If India has to go for a two fronts war against China and Pakistan...

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Situation understood, Sir,

I will transfer onto CD what I've collected since my last my compliation for you. There might/will be duplicates with the last CD I've sent you though.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,840
Situation understood, Sir,

I will transfer onto CD what I've collected since my last my compliation for you. There might/will be duplicates with the last CD I've sent you though.
Colonel,

I remain ever grateful to your contribution to my military knowledge.

I can say I am a better military man thanks your educating me of the world beyond the Indian shores!
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
WWI, Sir? Eastern Russia. WWII, you know very well. In fact, India trained those Chinese divisions that went on to open the Burma Road. But in terms of sheer numbers? It's not even a comparison. The Chinese lost more men under arms than India ever had in uniform.

And China lost more men in one single war than India had in all her wars combined post independence.

However, this p!ssing contest is not my intention. My intention is to show LF has no appreciation to what it means to be battle experienced and battle hardened.
Did world not exist before WW1 or after WW2.
History has proved that Indians have imbibed well the teachings of not being too attached with life especially in times of survival contests.
After the contests with Muslim invaders no war was fought by Indians with survival motive (not even 1962, where we lost many men because of our incompetence). Whatever Chinese did they did because they were fighting for survival (WW-2 against Japs) or they were just plain incompetent (practically everthing else except WW-2)
Also Indian society and sub-societies historically fought with caste strengths (only the ruling class fought, the rest were not even armed). Present is different, now its a democracy (fighting duty is not restricted anymore). Compare this with Chinese history where fighting was a cultural issue (all the martial arts).
The differences are historic and cultural and not one of ability or battle experienced or battle hardened.

Scenario of two front war is not a pissing contest but an issue of survival. The two front war is fightable and may even be rewardable if the costs are incurred in search of profits possible in a high stakes gamble (WW-3 and reallignment of world system)

Westerners may find this particularly irritating being made to dirty there hands by third world (it would be the Kaalchakra going full circle WW-2 they pulled us into it, WW-3 we pull them in)

BTW did any one did a cost benefit analysis everytime Bismark/Hitler/whatever had to be taken on. Were any guarantees provided anywhere.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Did world not exist before WW1 or after WW2.
A matter of military revelence. The further back you go, the more irrevelent the military lessons learned.

History has proved that Indians have imbibed well the teachings of not being too attached with life especially in times of survival contests.
Not unique by any stretch of the imagination.

After the contests with Muslim invaders no war was fought by Indians with survival motive (not even 1962, where we lost many men because of our incompetence).
You're crapping me! You've saved the Empire at the cost of the Bengal Famine. If anything, the Empire WAS Great Britain and we paid through the nose to save Great Britain.

Whatever Chinese did they did because they were fighting for survival (WW-2 against Japs) or they were just plain incompetent (practically everthing else except WW-2)
A lot more complicated than that but one thing was for certain, they didn't go down.

Look. Imagine you're the best boxer in the world and you're going up against the fattest, slowest, dumbest fighter in the world. You hit him once, he staggers but didn't go down. You hit him again, he staggers more but didn't go down. After 30 hits, you already know the pattern. He's staggering less and you're hitting weaker.

Also Indian society and sub-societies historically fought with caste strengths (only the ruling class fought, the rest were not even armed). Present is different, now its a democracy (fighting duty is not restricted anymore). Compare this with Chinese history where fighting was a cultural issue (all the martial arts).
What? You don't know Chinese history or culture or even the military very well here. Very few can fight and very few wants to fight. Farmers, culturally, are the highest regarded profession in China.

BUT be that as it may, it is the duty and demand of any government to maintain an effective army to repel and to suppress the enemy.

The differences are historic and cultural and not one of ability or battle experienced or battle hardened.
Anytime you mentioned battle experienced or battle hardened to a professional soldier, we know you're an amateur.

The battle hardened army of Iraq lasted less than 72 hours against an army that only played war games for 20 years.

Scenario of two front war is not a pissing contest but an issue of survival. The two front war is fightable and may even be rewardable if the costs are incurred in search of profits possible in a high stakes gamble (WW-3 and reallignment of world system)
It is a p!ssing contest when neither front expects to march to Dehli.

