What China Learned From The Pacific War

中国从太平洋战争中学到了什么？

The Chinese PLA Navy has carefully studied the Pacific War of 1941-45. It drew three major lessons from the struggle between the US and Imperial Japan.

解放军海军仔细研究了1941- 1945年的太平洋战争，从美国和大日本帝国之间的斗争中吸取了主要教训。

Chinese analysts criticise the failure of the Imperial Japanese Navy to attack vulnerable American supply lines throughout the war, and failing to concentrate their aerial attacks against exposed American supply dumps.

中国分析人士批评日本海军在整个战争期间未能攻击脆弱的美国补给线，也未能集中空袭暴露在外的美国补给仓储。

以下是Youtube网友的评论：

ltribley

In recent U.S. Congressional Hearing testimony, representatives from the military stated that the U.S. does not have the logistical capabilities to sustain a war in the Pacific.

In previous Congressional Hearings, the U.S. military representatives state that they do not have sufficient shipyard capacity to repair or build warships to compete with China.

Numerous U.S. GAO investigations and reports over the last 5 years document that ALL branches of the U.S. military are NOT combat ready and it will take years to achieve this goal.

A war in the Pacific will still not allow the U.S. to deploy its entire Naval assets to the region (around 296 ships) leaving the U.S. coast’s, Hawaii, Guam, etc. undefended along with other naval regions around the world.

And, don’t forget that both Russia (think Pacific Fleet) and North Korea are now allied with China; Russia and China operating joint missions and rumors North Korea will be invited.

在最近的美国国会听证会上，军方代表表示，美国不具备在太平洋地区维持战争的后勤能力。

在之前的国会听证会上，美国军方代表表示，他们没有足够的造船厂来修理或建造军舰，以和中国竞争。

在过去的5年里，美国政府问责局的许多调查和报告都表明，美国军队的所有部门都没有做好战斗准备，要实现这一目标需要数年时间。

如果太平洋爆发一场战争，仍然不允许美国将其全部海军资产部署到该地区(大约296艘船)，致美国海岸，夏威夷，关岛等与世界其他海军地区都无防备。

而且，别忘了俄罗斯(想想太平洋舰队)和朝鲜现在都与中国结盟了，俄罗斯和中国正在进行联合任务，有传言称朝鲜将被邀请。

paulmarmol3406

Japan lost its experienced carrier pilots at the Guadalcanal campaign, not in the Battle of Coral Sea or Battle of Midway, what they lost at Midway were the majority of experienced maintenance crew.

日本在瓜达尔卡纳尔岛战役中失去了经验丰富的航母飞行员，并不是在珊瑚海海战或中途岛海战中，他们在中途岛失去的大多数是经验丰富的维修人员。

eymeeraosaka2954

Yes I agree with your analysis...The reason Japan lost the war in the Pacific is because the US has a more superior Industrial Military Supply Chain and Logistic Capability. Not because the American sailors are braver nor more well-trained. Technologically Japan was also at par with the US.

日本在太平洋战争中失败的原因是因为美国拥有更优越的工业军事供应链和后勤能力。不是因为美国水兵更勇敢，也不是因为他们训练有素。在技术上，日本也与美国不相上下。

user-dc1ud6px3s

Let's not forget that before the outbreak of hostility Japan, not the US, has the better fleet, larger carrier groups, and more experienced aircraft pilots and combatants. If we were to apply the Pacific War analogy, US is pre-WWII Japan and China is pre-WWII US. China produces 51% of the world's steel while the US produces 1%. China's shipbuilding by tonnage is 232 times that of the US, according to the US Navy's own admission.

我们不要忘了，在战争爆发之前，是日本拥有更强的舰队、更大的航母战斗群、更有经验的飞行员和战斗人员，而不是美国。如果我们用太平洋战争来类比，美国是二战前的日本，中国是二战前的美国。中国的钢铁产量占全球的51%，而美国只占1%。据美国海军自己承认，中国的造船吨位是美国的232倍。

tlowe9796

One important thing to note...if war really broke out between China and the US due to Taiwan issue. The Chinese can afford to lose 2 or 3 of its carriers or 10s of surface combatants and will still have the public support due to the strong belief of national sovereignty and unification, can the US does the same? I doubt so.

