http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...tle+field+video
this is a rare video showing the real operation the PLA soldiers executed, that's why i brought it here, no offence to Vietamnese and other people. if u have any real battle video, plz share with us, thanks.
Full Version: Real Battle field video from Chinese army in 1984
The footage isn't always the best, but this was my pick of the bunch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fMy44qNxy8...ted&search=
quite close combat with small arms against blind slope, hand grenade thrown....even a flamethrower being carried around in a WW2 bunker busting style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLsKpavt_Gw
headwound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG8vQzh7MgY
clearing a tunnel/foxhole (?), and dead body in the open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7FPefcwmlc...ted&search=
officers behind the lines (looking like old-fashioned communists) & rockets and artillery firing.
I enjoyed the footage. I was surprised how much jabbering and talking went on constantly (compared to moving, or shooting, or just observing) based on other combat footage in other conflicts, it seemed almost like a bunch of work-mates at a paint ball match trying to figure out how to fight the opposite team at times. It was hard to tell if anyone was directing anything (i.e section leaders or NCO's) but it was obvious the troops shown were acting to aid each other even if it was improvised {?}, ie reaching wounded, supporting fire and linking with other Chinese troops. Chinese speaking members would be able to tell if somebody was directing it, but the constant two-way chatter accompanying this is odd even when crouched in cover or returning fire. If it was communicating enemy positions or movements it might make sense, but I can't tell.
Maybe somebody could explain some of the conversations for the english speaking members?
The technique of travelling crossing the ridgeline at one point at a crouch but still silouhetted is a risky way for professional soldiers to move (one time I saw this).
The person who was a medic was shown moving along the ridge by rolling sideways short distances more than once...a very very odd technique that doesn't make sense compared to a flat crawl as far as being able to watch and be discrete.
Hard to believe it is the way a soldier would be trained to move outfitted for battle and in 'close country'.
Still, despite the apparent chaos in the close combat the Chinese were doing very well in these engagements it seems.
Here is a comment on the links which is much better than the usual throw away comment and so is worth adding here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fMy44qNxy8...ted&search=
quite close combat with small arms against blind slope, hand grenade thrown....even a flamethrower being carried around in a WW2 bunker busting style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLsKpavt_Gw
headwound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG8vQzh7MgY
clearing a tunnel/foxhole (?), and dead body in the open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7FPefcwmlc...ted&search=
officers behind the lines (looking like old-fashioned communists) & rockets and artillery firing.
I enjoyed the footage. I was surprised how much jabbering and talking went on constantly (compared to moving, or shooting, or just observing) based on other combat footage in other conflicts, it seemed almost like a bunch of work-mates at a paint ball match trying to figure out how to fight the opposite team at times. It was hard to tell if anyone was directing anything (i.e section leaders or NCO's) but it was obvious the troops shown were acting to aid each other even if it was improvised {?}, ie reaching wounded, supporting fire and linking with other Chinese troops. Chinese speaking members would be able to tell if somebody was directing it, but the constant two-way chatter accompanying this is odd even when crouched in cover or returning fire. If it was communicating enemy positions or movements it might make sense, but I can't tell.
Maybe somebody could explain some of the conversations for the english speaking members?
The technique of travelling crossing the ridgeline at one point at a crouch but still silouhetted is a risky way for professional soldiers to move (one time I saw this).
The person who was a medic was shown moving along the ridge by rolling sideways short distances more than once...a very very odd technique that doesn't make sense compared to a flat crawl as far as being able to watch and be discrete.
Hard to believe it is the way a soldier would be trained to move outfitted for battle and in 'close country'.
Still, despite the apparent chaos in the close combat the Chinese were doing very well in these engagements it seems.
Here is a comment on the links which is much better than the usual throw away comment and so is worth adding here;
QUOTE
True, PLA did not fight well in 1979, but to say the PLA lost the war is ridiculous. The PLA suffered 20,000 casualties (including 6000 killed), whereas the Vietnamese suffered anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 killed alone.
And the northernmost part of Vietnam was utterly devastated. Ironically that was the only part of that country left intact from the Vietnam war because the Americans were afraid of Chinese wrath if they bombed that area. LOL, the ironies of history.
