>Chinese 'victory'
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
>Chinese 'victory'
>>30246916
Were the Japanese forces forced to retreat? If so then yes it was a Chinese victory
>>30246925
It was Chinese 'victory'.
>>30246916
> Eastern Front
> Soviet "Victory"
Same logic, if the enemy did not achieve the goals they set out with it's a victory for you.
Some of the Chinese solders during this were only armed with melee weapons, spears and daos.
>>30248140
> t. Operation Barbarossa
>>30248140
Actually the Chinese were well armed. They even had a mechanized division made up of T-26s and other Soviet tanks, and they were reinforced with American tanks.
>>30246916
>Be Japan
>Start war in 1937
>Can't finish it.
>LET US ATTACK AMERIGANS AND EUROBENISES :DDDDD
>>30246916
You better not be Russian, friend. >>30246925
>What are Pyrrhic victories?
>>30246916
>Russian 'victory'
>>30248140
>Some of the Chinese solders during this were only armed with melee weapons, spears and daos
That's not the National Revolutionary Army, that was Mao's PLA
>>30248777
Nope.jpg.
Both Nationalist and CCP guerillas did that.
>>30248608
ripped off in ww1 by old boys club of empire
decide you want some empire of your own
invade china go to far and mess with British and American held parts of asia
rapidly running out of oil and steel .etc
trading got sanctioned hard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu
it was along time coming and the rest of the world sowed the seeds
>>30248565
That is factually incorrect.
The battle started before we even started getting arms to them.
>>30246916
>Gook "military"
>>30248689
>Wehraboo damage control
>>30249413
>Wang Debang
>>30249311
There were two battles of Changsha you dummy. At least take 2 seconds to read the headline before you let everyone know how stupid you are.
>>30249437
triggered slavaboo detected
>>30249640
>Wehraboo damage control
>>30249654
triggered slavaboo pls go
>>30249413
the chinese army is like the zerg, strength in numbers.
>>30249804
>Wehraboo damage control
>>30249413
That's why the Chinese call it "Century of Humiliation" and is expanding the military like mad now to make sure it never happens again.
>>30248689
That's not bad at all given they were attacking fortified positions manned by competent, well-lead soldiers. Advantage goes to the defender in that case.
>>30249640
Check it, mah nignog: https://youtu.be/xUl4C0VvN5k
>>30248140
This.
Also, strategically, China could afford those human losses on a daily basis. Japan couldn't.
It didn't really matter for China if a bajillions of conscripted chinese peasants died :
their agricultural output was ridiculously low, barely enough to feed their families and sell some small surplus if the harvest had been good.
There weren't enough industry for most of these guys to be of any use for the nation in the cities so China wasn't exactly losing any much-needed workforce.
With families of 6 on average, the chinese people were breeding like rabbits so war wouldn't make a lasting dent on demographics.
Japan was at the end of its first industrial revolution. Its rural population was still huge but its industry was hungry for workers.
There wasn't any "redundant" population and every conscript it levied was one less worker during the war, which would make it even harder to catch up on the other major powers.
They were breeding fast too but since there was 5-6 times more chinese than japanese to begin with, China still had a large surplus of manpower to throw in the meat grinder.
If we assume 2% natural increase per year, China was getting an advantage of 8,6 millions people per year over Japan.
If equipment and supplies weren't an issue, China could afford to have one of those "28K KIA victories" every day of the year and it would still be on top, simply having to draft more uneducated peasants from its vast countryside.
Japan, on the other hand, would have been losing 500k potential factory workers every year if he had done the same, which would eventually have crippled its industry and killed a big force multiplier.
Fast foward 10 years and China would have been throwing Japan at sea.
>>30250357
>not bad at all
I dont give a fuck what you're attacking almost 1 million in losses is crazy
>>30250454
Sure, I meant the K:D ratio could have been a lot worse.
>>30249547
We are talking about OP's picture you dumbfuck.
>>30249413
Oh wow it's almost like technology made Westernized powers extremely powerful?
Surely spears can defeat automatic machineguns.
>>30253402
US supplies had reached China well before the 1942 battle of Changsha you dumbfuck. Face it, you chinks got BTFO to the tune of 1:10 K/D ratio in your greatest victory.
>>30253430
>it's not that their military sucked
>it's that their technology and organization sucked
>technology and organization are the two main components of a military
Shouldn't you be at a John Green lecture or something?
>>30253445
>US supplies had reached China well before the 1942
OP's picture is a week after we declared war on Japan.
Our only supplies were flown in before that, therefore they were minimal at most.
Unless you have a source on US military supplies going to China in 1941?
>African "army"
>>30253402
US supplies had reached China well before the 1942 battle of Changsha you dumbfuck. Face it, you chinks got BTFO to the tune of 1:10 K/D ratio in your greatest victory.
>>30250357
>That's not bad at all given they were attacking fortified positions
You are aware that it was the Germans attacking the fortified position, right?
