解放军粉介绍朝鲜战争中最适合志愿军的武器: 仿制波波莎的50式冲锋枪，引中外军迷扎堆友好交流

视频摘要：

n the Korean War, the pla found a weapon that matched its tactical reality almost perfectly: the Type 50 submachine gun — China’s reverse-engineered copy of the Soviet PPSh.

在朝鲜战争中，解放军发现了一种几乎完全符合其战术现实的武器：50式冲锋枪——中国对苏联波波莎冲锋枪的逆向工程复制品。

On the hills of Shangganling (Triangle Hill) in 1952, platoon leader Sun Zhanyuan led an assault with fourteen Type 50s. Later that same autumn, Qiu Shaoyun lay still under artillery fire, protecting his Type 50 to preserve surprise for a larger Chinese attack. In the factories behind the front, workers at Factory 626 dismantled and relocated production lines in the dead of winter to keep the guns flowing to Korea.

1952年，在上甘岭（三角山）的山丘上，排长孙占元率领14名持有50式的士兵进行了一次突击。同年秋天的晚些时候，邱少云仍然卧在炮火下，保护他的50式，为中国军队更大的进攻提供突然性。在前线后方的工厂里，626工厂的工人在隆冬时节拆除并重新安置生产线，以保证枪支源源不断地送入朝鲜。

So why did the Type 50 work so well for the pla in Korea? And why, despite its success in close-range fighting, did it never fundamentally reshape pla small-arms doctrine?

那么，为什么50式在朝鲜战场上表现如此出色呢？而且为什么，尽管它在近距离战斗中取得了成功，却从未从根本上重塑解放军的轻武器学说？

This episode examines the Type 50 not just as a weapon, but as an institutional artifact — a case study in how terrain, industrial constraint, doctrine, and organizational identity shaped the early People’s Liberation Army.

这一集不仅将50式作为一种武器，而且将其作为一种制度上的产物——从地形、工业约束、军事学说和组织认同如何塑造早期人民解放军作为案例来研究。

Chapters视频章节

00:00 Sun Zhanyuan and the Assault at Shangganling
孙占元与上甘岭之战

03:15 Korea as a “Squad-Sized War”
朝鲜战争是“小队战争”

09:40 Soviet Design, Chinese Constraint
苏联的设计，中国的约束

16:20 Why the pla Preferred the Stick Magazine
为什么解放军更喜欢直弹夹

21:10 Factory 626 and Wartime Relocation
626号工厂和战时搬迁

26:45 The Doctrine Paradox
军事条例的悖论

31:30 Qiu Shaoyun and the Type 50
邱少云与50式

 

Type56_Ordnance_Dept
If you made it to the end of this one, you probably noticed that this isn’t just a story about a submachine gun. It’s about why the Type 50 fit the pla in Korea — and why the institution didn’t let it define them afterward. I’m curious what you think: was the Type 50 a tactical adaptation, or something deeper in pla culture?

如果您看到了这个视频的结尾，您可能已经注意到，这不仅仅是一个关于冲锋枪的故事。它讲述了为什么50式在朝鲜适合中国人民解放军——以及为什么解放军后来放弃它在军队中的地位。我很好奇您的想法：50式是一种战术适应，还是中国人民解放军文化中更深层的东西？

@noahdoyle6780
I don't know if you explained it elsewhere, but what happened to your traditional 'People's Outro'?

我不知道您是否在其他地方解释过，但您视频中传统的“人民结语”怎么了？

@Brad-j4l1w
Military establishments around the world had peculiar allergy against SMG. Yet in the press of battle SMG always do well, even a bad SMG such as the STEN. So this focus on Type 50 and its history with pla was very welcome and arguably overdue.
My own theory is pla post Korean War abandonment of Type 50 reflected continued problem of pla poverty. The Type 56 SKS is a regression, not a more advanced weapon than Type 50 SMG, IMHO. So Type 50 fell victim to the same poverty which sidetracked wide scale adaption of the AK. As the key feature of any automatic weapon is ammunition consumption. The pla might have been better served by keeping Type 50 and refining that SMG to pla native requirements, such as including a folding spike-bayonet.

世界各地的军事机构对冲锋枪都有一种奇特的过敏反应。然而在实战中，冲锋枪总是表现良好，即使是像斯登这样的糟糕冲锋枪也如此。所以这次对50式及其与解放军历史的聚焦非常受欢迎，而且可以说早就该做了。
我自己的理论是，解放军在朝鲜战争后放弃50式反映了持续存在的解放军贫困问题。仿SKS的56式半自动步枪是一种倒退，而不是比50式冲锋枪更先进的武器，恕我直言。因此50式成了同样贫困问题的受害者，这种贫困也阻碍了AK的广泛采用，因为任何自动武器的关键特征就是弹药消耗。解放军如果继续保留50式并根据自身需求进行改进，比如加装折叠刺刀，或许会更好。

【译注：SKS半自动步枪（英文：The Simonov SKS carbine， 又称：SKS、西蒙诺夫步枪），是苏联枪械设计师西蒙诺夫于第二次世界大战期间主持研制的半自动步枪， 中国仿制版称为56式半自动步枪】

@DOMINIK99013
@Brad-j4l1w SKS and PPs are diferent category of weapons, they can save next to each other. And while SKS consume less ammo, are still more expensive to build.

@Brad-j4l1w SKS和PPs是不同类别的武器，它们可以并存。虽然SKS消耗弹药更少，但制造成本仍然更高。
【译注：PPs即波波莎冲锋枪】

@samadams2203
If the terrain allows you to advance to effective SMG range, SMGs are great! Don't have to worry about the weight of rifles, accuracy, or even deploying rifle caliber machineguns. I suspect SMGs are ideal for relatively untrained soldiers too, as again, they are simple to employ, reducing the need to aim, work the bolt and maybe even minimize time spent out of cover. China also loved 7.62 Tokarev, as you have mentioned before, so you have a great round and a cheap, easy to stamp out weapon. Of course, the moment you're stuck out in a wide open field you're at a major downside against even bolt-action rifles. And this is obviously why the pla continued with rifles afterwards. China is big, not everywhere is a cramped, hilly peninsula like Korea.
Great episode.

如果地形允许你推进到冲锋枪有效射程，冲锋枪就很棒！不用担心步枪的重量、精度，甚至不用部署步枪口径机枪。我猜冲锋枪对相对未经训练的士兵也很理想，因为它们操作简单，减少了瞄准、拉枪机的时间，甚至可能缩短暴露在掩体外的时间。
中国也喜欢7.62托卡列夫弹，正如你之前提到过的，所以你有优秀的弹药和一种廉价、易于冲压制造的武器。当然，一旦你被困在开阔地带，甚至对付栓动步枪都会处于重大劣势。这显然就是解放军后来继续使用步枪的原因。中国很大，并非到处都是像朝鲜那样狭窄多山的半岛。

很棒的一集。

@janmouchet8080
Thanks for your work profesor!
And very iconic the tipe 50 in posters for years btw

感谢您的作品，教授！
顺便说一句，50式在海报上多年来一直非常具有标志性。

@ВасилийКашин-х5ф
pla was not the only one to make this kind of choice. During the Cold War there were a number of major militaries which chose to rely on semi-automatic rifles instead of full auto. In the Western block that includes the British and the French who had semi auto weapons well into 1980s. Among the communist countries Yugoslav army also preferred local SKS version over AK for a long time. So possibly they all had something in common.

中国人民解放军并不是唯一做出这种选择的一方。冷战期间，有许多主要军队选择依赖半自动步枪而非全自动武器。在西方阵营中包括英国和法国，他们的半自动武器一直用到1980年代。在共产主义国家中，南斯拉夫军队也长期更喜欢本国的SKS版本而非AK。所以可能它们都有共同之处。

@theoddball3850
Based off of what happened to them in Vietnam afterwards, I feel more like their institutional identity and ideals won out over their experience. They went in using more SKS rifles if I recall you mentioning, as the Chinese wanted to fight using accurate, aimed fire and conserve ammunition, when reality needed lots of firepower.

根据他们后来在越南发生的事情，我觉得更像是他们的组织认同和理想战胜了他们的经验。如果我没记错，你提到过，他们进入越南时更多使用的是SKS步枪，因为中国人想用精确瞄准射击并节省弹药，而现实需要大量火力。

@ParodyMao
Honestly I think it fits human wave assaults just fine. A disposable weapon for disposable troops. When looking how the soviets used it to overwhelm the Germans on the Eastern Front its quiet obvious. More bang for less buck. Compared to an M1 Garand or a even a Grease Gun, you can produce far more Type 50's than anything. Also when you have a poorly trained, equipped, and supported army, the type 50 was their solution to volume of fire without all the logistics and training of say, a Browning 1919 machine gun crew. And question for you Sir, do you still educate and teach classes? I say this because I would enjoy sitting down for your lectures in a professional manner.

老实说，我认为它非常适合人海战术，一次性武器配一次性部队。看看苏联人在东线如何用它压倒德国人，这很明显。更少的钱换更多的火力。与M1加兰德甚至黄油枪相比，你能生产出远多于任何武器的50式。
【译注：黄油枪指二战时美军装备的M3冲锋枪，成本低廉，形似给机器加注黄油的黄油枪】
而且当你有一支训练不足、装备不足、后勤不足的军队时，50式就是他们解决火力密度问题的方案，而不需要像勃朗宁1919机枪班组那样的后勤和训练。先生，我有个问题：您还在教育和授课吗？因为我很愿意以专业方式坐下来听您的讲座。

@Creles
@ParodyMao Practically every reasonable historian disproves the idea of straight up human wave assaults for both Soviet and Chinese armies in both periods you mentioned. This channel also reinforces this concept.
Not only that, but your reasoning is literally so surface level—the whole reason why the myth exists in the first place. “Cheap weapon for human wave offensives! vs Western expensive superior equipment for smaller armies!” It doesn’t even make sense. It completely forgoes the logistical, ideological and theoretical contexts behind the pla in Korea, including their night fighting and guerrilla traditions that this channel delves into.
For the Soviets, people completely miss the theoretical innovation that occurred on the Soviet Front, with the development of operational-level plans. “Blunt concentrated offensives” resulted in overall fewer casualties because of the larger-level advances they would make. But apparently “big number & our enemies = they’re brutes”.
You call them disposable, when in reality high casualties were the result of logistical problems and other issues. Not negligence like what you claim—if you aren’t, then I suggest you look into english classes, because you’re on a very thin line. It’s also while understanding that the pla, under equipped and under supplied, were a primarily infantry force. Their operations against armored, entrenched and better supplied units will obviously take high casualties. You’re equating the issue of China not having a military industrial base, as well as their infantry composition with the issue of negligence and a lack of care for human life. Again, Chinese troops excelled at night operations, ambushes, maneuvering and offensives.

@ParodyMao 几乎所有理智的历史学家都否定了您提到的两个时期苏联和中国军队进行直接人海冲锋的说法。本频道也强化了这一概念。
不仅如此，您的推理简直太肤浅了——这正是人海神话存在的原因。“廉价武器用于人海进攻！对比西方昂贵优越装备用于较小军队！”这根本讲不通。它完全忽略了朝鲜战争中解放军背后的后勤、意识形态和理论背景，包括本频道深入探讨的夜战和游击传统。

对于苏联人，人们完全忽略了苏德战场上发生的理论创新，即作战层级计划的发展。“钝头集中进攻”由于更大层级的推进而总体上造成更少的伤亡。但显然“大数字+我们的敌人=他们是野蛮人”。
您称他们为一次性部队，而现实中高伤亡是后勤问题和其他问题导致的。不是您所说的疏忽——如果不是，那我建议您去上英语课，因为您的想方式正走在一条非常细的线上。同时要理解，装备不足、补给不足的解放军主要是一支步兵力量。

他们对抗装甲、筑垒且补给更好的部队时，显然会付出高伤亡。您把中国没有军事工业基础的问题，以及他们的步兵构成，等同于疏忽和不关心人命的问题。再说一遍，中国军队擅长夜间行动、伏击、机动和进攻。

@Creles
Not to mention, you say “poorly trained and equipped” army, but completely forget that the reason why the pla was so successful in its initial offensives wasn’t because of “meat grinders” but because they had a strong cadre and corps of veterans from the Second Sino-Japanese War.

