WI/AHC/ASB: Sino-Soviet Land War

[GlobalHumanism]

In the late 60s a few boarder skirmishes almost resulted in a full-on land war between the Soviet Union and China.

So say if cooler heads didn't prevail, and bluster turned to an all out hot war:

1. Historically who do you think would win in a conventional conflict (no nukes)

2. Using your pick, lay out the tactics/strategy for success in a conventional war

3. What are the long term results, repercussions of your tactics and chosen victor

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Soviets have an advantage in airpower, armor, and technology in general. The administrative structure to turn China's strategic numerical superiority into a operational or tactical superiority had been had gutted by the cultural revolution*. 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 hates you is a quagmire waiting to happen. And that same huge size and population precludes a total occupation.

The Soviets recognized this and hence 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, full 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 large 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.

Nuclear wise, it's basically the Cuban Missile Crisis with the USSR in the place of the US and China in the place of the USSR: sure, the Soviets can annihilate China as a coherent political state, but they have no means of avoiding eating at least a few nukes themselves with all of the economic costs that come with it.

So a purely conventional war probably ends in a economically-draining stalemate while a nuclear war would be pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union.

*There are interesting parallels with WW1 Russia here.

 

[LeX]

Actually, the USSR stands a good chance of getting off scot-free in regards to the nuclear exchange. At this stage, the Chinese have only slow, vulnerable bombers with with to deliver their weapons, and the combined PVO and VVS would down them easily.

After taking Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang, the Soviets can easily make use of the ravages of the Cultural Revolution to set up stable client states. They can just pick and choose from local cadres who will jump at the opportunity to do their jobs without (as much of) the endless political struggle sessions, shaming, and general Maoist insanity. Unlike the Japanese, the Chinese will soon see that the Russians are still "socialist brothers" and be more open to collaboration. And whatever the barbaric actions of individual Soviet soldiers, their commanders are unlikely to set up their versions of Unit 731, commit outright Nanjings, or turn women in to crack whores.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Actually, the USSR stands a good chance of getting off scot-free in regards to the nuclear exchange.

I'm dubious about this. It is still conceivable for a small number of Chinese planes to manage to slip through Soviet air defenses and strike a target relatively close to the border like Vladivostok or Omsk, which the Soviets really would rather not get nuked. When it comes to nuclear weapons, even one warhead delivered successfully can be ruinous... even if not cripplingly so.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I voted stalemate, but I think it'd be a small victory for the USSR, in that they might be able to destabilize China as someone else noted because of the insanity of the Maoist regime and thus get that border they want.

However, while not Afghanistan-level in terms of quagmire, the Soviet economy would suffer enough, and tehre woudl be enough discontent among Warsaw Bloc forces if they are ordered in, that the Soviets themselves would be destabilized, and years later they would probably wonder they they bothered.

There is a small chance that nukes are used, but I can't imagine a lot being used, since the Chinese would have one place they could probably use them - Soviet reserve forces. They might onlyi be able to hit Vladivostok, but wouldn't they also have tactical nukes capable of ruining Soviet logistics and infrastructure if need be? Logistics is a big part of this war, too.

 

[hx87]

I'm dubious about this. It is still conceivable for a small number of Chinese planes to manage to slip through Soviet air defenses and strike a target relatively close to the border like Vladivostok or Omsk, which the Soviets really would rather not get nuked. When it comes to nuclear weapons, even one warhead delivered successfully can be ruinous... even if not cripplingly so.

That goes in the opposite direction too--if the Soviets know or assume that any bombers coming their way are nuclear-armed, they will shoot them down with nuclear-tipped SAMs. The PLAAF could counter by dispersing the bombers and flying low, but this them more vulnerable to conventional interception and in the late 1960s all their bombers were turbojet-powered with poor low altitude performance.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

They might onlyi be able to hit Vladivostok, but wouldn't they also have tactical nukes capable of ruining Soviet logistics and infrastructure if need be? Logistics is a big part of this war, too.

I'm rather unaware of the details of Chinese nuclear doctrine in the late-1960s, other then that Mao was liked to swagger around with them a bunch.

Soviet doctrine on the other hand is more straightforward: they made no distinction between the tactical and strategic use of nuclear weapons. In a very real sense, their attitude was either none fly or they all fly. Given that, I have always suspected the proposal for a limited nuclear attack against China's nuclear program the Soviets talked about with the US was more of a Foreign Ministry venture in testing the waters rather then an indication of an actual war plan.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

I'm rather unaware of the details of Chinese nuclear doctrine in the late-1960s, other then that Mao was liked to swagger around with them a bunch.

