China-Vietnam war 1979 - An example for Singapore?
-
In 1979, 4 years after the US withdrew from the Vietnam war, China attacked Vietnam. Some 85,000 Chinese soldiers attacked Vietnam through twenty-six points along the border. 3 weeks later, the Chinese announced that the campaign was over.
In spite of Vietnam's stategy of holding back its major forces to protect them from the onslaught, the Chinese lost an estimated 20,000 killed and wounded. Vietnamese casualties have not been announced to this day. (US casualties in the dozen years of fighting amounted to slightly less than 60,000 killed)
News clip on YouTube :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECbhcqdIN5g
=====================
The US meanwhile, remained bogged down in Iraq.
Moral of the story- Singapore, or any other army can win a battle or a war, but should the victor hold on to territory and bleed? Should armies follow the Chinese model instead - bash up your enemy, then withdraw after you declare a victory (whether real or imagined)?
Up till this day, both countries claimed victory, but the fact remained that all the northern provincial capitals fell to the Chinese, and Vietnam would not dare to provoke the Chinese dragon in any way again.
Is the SAF ready to withdraw after battle? Or will the SAF prefer to bleed like the Americans? -
The SAF has no preference. Its a military organization, a tool of the state, and acts according to the will of the nation's leadership. Its only preference is to safeguard the sovereignty of this country.
Its Singapore's preference not to go to war if diplomatic options are open.
The preferences you've listed does not apply. -
maybe he is asking military which is a better option.
-
Peace is a sign that our defence is successful.
If another country wants to test our defences, it means that our defence is not up to par.
To mount an attack, needs preparation.
Hence the need for virgil/observations at all times.
We can't be like the US.
Dispite a state of emergency around them, they are lax, which resulted in Pearl Harbour and 911. -
The China-Vietnam War had awaken the Chinese Government to the outmoded PLA strategies and tactics in its over-reliance on human resource.
The Age of the Human Wave is over.
After this tragic war in 1979, the short and successful wars that the US led in 'Dessert Storm' in Iraq and 'Enduring Freedom' in Afghanistan had fascinated the Chinese Political and Military Leadership.
The manner in which a handful of US Specialist Forces directing effective use of air power in Afghanistan to rout larger military formations, and the use of technology in an early air campaign to knock out Iraqi military and social infrastructures - in preparation of a ground invasion - had provided vast materials for the Chinese to upgrade its own military doctrines, training, manpower requirement and equipment.
The Age of Human Wave attacks is replaced by the Age of Wave Attacks through Technology - succumbing the opposition forces by overwhelming the defenses through the sheer weight of equipment numbers.
The US had different miliary objectives in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which resulted in differing military operational strategies in these two war theatres.
Afghanistan was able to establish a unity government within the operational time frame, while the Iraqis are still mired in sectarian rivalries.
With the limited manpower and resources that Singapore has, can a similar occupation operation as in Iraq be followed ?
Or should Singapore learn from the Israeli experience in its long period of occupation in the Sinai Peninsular after the Six-Day War - which stretched its defense lines and made it vulnerable to protect a long border over a wide expanse of land.
After the Six-Day War, the IDF had problems dealing with the subjugated Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and the Gaza - that resulted in unnecessary human loss in the IDF as well as from the Palestinian Population.
Israel had to withdraw the IDF after the vast amount of funds wasted in attempting to suppress the Palestinian Intifadah, and opted for a Concrete Wall to separate the Israeli Communities from the Palestinians, instead of holding on to land that serves as a buffer between the two opposing sides. -
Between those two bad choice .I would say the first one.Originally posted by Arapahoe:maybe he is asking military which is a better option. -
the major difference between vietnam war (vs america and china) and the current middle east conflict such as iraq is the level of occupation.
in the vietnam war... neither the americans or china completely occupied vietnam...
in the case of america.. their desire not to push into north vietnam for one reason or another... gave the vietnamese a base of operation which it continue to operate against the american forces, bleeding the americans in a drawn out war.
while china too.. never went into hanoi... which the chinese have learnt from the americans... if you cant break your enemies back... sticking around in north vietnam would end up bleeding the chinese forces and its economy.
furthermore... in both scenario... vietnam was getting lots of supplies from another superpower... initally it was china and russia.. later it was solely from russia.. here we learn the value of diplomacy and a strong backer.
vietnam alone could not have withstood the onslaught of a 2 major powers with its pathetic economy... but through playing one card against the other.. it gain the support of a superpowers industrial and economic power....
on the other hand... in iraq...
iraq failed to gather a major power as support... and its entire country was literary occupied...
thou recent support from possibly IRAN has enable them to mount attack against american forces.. but its limited.
for singapore... if we cannot break the enemy back and spirit... its best we do not even start a war... if we do.... we cannot just stop at midway.... we need to completely back the enemies will and resistance prior to dragging their leaders to the conference in chains. -
Obviously the thread opener forgot to mention that after the swift 1979 China-Vietnam border war, both sides never had ended their skirmish. ItÂ’s until early 1990s when finally both China & Vietnam stopped shelling to each other. So, a swift war followed by a long period of skirmish, shelling by each otherÂ’s artillery, is that the option the thread opener looking into?