更不用说，您说“训练不足、装备不足”的军队时，完全忘记了解放军初期进攻如此成功的原因不是因为“绞肉机”，而是因为他们拥有一支强大的干部队伍和来自抗日战争的老兵团队。

@Creles
@ParodyMao Then you go ahead and forgo other aspects of the gun. You talk about having “Machineguns instead”, but forget or are oblivious to—I think the latter is accurate for you—the fact that these troops engaged in close quarters, quick, and massed attacks that were sudden and unexpected. Mind you that Chinese troops were fond of bayonet fighting? No, it’s not a cheap replacement for a machinegun because you have some weird fetish for the East being some sort of orc horde of sauron.

@ParodyMao 然后您继续忽略了这把枪的其他方面。您谈到“改用机枪”，但忘记或忽略了——我认为后者对您更准确——这些部队进行的是近距离、快速、大规模的突然且出其不意的攻击。请注意中国军队喜欢拼刺刀吗？不，它不是机枪的廉价替代品，因为您对把东方视作是索伦兽人部落有某种奇怪的迷恋。

@ParodyMao
@Creles indeed, you seem to have missed the point. The ability for the to mass produce everything required to maintain a machine gun in any type of combat situation would be considered before adopting a weapons system. Everything from ammo ,to carrying pouches and how to get them there. Not to mention average life expectancy in the particular type of combat you are engaging in and who you are fighting. All of these are taken in to account when choosing a standard combat arm for say . Time , Difficulty and cost to manufacture. Moving forward, typically speaking the force who can have a larger volume of fire in any particular engagement will have the advantage before support can be called or help arrives. Defensive or offensive. The Type 50 is simply the best solution. Its easy and cheap. Try the same thing with say a Mp 38 or a Sunomi. It will simply not work in the state of industry. And to respond to poorly trained. Per capita compared to Western equivalents. And in no way am I saying there were not well equipped and trained units . There were, but they were not the norm. And yes they did use human wave attacks, not with any meaningful units which are discussed here which are the better equipped troops. But even here several frontal charges were mentioned and attempting to use superior volume of fire with a human wave to achieve success. And you should read or listen to some veterans of all sides of these conflicts. Very rarely do conscxts, penal and prisoner units get mentioned in official history because they are typically wiped out and erased from record sadly. So please do not take any type of offense sir. But Communism or any type of dictatorial regime is not friendly to human life. Mao said it him self," “When 900 million are left out of 2.9 billion, several five-year plans can be developed for the total elimination of capitalism and for permanent peace. It is not a bad thing". Human life is but a tool to them my friend.

@Creles 确实，您似乎没抓住要点。在采用任何武器系统之前，必须考虑大规模生产维持机枪在任何作战环境下所需一切的能力。从弹药到携带袋以及如何运到那里。更不用说您所参与的特定作战类型的平均寿命以及对手是谁。所有这些在选择标准作战武器时都会被考虑。时间、难度和制造成本。再往前说，通常在任何特定交战中，能提供更大火力密度的一方在支援到来前会占据优势。

无论防御还是进攻，50式就是最好的解决方案，它简单又便宜。试试用MP38或索米冲锋枪试试同样的事，在当时的工业条件下根本行不通，至于训练不足，是与西方同等部队相比的人均水平。我绝不是说没有装备精良、训练有素的部队。有，但不是常态。而且是的，他们确实使用了人海攻击，不是在这里讨论的那些更有装备的部队。但即使在这里也提到了几次正面冲锋，并试图用人海配合优越火力来取得成功。您应该读或听听这些冲突各方老兵的说法。征召兵、惩罚兵和囚犯部队在官方历史中很少被提及，因为他们通常被消灭并从记录中抹去，令人遗憾。

所以请不要生气，先生。但..主义或任何DC政权对人命并不友好。M自己说过：“当29亿人只剩下9亿时，可以制定几个五年计划来彻底消灭资本主义并实现永久和平。这不是坏事”。人命对他们来说只是工具，我的朋友。

@gussie88bunny
I'm with the pla.

我支持解放军。

@yogsothoth7594
They also often don't do much to advance your tactical goals if both sides simply happen to be patrolling in the area

如果双方只是碰巧在该区域巡逻，它们通常也不会对推进您的战术目标有太大帮助。

@aphroditeadams
Ten thousand years to Comrade Clower!

向克劳尔同志致以万岁！

@waynesworldofsci-tech
Ah, it’ll be a good evening. The Prof is back!

啊，这将是一个美好的夜晚。教授回来了！

@Itsjustavy
"yeah yeah its a nice gun but its no sks"
I imagine this is how it went

“ yeah yeah 这枪不错，但它不是SKS”
我猜当时就是这样说的。

@1232catfish
Watching the Chinese movie Battle at lake Chongjin again after finding this channel is so entertaining. My first time watching I laughed at how absurd the number of grenades they had on them at any given time was but it turns out that might have been an underestimate

找到这个频道后再次观看中国电影《长津湖之战》太有趣了。第一次看时我还笑他们身上随时携带的手榴弹数量有多荒谬，但现在看来那可能还是低估了。

@johnharker7194
I'm told that both belligerents in Ukraine have taken to hauling satchels of grenades with them everywhere they go. A GWOT American rifleman would typically carry just one or two as an insurance policy against being isolated and overrun by insurgents.

我听说乌克兰双方现在都习惯随身携带手榴弹包到处走。全球反恐战争时期的美国步兵通常只带一两枚，作为被孤立并被叛乱分子淹没时的保险。

@VictorianChinese1860
I can confirm that every Chinese school child does in fact know Qiu Shaoyun. In fact, every school child would know a litany of saints and martyrs composed of revolutionary heroes, each with a different “patronage” depends on their deeds.

我可以确认，每个中国小学生确实都知道邱少云。事实上，每个小学生都会知道一长串由革命英雄组成的圣人和烈士名单，每个人根据事迹有不同的“守护领域”。

@videowatcher621
I distinctly remember seeing Qiu Shaoyun's story in one of those thin, paperback 90s textbooks when skimming through the older grades' reading assignments. I also remember seeing an old black and white film depicting another martyr (Dong Cunrui) sacrificing himself during the Chinese Civil War.
I think of the famous PVA heroes Qiu Shaoyun and Huang Jiguang's stories are probably the ones that stood out the most to me when reading about the Korean conflict as a child.

我清楚地记得，在浏览高年级阅读作业时，在那些薄薄的90年代平装教材中看到过邱少云的故事。我还记得看过一部黑白老电影，描绘了另一位烈士（董存瑞）在中国内战期间的自我牺牲。
我想，在小时候阅读朝鲜战争时，最让我印象深刻的著名志愿军英雄大概就是邱少云和黄继光的那些故事了。

@VictorianChinese1860
@videowatcher621 In the 2000s the text about Qiu Shaoyun has been moved into the "supplementary readings" at the end of those thin paperback Chinese literature textbooks. It might have been brought back into the main portion of the textbooknowadays after their renewed effort of patriotic education in recent years.

@videowatcher621 在2000年代，关于邱少云的课文被移到了那些薄薄的平装中文文学教材末尾的“补充阅读”部分。最近几年爱国教育重新加强后，它可能又被放回了教材的主要部分。

@Bold_Ghost
yoooooo love your videos man

yoooooo 爱死你的视频了兄弟

@datadavis
is it true that the ***s dismembered and ate dissidents back then?

当时的***人真的肢解并吃掉异见者吗？(***政党或名字 上下同)

@johnharker7194
@datadavis I doubt if it did happen, that it was vindictive cannibalism. China has a rather rich history of having/manufacturing famine, and eating the dead was frequently recorded. I hesitate to say this because it will likely be misconstrued. but east Asian cultures don't have as much of a taboo regarding cannibalism as the west does. the donner party or the mignonette would still be seen as a tragedy to them, but their solution would not be negatively scrutinized to the same degree.
Same thing with Japan. I had to do a report on the history of their famines. and their historians seemed to have rated the severity of their famines by frequency of cannibalism in a matter of fact way.

@datadavis 我怀疑即使发生过，也不是报复性的食人。中国有相当丰富的人为或自然饥荒历史，吃死人的记录很常见。我犹豫是否要说这个，因为它很可能被误解。但东亚文化对食人的禁忌不像西方那么强。唐纳探险队或米尼奥内特号事件对他们来说仍会被视为悲剧，但他们的这个解决方案不会受到同等程度的负面审视。

日本也是如此。我曾经做过一份关于他们饥荒历史的报告，他们的历史学家似乎以食人发生的频率来实事求是地评定饥荒严重程度。

@JKJHVFY321
@datadavis It's highly likely false. They claim that cannibalism broke out in Guangxi at the time, but the official report stated that Red Guards attacked an armory and seized weapons, leading to street battles with conservatives. Countless civilians died in the chaos. Later, for reasons unknown, rumors of cannibalism began to circulate.

@datadavis 极有可能虚假。他们声称当时广西爆发了食人，但官方报告说红卫兵袭击了军械库并夺取武器，导致与保守派发生街头战斗。无数平民在混乱中死亡。后来不知何故，食人谣言开始流传。

@ЯнХай
@datadavis Humans really love projecting — just because they’ve done something evil, they assume everyone else has too.

@datadavis 人类真的很喜欢投射——仅仅因为他们做过坏事，就假设其他人也都做过。

@matthabir4837
That's devotion. That's discipline. That sort of stoicism is rare in any army.

那是奉献，那是纪律，那种坚忍在任何军队中都很少见。

@StacheMan26
In fairness, Soviet built PPSh drum magazines, although they would generally feed all 71 rounds, at least when they were new, were never truly interchangeable between guns and I highly doubt the extra jank and inevitably looser tolerances of the Type 50 improved that situation. The surety that a box magazine would actually lock into and reliably feed any given gun was almost certainly the correct choice.

公平地说，苏联制造的波波莎弹鼓虽然通常能打完71发，至少新的时候如此，但从未真正能在枪支间互换，我非常怀疑50式额外的粗糙和必然更松的公差能否改善这种情况。盒式弹匣能确实锁定并可靠地供弹给任何一把枪，这几乎肯定是正确的选择。

@onecertainordinarymagician
If you go by the Type 50 that Ian from forgotten weapons got, the Type 50 has a better finish than the war emergency PPShs, so I doubt it's the quality, but just 71 round drums being a bad idea, irrc even Suomis could never really fix it.

如果你看Forgotten Weapons的Ian拿到的那把50式，它的做工比战争紧急时期的波波莎更好，所以我怀疑不是质量问题，而只是71发弹鼓本身就是个坏主意，据我回忆即使索米也从未真正解决这个问题。
【译注：索米，索米M1931冲锋枪，二十年代末，芬兰研制成功并列装的一款冲锋枪，采用72（70）发弹鼓】

@thehappywanker4298
My type 50 is distinctly not a direct copy of the Ppsh41. The bolt has a taller running height than the 41. This was discovered when I tried swapping bolts. I was fortunate to find Don Bell in Tucson had type 50 parts. Rest in peace Don...

我的那把50式显然不是直接仿制的Ppsh41式。枪机的运行高度比41高。这是在我尝试更换枪机时发现的。我很幸运地发现图森的唐·贝尔有50型零件。安息吧，唐……

@johnharker7194
even when drum magazines function well, the bulk they add to the serviceman and the weight they add to the service weapon make them unsuitable for most applications. look at the magpul 60 round drum, it is about as reliable a drum magazine as you can find. but when you take it's dimensions into account, it takes up the same amount of volume as 4-6 30 round stick mags. you are far better off with the brief intermission of fire from the mag swap than trying to festoon yourself with drum mags to match the same amount of rounds you can carry with sticks

即使弹鼓功能良好，它们给士兵增加的体积和给武器增加的重量也使它们不适合大多数应用。看看马格普的60发弹鼓，它几乎是你能找到的最可靠的弹鼓。但考虑到它的尺寸，它占用的体积相当于4-6个30发直弹匣。你宁可短暂中断射击换弹匣，也不要试图用弹鼓把自己挂满来匹配直弹匣能携带的相同子弹数量。

@loganvanderwier8866
Interestingly, most every country that had drum mags and that found in WW2 abandoned drum mags for SMGs, and nobody adopted one after the war. The soviets, and the Americans found that stick mags were just much better suited for soldiers than complex and heavy drum mags.

