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: 14
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
You still did not address the points i brought up in the intial two post.

The second one was the main point about CAS from the indian airforce to highlight how ineffective air power would be

For more information how the indian airforce would have completly been useless would have been the chinese troops during korea. The area of korea is actually quite similar to the mountain peaks the chinese and indians would have fought in.

During the korean war the USAF flew 720,980 sorties and delivered 476,000 tons of weapons on chinese positions. that is about 1/6 of ALL bombs dropped in world war two on a little place called korea. Even with that massive amount of bombs the americans didn't even come close to winning the war even though they pounded the chinese from the air and from the massive amount of artillery from the 16inch cannon on the naval warships to the 105mm guns on land.

Now even with indias 200(?) possible fighters/bombers that could have been used in the war how do you think that will even match up to the USAF in numbers of weight of ordnance.

At the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the french used nalpam on the vietnamese soldiers in the jungle. They were dumping tonnes of it. Did the vietnamese bluge from the area?. Nope not even the slightest chance. Again how is the indian airforce going to get the exact location of chinese troops and use little naplam bombs to fight the chinese held up in their fight the chinese while they already had eperience againest air attacks dating from the long march and facing much MUCH greater odds than what the indians COULD have fielded.

The war in kagril, you might be familar with this one. The pakstani militants were fighting againest indian forces while about 15km inside indian territory without many supplies and managed to hold the 30,000 strong indian force and the indian airforce of the Mig-27 Mirage 2000 weren't effecitive in dislodging the pakistani defenders of rag tag militants.


'The sincerity of the Indian Air Force to participate in Kashmir's campaign was in inverse proportion to their hit rates' said an Indian Army Officer in Dras. He said for nearly three weeks after the airstrikes began on May 26, its effectiveness was 'near negligible'. In addition to losing two MIG series of fighters and one MI-17 helicopter gunship on two successive days in an environment which the Indian Air Force monopolised, the Air Force simply failed in destroying Pakistani 'sangars' (rock bunkers) or dislodging the intruders in any significant way. 'They (Air Force) were more show than go', said one Indian Army Officer in Dras.

The 'decisive battle flank' said an army officer in Dras, was the terrain and the high mountains. Sadly, the Indian Air Force pilots were unable to achieve combat effectiveness flying around 5 km above the minuscule targets and releasing their ordinance at 'safe heights'. At one point, early on in the conflict, the Indian Army is reported to have asked the Air Force to call off its airstrikes, which were not only proving ineffective, but were also posing a threat to troops ascending the hill sides.

www.defencejournal.com...


Now the only saving grance during the war were the Mirage 2000's which were able to use LGB on the targets. the indian airforce after the war had a major upgrade of the whole fleet to include LGB capability. Now this begs the question whether dumb bombs would have been effective againest a enemy which also were on similar terrain but better supplied and had air support.

If a modern airforce couldn't dislodge 3,000 troops with LGBs how do you think that the indian airforce of 1962 would do with some inaccurate rocket pods and two dumb bombs?


Fair enough if you were claiming to hit PLA bases in tibet or a long supply convey. But your talking about a dug in enemy hidden well and has expereince againest a enemy with control of the air. I have already given examples of PLA battles againest the enemy and how in-effective it was.

The Ouragon is quite similar in design to the F-80 and F-84

The Vampire is very unqiue but doing a one on one comparison is quite difficult and the hunter hawker and Gnat are all in the same league with the MiGs




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
mad scientist and rogue1 all in one. no wonder you guys sounded the same, same BS, same childish replies.

But all this time, why did you need to have two accounts?


Haha, 2 words POT and KETTLE. Erm nice comeback LOL.




..........The orbat is for the positioning of PLA units. Which ever person you are claimed that he had to PLAAF orbat for '62 to prove it wasn't there.


LOL, once again there was no orbat for the PLAAF because they weren't even there.




Like I am saying provide a reason and proof


Erm, how about history, I suggest you read about Manchuria under Japanese occupation








And what, I've have already provided sources stating your figures are wrong


No you haven't.


