Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates

Defc0n said:
I have a question, my did India buy smerch in the first place? We had MRBLs as long back as 1999s where we used them in Kargil(maybe that too was imported). 20 years down the line, why don't we have a scalable system which can be mass produced. I highly doubt, despite not having any idea about internal complications of such systems, that a system like pinaka be very difficult to build. What does smerch offer us, which pinaka doesn't?
Click to expand...
Bigger caliber more range. So more damage at longer distance. The Chinese and N.Koreans have also made 450 mm and 600 mm mbrls. And the Chinese copied the smerch and made weishi series of mrls rockets.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Weishi rockets - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

They have more than 10 different versions of this mrls and have more range than the smerch on top of that they have exported this to Pakistan,Turkey and lot more countries in the Muslim world and Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Defc0n
Defc0n said:
I have a question, my did India buy smerch in the first place? We had MRBLs as long back as 1999s where we used them in Kargil(maybe that too was imported). 20 years down the line, why don't we have a scalable system which can be mass produced. I highly doubt, despite not having any idea about internal complications of such systems, that a system like pinaka be very difficult to build. What does smerch offer us, which pinaka doesn't?
Click to expand...

Pinaka Mk1 has rockets with a range of 40Km whereas Smerch came with rockets with a range up to 90Km. So both are in a different class.

Now Pinaka Mk2 will more or less match Smerch with a range extension kit while Mk3 will outclass it. But were obviously not available when IA bought the Smerch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker and Defc0n
STEPHEN COHEN said:
EITHER BUY 100 BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT FOR WINNING
A TWO FRONT WAR
Click to expand...

This is the plan.

OR

enter into an alliance with US
Click to expand...

This won't work. Rather what will happen is the US will turn the IA into a cannon fodder army that they will call upon any time there is a war around the world, and when India is facing an actual two-front war, the US won't help by giving umpteen number of reasons. The biggest one being risking bringing Russia into the war.

Anyway, a two-front war is very unlikely and also not possible because IA will take care of Pakistan long before war on the Eastern Front begins. It's 'cause it will take IA a week or less to take out Pakistan whereas China will need a few weeks to a month to deploy in Tibet.

What's your fetish with the US? They are not friends. We simply have a few similar goals with respect to one country, otherwise the US acts against our interests around the globe. They are not even our friends, forget becoming allies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetray
STEPHEN COHEN said:
I think these 2 ECLIPSES in this Month will bring about some serious change in our policy and attitude

We will have to give up this BS
Policy of " Being Equidistant " from
All Major Powers

EITHER BUY 100 BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT FOR WINNING
A TWO FRONT WAR OR

enter into an alliance with US
Click to expand...


I notice every time there's a war like situation you go beserk. It's either everything or nothing with you. After the Pulwama incident, within a few days when there wasn't any reaction from the GoI , you despaired so much that you declared if Modi didn't strike you'd convert to Islam. Fortunately for you & your li'l boy, Modi undertook Feb 26th .

In my opinion, You ought to take some oestrogen pills or maybe a few drinks every night. On second thoughts, the last suggestion is withdrawn. Who knows what we may have to put up with then out here.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN, Volcano, Chain Smoker and 5 others
randomradio said:
Anyway, a two-front war is very unlikely and also not possible because IA will take care of Pakistan long before war on the Eastern Front begins.
Click to expand...
Conclusion


Reason
randomradio said:
It's 'cause it will take IA a week or less to take out Pakistan whereas China will need a few weeks to a month to deploy in Tibet.
Click to expand...
Now sir, Don't you think that is exactly what Chinese are doing??
Taking their time to build up on Tibet to impose a two front war simultaneously on us??
 
Aurora said:
Conclusion


Reason

Now sir, Don't you think that is exactly what Chinese are doing??
Taking their time to build up on Tibet to impose a two front war simultaneously on us??
Click to expand...

Their main offensive units have to come in from far away, and that takes time.

Tibet itself has soldiers, about 40,000. And Xinjiang has about 70000 troops. But the main forces are the 100000+ connected to the Western Theatre Command primarily located in the plains in their central region.

The only scenario where a two-front war is possible is if China declares war on India and Pakistan joins in later, with India taking no action against Pakistan in the meantime. But I don't think India will allow that to happen. In case of a Sino-India war, I believe India will go to war with Pakistan first. You can say that the movement of the WTC troops is a red line for us. This is just my opinion though.

But even if the WTC moves, it will only serve to match our numbers. With just the Tibet and Xinjiang MDs, they will be at less than half our strength.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Sathya and vikata
randomradio said:
Their main offensive units have to come in from far away, and that takes time.

Tibet itself has soldiers, about 40,000. And Xinjiang has about 70000 troops. But the main forces are the 100000+ connected to the Western Theatre Command primarily located in the plains in their central region.

The only scenario where a two-front war is possible is if China declares war on India and Pakistan joins in later, with India taking no action against Pakistan in the meantime. But I don't think India will allow that to happen. In case of a Sino-India war, I believe India will go to war with Pakistan first. You can say that the movement of the WTC troops is a red line for us. This is just my opinion though.

But even if the WTC moves, it will only serve to match our numbers. With just the Tibet and Xinjiang MDs, they will be at less than half our strength.
Click to expand...
IMO only a two front war is possible as it is the only scenario in which either of our adversaries would dare to attack us. Now of course if they would do that then they would do it after extensive planning. Hence enough troop mobilization would be done by both of them. I contest both of your points that moving of WTC is a red line for us and in a case of Sino Indian war we would attack Pakistan.
For the first point the present situation is itself an example. Despite the fact that Chinese are increasing mobilisation of their forces both on our border and in their mainland all we are doing is counter mobilisation with no intent of pre-emptive strikes.
As for second the simple reason of India not attacking Pakistan would be to avoid blame of starting a two front war. Moreover in my opinion in two front war scenario both of our adversaries would attack us simultaneously hence rendering discussion on this point useless.
 
