was facing them. They would not give the Chinese such an opening.You've missed the point altogether. Had 8th Army stood and fought and even attacked, they would have killed the PVA. Instead, the shock and momentum was on the Chinese side and they exploited it to no end, despite facing a superior force.
==========Begin Hijack Here=========
OoE (or indeed anyone with an opinion) -
What is/are the best book or books to read to gain an understanding of the history of Sino-Soviet border clashes and events?
Thanks!
-dale
==========End Hijack Here==========
Since when the Soviets were EVER on the defensive, ESPECIALLY against the Chinese?
Except for the fact that their entire posture is purely offensive with no fortifications, no minefields, no obstacles. You're ignoring alot of history here.
You've missed the point here. The Chinese have fortified every point of interest that must be taken. The Russians could take nice tourist pictures of the Gobie but without taking Lop Nor, they would not have reduced a threat.
Duly noted.....
Again, ignoring the historic picture here and also Soviet doctrine.
They don't have to defend the entire border. They only need to fortify the decisive points - ie, communication nodes and military-industrial complex centres.
And the next fort is waiting.
People's War.
It's 173 WARSAW PACT divisions versus 87 NATO divisions. Check IISS Military Balance 1973There were 173 Soviet (read reliable) divisions in Eastern Europe (
You've forgotten Turkey.
This is 1973. If we, the West, was caught off guard by the Soviet build up to attack Lop Nor, then what make you think the Soviets would be any better with far less technology?
You've missed the point again altogether. Losses alone would not take the initative away from the Chinese (they did not in Korea). If the Chinese manages the shock right (the Korean War, the Sino-Indian War, and the 1st Sino-VN War all shown that they could manage the shock), then they could keep the iniative.
The 8th Army took the initative away from the Chinese and gave it back to them and ... wham, the longest retreat in USArmy history.
World Affairs Board - Korea: Reluctant Dragons and Red Conspiracies
Documents recently released also throw light on the November Lull episode, a lull in the fighting that occurred throughout the peninsula. Reluctant Dragon historians later interpreted this pause as an unstated Chinese offer to America of a truce in exchange for a protected Communist sanctuary in the northern reaches of North Korea. We now know that the mysterious November Lull was nothing more than a case of exhausted, cold, hungry, and battered Chinese troops in need of rest, resupply, and reorganization before resuming their efforts to annihilate U.N. forces and push the Americans out of Korea.An army poised to strike deep into China back by nukes to wipe out at least 3 MRs and 9 corps is all of a sudden put on the defensive against two Chinese corps and sitting behind with no prepared defences.
What do you call that?
Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 14 Apr 05, at 16:41.
Chimo
Could you PM with your email?
CDF has 25 pages of raw material, mostly from the Soviet side of this issue. I have it zipped.
Chimo
Twin sister of Mike Tyson.Who's Mike Tason?
I'd love to take a look at that too Colonel.
I've PM'ed my email address to you.
Thanks in advance sir
OoE, it seems that you are taking the position that the Chinese could emerge victorious over the Soviet Union in 1973, whereas prior to this, you had argued at length with me about how the Chinese could in no way match the Russians in a great power struggle. Can you not see where these positions are at odds? The Russian military is a shadow of what it was in 1973, and the Chinese have a much larger industrial base with which to wage war now then they did in 1973. As for the Soviets being on the defensive, we are both agreed that a Soviet offensive with the forces it has in place along the Siberian border is suicide (45 divisions cannot effectively occupy China, and would be swallowed in that country). Doctrine is flexable to the situation, and a strategically defensive war of manuever in Siberia and northern Manchuria would be the only realistic option open to the Russians, who have their main forces attacking NATO (they don't have reinforcements available until after the West is crushed). The Soviets are going to win or lose in the West, not against China, however they are capable of waging a defensive war in Siberia with the forces they have in place. If the Russians could do it now, as you argued so long with me for, than the Soviets certainly could have done it in 1973.
No, what he's taking the position of is that combined with a war against NATO in the west, the Chinese have a fighting chance.
I didn't see the phrase 'chinese victory' anywhere in his posts.
In this situation, the Soviets failing to achieve victory amounts to pretty much the same thing as a Chinese victory. I am arguing that the Soviets would be able to defend Siberia against the Chinese until reinforcements can be brought from the west, and he seems to be arguing against that. If the Soviets are incapable of holding Siberia and defeating the Chinese incursions, then they are losing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: