India-China 2020 Border Dispute - Military and Strategic Discussion

[Knowitall]

Tech always comes with counter measures from the opposing side. Europe went that route post cold war and are in a pathetic state now if they really have to fight a war on the ground. All they can do is blow up from air which achieves nothing.

Your idea is efficient but mass is mass.

Highly disagree here the biggest mistake of europe was to try and maintain large armies so that they could act like major players in world politics.

Britain literally bankrupt itself trying to maintain a large force.

They soon realized just how foolish they were and major changes took place.

The point is each country should build their military based on their needs Europeans changed their doctrine because they realized the change in threats around them.

Their military today is focused on expeditionary force to run ops in ME africa and other areas.

Their military also focuses on joint warfare were countries pool their resources together and complement each other on the field.

I agree with the point overall european nation don't posses the military to fight major wars alone anymore.

 

[omaebakabaka]

Highly disagree here the biggest mistake of europe was to try and maintain large armies so that they could act like major players in world politics.

Britain literally bankrupt itself trying to maintain a large force.

They soon realized just how foolish they were and major changes took place.

The point is each country should build their military based on their needs Europeans changed their doctrine because they realized the change in threats around them.

Their military today is focused on expeditionary force to run ops in ME africa and other areas.

Their military also focuses on joint warfare were countries pool their resources together and complement each other on the field.

All tech comes from west and they can't even countrol their borders.....is there any point?

 

[Bhadra]

We have our land borders in such a geography where many things get neutralised.. where technologies have limitations , where technologies developed around the world does not work.. where one needs special seekers for missiles, air powers is bound by limitations, tanks can not be employed, vehicles do not ply, come what may you can not use technology to protect yourself .. no technology of the world can overcome problems of HAA...

Remain on mother earth and talk of realities..

 

[Lancer]

What you are saying indicates to more of Nato countries failing to execute anything to a decent conclusion whether it is Ukraine or Afghanistan or Syria or Libya. They are rot inside out. Russia rebuilt itself in a way....US has to in the coming years rebuilt to new threats too.

The point is about tech centrism and flexibility - as opposed to large, inflexible standing armies which drain resources and in many cases will become obsolete.

Powerful Air Force + Navy, and a smaller but agile and advanced ground Army is the way of the future.

In some ways - India has already learned this lesson the hard way repeatedly - but India never fully learns lessons, it only learns them in installments, and so it also gets periodic reminders in installments. Sundarji's Doctrine, followed by what happened in Op Parakram - leading to CSD, and newer IBG concepts; essentially supports my argument in many ways.

 

[Knowitall]

All tech comes from west and they can't even countrol their borders.....is there any point?

I didn't understand elaborate a bit?

 

[omaebakabaka]

The point is about tech centrism and flexibility - as opposed to large, inflexible standing armies which drain resources and in many cases will become obsolete.

Powerful Air Force + Navy, and a smaller but agile and advanced ground Army is the way of the future.

In some ways - India has already learned this lesson the hard way repeatedly - but India never fully learns lessons, it only learns them in installments, and so it also gets periodic reminders in installments. Sundarji's Doctrine, followed by what happened in Op Parakram - leading to CSD, and newer IBG concepts; essentially supports my argument in many ways.

I do not disagree, tech needs to be adapted to modernize the units but current size is almost required for us as a country to sustain borders and threats. Our neighbors are not moving.

 

[omaebakabaka]

I didn't understand elaborate a bit?

All the latest military tech originates from west but they can't even control their borders. Size of army does not matter, their system is rot inside out. They are willfully diluting their native populations.

 

[Shashank Nayak]

Actually, NATO's biggest mistake - if anything - was trying to maintain some massive Army for an imaginary pitched battle/mass Russian invasion.

They were caught woefully unprepared for Russia's (basic) tech-savvy and sub-conventional tactics in Ukraine/Crimea.

In one battle, a particularly tough Ukrainian commander was keeping the Russians held back. So the Russians sent his mother a false message through hacking that he'd been injured in battle. She called him to check on him - Russians found his location - boom, airstrike.

Russia did not have to bother about NATO in Ukraine.. as Ukraine is not part of NATO..
If US is taken out of the equation.. with just 60000 active Army troops Germany will have a real hard time defending itself against a Russian thrust..

 

[Knowitall]

I do agree with @Bhadra here.

India should not set up its military based on european armies because both of them face a different threat.

India faces two nuclear powers along with sizeable problems within the country itself while europe has its borders secured.

Thats the reason their military is more expeditionary based.

 

[Lancer]

Russia did not have to bother about NATO in Ukraine.. as Ukraine is not part of NATO..
If US is taken out of the equation.. with just 60000 active Army troops Germany will have a real hard time defending itself against a Russian thrust..

But it did have to worry about the US - which manages an even bigger conventional armed force there - which again proved to be completely useless.

And that imaginary Russian thrust will never come.

 

[Lancer]

I do not disagree, tech needs to be adapted to modernize the units but current size is almost required for us as a country to sustain borders and threats. Our neighbors are not moving.

We can agree to disagree - but that last sentence is an important part of my argument - Pakistan needs to be finished off through a combination of subconventional means and a final armored coup de grace.

