It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
good thread tho' I only read half of it (last half).

War without nukes? Funny. Okay, let's beat our chest and pretend we haven't doomed our grandkids already.

First off, saying the US is best and pointing to GDP, is foolish. GDP does not reflect the vitality and fighting spirit of a country. A country can have a GDP that's high or growing, and still be in the crapper, morally (therefore easy to kill/invade).

I think America underestimates China at its peril. You need only ask a Korean War Veteran if this is true. You will find that the Chinese were experts at straight-trajectory artillery (Zen-like) and they were tough, conditioned fighters. It's arty that wins wars. Portable artillery with today's ammo will win any ground war, IMO. Tank-killing hand held artillery will defeat as many Abrams tanks as you may wish to field.

Also, Asians in general are calloused toward being bombed and fighting against better tech. They will never give up. I'm thinking of the French dinner scene in Apocalypse Now where the son breaks the egg.

And do Russians want another war, cold or hot? No they do not. If ever a people wanted a few centuries of peace and happy family living, it would be the Russians. WW2 was at it's most horrific on their front.

Horrible to contemplate if US prisons are somehow opened during a time of civil breakdown or direct aggressive war on US soil. The US has real criminals and gangsters in its prisons, not emaciated political prisoners, writers and troublemakers like in Chinese jails. Roving anarchic gangs could easily be organized along rape-and-pillage morals, and would be a problem. China doesn't have 90 million guns in the hands of its people. That's a pretty big wild-card when you talk about actually taking and holding any US territory. It's good to be armed, but that also means your neighbor may kill you. Could Americans unite if the enemy never set foot on our soil, but was funding gangs and disruption of infrastructure inside the US?

Anyway, back to the real world where nukes exist. War is stupid. MIRVs will rain down on everyone's head if world war happens.


[edit on 13-5-2006 by smallpeeps]




posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   
The Russian military "CLAIMS" it flew bombers over the U.S. (without ANY evidence might i add). So, i guess thats fact enough it happened huh?

Two Russian jets flew over and took pictures of the Kitty Hawk. Any monkey in a Bi-Plane flying 5 feet off the ocean surface to be undetected by radar could do that.

Please, when TRYING to "sound" intelligent put forth a little bit of effort ok?



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
I think America underestimates China at its peril. You need only ask a Korean War Veteran if this is true. You will find that the Chinese were experts at straight-trajectory artillery (Zen-like) and they were tough, conditioned fighters. It's arty that wins wars. Also, Asians in general are calloused toward being bombed and fighting against better tech. They will never give up.
[edit on 13-5-2006 by smallpeeps]


As oppossed to an American soldier WOULD give up??? Give me a break. If the Chinese were such experts how come they didn't drive out the American soldier in the Korean War? The only reason there's a North and South Korea is because Truman was too much of a pussy to let McCarthur push into China and finish this mess way back then. If the Chinese "never give up" How come they needed the American soldier in WW2 to help them against the Japanese???

First off China isn't going to do anything to anybody. Between Taiwan's navy (American bought and owned) and the navy of the U.S.A., China's attacking fleet would be sunk...end of island war. China could try and invade Russia....not going to happen. China can't invade India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rest of the "istan's". They don't have the logistic resources to wage war accross a mountain range. They could only invade Vietnam and surrounding countries. But what would be the point? Very little resources there and the U.N. would force sanctions. They'd lose credibility and trade with the rest of the free world.

Although China is still communist, that is eroding very quickly. They now have a taste of capitalism. The younger generation to inherit the politics of China will much rather keep their expensive condos, boats and cars in a democratic society not a communist one. Because once you lose your position in communist political system you're a peon like everyone else and your income and status must be the same as the rest of the peons. These up n' commers aren't going to let that happen.

History lesson is over class. Flame away.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
regards the claim that " russian air force penetrated US air smace with impunity "

if we are going to have a pissing contest over air defence integity -- two words :

" mathias rust "

that was at the HEIGHT of the cold war



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
Any monkey in a Bi-Plane flying 5 feet off the ocean surface to be undetected by radar could do that.


And your point is??!...

