The China India Equation

[drkrn]

The forward policy in 1962, we could save Arunachal Pradesh...

Chinese army left arunachal after we lost it because its difficult for them to defend it.

 

[drkrn]

You got your army there in 1962 under the "forward policy". Your amy just thought Chinese wouldn't dare to resist.

probably.a failure on the then govt part

 

[bose]

Chinese army left arunachal after we lost it because its difficult for them to defend it.

Chineese army fled from AP because they knew that Indians will counter attack with USA help if they do not withdraw...

 

[drkrn]

Chineese army fled from AP because they knew that Indians will counter attack with USA help if they do not withdraw...

thats what i meant buddy

 

[mahesh]

just imagine a fight between you and your friends you are on top of a house with stones and protected,your friends should climb the wall,who will win??

i thought 8 : 1 was required for both of the countries not india fighting with low terrain and china on top, it was meant for both the countries or any two opponent in common would nearly have 8:1 to win, or is it ? the formula was not made keeping india and china is mind, isn't it

 

[Decklander]

i thought 8 : 1 was required for both of the countries not india fighting with low terrain and china on top, it was meant for both the countries or any two opponent in common would nearly have 8:1 to win, or is it ? the formula was not made keeping india and china is mind, isn't it

An attacking force while trying to defeat its enemy in a hilly terrain who holds advantage of terrain and also has dug in defences, will need a force which is 8 times the number of defenders to be able to win. This equation is applicable to all armies all over the world. But the qualitative advantage of the attacker can bring this number down by a factor which is directly proportional to the qualitative advantage similarly a defender having qualitative advantage alongwith terrain advantage can ward of a much bigger force and in such a case the numerical ratio may even go to 1:16.

 

[GromHellscream]

LOL, PLA kicked the ass of somebody in 1962 with almost the same amount. But then considering the combat power, the 8:1 ratio theory might be true. HAHAHA.

 

[bose]

LOL, PLA kicked the ass of somebody in 1962 with almost the same amount. But then considering the combat power, the 8:1 ratio theory might be true. HAHAHA.

The same PLA also ran back with their tails between their legs when they saw USA sending arms in 1962...

 

[Decklander]

LOL, PLA kicked the ass of somebody in 1962 with almost the same amount. But then considering the combat power, the 8:1 ratio theory might be true. HAHAHA.

IA was forward deployed with no cover and logistics to support those units and PLA used tactics of massed assaults with over 12:1 ratio. Our soldiers just ran out of ammo, got overwhelmed and killed or captured. It was a classic case of Lancasters Linear law wherein the armies were conventional and evenly equipped in terms of weapons with very slight edge for PLA due to AK-47s.

 

[LalTopi]

An attacking force while trying to defeat its enemy in a hilly terrain who holds advantage of terrain and also has dug in defences, will need a force which is 8 times the number of defenders to be able to win. This equation is applicable to all armies all over the world. But the qualitative advantage of the attacker can bring this number down by a factor which is directly proportional to the qualitative advantage similarly a defender having qualitative advantage alongwith terrain advantage can ward of a much bigger force and in such a case the numerical ratio may even go to 1:16.

What about on the Tibetan plateau? does this ratio still apply? The article seems to imply that the ne MSC can be airlifted onto the plateau - but is this suicidal?

 

[Decklander]

What about on the Tibetan plateau? does this ratio still apply? The article seems to imply that the ne MSC can be airlifted onto the plateau - but is this suicidal?

Yes, this ratio will be applicable there also provided the defenders are situated on a higher ground with well dug in positions. I had stated in the very begining that this ratio falls flat if the opponant uses assymtric warfare or Guerilla tactics or Hit & Run raids.

 

[LalTopi]

Yes, this ratio will be applicable there also provided the defenders are situated on a higher ground with well dug in positions. I had stated in the very begining that this ratio falls flat if the opponant uses assymtric warfare or Guerilla tactics or Hit & Run raids.

So unfortunately, to quote the article, we can't expect to 'race' across to Lhasa any time soon:

the corps will have battalions of engineers who can bridge Tibet's rivers overnight for the Indian Army to race across, and helicopters that can lift troops and tanks right into the heart of Tibet.

 

[LalTopi]

Rendered powerless to strike in the eastern or central sectors, the Chinese have lately been needling India in the Ladakh sector in the west, where there are ****** in the Indian armour.

@Mods. is 'Chi nks' a prohibited term? in which case loose borders may not be the death of India but political correctness surely will.

 

[Decklander]

So unfortunately, to quote the article, we can't expect to 'race' across to Lhasa any time soon:

The aim of raising mountain strike corps is to overcome this problem of ratios and use assymtric warfare and guerilla tactics to defeat the enemy also the tech advantage which we enjoy over them today will help reduce these ratios.

 

[no smoking]

IA was forward deployed with no cover and logistics to support those units

That is indian army's own fault, you can't blame Chinese or your civilian government!

and PLA used tactics of massed assaults with over 12:1 ratio. Our soldiers just ran out of ammo, got overwhelmed and killed or captured. It was a classic case of Lancasters Linear law wherein the armies were conventional and evenly equipped in terms of weapons with very slight edge for PLA due to AK-47s.

In the whole front, PLA only archieved probably 2:1. By tactically concentrate its forces in certain points while leave other areas vulnerable, PLA may improve its advange to 4:1 but never reach 12:1 simply the logistic can't support. At that time, PLA enjoyed superiority on every measures (equipment, training, war experience, etc) except logistic while Indian army was far weaker than 1971.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

@Mods. is 'Chi nks' a prohibited term? in which case loose borders may not be the death of India but political correctness surely will.

The word has been used for at least 500 years.

Definition of -----
1
: a small cleft, slit, or fissure <a ----- in the fence>
2
: a weak spot that may leave one vulnerable <his lawyers found a ----- in the law>
3
: a narrow beam of light shining through a -----
Origin of -----
probably alteration of Middle English chine crack, fissure
First Known Use: 1535

 

[LalTopi]

That is indian army's own fault, you can't blame Chinese or your civilian government!



In the whole front, PLA only archieved probably 2:1. By tactically concentrate its forces in certain points while leave other areas vulnerable, PLA may improve its advange to 4:1 but never reach 12:1 simply the logistic can't support. At that time, PLA enjoyed superiority on every measures (equipment, training, war experience, etc) except logistic while Indian army was far weaker than 1971.

please provide links/references for these numbers.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

You chinese think that you can win over the Indian Army hands down. This will happen only in your dreams.....

You have numbers and we too have it. You are just being mislead by the weakness endorsed by the INDIAN ARMED FORCES, the tactic is similar to the US as to get new hi-tech weapons in the name of chinese aggression and on the other hand you chinese are getting carried away by this.....

 

[bose]

You chinese think that you can win over the Indian Army hands down. This will happen only in your dreams.....

You have numbers and we too have it. You are just being mislead by the weakness endorsed by the INDIAN ARMED FORCES, the tactic is similar to the US as to get new hi-tech weapons in the name of chinese aggression and on the other hand you chinese are getting carried away by this.....

Oh Brother!!! Chinese are master of retreat... They would not attack unless they have 8:1 ration in their favor... We need someone like General K.Sundarji who took the bluff out of these Chinese in 1987... When he crossed over to TIBET when the Chinese refused to move from Indian territory then as usual... The famous quote from Rajiv Gandhi then "The border is drawn with thick line""¦ there was no reaction from Chinese then, we need leaders with very strong will power"¦ not the current PM Maun Mohan Singh..

 

[t_co]

lol @ Indians still thinking China wants to invade to occupy territory - seems India is still preparing to fight the last war, while China is preparing to fight the next one