Why did China withdraw from Arunachal in 1962 skirmish?

[Pintu]

That area is occupied by PLA from 1959 onwards , the LAC showing the boundary dated back 50 years ago.

Regards

 

[IBRIS]

Aksai Chin now days give a huge strategic advantage to China: it's around 400km away from New Delhi, and also closed to J&K.

1. Once we deploy a short range missile like M11 aim to India's capital, India has to deploy long range (agni-3?) as balance, since we have no too much important cities in western area. so the cost ratio would be 1:5 to 1:10; and if China makes India into such contest, will waste huge resource of India.

2. This area also can give PLA routine to support any affair between Pak and India.

Comparing Aksai Chin, the South Tibet is really less important, and considering we had limited resource in 1962, withdrawing from AP, but stick with Aksai Chin was smart choice at that time

Now how did you even manage to bring your M11 to crawl all the way to aksai chin in -35 celcius. PLA should finish the railroads to LHASA regarding the permafrost, then talk about bringing that so called M11 to Aksai Chin :icon_salut:

 

[rockdog]

I think at 1962, IA troop had no chance to win over PLA at all.

60% of the troops who participated the war were veteran experienced 4 yrs civil war, and some of them even fought against US army and UN army in Korea. They have better war experience than IA.

If you really research the "Casualties and losses" from WIKI:
India
1,383 Killed[5]
1,696 Missing[5]
3,968 Captured[6][5]
1,047 Wounded [5]

China
722 Killed. [5]
0 Captured[5]
1,697 Wounded

---------------------------
The POW rate is: 3,968 : 0

It means it's just a total crash and collapse for the IA...


And i think now days, IA has better war experience than PLA, i just worry about future way between India and China, since China doesn't have war for 30 yrs.

 

[rockdog]

Now how did you even manage to bring your M11 to crawl all the way to aksai chin in -35 celcius. PLA should finish the railroads to LHASA regarding the permafrost, then talk about bringing that so called M11 to Aksai Chin :icon_salut:

http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/mil/junmore/200804/15/W020080415284783095370.jpg

http://t3.baidu.com/it/u=4072186181,3098421244&fm=0&gp=14.jpg

http://t1.baidu.com/it/u=2599818420,4006436728&fm=0&gp=-38.jpg

I can find lots of such picture showing PLA missile troops training on Tibet, the railway is not mandatory, since there are famous road cross AK named Tibet-Xinjiang road .... :twizt:

 

[rockdog]

Pictures you just showed are from flat terrain. :thumbs_thmbdn:The terrain in Aksai Chin is very jaged, not suitable to deploy any 8 wheeled junk. Your toy soldiers are not super heroes who can live in -35 celcius.

OK thanks for pointing out, and let me forgive your limited knowledge:

1. "The China National Highway 219, connecting Tibet and Xinjiang, passes through no towns in Aksai Chin, only some military posts and truck stops, such as the very small Tianshuihai (el. 4,850 m (15,900 ft)) post. The road adds to the strategic importance of the area."
Aksai Chin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you think our missile troop won't equip the track can have mobility on such road condition?


2. Pictures with new airport in AK:

It's the newly built airport in AK, with 4500m lane

The title says in Chinese: once we take off, we will soon reach India,

So we can't deploy things here?

this is your 13th post here and no one asked about 1962 war figures. Oviously you are just a attention loving prostitute making no sense at all :twizt:

So from your previous words, you know very limited things about 62 war and related knowledge. So I won't care about what you said, sorry

 

[ahmedsid]

[mod] I Request our Indian Members to take things from the right Perspective and Not start abusing someone just because you cant stand your ground. Take this as a WARNING. [/mod]

 

[smiling_scorpion]

So what has changed now? I hope you won't be relying too much on the B2s on offer as some stupid blog has reported??

wow.do you think there's any point to discuss it?too much "if" means nothing. you lose the war in 62th.if you believe India is stronge enough now to start another war on the boundary.just have a try.let's wait and see.