And the Vietnamese could not stop the PLA juggernaut from rolling forward and take their intended objective, Lang Son. The PLA withdrew voluntarily after taking Lang Son because they did not want to get bogged down in a occupation. Go in, kick their a** hard, and get out. GWB could learn a thing or two here. { Kenneth; hehehe, I like that}
This video here shows the 2nd Sino-Viet war between 1984 and 1989, which was a series of border skirmishes over disputed hilltops. In this war, the PLA, having learned their lessons from 1979 and underwent sweeping military reforms, utterly dominated the Vietnamese. The casualty ratio in this war was 1 to 17 in favour of the PLA. On April 12, 1984, one PLA regiment defeated six Viet regiments and inflicted over 3,700 casualties while suffering only 96 casualties of its own.
This video probably depicts a battle in 1985 or 1986. By that time, China already controlled all of the disputed ground. But to keep putting military pressure on the Vietnamese, they continued to launch a series of attacks on Vietnamese positions which they deemed threatening, killed all of their defenders, and then withdrew back to Chinese positions. This video depicts such a battle.
Vietnam finally succumbed, both because of this external military pressure and their internal economic collapse. In 1989, they sent their top general, none other than the legendary Vo Nguyen Giap, who was trained in China and thus had friendly relations with some Chinese leaders, to Beijing to sue for peace. Vietnam ceded all of the diputed land to China, withdrew their troops from Cambodia, and adopted Chinese-style economic reforms. And the war finally ended.
It's ironic that this 2nd Sino-Vietnam war is virtually unknown in the West, given how much importantance is being placed on China and the PLA nowadays. It can be said that today's PLA was shaped by this war. China used this war as a testing ground for new equipments and tactics, and rotated troops from all over the country in and out of the war zone to get "bloodied". Virtually all of the PLA's top generals today had combat experience in this war.
Just to clarify on some other erroneous information posted here. The Sino-Vietnam war of 1979 lasted only 16 days. And from the beginning of hostilities on 2/19/79 till the fall of Lang Son and end of major combat on 3/2/79 was only 12 days.
In those 12 days, the PLA advanced 50-70 kilometers into Vietnam, over treacherous mountain terrain, captured a dozen fortified towns along the way, and ended with the conquest of a heavily defended (by the Viet 3rd "Gold Star" division, of VietCon origin, who died almost to the last man) major city. I would say that's pretty d**** good. Not sure if the US army could do the same thing. Remember Tet and how long it took to clear Hue?
And the northernmost part of Vietnam was utterly devastated. Ironically that was the only part of that country left intact from the Vietnam war because the Americans were afraid of Chinese wrath if they bombed that area. LOL, the ironies of history.
And the Vietnamese could not stop the PLA juggernaut from rolling forward and take their intended objective, Lang Son. The PLA withdrew voluntarily after taking Lang Son because they did not want to get bogged down in a occupation. Go in, kick their a** hard, and get out. GWB could learn a thing or two here.
{ Kenneth; hehehe, I like that}This video here shows the 2nd Sino-Viet war between 1984 and 1989, which was a series of border skirmishes over disputed hilltops. In this war, the PLA, having learned their lessons from 1979 and underwent sweeping military reforms, utterly dominated the Vietnamese. The casualty ratio in this war was 1 to 17 in favour of the PLA. On April 12, 1984, one PLA regiment defeated six Viet regiments and inflicted over 3,700 casualties while suffering only 96 casualties of its own.
This video probably depicts a battle in 1985 or 1986. By that time, China already controlled all of the disputed ground. But to keep putting military pressure on the Vietnamese, they continued to launch a series of attacks on Vietnamese positions which they deemed threatening, killed all of their defenders, and then withdrew back to Chinese positions. This video depicts such a battle.
Vietnam finally succumbed, both because of this external military pressure and their internal economic collapse. In 1989, they sent their top general, none other than the legendary Vo Nguyen Giap, who was trained in China and thus had friendly relations with some Chinese leaders, to Beijing to sue for peace. Vietnam ceded all of the diputed land to China, withdrew their troops from Cambodia, and adopted Chinese-style economic reforms. And the war finally ended.
It's ironic that this 2nd Sino-Vietnam war is virtually unknown in the West, given how much importantance is being placed on China and the PLA nowadays. It can be said that today's PLA was shaped by this war. China used this war as a testing ground for new equipments and tactics, and rotated troops from all over the country in and out of the war zone to get "bloodied". Virtually all of the PLA's top generals today had combat experience in this war.
Just to clarify on some other erroneous information posted here. The Sino-Vietnam war of 1979 lasted only 16 days. And from the beginning of hostilities on 2/19/79 till the fall of Lang Son and end of major combat on 3/2/79 was only 12 days.