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a senior congressional leader have reprimanded China for bullying behaviour towards India during a military standoff on their disputed border.
www.yahoo.com

India's Modi gets Trump invite to attend G7 summit: ministry

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has received an invitation from U.S. President Donald Trump to attend the next Group of Seven summit, India's Foreign Affairs Ministry said on Tuesday. In a telephone call, Modi told Trump New Delhi would be happy to work with the United States and other...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
US offering "kadi ninda"
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
I think these 2 ECLIPSES in this Month will bring about some serious change in our policy and attitude

We will have to give up this BS
Policy of " Being Equidistant " from
All Major Powers

EITHER BUY 100 BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT FOR WINNING
A TWO FRONT WAR OR

enter into an alliance with US
Click to expand...
Fortunately (or unfortunately), both countries have an appetite for war.
But China going to war with India currently will be in every way disastrous to them. It is hardly unlikely China will be able to retrieve any large-scale territory from India if both countries go all-out. Localized areas like Pangong Tso banks yes, Ladakh/Kashmir, no.

However, China has everything to lose -
  1. Getting branded as the aggressor and placed under huge sanctions. The countries not supporting America in boycotting China will start after this episode.
  2. China loses the Indian market, no Chinese ships will pass from the Indian Ocean & Arabian sea [Indian Navy joins the game]. Trade takes a big hit.
  3. This opportunity will be used by America to stir up South China Sea disputes.
  4. Pakistan may have to choose a neutral side due to backlash from American and Saudi masters.
  5. It will practically turn into World War 3 for China with every neighbour except Russia & North Korea (doesn't matter) hostile towards them.
 
Aurora said:
IMO only a two front war is possible as it is the only scenario in which either of our adversaries would dare to attack us. Now of course if they would do that then they would do it after extensive planning. Hence enough troop mobilization would be done by both of them. I contest both of your points that moving of WTC is a red line for us and in a case of Sino Indian war we would attack Pakistan.
For the first point the present situation is itself an example. Despite the fact that Chinese are increasing mobilisation of their forces both on our border and in their mainland all we are doing is counter mobilisation with no intent of pre-emptive strikes.
As for second the simple reason of India not attacking Pakistan would be to avoid blame of starting a two front war. Moreover in my opinion in two front war scenario both of our adversaries would attack us simultaneously hence rendering discussion on this point useless.
Click to expand...

I don't believe we will be at fault in case we attack Pakistan first. Then China will be seen as the aggressor in case China attacks after India's invasion.
 
zapper said:
This report definitely couldn't be trusted but still a fair deal. We could live without PoK if we get the whole of GB which provides land access to Afghanistan and Central Asian countries
Click to expand...
How can china give India Gilgit-Baltistan if we withdraw our claim over POK ( which include Gilgit-Baltistan) at the same time ? Baba ji is a clown. he should not be taken seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volcano, Chain Smoker, vikata and 3 others
randomradio said:
This is the plan.



This won't work. Rather what will happen is the US will turn the IA into a cannon fodder army that they will call upon any time there is a war around the world, and when India is facing an actual two-front war, the US won't help by giving umpteen number of reasons. The biggest one being risking bringing Russia into the war.

Anyway, a two-front war is very unlikely and also not possible because IA will take care of Pakistan long before war on the Eastern Front begins. It's 'cause it will take IA a week or less to take out Pakistan whereas China will need a few weeks to a month to deploy in Tibet.

What's your fetish with the US? They are not friends. We simply have a few similar goals with respect to one country, otherwise the US acts against our interests around the globe. They are not even our friends, forget becoming allies.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right, we are not allies just some shared interest. Very fact that US still persists with pakistan should not be forgotten.

Frankly we do not need IA to pin down pakistan, I think IN can do it once we take care of their submarines. Enforcing a Naval embargo on pakistan will have far more greater effect.
 
jetray said:
Absolutely right, we are not allies just some shared interest. Very fact that US still persists with pakistan should not be forgotten.
Click to expand...

We don't see eye to eye with them with regards to Pakistan, Myanmar and Iran, and that's only our immediate neighbours.

Any alliance with the US will only benefit them and not India.

Frankly we do not need IA to pin down pakistan, I think IN can do it once we take care of their submarines. Enforcing a Naval embargo on pakistan will have far more greater effect.
Click to expand...

That's of no help during the war. The problem for us is we do not have enough jets, so we need to deal with Pakistan first, completely degrade their conventional capabilities, and then move our jets to the Chinese front for the big fight. In the meantime, we have to resort to air defence against PLAAF so that they do not interfere with our war with China. No such issues if we already had 45-50 squadrons right now.

We also need to prevent the Chinese and Pakistanis joining forces in the Western front. So it's better to take out the Pakistanis entirely long before it goes down with China. Worse comes to worst, give them enough time to prepare and we may end up fighting the Chinese even in Pakistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sulla84
vstol Jockey said:
Have you heard of treatment of broken bones by joining the broken one with a fit one to restrict movement. Its called buddy wrapping/taping? This is done as part of immidiate first aid for broken bones till a proper medical treatment is given. These guys had slipped from a mountain and had broken their bones. so their broken leg was tied to the fit leg.
Click to expand...

How can they be injured in avalanche when the land around seems dry as a bone, without snow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom