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

[Saaho]

Is there any problem in associating with AAP? He was a major general in IA, i will give his wordings some weightage than the silence of the ruling government.

You asked about him in the context of affiliant of Ajai Shukla and I replied in the same context. He has a political agenda and leaning, thats all. BTW, thats a fact but NOT the trouble in itself.

The trouble is this : He lies and misrepresents facts. Hilariously so. His articles in The Print are chockfull of lies, half truths and misrepresentations. That is my beef with him. You can look at my posts in this thread itself about him and his lies and half truths. At one point I used to think that perhaps he was portraying the IA's viewpoint about LAC. I asked @Falcon that question. Turns out it was not. He was blatantly lying about LAC and misrepresenting even basic physical geography of the region. At that point, anything he says becomes real suspect, especially his outrage. Thats all.

 

[Defc0n]

Consider the Chinese ready to escalate / initiate hostilities the day they've shifted their TBM NLOS-BSM of 500 kms or less by the PLA Rocket Forces near the front lines apart from significant numbers of aircraft squadrons to air fields & bases near the LAC. I don't think the latter would take time to mobilise & deploy though the former would.

Why do I say so? Coz if this battle follows predictable patterns like the 1962 war, it'd involve deployment of insane quantities of men like the wave formations PLA deployed in the Korean & more pertinently to India in the 1962 war which won them the war then but plays entirely into our hands as that's how we've war gamed against & prepared ourselves giving us the upper hand this time around in such skirmishes, something which would definitely go against the Chinese & something they'd wish to avoid.

This engagement would begin with serious artillery barrages using those MBRLs & BSM to soften up our bases, logistical lines, troop concentrations tank & artillery units.

Expect significant electronic & cyber warfare to disrupt communications, war waging abilities apart from damaging our financial, economic, commercial & other interests deep in the hinterland.

They've already deployed significant quantities of MBRL's of varying range & calibre right across the LAC apart from troop augmentation, artillery & tank deployment apart from the logistics train.

In any case India won't initiate hostilities. We'd be reacting to it.

This significant number of MBRLs are the cause of my worry. If we allow them to start the hostility, given the range of those things, we are going to get hit first - that's the problem with reactive nature. They can do significant damage to our troops & equipments within its range.
The only thing that is 'predictable' about war is that it is 'unpredictable'. The best of plans go right down the drain within first 5 mins of action.
What your post doesn't answer is the 'why' part of my original post. Why do we have to be reactive to an already aggressive movement/buildup?
Why can't we be proactive & take them out ?

If it is because - it is China & we fear for what they will do next, if that so, then, I don't think 'we will show them if they start the fight' narrative also holds, as still it is China & they can do what we are 'afraid of ' then as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1269922784664121345

Is this part of our diplomacy with Nepal?

 

[Saaho]

If nothing happened in LAC as advertised by some in sm & various defense forums,our military & government wouldn't have engaged with chinese a marathon discussions.

No, no one is saying NOTHING is happening. Heck no one can say nothing is happening because something ACTUALLY happened in 1962 which was NEVER reverted. But there is a massive landscape between NOTHING is happening and OMFG WE LOST OVER 9000000000000000000000 SQ. KM OF OUR TERRITORY and THERE ARE OVER 10,000 CHINESE SOLDIERS PUSHING TOWARDS SRINAGAR RIGHT NOW GUYZ kind of hysteria that like of Panag and Ajai Shukla spread.

The reality is that after 1962 war, atleast in ladakh we have regions with conflicting claims of CONTROL. Both sides have "infiltrated" in these areas at different times. Currently, we have substantial new deployments by Chinese forces in mostly in the areas they CONTROL and in some areas with conflicting claims of CONTROL. There is hard evidence of this in form of satellite imagery. These new deployments have caused more than usual "encounters" among Indian patrols and Chinese patrols.

Coming to Panag and Shukla, their reports are seldom supported by hard evidence like satellite imagery. They always quote some unknown source. They seldom look into the history of the region and present facts, HARD facts from it.

 

[_Anonymous_]

What your post doesn't answer is the 'why' part of my original post. Why do we have to be reactive to an already aggressive movement/buildup?
Why can't we be proactive & take them out ?

If it is because - it is China & we fear for what they will do next, if that so, then, I don't think 'we will show them if they start the fight' narrative also holds, as still it is China & they can do what we are 'afraid of ' then as

We won't start the war as we can't do it. In the final analysis we're at a significant disadvantage as compared to the Chinese in terms of our overall military power as well as our financial power. There are sectors where we better the Chinese in the LAC but those are marginal advantages we enjoy over them not overwhelming ones.

 

[Defc0n]

We won't start the war as we can't do it. In the final analysis we're at a significant disadvantage as compared to the Chinese in terms of our overall military power as well as our financial power. There are sectors where we better the Chinese in the LAC but those are marginal advantages we enjoy over them not overwhelming ones.

