p2prada
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,015
Not really. Russian forces were left without ammo in the middle of the Georgian war. They lost too many forces initially due to bad planning as well. They are no longer what they used to be.No, you are mistaken. Libya hardly qualifies as a full scale war. France merely sent a couple of squadrons of jets to hit the Libyan forces. Russia *won* the Georgian conflict, and Chechnya is much more stable than Kashmir.
The French had issues with maintaining a force outside France, even if it was barely a few aircraft.
Vietnam, with no money or indigenous capability managed to fight off against overwhelming odds at great loss to themselves over a long period. You are underestimating India's capability when it comes to war.
If it comes to nuclear war then that is a different scenario. Now if France and Russia threaten India with such, then they would face more harm than good. Pen is after all mightier than a sword. Your opinion stems from the belief that the world is divided into two camps, American and Chinese.Besides, both these countries don't even have to send troops all the way to India. In the event of a full scale war, either country could vaporize all the major Indian cities using their nuke mounted ICBM's, since India has no missiles that would reach Paris or Moscow.
Political statement aimed at GoI hastening the purchase of Tank ammo from Russia.As for warfighting reserves I was wrong, the Indian army does not have 4-6 weeks of reserves, but barely 2 days worth:
Indian army running short of ammunition: General VK Singh - India News - IBNLive
Agreed. But you are suggesting India would remain so even in the future based on the current situation which is wrong.India is a paper tiger, it's time to acknowledge reality.
Modern warfare is quite well defined by how much you can destroy in a short amount of time. Destroying too much even on the first day would mean you won the war.Huh?? Wars of "attrition" are not "quick and decisive" by definition.
We are not looking at being a world power so quickly anyway. Even with all their money and indigenous capability, China is a paper tiger even today.Germany's military is a bad example to compare India with. Germany is restricted by treaty to have only minimal levels of armed forces:
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are no such restrictions on India. Yet, even 6 decades after independence, India has not even been able to equip its army with indigenous guns and ammunition. Pathetic state of affairs.
They have a more capable military because they are richer. That's all. Their guns and jets are sub par as compared to our own.China has a capable military because China indigenously produces the vast majority of armaments that its forces are equipped with. It doesn't buy billions of dollars of planes, tanks or artillery pieces through foreign tender. They makes their own guns, ammunition and jets, and even export them to other countries.
Sweden manufactures quite a bit of their own stuff. Nothing to say they are a world power because of that. For some reason people like to equate military power with indigenous capability. India takes foreign designs and manufactures them inhouse. When war comes there is no difference between indigenous and foreign design. They are all built to kill.India is a third world hand-me-down country, incapable of indigenous design, development or production. And so will it remain for the forseable future until it eventually breaks up.
Great power and superpower status for India as of today isn't possible. Nobody can deny that. But what you are suggesting is India cannot be one based on flimsy reasons. India is a regional power at best and so is China. We have a lot of miles to go before we can even think about being a great power. Nevertheless, China will be an economic superpower pretty soon followed by India within a decade.