I suggest you read back a few pages.


Speed is not essential in a dog fight. Manuverbility is, which the sabre was superior


Well not accoding to teh people who fought in Korea, teh Mig-15 was regarded as the superior plane. Must have been that British engine in it supplied to the Soviets.


The Mig-15 was developed as a interceptor and was deployed as a interceptor, hence its heavy armament. The Mig-15s in the korean war were used to target bombers and attacks which meant it wouldn't be there dog fighting sabres. Hence the Mig-15s were trying to kill B-29s while the sabre was trying to kill the Mig-15s.


Bollocks, teh Chinese just weren't trained that well. The Mig-15 in teh hands of a capable pilot was more than a match for the Sabre




Im very sure. I know for a fact that china SUPPILED and OPERATED most if not all the AA guns in vietnam


LOL, ok so you're rewriting history here, nice one
. I would love to see your evidence of all of North Vietnams AAA guns being manned by Chinese. I can't stop laughing.

NOw please educate yourself, you're wasting my time, I think we all know who the child is here, haha. Also stop making things up, it gets boring quickly.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
You still did not address the points i brought up in the intial two post.

The second one was the main point about CAS from the indian airforce to highlight how ineffective air power would be

For more information how the indian airforce would have completly been useless would have been the chinese troops during korea. The area of korea is actually quite similar to the mountain peaks the chinese and indians would have fought in.


Completely useless comaprison. The CHinese had a tiny force compared to Korea in Tibet. Also you fail to neglect that teh CHinese in Jorea had a massive labour force that dug thousands of miles of tunnels for the PLA. The PLA in Tibet was not dug in and would hvae been very susceptible to CAS. You really need to eductae yourself on this and stop making completely inaccurate comparisons.
THE CHINESE WERE NOT DUG IN, in TIBET




Now even with indias 200(?) possible fighters/bombers that could have been used in the war how do you think that will even match up to the USAF in numbers of weight of ordnance.


Get a reality check before you spout off more BS. The 2 wars are incomparable. Your knowlege is military history is extremely weak at best.


At the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the french used nalpam on the vietnamese soldiers in the jungle. They were dumping tonnes of it. Did the vietnamese bluge from the area?. Nope not even the slightest chance. Again how is the indian airforce going to get the exact location of chinese troops and use little naplam bombs to fight the chinese held up in their fight the chinese while they already had eperience againest air attacks dating from the long march and facing much MUCH greater odds than what the indians COULD have fielded.


LMAO, noe we've got another bizarre comparison to Dien Bien Phu, this is getting even stranger. What next you'll mkae a comaprison to Englands defeat of the Spanish Armada, or HAnnibal crssing the Apls, HAHAHA.

If teh Indians had CAS whent eh CHinese were attacking the PLA would hvae been hit extremely hard. Not to mention all their supplies were coming in from one main road. That could hvae easily been interdicted. Do some reading.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Are you perposly trying to close the thread so you dont get embarrased more?.




Originally posted by rogue1
Haha, 2 words POT and KETTLE. Erm nice comeback LOL.


...........




once again there was no orbat for the PLAAF because they weren't even there.


And why were three airbases set up on the tibetian plateu?. Yet still does not explain why you claimed you had one. Dont try and sheer the conversation in a different direction, and put words in my mouth



Erm, how about history, I suggest you read about Manchuria under Japanese occupation


I have already suggested to you some books you would find quite interesting

"riding the iron rooster"
"The nationalist era in China"
"Understanding Asia"

And I have read extensively about the conflict english and chinese language




I suggest you read back a few pages.


Unless you have a third account name then you haven't provided a source


Well not accoding to teh people who fought in Korea, teh Mig-15 was regarded as the superior plane. Must have been that British engine in it supplied to the Soviets.


Now you fought in korea. if not then provide some proof that the Mig-15 was a better plane in a dog fight


Bollocks, teh Chinese just weren't trained that well. The Mig-15 in teh hands of a capable pilot was more than a match for the Sabre


Thats why russian aces from WW2 still got shot down in these superior planes?. Even though the same russian aces which had the highest scores among allied forces got shot down even with nnumerical superioty?