In those 12 days, the PLA advanced 50-70 kilometers into Vietnam, over treacherous mountain terrain, captured a dozen fortified towns along the way, and ended with the conquest of a heavily defended (by the Viet 3rd "Gold Star" division, of VietCon origin, who died almost to the last man) major city. I would say that's pretty d**** good. Not sure if the US army could do the same thing. Remember Tet and how long it took to clear Hue?
thanks for this generous reply, Kenneth.
the constant conversation seems odd, i dont know whether it is a common case or not. It is a pity i cant understand or hear clear of the some chatter due to the accent and jabbering.
I do my best to collect some conversation here, sorry for not doing a more satisfying and understandable way
Footage 1:
" this is 086 this is 086, well done artillery, well done."
" mind our artillery fire"
"@#%^&("
" succeed in clearing a path"
"great"
Footage 2:
" be quicker"
" i m approaching 03"
the guy who get shot at the rear of the thigh shouting" @#$#$%$%^$% quick, leave me alone @#$%^&(*"
Footage 3:
At the headquarter, an officer reported to the commander " squad 1 is getting well, squad 2 is sweeping the foxholes, squad 5 is penetrating ( the enemy's position)" . A bareheaded commander demanded '' first, the regiment headquater immediately report the situation on the NO.168 highland, group army commanders are in great need to know it." then his voice was covered up by the voiceover.
at the same footage,
[a close scene of a headbloody soldier lying there]
The soldier beside the head wounded man whose body is unseen from the screen except a hand said to him while shaking his body" go off the line, you! where is the medic, come here, carry him off on the back, carry him off, where is the squad head??? I replace you (to hold the position here)and report to him."
cant hear clear what the wounded man replied, he was talking in a screaming voice.
[ a half naked soldier lying the ground his mates are passing by and advancing]
a voiceover sounded:" get bandaged" " i have already done'' the man responded.
Footage 4:
[ the male voiceover ended, soldiers communicating on the radio]
''??4 call ??3, we have a boy heavily wounded, repeat, we have a boy heavily wounded. ??? are commandering us engaging in the foxhole wiping out operation.''
''??3, Four enemies killed, four enemies killed.''
" ****, what is going on now, ask them"
Two radiomen are on the scene, seems they are reporting the enemy's position and asking artillery asistence.
"**** @##$$% ****#%$#%"
a framethrower come into the sight and asked in a rush voice " which hole? which hole??"
" right there, right there'' the other pointed the position for him.
"ready, fire!"
Footage 5:
" we are clearing off the holes, we are clearing off the holes.''
'' is it a trophy?" " yes, it is"
"we are elimating the enemies from the holes, this is captain of squad 4, captain of team 3 is wounded" an officer reported by the radio.
" fell flat"
" we can make it ( ocuppy a upland i guess)"
" it is an enemy's dead body"
"??3 call ??4, kill four enemies, repeat, kill enemies, over."
footage 6:
"****"
"@#$$%^&&&*@@"
" release, dont get flustered"
"@#$%^^&&**"
"have u flamed this hole?" " no, not yet"
"@#%^*)((*^*"
" captured an enemy, repeat, we ve captured an enemy"
" dont gather together!!" "laid off his weapon"
" dont gather together!"
"@#$@%%#^$^"
a solder who carried several guns talking with his team head
" all guns are here?" " affirmative" " what about this gun?"" its mine" " do u need grenades? carry a more"
" ok, enough""@#$%"
Footage 7:
a commanderlike officer who is on the phone
" try every possible way and method, as soon as possible ..... check the holes and verify no mistake in the number before withdrawal."
a soldier whose body is in the hole and recording,
" i m accompaying with the 2rd team"
" yeah, i ve seen u , where is your team leader? "
" i didnt see him"
the constant conversation seems odd, i dont know whether it is a common case or not. It is a pity i cant understand or hear clear of the some chatter due to the accent and jabbering.
I do my best to collect some conversation here, sorry for not doing a more satisfying and understandable way
Footage 1:
" this is 086 this is 086, well done artillery, well done."