The Western border must be permanently resolved - so that the Eastern border can truly be focused on (including in terms of resources).

 

[Bhadra]

Actually, NATO's biggest mistake - if anything - was trying to maintain some massive Army for an imaginary pitched battle/mass Russian invasion.

They were caught woefully unprepared for Russia's (basic) tech-savvy and sub-conventional tactics in Ukraine/Crimea.

In one battle, a particularly tough Ukrainian commander was keeping the Russians held back. So the Russians sent his mother a false message through hacking that he'd been injured in battle. She called him to check on him - Russians found his location - boom, airstrike.

You are talking of a theatre when Napoleon from France has reached Russia and German brought the best technology savvy and culturally advanced France on knees in two weeks flat. Germany reached on Don having captured and trampled over half of Europe.. and European country's fought a thousand years of land battles against each other..

They only ventured out having settled land borders after treaty of Westfalia.

Your arguments are weak..

 

[Lancer]

You are talking of a theatre when Napoleon from France has reached Russia and German brought the best technology savvy and culturally advanced France on knees in two weeks flat. Germany reached on Don having captured and trampled over half of Europe.. and European country's fought a thousand years of land battles against each other..

They only ventured out having settled land borders after treaty of Westfalia.

Your arguments are weak..

Since you've taken the liberty to go off topic - would you like to discuss what happened to native forces in the subcontinent against technically superior invading forces? Even when those forces were far from home and smaller in number?

 

[omaebakabaka]

We can agree to disagree - but that last sentence is an important part of my argument - Pakistan needs to be finished off through a combination of subconventional means and a final armored coup de grace.

The Western border must be permanently resolved - so that the Eastern border can truly be focused on (including in terms of resources).

Just like we did with China in the current conflict, we just need to show we mean business. India just needs a deterrent, give it some time with 370 gone things will certainly change in a few years. Insurgency can be easily put down, we did that in Punjab. Pakistan is more likely to belly up as it is without a doubt a failed state that exists solely to hate India primarily Hindus.

 

[Bhadra]

We can agree to disagree - but that last sentence is an important part of my argument - Pakistan needs to be finished off through a combination of subconventional means and a final armored coup de grace.

The Western border must be permanently resolved - so that the Eastern border can truly be focused on (including in terms of resources).

That Horse sickness remains... all Indian kings amassed horses against invader's horses instead of developing anti horse techniques and those horses ultimately led to their doom... take any war ... doom was brought by Indian horses...

 

[omaebakabaka]

That Horse sickness remains... all Indian kings amassed horses against invader's horses instead of developing anti horse techniques and those horses ultimately led to their doom... take any war ... doom was brought by Indian horses...

and the stupidly using the elephants that got scared with the sound of a gun/canon and killed its own soldiers.

 

[Shashank Nayak]

But it did have to worry about the US - which manages an even bigger conventional armed force there - which again proved to be completely useless.

And that imaginary Russian thrust will never come.

Ukraine isnt a treaty ally of US.. so US wont defend Ukraine with its sweat and blood.. Equipment yes.. Blood.. No
US plans to admit Georiga and Ukraine into NATO were thwarted by Russia by occupying terrirtories of both Georgia and Ukraine.. Now what is US going to do.. If they admit these two punks into NATO.. NATO will have members with occupied territories , creating pressure to fight a bloody war with Russia, which the US is in no mood to fight..

 

[omaebakabaka]

Ukraine isnt a treaty ally of US.. so US wont defend Ukraine with its sweat and blood.. Equipment yes.. Blood.. No
US plans to admit Georiga and Ukraine into NATO were thwarted by Russia by occupying terrirtories of both Georgia and Ukraine.. bow what is US going to do.. If they admit these two punks into NATO.. NATO will have members with occupied territories fkr the first time, creating pressure to fight a bloody war with Russia, which the US is in no mood to fight..

To be fair Crimea was Russian always, given by Nikita K to Ukraine similar to Nehru giving coco islands to Myanmar.....

 

[Lancer]

Ukraine isnt a treaty ally of US.. so US wont defend Ukraine with its sweat and blood.. Equipment yes.. Blood.. No
US plans to admit Georiga and Ukraine into NATO were thwarted by Russia by occupying terrirtories of both Georgia and Ukraine.. bow what is US going to do.. If they admit these two punks into NATO.. NATO will have members with occupied territories fkr the first time, creating pressure to fight a bloody war with Russia, which the US is in no mood to fight..

Make no mistake - Russia put the US in a tactical bind with the way it approached Ukraine. It's not that the US was unwilling to get involved.

That's what I'm saying; challenges and approaches are rapidly evolving.

 

[AmoghaVarsha]

That Horse sickness remains... all Indian kings amassed horses against invader's horses instead of developing anti horse techniques and those horses ultimately led to their doom... take any war ... doom was brought by Indian horses...

No.

For centuries, India's anti horse technique was war elephants. They created havoc in the enemy cavalry.

After more thanna millenia and half, the enemy learned that elephants are difficult to control and if you spread panic in them, they will trample their own army. They did it by fire, by chilli smoke, by sounds etc.

Once the war elephants terror was gone, the faster and stronger cavalry of the enemy could flank the slow moving indian army.

Also the cavalry archer unit was another unit that caused many a defeat.