LOL, ok so you're rewriting history here, nice one
. I would love to see your evidence of all of North Vietnams AAA guns being manned by Chinese.


I never said all, I said most if not all. Big differnce. When the north vietnamese soldiers lanuched their attack in '72 who do you think were maning their AA guns.

During the whole war, chinese engineer and anti-aircraft soldiers were maning those guns and suffered a large amount of casulties. Go to china-defense and there are looks of pictures



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Why dont you use mad scientist anymore?. It suites your childishness. How old are you? 10?


Originally posted by rogue1
Completely useless comaprison. The CHinese had a tiny force compared to Korea in Tibet. Also you fail to neglect that teh CHinese in Jorea had a massive labour force that dug thousands of miles of tunnels for the PLA. The PLA in Tibet was not dug in and would hvae been very susceptible to CAS.


Tunnels!!!!!!!

So the advance the chinese made in korea was done through tunnels?. Once a airforce starts lubbing bombs at you, you dig in. Even though the chinese soldiers dug in during korea they still lanuched offensives. If you were actually to study PLA tactics though the korean war and during the civil war they were completly brillant. Large scale night manuver warfare. You should wonder why the KMT in china lost with its 500,000 AMERICAN TRAINED soldiers to the chinese communist. Quite interestingly these same tactics could not be used properly in korea because of the amount of mountains

Why are you saying tibet?. The two threaters were completly opposties in terrain. NEFA is junglish, And Askin chin is barran land with cliffs. Again shows a amature trying to BS his way out of a conversation


The 2 wars are incomparable. Your knowlege is military history is extremely weak at best.


How were they incomparable?

Arunachal Pradesh and korea are very similar terrain, Big airforce drops lots of bombs. Little airforce drops little amount of bombs. If the US with all those bombs couldn't win the korean war how was the indian airforce going to win the war


LMAO, noe we've got another bizarre comparison to Dien Bien Phu, this is getting even stranger.


All three were using the same era weaponary, all of them involved the ineffectivness of the airforce to bomb out a camped enemy. To bad a kid like you couldn't see the comparison. Probaly the names were spelt different that confused you


What next you'll mkae a comaprison to Englands defeat of the Spanish Armada, or HAnnibal crssing the Apls, HAHAHA.


Wow, im impressed. You managed to hold on for so long this time. Now your making a compairson between a naval battle with a air battle and a elephant with a airplane



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Your kargil claims are still bogus..
The militants were tucked in nice and cozy on positions which only airborne precision strikes could dislodge, but IAF didn't have the airspace to conduct bombing runs with iron bombs.If the govt. wanted they could've just pushed into pakistan occupied kashmir, screwed the hell out of whatever was there and then flanked the hell out of those cozy coackroaches, but we didn't because the govt. thought that Pakistan would be pushed into a corner which i could only use nukes from..
The article you quote is a damn Indian Army pompousness thats all..
first they said they didn't need the AF and then the said the AF was brought in too late..
Indeed the war was not won by these daft individuals who fought from armchairs but by those who fought the bloody war..
I can find for 20 other such articles which just nit-pick on the IAF and/or the Indian military or the Indian Intelligence services.. but that's not the point aye? Its for consumption.. Cases and counter cases.. I'm sorry to rub the democracy card in your face all the time but that's just how it is..

Chinawhite you're comparing Korea, Vietnam and Kargil to the war of 62?
Gawd.. have you left out any mordern chinese conflict??!!

You need to look at maps of the peaks of kargil , namely Tiger Hill, Tololing etc etc..
This is NOT the same a the dry elevated flats of Aksai Chin!! or the Valleys of Arunachal!! The troops here weren't dug in, they were invading dammit!! They weren't even backed up by sufficient supply lines. THATS WHY the chinese called a cease fire when they did.
Also there was no CAS for these troops and there was no chance of getting it in time. You can build your railways and your airfields but thats just pure conjecture, wishful fantasy even.
Again and again you bring up Korea and Vietnam, but there's absolutely nothing in common between them and the 62 conflict. Kargil is a another world too. In terms of topology, positions, armament,chronology.. you name it..



