Sino-Soviet War

In 1979, Vietnam possessed a battle trained army full of veterans of the wars against the US and France. Further, they were on the defense. Here, the Chinese will be on the defensive.

Cross half a continent to invade a country with a 3 to 1 population advantage with military tactics that emphasize armored breakthroughs and maneuver. Is this the Soviet invasion of China or Barbarossa?

Most of the troops that fought the Chinese were conscripts. The veterans were fighting in Cambodia.
 
Invading China is easier said than done, the while not at big as the Soviet Union is it still very large and with a huge peoples militia. The sheer mass of the People Militia would give anyone contemplating invasion a massive case of acid indigestion. Mao will not surrender, In 1957 Mao made a speech commenting that he had no fear of nuclear war. He said that China had six hundred million people in the population and it lost three hundred million dead. There would be three hundred million left alive, that was Mao's attitude toward Nuclear war. So if you don't get Mao your in trouble as for the rest of the Chinese leadership well they were a pretty cold blooded bunch to. I also don't believe that the Soviet Union will be able to occupy the entire country short of drafting the Warsaw Pact into the fight and even with then I don't think it could be done. I could see movies from unoccupied China boasting about how many small arms they had produced and how many Soviet soldiers they had killed with those small arms. At the same time I could just see Nixon funneling weapons into China to help bleed the Soviet Union dry. A war in China would made Afghanistan look like a walk in the park only a whole lot more bloodier. Add on America standing on the sidelines laughing itself silly.
 
Most of the troops that fought the Chinese were conscripts. The veterans were fighting in Cambodia.

Do you have any sources for that. Most of the stuff like Global Security suggests that the Vietnamese troops were better trained than just conscripts. I'm not trying to bust you up - I am legitimately interested in any sources you might have.
 
In 1979, Vietnam possessed a battle trained army full of veterans of the wars against the US and France.

In 1979, most of the PAVN Border Defence Force regulars and local self-defence force militia wasn't the battle hardened Warriors from fighting the French or US, but conscripts, in for a few years service.
What they had was a decent set of officers and NCOs, and facing a Chinese Army that hadn't seen real combat since the Korean War, who leadership was mostly from political reliability, not skill
 
Do you have any sources for that. Most of the stuff like Global Security suggests that the Vietnamese troops were better trained than just conscripts. I'm not trying to bust you up - I am legitimately interested in any sources you might have.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/vietnam/border-guard.htm for starters. It was mostly them and Militia in 1979, though their Special Forces 'Sapper' regiments were deployed and did do raids for great effect
 
Ignoring the nuclear and American elements for a moment, the problem the Soviets face is actually similar to what the Japanese did in the 30's: they can smash the field armies the Chinese throw at them, but trying to occupy a tremendous country with a giant population that potentially hates you is a quagmire waiting to happen. The Soviets realized this and tried to tailor their plans around it but they ultimately recognized that any war with China contained considerable risk. There were two basic variations for Soviet war plans in a conventional conflict with China. The first variation was to seize a buffer region in Manchuria and Chinese Central Asia to conduct a largely defensive war until China sues for peace. The second variant was a lightning strike at Beijing deep operations style. The offensive would be structured with the goal to induce the pro-Soviet elements of the Chinese government to seize control and make peace.

Both variants have their advantages, both plans have their flaws. The first variant prevents the problems that would arise from Soviet forces getting stuck deep within China. It has the obvious flaw of guaranteeing a prolonged war that would be a big drain on the Soviet economy. The second variant has the advantage that it offers a way to end the war quickly. It has the flaw that in the case that it fails... well, large Soviet forces would be stuck deep within China.
 
I have an old SPI board game on this very subject titled "The China War". In it, the Chinese forces are at a real disadvantage... their numerous forces lack the oomph needed to take on those Soviet heavy armored divisions, and defend mainly by sitting on the far side of rivers and hoping the Soviets hurt themselves in the process of winning. The game chillingly assumes that the Soviets will use vast numbers of tactical nuclear weapons (basically, adding 'points' to their offensive numbers) right from the start; in fact, they Soviets pretty much have to do it to gain headway. On the fringes, Vietnam/Laos are very likely to join the Soviets (having small but very strong forces), NK could join either side, and NATO can make itself felt offstage by making threatening noises and forcing the Soviets to withdraw some troops. In general, it's not a fun game for the Chinese...
 
In it, the Chinese forces are at a real disadvantage... their numerous forces lack the oomph needed to take on those Soviet heavy armored divisions, and defend mainly by sitting on the far side of rivers and hoping the Soviets hurt themselves in the process of winning. The game chillingly assumes that the Soviets will use vast numbers of tactical nuclear weapons (basically, adding 'points' to their offensive numbers) right from the start; in fact, they Soviets pretty much have to do it to gain headway.

The need for the Soviets to use tactical nukes to make any sort of headway strikes me as rather optimistic for the Chinese... at least up to a certain point. Their administrative problems at this time due to the Cultural Revolution means their numerical advantage is rather more theoretical then real, especially at the operational-tactical levels. Given your description, I take it the scale of the game is akin to that of No Retreat or something like that?
 
That strikes me as rather optimistic for the Chinese... at least up to a certain point. Given your description, I take it the scale of the game is akin to that of No Retreat or something like that?
It's pretty large scale... the game map shows all of China, with most of Vietnam/Laos/Thailand, both Koreas, and parts of Japan on it, as well as a big chunk of Soviet Siberia (although some of those areas never come into game play)...
 
It's pretty large scale... the game map shows all of China, with most of Vietnam/Laos/Thailand, both Koreas, and parts of Japan on it, as well as a big chunk of Soviet Siberia (although some of those areas never come into game play)...

Yeah, I just found it on Board Games Geek and realized that it mainly takes place in the 80s and not the 60s/early-70s, so the tactical nuke bit does make more sense. Looks like one of those games that I would love reading the rulebook far more then I would like playing.
 
I solo gamed it several times; playing the Chinese side is kinda dreadful. Their best tactic is to stack like crazy on the far side of every river, and hope the Soviets incur step losses when they inevitably win the battles. If the Chinese can get NK on their side, then there's a chance that their new allies can help cut parts of the Soviet railway (that famous one railroad that runs the whole length of Siberia)...
 
Top