India-China Border conflict

[TheHurtLocker]

Just some thoughts regarding the slit eyed pricks up north:
They do not seem to have a lot of "sons of the soil" amongst their rank and file in PLAGF/RF
I remember reading last year that they(PLAGF) are recruiting more ethnic Tibetans(maybe bogus maybe telling)
This is still a big advantage for the IA in the Himalayan terrain. All those fancy cargo drones and carefully choreographed wumao antics mean little.
All said, Op Snow Leopard is still going on so maybe more will come to the open in the years ahead(or not)
I also think that our(Air Force/Army Av) rotary wing ops are devastatingly better than theirs.
We have also seen precious little from PLAAF/PLAN/PLANMC, maybe issue with integrated operations?
Meanwhile we have AIS data on IN P-8I jets soaking up electronic emissions along LAC and even reports of MiG-29K/KuB jets being moved due north

 

[Angel of War]

They can bring in other troops at lightning speed. The figures I remember from more than a decade ago, after their logistics exercises, was a battalion in one day, a brigade in 3 days, two brigades in a week, and so on. This was practised at various points of their borders, for universality of application.
What we have, what they won't, is acclimatised troops.

If they did that a decade ago , their capabilities must have surely improved by now .

 

[Joe Shearer]

They can bring in other troops at lightning speed. The figures I remember from more than a decade ago, after their logistics exercises, was a battalion in one day, a brigade in 3 days, two brigades in a week, and so on. This was practised at various points of their borders, for universality of application.
What we have, what they won't, is acclimatised troops.

Don't want to elaborate on this now, but think of a division strong road-block between Lhasa and Gar County, in Nyoma Prefecture.
Think of another east of Lhasa.

 

[Angel of War]

Don't want to elaborate on this now, but think of a division strong road-block between Lhasa and Gar County, in Nyoma Prefecture.
Think of another east of Lhasa.

East of lhasha as in Nyingchi

 

[Joe Shearer]

East of lhasha as in Nyingchi

 

[Joe Shearer]

East of lhasha as in Nyingchi

Tell me, doesn't it hit you in the face?
And does the bordering country between Nyingchi sound familiar to you?

 

[Angel of War]

Tell me, doesn't it hit you in the face?
And does the bordering country between Nyingchi sound familiar to you?

I don't understand

 

[Angel of War]

Tell me, doesn't it hit you in the face?
And does the bordering country between Nyingchi sound familiar to you?

I haven't studied much about the administrative divisions of tibet so i really don't know much about the various countries and prefectures

 

[Joe Shearer]

I haven't studied much about the administrative divisions of tibet so i really don't know much about the various countries and prefectures

 

[Angel of War]

you're just confusing me more with this emoji

 

[fire starter]

 

[India Super Power]

Is it true sff has women soldiers

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Even if you factor in Chinese help, what kind of 'actual' pressure they can put on us?

Not talking about the logistical help they will provide to Pak - thats a given
but actual boots on the ground or ships near our coast that would help Pak..

How would that go for the chinese, if they decide to attack us from north or move their ships to attack us, while we are busy with Pak?

Not an attack. Just the threat of attack, with massive buildup. An actual war will ostracise china from west, like russia now. And china is export oriented unlike russia. Will kill their nation.

But buildup, thats different. We will have to hold a considerable amount of force on the chinese border. Cause the threat will always be that if chinese get enough force buildup behind us and we leave it mostly unguarded, they might make one giant push and capture massive lands, forcing us to the negotiating table. Quick war with us also wont get them into much trouble internationally.

So in any war with pak, to prevent such a scenario we will always be forced to hold our current forces deployed against china, and put extra reserves if needed.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Is it true sff has women soldiers

They come under RAW, not limited by army rules and regulations. They can have anyone and everyone they want.

 

[India Super Power]

They come under RAW, not limited by army rules and regulations. They can have anyone and everyone they want.

Noice!
So woman there could also be an officer?

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Noice!
So woman there could also be an officer?

Could be, but I cant say. RAW keeps this quite hush hush.

Even the motive of the org is pure speculation (big operations behind enemy lines in possible Indo China War)

 

[mist_consecutive]

Just bullet points.