Mine is very clear..
If that 'monkey' can carry enough munitions to wreck the carrier then...(Sunburn/Brahmos)..
I rest my case..



Originally posted by Faust
The Russian military "CLAIMS" it flew bombers over the U.S. (without ANY evidence might i add). So, i guess thats fact enough it happened huh?


And you're saying it didn't?!! I'm just sourcing info..
If you're going to counter claims just for the hec of it then whats the point in posting anything in the first place?

btw what happened to that sub source I aksed you for?!!



Originally posted by Faust
Please, when TRYING to "sound" intelligent put forth a little bit of effort ok?


seems the effort's a bit wanting on your side.. oh.. but wait.. the bravado compensates for that aye?



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
regards the claim that " russian air force penetrated US air smace with impunity "

if we are going to have a pissing contest over air defence integity -- two words :

" mathias rust "

that was at the HEIGHT of the cold war


Nobody's pissing on anything..

Mathia flew a damn Cessna!! That is proof enough to deem this as irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Then again if you're talking about people flying civilian a/c to 'break' a country's air-defense network, you need to do a little more retrospection on your part (esp. if you're American).
All I need to do is throw one date in history and you'd be eating those words, but I won't out of solidarity and respect for innocent people who lost their lives on that day.

I'm not trying to say that the USN and/or NORAD are useless..
Just want to remove that undefeatable/impenetrable fallacy.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
good thread tho' I only read half of it (last half).

War without nukes? Funny. Okay, let's beat our chest and pretend we haven't doomed our grandkids already.

First off, saying the US is best and pointing to GDP, is foolish. GDP does not reflect the vitality and fighting spirit of a country. A country can have a GDP that's high or growing, and still be in the crapper, morally (therefore easy to kill/invade).


A countries GDP is an indicator of how long they could sustain war.



I think America underestimates China at its peril. You need only ask a Korean War Veteran if this is true. You will find that the Chinese were experts at straight-trajectory artillery (Zen-like) and they were tough, conditioned fighters. It's arty that wins wars. Portable artillery with today's ammo will win any ground war, IMO. Tank-killing hand held artillery will defeat as many Abrams tanks as you may wish to field.


What do you eman by straight line artillery ? IF you mean it literally then not many CHinese guns would have survived after a few shots.
What are these hand held tank killing artillery systems you refer to ?
Artillery doesn't win wars, it soldiers and their equipment ie. Tanks. There the ones who take the ground.


Also, Asians in general are calloused toward being bombed and fighting against better tech. They will never give up. I'm thinking of the French dinner scene in Apocalypse Now where the son breaks the egg.


Depends what they're fighting for.


Originally posted by Faust
As oppossed to an American soldier WOULD give up??? Give me a break. If the Chinese were such experts how come they didn't drive out the American soldier in the Korean War? The only reason there's a North and South Korea is because Truman was too much of a pussy to let McCarthur push into China and finish this mess way back then. If the Chinese "never give up" How come they needed the American soldier in WW2 to help them against the Japanese???


Well if you remember your history correctly, McCarthur did try and push right up to the CHinese border, big mistake. You can't change the history books, the PLA kicked the Americans all the way back past the 38th parallel ( todays NK/SK border ).
McCarthurs solution to this was using the atomic bomb along the CHinese border areas to create a radioactive barrier - one of the main reasons he was dismissed by Truman.
Once the CHinese started diggin in, there was nothing which was going to remove them.


First off China isn't going to do anything to anybody. Between Taiwan's navy (American bought and owned) and the navy of the U.S.A.


THey might use american equipment, but they paid for it, the US didn't



China could try and invade Russia....not going to happen. China can't invade India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rest of the "istan's". They don't have the logistic resources to wage war accross a mountain range. They could only invade Vietnam and surrounding countries


Well, CHina has already invaded INdia once successfully in 1962 and took the Aksai Chin and other border areas. This was in the Himalayas, so yes tyhey can fight across a mountain range.

Oh yes and about Russia, the way teh population demographics are going in Siberia, in a few decades there could well be more CHInese than Russians lving there. Siberia has incredible oil and mineral wealth and has the advantage of being right on CHina's doorstep. The CHinese may very well move on SIberia in the future, there economy will need the resources.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Once the CHinese started diggin in, there was nothing which was going to remove them.