Westerners may find this particularly irritating being made to dirty there hands by third world (it would be the Kaalchakra going full circle WW-2 they pulled us into it, WW-3 we pull them in)
Not a chance, especially when you and China ain't serious ... and you're not serious. The terrain doesn't allow you to be serious.

BTW did any one did a cost benefit analysis everytime Bismark/Hitler/whatever had to be taken on. Were any guarantees provided anywhere.
Yeah, Stalin did.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Colonel,

I remain ever grateful to your contribution to my military knowledge.

I can say I am a better military man thanks your educating me of the world beyond the Indian shores!
Sir,

Straight dump or do you want to give me the categories in which I can organize the data for you?

I don't know if I have gems for you this time. I was surprised you fell in love with LIGHTNING OVER WATER since that is an expeditionary study not particular suited for the Indian Army.

Most of what I have right now is pretty mundane ... but then again, I thought LIGHTNING OVER WATER was mundane.

In any case, Sir, you want a straight dump or anything I can organize the data for you, Sir?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,840
Sir,

Straight dump or do you want to give me the categories in which I can organize the data for you?

I don't know if I have gems for you this time. I was surprised you fell in love with LIGHTNING OVER WATER since that is an expeditionary study not particular suited for the Indian Army.

Most of what I have right now is pretty mundane ... but then again, I thought LIGHTNING OVER WATER was mundane.

In any case, Sir, you want a straight dump or anything I can organize the data for you, Sir?
Colonel,

You are well aware that knowledge is what I desire.

You are the best judge as to how to deliver since you haver read the subject.

Do as you desire.

Those you sent earlier, never surfaced since I have a very slow broadband!
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Originally Posted by advaita
Did world not exist before WW1 or after WW2.

Officer of Engineers: A matter of military revelence. The further back you go, the more irrevelent the military lessons learned.

advaita: I respect your views but my view is that earlier the experience doesn’t mean it becomes more irrelevant. It merely metamorphoses into other parts of life – mythology, philosophy, popular culture. Struggles are processes not events. For earlier experiences to become irrelevant we will require a change in the present understanding of causation, law of conservation…………….


Originally Posted by advaita
History has proved that Indians have imbibed well the teachings of not being too attached with life especially in times of survival contests.

Officer of Engineers: Not unique by any stretch of the imagination.

advaita: Not unique only if you believe that philosophy, religion, moral conduct, society, economics, military affairs, and identity are separate compartments. The unique or rather the non-uniqueness of the system is that most Indians live with the hypothesis that there are no such compartments and basically everything affects everything else and if we cannot understand how it happens then the defect is not in the hypothesis but in the understanding.



Originally Posted by advaita
After the contests with Muslim invaders no war was fought by Indians with survival motive (not even 1962, where we lost many men because of our incompetence).

Officer of Engineers: You're crapping me! You've saved the Empire at the cost of the Bengal Famine. If anything, the Empire WAS Great Britain and we paid through the nose to save Great Britain.

advaita: Nobody saves no one. GB saved itself by pushing us in an unpopular war (though entirely understandable war – perhaps that could be one of the reason why Indian intelligencia did not resist it too hard and instead used it to negotiate its concerns/interests better).
The Bengal famine was the result of our not being independent to decide our priorities and many more incidents like this one of varying scales led our intelligencia to take greater confrontationist positions later on.


Originally Posted by advaita
Whatever Chinese did they did because they were fighting for survival (WW-2 against Japs) or they were just plain incompetent (practically everthing else except WW-2)

Officer of Engineers: A lot more complicated than that but one thing was for certain, they didn't go down. Look. Imagine you're the best boxer in the world and you're going up against the fattest, slowest, dumbest fighter in the world. You hit him once, he staggers but didn't go down. You hit him again, he staggers more but didn't go down. After 30 hits, you already know the pattern. He's staggering less and you're hitting weaker.

advaita: My point exactly, China lived because they wished too just like Vietnam later just like India during slow mo struggle of last xyz years before GB just like Soviets. Some had territory to rely on, some had homogeneous manpower to rely on we had common thought process to rely on, GB had Empire to rely on.
After WW-2 however, the Chinese have been all over the place like a bad scrip in the stock market. While Indians fought only defensive wars (even the attacks were never for gaining new territory. Taking over BD was never the idea though POK could have been).