有趣的是，大多数在二战中使用过弹鼓的国家后来都放弃了冲锋枪的弹鼓，战后也没人采用。苏联人和美国人都发现直弹匣比复杂而沉重的弹鼓更适合士兵。

@zombieranger3410
The Pps-43 was in general a direct upgrade over the Ppsh. Not only was it standardized in the 35 round stick mags, but also had a good magwell to grip while shooting, slightly slower fire rate, and was (I believe) 2.5x cheaper than a Ppsh, with more stamped parts. Even the besieged Leningrad was able to pump out Pps-42s (essentially the same gun) out of the surviving industry and rather directly into the frontline. The real only drawback is the folding stock getting standardized, which was good for tank crews and tight quarters fighting, but much worse than a wood stock for distance fighting. It is one of my favorite guns of all time, turning something utilitarian into something even more utilitarian, yet was overall designed very well, far better than most Sten guns and other $2 open-bolt SMGs of the time.

PPSh-43总体上是PPSh的直接升级。它不仅标准化使用35发直弹匣，射击时还有良好的弹匣井去握持，射速稍慢，而且（我相信）比PPSh便宜2.5倍，使用更多冲压零件。即使被围困的列宁格勒也能用残存的工业能力大量生产PPSh-42（本质上是同一把枪）并直接送上前线。唯一真正的缺点是标准化了折叠枪托，这对坦克乘员和狭窄空间作战很好，但远距离作战时远不如木枪托。

它是我有史以来最喜欢的枪之一，把实用东西变成了更实用的东西，但整体设计非常出色，远胜于当时大多数斯登枪和其他2美元成本的开放枪机式冲锋枪。

@kennys9644
This is true even today. Drum magazines for just about any firearm can be expected to produce malfunctions.

即使在今天也是如此。几乎任何枪械的弹鼓也都可能出现故障。

@GeorgHaeder
The only post-war weapon I know with a drum mag were the Soviet RPK light machine guns and the drum mag of the RPK was later replaced with box magazines for all the known reasons.

我所知道的战后唯一使用弹鼓的武器是苏联RPK轻机枪，而RPK的弹鼓后来因众所周知的原因被盒式弹匣取代。

@xuansu9036
@GeorgHaeder ironically, the light machine gun in the type 95 rifle family uses drum mag. Which has the extra weirdness factor of a big drum right next to shooter's face.

@GeorgHaeder 讽刺的是，中国95式步枪族的轻机枪使用弹鼓。这还有个额外诡异之处，就是一个大弹鼓就在射手的脸旁边。

@GeorgHaeder
@xuansu9036 Just looked it up and my first reaction was WTF were they thinking. Must be fun to shoot that thing while the drum mag is punching you in the face.

@xuansu9036 我刚查了下，第一反应是他们到底在想什么。边射击边被弹鼓打脸一定很有趣。

@zombieranger3410
@GeorgHaeder Would the Bizon count, or nah? Because I also remember North Korea using a helical Bizon-style magazine for some family of AKs.

@GeorgHaeder 野牛算吗？因为我还记得朝鲜对某些AK族使用螺旋野牛式弹匣。

@GeorgHaeder
@zombieranger3410 The PP-19 Bizon's helical mag most likely had the same issues as the classic drum mags, which could be the reason why they went back to box mags with the PP-19 Vityaz.

@zombieranger3410 PP-19 野牛冲锋枪的螺旋弹匣很可能和经典弹鼓有同样问题，这可能是他们后来用PP-19 Vityaz回归盒式弹匣的原因。

@Weberkooks
Just the ergonomics are bad, but the logistics are unacceptable

仅仅人体工程学就很差，后勤更是无法接受。

@jopeteus
They're awkward to carry compared to stick magazines

与直弹匣相比，它们携带起来很尴尬。

@cadavisiii
Thank you for displaying the cross on your bookshelf, brother

谢谢你在书架上展示十字架，兄弟。

@servicerifle16
This is probably what my grandfather carried in Korea. He captured it from a North Korean or Chinese soldier. He didn't know what it was called, he just called it a "Russian burp gun" but when he described it it seemed like it was a PPSH41. He liked that you can quickly just hose an area with bullets.

这可能就是我祖父在朝鲜携带的武器。他从北朝鲜或中国士兵那里缴获的。他不知道叫什么，就叫它“俄罗斯喷枪”，但根据他的描述看起来像是PPSh41。他喜欢它能快速的向一个区域扫射子弹。

@USS_Liberty911
The famous "Burp Gun" also had a psychological affect on the receiving team.

著名的“打嗝枪”对接收方也有心理影响。

@davidk6269
18:32 Wow, this tale of sacrifice and extreme stoicism and commitment to duty was very moving. 邱少云 was a true hero.

18:32 哇，这个关于牺牲、极端坚忍和职责奉献的故事非常感人。邱少云是一位真正的英雄。

@Dankruptcy-u1o
My neighbor fought in Korea from the Pusan Perimeter to mid-1952 and he would say how pissed everyone in his unit was when they encountered PVA soldiers equipped with Thompsons. I imagine it was probably a mixture of Lend-Lease aid to the KMT & domestic production from the Taiyuan arsenal under Yan xishan but now I am curious if the pla delved into new production of them post-Civil War?

我的邻居从釜山环形防线一直打到1952年中，他会说当他们遇到装备汤普森冲锋枪的志愿军士兵时，整个连队的人都气疯了。我猜可能是租借法案援助给国民党的加上阎锡山太原兵工厂的国产，但现在我很好奇解放军在内战后是否重新生产过它们？

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
Not to my knowledge, but now that you mention it, that would be about that time that the pla ran low on Soviet import guns and were forced to bring their Civil War relic guns out of storage again and issue them in Korea!

据我所知不是，但既然你提到这一点，那大概就是中国人民解放军的苏联进口枪支快用完，被迫再次从仓库里拿出内战时期的老枪并在朝鲜配发！

@ianwhitchurch864
The Thompson SMG is an exceptionally expensive weapon. Every WW2 military that had access to the Thompson - USA, UK, Australia - switched to something cheaper - burp gun, Sten, Owen. I would be utterly amazed if the industrially challenged pla built the Thompson.

汤普森冲锋枪是一种极其昂贵的武器。二战期间所有能拿到汤普森的军队——美国、英国、澳大利亚——都换成了更便宜的东西——打嗝枪、斯登、欧文枪。要是工业基础薄弱的中国人民解放军自己制造了汤普森，我会震惊到不行。

@tomorin233
My great grandfather and his brothers were KMT officers and spies during ww2 and they greeted the Soviets in Manchuria. They later joined the communist but got struggled because they’re intellectuals lol. Love your stuff comrade professor, keep em coming!

我的曾祖父和他的兄弟们在二战期间是国民党军官和间谍，他们在满洲迎接了苏联人。后来他们加入了共产党，但因为是知识分子而被批斗了。爱你的内容，同志教授，继续出视频吧！

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
Amazing!!! Honest to goodness, I hope all the Chinese families out there are recording ALL the family stories from the 20th century. There's SO much solid-gold oral history out there, just waiting to be captured!!

太棒了！！！说真的，我希望所有中国家庭都在记录20世纪的家族故事，那里面有太多金子般的口述历史，就等着被捕捉下来！！

@pabloapplebaum8829
Finally something to watch while I eat

终于有东西可以边吃边看了

@quickhistories6747
I've been following Indy Neidell's series on the Korean War, and seeing these personal stories from the Chinese perspective is so cool!

我一直在追Indy Neidell的朝鲜战争系列，看到这些来自中国视角的个人故事太酷了！

@ВасилийКашин-х5ф
Soviets have also started to produce PPSh-41 35-round curved magazines as early as 1942. However, these magazines have never fully replace drums. They co-existed with drums until 1945, but were more popular than the drums by 1944. The reasons were the same you mentioned for the pla. Drums were heavy, less reliable. Another bad feature of the drums, even the Soviet drums: sometimes the drums from different SMGs did not fit, so you could not always take a drum from your comrade and fit it to your SMG. There was also a reason for the Soviets to keep the production of the drums for so long. The key element of the drum is the flat spiral mainspring which was very similar the the one which was used in the wind up gramophone production (although spring force would be different and design simpler). So you could rely on pre-war gramophone production you already had capacity to make drum magazines. In the late WWII Soviet military PPSh-41 were also gradually replacing rifles to the point than likely more than half of infantrymen had them.

苏联早在1942年就开始生产PPSh-41的35发弧形弹匣了。不过这些弹匣从未完全取代弹鼓。它们与弹鼓共存到1945年，但到1944年已经比弹鼓更受欢迎。原因和你给解放军说的完全一样：弹鼓太重，可靠性差。弹鼓还有另一个坏毛病，即使是苏联弹鼓也是：不同冲锋枪的弹鼓有时不兼容，所以你不一定能从战友那里拿一个弹鼓装到自己的枪上。

苏联人长时间继续生产弹鼓也是有原因的。弹鼓的关键部件是扁平螺旋主簧，和当时发条留声机用的弹簧非常相似（虽然弹力不同、但设计更简单）。所以他们可以依靠战前已有的留声机生产能力来制造弹鼓。二战后期苏联军队中PPSh-41也在逐步取代步枪，到最后很可能一半以上的步兵都装备了它。

@DaSverdanja
Drum mags are also annoying to carry on your body and rattle a lot

弹鼓背在身上也很烦人，而且会咔咔响个不停

@polkbritton
Great video as always! My great uncle fought at Triangle Hill with the 32nd Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division and was wounded.

一如既往的精彩视频！我的叔祖父曾在三角山和第7步兵师第32步兵团一起战斗过，并且负伤了。

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
I'm grateful that he made it home.

我很感激他平安回家了。

@lancelotd.9342
mondays are complicated, but not as complicated as having your position stormed by a pla smg section
thank you comrade proffessor

星期一很复杂，但还没复杂到被中国人民解放军冲锋枪小队冲阵那么复杂.
谢谢你，同志教授

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
Really and truly thank you, that is exactly the mental refrx I needed before the work week. I'm not even kidding!

真的非常感谢你，这正是我开工前需要的心理重构。我不是在开玩笑！

@09huangr
Just curious, is it "reverse engineered" or "licensed-produced"? If it's indeed the former, why not reverse engineer the PPS-43, which is EVEN MORE simpler and should suit PVA's requirement even better? Anyway, enjoy your content, good health to Professor Jason!

只是好奇，是“逆向工程”还是“授权生产”？如果真是前者，为什么不逆向PPS-43呢，它更简单，应该更适合志愿军的需求？总之，喜欢你的内容，祝Jason教授身体健康！