 

[roma]

wow.do you think there's any point to discuss it?too much "if" means nothing. you lose the war in 62th.if you believe India is stronge enough now to start another war on the boundary.just have a try.let's wait and see.

if it were possible to give that post th e opposite of a thanks eg a thumbs down or something, this would surely qualify !

you can see it is china causing all the trouble - never india

 

[IBRIS]

wow.do you think there's any point to discuss it?too much "if" means nothing. you lose the war in 62th.if you believe India is stronge enough now to start another war on the boundary.just have a try.let's wait and see.

China’s latest decision to issue stapled visa, not stamped on the passports, to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir State is looked as the revival of their plank that this State is not an integral part of the Indian Union.
Now you tell who is playing the games here.

The Chinese incursion in Indian territory has led to an almost complete breakdown in relations between China and India. Indians denounce the Chinese for having aggressive, imperialist designs against Indian territory.

India is in better position today than they were during 1962 war. Any misadvennture by your munchurian communist fools will be met with sever response from Indian side. While you are still in the 62 era of boasting self pride around here is harming the chinese image among us Indians. Shows how much you have to look up and while we still stare you down. We Indians are very patriotic today then ever before. Mother's are willing to give up there childrens to save the countries pride. I hope chinese rich boys are ready to make sacrifices. :tank:

 

[Vladimir79]

wow.do you think there's any point to discuss it?too much "if" means nothing. you lose the war in 62th.if you believe India is stronge enough now to start another war on the boundary.just have a try.let's wait and see.

Yes, but we can look at PLA battles since 1962. They were slaughtered in 69' by Soviet bombardment and humilated by Vietnam 79'. From reports coming out from old time officers things are even worse as far as corruption and patriotism than were in those days.

 

[Martian]

"We Indians are very patriotic today then ever before. Mother's are willing to give up there childrens to save the countries pride. I hope chinese rich boys are ready to make sacrifices."

This is a very interesting point. America does not want to go to war with China, because rich young Americans do not want to die in an endless conventional war. See Moseley: Gates was Right; ‘Zero Chance’ of War with China or Russia | Danger Room | Wired.com

Similarly, the average Chinese is three times richer than the average Indian. See List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How much real support is there in China for a war-of-choice against India? As Chinese become increasingly wealthy, the threshold for support of a foreign conflict will become more difficult to meet. Especially with the effect of the one-child policy.

 

[roma]

Hmmm interesting it missed me - the Soviet bombardment of china ?

Yes, but we can look at PLA battles since 1962. They were slaughtered in 69' by Soviet bombardment .....

(that's a partial quote for the post)

was that the same or at the same time as the infantry clashes on the Ussuri ( pardon the spelling ) River Border ? If anyone has more info or an english language website , most grateful for the info . thanks

 

[rockdog]

Yes, but we can look at PLA battles since 1962. They were slaughtered in 69' by Soviet bombardment and humilated by Vietnam 79'. From reports coming out from old time officers things are even worse as far as corruption and patriotism than were in those days.

Don't forget how the Soviet soldier slaughtered by US and China supported fighter in Afgs, and how the evil empire collapsed by this humilated defeat:goodstuff:

BTW, your history knowledge is truly limited:

1. Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China:
29 killed according to Chinese sources

Soviet
58 killed， 1 truck, 1 command vehicle and unknown number of APCs destroyed, 1 T62 damaged by mine and subsequently captured by Chinese PLA

And this island now is controlled by China:
http://a4.att.hudong.com/70/83/01000000000000119078301913970.jpg:sporty55:


2. Sino-Vietnamese War
Sino-Vietnamese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China:
6900 killed, 15,000 wounded. Western sources: 25,000 killed and 37.000 wounded

Soviet
Under 10,000
Over 20,000 killed and wounded Chinese claimed 30,000 killed

Vietnam claims 100,000 civilians killed


And all the dispute areas now are controlled by China:
http://xsh.gxun.edu.cn/uploadfile/wsdx/uploadfile/200804/20080415112642402.jpg


-----------------------

Dear Vladimir79, if your really lack of knowledge and motivation for studying, plz come to me, i can teach you. Or your English is not good, and don't know the definition of "slaughtered", "humilated "?

