Will China attack India again?

[Sam2012]

China didn't have very much to lose in 1962, so any gains it made, it could keep for free. The Sino-Soviet Alliance was dead at that point, and the Sino-US relationship was in a deep freeze. By contrast, China has decent relations with most of its neighbors now, which means any territorial gains it made would be extremely unpopular.

As for border claims, I have no idea why China keeps claiming Arunachal Pradesh, but I always felt it had something to do with the fact India still claims all of Jammu and Kashmir. China would like for its claims to be resolved in a comprehensive manner with India and Pakistan at the same time, much like when they were able to settle border disputes with Russia and Kazakhstan in a 3-way negotiation shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Oh may i know why ur step brothers stabbed u guys on ur back in supporting xinjiang separatist muslims?

 

[Virendra]

If you have a hammer more things look like a nail, as China military grows they are going to look for targets, India is going to look like a nail. large enought that China does not look like a bully, easy enough they dont have to worry about loseing. Close enought to be easy to get too.

Close enough to bite back too.
Close enough to not mess with and lose sleep permanently.
Neighbours ... that ring a bell?
Yes China is arrogant with its new found power but it is "not yet" crazy.

 

[DivineHeretic]

A point that i would like to make is that mountain warfare is enormously resource intensive,requiring collosal supply lines to feed the warmachine.If we are able to deny or cripple them the ability to sustain supplies,it would be very difficult for them to sustain the assault.

 

[Virendra]

A point that i would like to make is that mountain warfare is enormously resource intensive,requiring collosal supply lines to feed the warmachine.If we are able to deny or cripple them the ability to sustain supplies,it would be very difficult for them to sustain the assault.

Hello DivineHeretic, as a good practice at discussion forums, could you introduce yourself by opening a thread at - Introductions & Greetings
We would be happy to know more about you.

 

[roma]

As for border claims, I have no idea why China keeps claiming Arunachal Pradesh, but I always felt it had something to do with ...............

that really sums up most of your reply .... to be fair to you some of your reasons may sound nice , but they hardly fit the reality ....... the reality is that china's claims are insatiable although they are smart enough to reveal them one at a time , so it doesnt seem "too much"

they not only claim arunachal but a whole load of other smaller bits and pieces , which when added up are quite substantial ! - and of course, you wouldnt know about those either !

the reality is that china produces "old maps " of their territory to makes claims and when they do have the military advantage , they make use of it to enforce those "claims" !

this is what india had faced all along - the other asean countries thought that the arrow was only at india so they were quite satisfied to leave it at that - now they are learning otherwise !

 

[t_co]

Oh may i know why ur step brothers stabbed u guys on ur back in supporting xinjiang separatist muslims?

Doesn't this kind of prove that China doesn't tell Pakistan what to do, or vice versa?

 

[t_co]

That is a famous quote of a Chinese Colonel.

It is. It's the basic logic behind most of Chinese foreign policy--non-interference.

 

[t_co]

A point that i would like to make is that mountain warfare is enormously resource intensive,requiring collosal supply lines to feed the warmachine.If we are able to deny or cripple them the ability to sustain supplies,it would be very difficult for them to sustain the assault.

Good point. If China decides to attack India, India could conceivably attack the Qinghai-Tibet railway. However, the truth cuts both ways--if India attacked into China, it could sustain a 10-15 km incursion at most, since infrastructure leading up to the Indian side of the Himalayan foothills is pretty bad, and China could likewise hit the supply lines.

To be honest, a Sino-Indian war would be prolonged, bloody, and most ineffective on both sides. Moving men up mountains is hard. Moving equipment and supplies is even harder. Hence, making advances in mountainous terrain is difficult for any force, especially when the elevation is so high that it gives all the soldiers hypoxia and frostbite. Most of the units involved will be purely light infantry, but China does have a decent attack chopper with a heavy payload and high-altitude performance (the WZ-10), so fire-support from the Chinese side is not likely to be an issue as those choppers can substitute for artillery.