@alancranford3398
Comrade Professor Clower could have just changed the Chinese Army to the American Army and the story would have been the same. After fighting in Korea where close-up and personal fighting was the rule, where long-range rifle fire was mere harassment, both Chinese and American armies adopted a semiautomatic rifle for their basic arm. And--in their next wars, their pet project (Chinese SKS versus US M14) was found wanting. In Vietnam, the Vietnamese learned that "the other Type 56," the Chinese AK-47, was more effective and more flexible than the Chinese SKS--just like the US Army learned that the M16 was more effective and more flexible than the M14.
The writing had been on the wall for US forces since the Banana Wars (1898 to 1934) and for China since the Boxer Rebellion---small unit tactics were necessary when modern weapons (artillery fire mostly, with the machine gun dominating at rifle distances) mandated 'disperse or die.' Brigade-sized close-order battle formations dominated until the mid-19th Century when rifled muskets and massed field artillery extended combat distances. Repeating rifles and machine guns--and pre-registered indirect artillery fire--made units larger than a half-squad suicidal. This drove two one-man weapon systems--the rifle grenade and the submachine gun. The SMG fired a pistol round, which permitted the one-man machine gun to be lightweight (about the weight of a standard infantry rifle), controllable in automatic fire, and the simple mechanism was cheap to produce (especially when simplified for mass production). This enabled a six-man squad to defeat an entire rifle company (nominally 100 men) at close range by sheer fire volume, especially when hand and rifle grenades were added to the mix.
But, as the good professor points out, institutional self-image is an important factor in military procurement and especially in military doctrine. Too proud to win wars is a repeating theme. America had a frontier tradition and until World War One its frontier army fighting horse-mounted irregulars didn't have much use for Gatling guns and field artillery. China's long civil war was interrupted by Imperial Japan conquering large swaths of China--and bringing firepower that China had to counter by dispersed operations in squad-sized actions. America's National Rifle Association formed in 1871 because when rifled muskets replaced smooth bore muskets and rifle companies could rain down area fire on enemy formations at distances of half a mile, the dismal marksmanship of the average conscxts or volunteers became a glaring issue. Patterned after Britain's NRA, the American NRA started off as a military rifle marksmanship club--and went broke until it reinvented itself as a hunting club in the 1920's. Still, the American NRA's imprint on military rifle marksmanship continues with the Marine Corps KD rifle course shooting the M27 at distances of 200, 300 and 500 meters (with infantry Marines receiving more training).
I prattle that weapon adoption is 90% political, 9% logistics, and 1% battlefield effectiveness. The story of the Type 50 submachine gun supports my notion. Like America's infatuation with long-range rifle fire, Chinese obsession with long-range rifle fire was only part of battlefield reality. I collect vintage and reprinted firearms training material and last month I obtained a reprint FM 23-71 Rifle Marksmanship Course Trainfire I (September 1957) manual to go along with my commercial reprint of FM 3-22.9 US Army Rifle Marksmanship M16/M4 (May 2016). Both manuals reflect wartime experience--but for some strange reason close combat (defined today as under 50 meters) is still an advanced rifleman skill--not a basic skill. The shortest distance for rifle qualification is 50 meters on the latest TRAINFIRE course. Automatic fire "wastes ammo," and I complain that the bureaucrats want to sell rifles "never fired, dropped once" to our enemies along with a full basic load. I'm a retired soldier (has been, if I ever was) and experienced as a military armorer and small arms instructor. I'm certified as an NRA Basic Rifle instructor--and Range Safety Officer. And I study the past so that I can pass on those lessons to the current generation.
Submachine guns have shortcomings. Many of my heroes disparage the submachine gun as a low-class weapon for illiterate thugs who cannot be trained to shoot, who will dump a dozen bullets downrange when one well-aimed shot SHOULD do. Fictional Matt Helm (by Donald Hamilton) was a rifleman first--and in The Wrecking Crew used a Swedish K police-model submachine gun because that's what was available. Real world heroes include John T. Thompson--he was on the board that developed the M1903 Springfield rifle to replace the .30-40 Krag. Thompson was half of the team that tested pistol cartridges in 1904 and recommended the .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol for adoption--which became the M1911 and M1911A1 pistol. And John T. Thompson's one-man machine gun, the M1921 submachine gun, made the Twenties roar. As early as 1904, Thompson and LeGarde demonstrated that for close-quarter ambush the soldier needed hard-hitting rapid-fire weaponry, and Thompson's "trench broom" wasn't finished in time for the First World War. Marines made effective use of the tommy gun during the Banana Wars and while guarding the US Mail--and during WW2 turned their rifle squads into BAR squads (the M1918A2 Automatic Rifle or Browning Automatic Rifle) with three of those monsters in each squad. One reason Chinese soldiers were more leery of Marine Corps squads than US Army squads was a greater proportion of automatic weaponry. The distain for the submachine gun is a political factor that delayed adoption of the intermediate rifle cartridge and sext-fire assault rifles in the world's militaries--including China and the USA.
China had more problems--a simple submachine gun was cutting edge--plus there is a training issue. If you don't train your soldiers in rifle marksmanship, giving them a magic boom stick won't meet expectations. Getting hardware is only part of the battle.

克劳尔教授同志只要把“中国军队”换成“美国军队”，故事就完全一样了。在朝鲜战场上，近距离面对面战斗才是常态，远距离步枪射击只是骚扰而已，中美两国军队后来都把半自动步枪作为基本武器。而在下一场战争中，他们各自的宠儿（中国SKS对美国M14）都被证明不够用。在越南，越南人发现“另一种56式”——中国AK-47比中国SKS更有效、更灵活，正如美军发现M16比M14更有效、更灵活一样。

从香蕉战争（1898-1934）开始，美国军队就该看清这一点；而中国从义和团运动起就该明白——当现代武器（主要是炮火，机枪在步枪距离上占主导）要求“分散否则死亡”时，小单位战术就变得必要了。直到19世纪中叶，线膛步枪和密集野战炮兵拉长了交战距离之前，旅级密集队形一直占主导。连发步枪、机枪以及预先标定的间接炮火，让超过半个班的单位冲锋都变成自杀行为。

这催生了两种单兵武器系统——步枪榴弹和冲锋枪。冲锋枪使用手枪弹，让单人机枪重量轻（大约和标准步枪一样），自动射击可控，而且结构简单、成本低（尤其简化后适合大批量生产）。这让一个六人班能在近距离用纯粹火力击败整个步枪连（名义上有100人），尤其是再加上手榴弹和步枪榴弹。
但是，正如教授指出的，组织的自我形象在军事采购尤其是军事学说中是非常重要的因素。“太骄傲以至于打不赢战争”是一个反复出现的主题。美国有边疆传统，直到一战前，其边疆军队对付骑马的非正规军时，对加特林机枪和野战炮都没什么兴趣。中国漫长的内战被日本帝国征服大片领土打断——日本带来了火力，中国只能用班级规模的分散作战来应对。

美国全国步枪协会（NRA)1871年成立，是因为当线膛步枪取代滑膛枪、步枪连能在半英里外对敌军阵型进行面积射击时，普通征召兵或志愿兵糟糕的射击水平成了大问题。仿照英国NRA，美国NRA最初是一个军事步枪射击俱乐部——后来破产，直到20世纪20年代重新定位为狩猎俱乐部。但美国NRA对军队步枪射击的影响至今仍在继续，比如海军陆战队KD步枪课程用M27在200、300、500米距离射击（步兵陆战队员接受更多训练）。

我啰嗦一句：武器的采用90%是政治，9%是后勤，1%是战场效能。50式冲锋枪的故事支持了我的观点。就像美国迷恋远距离步枪射击一样，中国对远距离步枪射击的执着也只是战场现实的一部分。我收集了老式和重印的火器训练资料，上个月拿到了一本重印的FM 23-71《步枪射击课程Trainfire I》（1957年9月），和我的商业重印版FM 3-22.9《美军步枪射击M16/M4》（2016年5月）一起用。两本手册都反映了战时经验——但不知为何，近战（今天定义为50米以内）仍然是高级步枪手技能，而不是基础技能。最新TRAINFIRE课程中步枪资格的最短距离是50米。自动射击“浪费弹药”，我抱怨官僚们想把“从未开过火、只掉落过一次”的步枪连同全基本装弹量一起卖给敌人。

我是个退伍军人（曾经是，如果算的话），有军事军械士和小武器教官经验。我有NRA基础步枪教官认证——以及射击场安全官认证。我研究过去，就是为了把这些教训传给现在这一代。
冲锋枪有缺点。我的很多英雄都鄙视冲锋枪，认为它是给不识字的暴徒用的低级武器，他们无法被训练成会瞄准射击的人，会一口气打出去十几发子弹，而一发精准射击本该就够了。虚构人物Matt Helm（唐纳德·汉密尔顿笔下）首先是个步枪手——在《破坏小组》里用了瑞典警用K型冲锋枪，因为当时只有那个可用。现实英雄包括John T. Thompson——他参与了开发M1903 Springfield步枪替换.30-40 Krag的委员会。Thompson的人占1904年测试手枪弹团队的一半，并推荐采用.45口径半自动手枪——这就是后来的M1911和M1911A1。John T. Thompson的单人机枪M1921冲锋枪让20年代轰鸣起来。

早在1904年，Thompson和LeGarde就证明，在近距离伏击中士兵需要强力速射武器，而Thompson的“战壕扫帚”没来得及赶上第一次世界大战。海军陆战队在香蕉战争和守卫美国邮件期间有效使用了汤米枪——二战期间把他们的步枪班变成了BAR班（M1918A2自动步枪或勃朗宁自动步枪），每个班三把这种怪物。中国士兵比美军士兵更怕海军陆战队班的原因之一，就是后者自动武器比例更高。对冲锋枪的轻视是一个政治因素，它延缓了中间型步枪弹和可选射击突击步枪在世界各国军队（包括中国和美国）的采用。

中国的问题更多——一款简单的冲锋枪已经是尖端技术了——此外还有训练问题。如果你不训练士兵步枪射击，给他们一根魔法爆竹是达不到预期的。拿到硬件只是战斗的一部分。

@BlackCat-tc2tv
Too long, did read. And thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you for writing all this.

太长了，但我读完了。而且非常享受。谢谢你写了这一切。

@ColtA13
Another pain point of drum magazines: They're more awkward to store in / retrieve from a pouch than a couple of stick mags.

弹鼓的另一个痛点：比起几支直弹匣，把它们存进/从弹袋里拿出来更麻烦。

@askelnard6655
10:46 soviet made ППШ-41 didn't like drum magazines ether. They weren't interchangeble between guns

苏联造的PPsh-41也不喜欢弹鼓。它们在枪支之间不能互换.

@kaihuaz
Didn't expect it to lead to qiu shaoyun. I can confirm 100% every Chinese school kid knows this, along with 2 other 'sainted' if you will, Chinese war heroes from the Korean war. I can also confirm a lot of Chinese, after they grow up, think those stories are 100% bs.

没想到会讲到邱少云。我可以100%确认每个中国小学生都知道这个故事，还有另外两位可以“封圣”的朝鲜战争中的中国英雄。我也可以确认，很多中国人长大后都觉得这些故事100%是扯淡。


@dobridjordje
Jason, you should do Type 38/99 in the pla/PVA service, I heard it was the weapon mostly used at Chosin Reservoir next to smgs. Appreciated for its accuracy and flat firing capabilities.

Jason，你应该做一期关于解放军/志愿军使用的38/99式步枪，我听说在长津湖水库那是除了冲锋枪外用得最多的武器。因为精度高和平直射击能力而备受赞赏。

@yup162
i’m imagining the coolest alternate timeline where i can buy a type 50 for like $650 just like a type 56 today

我正在想象一个最酷的平行时空，我能像今天买56式那样花650美元买到50式

@jasonisbored6679
For real where can you find a type 56 for that today?

说真的，现在哪里还能花那个价钱买到56式？

@johnharker7194
you used to be able to buy a type 50 for a C-note up until the mid 2000s.

直到2000年代中期，你还能用100美元买到一把50式。

@askelnard6655
Glad you're better, it's good to listen to your lectures again!
8:23 Soviets copied Suomi smg with their ППД-38, then decided it's too expensive to produce, so they simplified it and get themselves a ППШ-41.

很高兴你好起来了，又能听你的讲座真好！
8:23 苏联用他们的PPsh-38复制了索米冲锋枪，然后觉得生产太贵，于是简化后搞出了PPsh-41。

@DatCheese
Yeah scroll down looking for this. So Chinese Papasha came from Soviet Suomi.

对，我往下翻就是找这个。所以中国版“波波莎”其实来自苏联的索米。

@lentlemenproductions770
Chinese Suomi

中国索米

@konst80hum
Thank you, Professor!
a worker.

谢谢您，教授！
一名工人。

@CarlWilcox-w4w
Thanks for being a great professor, Clover
Always been interested in history but I never thought I'd be binging obscure pla history & minutiae
Way to make it interesting, comrade

谢谢你，这么棒的教授.
我一直对历史感兴趣，但从没想过我会狂刷晦涩的中国人民解放军历史和细节
你让它变得有趣极了，同志

@michaelbeams9553
As a kid working for Uncle Sam , I was able to examine / handle / fire both a Type 50 and a PPSH - 41 . The manufacturing tolerances and Q.C. of the Type 50 were far below that of the PPSH - 41 . The Type 50 did go bang every time you pulled the trigger . In both the drums were a monumental pain in the butt to load and maintain .

小时候为山姆大叔工作时，我有机会检查/操作/射击过50式和PPSh-41。50式的制造公差和质量控制远低于PPSh-41。50式每次扣扳机都响。在两种枪上，弹鼓装弹和维护都痛苦得要命。

@haroldellis9721
I couldn't see it at the Beijing Military Museum, because it was closed when I was there.

我在北京军事博物馆没看到它，因为我去的时候闭馆了。

@cannonfodder4376
Splendidly informative as always, Comrade Clower.
Glad to see Mao Zedong Thought has seen you through your brush with the counter revolutionary attempt on your life.
Such foul treachery of attacking you via your unwitting son. I am glad all is well.