" mind our artillery fire"
"@#%^&("
" succeed in clearing a path"
"great"
Footage 2:
" be quicker"
" i m approaching 03"
the guy who get shot at the rear of the thigh shouting" @#$#$%$%^$% quick, leave me alone @#$%^&(*"
Footage 3:
At the headquarter, an officer reported to the commander " squad 1 is getting well, squad 2 is sweeping the foxholes, squad 5 is penetrating ( the enemy's position)" . A bareheaded commander demanded '' first, the regiment headquater immediately report the situation on the NO.168 highland, group army commanders are in great need to know it." then his voice was covered up by the voiceover.
at the same footage,
[a close scene of a headbloody soldier lying there]
The soldier beside the head wounded man whose body is unseen from the screen except a hand said to him while shaking his body" go off the line, you! where is the medic, come here, carry him off on the back, carry him off, where is the squad head??? I replace you (to hold the position here)and report to him."
cant hear clear what the wounded man replied, he was talking in a screaming voice.
[ a half naked soldier lying the ground his mates are passing by and advancing]
a voiceover sounded:" get bandaged" " i have already done'' the man responded.
Footage 4:
[ the male voiceover ended, soldiers communicating on the radio]
''??4 call ??3, we have a boy heavily wounded, repeat, we have a boy heavily wounded. ??? are commandering us engaging in the foxhole wiping out operation.''
''??3, Four enemies killed, four enemies killed.''
" ****, what is going on now, ask them"
Two radiomen are on the scene, seems they are reporting the enemy's position and asking artillery asistence.
"**** @##$$% ****#%$#%"
a framethrower come into the sight and asked in a rush voice " which hole? which hole??"
" right there, right there'' the other pointed the position for him.
"ready, fire!"
Footage 5:
" we are clearing off the holes, we are clearing off the holes.''
'' is it a trophy?" " yes, it is"
"we are elimating the enemies from the holes, this is captain of squad 4, captain of team 3 is wounded" an officer reported by the radio.
" fell flat"
" we can make it ( ocuppy a upland i guess)"
" it is an enemy's dead body"
"??3 call ??4, kill four enemies, repeat, kill enemies, over."
footage 6:
"****"
"@#$$%^&&&*@@"
" release, dont get flustered"
"@#$%^^&&**"
"have u flamed this hole?" " no, not yet"
"@#%^*)((*^*"
" captured an enemy, repeat, we ve captured an enemy"
" dont gather together!!" "laid off his weapon"
" dont gather together!"
"@#$@%%#^$^"
a solder who carried several guns talking with his team head
" all guns are here?" " affirmative" " what about this gun?"" its mine" " do u need grenades? carry a more"
" ok, enough""@#$%"
Footage 7:
a commanderlike officer who is on the phone
" try every possible way and method, as soon as possible ..... check the holes and verify no mistake in the number before withdrawal."
a soldier whose body is in the hole and recording,
" i m accompaying with the 2rd team"
" yeah, i ve seen u , where is your team leader? "
" i didnt see him"
Neat. Thanks for the translation.
Makes a lot of sense, bring up the flamethrower, clearing foxholes, 'where is the section leader?', 'don't bunch together'. # Enemy killed, etc. The excited conversation can be both the stresses and requirements of such a fluid battle, but also it notes that one officer was killed (somewhere) and some of these folk filmed must have acting in an ad hoc manner if there was not even a section leader giving directions.
The comments I posted above said that PLA units were rotated so all inexperienced units were 'bloodied' in combat, so this could be a first taste. This is a good policy by their commanders when the Chinese had the intiative.
Using a flame thrower and throwing grenades shows some very close fighting, and even the rifle fire shows they are shooting at foxholes just on the opposite side of their own slope at times.
Being burned alive in a foxhole is not a nice death, but the flamethrower is a very effective weapon in such combat.
Pretty good footage. That's real fighting, sending in infantry to clear fox-holes.
None of this 'smart bomb' stuff. Up close and personal.
Makes a lot of sense, bring up the flamethrower, clearing foxholes, 'where is the section leader?', 'don't bunch together'. # Enemy killed, etc. The excited conversation can be both the stresses and requirements of such a fluid battle, but also it notes that one officer was killed (somewhere) and some of these folk filmed must have acting in an ad hoc manner if there was not even a section leader giving directions.
The comments I posted above said that PLA units were rotated so all inexperienced units were 'bloodied' in combat, so this could be a first taste. This is a good policy by their commanders when the Chinese had the intiative.
Using a flame thrower and throwing grenades shows some very close fighting, and even the rifle fire shows they are shooting at foxholes just on the opposite side of their own slope at times.