To use them, though, China will need to win air superiority. That's going to be difficult. Air parity is the likeliest outcome, unless Pakistan decides to join in the fun and force the IAF to divert its assets. If the assets are diverted, of course, then the PLAAF will have pretty much free reign over the skies reaching 100 to 200km into India until Pakistan is removed from the equation (which could take anywhere between 5 to 15 days). This means it'll be a light-infantry vs light-infantry skirmish on the ground, but the IA is going to have no ability to move because any movement will be interdicted by the PLAAF and they will be outgunned because every skirmish will have CAS from the Chinese side but none from the Indian side. This combination of factors may produce substantial advances and open holes large enough to punch mechanized forces through, but it's still unlikely.

Ergo, unless Pakistan is fighting India, any Sino-Indian conflict is going to be bloody and inconclusive. But if Pakistan is also fighting India at the same time, the IA is going to have its hands very, very full. Chinese mechanized formations could conceivably punch all the way to the border of Bangladesh, and split the eastern provinces off from the rest of India.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Good point. If China decides to attack India, India could conceivably attack the Qinghai-Tibet railway. However, the truth cuts both ways--if India attacked into China, it could sustain a 10-15 km incursion at most, since infrastructure leading up to the Indian side of the Himalayan foothills is pretty bad, and China could likewise hit the supply lines.

To be honest, a Sino-Indian war would be prolonged, bloody, and most ineffective on both sides. Moving men up mountains is hard. Moving equipment and supplies is even harder. Hence, making advances in mountainous terrain is difficult for any force, especially when the elevation is so high that it gives all the soldiers hypoxia and frostbite. Most of the units involved will be purely light infantry, but China does have a decent attack chopper with a heavy payload and high-altitude performance (the WZ-10), so fire-support from the Chinese side is not likely to be an issue as those choppers can substitute for artillery.

To use them, though, China will need to win air superiority. That's going to be difficult. Air parity is the likeliest outcome, unless Pakistan decides to join in the fun and force the IAF to divert its assets. If the assets are diverted, of course, then the PLAAF will have pretty much free reign over the skies reaching 100 to 200km into India until Pakistan is removed from the equation (which could take anywhere between 5 to 15 days). This means it'll be a light-infantry vs light-infantry skirmish on the ground, but the IA is going to have no ability to move because any movement will be interdicted by the PLAAF and they will be outgunned because every skirmish will have CAS from the Chinese side but none from the Indian side. This combination of factors may produce substantial advances and open holes large enough to punch mechanized forces through, but it's still unlikely.

Ergo, unless Pakistan is fighting India, any Sino-Indian conflict is going to be bloody and inconclusive. But if Pakistan is also fighting India at the same time, the IA is going to have its hands very, very full. Chinese mechanized formations could conceivably punch all the way to the border of Bangladesh, and split the eastern provinces off from the rest of India.

You are right for the most parts,except that india will use ground infrastructure (read roads) to sustain an offensive.india would like to use the airlift option in the mountains as it gives the flexibility to deploy and maintain a swift advance,something we saw extensively in the 47-48 wars as well as the siachin theatre.

Theoretically your formations could attempt to cut through the chickens neck and cut off eastern india but for that would would need to come into a sort of slim valley.
Not an ideal place to be the aggressor.also for the sake of arguement I could say that india might simply force bangladesh to open up its routes for our supplies,in which case your thrust becomes a pn irritant,not an endgame.
In any case,bar pakistan joining,our border war would be a small scale massacre of the horrific trench warfare of world war1.
Lets avoid unnecessary wars.

 

[Yusuf]

India is preparing for a two front war. The air force including.

 

[roma]

they are likely to keep probing the boundaries as they did in 1967, '68 , 78, 86 , 2006 - till today ...finger point and northern arunachal , dholam plateau of bhutan , flying helicopters across himachal and into pak etc etc ....if they find real weak spots or lack of attentiveness eg in 1957 they had already built a road into aksai without anyone in indai being aware of it ,if that kind of thing occurs whether on land or sea , you can be quite sure they will occupy the vacuum

 

[DivineHeretic]

India is preparing for a two front war. The air force including.

The ability of india to wage a two front war is severely limited.for an offensive stance the airforce would need about 70 sqadrons. For an offensive war against pak while maintaining a credible deterrence against china,45 squadrons are needed.
Neither nos. are likely anytime soon.