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Tunnels!!!!!!!

So the advance the chinese made in korea was done through tunnels?. Once a airforce starts lubbing bombs at you, you dig in. Even though the chinese soldiers dug in during korea they still lanuched offensives. If you were actually to study PLA tactics though the korean war and during the civil war they were completly brillant. Large scale night manuver warfare.


Jeez Lousie, like I've said and you've shown, your knowlege of military history is extremely weak
Yes Tunnels, teh Korean War was static for 2 years whereby the CHinese dug using a massive " volunteer " labour force. If tehy hadn't teh UN would have been able to wipe them out in manouver warfare.
Any offensive after 1951 was extremely limited in nature and scope. I find it quite laughable that you still persist with this bizarre comparisin to the Sino Indian War - it really show you know nothing of what you're talking about.

This is getting boring, I can't be botered anymore. Hell it took you 2 pages to accept that you were wrong about aerodynamics, when I explained it in laymens terms even a child could understand. Yet you still persisted with completely wrong and bogus arguments - it just isn't worth proving you wrong anymore. All it is for me is aalot of time wasted reading some syupid argument some of some no nothing kid.

Goodbye. As has been seen your credibilit is shot, other members have shown it as well.


Originally posted by chinawhite
I have already suggested to you some books you would find quite interesting

"riding the iron rooster"
"The nationalist era in China"
"Understanding Asia"

And I have read extensively about the conflict english and chinese language


LOl of course you have, was this in country Australia ? I could give you the names of 20 books I've read about the Korean War and teh names of hundreds of books from other conflicys, so what


The fact that you can read, doesn't impress me - I'm sure they had lots of pictures for you


[edit on 6-6-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
:EIDT

[edit on 6-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Someone like you doesn't deserve a lengthly reply, If you cant comprehen a short reply how are you going to understand paragraphs and spelling?


Originally posted by rogue1
Jeez Lousie, like I've said and you've shown, your knowlege of military history is extremely weak
Yes Tunnels


......Yeah, you will have to at least show pictures and the difference between a bunker and a tunnel. I know for a fact how a chinese bunker and trench system worked. Its very well documented in chinese books, Theres a good store for books in hong kong if you are willing to look for one

You might be confusing vietnam with korea. You know, asians all look the same

"Haiphong" and "Hai Fong" whats the difference



I find it quite laughable that you still persist with this bizarre comparisin to the Sino Indian War


For the second time, It shows the effectivness of military airpower on infantry. They still do comparisons with WW2 bombing on civillans and modern conflicts like the gulf war. Its only bizarre to the ignorant


Hell it took you 2 pages to accept that you were wrong about aerodynamics, when I explained it in laymens terms even a child could understand.


2 pages?. You count the bottom of a page and the begining of another as two pages?

And it wasn't you which convined me it was ignorant_ape. The only thing you managed to do was highlight your childishness by repeating the same stupid argument again and again.

"Nah aaa....."
"Take it back"


Goodbye. As has been seen your credibilit is shot, other members have shown it as well.


When you go, dont make another account to hide the ignorance of the past two


LOl of course you have, was this in country Australia ? I could give you the names of 20 books I've read about the Korean War and teh names of hundreds of books from other conflicys, so what


Anthing more than picture books?. One thing reading books from both sides is the contrast in stories i get. So by reading not jsut english sites i get a non-bias view because the other side is also represented

you ever been to south-east melbounre?. Victoria "the place to be"

Dandenong, berwick, E/hills?. hardley country victoria, second city of melbourne


The fact that you can read, doesn't impress me - I'm sure they had lots of pictures for you


No pictures of PLAAF orbat though, or extensive japanese infrastucture



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Your kargil claims are still bogus..
The militants were tucked in nice and cozy on positions which only airborne precision strikes could dislodge


The question is,

How is the indian airforce going to hit a moving target when it couldn't even hit a static target with a much more modern plane. Same goes for all the US bombings in the first half of the korean war. The chinese were advancing in colums though mountain/hilly valleys and even carpet bombing by B-29s didn't stop there advance.