Great, then tell me what happens, if the Chinese start the war?
How does those said significant disadvantages play out in that scenario?
Then, the actual narrative should be - 'Ok, we are screwed'.
And I guess you are right wrt to that analysis as our motormouth ministers are also silent like they are shit scared.
Ok. So much for being ready for a two front war

Meanwhile,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1269931271540572172

India’s Two-Front War: Myths and IAFs’ capability to fight

The government approved fighter squadron strength for the IAF is 42.5 squadrons of which the existing number of squadrons are in the thirties.

www.financialexpress.com

 

[Saaho]

What your post doesn't answer is the 'why' part of my original post. Why do we have to be reactive to an already aggressive movement/buildup?

Lets turn the chess board over. China has a massive disparty in terms of economic and material might over India. If you were a Chinese (interested in Ladakh), you would have been saying : "Why the HELL Chinese government is NOT taking what is rightfully ours! Why are we so lethargic in attacking India while India is building infrastructure to threaten China, collaborating with imperialists like USA and west to encircle China! Why is Chinese govt so reactive!"

There is your answer, the conflict between two countries is more complicated than just bashing armies. There is a perception war, there is a military conflict, there is diplomatic moves.

That said, I am not in a position to judge how well India is doing with respect to this new deployments and agressive patroling and clashes that we have been seeing. But, just because we are not bombing Chinese camps, it does not necessarily follow that we are being "reactive" or "insufficient".

A funfact : For one thing, our push towards building infra in border areas is more proactive than reactive. For once, India is actually doing something without waiting for conflict to start.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Great, then tell me what happens, if the Chinese start the war?
How does those said significant disadvantages play out in that scenario?
Then, the actual narrative should be - 'Ok, we are screwed'.
And I guess you are right wrt to that analysis as our motormouth ministers are also silent like they are shit scared.
Ok. So much for being ready for a two front war

I don't think you've got what I wanted to convey or perhaps I haven't articulated my point well. Our being at a disadvantage precludes us from commencing a war but is certainly not a pretext for ably defending ourselves & forcing a stalemate . China enjoying an overall advantage doesn't translate into an overwhelming one , hence an out right victory is ruled out . Had that been the case this task would've been over a long time ago anywhere between 1962-2020.

You can say the advantage China enjoys over us is similar to what we enjoy over Pakistan. Significant enough to wreck damages not overwhelming enough to prosecute our will.

 

[Saaho]

I don't think you've got what I wanted to convey or perhaps I haven't articulated my point well. Our being at a disadvantage precludes us from commencing a war but is certainly not a pretext for ably defending ourselves & forcing a stalemate . China enjoying an overall advantage doesn't translate into an overwhelming one , hence an out right victory is ruled out . Had that been the case this task would've been over a long time ago anywhere between 1962-2020.

You can say the advantage China enjoys over us is similar to what we enjoy over Pakistan. Significant enough to wreck damages not overwhelming enough to prosecute our will.

To be honest, I don't know who is at advantage right now. In terms of deployments, both sides are evenly matched. In terms of accessibility and logistics, I dare say India has an edge. In terms of real experience of war fighting, India has advatage. In terms of diplomatic support, India has a MASSIVE advantage. In terms of materials and equipment, China has a definitive advantage. If the conflict is short, we might see India pushing Chinese away giving it a bloody nose. If this becomes a multiple months or an year long war, India may loose.

 

[vstol Jockey]

PLA still follows the tactics of old USSR from WW2. They start with massed arty barrages followed by infantry/armour assault. They did this in 1962 and also against Vietnam. I have not seen them practice commando assaults and special operations as a prelude to real attack/assault.
In hilly terrain, precision guided munitions can wreck havoc and that is where our arty locating radars will come in handy. We will be required to do counter battery fire using our precision Pinakas or equivalent syatems. The long range 370mm rockets of PLA will most likely be used to take out command centers deep inside our territory and also to provide a large area domination with a wide frontage. We will be required to use IAF in surge operations in the initial stage of the war to knock out these assets.
Normally its the tanks which lead the assault but in areas like we have in Aksai Chin, Tanks will have to be used in support of Infantry till we hit the Aksai chin Plateau between Karakoram and Kunlun ranges. I do foresee a very large task for 10th SF from Rajasthan who are equipped with stuff to fight highly mobile warfare in deserts using quick hit and run tactics to support our Tank formations operate unmolested by the mobile anti tank units of PLA.

 

[rockstarIN]

They've already deployed significant quantities of MBRL's of varying range & calibre right across the LAC apart from troop augmentation, artillery & tank deployment apart from the logistics train.

