China vs India

**dabrownguy** · 14 May 06,, 04:04

Thread created.
I'll start with India. In my opinon because of Indias better infastructure near Tibet, India would be able to support a lot more soldiers compared to China. Not only that the IAF could also do more air lifts while the PLAAF will be limited on the number of aircraft, airbases and altitude problems. Thus InA could take parts of Tibet while PLA would be deployed on the defensive.

**Tronic** · 14 May 06,, 04:31

I don't think neither side would be able to do much in the Himalayas... consider the terrain!!! both sides would be better off on the defensive...

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 May 06,, 04:32

And I think I'll take on the Chinese side here.

The Chinese may not have alot of soldiers within the Tibet region but they've already pre-positioned alot of equipment. During the 80s border hodgepodge, they airlifted 2 regiments within 48 hours.

While the InAF may have somewhat of an advantage; it is nowhere near being decisive. The PLAAF's main mission is air denial. The InAF must achieved air superiority which requires alot more planes (planes to clear the skies while other planes are dropping bombs) against a concerted ground base AD system. So, any effort is not a guarrantee and would have to be extremely focus and concentrated to have any effect. In short, the InAF may tip the balance but they will not win the war. Hell, they won't even be able to shape the battlefield.

Then, there is the Chinese non-nuclear SSM batteries. The Chinese are the ONLY force that practises salvo launches. Imagine five 1000lb bombs dropping on your HQ. Not fun and they don't even have to punch through the Indian AD net.

Also, that hilly terrain would be impossible to guard against across the entire front. You will have leakage, possibly up to brigade/regiment strength. So, to assume that there would be no fighting on Indian soil is very misleading.

Lastly, the Chinese have another army to the West. Pakistan's.

**Tronic** · 14 May 06,, 04:49

wat if the InAF changed it's role from air supperiority to air denial and the army changed to a solely defensive role... also, wouldn't the Chinese HQ's face the same threat from Indian conventional missiles (most notably the Brahmos...)

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 May 06,, 05:10

Originally Posted by Tronic

wat if the InAF changed it's role from air supperiority to air denial and the army changed to a solely defensive role

No matter how you arrange the forces, the whole thing is a p!ssing contest with alot of soldiers on both sides dying for bragging rights. Neither side can poise to deliver the knock out punch and the final outcome would be more or less what it is today. India can't take Tibet and China can't march out of Tibet.

The PLA may win the bragging rights simply they have a much better propaganda department than all of India combined. However, the reality is that the terrain would force alot of small unit actions where soldiers on both sides would do the dying; not knowing if their action really matters at all. The saddest thing is that most of their actions don't matter at all.

Originally Posted by Tronic

... also, wouldn't the Chinese HQ's face the same threat from Indian conventional missiles (most notably the Brahmos...)

The 2nd Artillery Force is the only force in the world that does this.

**Tronic** · 14 May 06,, 05:52

so u mean, conventional missiles used in mass numbers???

**dabrownguy** · 14 May 06,, 05:53

I think the InA could manage to get some high peaks from Chinese grip. The Indian side is better exprienced in mountian warfare and much better supplied. I don't think Chinese propaganda would help much today. With information avialable so easily. Plus the States would have bias against China.

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 May 06,, 06:00

Originally Posted by Tronic

so u mean, conventional missiles used in mass numbers???

Conventional missiles in a saturation barrage on a single target. Like I said, 5 1000lb bombs on an HQ.

Originally Posted by dabrownguy

I think the InA could manage to get some high peaks from Chinese grip. The Indian side is better exprienced in mountian warfare and much better supplied.

Water.

Originally Posted by dabrownguy

I don't think Chinese propaganda would help much today. With information avialable so easily. Plus the States would have bias against China.

True propaganda uses the truth, not lies. Besides, compared to India, the Chinese got this one hands down.

**dabrownguy** · 14 May 06,, 06:18

How do they get water to Sachien? Or do they just post Gurkhas and leave'em there. hehe
Anyways I started this thread because ChinaWhite poster claimed PLA could support 500 000 mouths and barrels in Tibet.

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 May 06,, 06:25

Originally Posted by dabrownguy

How do they get water to Sachien? Or do they just post Gurkhas and leave'em there. hehe

The Indian side had secured LOCs. Makes a big difference. The point here is that the fight is not going to be for the top but on the bottom where the supply lines are.

Originally Posted by dabrownguy

Anyways I started this thread because ChinaWhite poster claimed PLA could support 500 000 mouths and barrels in Tibet.

Half the PLA Army? 1st of all, India is not the only threat nor the biggest threat. Currently, it's Taiwan and North Korea in that order. Then, the Chinese still have to keep an eye on Russia and Vietnam. Plus, just in case we get a little too good in Afghanistan.

2nd, the War Zone Campaign doctrine envisions an action lasting no more than 30 days. You couldn't even set up the latrines for 500,000 men in 30 days.

3rd, the PLA has gone from the regiment-division-army model to the battalion-brigade-corps model. Where in all of that do you see 500,000 men.

Why the hell do I, a Canadian, know more about the PLA than such idiots.

**dabrownguy** · 14 May 06,, 07:03

You don't let nationalistic blindness get in the way.
I don't think InA could support large operations deep into Tibet but they could cross the bordar onto the Chinese side. Plus hold an up riseing. Now i'm just wondering if the Llama loving Tibetens any good with Ak-47s.

**gunnut** · 14 May 06,, 07:10

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Half the PLA Army? 1st of all, India is not the only threat nor the biggest threat. Currently, it's Taiwan and North Korea in that order. Then, the Chinese still have to keep an eye on Russia and Vietnam. Plus, just in case we get a little too good in Afghanistan.

Sir, how can Taiwan threaten China? I don't see an invasion. Independence is the only threat but that's more political.

Do North Korea, Russia, and Vietnam pose much of a realistic invasion threat?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Why the hell do I, a Canadian, know more about the PLA than such idiots.

Because you are The Colonel

**Tronic** · 14 May 06,, 07:12

Now i'm just wondering if the Llama loving Tibetens any good with Ak-47s.

the Tibetans don't believe in violence...

Conventional missiles in a saturation barrage on a single target. Like I said, 5 1000lb bombs on an HQ.

but OoE, how hard would it be for the Chinese to search for these frontline HQ's??? and wouldn't the HQ's be well camoflaged and all (the Indian Intelligence Agencies should already know about this special ability of the Chinese, no?)

**dabrownguy** · 14 May 06,, 07:13

Once Vietnam and Russia take grab a share in the chaos PLA is gonna have quite the time trying to take it back. Plus it would be really humilating. CCP could collapse if its image becomes weak.

**Tronic** · 14 May 06,, 07:14

Originally Posted by dabrownguy

Once Vietnam and Russia take grab a share in the chaos PLA is gonna have quite the time trying to take it back. Plus it would be really humilating. CCP could collapse if its image becomes weak.

lets exclude other nations from this scenario...