一如既往地信息丰富，克劳尔同志。
很高兴看到毛泽东思想帮你度过了反革命对你生命的袭击。
通过你不知情的儿子攻击你，这种卑鄙的背叛。我很高兴一切都好。

@theayeguy5226
Another awesome history lesson, very interestingly delivered! Glad you are feeling better Comrade Instructor!

又一堂精彩的历史课，讲得非常有趣！很高兴看到你好起来了，同志教官！

@omahadreaming5432
The story of qiu shaoyun sounded really familar, and as the story went on it dawned on me thst my dad told me this story before (his version was that a flare hit him not artillery shrapnel) So seems like every Chinese kid did learn this in school

邱少云的故事听起来好熟悉，随着故事继续讲下去，我突然意识到我爸以前给我讲过这个故事（他的版本是说信号弹打中了他，不是炮弹碎片）。所以看来每个中国小孩确实都在学校学过这个故事。

@aps125
So you’re telling me the PVA basically borrowed a chapter from the Stalingrad playbook? Chiukov comes up with “hugging the enemy” to cancel out air power and artillery, and suddenly I’m sitting here thinking, “Yep… of course they did.” Honestly, I don’t even know why I’m pretending to be surprised at this point.

所以你是说志愿军基本上是从斯大林格勒的剧本里抄了一章？崔可夫提出“拥抱敌人”来抵消空中力量和炮兵，然后我突然坐在这里想，“是啊……他们当然这么做了。”老实说，我甚至不知道我为什么还要假装惊讶。

@Flyinghigh888
The Chinese prefer the 35 rounds curved box magazine instead the 71 rounds drum magazine due to reliability. The drum magazine does jammed occasionally.

中国人因为可靠性原因更喜欢35发弧形盒式弹匣，而不是71发弹鼓。弹鼓偶尔会卡壳。

@DPRK_Best_Korea
The PPSh was about the same weight as any standard infantry rifle from the time. Similarly, most modern military submachine guns are within the 6-8 pound weight range that modern service rifles also inhabit.

PPSh的重量和当时任何标准步兵步枪差不多。同样，大多数现代军用冲锋枪重量都在6-8磅范围内，和现代制式步枪一样。

@unknownceleb7636
For the algorithm!

记号，为了算法！

@alexchapman3995
I'm currious if there's a reason why the pla adopted an adaptation of the PPSH-41 instead of the PPS-43. The PPS-43 was just a PPSH-41 that was better optimized for manufacture. The PPS-43 was lighter, used less material, and took half as much time to manufacture compared to its predecessor. The PPS-43 even got rid of a wooden butstock which I would imagine would have saved costs in China. Did they simply lack the means to do sheet mental stamping or was there some other reason the pla chose the PPSH-41 over the 43?

我很好奇为什么解放军采用PPSH-41的改型而不是PPS-43。PPS-43是PPSH-41的制造优化版，它更轻、用料更少、制造时间只有前者的一半。PPS-43甚至去掉了木枪托，我猜这在中国能节省成本。他们只是缺乏金属冲压手段吗，还是解放军选择PPSH-41而不是43有其他原因？

@onecertainordinarymagician
The Type 50 was reversed engeneered from leftover Soviet PPSH in Manchuria, and because of the wooden stock, it can utilise some of the leftover facilities used by the Japanese to produce Arisakas. They would, in fact, replace the Type 50 with the Type 54 (Chinese-produced PPS-43) after receiving the technical package for those.

50式是在满洲用苏联剩余的PPSh逆向工程的，因为有木枪托，它可以利用日本人生产有坂步枪的剩余设备。事实上，在收到技术包后，他们后来用54式（中国产PPS-43）替换了50式。

@ВасилийКашин-х5ф
@onecertainordinarymagician it was never reverse engineered. They were given licenses by the Soviet government. And they had license production of PPS too. PPS was not an assault infantry SMG . It was lighter , smaller effective range etc. In the Soviet military it went to recon units , tank crews etc.

@onecertainordinarymagician 它从来不是逆向工程。苏联政府给了他们许可证。他们也有PPS的许可生产。PPS不是突击步兵冲锋枪，它更轻、有效射程更小等等。在苏联军队中它配发给侦察单位、坦克乘员等。

@xuansu9036
That's because Soviet unx gave a large amount of PPSH-41 to pla after WWII, but only a small amount of PPS-43. pla already set up factory to copy PPSh-41 during the civil war period. So it's much easier to continue production and expand it for the Korean war. PPS-43 was copied after Korean war designated as Type 54 submachine gun.

那是因为二战后苏联给了中国人民解放军大量PPSh-41，只有少量PPS-43。解放军在内战时期就已经建厂仿制PPSh-41。所以继续生产并为朝鲜战争扩大产量要容易得多。PPS-43是在朝鲜战争后才仿制的，定型为54式冲锋枪。

@onecertainordinarymagician
@xuansu9036 Not really a large amount. There are some NAJUA units that retreated into the USSR that were issued with the PPSh, but there is no real evidence of a sizeable transfer of PPSh from the Soviet unx to the communists. The main types of SMGs used by the communists during the civil war are captured nationalist ones.

@xuansu9036 其实没有那么多。有一些退入苏联的东北抗联配发了PPSh，但没有真实证据显示苏联向共产党大规模移交PPSh。内战期间共产党使用的主要冲锋枪类型是缴获的国民党武器。

@alexchapman3995
@xuansu9036 Ah I see. I'm guessing the pla ditched the Type 54 in favor of the Type 56 pretty fast, hence why they never mass adopted the Type 54.

@xuansu9036 啊我明白了。我猜解放军很快就放弃54式转而采用56式，所以他们从未大规模装备54式。

@huiouyang2003
I am Chinese, and I will try to answer your question. In the early days of the Soviet unx, Stalin provided much of the weaponry from World War II. The Chinese communist army was unfamiliar with Soviet weaponry and likely used whatever was provided. During the use of the PPSH-41, Chinese soldiers found it too heavy, especially with drum magazines. Chinese soldiers were generally not as strong as Soviet soldiers, making it impossible to carry drum magazines during assaults or marches; they could only carry two. Furthermore, using drum magazines consumed too much ammunition. China was very poor at the time and wanted to save money. Later, they requested a change to the PPS-43. At that time, China lacked heavy industry, especially weapons manufacturing. It was during the Korean War that China imported 156 large projects from the Soviet government, including the production of SPK and AK rifles.

我是中国人，我试着回答你的问题。当年苏联斯大林提供武器装备的初期给的很多都是二战时期的旧装备。中共军队对于苏联武器并不熟悉。估计是给什么就使用什么。
在使用PPSH-41的过程中，中共军人发现PPSH-41太重，尤其是使用弹鼓，中国军人普遍不如苏联军人强壮，无法手持弹鼓冲锋作战和携带行军时也只能携带二个弹鼓。而且使用弹鼓对于子弹消耗量太大。中国当时很穷。想省钱。后来向苏联提出更换成PPS-43。当时中国没有重工业，尤其没有武器工业。都是在朝鲜战争过程中向苏联政府引进了156个大项目。其中包括生产SPK，AK等等

@ВасилийКашин-х5ф
@huiouyang2003 156 projects were part of the 1st five years plan and started in 1953 when the Korean war was almost over. The first generation of the pla firearms which consisted basically of the Soviet WWII weapons (PPSh, PPS, pattern 1944 carbine, DPM, DShK, TT) produced under licences transferred in 1949-1950 .

@huiouyang2003 156个项目是第一个五年计划的一部分，1953年开始，那时朝鲜战争差不多结束了。解放军第一代武器基本上就是苏联二战武器（PPSh、PPS、1944卡宾枪、DPM、DShK、TT），根据1949-1950年转让的许可证生产的。

@huiouyang2003
@ВасилийКашин-х5ф The Chinese government has stated this period of history clearly, yet also vaguely! Moreover, it has been actively promoting and de-promoting this history in response to changes in international and domestic politics. The facts are clear, but different official or semi-official interpretations have emerged at different times. Often, even popular rumors have been used to propagate this history. The former Soviet unx and Russia, on the other hand, did not promote this history at all; even their attempts to do so were ineffective. Later, the Chinese government claimed domestically that the period of economic hardship and famine was caused by Soviet debt collection (specifically, loans for Soviet weapons during the Korean War). Later still, it was said that Kim Il-sung of North Korea and Stalin of the Soviet unx jointly dragged China into the Korean War. Therefore, I am not entirely clear about the specifics of this matter.

@ВасилийКашин-х5ф 中国政府对于这一段历史说的很清楚，但是！又说的很不清楚！而且随着国际政治和国内政治的变化都在时而全力宣传时而不宣传这一段历史。事实很清楚，但是，不同时期都有不同的官方或者半官方的解释。甚至很多时候都是民间谣言为主对这段历史进行宣传。而前苏联和俄罗斯方面也是根本不宣传，即使是宣传和解释也无法达到任何效果。

后来，中国政府对内宣传经济不好，饿死人的时期说是前苏联逼债（就是朝鲜战争期间的苏联武器的借款）造成的。后来又说是北朝鲜金日成和苏联斯大林联手把中国拖进朝鲜战争。所以，我也不是很清楚这个事情的具体情况。

@sigmar2331
I like to know what happened to thompsons smg and uncunny copy of them after the civil war did the pla use them in the Korean War?

我想知道内战后汤普森冲锋枪和它们的山寨仿制品怎么样了，解放军在朝鲜战争中用过它们吗？

@rudi_tabootie
These videos are invaluable to me.

这些视频对我来说无比珍贵。

@Hanferd
For me, pla iconic gun would be the "Box Cannon" handgun that also function as a mini submachine gun

对我来说，解放军标志性枪械是“盒子炮”手枪，它还能当迷你冲锋枪用。

@davidh5903
"the SLOPES were already so shredded.."
Woah, did not expect that kind of language on this channel!

“山坡已经被炸得稀烂……”
哇，没想到这个频道会用这种语言！

@daddust
I played with an inert one in high school in Poland. The crazy days of the 90s. It has a satisfying weight. If you’re storming a trench I don’t think it’s too heavy and has the ideal length for close combat plus you can hit somebody satisfactorily with it. No bayonet though.

我在波兰上高中时玩过一把报废的。90年代的疯狂日子。它重量很舒服。如果你冲战壕，我觉得它不算太重，长度适合近战，而且可以用它好好砸人。只是没有刺刀。

@scottr.looney1774
i love your stories but i have to say wow the chronology is all over the place. as a student in your course i would be pretty confused by the fairly constant changes of time and place. did we finish the Sino-Vietnam War #1 already? you recently did the bit around War#2 with pla liking artillery. it's just a bit head spinny, but as always you tell GREAT stories!

我喜欢你的故事，但我得说，哇，时间线太多了。作为你课上的学生，我会被不断变化的时间和地点搞得相当困惑。我们已经讲完中越战争#1了吗？你最近刚讲了战争#2里解放军喜欢炮兵的部分。就是有点晕，但一如既往你讲的故事很棒！

@natn41r
it's so weird to stumble onto what seems like a sizeable but passionate niche audience.

偶然发现一个看起来规模不小但热情高涨的小众观众群，感觉好奇怪。

@Azrakullj
we do love the pla here

我们这儿确实热爱解放军

@disconnected7737
Professor Clower's honestly the best lecturer for this kinda stuff. It's great

克劳尔教授真的是这类东西最好的讲师。太棒了。

@grocerywolf
The People's Cadre is dedicated to the preservation of the glorious history of the pla.

人民干部致力于保存中国人民解放军的光荣历史。

@natn41r
Fascinating. Who are you guys? Are you actual communists? Is the prof communist?
I'm just a random nobody (I do like Chinese history) who wandered in here, but I find the prof's enthusiastic and lively style of narration quite compelling.

太有趣了。你们是谁？你们是真正的共产主义者吗？教授是共产主义者吗？
我只是个随便路过的无名氏（我确实喜欢中国历史），但我觉得教授热情活泼的叙述风格非常吸引人。

@grocerywolf
​ @natn41r Most of us are just gun/history nerds. We just like to have fun with the comments. I'm sure we have some tankies among our numbers but this is ultimately not a political space.

​ @natn41r 我们大多数人只是枪械/历史迷。我们只是喜欢在评论里玩，我相信我们中间有一些说坦克派，但这里最终不是政治空间。
【tankies，坦克派，威权社会主义支持者的贬称，译注】

@disconnected7737
@natn41r From my limited understanding, there’s a few communists and socialists in the comments. There’s a decent amount of Chinese and Vietnamese (especially on the Sino-Viet war videos) but the audience is mostly American. We’re all interested in Chinese gear and military history.