有一件重要的事情需要注意，如果中美之间真的因为台湾问题爆发战争。中国人可以承受损失2-3艘航母或10多艘水面战舰，而且由于国家主权和统一的强烈信念，仍然会得到公众的支持，美国能做到吗？我对此表示怀疑。

humanbeing9079

It is easy to forget that the Japanese still had 9 carriers for the Battle of the Philippines sea. It is not decisive battles that sealed Japan's fate, but continual attrition, lack of a culture of accountability(the only successful japanese admirals sent to do ground duty because they are blamed for not wng hard enough), japanese being out developed technologically in all aspects(Superiority of american aircraft engines, fire control computers, radar, proxmity fuses), japanese logistical breakdown by American submarine campaign(Project Starvation)

人们很容易忘记，日本在菲律宾海海战中仍然有9艘航母。决定日本命运的不是决定性的战役，而是持续的消耗，缺乏问责文化(唯一成功的日本海军上将被派去执行地面任务，因为他们被指责没有赢)，日本在各个方面的技术都落后于美国(美国的飞机发动机、火控计算机、雷达、近炸引信都有优势)，美国潜艇活动(饥饿计划)导致日本后勤崩溃。

johnsmith1953x

Japan made a serious mistake of allowing the USA shipyards to build ships in WW2

日本在二战中犯了一个严重的错误，那就是允许美国造船厂建造军舰

echen71

What an outstanding analysis.  I think this is your best yet as I hear many novel points (to me and from a western perspective).  References and sources?  I would love to take a look at primary sources.

分析得很好，我听到了许多新颖的观点(从西方的角度来看)。参考文献和来源是？我想看看第一手资料。

kapitankapital6580

I've seen some Western commentators suggest similar ideas, but it's very much a niche view. In so far as American military thinkers consider history at all, they always assume that their position is more or less equivalent to the position of America in the past. Ironically hubris gained from past victories is yet another parallel between the US and IJN...

我看到一些西方评论家提出了类似的观点，但这是非常小众的观点。只要美国军事思想家考虑历史，他们总是假设他们的立场或多或少相当于美国过去的立场。讽刺的是，从过去的胜利中获得的傲慢是美国和日本之间的另一个相似之处……

arthurvandeman

as an aside, it folllows that the chinse shipbuilding facilities would b high pririty targets for the usa if the usa were prepared to escalate to attacking the mainland..

如果美国准备把战争升级到攻击中国大陆，中国的造船厂将成为美国的优先打击目标。

johnnyflores5954

Because, Taiwan is a core issue for China, Taiwan is not a core issue for America. America might win a 1st time, 2nd time, maybe even a 3rd time, but a 4th time. America, will loose interest in defending Taiwan. - Lee Kuan Yu

台湾是中国的核心问题，不是美国的核心问题。第一次美国可能会赢，第二次，甚至第三次他们也可能会赢，但第四次就不好说了。——李光耀

huluwaiwai7838

I was curious:

If China launched a war to liberate Taiwan and had no desire to attack the US homeland and its people, how much support would the US have at home if it intervened? This is not an attack on Afghanistan or Iraq, which would necessarily require the mobilization of large numbers of troops and the logistical coordination of large numbers of people.

我很好奇：如果中国发动解放台湾的战争，而无意攻击美国本土和美国人民，那么如果美国干预，美国国内会有多少支持？这可不是对阿富汗或伊拉克发动攻击，面对中国必然需要动员大量军队和大量人员的后勤协调。

jeraldsamuel5598

Profound lessons are the best lessons.

Especially if you don't forget them.

深刻的教训是最好的教训，尤其是当你没有忘记的话。

fredfrond6148

Japan, to the benefit of the world, got unlucky because the US carriers were out at sea when the Japanese attacked at pearl harbour.  If the US had no aircraft carriers the US fleet would have been sitting ducks.

为了世界的利益，日本不幸了，因为当日本袭击珍珠港时，美国航母正在海上。如果美国没有航空母舰，美国舰队将成为活靶子。

yttean98

The Chinese knows about the contribution of LOGISTICS to the success of any battle hence the final war is long Known since the first emperor of Qin dynasty, watch or read the "Romance of the 3 Kingdoms" book or videos the importance on the coordination of logistics was explained in a no. of episodes.

中国人知道后勤对任何战役成功的贡献，因此自秦始皇以来，最后的战争早已为人所知，看看“三国演义”，很多篇章解释了后勤协调的重要性。

user-vw8ex6kn6b

Around 2030, the United States will have a large number of active aircraft carriers, cruisers, submarines and destroyers facing retirement, while China will build more warships and submarines with larger tonnage before 2030.Although the US Navy is currently the country with the most powerful data on the books.

2030年前后，美国将有大量现役航母、巡洋舰、潜艇和驱逐舰面临退役，而中国将在2030年前建造更多更大吨位的军舰和潜艇。尽管美国海军是目前拥有最多军舰的。

kakavdedatakavunuk8516

For a superpower like China in today's highly sophisticated technological era, the only viable conclusion from the past is to leave the past to the historians.