Originally Posted by advaita
Also Indian society and sub-societies historically fought with caste strengths (only the ruling class fought, the rest were not even armed). Present is different, now its a democracy (fighting duty is not restricted anymore). Compare this with Chinese history where fighting was a cultural issue (all the martial arts).

Officer of Engineers: What? You don't know Chinese history or culture or even the military very well here. Very few can fight and very few wants to fight. Farmers, culturally, are the highest regarded profession in China.

advaita: I would love to learn more about them.
But as I see it, One becomes what one involves oneself with in life. Everybody feels the same 9 emotions and has only yes/no way of reacting. Difference lies in the permutation and combinations that one finally lands with. Basically you die the way you live. Chinese are mad for martial arts and military might even the economic development was done to ensure more investment into defense capabilities. Their movies, the outlet for manliness that there young men get (remember their young are more interested in hacking instead of making a program). On the other hand our people sing and dance and we will do everything like a song and dance pagan routine (even fighting and dying). When was the last time you heard of Indian youth trying to hack systems and when did you not hear of them trying to make programs. These are however only the significant differences not the destiny.

Officer of Engineers: BUT be that as it may, it is the duty and demand of any government to maintain an effective army to repel and to suppress the enemy.

advaita: I don’t contest but remember the people get the government they deserve. Indians accepted caste based social structure and that limited our fighting abilities earlier to just the kshtriya class and the lay populations just could not provide the catchment population needed to fight prolonged wars and our Brahmin class could not make the other classes realize the weakness in our system and the nature of challenges they were facing. So all the Indian society went down and took a deserved drubbing. Only thing kept us going was the Shudra class (service class – agriculturist, artisans), who were still faithful to the essence of song and dance pagan society ideals. The situation remained till 1962-65 period for varying reasons. 1962 we could not have won. 2009 we may not win but we can sure prevent the Chinese from winning and this prevention capability lies all through the spectrum.


Originally Posted by advaita
The differences are historic and cultural and not one of ability or battle experienced or battle hardened.

Officer of Engineers: Anytime you mentioned battle experienced or battle hardened to a professional soldier, we know you're an amateur.

The battle hardened army of Iraq lasted less than 72 hours against an army that only played war games for 20 years.

advaita: My point exactly. Battles decide only the turning points of wars not the result of wars, circumstances and development of civilizational abilities both in peacetime and wartime.


Originally Posted by advaita
Scenario of two front war is not a pissing contest but an issue of survival. The two front war is fightable and may even be rewardable if the costs are incurred in search of profits possible in a high stakes gamble (WW-3 and reallignment of world system)

Officer of Engineers: It is a p!ssing contest when neither front expects to march to Dehli.

advaita: Delhi is just a place the people matter more and our people are clearly more vulnerable then Chinese people. And a two front war implies a struggle for survival.


Originally Posted by advaita
Westerners may find this particularly irritating being made to dirty there hands by third world (it would be the Kaalchakra going full circle WW-2 they pulled us into it, WW-3 we pull them in)

Officer of Engineers: Not a chance, especially when you and China ain't serious ... and you're not serious. The terrain doesn't allow you to be serious.

advaita: You are right Indians are not serious, Indians don’t believe they have much to gain from this competition getting hot, perhaps rightly so (though I think it could actually be desirable under certain circumstances to give a whole new curve to the evolution). About China its different. They have been sounding us out practically everyday since the 1950(s) at all levels of engagement in all available forums and fields. They have more to gain from it then anyone country has gained anything anytime.



Originally Posted by advaita
BTW did any one did a cost benefit analysis everytime Bismark/Hitler/whatever had to be taken on. Were any guarantees provided anywhere.

Officer of Engineers: Yeah, Stalin did.

advaita: I admire your humour. but its serious man. Survival contests will require whatever you can give.