 

[Yusuf]

The ability of india to wage a two front war is severely limited.for an offensive stance the airforce would need about 70 sqadrons. For an offensive war against pak while maintaining a credible deterrence against china,45 squadrons are needed.
Neither nos. are likely anytime soon.

we are looking at a 45 squadron air force in the near- mid future & a 60 squad one in a bit longer term

 

[DivineHeretic]

Well the nos. I gave were formed during the time of gen. Sunderjee. i.e. 1980s.
It didnt account for fifth gen aircraft or for that matter uav/ucavs.
So i guess the new nos will be somewhat different from what i said.
But the highest priority should be given to the infantry,mountain warfare requires a completely different ROE.
The max. Physical exertion is limited and so is the stamina,in other words the amount of time a commander can ask his troops to battle is much reduced,which gives rise to short and intense exchanges,like we saw in 62. This is coupled with the problem of sustained and accurate CAS in a difficult environment. So if the basic infantry can be hardened against such limitations and better armored,it becomes easier to sustain the offensive.

 

[t_co]

You are right for the most parts,except that india will use ground infrastructure (read roads) to sustain an offensive.india would like to use the airlift option in the mountains as it gives the flexibility to deploy and maintain a swift advance,something we saw extensively in the 47-48 wars as well as the siachin theatre.

Theoretically your formations could attempt to cut through the chickens neck and cut off eastern india but for that would would need to come into a sort of slim valley.
Not an ideal place to be the aggressor.also for the sake of arguement I could say that india might simply force bangladesh to open up its routes for our supplies,in which case your thrust becomes a pn irritant,not an endgame.
In any case,bar pakistan joining,our border war would be a small scale massacre of the horrific trench warfare of world war1.
Lets avoid unnecessary wars.

Very true. Agreed on the Sikkim/chicken's neck aspect; the terrain is tactically unfavorable for mechanized operations, but on a higher strategic level, it's the easiest place to inflict game-ending damage on India and force it to the negotiating table. India might use convoys and shipping in the BoB instead of forcing Bangladesh to open its routes up for supplies--I know if I was India's PM I would prefer doing that, as if Bangladesh says no and aligns with China and Pakistan, then India will have major major problems. Plus, it's highly unlikely the PLAN has the operational capability to operate in the BoB.

On the second point, I agree as well. Alpine combat results in horrific casualty rates. The largest example of alpine fighting was the Italian Campaign of World War I. It resulted in 3 million killed and wounded out of the 13 million men both sides deployed, all for little gain. Most of the casualties occured from disease and exposure. This picture should tell you what the fighting was like:

Trenches and infantry assaults at 4000M elevation = mass death

 

[t_co]

we are looking at a 45 squadron air force in the near- mid future & a 60 squad one in a bit longer term

Not enough, sadly--although if the IAF could learn all of the ground crew efficiency tricks of the Israeli Air Force, it could be done. In 1967 and 1973, the Israeli Air Force was able to maintain a sortie turnaround rate 16 times higher than their enemies, which basically made their Air Force three times larger in terms of striking power than it appeared on paper.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Very true. Agreed on the Sikkim/chicken's neck aspect; the terrain is tactically unfavorable for mechanized operations, but on a higher strategic level, it's the easiest place to inflict game-ending damage on India and force it to the negotiating table. India might use convoys and shipping in the BoB instead of forcing Bangladesh to open its routes up for supplies--I know if I was India's PM I would prefer doing that, as if Bangladesh says no and aligns with China and Pakistan, then India will have major major problems. Plus, it's highly unlikely the PLAN has the operational capability to operate in the BoB.

China will not be able to cut off the "chicken neck" joining the rest of India with NE states. If the PLA does venture that far into Indian territory, it will be vulnerable to being outflanked and cut off from its supply lines by an IA thrust through Nepal. Nepal is practically an Indian client state, and will acquiesce quite easily in such a scenario.

Even if China were to somehow to prevent that possibility, India will then pressure Bangladesh into opening up its border for military operations using the Navy as you mentioned.

Finally, the Indian Navy may even target Chinese merchant shops and oil supplies in the Indian Ocean.