Im not making any referene to static warfare in korea. In Dien Bien Phu, The french were using naplam in massive amounts on the advancing vietnamese soldiers and still did not stop their advance even though the amount of bombs is a large time greater than what the indian airforce could put up


Chinawhite you're comparing Korea, Vietnam and Kargil to the war of 62?
Gawd.. have you left out any mordern chinese conflict??!!


Because all of those wars showed the effectivness of airpower on infantry, and chinese infantry tactics to defeat the other ones weakness

The USAF didn't win the war in korea when the chinese attacked, it was the artillery which stopped the attack. Ill tell you the tactics the chinese used. First they would infiltrate behind enemy lines in korea. After they have positioned themselves they would spilt the defending force and trying to swarm them. The US employed a tactic called the meatgrinder. They told everyone in case of a attack to stay together and wait until the morning when the artillery could be used. In the morning the chinese armies which weren't under cover would get pounded by artillery


They weren't even backed up by sufficient supply lines. THATS WHY the chinese called a cease fire when they did.


No,

Thats the indian excuse. The more logical one would be that they chinese only employed a LIMITED force for LIMITED gain. The original plan wasn't even to attack down south but instead just to recover the land which the chinese deemed as their own. In the end they recovered THREE times more land which they claimed and pulled out. Look at Se La, that was the last battle the chinese had, who won that?

No time in the war did a indian defence hold up againest the chinese advance. Nothing stopped the advance from india

When the cease fire was declared, The chinese kept the original deal they had proposed to india. That was Askin chin for NEFA


Also there was no CAS for these troops and there was no chance of getting it in time. You can build your railways and your airfields but thats just pure conjecture, wishful fantasy even.


I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CAS SUPPORT

Even through the chinese army had about 100,000-500,000 soldiers in tibet at that point and 6 airfields in tibet at that time according to indias own MoD in the link rogue provided in page 11. China still could ahve prepared more airfields for combat



__________________

Also Daedalus3 i want to go into the legality of the indian claim to tibet

Indian border

The whole indian claim rest on the McMahon Line. A line drawn up by the british themselves during their colonial time in india. This was suppose to have been signed at the Simla Conference.

The only reason the chinese attended the Simla Conference was because it was acknowledged that it had sovernity over tibet during the conference. The british presented china with a treaty to sign (McMahon Line included) and they refused. Later they secretly they forced the tibetians to sign in exchange for their independece.

This breached the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, in which Britain was to "engage not to annex Tibetan territory," but also of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. which made a treaty that acknowledged chinese soverity over tibet

Their is no legallity with only tibetian representives signing without the chinese signing since they (the chinese) had sovernity over tibetian affairs. You might later say the chinese manchu empire was gone and tibet was soverign but it is not true according to the secession of states theory. Why did the british again approch chian in 1919 to have another tripartite conference again?

Why did the british want to have a large boundary of land which was useless to them? Because of their greedy intentions to have a buffer at the chinese and tibetians expense. They tried to do the same in afganistan but the russians were there

No one during this time acknowledged tibet as a soverign country and NO country gave tibet diplomatic recognition. Only after the 1959 rebellion (with the help of india and the CIA) did the tibetians start telling the world that they were independent.

If they were so independent why did tibetian representatives go in 1947 to watch the drafting of a new constitution for the ROC?. If they weren't part of china why would they need to be there. Again they signed a treaty with china in 1951 which they had full knowledge of what they were signing why did they sign? Or why did the tibetians accept the gold jiang jieshi gave the dalai lama for being chosen to be the next dalai lama which all chinese empires had to do to, which the tibetians accept to acknowledge that they were under chinese rule. the cermony is called "sitting on the bed". That is a rough translatio of what it means

Now most if not all of you guys dont know what system the tibetians had before the chinese occupation. It was based on land owners and serfs which are slaves to the lamas. This system was roughly similar to pre-communist russia(Tsar) and againest every priciple agaienst communism. When the chinese tried land reform in the country the lamas rebelled againest chinese rule.

