26 replies to this topic

[allie]

During World War 2, alot of soliders were still using swords where japanese soliders have all the modern weapons and yet chinese soliders were able to inflict heavy casulaties on japanese soliders.

Why is it that the iraqs who although also are using inferior weapons than the americians, but at least they still have guns whereas chinese soliders during world war 2 alot are still using swords, but than iraq was not able to inflict heavy casulaties on the american soliders?

Maybe iraq should research on how did china manage to inflict such a heavy casulaties on the japanese soliders and win many battles against the japanese?

[mohistManiac]

During World War 2, alot of soliders were still using swords where japanese soliders have all the modern weapons and yet chinese soliders were able to inflict heavy casulaties on japanese soliders.

Why is it that the iraqs who although also are using inferior weapons than the americians, but at least they still have guns whereas chinese soliders during world war 2 alot are still using swords, but than iraq was not able to inflict heavy casulaties on the american soliders?

Maybe iraq should research on how did china manage to inflict such a heavy casulaties on the japanese soliders and win many battles against the japanese?

Haha sorry but I was thinking the way your post reads was meant to be somewhat a joke. Nothing compares with American military. Using pitchforks and knives isn't going to mean anything against a super modernized military.

[allie]

The iraqs were not using knifes. They were using guns

[mohistManiac]

The iraqs were not using knifes. They were using guns

So how do you think the Chinese would do if they simply used the same tactics as they had done before with the Japanese against a military stronger than its own in modern context. If the answer is not very good then the Iraqis would probably have little learn from the guerilla knife tactics of the Chinese.

[allie]

So how do you think the Chinese would do if they simply used the same tactics as they had done before with the Japanese against a military stronger than its own in modern context. If the answer is not very good then the Iraqis would probably have little learn from the guerilla knife tactics of the Chinese.

I think the chinese could have done equally as well as what they did in World War 2 or in the vietnamese war

[allie]

Although the military of iraq is inferior to america, but at least they were still using guns to fight against the americians whereas the chinese used swords to fight against the modern japanese military and yet the chinese did a better job than the iraqs
.
You may say that the chinese have a larger land and population as compared to iraqs and that Japan was weak at that time as it was fighting many countries whereas iraq have to fight both america and britain so iraq had a stronger enemy

But if you compared the vietnamese war with the iraq war, one will realise again that the vietnamese also did a better job than the iraqs.
The vietnamese had the support of the chinese armies to fight against french who have the support of the americians so definetly the vietnamese was in a weak position like iraq but they manage to stop america from invading their country.

I guess the possible reasons are that the chinese and vietnamese have capable leaders to lead them whereas iraq did not have a capable president or generals to lead them in the war

[stardave]

There was a difference of motivation. When Japan invaded China, they were there to stay, to colonize China, all of Japan's gain were at the direct loss of the Chinese, so most of Chinese fought to the way they did. And tens of millions of Chinese died in the process.

In Iraq, Bush started a stupid war that belong to the old colonial era, but due to the changing nature of war and world public opinion, it is impossible for US to try to annex Iraq. So US tried thier best to created a friendly government after they leave, that means most Iraqi although were against the war, but they didn't see a a threat to thier externalist existence, that means well over half of the population worked alongside with US military. And depends on the source there were only about 50k to 500k Iraqi deaths during all this, and most of death were from the hand of fellow Iraqis.

[DreamWeaver23]

I don't know why there is still a lot of tensions and issues.

[AjaxMinoan]

Much of what the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan has been done with snipers. In Iraq, once US forces got the resolve to shoot someone on the side of the road digging a hole, then they could make progress. You always hear about the Hellfire missiles that are fired from Drones or Helicopters, but the sniper is the Nato weapon that doesn't get a lot of press.
In Afghanistan, Taliban gunmen fire their weapons from outside of their effective range, hoping to score hits and staying safe themselves. The US responded by digging up hoards of surplus M-14s, and making a sniper the standard squad support soldier.
In Iraq, it was largely the sniper that turned it around from the Quagmire the US and our allies were locked into.
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Chris_Kyle

http://www.americanr...x?id=3845&cid=3

[bayonet]

I would like to contribute a little from weaponry wise.

The Chinese did not fight the Japanese with knifes. Some Chinese soldies were even better equipped than their enemies (K98 rifle, Z26 machine gun etc.)

But generally speaking, the weapons Chinese soldiers used were inferior to the Japanese due to a shortage of modern industry and arsenals. However, the gap of weaponry between the two could be made up to by numbers and right tactics. That is what you will see on the battle fields, the Chinese always outnumbered the Japanese although they may not always have the right tactics. Numbers can effectively make up the shortage of fire powers unless the gap of the weaponry is too large that no matter how many personnels one can deploy, it won't narrow the gap.

That is how we saw in Iraq. The weaponry between the two rivalries belongs to two different ages. The US dominated the space, sky and sea, their missles can be fired precisely at the enemy while the Iraqi even had no idea where these missles came from, an utterly effective way to destroy the enemy's morale. Conparison of the groud force of the two may make you think that the Iraqi still stands a chance to bite (T72 vs M1A1, AK47 vs M4, etc.). However, supported by satellites, helicopters, and drones, the capability of US fighting units had been enhanced ten times than their opponents. Imagine a deafen blind and crippled man fighting a healthy sound man, even in the hands of both a lethal knife is held, the chance the handicapped can stab the other to death is slim.