对于像中国这样的超级大国来说，在当今高度复杂的技术时代，从过去得出的唯一可行的结论就是把过去留给历史学家。

slimrummy

If we went to war with China... and we lost a few carriers the Americans public would be outraged, especially if we started the conflict.... china would be fighting in there own backyard for what they would see as the continued exstence of there country, this would not be Iraq there would be huge casualties that I don't see the American public excepting, were China wouldent see any other choice.. if there is a war it will be because we went looking for it, and I think we could loose that war, and that's without even getting into possible nuclear exchanges.

如果我们和中国开战，我们损失了几艘航母，美国公众会愤怒的，如果冲突是我们挑起的就更严重了。中国将在自己的后院为自己国家的继续存在而战，他们不是伊拉克，不会有巨大的伤亡。如果中国没有其他选择，如果发生战争，那将是我们自找的，我认为我们可能会输掉这场战争，甚至不会发生可能的核交火。

nostradamus2642

2 decades old Rand Corp paper suggesting interdiction of commercial ship at Malacca Strait or Indian Ocean is already obsolete.  destroyers and carriers will be too busy trying to dodge Chinese DF-27 hypersonic maneuverable precison strikes at terminal speed at Mach 15. China deployment of vast numbers of LEO satellite  means US ASAT won't work while China has perfected low cost rapid launches to replace lost satellites. The game has changed.

兰德公司20年前的一份报告建议在马六甲海峡或印度洋拦截商业航运，但这已经过时了。驱逐舰和航母将忙于躲避中国东风-27以15马赫的末端速度进行的高超音速机动精确打击。中国部署了大量近地轨道卫星，这意味着美国的反卫星将不起作用，而中国已经完善了低成本快速发射，以取代丢失的卫星。游戏规则已经改了。

112313

 i think china was looking at the american liberty cargo vessels as the real hero of the entire pacific campaign.

Amateurs study tactics... professionals study logistics....indeed...

我认为中国把美国自由号货船视为整个太平洋战役的真正英雄。业余爱好者学习战术，专业人士研究后勤，确实是

UTu-2024

Japan lacked the Dragon and Phoenix that Lu Bei had

America had Cao Cao

日本缺少刘备所拥有的卧龙，而美国有曹操

afunguynamedkawhi7959

Any potential China US conflicts will happen far away from American homeland. So there will be no pure navy battles between the two, Chinese missile powers from land bases will play a major role.

任何潜在的中美冲突都将发生在远离美国本土的地方。因此，两国之间不会有纯粹的海战，中国陆基导弹将发挥主要作用。

yueyu1479

The most important thing we learned is that...  The money will be spent anyways, if not on building ships, then it would be on compensations and ceding territories.

我们学到的最重要的一点是，这些钱无论如何都会花掉，如果不是用来造船，那也会用来补偿和割让领土。

rainerkinzinger555

won't industrial capacity be rendered useless in the event of a war? I presume both sides already have warheads with the coordinates of key industrial sites among other things.

一旦发生战争，工业不会被摧毁吗？我想双方的核弹头上面都已经有关键工业基地的坐标。

djtan3313

A fool fights a fort with his ship. A bigger fool fights a fort with his unsupplied ship.

傻瓜用军舰守堡垒，更傻的人会用他那艘没有补给的军舰去打堡垒。

sidlee13

This is what worries me. The US Congress is moving to spin up the American Military Industrial Complex. But this process will probably take a decade or more and will never reach the levels seen during WWII. So China really has a small window of opportunity to move on Taiwan. That’s why the US is trying to buy itself some time by creating all these Pacific Coalitions to contain China. Very dangerous times.

这正是我担心的。美国国会正在推动美国军工复合体的发展。但这个过程可能需要10年或更长时间，永远不会达到二战期间的水平。所以中国在台湾问题上确实有一个小小的机会窗口。这就是为什么美国试图通过建立太平洋联盟来遏制中国，来为自己争取一些时间。现在是非常危险的时刻。

khorweesiong

The only thing missing from this video is how the PLA intends to deal with the massive nuclear submarine fleet of the USN?

解放军打算如何对付美国海军庞大的核潜艇编队?

COLINJELY

It is a long way from the US West Coast to the South China Sea, US supply convoys would be vulnerable

从美国西海岸到南海的距离很远，美国的补给舰队很容易受到攻击

davidmoss2576

In my opinion if war breaks out in the Pacific the first country to go is South Korea. From there the Chinese and Russian would use it as springboard to take out Japan. The only question is how much of a fight can Japan put up.

在我看来，如果战争在太平洋爆发，第一个阵亡的国家是韩国，中国和俄罗斯将把它作为跳板来对付日本。唯一的问题是日本能承受多大程度的战斗。