Have you heard of the Daisy Cutter?


Originally posted by mad scientist
Well, CHina has already invaded INdia once successfully in 1962 and took the Aksai Chin and other border areas. This was in the Himalayas, so yes tyhey can fight across a mountain range.


Right, back when India sucked and didn't have nukes. That's kind of like a 10th grader pushing a 5 year old down, not really a challenge or any resistance. Plus the Kashmere region which is now being fought over between India and Pakistan used to belong to China. Why didn't they hang onto it?? As stated before.."LOGISTICS".


Originally posted by mad scientist
Oh yes and about Russia, the way teh population demographics are going in Siberia, in a few decades there could well be more CHInese than Russians lving there. Siberia has incredible oil and mineral wealth and has the advantage of being right on CHina's doorstep. The CHinese may very well move on SIberia in the future, there economy will need the resources.


Yea, that would be a great PR move wouldn't it? As long as Russia remains a Democracy or a 'sort-of' sorts the U.S. and most of Europe wouldn't allow that to happen.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
...and it can't even take back Taiwan. Nothing compared to America.


China cannot take back Taiwan? You kiddin me right? First of all, it can... with relatively ease without American interference. Second of all, it doesn't need to. With parliament in full control by the KMT and President Chen getting recalled, I highly doubt military actions will even be needed.

Thirdly, it doesn't take a nation with the exact same military or economic comparisons with the U.S. to defeat the U.S. Those are very important factors, yes, but it does not SOLELY determine who wins in a war. Remember the Vietnam war? Sure, the U.S. had a military and a economy far beyond comparison of that of Vietnam, but the U.S. just couldn't stop the North from defeating the South could they?

And to add to that - to even compare the Chinese Military NOW and back how it was in the Vietnam war is complete ludicrous. It's advancement to it's current status is beyond the scopes of comparison.



[edit on 13-5-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
OK everyone lets play nice and quit yelling about the pissing contest. The subject is:

“How would the US fare in the next world war?”

To put it mildly any country that attacks the US would have to fight all of NATO. That’s why the treaty is in place. Just as we would have to fight for them, they would have to fight for us.

The US alone could put allot of hurt on any country out there, but if the NATO alliance is put into play the aggressor wouldn’t last but for a few days.

Just my thoughts.

wupy



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

China cannot take back Taiwan? You kiddin me right? First of all, it can... with relatively ease without American interference. Second of all, it doesn't need to. With parliament in full control by the KMT and President Chen getting recalled, I highly doubt military actions will even be needed.

Thirdly, it doesn't take a nation with the exact same military or economic comparisons with the U.S. to defeat the U.S. Those are very important factors, yes, but it does not SOLELY determine who wins in a war. Remember the Vietnam war? Sure, the U.S. had a military and a economy far beyond comparison of that of Vietnam, but the U.S. just couldn't stop the North from defeating the South could they?

And to add to that - to even compare the Chinese Military NOW and back how it was in the Vietnam war is complete ludicrous. It's advancement to it's current status is beyond the scopes of comparison.
It's a little thing called power projection which China sucks at even now. They can't even get a fraction of their army across theTtaiwan strait. Sure they will be in a few years, able to invade Taiwan. However currently they're sitting ducks,simply a large standing army. All they can do is airstrikes and their navy is pretty much blue water right now.While in Contrast for GW2 we moved 130,000 troops and their equipment without Turkey or Saudi Arabia's help and they were dubbed as crucial to victory. Vietnam was pretty much guerilla warfare.... every's army's weakness not to mention it's a jungle we didnt have those fancy sensors like we do now. Not to mention we had bad info and a low morale and it was a war most of our troops didn't believe in. No military does good in Guerilla warfare especially if it's a jungle or city.


Listen no one would win in thenext world war both Russia and the US have oever 10,000 nukes. Not to mention China,India,Pakistan etc etc etc......... No one would win everyone would die.

END of STORY

However the US would fare well no doubt until the nukes start going off then everyone loses. After Hiroshima and Nakasaki i don't think people want nuclear war especially since the nukes we have noe are WAYYYYYYYYYY stronger and there's alot more of them around.