 

[Vinod2070]

You're both wrong. The PLAAF's strength during this time period was not fighter jets, it was triple-As. Chinese triple-As shot down 5 times more aircrafts than their MiGs ever did and the tricks they learned during the Korean War was used well into the Vietnam War with PLAAF regiments still downing American planes heading towards Hanoi.

Triple-A batteries were deployed en-massed in 1962. Thus I am skeptical about the InAF claims that they could have won the war all by themselves.

I tend to agree. This is probably a belated attempt to restore a fragile ego. I think IAF could have contributed in breaking the Chinese supply lines, not so much in an attack role.

 

[Vladimir79]

Don't forget how the Soviet soldier slaughtered by US and China supported fighter in Afgs, and how the evil empire collapsed by this humilated defeat:goodstuff:

BTW, your history knowledge is truly limited:

1. Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China:
29 killed according to Chinese sources

Soviet
58 killed， 1 truck, 1 command vehicle and unknown number of APCs destroyed, 1 T62 damaged by mine and subsequently captured by Chinese PLA

And this island now is controlled by China:
http://a4.att.hudong.com/70/83/01000000000000119078301913970.jpg:sporty55:


2. Sino-Vietnamese War
Sino-Vietnamese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China:
6900 killed, 15,000 wounded. Western sources: 25,000 killed and 37.000 wounded

Soviet
Under 10,000
Over 20,000 killed and wounded Chinese claimed 30,000 killed

Vietnam claims 100,000 civilians killed


And all the dispute areas now are controlled by China:
http://xsh.gxun.edu.cn/uploadfile/wsdx/uploadfile/200804/20080415112642402.jpg


-----------------------

Dear Vladimir79, if your really lack of knowledge and motivation for studying, plz come to me, i can teach you. Or your English is not good, and don't know the definition of "slaughtered", "humilated "?

OK Mr. Wiki... let us clear up a few things. #1, the counter offensive on Damansky Island not only liberated it from PLA control, but the strikes on PLA forces killed over 800. The only reason we gave you the island last year was the only way to seal a $100 billion energy deal on our terms. The island was worthless anyway considering Chinese pollution has made the fish inedible and we get tens of billions in long term profit.

As far as the Sino-Vietnam war, PLA incompetence was well established with outdated tactics and poor logistics. Chinese troops were massacred in mass attacks from well fortified positions. Out of the 100,000 PLA troops that entered Vietnam, only 70,000 came out alive and only half came out unscathed.

The Sino-Vietnamese War, 1979 - Page 2 | Suite101.com

After Chinese troops retreated they left a scorched earth policy on their way out. Thanks to Soviet supplies and arms, Vietnam was able to whoop your arse. The land border of Vietnam is practically the same today as it was in 79'.

 

[Koji]

Vlad,

The PLA goal was to make Vietnam withdraw its troops from Cambodia, which it did successfully. It was never a war to take land.

 

[Vladimir79]

Vlad,

The PLA goal was to make Vietnam withdraw its troops from Cambodia, which it did successfully. It was never a war to take land.

Considering Vietnam didn't withdraw its troops until the end of the CCCP I don't see what you are saying. It was a total Chinese failure.

 

[Koji]

Considering Vietnam didn't withdraw its troops until the end of the CCCP I don't see what you are saying. It was a total Chinese failure.