Soviet doctrine on the other hand is more straightforward: they made no distinction between the tactical and strategic use of nuclear weapons. In a very real sense, their attitude was either none fly or they all fly. Given that, I have always suspected the proposal for a limited nuclear attack against China's nuclear program the Soviets talked about with the US was more of a Foreign Ministry venture in testing the waters rather then an indication of an actual war plan.

If the USSR launched a nuclear strike against China and China in turn retaliated, albeit in a comparatively limited fashion, why wouldn't the U.S. in turn use the opportunity to launch a Dr. Strange love type first strike?

There wouldn't be anything stopping them from giving it a go with international outrage being fully directed against the USSR and the USSR must know this even before they start prepping their ICBMs

 

[RousseauX]

Actually, the USSR stands a good chance of getting off scot-free in regards to the nuclear exchange. At this stage, the Chinese have only slow, vulnerable bombers with with to deliver their weapons, and the combined PVO and VVS would down them easily.

After taking Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang, the Soviets can easily make use of the ravages of the Cultural Revolution to set up stable client states. They can just pick and choose from local cadres who will jump at the opportunity to do their jobs without (as much of) the endless political struggle sessions, shaming, and general Maoist insanity. Unlike the Japanese, the Chinese will soon see that the Russians are still "socialist brothers" and be more open to collaboration. And whatever the barbaric actions of individual Soviet soldiers, their commanders are unlikely to set up their versions of Unit 731, commit outright Nanjings, or turn women in to crack whores.

OTOH the Soviets didn't have much success fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan and fighting against a China which have being preparing for a people's war against an invading army for decades is a pretty poor proposition.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

A war between two nuclear powers, especially Maoist China, is going to involve nuclear weapons.

 

[Tom Colton]

The knock-on effects in Korea and Indochina are going to be RFK-interesting to say the least.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

The knock-on effects in Korea and Indochina are going to be RFK-interesting to say the least.

Right?

The Nixon administration might actually take the chance and invade North Vietnam and/or North Korea while China is occupied with the USSR

 

[Shaby]

1. Historically who do you think would win in a conventional conflict (no nukes)

This should be quite obvious. USSR, hands down. Better equipment, better training, better leadership on tactical level at least.

2. Using your pick, lay out the tactics/strategy for success in a conventional war

Depending on who initiates the hostilities. If it is the Chinese, the Soviets would do well to pre-empt them with massive artillery barrage on areas of concentration, followed by massive air campaign to first win air superiority and remove any potential threat of conflict going nuclear and second to start massive tactical strikes on the logistics of the PLA.

As for PLA, their best bet would be to refrain from provoking nuclear exchange and try to make their land assault as surprise as it can be (hard to see how they could conceal this, though). If they manage to overwhelm the initial Soviets troops, try to cut off the Soviet Far East by taking Chita. In the short to medium run and if the Soviets are not ready, this could allow the Chinese to try and make peace or at least gain some time to prepare better.

3. What are the long term results, repercussions of your tactics and chosen victor

The Soviets win, Mao falls and a new regime in China emerges. China takes the path she has taken OTL after Mao's death. Bit more hostile to the Soviets, but if the Soviets are clever and do not take any land and impose a fair peace, not even that.

If the Chinese win, well they could also try for border revisions, though I do not see this as overly possible. Not without a massive collapse of the Soviet Union or unless the Red Army has its hands full with a rebellions in the Eastern Europe or something far worse (for the entire world).

 

[LeX]

OTOH the Soviets didn't have much success fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan and fighting against a China which have being preparing for a people's war against an invading army for decades is a pretty poor proposition.

The characters of the Afghan population and the northern Chinese are vastly different. The Afghan tribes were fiercely religious and militant, and they were loyal to local, not central authority. This makes them hard to pacify for any invader.

The Chinese, by contrast, have been taught to think of the Soviets as evil revisionists, but the truth is that there isn't that much of a different between the political styles of China and the USSR. As I said, a lot of captured Chinese bureaucrats will be happy to serve a CPSU that isn't constantly organizing traumatizing struggle sessions.