Actually, LKY once mentioned because of PLAÂ’s action on Vietnam in 1979 that eventually halted VietnamÂ’s southward expansion to Cambodia only -
Yes and supposely halted the much feared domino effect which may sweep through the rest of Indo-China to Singapore.Originally posted by coolant:Obviously the thread opener forgot to mention that after the swift 1979 China-Vietnam border war, both sides never had ended their skirmish. ItÂ’s until early 1990s when finally both China & Vietnam stopped shelling to each other. So, a swift war followed by a long period of skirmish, shelling by each otherÂ’s artillery, is that the option the thread opener looking into?
Actually, LKY once mentioned because of PLAÂ’s action on Vietnam in 1979 that eventually halted VietnamÂ’s southward expansion to Cambodia only
-
i guess shelling is cheaper than loss of human life.
-
Well, less human lives only subject to the availability of a vast, empty battlefield like below scenery landscape where the Chinese & Viets exchanged their artillery firing:
But as long as the title is concerned: an example for Singapore, well, IMO, China’s swift action on Vietnam is not a good example for Sg, as Chinese army withdrew, the aftermath shelling lasted over 10 years till Vietnam selected to open its door and reform eventually, But maybe Israel Vs ME Arabs a more comparable example, As Israel is much smaller than China, even a long-lasting artillery exchange fire after a war is totally not an option for Israelis, the Israelis need “buffer area” to absorb any aftermath of the so called “swift, operational” war. That’s why they occupied Gaza strip, Golan Heights to absorb any mortar firing, rockets from likes of Astro etc.
Sg is even more samller than Israel, if unfortunately a war breaks out, beyong a swift war, maybe need to control such a buffer area like what Israelis have done and this thread may give you a clue:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=273272 -
this is the battle footage from the war. oh...there were no human wave attack craap...the chinese attack and clear from hole to hole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8SfppRARKA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iF3JkDVOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLsKpavt_Gw
M2864U" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbJ
M2864U
M2864U" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbJM2864U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG8vQzh7MgY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fMy44qNxy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7FPefcwmlc -
if Singapore wins the war, think they will hand it over to the united nation to handle lor...
After all, u need a third party to resolve things fairly...
China at that time have no choice... They dont have much ally... So, they handle the situation at their disadvantage but cannot say "disadvantage" coz they just want peace... -
i just want to add one point that is you have to look at terrain in SEA for advancing troops.
Its not a flat land where heavy armour rolling over at 30 miles per hour. -
I don’t think so, in 1979, US for the 1st time, recognized the communist China. And the West was playing the “China card” against USSR coalition. Back in 1979, when the world was still in the cold war, Vietnam, being a number in USSR coalition then, actually was considered an cold war enemy by West. So, the PLA’s war against Vietnam in 1979 was also considered a pro-west movement.Originally posted by ispyyy:...
China at that time have no choice... They dont have much ally... So, they handle the situation at their disadvantage but cannot say "disadvantage" coz they just want peace... -
X2.Originally posted by tankfanatic:this is the battle footage from the war. oh...there were no human wave attack craap...the chinese attack and clear from hole to hole
That the PLA only conducts mindless human wave attacks is utter rubbish.
This myth can be traced to Korean War.
The UN forces encountered human wave attacks in Korea due to several reasons:
- At that phase, the PLA were attacking - the UN were defending/retreating.
- The PLA was primitive and was short of every kind of weaponry including small arms. In fact, at the opening phase, the NKPA were better equipped than the PLA who came to save them later on.
- The PLA was an expeditionary force with little or no armour, arty or air aupport. So forget about combine arms etc. Infantry was all the PLA had.
- The terrain were often barren hills with no cover and the UN were dug in on hills and mountain ridges. Some places where armour cannot climb even if they existed for the PLA. If not full frontal infantry assaults, then how else can anyone capture an objective?
According to a book I read written by a US Colonel during the war, he commended the cunning of PLA commanders in manuevers and marvelled at the discipline that allowed an entire PLA division to be hidden from US air recce during daylight in the barren Korean landscape.
He also praised the courage of the average PLA grunt.
The PLA conducted some skillful ambushes that nearly destroyed a US division or corps - all done with just infantry and some arty mostly mortars.
...
The PLA lost many troops in Vietnam cos not becos the PLA was utter crap - yes they were rusty and old-fashioned, but they were still solid infantry force.
The main reason is simply that the Vietnamese at that point were just too damn good. No army in the world at that point can go to Vietnam and come out in one piece.
That the PLA managed to penetrate deep into Vietnam showed their strength if not their skill. And they did achieve the limited goals they set at the onset of the war so you can't say they lost.
Losing a lot of men may count as a defeat for some armies, but then we're talking about the PLA. Just as NVA/VC lost a lot of men against the French and US but they won both wars no matter what anyone says. -
War is a tool of the state to achieve a political objective. It is a means not an end. Success or failure in a war is not important as long as the state achieves what she wants, be it peace or resources.
-
Exactly! It's just because the US citizen has a weaker will to take too much troop loss.
-
Actually the Americans can be very strong as a people. Their citizens were 200% behind the war effort ALL THE WAY during WW2.Originally posted by ray243:Exactly! It's just because the US citizen has a weaker will to take too much troop loss.
It's just that after WW2, the US itself was never really threatened and most of the wars US fought seemed pointless to its people.