I'm saying that you asserted that borders remain relatively the same after the war. That is because the Chinese didn't want to take land and never had any intention of doing so, which you claimed to be due to Chinese failure.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Far Outliers: What the PLA Learned in Vietnam, 1979

What the PLA Learned in Vietnam, 1979

From A History of the Modern Chinese Army, by Xiaobing Li (U. Press of Kentucky, 2007), pp. 255-256, 258-259 (footnote references omitted):
Some Chinese soldiers called it a "painful, little war." Vietnamese troops avoided battle and instead harassed PLA forces. Some Chinese officers described it as a "ghost war," since the enemy troops were almost invisible, or a "shadow war," since it seemed they were fighting against their own shadows. The Vietnamese troops employed the same tactics, made the same moves, and used the same weapons as the Chinese. They knew exactly what the Chinese were trying to do. They exploited almost every problem and weakness the Chinese had. The Chinese troops had to fight their own problems first before they could fight the Vietnamese. Deng's border war taught the PLA a hard lesson....

Many of the PLA's commanding officers were shocked by the poor discipline, low morale, combat ineffectiveness, and high casualties in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. During the nineteen days of the first two phases, the PLA suffered 26,000 casualties, about 1,350 per day. Gerald Segal points out that in Vietnam, "in contrast to Korea, Chinese troops performed poorly. In Korea, they adequately defended North Korea, but in 1979 they failed to punish Vietnam. China's Cambodian allies were relegated to a sideshow along the Thai frontier, and China was unable to help them break out."

During the war, 37,300 Vietnamese troops were killed, and 2,300 were captured. The Soviet Union surprised the Vietnamese by refusing to get involved in the conflict. On February 18, Moscow had denounced China's aggression and promised that the Soviet Union would keep its commitments according to the Soviet-Vietnam cooperation and friendship treaty. Then, however, the Soviet Union did not make any major moves. Russian military intelligence did increase its reconnaissance planes and ships in the South China Sea and along the Vietnamese coast after China's invasion. On February 24, two Russian transport planes landed at Hanoi and unloaded some military equipment. Most countries maintained a neutral position during the Sino-Vietnamese War.

The brief war was a grievous misfortune for both China and Vietnam, not only because it resulted in material and human losses for both nations but also because it brought years of earlier cooperation to a dispiriting conclusion. The war showed that American belief in the domino theory was misplaced, since two Communist countries, one of which had just attained national liberation, were now in conflict with each other. Each valued its own national interests much more than the common Communist ideology. On February 27, 1979, Deng told American journalists in Beijing that "Vietnam claims itself as the third military superpower in the world. We are eliminating this myth. That's all we want, no other purpose. We don't want their territory. We make them to understand that they can't do whatever they want to all the times."

Hanoi believed, however, that the Vietnamese army had taught the Chinese army a lesson. One [People's Army of Vietnam] general said that China lost militarily and beat a hasty retreat: "After we defeated them we gave them the red carpet to leave Vietnam." As Henry J. Kenny points out, "Most Western writers agree that Vietnam had indeed outperformed the PLA on the battlefield, but say that with the seizure of Lang Son, the PLA was poised to move into the militarily more hospitable terrain of the Red River Delta, and thence to Hanoi." Kenny, however, points out that Lang Son is less than twelve miles from the Chinese border but is twice that distance from the delta. Moreover, at least five PAVN divisions remained poised for a counterattack in the delta, and thirty thousand additional PAVN troops from Cambodia, along with several regiments from Laos, were moving to their support. Thus the PLA would have taken huge losses in any southward move toward Hanoi.

 

[Vladimir79]

I'm saying that you asserted that borders remain relatively the same after the war. That is because the Chinese didn't want to take land and never had any intention of doing so, which you claimed to be due to Chinese failure.

You just said the invasion made the Vietnamese withdraw their occupation of Cambodia. That is false. The remaining Chinese backed forces were in no position to launch a counter attack in Cambodia and by the time they did, Vietnam had already repelled the Chinese and were in full control. China left their little civil war on their own. China wanted to take contested Vietnamese territory in the process. The whole conflict started b/c China thought they could play Super Power in a Sino-Soviet proxy war... China lost and there is no doubt about it.