Plus China would never take Siberia the Russians will nuke them to death and vice versa it will start WW3.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 13-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Errr..a little on chinese capability in the west,the Indo-Chinese war of 1962, Chinese capability in the east and the history of Kashmir:


1). True China does NOT have the logistics, manpower AND weaponry to invade India,Afghanistan,Soviet Satellite States, or Russia. This is because the whole region falls into the strategic influence of Russia and India, and they just wouldn't allow. India and Russia are MUCH better equipped in these regions into terms of the above mentioned requirements of waging war. China IMHO can however successfully invade Taiwan as goddamn half of its forces are concentrated on that objective.

2) True, China invaded India in 62' and India lost that war, but this was not because were superior in any way. The Indian Infantry was very very very poorly supplied in that war.The Indian Govt. was in a state of 'shock' as the then govt. had NEVER believed China to be aggressively hostile Thie was one of the most famous political miscalculations in Indian history where the govt. in power refused to believe intel that was provided to them before and even during the War (another significant one was the denial of intel regarding the build up that led to Kargil).
Once the 62' war began the govt.(and certain govt. apponted military chiefs
) again miscalculated the Chinese strength in that region thus further lessening India's chances of a fightback. But the MOST incompetent thing that India did in that war was that it did NOT use its Air Force which :
a) Very strong and very well placed for that conflict..
b) would've sent the Chinese infantry running helter scelter, because the invading troops had NO anti-air equipment.
c) Would've given given the Indian Army enough time to regroup and push the Chinese back, and maybe even go into Chinese occupied Tibet, because the Chinese had no air power in that region. They didn't have an airstrip for 100s of kilometers.

It would have been a resounding defeat which may have changed the course of history, esp for Tibet, but certain indivisuals highly placed in the Indian govt. thought that it would've 'escalated' war
. Nobody had nukes then. Anybody who were to do a little research of both forces at that time would immediately come to the conclusion that the use of the AF by India would've almost definitely turned the war around.
A similar situation arose when the use of airpower was questioned by daft individuals in the Kargil War, claiming that introducing it would 'escalate' the war. Thankfully this time those ppl were silenced, and India won that war very much due to the introduction of Air power. It was at this time the botchup of 62' was brought up again and I got to read about it.
Even today, India currently maintains a very strong and superior air strength in the region, while China concentrates its forces on its eastern seaboard.

3)On the other hand a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is very much on the cards.
I had posted my perceptions of how the chinese would execute the same which I am quoting below:



I'm saying that today China has the ability to invade taiwan, while simultaneously allowing safe passage to well equipped troops from the mainland across the straits.
The key is the ability provide safe passage to these troops and mechanised units crossing the straits. How does one do that?
Prevent any surface fleet/carrier getting close enough by fielding PLANAF SU30MKKs/SU27s/Jh-7s/Jh-8s with long range AshCMs. Provide suffiecient air cover to these a/c(which have enough BVR capability with the likes of the SD10 and the R-77)with the upgraded J-7s that get raw radar data feed from their more advanced companions(don't know if they can but its common sense so presuming they do ).
Thus enabling a enabling a tight CAP at a standoff distance of 200km - 300km.
These a/c can be rotated 24/7 by replacements and air - refueling, again out of the range of enemy fire.
Then PLAN has a huge sub fleet and if used efficiently could provide sufficient littoral operations in the straits. The more advanced kilos and surface ships would give a layered defense against USN ASW and USN SSNs.
At the same time the PLAAF/PLA would be assigned the task of preventing the US from opening new fronts that would force the chinese to withdraw from theTaiwan theatre.
The only sureshot way for the US would be to commit the entire PACCOM to the cause and try to wear the chinese out, i.e. not let them get sufficient forces on the island in the first place. If that were to fail(and I've provided enough evidence of a PLAN/PLANAF layered defence capable of doing that ) there would be only one option:

Engage the chinese in land combat on the island(thus causing immense collateral damage) while targeting supply routes from the mainland with stealth and stand-off long range LACMs. That would be viewwd as an escalation, and would force the chinese into sending subs out to try and maime a carrier or two.Also its would IMO force them take out a more 'offensive' stance rather than a defensive one. I.e. that layered defensive becoming a more of a offense-defense system with the PLAAF getting more involved in defensive ops and the PLANAF taking on an offensive role.

