India's Army... Part II

About India's Army... Part II Page 3


  International Military Forums > The Dark Side.... > The Hall of Shame
User Name
Password

 
February 14th, 2005   #21
Peter Pan
 
Gingerbread,

Do read this:

Mapping thre Global Future Report of the National Intelligence Councilís
2020 Project

Will give you some insight.

Next, 1962 is passe. There are many reasons for the same.

In 1965, the Chinese were given a bloody nose at Nthu La when they tried to show a wee bit of support for Pakistan.

Today, the situation is way different. Also understand fighting on the Himalayas and in Tibet.

Have I been there? Lets say, I have.
 
February 14th, 2005   #22
Peter Pan
 
I am an Infantry officer.

Nice to meet you too.
 
February 14th, 2005   #23
Sexybeast
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
Gingerbread,

Do read this:

Mapping thre Global Future Report of the National Intelligence Councilís
2020 Project

Will give you some insight.

Next, 1962 is passe. There are many reasons for the same.

In 1965, the Chinese were given a bloody nose at Nthu La when they tried to show a wee bit of support for Pakistan.

Today, the situation is way different. Also understand fighting on the Himalayas and in Tibet.

Have I been there? Lets say, I have.
well...i have to say that if india wants to get some lands from china near tibet, it is impossible now....china just built a grand railway connecting mainland and tibet, the capability of transporting troops and equipments rose 10 times at least..

china has more advantages in that area than it was in 1962 war which, is considered a humilation for India's army
 
February 14th, 2005   #24
Peter Pan
 
First of all, there is no requirement to take any land from China.

Therefore, the first premise is not quite correct.

Secondly, Tibet plateau is barren. Miles and miles of Flat land. So to capture it is of no use to man or beast.

The railway is not material except that the Chinese mobilisation and movement of war materiel is faster.

Without going into details, the issues that may interest you is that the All Up Weight from the Tibetan plateau will be low owing to the stratefied atmosphere. And the fact that there are very few local resources and everything has to come from China.

Neither China nor India have any advantage in the area. 1962 is because the troop density was low and gap wide...very wide and there were no equipment to fight in high altitude nor any experience. Now it is a different kettle of fish.
 
February 14th, 2005   #25
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
Gingerbread,

Do read this:

Mapping thre Global Future Report of the National Intelligence Councilís
2020 Project

Will give you some insight.

Next, 1962 is passe. There are many reasons for the same.

In 1965, the Chinese were given a bloody nose at Nthu La when they tried to show a wee bit of support for Pakistan.

Today, the situation is way different. Also understand fighting on the Himalayas and in Tibet.

Have I been there? Lets say, I have.
yes well u got to know china's infrastructure was very poor back in the 1960s, even worse than india's at 1965, and where did u find india actually beaten the chinese while they only have tiny skirmishs? the 1962 already shows india has lost horribly in a major battle with china. but u got to know china is now leading india in every field.

and also u got to know 1965, chinese was not trying their best, it was only minor skirmishes, and there is no evidence india actually won that conflict. the main fighting were india and pskistan.

all i can say is, india's infrastructure cannot even repair its own russia weapons. if there is a war breaks out with china and india at the moment. china has the upper had in everything except soldier experiences. an army is also very depending on the country's funds and infrastructure.

still the conclusion is, india at the moment in asia is powerful, but still behind russia and china.

just read my first post in this thread.

not trying to flame up china vs india, but the truth is, at the moment, china would gain the upper hand in a fight against india.
 
February 14th, 2005   #26
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
First of all, there is no requirement to take any land from China.

Therefore, the first premise is not quite correct.

Secondly, Tibet plateau is barren. Miles and miles of Flat land. So to capture it is of no use to man or beast.

The railway is not material except that the Chinese mobilisation and movement of war materiel is faster.

Without going into details, the issues that may interest you is that the All Up Weight from the Tibetan plateau will be low owing to the stratefied atmosphere. And the fact that there are very few local resources and everything has to come from China.

Neither China nor India have any advantage in the area. 1962 is because the troop density was low and gap wide...very wide and there were no equipment to fight in high altitude nor any experience. Now it is a different kettle of fish.
well why india try to claim tibet before? i know its a barren land, but that doesnt mean a country can give away lands just becasue its a barren land.

the point is, each country would want more land than less.