[allie]

I would like to contribute a little from weaponry wise.

The Chinese did not fight the Japanese with knifes. Some Chinese soldies were even better equipped than their enemies (K98 rifle, Z26 machine gun etc.)

But generally speaking, the weapons Chinese soldiers used were inferior to the Japanese due to a shortage of modern industry and arsenals. However, the gap of weaponry between the two could be made up to by numbers and right tactics. That is what you will see on the battle fields, the Chinese always outnumbered the Japanese although they may not always have the right tactics. Numbers can effectively make up the shortage of fire powers unless the gap of the weaponry is too large that no matter how many personnels one can deploy, it won't narrow the gap.

That is how we saw in Iraq. The weaponry between the two rivalries belongs to two different ages. The US dominated the space, sky and sea, their missles can be fired precisely at the enemy while the Iraqi even had no idea where these missles came from, an utterly effective way to destroy the enemy's morale. Conparison of the groud force of the two may make you think that the Iraqi still stands a chance to bite (T72 vs M1A1, AK47 vs M4, etc.). However, supported by satellites, helicopters, and drones, the capability of US fighting units had been enhanced ten times than their opponents. Imagine a deafen blind and crippled man fighting a healthy sound man, even in the hands of both a lethal knife is held, the chance the handicapped can stab the other to death is slim.

I think you forget to mention that the japanese have alot of supieror warships and warplanes which the chinese did not have so what you say about the chinese weapons being abit inferior to the japanese weapons but they make it up with numbers is not really accurate

[Shiang]

The chinese and japanese soldiers were both equipped with modern weapons (rifles and machine guns), and swords for close combat (dadao and katakana) although the japanese did not really use the katakana in battle, more for beheading civilians or prisoners.

The polish army was equipped with lances during world war ii, and many combatants in world war i used swords, its not an outdated weapon. Think of special forces who carry combat knives

[Rambo Wong]

What I think is more important on this topic is that the Americans knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and the proceeded to decieve the world with Colin Powell giving his famous lecture at the United Nations. The Americans of course had real motives for the second gulf war that they knew were completely unacceptable. The Americans have a long history of similar activities as in the Bay on Tongkin in Vietnam and over a hundred years ago to start the Spanish American war. At the end of the second world war the Americans even schemed with Chiang Kai Shek to have the Nationalist take Hong Kong before the British arrived as the Guomindang was an American ally. Yes Britain was and is an ally but the Americans wanted to weaken Britain as Britain was still stiff competition. The British however had their spies in the US and made it to Hong Kong before Chiang Kai Shek could

[stardave]

During World War 2, alot of soliders were still using swords where japanese soliders have all the modern weapons and yet chinese soliders were able to inflict heavy casulaties on japanese soliders.

Why is it that the iraqs who although also are using inferior weapons than the americians, but at least they still have guns whereas chinese soliders during world war 2 alot are still using swords, but than iraq was not able to inflict heavy casulaties on the american soliders?

Maybe iraq should research on how did china manage to inflict such a heavy casulaties on the japanese soliders and win many battles against the japanese?

You are using the wrong measuring tape. In older wars, life were cheap, for both invading army and defending armies. Today, life is expensive, so expensive to the point that people are bankrupting themselves to keep people safe.

US didn't lost a lot solders but they still lost, they wasted 2 trillions in this war, and didn't get what they wanted, aka make Iraq a puppet and get their oil. So in the end Iraq still won and US still lost. Does not matter if there was that much people killed or not. It is not the process, it is the result that counts.

Same thing for China back then, life was cheap but everyone was poor as ****, so they use human life to achieve the objectives they wanted.

[mohistManiac]

You are using the wrong measuring tape. In older wars, life were cheap, for both invading army and defending armies. Today, life is expensive, so expensive to the point that people are bankrupting themselves to keep people safe.

US didn't lost a lot solders but they still lost, they wasted 2 trillions in this war, and didn't get what they wanted, aka make Iraq a puppet and get their oil. So in the end Iraq still won and US still lost. Does not matter if there was that much people killed or not. It is not the process, it is the result that counts.

Same thing for China back then, life was cheap but everyone was poor as ****, so they use human life to achieve the objectives they wanted.

This touches upon the fact that China had many alternatives of getting the result they wanted. In the Qin state perhaps they realized using Shang Yang's reforms can be quite effective where life did not matter so long as order was kept and the state wealthy. However this kind of tactic didn't get much popularity within the state of Wei where the elites were still preventing the rise of state bureaucracy, the legal codes that were associated with it, and the lifestyle which had to ultimately change due to the revolution in social distinctions which were affected as a result of challenging merit based on royal birth. It does not mean that the Qin area is forever a tyrannical haven for megalomaniacs like the first emperorer and other places are just law free areas waiting to be controlled. On the contrary it simply means that the areas are different because they are separate units of large scale economy linked by trade and may therefore choose to promote different societal elements through the reappraisals of their contemporary cultures.