@natn41r 根据我有限的了解，评论里有一些共产主义者和社会主义者。有不少中国人和越南人（尤其在中越战争视频下），但观众主要是美国人。我们都对中国装备和军事历史感兴趣。

@gerald5344
@natn41r We seem to be a broad cross section of history nerds with interests that overlap in the channel's pla focus, mostly Americans but also Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean. Might be a few actual communists here, not really sure, but more "tankies" of the Bovington sort anyway. Prof once responded to a similar question that he "knows too much" to be a communist.

@natn41r 我们似乎是一个广泛的历史书呆子，对该频道关注的解放军有共同的兴趣，主要是美国人，也有中国人、越南人和韩国人。这里可能有几个真正的共产主义者，不太确定，但更多的是波维顿那种“坦克派”。教授曾经回答过一个类似的问题，他“知道的太多了”，不可能是一名共产主义者。

@BranBlack47
As a flamboyant homosexual man, do I have a place in the pla army of old?

作为一个张扬的同性恋男人，我在旧中国人民解放军里有一席之地吗？

@acutechicken5798
In every person exists two Maoist spirits: one is Lei Feng, the other is a flamboyant homosexual.

每个人体内都存在两种毛泽东思想精神：一个是雷锋，另一个是张扬的同性恋。

@tomhalla426
I believe ammo resupply would be an issue with the PPSh. High rate of fire submachine guns need a large amount of consistent ammunition.

我认为PPSh的弹药补给会是个问题。高射速冲锋枪需要大量稳定的弹药。

@TehSquare
One thought is that standardization on the Type 50 would mean having to issue stickmags by the millions because they will get lost, damaged, or broken and they’re pretty finely fit and have a lot of springs (one per mag) versus an SKS which just has the one and reloads via a simpler stripper clip. It could be done but if the Military Department needs millions of something, even a failure rate of 5% or needing to fiddle to get mags to work right might not be acceptable.

一个想法是，50式标准化意味着要发放数百万个直弹匣，因为它们会丢失、损坏或坏掉，而且它们配合很精密、有很多弹簧（每个弹匣一个），而SKS只有一个弹簧，用更简单的桥夹装弹。这可以做到，但如果军事部门需要几百万个东西，即使5%的故障率或需要调整才能让弹匣正常工作，可能也无法接受。

@Lakikano
It just occurred to me that a factor in China’s favor for the SKS may have been what they saw of the Garand in Korea. They saw how effective semi automatic rifles were.

我刚想到，中国选择SKS的一个有利因素可能是他们在朝鲜看到的加兰德步枪，他们看到了半自动步枪有多有效。

@GarethFairclough
@4:20
Steep terrain? That sounds just like life in the south Wales valleys where I grew up!
@4:20

陡峭地形？听起来就像我长大的南威尔士山谷的生活！

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
No marketing slogan: "All the natural beauty of Triangle Hill, without the artillery fire."

没有营销口号：“三角山的所有自然美景，没有炮火。”

@vega7865
Yay korea stuff is cool

耶，朝鲜的东西真酷

@zimtage1744
Whoa, that outfit is pretty amazing.

哇，你这套衣服太惊人了。

@George_M_
Not all battlefields are endless mountain ranges. The M3 got a lot of preferred use for the Americans for similar reasons iirc

不是所有战场都是无尽山脉。M3因为类似原因在美国人那里得到大量优先使用，如果我没记错。
【M3即美军装备和黄油冲锋枪，译注】

@Leeeeegion
Here’s a counterpoint. The less hilly or obstructed the terrain is, the more artillery, armor, and air power decide the result of offensives. Fighting on flat terrain is where the choice of hand weapon is least important, while mountain and jungle fighting is where that choice is most important. Therefore, in my mind armies should design their weapons to suit the most difficult terrain they expect to face, since that’s where the infantryman rifle is most important.

这里有个反驳。地形越不崎岖或障碍越少，炮兵、装甲和空中力量就越决定进攻结果。在平坦地形作战时，手持武器选择最不重要，而山地和丛林作战时选择最重要。因此在我看来，军队应该设计武器来适应他们预期面对的最困难地形，因为那才是步枪手最重要的时候。

@MbisonBalrog
Grenades in hilly terrain may accidentally roll back down hill onto you lolz.

山地地形里的手榴弹可能会不小心滚回山下砸到你自己哈哈。

@rockin3404
Is there a Chinese translation of 'keep mum"?

“keep mum”有中文翻译吗？

@dIRECTOR259
The Soviets preferred and were using 30-round magazines as well by the late war.

苏联人在战争后期也更喜欢并使用30发弹匣。

@OTV_7100
Im releasing a burst of my Type 50 rn.

我现在正在用我的50式打一个连发。

@woodsghost9088
Seems like they should have used that Type 50 rather than the Type 85. But they never asked me my opinion. And they still don't. Oh well.

看起来他们应该用50式而不是85式。但他们从来没问过我的意见。而且现在也不问。算了。

@ShogunMongol
Very excited to see some coverage of the Korean War, being Korean American myself. Something I am very curious about is experiences of Chinese forces with the M1 Carbine, that gun is very near and dear to my heart and I would love more information about it when it comes to post war use, especially with a country that wasn't an ally of the US.

作为韩裔美国人，我很兴奋能看到一些朝鲜战争的报道。我很好奇中国人民志愿军使用M1卡宾枪的经历，那把枪对我来说非常亲切，我很想了解战后使用情况，尤其是对一个不是美国盟友的国家。

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
Noted! Thank you for the suggestion: I'm putting it on the list.

记下了！谢谢你的建议：我把它放进清单了。

@ShogunMongol
@Type56_Ordnance_Dept Absolutely ecstatic to hear about that, I may as well add the information I know about personally.
I saw a picture from I think a Chinese TV show, showing off what I think is a WW2/ Post WW2 chest rig, I think made by Maoists. I have a picture I found off Reddit, but I don't know much about the picture and all that.
China, at one point made their own .30 Carbine ammo, but I think it was commercial ammo, and it's not great stuff, unlike all .30 Carbine ammo, it's corrosive, which can absolutely destroy the some what fragile gas system on the M1 Carbine.
I've seen a few pictures of a Chinese produced clone of the M1 Carbine, might have just been the receiver, I don't know much about it, and I don't think there's much English language information about it.
Also, this is just a fun thing, some Chinese web gear is very compatible with the M1 Carbine. Type 56 Carbine chest rigs hold 15 round magazines well and Type 63 webbing holds 30 rounder mags for the M1 Carbine perfectly, 3 mags in each 2 20 round magazine pouch. I feel like the chest rig and side pouches for the Type 79 SMG would also work well, but I don't have that rig.

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept 听到这个我太激动了，我不妨把我个人知道的信息也加上去。
我看到一张图片，好像是中国电视节目展示的，我觉得是二战/战后胸挂，可能是毛派做的。我在Reddit上找到一张图，但对图片了解不多。
中国曾经自己生产.30卡宾枪弹药，但我觉得是商业弹药，不太好，和所有.30卡宾枪弹药不同，它是腐蚀性的，能彻底毁掉M1卡宾枪有点脆弱的导气系统。

我见过几张中国产M1卡宾枪克隆版的照片，可能只是机匣，我不太了解，而且我觉得英文资料不多。
另外，这只是有趣的事，有些中国携行具和M1卡宾枪非常兼容。56式卡宾枪的胸挂能很好地装15发弹匣，63式携行具能完美装M1卡宾枪的30发弹匣，每个2×20发弹袋里装3个。我觉得79式冲锋枪的胸挂和侧袋应该也能用，但我没有那个携行具。

@aps125
An interesting shift occurred near the end of the armistice period: the PVA’s artillery arm had grown large enough to surpass the UN forces in overall numbers. Despite this expansion, U.S. units still held a significant edge in fire‑control coordination and in the sheer volume of ammunition they could bring to bear.

停战期接近尾声时发生了一个有趣的变化：志愿军炮兵部队规模已经大到在总数上超过联合国军。尽管扩大了，美国部队在火力控制协调和能投入的弹药总量上仍保持显著优势。

@xiaoshuchu4095
All good and informative, but...
Why you wearing a People's Police uniform?

一切都很好、信息丰富，但是……
你为什么穿人民警察制服？

@Chiller01
It’s interesting that later in WW2 the Soviets formed submachine gun companies and even battalions. They too learned that volume of fire was critical in short range engagements esp in urban settings amid rubble and house to house fighting. I’m wondering if late war Soviet doctrine influenced the Chinese or, like so many militaries, the Chinese eventually figured out the hard way on their own?

有趣的是，二战后期苏联组建了冲锋枪连甚至营。他们也学到在近距离交战中（尤其城市废墟和逐屋战斗）火力强度至关重要。我在想，是后期苏联学说影响了中国，还是像很多军队一样，中国人最终自己吃亏后才明白？

@peka2478
i missed a couple of decades since the last video i saw from you, apparently, but
how does the type50 fit the pla perfectly,
when the perfect plan for the pla was to not use too many bullets if possible, for lack of supply?
The type50 is nice for the encounter, and lighter than a DP,
but where are you going to procure the bullets for the next encounter?
Wouldn't that neccesitate a strong supply infrastructure which was not in the cards for the pla?

我好像错过了你上个视频后的几十年，
但当解放军完美的计划是尽可能少用子弹（因为补给不足）时，
50式怎么就完美适合解放军了？
50式在遭遇战中很好，比DP轻，
但下一场遭遇战你从哪里搞子弹？
那不是需要强大的补给基础设施吗，而这对解放军来说是不可能的？

@MingYang-d8s
Chinese believes that there’s hero’s on every sides in war fightings, if you think about it does make great sense.

中国人相信战争双方都有英雄，如果你想想，这其实很有道理。

@poilolegz9585
I love learning about pla. Thats why keep on coming on back. Now I need a pla hat. Lol. Imagine being so broke your dye your uniform with tree ash.

我爱学解放军的东西。这就是我一直回来的原因。现在我需要一顶解放军帽子。哈哈。想象一下穷到用草木灰染军装。

@gerardlabelle9626
Professor, you often stress how little ammunition the pla had. Don’t submachine guns use large amounts of ammo? How did they handle that?

教授，您经常强调中国人民解放军弹药极少。冲锋枪不是会消耗大量弹药吗？他们是怎么处理的？

@smuldohuntermuldo9312
Even Madonna knows it "papa, papa loves me "

连麦当娜都知道“papa, papa loves me”

@lucidnonsense942
Why the PPSh '41, instead of the PPS '43, which was simplified for easier manufacture and reliability?
PS, The soviets had the same problems with the drum mags and switched over to stick mags - drums stayed in production for some time, so as not to interrupt logistics, but slowly got phased out. The biggest issue was that they couldn't be reliably interchanged - you found one that worked with your gun and you tried to hold on to it. Problematic, if your special snowflake of a drum got damaged and you needed to find a spare asap. Actually... pretty much every army that had drum mags had some issue with them.

为什么用PPSh-41而不是PPS-43？PPS-43为了更容易制造和更高可靠性做了简化。
另外，苏联人也遇到了同样弹鼓问题，后来改用直弹匣——弹鼓继续生产了一段时间以免中断后勤，但慢慢被淘汰。最大问题是弹鼓无法可靠互换——你找到一个能用的就死死抓住。
如果你的“独一无二”弹鼓坏了，需要马上找备件就麻烦了。其实……几乎所有用过弹鼓的军队都遇到过类似问题。

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
China sure loved the PPS, but but it happened that they locked in early to the PPSh, and once they cloned that, their factories were committed for the rest of the war. They had to wait until 1954, when the fighting stopped, to retool for the PPS.

中国确实很喜欢PPS-43，但他们很早就锁定了PPSh-41，一旦仿制成功，工厂在整个战争期间就只能继续生产这个。他们只能等到1954年战斗停止后，才有时间重新调整生产线生产PPS-43。

@Cobalt-60
This is also where the M2 .30 carbine sext-fire carbines with the 30-round magazines comes in to counter act the the Chinese with SMGs. My father spent part of his U.S. Army service (just post-Korea) working with an armorer. Almost every single one of the M1 (semi-auto only as issued) carbines they were receiving for reconditioning had their sears filed down in the field to turn them into an automatic fire only machine carbine.