Consider this: the Japanese, arguably a far worse-behaved group than the Red Army, ruled Manchuria and a good portion of the Chinese coast for 14 and eight years without too much trouble from the locals (the interior is a different story, clearly). In the Northeast it took a few years for the Guandong Army to crush all meaningful resistance.

 

[Delta Force]

If the USSR launched a nuclear strike against China and China in turn retaliated, albeit in a comparatively limited fashion, why wouldn't the U.S. in turn use the opportunity to launch a Dr. Strange love type first strike?

There wouldn't be anything stopping them from giving it a go with international outrage being fully directed against the USSR and the USSR must know this even before they start prepping their ICBMs

Actually, during the historical 1969 Crisis the Soviet Union threatened the PRC with nuclear attack for months. At one point the Soviets asked President Nixon what the United States response would be to a preemptive Soviet nuclear attack on the PRC, and he said that the United States would respond with an attack on around one hundred Soviet cities.

 

[LegionoftheUnitedStates]

Strategy & Tactics did an article and game on this in 1979.


https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8324/china-war

 

[Jeb Bush]

The characters of the Afghan population and the northern Chinese are vastly different. The Afghan tribes were fiercely religious and militant, and they were loyal to local, not central authority. This makes them hard to pacify for any invader.

The Chinese, by contrast, have been taught to think of the Soviets as evil revisionists, but the truth is that there isn't that much of a different between the political styles of China and the USSR. As I said, a lot of captured Chinese bureaucrats will be happy to serve a CPSU that isn't constantly organizing traumatizing struggle sessions.

Consider this: the Japanese, arguably a far worse-behaved group than the Red Army, ruled Manchuria and a good portion of the Chinese coast for 14 and eight years without too much trouble from the locals (the interior is a different story, clearly). In the Northeast it took a few years for the Guandong Army to crush all meaningful resistance.

Have you seen how fanatical the Red Guards were? The only difference between Radical Maoists and Islamic Fundementalists is one follows the Little Red Book, the other the Koran.

Warlord era China =/= Maoist China. They might as well been different countries.

 

[LeX]

Have you seen how fanatical the Red Guards were? The only difference between Radical Maoists and Islamic Fundementalists is one follows the Little Red Book, the other the Koran.

Warlord era China =/= Maoist China. They might as well been different countries.

It's not that simple. The Red Guards are not real soldiers, they are not used to a rugged mountain existence, they do not have strong loyalties one way or the other, beyond what allows them to avoid getting hit by a negative political label. What made you "red" one day or in one community could just as easily make you a counter-revolutionary in another setting, just because of who you happened to be dealing with. CR-era ideological struggle was extremely chaotic because it was everyone against everyone twisting the language of revolution to save their own skins. Situation is totally different from the tribal structures of Afghanistan.

Basically, once the Red Guards are in occupied territory and separated from their "beloved" Chairman Mao, they'll start bickering over whether to fight or submit. The whole CR is a case of "The Emperor's New Robes" gone violent, so all it takes is for one person to point out that they've been tricked the whole time and the resistance falls apart.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

In the late 60s a few boarder skirmishes almost resulted in a full-on land war between the Soviet Union and China.

I really doubt it would get out of hand. So what if some renters on each side get in skirmish. Surely the police on each side of the border town would just throw them in jail, no?

What's with this obsession with inhabitants of boardinghouses? That's what I want to know.

 

[RousseauX]

The characters of the Afghan population and the northern Chinese are vastly different. The Afghan tribes were fiercely religious and militant, and they were loyal to local, not central authority. This makes them hard to pacify for any invader.

The Chinese, by contrast, have been taught to think of the Soviets as evil revisionists, but the truth is that there isn't that much of a different between the political styles of China and the USSR. As I said, a lot of captured Chinese bureaucrats will be happy to serve a CPSU that isn't constantly organizing traumatizing struggle sessions.

Consider this: the Japanese, arguably a far worse-behaved group than the Red Army, ruled Manchuria and a good portion of the Chinese coast for 14 and eight years without too much trouble from the locals (the interior is a different story, clearly). In the Northeast it took a few years for the Guandong Army to crush all meaningful resistance.

Errrr, the Japanese faced significant resistance both in Manchuria and the rest of China actually.

The big difference here is that there was a clear, legitimate Chinese government in the 1960s-70s which have being training their people to resist both physically and psychologically for decades. That did not exist in the 1930s ( and the people resisted anyway).