Being burned alive in a foxhole is not a nice death, but the flamethrower is a very effective weapon in such combat.
Pretty good footage. That's real fighting, sending in infantry to clear fox-holes.
None of this 'smart bomb' stuff. Up close and personal.
Wow bayonet, you actually managed to translate the conversations.
Interesting concept, but I don't see how it is an adaption of proper use.
Once you are only 20m away I dont see why shooting above or beside the earthwork makes any sense if the job can be finished immediately.
Rather than providing an oppurtunity for grenades the flamethrower mainly did its own killing in close, in combat records and photographs.
Flamethrowers were used extentively against strongpoints in WW2 in the Pacific. From what I have seen, i.e against Japanese in the late stages of WW2, the flamethrower is trying to kill the occupant and not trying to move them aside.
In this it is uniquely suited to the task of targetting through viewing slits or into a slip trench.
It is noted in natural caves on Japanese islands the Japanese would move deeper in response to flame and then grenades might be used, but the idea that targetting personal foxholes instead of firing at an angle from the onset is an 'adaption' is illogical to me.
Direct & close fire is the natural application.
Considering the close range of the weapon and vulnerability of the operator rather than firing at an angle to flush them out it is better to kill the enemy directly.
http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_flamethrower.htm
& another personal account
For example;
A Marine uses a flamethrower on a Japanese-occupied pillbox on what had been the Marine golf course on Guam, adjoining the Marine Barracks on Orote Peninsula;
Japanese using the weapon on Americans earlier in the Phillipines;
German troops engaging a bunker;
Once you are only 20m away I dont see why shooting above or beside the earthwork makes any sense if the job can be finished immediately.
Rather than providing an oppurtunity for grenades the flamethrower mainly did its own killing in close, in combat records and photographs.
Flamethrowers were used extentively against strongpoints in WW2 in the Pacific. From what I have seen, i.e against Japanese in the late stages of WW2, the flamethrower is trying to kill the occupant and not trying to move them aside.
In this it is uniquely suited to the task of targetting through viewing slits or into a slip trench.
It is noted in natural caves on Japanese islands the Japanese would move deeper in response to flame and then grenades might be used, but the idea that targetting personal foxholes instead of firing at an angle from the onset is an 'adaption' is illogical to me.
Direct & close fire is the natural application.
Considering the close range of the weapon and vulnerability of the operator rather than firing at an angle to flush them out it is better to kill the enemy directly.
http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_flamethrower.htm
QUOTE
"Since flamethrower operators had to approach very close to enemy positions, effective suppressing fire by BARs and riflemen was critical. Flamethrower operators were extremely vulnerable to enemy fire since they effectively had a napalm bomb strapped to their back."
"E
Corporal Williams was a demolition man and flamethrower operator attached to C 1/21, 3rd MarDiv during the Iwo Jima operation. He received the Medal of Honor for his actions on 23 February 1945. This painting depicts one of his acts that day. Corporal Williams (in the right background) mounts a Japanese pill box and fires a stream of flame at point blank range into the aperture. His buddies provide covering fire in the foreground
(artists impression on link)& another personal account
QUOTE
We kept up a steady fire into the pillbox to keep the Japanese pinned down while the flamethrower came up, carried by Corporal Womack from Mississippi. He was a brave, good-natured guy and popular with the troops. He was big and husky… [and]I was glad we were on the same side.
Stooped under the heavy tanks on his back, Womack approached the pillbox with his assistant just out of the line of our fire. When they got about 15 yards from the target, we ceased firing. The assistant reached up and turned a valve on the flamethrower. Womack then aimed the nozzle at the opening made by the 75mm gun. He pressed the trigger. With a whoooooosh the flame leaped at the opening. Some muffled screams, then all was quiet.…
Stooped under the heavy tanks on his back, Womack approached the pillbox with his assistant just out of the line of our fire. When they got about 15 yards from the target, we ceased firing. The assistant reached up and turned a valve on the flamethrower. Womack then aimed the nozzle at the opening made by the 75mm gun. He pressed the trigger. With a whoooooosh the flame leaped at the opening. Some muffled screams, then all was quiet.…
For example;
A Marine uses a flamethrower on a Japanese-occupied pillbox on what had been the Marine golf course on Guam, adjoining the Marine Barracks on Orote Peninsula;
Japanese using the weapon on Americans earlier in the Phillipines;
German troops engaging a bunker;
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.