Why is western media saying that is was a general rebelion againest chinese rule? why would the slaves rebell againest a system which set them free. Claims that tibet was a peacful country. Not every was a monk. Who was making the food

Now with that written what is the basis of the indian claim which is legal?

The people on the other side of the border are mongolia type people. that means looks chinese/tibetian and have been tradtional tibetian areas. Find any map before the drawing of the McMahon line and you will see that none of the areas india claims have been originally indian

Why do the indians think that the McMahon line is the boundary? Because they think that what the british said they were entitled to. The PRC doesn't reconize the Mahon line the ROC doesn't reconize the McMahon line only the indians do.

When chian started to build a major road through askin chin it took the indians two years to realize what happened. This incident only shows how much the indians cared about the region


[edit on 6-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

The question is,

How is the indian airforce going to hit a moving target when it couldn't even hit a static target with a much more modern plane.


That doesn't even warrant a response. If your going to compare skewed info and then draw even more skewed conclusions then its pointless.



Same goes for all the US bombings in the first half of the korean war. The chinese were advancing in colums though mountain/hilly valleys and even carpet bombing by B-29s didn't stop there advance.


Have you ever stopped to think why?
Maybe.. just maybe they had continuous supply lines. Maybe the bombings were not effective as the number of advancing troops were ten-fold of the amount in conflict in India?
Lets just look at the numbers involved chinawhite. Lets look at the proximity to majors supply lines/roads and the proximity to industrial centres. If we're comparing then lest do it down to every soldier, gun and food pack.



Because all of those wars showed the effectivness of airpower on infantry, and
chinese infantry tactics to defeat the other ones weakness.



Really?
So you're refuting all possibilities that the chinese infantry then and now could be/will be ever affected by air power?






Thats the indian excuse. The more logical one would be that they chinese only employed a LIMITED force for LIMITED gain.

So indian excuses aren't logical aye?



The original plan wasn't even to attack down south but instead just to recover the land which the chinese deemed as their own. In the end they recovered THREE times more land which they claimed and pulled out.

So why did they ditch Arunachal Pradesh then and then whimper/crib about it for the next 4 decades? Does that sound logical to you?
They couldn't have held the territory they'd advanced into, simple.
It happened to the Indian Army in 1971 too. Hell the Indian Army was right outside Lahore waiting to annex one of the biggest cities in Pakistan, but they didn't have the govt. go aahed and they didn't have the supplies


No time in the war did a indian defence hold up againest the chinese advance. Nothing stopped the advance from india


Wrong again. There were a couple of instances in the Arunachal theatre. I could post a little info if you'd like, but that's not the point of the discussion anyways.



When the cease fire was declared, The chinese kept the original deal they had proposed to india. That was Askai chin for NEFA


NEFA??! You've lost me there. If you mean arunachal then thats a daft deal anyways.
Compare the landmasses.





I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CAS SUPPORT
Even through the chinese army had about 100,000-500,000 soldiers in tibet at that point and 6 airfields in tibet at that time according to indias own MoD in the link rogue provided in page 11. China still could have prepared more airfields for combat.


6 airfields? hmm... Besides Lhasa I don't know of any other. Maybe you could point to those links again.
And the point is those airfields would not been up and running or effective enough for various reasons stated by me before: time, continued air attacks,altitude/payload problems for PLAAF fighters.
And if you're not talking about CAS then what the hec would those fighters have done? They only could've hoped to have draw the dedicated fighter-bombers away from the troop concentrations. Anyways How many fighters could have actually been moved to tibet, deployed, and be readily fueled for repeated sorties. Tibet just didn't have the infrastructure.
Then there's the bit about how effective MiG 15s would been against interceptors like the Folland Gnat which were a generation ahead. The MiG's would had it rough with the fighter bombers like the Hunter,Ouragon,Mystere anyways.



