Originally Posted by Sexybeast

wow...dont dragg to china vs india stuff.....

we can argue on Olympic medals, china vs india, but plz not military, that ends up in flaming war..

Well said, I'm impressed!


Now please stay on topic in here, no (more) India vs. China posts will be tolerated!

Thanks..

now back to topic,

explain to me why india's gun barrels burst and ajun has problems and how india fixed or going to fix those problems..

dont dragg to china vs india cuz that gonna be embrassment everywhere (especially talking about olympic medals)

yea back to the topic, if u want a comparison of two countries, post a new thread. but i think the answer is pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

"Finland, the small Scandinavian nation, boasts the world's "most competitive" economy, beating the United States and fellow Scandinavian Sweden for top honors,

Taiwan and Singapore, ranked fifth and sixth, are Asia's top scorers,

China, the world's most populous nation and widely perceived as a comer on the international scene, placed a disappointing 44th, bogged down by "the perceived quality of its public institutions," its lack of judicial independence and a nagging sense of public corruption."

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/31/cx_da_1031topnews.html

What makes you feel that Indian industries are not world class or that our education is not world class?

Personal bias?

Money build infrastructure. Now, whatever makes you feel that the Indian infrastructure is less than the Chinese? The issue to remember is that India is a democracy. China is a totalitarian regime. In China you can order around the population, in India you can't. In China you can keep industrial disasters quiet, in a democracy you can't. What bout the little that comes to the world media like the repeated mine disasters and the silence on SARS? If it happened in India, it would be world news for days with commentaries how bad the Indian infrastructure is. So, media can make things look positive or negative.

Have you read in Readers Digest of the concentration camps and all the brainwashing done? Now, that China has been rehabilitated, do you get to read such stories in the Readers Digest? No.

So, don't build ideas on media alone. Interact and learn.

Show me the evidence. You seem to be an expert in generalised statements and a great believer in the concept of ''Gospel truths'. FYI, I am a member of the China Defence Forum and a friend of Col Wu. So, should I say, I am aware?

Again may I help you. Manpower is not evrything. Quality of that manpower is more important. WWII Beginning should teach. Germans vs the Rest .

I am a pragmatic man. I am not a votary of the tripe that is seen in the "Which is the Best Army in the World" type of threads.

I will present facts, but I won't shove it down the gullet since it doesn't help anyone.

ur source didnt even mention about india. i wonder where that is....... and also it doesnt prove india is better than china's infstructure. i've been to both countries too, and i think that helped me to tell the major difference.

i will reply this once, an infrastructure is made by economy and workforce. now 40% indians are iliterate. and also china's economy is 3 times higher than india's. somehow u tend to ignore these facts.

India produced around 36 million tons of oil (A natural resource index) in 2003 and will face the resource problem soon.
China produced 160 million tons of oil in 2003 and imported more than 100 million tons in the same year.

Around 30% of Indian male cannot read newspaper and 50% of female cannot read. that means around 40% of Indians cannot read. See
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ch.html
Less than 16% of Chinese cannot read (most of are old person and they missed the education opportunity in the old time). See
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/in.html

Economy sectors:
China: Argriculture: 15% of GDP, Industry 52% of GDP, Manufacturing 35% of GDP, service 33% In 2001
India: Argriculture: 24% of GDP, Industry 27% of GDP, Manufacturing 16% of GDP, service 48% In 2001
These data comes from World Bank. You can conclude that China's industry size is at least 4 times of India's after a very simple calculation. You can see how little India's industry is.
China's industry increased 16.8% in 2003. See: http://www.cet.com.cn/20040220/SPECIAL/200402201.htm
India's increased about 8%.