It would be a long drawn out affair with the winner being the one able to hold out longer and force the opposition into a rethink of its objectives. Nukes over taiwan are
not an option for either side.

I'm a little uninformed about PLAN/PLANAF ASW capabilities and that could be the key to this all.Will get back on that.

Here the thread I as talking about:

Can China Invade Taiwan

It goes everywhere(Like TCrowne observes right at the end) but it is most certainly one of ATS's most prized possessions. Its an ATSopedia on the topic..


4) Lastly, China has very little if not anything to do with the history of Kashmir, so relating it to China is rather incorrect. Yes Aksai Chin has a history of war, but other than that and sharing a border with Kashmir, China is not involed with Kashmir in any way.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
The only way any major invasion/takeover is going to happen is if the United States is severly crippled. If a massive natural disater or two happens to the U.S. then all the available resources the U.S. has left would be poured into rebuilding it. This is the perfect time for Iran to go to war with Israel, China to invade Taiwan and dogs to start raping cats. There would be no real oppossing force to halt the chaos.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
21 spirits if I'am correct...??



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
2) True, China invaded India in 62' and India lost that war, but this was not because were superior in any way. The Indian Infantry was very very very poorly supplied in that war.The Indian Govt. was in a state of 'shock' as the then govt. had NEVER believed China to be aggressively hostile Thie was one of the most famous political miscalculations in Indian history where the govt. in power refused to believe intel that was provided to them before and even during the War (another significant one was the denial of intel regarding the build up that led to Kargil).


Well the PLA troops were superior to the INdian forces they were fighting. They were far better tranied, combat proven and tough.
Almost the entire lift capacity was used to supply INdian forces at the front, if that's poor supply, then it's obvious the Indian military wasn't up to the task.


Once the 62' war began the govt.(and certain govt. apponted military chiefs
) again miscalculated the Chinese strength in that region thus further lessening India's chances of a fightback. But the MOST incompetent thing that India did in that war was that it did NOT use its Air Force which :
a) Very strong and very well placed for that conflict..
b) would've sent the Chinese infantry running helter scelter, because the invading troops had NO anti-air equipment.
c) Would've given given the Indian Army enough time to regroup and push the Chinese back, and maybe even go into Chinese occupied Tibet, because the Chinese had no air power in that region. They didn't have an airstrip for 100s of kilometers.


India's air froce wouldn't have made jlittle difference. As I've already said, their helicopter and transports were working round the clock to supply their troops. The tiny Canberra bomber force wouldn't have made any difference at all.It can also be noted that the INdian Air Force couldn't provide CAS and defend their cities ( aghainst possible PLAAF attack ) at the same time.
Also, the PLA did have AA guns deployed.



It would have been a resounding defeat which may have changed the course of history, esp for Tibet, but certain indivisuals highly placed in the Indian govt. thought that it would've 'escalated' war
. Nobody had nukes then. Anybody who were to do a little research of both forces at that time would immediately come to the conclusion that the use of the AF by India would've almost definitely turned the war around.


Complete and utter bollicks. The Indian air force wasn't very strong. What is even more stranger is that you think using a few planes would have turned the resounding defeat of India into a resounding victory - sorry bud but you're living in fanatasy land. The UN had a far mroe massive and effective airforce deployed to Korea, yet they couldn't stop the Chinese.



[edit on 14-5-2006 by mad scientist]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Well,

If you believe the indian airforce would have made the slightest difference go check the korean war. Then the greatess airpower in the world, still are but not on the scale of 1950

And no air strip for 100's of kms. No problem, During the korean war the PLA established a airstrip with week/s. The Mig-15s were damn rugged.


Reply tommorrow



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
4) Lastly, China has very little if not anything to do with the history of Kashmir, so relating it to China is rather incorrect. Yes Aksai Chin has a history of war, but other than that and sharing a border with Kashmir, China is not involed with Kashmir in any way.