Also Daedalus3 i want to go into the legality of the indian claim to tibet


India doesn't claim Tibet for itself. It contests China's annexation of Tibet just like every other country on this planet did at the time.
And if the chinese had problems with the British then they should've taken it up with them then and there. Why wait for 15 years and then march on into Tibet?


[edit on 8-6-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
That doesn't even warrant a response. If your going to compare skewed info and then draw even more skewed conclusions then its pointless.


Why is it skewed?.

I am doing a comparison between the indian airforce then and now. If it was not able to hit a fixed target with bombs how is it going to hit a moving target in a vast expanse or small mountain trails in a jungle. Where is the wayward comparison?

Not to mention that the indian airforce was using aircraft which were two generations ahead of anything avabile in '62. The question stands, Fixed vs Moving


Maybe.. just maybe they had continuous supply lines.


Your saying it as though the chinese forces were the only ones having a supply problem

If we do a comparison or ratio between the amount of troops involved and the amount of bombs dropped per soldier the korean war still had by a long shot more weight or fire per soldier than any indian attack. The chinese in tibet would have had as much support per soldier as did in korea. Simply because the fact that 1962 was a much improved situation for the PRC as a whole compare to china in 1950. And the fact that 100,000-500,000 PLA soldiers were already in tibet at the time. Either logistic soldiers or combatants.

Like i have already mentioned in the past few pages, Tibet is not isolated. Its not the tibet of movies where the terrain is unbelievably difficult to move in. Once you get past the intial hurdles like sichuan, the places flattens out because its a plateau.

If you see tibet in a map or such the only elevation is in the border with india is the main "Bumps" on the way. Even riding in a truck on unpaved tibetian ground is flat. The supply lines would have been either from qinghai which is closer and has level ground compared to the route from sichuan. I dont know why its so hard to accept that tibet wouldn't have been as hard to supply as you are describing

You might have missed this in my reply to Rogue/mad. It outlines why the PLA had such a hard time suppling troops in korea because of the infrastucture

Quote from me
They might have built railways when they were administraing it but they built narrow gauge tracks with 700mm compared to the standard russian and chinese 1000mm -1050mm. Big difference in length. And at the time there were no carriages which could go on them because the japanese carriages were either unservicable due to lack of spare parts because they went out of production in '45 (and there already but serice record) or they were destroyed in the russian offensive.

Most of the tracks were relaid in the first five year plan

But you are talking about a gap of 5 years between japanese surrender and the korean war. Manchuria saw the most intensive fighting of the chinese civil war. If you had a idea of how the war was fought you would know how badly the rail network was in 1949. The KMT by 1947 was using cities as fortesses while the cmmunsit were in the country side. The only connection those forteses had were by air and rail. They couldn't target the air network so the only option was to target the rail network.

By the time in the korean war, china had seen war for almost 100 years. In 1962 china was centrally controlled and better organized than during the korean war and able to supply a army offnsive beter. Not to mention that Chengdu was more developed than Manchuria if we have a 1950 comaprison to a 1962 comparison



So you're refuting all possibilities that the chinese infantry then and now could be/will be ever affected by air power?


Im not refuting the affect of airpower on infantry but the effectivness of airpower on infantry. In the korean war chinese soldiers were affected by infantry but of the effectiness was miminal on a chiense advance. You suggest that the indian airforce if utilized would have turned the war in favour of indian ground forces. While i am saying that the indian airforce would ahve had a effect but mimal at best to stop the chinese advance

At the battle of Chosin Reservoir. The PLA fought againest a marine divison while being pounded by air, sea and land yet the marines with all the firepower concentrated on the chinese still did not win that engagment. The PLA was even in a better situation in '62 fighting a enemy with low morale, low supplies (which ever reason you like), and a airforce with a small amount of offensive ablility. That means the indina airforce was not able to drop much weapons on the PLA troops

Sure the indian airforce could have had some affect on a advance, maybe a few days difference. But in no way could the indian airforce have won the war or had given effective ground support. With aircraft at least two generations ahead of anything in '62 the indian airforce was still unable to give support to ground troops. The question comes again. If the indian airforce was unable to give effective ground bombardment on a fixed enemy. How well is it going to be againest a enemy moving on small tracks which is moving.