这就是M2 .30卡宾枪（可全自动、配30发弹匣）用来对抗中国冲锋枪的地方。我父亲美军服役期间（刚好在朝鲜战争结束后）做过军械士。他们收到的几乎每一把M1卡宾枪（原配发为半自动）在野战时都被锉掉了击锤阻铁，改成了全自动卡宾枪。

@duketassadar
Yes, when the pla discovered the fully automatic version of the M1 carbine on the Korean battlefield, they too grew fond of this weapon, even requesting domestic armories to replicate it and its ammunition as quickly as possible. Had the Soviet unx not subsequently provided complete PPSh production equipment and technology, the M2 carbine and .30 carbine cartridge would have simultaneously become standard-issue weapons for both China and the United States.

是的，当中国人民志愿军在朝鲜战场发现M1卡宾枪的全自动版（M2）后，也非常喜欢这种武器，甚至要求国内兵工厂尽快仿制它和它的弹药。如果苏联后来没有提供完整的PPSh生产设备和技术，那么M2卡宾枪和.30卡宾枪弹药就会同时成为中美两国的制式武器。

@Cobalt-60
And yes I do own a 1944 Inland produced version that had received all of the upgrades (except the round bolt) that would have made it applicable for the drop in M2 conversion kits.

是的，我确实拥有一把1944年Inland生产的版本，它已经完成了所有升级（除了圆形枪机），可以直接安装M2转换套件。

@peka2478
9:55 "(...) quality didnt always match Soviet standards" is a harsh thing to say...

9:55 “……质量并不总是达到苏联标准”这话说得有点狠……

@Se7enBeatleofDoom
It is unfortunate that video games tend to overlook the Korean War. Titles such as Call of Duty and Battlefield could have included multiple installments addressing this significant historical conflict. For example, a World War II-themed game could have seamlessly incorporated aspects of the Korean War.

可惜电子游戏总是忽略朝鲜战争。《使命召唤》和《战地》这类游戏本可以出好几部来讲述这段重要历史冲突。比如二战主题游戏完全可以无缝融入朝鲜战争元素。

@itspice8737
It is interesting that China consistently ignored the lessons from former wars regarding the effectiveness of automatic light weaponry in favor of a weapon system that they believed might be more relevant in the future. Often we criticize militaries for preparing for the last war (this is said of European armies preceding World War Two, and gets thrown at the US military to this day). Perhaps this would seem a more noble and smart thing to do if they had guessed right

有趣的是，中国一直忽略以往战争中自动轻武器有效的教训，转而选择他们认为未来可能更适用的武器系统。我们经常批评军队在为“上一场战争”做准备（二战前的欧洲军队就是如此，今天美国军队也常被这么说）。如果他们猜对了，或许这看起来会更高尚、更聪明。

@aps125
During the later stages of the Chinese Civil War, the communist forces used a distinct organizational vocabulary. Their largest ground formation was the Field Army (野战军), roughly comparable to an army group in Western terms. The next echelon down was the Army (兵团). Below that, the formation equivalent to a Western corps briefly carried the unique designation Column (纵队), reflecting the pla’s transitional structure at the time.
As the conflict neared its end, the 4th Field Army—formerly the Northeast Field Army—created the Northeast Border Defense Force (东北边防军) to secure the region. This formation was later redesignated as the 13th Army, which crossed the Yalu River and became one of the principal combat elements of the People’s Volunteer Army when China entered the Korean War.

中国内战后期，共产党军队使用了一套独特的组织词汇。他们最大的地面部队是野战军，大致相当于西方的集团军群，下一级是兵团，再往下，相当于西方军团的编制，短暂地使用了独特的“纵队”名称，反映了当时解放军过渡期的结构。
随着战争接近尾声，原东北野战军改编的第四野战军组建了东北边防军保卫该地区。该部队后来改称第13兵团，跨过鸭绿江，成为中国人民志愿军入朝后的主要作战力量之一。

@flyingpancake4981
I don't know if it's a future topic, but I'm surprised the Chinese weren't all over the PPS-43. More practical rate of fire, stick mags, lighter, simpler, easy to make in large quantities once production is set up. You can even make them with wood stocks like the polish did to appease the traditionalists. Seems like it would the perfect weapon for most of the pla.

我不知道这是否是未来话题，但我很惊讶中国人没有全力拥抱PPS-43。它射速更实用、直弹匣、更轻、更简单，一旦生产线建好就能大量生产。甚至可以像波兰那样装木枪托来安抚传统派。看起来这对大部分解放军来说是完美武器。

@Type56_Ordnance_Dept
That is totally a future topic!!

那绝对是未来的话题！！

@markflacy7099
Well, if you want to be able to fight your neighbors, your weapons should be designed to fight in climates near your borders (depending how big your neighbors happen to be). If you only want want to fight defensive wars, then your weapons need to be designed to work in the climate zones within your country.
A simplified example would be the Swiss disinterest their mechanized equipment being air-transportable over intercontinental distances (or any distance at all, to be honest).

嗯，如果你想能打邻国，你的武器就应该设计成适应边境附近的气候（取决于邻国有多大）。如果你只想打防御战，那武器就得适应本国气候区。
简单例子：瑞士对他们的机械化装备能否洲际空运完全不感兴趣（老实说，连任何距离都不感兴趣）。

@GeorgHaeder
I beg your forgiveness comrade professor I am 2 hours late. Yes, comrade, I will write a then thousand word essay about the great leader Mao's 抗日游擊戰爭的一般問題.

请原谅我，同志教授，我迟到了2小时。是的，同志，我会写一篇一万字的论文，关于伟大领袖毛的《抗日游击战争的一般问题》。

@stargazer4683
Great timing I’m watching a Korean War series that goes week by week. And just got to the part when the Chinese um help liberate the south from the UN forces.

时间点太好了，我正在看一个按周讲述朝鲜战争的系列。刚好看到中国人嗯……帮助把南方从联合国军手中解放出来的部分。

@johnyricco1220
The perfect gun for China is probably a semiauto only closed bolt submachine gun. Or something like the M1 carbine but cheap and blowback operated.

对中国来说完美的枪大概是一把只半自动、闭锁枪机的冲锋枪。或者类似M1卡宾枪但更便宜、而且是反冲式的。

@sabeanmilkpancakeunderth5257
Funny they didn't continue to make them into the 2000s. This and the pps-43 would been indispensable in today's modern mid and cqb

有趣的是他们没有一直生产到2000年代。这种枪和PPS-43在今天的现代中距离和近距离战斗中会是不可或缺的。

@onecircle1111
didnt us had m2 rifle?

美国不是有M2步枪吗？

@thedr1911
Crude loud and dangerous at close range

又粗糙、声音大、近距离危险

@waynesworldofsci-tech
Professor, I have a question.
Why did the CCP employ soldiers mostly from southern command in Korea? Our records show multiple instances of Chinese soldiers dying from exposure in relatively mild temperatures — by Canadian standards, and temperatures that northern Chinese wouldn’t find all that difficult.
Instead they lost men due to equipment that wasn’t designed to operate in Korean winters, wearing uniforms unsuited to Korean winters, even though we know that they had the equipment and uniforms!
This one has me really puzzled. Nothing seems to make sense. That the Brits, Yanks, Greeks, Turks, and Australians found Korean winters to be hell isn’t surprising. There’s no way China should have been this badly impacted for the entire war.

教授，我有个问题。
为什么中共在朝鲜主要使用南方军区的士兵？我们的记录显示有多起中国士兵在相对温和的气温下（按加拿大标准，对北方中国人来说不算难熬）冻死的案例。
结果他们却因为装备不适应朝鲜冬季、军装也不适合而损失士兵，尽管我们知道他们其实有合适的装备和军装！
这点让我非常困惑。一切都说不通。英国人、美国人、希腊人、土耳其人、澳大利亚人觉得朝鲜冬天像地狱并不奇怪。但中国不应该整个战争期间都受这么大影响。

@duketassadar
It's not that the first Chinese troops to enter North Korea were all from southern China, but rather that their main force consisted of units from the former Fourth Field Army. The Fourth Field Army was the most combat-proven force within the pla at the time. Formed in northeastern China during the early stages of the Second Chinese Civil War, they fought their way from China's northernmost province to its southernmost province. Their core personnel hailed from northeastern and northern China.
When the Korean War erupted in 1950, their main forces were still stationed in Guangdong Province in southern China—a region characterized by humid and hot climates. It was therefore understandable that they were ill-prepared for combat in severely cold conditions. Furthermore, having fought the Kuomintang forces exclusively on Chinese soil, the pla underestimated the logistical challenges of overseas operations and the intensity of U.S. air raids. This led to significant difficulties in supplying winter gear to the front lines in Korea.
If southerners were present among the Chinese forces entering Korea, they were mostly new recruits conscxted by the Fourth Field Army in southern China, not part of the main combat units. My grandfather joined the Fourth Field Army in Guangdong under these circumstances, later entering Korea as part of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army. However, possessing a high school education and driving skills—rare talents in China at the time—he avoided frontline combat. Instead, he served in the truck transport corps, eventually retiring with the rank of captain as a company commander.

首批入朝的中国部队并非全部来自南方，而是主力来自原第四野战军。第四野战军是当时解放军中最有实战经验的部队。它在内战初期在东北组建，从中国最北的省份一直打到最南。核心人员来自东北和北方。
1950年朝鲜战争爆发时，他们主力仍驻扎在南方广东省——一个湿热气候区。因此他们在严寒条件下作战准备不足是可以理解的。此外，由于此前只在中国境内与国民党作战，解放军低估了海外作战的后勤难度和美军空袭强度，导致冬季装备很难及时送到朝鲜前线。

如果入朝部队中有南方人，那主要是第四野战军在南方新征召的补充兵，并非主力作战单位。我外公就是在这种情况下在广东加入第四野战军，后来作为中国人民志愿军入朝。不过他有高中学历和开车技能——当时在中国是稀缺人才——所以没上前线，而是去了汽车运输队，最终以连长（上尉）军衔退役。

@waynesworldofsci-tech
@duketassadar
Thanks. I don’t know enough about combat in your civil war. I’ve been mostly interested in our wars, for obvious reasons.
The cultural differences between militaries are fascinating. The flexibility of the Chinese local command structure is a really interesting adaptation to a difficult problem. We had different problems, so different adaptations.
Ours was to devolve command authority down to privates. We learned hard at Passchendale that an informed private was deadly to the enemy, which informed the Vimy Ridge attack plan. Check out what General Currie did — he pulled off the equivalent of special forces training for an entire army, and we made the top of a ridge the British and French couldn’t reach for two years in one day, and we hade the entire ridge in four.
It was an adapter forced on us by our unique cultural mosaic our relatively limited population, and our amazing flat social structure.
Everybody is unique. I love learning about the unique features of every culture and military culture.
@duketassadar

谢谢。我对你们内战作战了解不够。我主要对我们的战争感兴趣，原因很明显。
军队之间的文化差异非常迷人。中国地方指挥结构的灵活性是对困难问题的有趣适应。我们有不同的问题，所以有不同的适应。
我们的做法是把指挥权下放到士兵。我们在帕斯尚尔战役惨痛学到，一个知情的列兵对敌人是致命的，这直接影响了维米岭进攻计划。看看Currie将军做了什么——他给整个军队做了相当于特种部队的训练，我们一天就拿下了英法两年都没拿下的山顶，四天拿下整条山岭。

这是我们独特的文化马赛克、相对有限的人口和惊人的扁平社会结构逼出来的适应。
每个人都是独特的。我喜欢学习每种文化和军事文化的独特之处。

@redickchang-f3y

东亚是同纬度最冷的地区，你比较下哈尔滨和巴黎的温度，他们几乎在同一纬度

@waynesworldofsci-tech
@redickchang-f3y
I know. Warm by our standards, cold for most folk. My Argentine born grandmother never got used to Canadian winters. Her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren love winter. Minus 40 is a blast!
@redickchang-f3y

我知道。对我们来说算暖和，对大多数人来说冷。我阿根廷出生的奶奶一直适应不了加拿大冬天。但她的孩子、孙子、曾孙、玄孙都爱冬天。零下40度超爽！

@xl0xl0xl0
I can never remember the bane of this channel, so it's referenced as Type 69 in my mind.

