What army do they belong to?

Discussions on all aspects of China, from the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War till the end of the Chinese Civil War. Hosted by YC Chen.
zstar
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: 15 Oct 2004 06:32
Location: as

What army do they belong to?

Post by zstar » 13 Mar 2006 13:29

Image

Firstly they are carrying the Chinese thompsons and wearing Chinese ammo pouches but their cap is disitinctly Japanese so my guess would be puppet soldiers but can anyone confirm that?

User avatar
Mike.H
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 19:50
Location: Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

Post by Mike.H » 14 Mar 2006 23:05

Can't they be just Chinese soldiers with captured Japanese cap's?

User avatar
Sewer King
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:35
Location: northern Virginia

Post by Sewer King » 15 Mar 2006 06:18

I agree, these are more likely Nationalist or other Chinese forces against the Japanese, rather than "puppet" troops.

Didn't Chinese uniforms far afield vary enough, and subject to shortage and local availability? So that use of captured Japanese field caps would not be particularly unusual. I cannot tell what insignia or traces of removed ones are on these caps here.

There are distantly comparable pictures of Polish and French resistance fighters wearing German steel helmets and field caps. Headgear is a strong recognition feature in combat, so you'd think that wearing those of the enemy could pose a problem. But it was clearly done to some greater or lesser extent.

I think there may be a few traces of influences by Japanese uniform and equipment in those of some later Asian armies. The modern-day Chinese PLA steel helmet resembles the wartime Japanese, as the soles of their canvas field shoes do those of tabi. Some postwar Chinese entrenching shovels have a hole in the blade through whigh to run a makeshift sling of cord, as do the wartime Japanese ones. These shovels were in use in Vietnam, though probably of Chinese make. Even late-war US Army entrenching shovels had sling holes taken directly from the Japanese design. Though I can't think of any later forces that would have kept on with Japanese caps.

The number penned on the right-hand margin looks something like a US Army Signal Corps photograph number. But maybe someone else better versed in that level of detail can say. I also have the impression that the original photo was cropped here.

Goldfish
Member
Posts: 410
Joined: 31 May 2004 13:51
Location: Atlanta, USA

Post by Goldfish » 16 Mar 2006 16:40

The reason that modern Chinese equipment resembles Japanese equipment is that the PLA that fought in the Civil War (and later in Korea) was mostly equipped with Japanese equipment either captured by Chinese Communist troops, captured by the Soviets and then donated to the Chinese Communists, or manufactured in Japanese factories by the Communists after their takeover.

Nationalist troops also captured huge stocks of Japanese weapons and equipment. Nationalist troops also received large amounts of Lend-Lease weapons and equipment from the US. Because the M1 Garand was considered to big and heavy for the Chinese, the most common American weapons in the Nationalist forces were the Thompson SMG and the M1 Carbine.

The soldiers in the photo are most likely Chinese Nationalist guerillas late in the war (maybe Dai Li's "Loyal and Patriotic Army", which was trained by the Sino-American Cooperative Organization) or Civil War Nationalist troops.

User avatar
Sewer King
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:35
Location: northern Virginia

Post by Sewer King » 20 Mar 2006 03:36

Goldfish wrote:The reason that modern Chinese equipment resembles Japanese equipment is that the PLA that fought in the Civil War (and later in Korea) was mostly equipped with Japanese equipment either captured by Chinese Communist troops, captured by the Soviets and then donated to the Chinese Communists...
There is a historical tendency to copy the uniforms and equipment of former political masters, and sometimes opponents. But that the latter-day Chinese PLA items resemble those of the IJA was only my supposition, I have never seen it more widely agreed except for one or two members here. From the few current photos I've seen, both today's Chinese PLA and Japanese Ground Self-Defense Forces seem to be adopting synthetic "Kevlar"-type helmets in the American style (the latter in Iraq, unless equipped directly from US stocks).
Goldfish wrote:... or manufactured in Japanese factories by the Communists after their takeover.
I have seen only some passing mention that Imperial Japanese small-arms ammunition was still in limited manufacture for the Korean War effort (Smith and Smith's Small Arms of the World 9th edition's historical overview section, Galahad 1973). But I have never seen any details. Presumably this was the standard 7.7mm round? and maybe others like the 7.92mm rounds for Mukden Arsenal rifles?
Goldfish wrote:... Nationalist troops also received large amounts of Lend-Lease weapons and equipment from the US. Because the M1 Garand was considered to big and heavy for the Chinese, the most common American weapons in the Nationalist forces were the Thompson SMG and the M1 Carbine.
Common to other Asian armies -- my father used the old WW1-era American Enfield at Bataan in 1941-42. He mentions in his autobiography that he had to improvise a shoulder pad for it. The Enfields were also issued to the Nationalists, and the US Army did not declare them obsolete until after the war for exactly that reason (Canfield's US Infantry Weapons of World War II). The only example I have ever handled was a well-worn one said to be re-imported back from China.

Of course the later armies of the Philippines, ROC, and ARVN also favored the lighter US arms. I seem to remember the 1960s Japanese ground forces used reduced-charge 7.62mm NATO rounds in their standard rifles.
Goldfish wrote:The soldiers in the photo are most likely Chinese Nationalist guerillas late in the war (maybe Dai Li's "Loyal and Patriotic Army", which was trained by the Sino-American Cooperative Organization) or Civil War Nationalist troops.
And a dramatic posed photo since two ranks of gunners one behind the other would not be firing this closely together?

Return to “China at War 1895-1949”