On the second point, I agree as well. Alpine combat results in horrific casualty rates. The largest example of alpine fighting was the Italian Campaign of World War I. It resulted in 3 million killed and wounded out of the 13 million men both sides deployed, all for little gain. Most of the casualties occured from disease and exposure. This picture should tell you what the fighting was like:

Trenches and infantry assaults at 4000M elevation = mass death

Indeed. Unlike Pakistan, both India and China have tremendous strategic depth but no ability to fight a long, sustained war to comprehensively defeat each other. Even though China may have the upper hand initially due to better infrastructure in Tibet, Indian leaders will not concede defeat that easily. Even in 1962, when the IA was almost wiped out from most of the NE states, Nehru did not agree to a Chinese ceasefire offer until the PLA withdrew to its positions before the war.

Today the situation is very different.

 

[civfanatic]

Indeed. Unlike Pakistan, both India and China have tremendous strategic depth but no ability to fight a long, sustained war to comprehensively defeat each other. Even though China may have the upper hand initially due to better infrastructure in Tibet, Indian leaders will not concede defeat that easily. Even in 1962, when the IA was almost wiped out from most of the NE states, Nehru did not agree to a Chinese ceasefire offer until the PLA withdrew to its positions before the war.

Today the situation is very different.

This is a bit OT, but I think it should be considered that India has NEVER, in its history as an independent country or before, fought a "total war". All wars that were waged by India were waged by the Indian Armed Forces, not the Indian people. The same is also true for Pakistan.

On the other hand, China has experience fighting total wars, both from the Second Sino-Japanese War (which was a fight for national survival) and the Chinese Civil War that followed. China in those days was a poor, undeveloped country with hardly any industrial capability, but the Chinese people showed that they were capable of withstanding tremendous hardship in the face of a superior, technologically advanced enemy, and were able to ultimately prevail through a sheer war of attrition (somewhat similar to the case of Soviet Union vs. Germany).

However, in the case of a total war scenario involving India, I have my sincere doubts as to whether the people of India would show similar determination and steadfastness in the face of the enemy. If history is any indicator of the future, quite a few Indians would probably try to collaborate with the enemy, and many would probably be passive towards the war effort. It would be the ultimate test for the Republic of India, and would show whether or not there is anything concrete behind Indian nationalism.

 

[roma]

im surprised to notice that most of the above are defensive reaction strategies fighting more or less on our soil ......even pakistan with its' much smaller military has always held the position that once the line is crossed , they will nuke ....i think we should give china a bit of this pak -type medicine .... of course the situation is far from that , and so it is understandable that none of our leaders has had to pass such a message to dragon ..... but they shoudl perhaps be told on this forum , that that option always exists

 

[DivineHeretic]

China will not be able to cut off the "chicken neck" joining the rest of India with NE states. If the PLA does venture that far into Indian territory, it will be vulnerable to being outflanked and cut off from its supply lines by an IA thrust through Nepal. Nepal is practically an Indian client state, and will acquiesce quite easily in such a scenario.

Even if China were to somehow to prevent that possibility, India will then pressure Bangladesh into opening up its border for military operations using the Navy as you mentioned.

Finally, the Indian Navy may even target Chinese merchant shops and oil supplies in the Indian Ocean.



Indeed. Unlike Pakistan, both India and China have tremendous strategic depth but no ability to fight a long, sustained war to comprehensively defeat each other. Even though China may have the upper hand initially due to better infrastructure in Tibet, Indian leaders will not concede defeat that easily. Even in 1962, when the IA was almost wiped out from most of the NE states, Nehru did not agree to a Chinese ceasefire offer until the PLA withdrew to its positions before the war.

Today the situation is very different.

Actually the initial 48-96 hours will be the most critical for any offensive on either side. I doubt any high ground occupied by either side could be retaken for a justifiable cost in terms of men and equipment. We saw in kargil too that depite fighting against irregulars we sustained severe casualties in retaking the high ground. The air component will be limited at best and in any case because of it being a infantry based conflict seperated by very short distance,CAS could turn into friendly fire in the blink of an eye.
Thus it might not be feasible to retake the lost territory, instead of which we might occupy hostile territory relatively lightly defended by the chinese and later use it as a bargaining chip when diplomacy inevitably kicks in.