我永远记不住这个频道的ID，所以在我脑子里它一直是Type 69。

@uncleobscurenobody8861
Wan sui wan sui Laoshi Clower

万岁万岁 Clower老师

@johnfisk811
If the immediate shock factor of the Type 50 was so important to the pla why did they move on to the semi automatic Type 56? The Soviet doctrine PPsh replacement was the automatic AK47 not the SKS which was the Moisin replacement.

如果50式的即时震撼效果对解放军这么重要，为什么他们后来换成了半自动的56式？苏联学说中PPSh的替代品是全自动AK47，而不是替换莫辛纳甘步枪的SKS。

@johnfisk811
Ignore the above please. I commented before finishing the video and you addressed this. Apologies.

请忽略上面那条。我没看完视频就评论了，您后面已经讲到了。抱歉。

@duketassadar
Shortly after entering the Soviet Army's arsenal in 1951, the AK became immensely popular among frontline soldiers. By 1953, following the successful production of the improved Type 3 AK, the military widely believed that automatic rifles could fully replace semi-automatic rifles. However, the Soviet military high command persisted in adhering to the “rifle + submachine gun” principle for weaponry allocation, leading to the widespread adoption of the SKS semi-automatic rifle within the Soviet forces at that time.
Ironically, it was the SKS's designer, Simonov himself, who finally broke through this barrier. After conducting certified performance comparisons between the SKS and AK and extensively gathering feedback from frontline troops on both weapons, he submitted a report to Soviet leadership in 1955. In the report, he concluded that the AK's performance sufficiently met all military requirements, rendering the SKS obsolete. He recommended immediately phasing out the rifle he himself had designed from service. This decision finally prompted the Soviet Army to fully transition to assault rifles.

AK1951年进入苏联军队后不久，就在前线士兵中大受欢迎。到1953年改进型3型AK量产成功后，军方普遍认为自动步枪可以完全取代半自动步枪。然而苏联军方高层坚持“步枪+冲锋枪”的武器配发原则，导致当时SKS半自动步枪在苏军中广泛装备。
讽刺的是，最终打破这个障碍的正是SKS的设计者西蒙诺夫本人。他在对SKS和AK进行认证性能对比并广泛收集前线部队反馈后，于1955年向苏联领导层提交报告。报告中他得出结论：AK的性能已完全满足所有军事需求，SKS已过时。他建议立即淘汰他自己设计的步枪。这一决定最终促使苏联军队全面转向突击步枪。

@duketassadar
As for China, the Type 50 submachine gun did not lack a successor—that would be the Type 56 “submachine gun,” essentially the AK itself. However, China's industrial capacity was insufficient to fully equip the pla with assault rifles as the Soviet unx had done. Consequently, they adopted a “rifle + submachine gun” configuration similar to the earlier Soviet approach: the Type 56 semi-automatic rifle paired with the Type 56 submachine gun.

至于中国，50式冲锋枪并非没有后继者——那就是56式“冲锋枪”，本质上就是AK本身。但中国工业能力不足，无法像苏联那样全面装备突击步枪。因此他们采用了类似早期苏联的“步枪+冲锋枪”配置：56式半自动步枪搭配56式冲锋枪。

@Leeeeegion
To me the craziest part isn’t that the type 50 was successful. The craziest part is that not every army adopted the PPSH 41 Or the degtarev. There has never been a greater weapon in close in fighting than it, nothing even comes close (for the time period).
Why did every nation who fought ww2 look at that thing and decide that the world’s premier city fighting hand weapon was just… not needed anymore.

对我来说最疯狂的不是50式成功了，最疯狂的是不是每支军队都采用了PPSh-41或捷格加廖夫。历史上近战从来没有比它更强的武器了（那个时代）。
为什么所有参加二战的国家看了这东西后，都决定世界上最好的城市作战单兵武器……不再需要了。

@degant1239
Multitudes of reasons like Professor Clower said armies adopt weapons not just based on what works but also account for other things, like institutional identity, industrial capacity and theorised needs and aims of a given country's military. An example consideration: Ammo. In order to adopt a PPSH 41 derived SMG without doing major revamps to barrel and feeding to accomodate a different caliber, you would need to adopt its caliber. Few issues that brings: First if your country made use of different calibers for its pistols and SMGs before it means you are suddenly left with stockpiles of ammo that don't fit the weapon. Adding to that you will have to copy the bullet and then set it down for production something which can be an issue. Like in Chinese case a big part why they disliked Russian Makarovs and their own domestic copy is because they couldn’t copy the Russian 9mm round very well leading to issues with reliability and so on.
Adding to that militaries generaly will try to avoid adopting same ammo as their opponents since it will make their logistics harder in case of war. Sure it does also mean their logistics aren't easier since they can't use captured equipment as easily or restock their ammo stores as campaign goes along but most militaries act on idea that any hinderence to the enemy is of bigger value than any inconvenience to themselves. Adding to that there is of course fact of own institutional identities. Most western countries like US or UK which could be argued could stand to gain something from adopting a PPSH41 and had the means to do it comfortably, wouldn’t anyways because they already had their own SMGs which they would rather stick to or develop upon rather than adopt the weapon of their enemy. And again PPSH41 wasn’t perfect, true some German troops in WW2 loved taking them instead of their own weapons but there were also cases of Soviet Troops preffering to take German weapons for their own reasons.
Adding to that while SMGs are ideal for CQC and urban combat, its a very specific niche and in mid 20th Century most countries were attempting to standardise around few weapon systems to ease logistics. Hell even Soviets did it, at first AK was supposed to be an SMG replacment just with the bonus of having its ammo be interchangable with SKS which was supposed to be the main rifle replacment before eventually kinda ditching the idea and going full hog on AK. Though I hear there are conflicting accounts on this one so take it with a heap of salt.
Most countries that adopted PPSH41 and PPS43 SMGs werte either kinda forced to by the fact of having ruined economies and being soviet sattalite states (See a lot of European Soviet Bloc countries with exceptions like Czechoslovakia which retained a lot of its indegenous industrial capacity) or were on friendlier terms with the Soviets. Politics generally trump a lot of things including like the usefulness of a weapon in combat.

原因有很多，就像克劳尔教授说的，军队采用武器不只看什么好用，还要考虑组织认同、工业能力以及该国军队的理论需求和目标。
举个弹药的例子：要采用PPSh-41衍生冲锋枪而不对枪管和供弹系统做大改，你就得采用它的口径。这带来几个问题：首先如果你国家之前的手枪和冲锋枪用不同口径，突然就会有一堆不匹配的库存弹药。另外你还得仿制子弹并投产，这本身就是问题。比如中国不喜欢俄罗斯马卡洛夫及其国产版的原因之一就是他们仿制俄罗斯9mm弹不太好，导致可靠性问题等等。

此外，军队通常会尽量避免使用与对手相同的弹药，当然，这也意味着他们的后勤并不容易，因为他们不能轻易地使用缴获的装备，也不能在战役进行时补充弹药，但大多数军队的行动理念是，对敌人的任何阻碍都比对自己的任何不便更有价值。
当然还有自身组织认同的问题。大多数西方国家如美英，本来可以从采用PPSh-41中获益且有能力轻松做到，但他们不会，因为他们已经有自己的冲锋枪，更愿意坚持或改进，而不是采用敌人的武器。而且PPSh-41并非完美，确实二战有些德国士兵喜欢缴获它而不是自己的武器，但也有苏联士兵更喜欢德国武器的例子。

另外虽然冲锋枪适合近战和城市作战，但这是非常特定的小众领域，20世纪中叶大多数国家都在尝试围绕少数武器系统标准化以简化后勤。连苏联也这么做了，最初AK只是作为冲锋枪的替代品，顺便弹药能和计划替换主要步枪的SKS通用，后来干脆彻底放弃，转向全AK。不过这个说法有争议，就当参考吧。
大多数采用PPSh-41和PPS-43的国家要么是因为经济被毁、作为苏联卫星国被迫采用（欧洲苏联阵营国家，大部分如此，只有捷克斯洛伐克等保留较多本土工业能力），要么就是和苏联关系较好。政治通常压倒一切，包括武器的实际作战效用。

@MbisonBalrog
There must be like no animals left in Korea. Their habitats been totally destroyed.

朝鲜大概没动物剩下了。它们的栖息地全毁了。

@kulik242
I call bulshit, you won't let yourself burn slowly alive.

我说你是在扯淡，你不会让自己慢慢烧死的。

@duketassadar
Even during World War II, American soldiers performed heroic acts such as using their bodies to block enemy bunker gun ports or grabbing live grenades and thrusting them into bunkers until detonation. During the Vietnam War, the South Vietnamese monk Thích Quảng Đức peacefully immolated himself on a Saigon street to protest the South Vietnamese government's persecution of Buddhists. This scene was documented by a New York Times reporter and widely circulated around the world.

即使在二战期间，美国士兵也做过用身体堵敌方碉堡枪眼、抓住激发的手榴弹塞进碉堡直到爆炸的英勇事迹。
越南战争期间，南越僧侣释广德在西贡街头平静自焚抗议南越政府迫害佛教徒。这一幕被《纽约时报》记者拍下并传遍世界。

@grocerywolf
The details may be exaggerated for propaganda but I'm sure that guy absolutely did sacrifice himself for his buddies. Most war stories in general are inflated in some way and soldiers are soldiers no matter the color of their uniforms.

细节可能为了宣传被夸大，但我相信那个人绝对为战友牺牲了自己。大多数战争故事都多少有些夸张，士兵就是士兵，不管军装颜色。

@I_Stole_A_BTR-80
I wonder about the wider propaganda and/or morale effects of the Type 50.
A lot has been made about the state of Chinese communist forces during the 20s/30s/40s on this channel, with many either having outdated weapons, weapons now centuries old and some even fighting only with what God gave them.
It must have had immediate ideologic effects to maybe have some old Carcano with 2 or 3 rounds sat in the magazine since 1930 taken from the soldiers and be given a fully auto submachinegun that feeds well (enough) with a reliable (enough) supply of ammo.
If I was a guy that signed up with the communists for the food or to kick out the warlords from my region and ended up in that position, I know I'd be 100% with the communists from then on. They'd seem like the guys actually trying and succeeding in rebuilding China.

我想知道50式更广泛的宣传和/或士气效果。
这个频道讲过很多20-40年代中国共产党军队的状态，很多武器过时、甚至几百年前的，还有些人只用上帝给的武器作战。
把一个从1930年起弹匣里就剩2-3发的旧卡尔卡诺步枪收走，换成一把全自动冲锋枪（供弹还算可靠）并有（足够）弹药供应，这肯定立刻产生意识形态效果。

如果我是因为有饭吃或为赶走军阀才加入共产党，最后拿到这个，那我从那一刻起就100%跟共产党了。他们看起来就是真正努力并成功重建中国的人。

@theayeguy5226
"Institutional Identity". This is how the US Army adopted the already obsolete M14 while the Stg44 had already demonstrated what weapon infantrymen needed in combat, instead of something more suited for the KD ranges and genteel Csmp Perry rifle matches and the like held on manicured lawns back East. Every other army had already figured this out with the WW1 experience, they just didn't have the money to implement due to the Great Depression.

“组织认同”，这就是为什么美国陆军采用了已经过时的M14，而纳粹的Stg44突击步枪已经展示了步兵在战斗中需要什么武器，而不是需要更适合靶场和优雅的步枪比赛以及在东部修剪整齐的草坪上举行的类似的东西。其他国家的军队在一战的经验中已经明白了这一点，他们只是因为大萧条而没有钱来实施。

@johnye4433
Comrades, there was no way Qiu could withstand a live fire on to his person, unless he was already shrapneled to the point of a quick no return

同志们，邱不可能忍受活火烧身，除非他已经被弹片炸到快不行了.

@kennys9644
He died, as the professor says. Did you watch the whole video?

他死了，就像教授说的。你看完整视频了吗？

@johnye4433
@kennys9644 he did, from shrapnels, before the supposed fire storyline

@kennys9644 是的，他死于弹片，在所谓的火烧故事之前.

@Charlie_Uniform_76
Yeah, that did not happen. He would have bleed to death just climbing up hill. Nice propaganda, though.

是的，那没发生过。他爬上山就会流血而死。不过宣传不错。

@BratZasheku
Amerika needs their own pla, People Liberation Army, to get rid of the corrupt tyrants in the white house.

美国需要自己的pla（人民解放军）来赶走白宫里的腐败暴君.