"The railway is not material except that the Chinese mobilisation and movement of war materiel is faster. "

that means it is already an advantage. and why is it not material? u do know railway is a major transportation method for modern armies.

"Without going into details, the issues that may interest you is that the All Up Weight from the Tibetan plateau will be low owing to the stratefied atmosphere. And the fact that there are very few local resources and everything has to come from China."

so, what the low stratefied going to do with the fighting? and also very few local resources as u mention, china has beaten india in this situation in 1962 while china's infrastructure is even worse than india's.

"Neither China nor India have any advantage in the area. 1962 is because the troop density was low and gap wide...very wide and there were no equipment to fight in high altitude nor any experience. Now it is a different kettle of fish"

then how come, with all the infrstructure advantages of india has in 1960s can still be beaten by china easily? why do u think china has no advantage? the railway, the modern technology and the improvement the chinese army has made is already an advantage.

of course u aint going to fight on top of mount everest. but there is land there u can fight in, where do u think 1962 war happened?

the point is, i think china would know its land better than india. so my opinion is that if india invade china, china would gain the upper hand. no matter which part it is, due to the factors i said before.

and why china had the advantage in 1962 war? it didnt came by luck but the strategy that caused weakness in the indian army. what to blame is the tactics not luck. india has all the advantage over china as a country in 1960s.

i dun understand, what u said its logically flawed.
 
February 14th, 2005   #27
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
Gingerbread,

Cuba's education and medical facilities are world class.

So?

I don't wish to get into any discussion since it leads to nowhere.

But war I understand. Having engaged in it a few times, as also conducted it; and I do understand strategy a wee bit which includes a whole lot of stuff which is not merely physical combat.

I prefer not to go by mere gut feeling and comment on desires that I would like to see happen.
yes, but does cuba spend its effort on its military now? no. does china and india does? yes. so? where does the military improvement fund from? from the country. where is the funds from? from the exports and the business, also the infrastructure of military science (also supported by the countries' funds and educated workforce.) not to mention the industry of the country too.

now india, both lackin in educated workforce and industry, which is behind china. not to mention its economy and its not even enough to feed its own people.

singapor is also has the lowest corruption rate and highest income rate in the world. but that doesnt mean it has a gd military. u see the logic is flawed. it also depends how much u spend of military but how much u spend is also affected by the infastructure of the country, which better infrastructure will produce better educated workforce too.
so in fact, when u have a good infrastructure, the less u need to spend for the quality same as a country whose infrastructure is poorer.

there is already enough evidence shown that china military infrastructure is better than india's previously in other threads. i aint going to post them here since its not about china's army. go to china's army's doctrine thread and china's army.

you got to know china in history has always mobileised its huge army. during 1200s, china had 1 million imperial guards (emperors' bodyguards) and not to mention its regulars, and having expedition as far as korea and manchuria. and in teh Min dynasty during Ningxia campiagn, it moved 400 artillary (cannons, trebuchets etc....) pieces over 300 miles of difficult terrian.

india's army hs been successful recently in modernising its army, but not to a level that can rival china at the moment. the reason i mention china its not i want to china vs india, but it was mentioned by the started of this thread about india can rival china and has teh cutting edge over china. which in my opinion, i disagree.
 
February 15th, 2005   #28
gingerbeard
 
Mapping thre Global Future Report of the National Intelligence Councilís
2020 Project

can u give me a link on that plz?

in fact i read about predicting pakistan will failed. the point is, predicting such things are very unlikely to happen. as i said in that thread before. so dun take it as a solid prove. like predicting chinese gov will fall soon after 1989. and now, predicting something 15 years later its just gets even more unrealiable.
 
February 15th, 2005   #29
Sexybeast
 
india's army is impressive.....

but shouldn't them spending more money to bring more education and health care for ppl

same for China
 
February 15th, 2005   #30
SwordFish_13
 
 
Hi,

Quote:
well why india try to claim tibet before?
Who said India clamed Tibet ? ..........India never clamed Tibet ............we just recognises it as a Seperate Soverign Country of Tibetains ?




Peace
-=SF_13=