SKS vs. AK at war--The Sino-Vietnam War?

[Cosmoline]

I've heard the Sino-Vietnam war brought up from time to time in discussions comparing the combat performance of the AK-47 with the SKS. I'm frankly trolling for information about this obscure conflict because it's a real gap in my knowledge. I know the basics, and I know it's often presented as evidence that the NVA armed with AK's fared better than the PLA armed with SKS's. But does anybody know any specific books on this war that might go into greater detail about the small arms and how they performed?

Also, from the info on the web it appears that the Chinese forces fought a mix of regular and militia forces, so not all of the Vietnamese would have been crack AK-armed soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

 

[Lucky]

That's very interesting. Why not eliminate some variables, and take one of each rifle to a range and put them through timed tests to compare? Can't do that up here, because one of them is banned by HWSNBN.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've done a bit of that. The SKS tends to be the more accurate of the two and consequently has an increased effective range. But the AK has the obvious advantage of firepower. Both are exceptionally reliable if well built. What can't be tested is how much the AK's firepower advantage actually matters in a modern war, albeit a limited one.

I've tracked down some books on the subject, but I can't tell from the on-line descriptions if any of them detail the tactics used apart from some references to the PLA's "outdated" weaponry.

 

[shootinstudent]

The Vietnamese I talked to were proud of their performance in that war. It forced them to abandon Cambodia, which by their accounts was an operation that took a little more than a new york minute.

The story I got was that the bulk of Vietnamese regulars were in Cambodia at the time, so everything in the north was done by the second string. No idea what in particular made them effective.

 

[strangelittleman]

I've read what little I could find, in my studies of the modern Chinese military, on the Sino-Viet border war of the late 70's and from what I've gathered the Chicoms were beat the hell out of by a smaller, more lightly equipped, highly foot mobile, Vietnamese unconventional force. Think of it as an Asian jungle version of the jaw slapping the Finns gave the Russians during the Russo-Finnish Winter war of '39-'40, but on a much smaller scale. the Viets destroyed perhaps as many as 200 Chinese tanks but lost a sizeable northern city before the Chinese pull out. (don't rember the name) In short the Chinese didn't count on the fierce resistance of the local Vietnamese militias and shortly pulled out after about a month and a half or so. There were many smaller skirmishes through out the '80s and another rather large engagement took place around '89 or '90, I think, over some of the Spratley & Paracel islands, if I remember correctly. These islands will be fought over again in the future as China gets more bold. the Spratleys and Paracels are claimed by China, Vietnam, Phillipines and Singapore.
This rough experience was a catalyst for Chinese modernization of it's elite forces, small unit tactics and it's small arms development and many say, resulted in the Type 81 series of rifles.
From what I can gather, both the SKS and AK were used by both sides. The Vietnamese were much more effective in their deployment of their small units and weapons. It's my under standing that the groups that were mainly employing the AKs used them in short range hit & run drills and really liked hand grenades, while the SKS equipped (usually the local militia/and there were also quite a few moisin-nagants in the mix) would engage in long range ambushes and defend & delay actions from key terrain features, in order to buy time for the people in the built-up areas and in the hope that the Vietnamese gov't would finally come in strength, which they did not.
I'm sorry if this was long winded and probably didn't cover the small arms aspect well enough but this is a very difficult subject to find intel on. I hope this helps a bit.

 

[Timthinker]

Please remember that this conflict occurred nearly three decades ago when the Chinese army had not modernized to the extent it has now. The Chinese, as I understand the situation, badly underestimated the tactics and tenacity of their Vietnamese opposition. This was not the first time a major power underestimated a smaller rival.

In such circumstances, the disparity in small arms played a minor role compared to the tactics, or lack thereof, used by the combatants. Still, your question is an interesting one.


Timthinker

 

[Timthinker]

As an addendum to my previous post, the PLA had relied on numbers during the Korean War and the Sino-Indian conflict in 1962. No doubt, it believed numbers would intimidate the Vietnamese too. Following the 1962 conflict, India began to modernize its army to deal with another potential Chinese conflict. China, after its performance in Vietnam, followed a similar course of action. One fruit of this policy eventually extended to small arms development as Strangelittleman discussed previously.


Timthinker

 

[slzy]

the artillery barrage the chicoms laid down was massive. the vietnamese ho-hummed it out,being used to b52 raids.

 

[DMK]

The story I got was that the bulk of Vietnamese regulars were in Cambodia at the time, so everything in the north was done by the second string. No idea what in particular made them effective.

The Vietnamese government claimed they left only a force of about 100,000 including several army regular divisions and divisions of the Public Security Army (the Vietnamese equivalent of KGB border guards) in its northern area. However, the Chinese encountered twice this number of Vietnamese forces; regular troops were augmented by an additional large force of militia that outnumbered the regular force. This concept of using local militias to fight the enemy has been a staple of Vietnamese defense strategy since antiquity.

It's said that a prepared defender has the advantage in a military attack. I suspect that's doubly so when the defender is defending his own village. The Vietnamese were also highly adept at guerrilla tactics.

 

[DMK]

I know it's often presented as evidence that the NVA armed with AK's fared better than the PLA armed with SKS's.

I doubt that the rifles were an important factor in victory or defeat.

It seems that China didn't commit their military effectively. They sent troops in with little support in a punitive action. The Vietnamese had no limitations in how they fought (it seems they were constantly underestimated in the 50s, 60s and 70s).

When you fight someone with one hand intentionally tied behind your back, you usually get your hat handed to you. History has shown this again and again. The whole concept of limited war is a farce and a very dangerous and stupid gamble.

 

[Cosmoline]

Interesting stuff. I hadn't thought of the comparison with the Winter War, but I see some similarities. It appears the PLA, like the Red Army of 1939, relied on large scale assaults and raw manpower to try to overwhelm a smaller nation.

I wonder if anyone has interviewed Vietnamese veterans about the war? It would be their accounts that might shed more light on how various firearms functioned in the field. I assume the chicoms are still tight lipped about the whole affair.

 

[.45Guy]

Why not ask one of the Vietnamese THR members for their input? I know of at least one that is one hell of a craftsman.