Drastically reduce head-count.
Smaller formations - the tetra-brigade, or even smaller.
Far better equipment, not our present nanga-bhukha soldiery.
Centralised logistics, communications and medical services.
Very high mobility in the plains.
Very fixed numbers in the high mountains.

Follow Mao - 'flout the enemy strategically, respect him tactically.'

DON'T give me those like icons. What do you think?

Hmm, although a lean and mean army is the future, let's look at it from a different viewpoint.

Drastically reduce head-count..

We can surely cut the extra flab, but we need to maintain numbers. Manpower is the biggest factor countries face when going to war. Yes, we can't have bhuka-nanga soldiers with just a rifle running around the battlefield, but if we are going to take China & Pakistan (eventually both of them at the same time), manpower will be crucial.
We cannot be shy of losses, especially since China can always produce more artillery, more aircraft, and more armored vehicles than we can, and they are likely to always maintain superiority over it.

Very fixed numbers in the high mountains.

? Explain ? Mountains are perfect defenses. We need to make the Himalayas a death pit for the Chinese, that need ruthless guerrilla warfare.

The LAST thing we should do is throw soldiers at them.

Numerical superiority is paramount in winning war, our appetite to throw soldiers at them will offset their advantage of equipment and technology to some extent. The sole reason we are still retaining Galwan valley is because on on 15th June night, our soldiers did not hesitate even a bit to charge into an enemy, superior in number, better equipped, and better positioned.

Soldiers don't kill soldiers.
Artillery kills soldiers.
Bombs kill soldiers.

Will just point out, this is not true always. Afghanistan (with both Soviet and America), and Ukraine now is showing a different case point.

 

[Blademaster]

I would define the problem VERY differently.

Then define it instead of playing word games.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Someone actually read my post.

Hmm, although a lean and mean army is the future, let's look at it from a different viewpoint.

We can surely cut the extra flab, but we need to maintain numbers. Manpower is the biggest factor countries face when going to war. Yes, we can't have bhuka-nanga soldiers with just a rifle running around the battlefield, but if we are going to take China & Pakistan (eventually both of them at the same time), manpower will be crucial.

We can dance around this 'How big is big?' till the cows come home, but when it comes to actual down to earth planning, my own outlook is that we don't need 28 divisions for Pakistan if we are being defensive, and we need more than 69 if we are to attack (these are raw numbers; the Lanchester numbers/ratios are admittedly different).

So, yes, we need manpower; the question is, how many? Until we put a figure to it, and justify it, saying that we NEED to maintain numbers is something like saying we need petrol or diesel to move our cars. Sure we do, but what's the issue? The issue is how many. By saying drastically reduce head-count, surely there was something in mind.

We cannot be shy of losses, especially since China can always produce more artillery, more aircraft, and more armored vehicles than we can, and they are likely to always maintain superiority over it.

If you are suggesting we maintain headcount, since we can't beat the PLA in equipment, we might as well give up before we start.

? Explain ? Mountains are perfect defenses. We need to make the Himalayas a death pit for the Chinese, that need ruthless guerrilla warfare.

Mountains are anything but perfect defences. If we do not know what we are doing, they become death-traps where troops isolated on the heights watch helplessly as the enemy sweeps around them and cuts off their retreat, and their logistics back-up.

What do you think happened in 62? We lost to mass attacks? If that is what you think happened, let me surrender straight away, and acknowledge that you are the strategic supremo.

Numerical superiority is paramount in winning war, our appetite to throw soldiers at them will offset their advantage of equipment and technology to some extent. The sole reason we are still retaining Galwan valley is because on on 15th June night, our soldiers did not hesitate even a bit to charge into an enemy, superior in number, better equipped, and better positioned.

I am glad for your sake that you have a clearly defined point of view.

Will just point out, this is not true always. Afghanistan (with both Soviet and America), and Ukraine now is showing a different case point.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[mokoman]

Don't want to elaborate on this now, but think of a division strong road-block between Lhasa and Gar County, in Nyoma Prefecture.
Think of another east of Lhasa.

sound interesting , but unless u draw a picture , no one here knows waht ur talking about.