Well Pakistan did gift illegally toi China 2600 square km's of Jammu and Kashmir territory in 1963 as tribute.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Very poorly! Although the question has truncated all answers referring to the use of nuclear weapons - which would be a surety - as the US forces currently stand, they would fare badly in some areas, and good in others.
The problem with US forces is that they expend too much faith in technology, and not enough (or rather balance it out) with the best weapon of any army - the human body and mind.
British troops are superior to most of the US forces in 'looking the enemy in the eye' style combat; their training is based upon this, the pinnacle of which is the SAS soldier. The US's power lies in the ability to apply massive yeilds in short times, it is not trained enough for either attrition or occupancy, or longevity of combat. The American people do not stomach heavy losses, you can be assured your enemies do.
If you take away the technology, and bring it down to the gun, the knife and the boot, US forces would be decimated by an enemy determined to inflict losses unacceptable to the American people. This was Saddam's mistake, if he'd applied his forces in a 'chipping away' style war (guerilla warfare), as the current opposing combatants are doing in Iraq, he may have caused a stalemate. Saddam, however, was no Zarqawi or bin Laden. These two guys labelled as terrorists are not out to 'win' the war, they are out to inflict losses. Take no heed of their rhetoric, they simply want to cause hurt. They are not stupid enough to think they could win - what are they going to win? Nothing but a dent in the confidence of the American people in the trust of those whom run their country.
Hussein kept these two down, but they have been freed to do their worst by incalculable stupidity of western-leaders, and the American forces facing them do not have the training required to deal with them. They are a sore that is not going to heal too quickly.
British forces are trained for this style of combat, but even they will have no hope of overcoming them. Only two conditions win a war; the total capitulation and surrender of an enemy decimated beyond the capability of sustaing combat, or the changing of the mindset of the enemy during combat. Neither of these will ever be forthcoming in Iraq, or in any potential conflict with Iran, N Korea, et al.

The next world war will see the use of nukes, not to win the war, but to take one's enemy with you, or in the least to destroy as much of it as possible. Size and capability won't matter.

Regards



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well the PLA troops were superior to the Indian forces they were fighting. They were far better tranied, combat proven and tough.
Almost the entire lift capacity was used to supply INdian forces at the front, if that's poor supply, then it's obvious the Indian military wasn't up to the task.


Indeed you are correct when say that the 'Air Lift' capacity was tested to the limit in the 62' war, but that itself was a saving grace and helped the Indian Army regroup and push the chinese back in the eastern sectors, namely Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. The combination of American C-119Gs and Soviet An-12Bs flew (again as you correctly mention) round the clock sorties from airstrips 17000ft and 15000ft respectively with the latter even lifting AMX-13 light tanks to the frontlines in Ladakh. It is this that prevented the chinese from human waving deep into Indian territory.The helicopters were the ones most notably at risk to rudimentary AA fire accompanied by small-arms fire and they did a damn good job of flying the gauntlet so to say.
But you missed my point whih I will explain in the next section





Originally posted by mad scientist
India's air froce wouldn't have made jlittle difference. As I've already said, their helicopter and transports were working round the clock to supply their troops. The tiny Canberra bomber force wouldn't have made any difference at all.It can also be noted that the INdian Air Force couldn't provide CAS and defend their cities ( aghainst possible PLAAF attack ) at the same time.
Also, the PLA did have AA guns deployed.


Again I shall initially point out the correctness of your statements before dismissing the rest!!

The IAF had little ability to defend cities, not because of inferior forces, but because of the inept command structure which was to long and incapable of dealing with micro- strategy.The 62' gave the impetus to split the IAF into the 3 sector command structure of Eastern, western and central commands with training and maintenance command.
Now I completely disagree with the fact that the IAF at the time couldn't CAS to its troops.
The IAF had along with those canberras (which you oh so wrongly belittle, ask the English on ATS, Waynos??
) 4 squadrons(100 a/c) of French Ouragons(Toofanis to the IAF) stationed at Hashimara and Tezpur, which could have been (if deployed) immediately moved to Chabua and Jorhat for CAS/interdiction(behind enemy lines) in the eastern front.