Will these 350 km range MRBLs will have any definite effect? The range is too far for unguided rockets to have an effect IMO. Whereas the Excaliburs we have will be effective.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Will these 350 km range MRBLs will have any definite effect? The range is too far for unguided rockets to have an effect IMO. Whereas the Excaliburs we have will be effective.

I don't think all their rockets are unguided. Besides even if they are, they'd be shooting barrages of it in concentrated areas.Further, we've only procured 1000 of those Excalibur shells.

 

[Defc0n]

I don't think all their rockets are unguided. Besides even if they are, they'd be shooting barrages of it in concentrated areas.Further, we've only procured 1000 of those Excalibur shells.

As far as I know those Excalibur shells are quite expensive. I wonder if they will be used to take out their MRLs that too when we have just 1000 of them?

 

[rockstarIN]

I don't think all their rockets are unguided. Besides even if they are, they'd be shooting barrages of it in concentrated areas.Further, we've only procured 1000 of those Excalibur shells.

I'm sure we would have procured more from USA after this issue picked up momentum. It is what they face along with Swati radars.

 

[screambowl]

This might be a distraction for actual build up for Taiwan

This is why the action is happening near Ladakh thousand of km away from chinese settlements near SCS, more over because of the road construction to DBO. I am not sure what's the condition at LAC in NE. Is everything calm there?

 

[Arbit]

This significant number of MBRLs are the cause of my worry. If we allow them to start the hostility, given the range of those things, we are going to get hit first - that's the problem with reactive nature. They can do significant damage to our troops & equipments within its range.
The only thing that is 'predictable' about war is that it is 'unpredictable'. The best of plans go right down the drain within first 5 mins of action.
What your post doesn't answer is the 'why' part of my original post. Why do we have to be reactive to an already aggressive movement/buildup?
Why can't we be proactive & take them out ?

In case hostilities break out, the Chinese will be starting it and the first salvo will be of artillery and MBRL and what you say will hold true. However this is the handicap one has to bear if one doesn't want to be an aggressor.


See, the Chinese assessment of Indian resolve will be either of the following

1. They won't back off and its full fledged war
2. They can be intimidated by initial setbacks suffered from MBRL and rocket forces and a negotiated settlement can be made upon ceasefire after a small skirmish. Low probability of Airforce and Navy being introduced in the theatre.

If it's the first, the indications will be seen from far off and far earlier, the mobilisation will be deep and significant, Aircrafts will be forward deployed and movement of logistics will give the game away. In that case if the leadership if India has made up its mind that its gonna be a full scale assault then initial barrage of MBRL will not matter in the larger scheme of things and IA response shall be swift and violent. Also airforce shall have to be swiftly deployed to break up the logistical chain and do some ground level targeting. Time will be of essence and wresting of initiative will be the key. Not much room for pro activeness there to be honest unless we decide to fire the first shot (seeing the inevitability of full fledged war)


In case its the second. then, like I said earlier, what stops us from bringing airforce into the picture. This will be the true element of surprise and we can control the batlefield as per our laid out plans.

Once you have decided to be non aggressor, the opportunity of being pro active will only present itself after the hostilities have started and airforce shall hold the key in both the situations.

 

[rockstarIN]

As far as I know those Excalibur shells are quite expensive. I wonder if they will be used to take out their MRLs that too when we have just 1000 of them?

War is expensive, read somewhere that it costs us USD$68k per shell.

 

[_Anonymous_]

War is expensive, read somewhere that it costs us USD$68k per shell.

Approximately INR 1 cr per shell.

 

[AbRaj]

Great, then tell me what happens, if the Chinese start the war?
How does those said significant disadvantages play out in that scenario?
Then, the actual narrative should be - 'Ok, we are screwed'.
And I guess you are right wrt to that analysis as our motormouth ministers are also silent like they are shit scared.
Ok. So much for being ready for a two front war

Meanwhile,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1269931271540572172

India’s Two-Front War: Myths and IAFs’ capability to fight

The government approved fighter squadron strength for the IAF is 42.5 squadrons of which the existing number of squadrons are in the thirties.

www.financialexpress.com

You shoul know that its easier to defend your territory that attacking the other. Any aggressive force must have certain ratio advantage over the defending forces (3:1 ?)
Wait for them to attack, lure them into ambush and do the bloodbath.
No one is going to question you then.

 

[Defc0n]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1269957601632178177

 

[Sunnylol]

Is there any problem in associating with AAP? He was a major general in IA, i will give his wordings some weightage than the silence of the ruling government.
If nothing happened in LAC as advertised by some in sm & various defense forums,our military & government wouldn't have engaged with chinese a marathon discussions.

The government is engaging the Chinese to deescalate their build up so that we can carry on our infrastructure work peacefully and in a particular area where both used to patrol and the Chinese are blocking us. It's quite different from 'capturing' my friend.