>>30253465
>haha everyone else's military sucks and always will suck because it lost to the West in the 1500's-1800's
You sound like a teenager straight from /pol/.
Japan got BTFO by europeans only 100 years before Changsha. Yet now they are beating the Chinese by similar margins.
How? Because they adopted western miliitary technology.
>>30253496
>OP's picture is a week after we declared war on Japan.
So what? That has nothing to do with whether supplies got to China in early 1941 or not, which they did.
>Unless you have a source on US military supplies going to China in 1941?
You have a source of US lend-lease starting as a result of Pearl Harbor?
>>30253531
>So what? That has nothing to do with whether supplies got to China in early 1941 or not,
Uhh yes it does.
>which they did.
(Citation needed)
>You have a source of US lend-lease starting as a result of Pearl Harbor?
You made the original claim. You back it up.
>After the purchase of 100 P-40's, the Chinese were in need of more credits to complete the Mao air program and to contract for matériel for the Chinese Army. Early in January 1941 the War Department told the Chinese to await developments on both of their projects since the American aid program was about to undergo a profound change.
>>30253531
The RoC did not recieve Lend-Lease until 1942.
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/lend-lease.html
>>30253549
Lend-lease act was passed in March of 1941. First deliveries were made well before Pearl Harbor to all nations that received LL. This is literally common knowledge, as in it can be found in public access government records.
>>30253562
Purchase = money spent
Not lend-lease.
Also, link please.
So far you have proven no US military aid to the RoC before 1942.
>>30253530
>Japan has access to the same doctrines and technology as everyone else
>manages to beat a dying Russian empire
>get mouthraped by the Soviets at a time when Finland was able to fight them to a standstill
>manage to defeat colonial empires at a time when they're fighting an actual competent Western power
>get absolutely blown the fuck out by the Americans
>get blown the fuck out again by the Soviets because why not
>get pushed out of Burma by the British, who finally bother to respond to something that isn't Europe
>IJA is consistently the worst force, pound for pound, fielded by any major power during WW2
Non-western powers can't make war as competently as western ones.
For more excellent examples of this, look at Israels repeated victories over Arabs that had numerical and technological superiority.
It's an inherent weakness of collectivist cultures, which are essentially universal outside of Europe.
>>30253578
Silly chinks.
>>30253583
Yes and only Britain recieved it 1940-1941.
Soviets first shipment artived in early 1942.
RoC's in early 1942 as well.
You still haven't proven this claim>>30253531
>>30253590
You are claiming that there were no US weapons in China before the 1942 battle of Changsha. Now you want to say that there was no Lend-Lease. Goal posts keep moving, yet you still can't win. But do not give up, keep shitposting, and earn your 50 cents.
>>30253604
I need a link.
Mine disagrees>>30253578
Also, is that China the territory or China the RoC?
Reading up on Chinese history actually makes me so very very sorry for them.
1850-1950 China has got to be one of the worst centuries for any country ever
>i don't want opium
>too bad, fuk u, buy our shit and you owe reparations
>i don't want opium electric bugaloo
>too bad fuk u
>oh christ here's some money don't hurt me
>ahhhhh revolution part 1
>europeans roll in and dole out liberal amounts of fuck you
>japs come in and fuck everything up part 1
>japs come in and fuck everything up part 2 along with the russians
>fuggin revolution part 2
>fugging warlords divide the country
>fugging gommies part 1
>japs come in and fuck everything up part 3
>fugging gommies part 2
It's like watching handicapped guy in a wheelchair fall down the stairs while on fire and getting attacked by bees
>>30249413
Was the US involvement in the Boxer Rebellion the least just cause we've ever undertaken?
>>30253621
>You are claiming that there were no US weapons in China before the 1942 battle of Changsha.
Link me the post where I stated this.
I'm waiting. Tick tock tick tock
>>30253640
>commence damage control
>m-muh source disagrees with your official government report
>>30253651
>I'm waiting. Tick tock tick tock
>>30249311
>The battle started before we even started getting arms to them.
I think it's about time you started telling people you were being retarded on purpose.
>>30253502
>5000 soldiers, 250000 deaths
germans can't not genocide
>>30253648
Eh. Philippine-American War maybe?
Foreign involvement in the Boxer rebellion was bad but the whole situation was pretty fucked up to begin with
>>30253618
>Soviets first shipment artived in early 1942.
>>30253683
Nowhere am I mistaken in that post.
Selling arms to China != getting arms to China.
I was specifically talking about military aid.
Also, you're ignoring the fact that the American weapons were far too few to matter before Lend-Lease.
>>30253664
I need a link. Or you are bullshitting.
>>30253664
That's from some dude's journal.
Not "an official government report."
>>30253713
Where is the word "lend-lease" in this picture?
>>30253731
>I need a link. Or you are bullshitting.
Source: Memo, 1st Lt William S. Brewster for Lt Col Lucien C. Strong, 20 May 42. AG(AMMISCA) 319.1.
Is this your first time seeing a source that is not an internet blog?
>>30253757
It is a memo produced for AMMISCA you dumbass.
>1600:28,600 K:D ratio
>Chinese 'victory'
>>30253810
Yeah, because if there's one thing the Chinese can't afford, it's loss of life.
>>30253810
nice ratio
>>30253618
>Soviets first shipment artived in early 1942.
7 lend-lease convoys arrived in Russia in 1941.
>>30253644
>It's like watching handicapped guy in a wheelchair fall down the stairs while on fire and getting attacked by bees
I shouldn't have laughed so much at that mental image.
>>30253648
>Was the US involvement in the Boxer Rebellion the least just cause we've ever undertaken?
On par with Vietnam imho.
>>30248565
T-26 was a shit tank even compared to jap equivalents though, and Chinese were doing an AMAZINGLY poor job of their maintenance.
>>30253769
Lee's were indeed lend-leased to SU, however their contribution was so minuscule that they could just as well stayed in the US.
>>30253644
>1850-1950 China has got to be one of the worst centuries for any country ever
No questions asked about why they are so fine being totalitarian commies. Compared to what their people have been through reds are some nice shit.
>>30254150
For the same reason Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea grew.
If you aren't actively at war, and you have a labor pool that is cheaper than people you can export shit to, you're going to grow, unless you have people actively fucking it up.
Mao would be one example of "people actively fucking it up."
At least they didn't get quite the degree of cancer India did.
>>30253517
That is a common misconception. The Battle of Kursk encompasses three distinct offensives. One by the Germans and two by the Russians. Russian casualties during the German offensive are listed under Operation Citadel while further loses from their own two offensives which broke the Germans and also suffered terrible casualties are listed under Battle of Kursk.
>>30254186
>Japan, Taiwan and South Korea aren't all examples used as case studies in exactly how to develop an economy and frequently referred to as a 'miracle' in development economic literature
>this miracle amounts to not having people actively fucking it up
The world bank called, they want you on an allstar academic panel to solve the problems of economic development once and for all.
That or you a retard spouting simplistic opinions on shit you literally know nothing about.
>>30254303
Hitler and Göring:
>- Oi wat's that ugly red lump elong ze frontline?
>- It luks like a red ballsack tebagging our armeegruppe!
>- And der slavische untermenschen can use it as a brückenkopf fur mounting ein offense!
Stalin:
>- FTFY. Also moved the line a few hundred kilos West so you could have a better look. No thx of needed.
>-FFUUUUUUUUUUUU~
>>30248689
>>30249437
rofl, buttblasted soviet faggots are the best to laugh at
>>30253502
africans have 5000 soldiers
suffer 250000-300000 dead
pic related
>>30253771
>memo
Hmm
>>30253785
Not an official government report.
>>30253502
>German Guide on How to Deal with Insurgent Population: Kill them all
>>30253502
>ein swear I schot zat negro yesterday
BANG
Repeat 60 times
>>30248565
>they were reinforced with American tanks.
Citation fucking needed.
>>30253621
Not that guy, but wasn't the thing in question, that the Chinese were alleged to have had American tanks in the battle of Changsha in ops pic?
>>30253514
>1:10 K/D
That doesn't really add up unless you take the lowest estimated number of Japanese casualties, then combine the highest military, AND civilian deaths together to get that ratio during the war.
Highly self masturbatory to do that, especially when combining civilian deaths.
Unless you are talking about a specific battle. In which case, care to link which one YOU consider China's greatest victory?
>>30258334
Well, I'm going to go with OP's picture, which is the 3rd battle of Changsha in 1941 -
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changsha_(1942)
-and in the wiki link it states
>Also of great importance were eight new U.S.-supplied M2A1 tanks which were deployed within the city itself. These vehicles proved to be of extraordinary value to the defense due to their all-round machine gun fire capability.
Though I feel the need to clarify for this guy >>30248565
The early armour units with Russian t-26s and German tanks where essentially wiped out after the battles of Shanghai and Nanjing. There were almost no armour formations left until after pearl harbor in 1941, which American slowly sent armored units until they could have enough to slowly make some deplorable divisions.
>Actually the Chinese were well armed
A bit of a generalizing statement, not all of the, were armed consistently as their best divisions. Even then, the average Japanese division had more material and technological advantages.
I would ask well armed compared to who? The communist? Warlords? Then perhaps yes.
>>30254303
The Germans never had time to prepare any 'fortified defenses' like was claimed, meanwhile the Soviets did exactly that - and still lost more men and material during that phase.
>>30253713
>a little over 6 thousand tanks, while the soviets had 35 thousand by the end of the war
>>30253591
>weakness of collectivist cultures
But... tovaritch...
>>30261748
>collectivist ideology winning against other collectivist ideology
Go back to /leftypol/