Ouragon Armament:
2 Cannons 20 mm (400 rounds each)
68 mm rockets(dumbfire) OR Iron/Napalm bombs (2 X 500 lbs)
AND 2 wing tip fuel tanks for prolonged CAS in mountainous areas.
Range:900km

Since I'm talking about the east I'll be done with that before moving to the western front of Aksai Chin.

3 sqdrns of newly acquired Hawker Hunters stationed at Jorhat,Chabua and Hashimara resp. These could and would have been used for air defense/CAS and interdiction.
The Hawker Hunter needs no introduction but I never give up a chance to talk about this beauty!!

A pic of the last hunters at Kalaikunda before they were disbanded:



Hunter Armament:
4 X 30 mm cannons (600 rounds each)
4" British rockets OR 2 X 1000 lbs Iron/Napalm bombs
AND 2 stations for fuel tanks (2 X 230 gallons) of course for prolonged CAS again.
Range: 1300km


Any further proof of Hunter ground attack firepower:
Check out the Battle of Longewala 65' Indo-Pak war



4 sqdrns of Vampires Mk52/55 stationed at Chabua, Tezpur,Bagdogara and Kalaikonda resp.Out of these 2 sqdrns were photo recon sqdrns with then state of teh art cameras. These could have got very good pictures of chinese troops movements.
We all know the immense importance of that.
Armament:
2 X 20 mm guns (400 rounds each)
2 X 250 lbs bombs (Iron only)


Also Harvard 2B and Texan T6G trainers (piston yes but very suitable for troop strafing!!
) with 7.62mm/.303 gun pods (1 only I think) also could have ben used for dedicated CAS.

2 Canberra B(1)Mk 58 sqdrns based at Gorakhpur and KalaiKonda could have been used for long range interdiction(wreak havoc with supply lines)into Tibet and long range photo recon thus giving the Indian Army good sound early intel.
These 'little' a/c as you call it had an internal bomb bay load of over 8000 lbs.
Range: 1000 nautical miles!!!



Now the western sector(Aksai Chin):

4 sqdrns of mysteres IVA at Adampur and Pathankot resp. These would have been used for CAS and interdiction.
2 X 30 mm guns (600 rounds each)
68mm rockets OR 2 1000 lbs bombs (napalm/Iron)
Range: 1300km


2 sqdrns of Hawker Hunters at Halwara and Hindon resp.
(Usage and armament same as mentioned above).

4 sqdrns of Gnats at Pathankot Ambala and Srinagar.

Gnat Armament:
2 guns 30 mm
Purely air defense and damn good at that I might add!!


This one I drive by every day!


2 sqdrns of Canberras at Agra.
usage and armament discussed above.

All these a/c were well within range of the respective theatres:

If you want to cross check the validity of the bases mentioend above feel free to check them out:
(Decent UI)

www.scramble.nl...

Compare this to PLAAF numbers in the region..I have found NOTHING and am assured that there were NO a/c in or around the region and NO infrastructure to support the same in 62. It would've taken months to establish bases and ferry a/c from the east and Manchuria.
Anyways any attempt to bring any a/c incld. MiG 15s would have been scuttled by IAF raids escorted by gnats very capable of taking on MiG-15s. Hey a 'starfighter' killer can take on anything aye?



Complete and utter bollicks. The Indian air force wasn't very strong. What is even more stranger is that you think using a few planes would have turned the resounding defeat of India into a resounding victory - sorry bud but you're living in fanatasy land. The UN had a far mroe massive and effective airforce deployed to Korea, yet they couldn't stop the Chinese.


I have proved my point above..
Now what remains to be explained is WHY IN BLAZES wasn't all this used?
next post:


[edit on 14-5-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I have proved my point above..
Now what remains to be explained is WHY IN BLAZES wasn't all this used?

two words: Panchsheel (look it up) and Jawaharlal Nehru.

Again if you are doubtful about the ranges of these a/c from the conflict zone w.r.t. their mentioned AFBs, just check the scramble.nl map I provided.

btw.. thanks to the 62 war the IAF is an awesome force today. So all was not in vain..




top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join