Less than 28 million tons of iron and steel was used in 2003 in India (An important index of infrastructure construction. This is the total India produced in 2003, and India is a net iron & steel exporter)(This is even less than what China produced in 1978 when China began its reform)
China produced around 225 million tons of iron and steel and imported other 35 million tons in 2003 for the construction. China used more iron and steel than Us and Japs combined.
See: http://www.worldsteel.org/media/wsif/wsif2003.pdf
It was reported that China's iron and steel production reached 300 million tons in 2004.

these are the main factors influence a country's infrastructure. u can choose to deny, which is tend to be ur habit when it talks about india is not as successful as china, is it some personal bias that u look down on chinese? i cant really help u if u have bias since that is just some uneducated emotion and i wont reply to anymore of ur claims here on this thread, due to the fact its not even relevant.

it is a fact that india's infrstructure cannot repair its russia weaponry and also behind of china. sending money to russia for repairing shows this already. how simpler do u need to understand? and this will mean that in a war against china, india wouldnt be able to have maximum efficentcy for long because there would be plenty of weapons needed to repair if against a country like china. i mention this because raj mention about china in its first post.

i hope u can learn to take critism too

right back to the topic.

Originally Posted by gingerbeard

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.

If it is evidence you want...
1971 Indo-Pak war..PLA did not try to threaten IA inspite of promises to Pakistan.
1986-87, there was another Sino-India standoff, inspite of making all the "teach a lesson" warning via the US diplomats, nothing was done.

Originally Posted by gingerbeard

all i can say is, india's infrastructure cannot even repair its own russia weapons.

Please give an example of any weapon system in InArmy that was not repaired in India, and had to be sent to Russia.

Originally Posted by gingerbeard

if there is a war breaks out with china and india at the moment. china has the upper had in everything except soldier experiences.

No, that capability of PLA has been erroded.
PLAAF, is technologically inferior. Most PLAAF fighters are off shoots of Mig-21s.
PLAN does not have blue water capability.
PLA only has a edge over Indian army w.r.t missiles(G2G).

Originally Posted by gingerbeard

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.

That is a misconception.
PLA won in 1962 because it had planned the invasion since 1959.
The victory for PLA in Arunachal sector can have many reasons, if you wish we could start a separate thread on it, as the subject will involve a lot of debating, and will not hijack this thread.

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now please stay on topic in here, no (more) India vs. China posts will be tolerated!

Thanks..

Oops, sorry admin, I jumped the gun and did'nt read your post before making my posts.

People, can we please not discuss the 1962 war in this thread? Not only is a 40 year old war in a completely different geostrategic enviroment completely irrelevant to the subject (modern day Indian military), it is a very divisive issue where neither Indian nor Chinese will agree upon.

I'd be happy to discuss it at some later point, but in this thread it is only a red herring.

Cheers.


Lemontree,
Glad you can make it

Originally Posted by lemontree

If it is evidence you want...
1971 Indo-Pak war..PLA did not try to threaten IA inspite of promises to Pakistan.
1986-87, there was another Sino-India standoff, inspite of making all the "teach a lesson" warning via the US diplomats, nothing was done.

Please give an example of any weapon system in InArmy that was not repaired in India, and had to be sent to Russia.

No, that capability of PLA has been erroded.
PLAAF, is technologically inferior. Most PLAAF fighters are off shoots of Mig-21s.
PLAN does not have blue water capability.
PLA only has a edge over Indian army w.r.t missiles(G2G).

u must understand that china does not want more enermies, u do know that 1962 war, china returned all indian soldiers and weapons to india, not to mention it didnt push any further.

no point posting the facts here, just go to china's army doctrine. u will see what the new chinese navy is like. there is often that the chinese nuclear sub always slip pass us detection in the pacific.

no, PLAAF fighters are retiring the Mig 21, and very quickly modernising its airforce in using Su series. and the J-10. and the chinese infrastructure can build more of these planes much faster than india if a war breaks out.

PLA has much better tanks than IA, not to mention more officers due to education level in china is much higher than in india. chinese troops are better equiped due to the economy of the country.

but i dun want to put something that is not relevant, if u want facts, just go to that thread.

Originally Posted by lemontree

That is a misconception.
PLA won in 1962 because it had planned the invasion since 1959.
The victory for PLA in Arunachal sector can have many reasons, if you wish we could start a separate thread on it, as the subject will involve a lot of debating, and will not hijack this thread.

so has indiam india planned the invasion too before the chinese, india decided to attack but the chinese didnt want to wait to be attacked, therefore quickly attacked first.