But the situation is likely to remain for both sides like the old story of “for want of a horse shoe nail”.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
OOE Sir, from what I know, India contributed more to WW2 than France did. And definitely greater than China did. IA had become the largest all volunteer army during WW2 at more than 2 million men. We also provided the 3rd largest contingent after America and Britain in Italy.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
that is besides the point. The reference to Indian contribution in WW2 is W.R.T. the potential for greatness in future with the specific reference to a two front war.

Try thinking better.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,840
i really dont agree with you,india isnt that great during ww2,pleaz delet your post asap,
The financial, industrial and military support of India formed a crucial component of the British campaign against the Axis power.

india's strategic location at the tip of the Indian Ocean, its massive production of armaments, and its huge armed forces contributed decisively in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. The Army of India was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African Campaign, Western Desert Campaign and the Italian Campaign. At the height of the World War, more than 2.5 million Indian troops were fighting Axis forces around the globe.

At the outbreak of World War II, the Indian army numbered 205,000 men. Later during World War II the Indian Army became the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in size. These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. Indian soldiers earned 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War.

The British government meanwhile sent Indian troops to fight in West Asia and northern Africa against the Axis. India also geared up to produce essential goods such as food and uniforms. Pre-Independence India provided the largest volunteer force (2.5 million) of any nation during World War II.

The 4th, 5th and 8th Indian Divisions took part in the North African theatre against Rommel's Afrika Korps. Furthermore, the 4th and 5th Indian Divisions took part in the East African campaign against the Italians in Somaliland, Eritrea and Abyssinia.

In the Battle of Bir Hacheim, Indian gunners played an important role by using guns in the anti tank role and destroying tanks of Rommel's panzer divisions. Maj PPK Kumaramangalam was the battery commander of 41 Field Regiment which was deployed in the anti tank role. He was awarded the DSO for his act of bravery. Later he became the Chief of Army Staff of independent India in 1967.

The Indian army was the key allied fighting force in the Burma Campaign. The Indian Air Force's first assault mission was carried out against Japanese troops stationed in Burma. The British Indian Army was key to breaking the siege of Imphal when the westward advance of Imperial Japan came to a halt.

The formations included the Indian III Corps, Indian IV Corps, the Indian XXXIII Corps and the Fourteenth Army. As part of the new concept of Long Range Penetration Patrols (LRPP), Indian troops were trained in the present state of Madhya Pradesh Under their commander then Brigadier (later Major General) Orde Charles Wingate.

These troops, popularly known as Chindits, formed the largest component of the Allied forces in Burma and played a crucial role in halting Japanese advance in South-East Asia.

Casualties:

Casualties (1939 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 36,092 Killed
Soldiers (Axis) - 2,615 Killed
Civilians - 1,500,000 Killed

India operated worldwide and China?

Notwithstanding this, the casualties and killed is indeed remarkable. Speaks of professionalism. Dying like insects is no sign of valour or competence!!
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
lets not make it a *********** type of thread. It is very interesting and topical.
THE ISSUE REMAINS THE "TWO FRONT WAR"
 
X

xixihaha

Guest
if you guys really want to say sth,plz dont use India contributed more to WW2 than France did. And definitely greater than China did.........,you hurt the feeling of other countries,and plz dont get all your things from wiki,
 

deltacamelately

Professional
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
134
Likes
6
Considering and evaluating the total war contributions the IA made in that entire timeframe and juxtaposing it against the fact that afterall it was London and not New Delhi that was getting pounded by the Germans, IA's contribution remain mammoth.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Request my Indian friends to not fall in the trap of greatness that the dear chinese member has raised. The issue is still a "TWO FRONT WAR" AND I PERSONALLY BELIEVE OUR PEOPLE HAVE NOT EDUCATED PROPERLY FOR THIS POSSIBILITY.
I SAY LETS PUT THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL TWO FRONT WAR (FULL NUCS) TO A REFERENDUM IN INDIA.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,840
if you guys really want to say sth,plz dont use India contributed more to WW2 than France did. And definitely greater than China did.........,you hurt the feeling of other countries,and plz dont get all your things from wiki,

Friend,

I am a soldier and so was my father and in WWII and a Military Cross at that!!

Wiki is being used since it is not wrong from what I know.

What does the CCP say?

Sorry, if it hurts other countries, but then they should have contributed more so that they could not be hurt!
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top