The past conflicts have taught the PLA how to avoid air cover. The vietnamese which were PLA inspired also showed how ineffective airpower was againest a moving attacking force


So indian excuses aren't logical aye?


It would seem like it. If the PLA withdrew without a lost in battle nor looked like losing another battle and claimed all the land which was claimed, which way would the cards have been turning?


So why did they ditch Arunachal Pradesh then and then whimper/crib about it for the next 4 decades? Does that sound logical to you?


The way your making it sound doesn't sound logical but when i fill in the pieces it will.

China had offered to trade its claim in v for the indian claim in Askin chin. They had offered this trade in 1957 with Nehru and again on october 24 when the PLA stopped the advance the first time. They ditched Arunachal Pradesh in goowill because the only land the PLA wanted was the one in the west where it was building a highway.

If the PRC was not claiming Arunachal Pradesh they would have nothing to trade for Askin chin which the indians are fanatical about. If the chinese gave up their claim of Arunachal Pradesh then the indians would focus on Askin chin and feel as though they lost something for nothing.

Arunachal Pradesh is not land that china wants or need. If china had kept ALL the land they had taken or captured in '62 then india would ahve been about 90,000km^2 smaller in the east and about the size of askin chin in the west smaller. This would have left relations very chilly if some land wasnt taken. Chinese leaders still looked at the possiblity of relatiosn after that. Anyway, the land that china did take was not claimed by china and as such dis not keep it


Compare the landmasses.


That was the problem with india. They wanted all the land and now both countries have ended up fighting for more than 40 years

China was not fighting the war to expand her land or for pride. Askin chin was already under her control. She had already built a massive free way without the indians even having the faintise idea that it was there. If they were claiming that they owned the land, how did they miss a massive freeway when they were "admisitering" it.

With that known. Why were the indians claiming that land?. The main reason i think would be for pride and for nehru, to show that india was a great power or world power. Have a look at the forward deployment policy. They wanted indian forces to be 1cm away from indian claimed land. You must ahve known the indian bult fences and building right next to the PLA buildings in the area. They might have said it was to stop any further PLA land graps but it was to show other countries that china wasn't the top third world country at the time because Nehru was planning to make india the leader of the third world



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
6 airfields? hmm... Besides Lhasa I don't know of any other. Maybe you could point to those links again.



According to the official Indian history
of the war published by the MoD in 1992, the PLAAF was estimated to have
about 1,500 frontline fighters of the MiG-15, MiG-17 and MiG-19 class (refer
Table-1).9 The PLAAF had only six airfields in Tibet.

Link

If one sets up a airbase and airfields there would have been aircraft stationed at those bases. They were no commerical airports but military airbases. Commerical filght was non-existant in china at the time. The only aircraft china had at the time in service were either Mig-15/17/19 or even the Mig-21. If three airbases or six airfields were not filled with planes when they had just been built in the 1950s why would they have been built for?

Do you think that the PLA or china had a non-existant truck or car industy in the '50s?. China had been mass producing trucks since 1953 and there were over 100,000 trucks built for all purposes. If you think that they couldn't have been used to move supplies into tibet very quickly and most problay faster than what the indians coud supply to their own forces then your kidding yourself. China even met its own needs in automoblies that they shipped them off to the vietnamese to be used in the Ho chi Minh trial

How big was indias war industry?. Oil supplies?. Logistics organistion?.

I know china was self sufficient in war materials because they had their own industries, In oil until the 1980s and the logistics had been tested for five major compaigns


And if you're not talking about CAS then what the hec would those fighters have done?


The chinese ground force did not need CAS support

The chinese airforce doctrime has always been air denial. They would go in for the intercept so that ground pounders like the Hunters,Ouragon and Mystere of the indian would be distracted from their mission to be able to furfill it properly. All the chinese fighters needed to ahve done was keep the indian fighters busy so that the ground force could do its magic.

Have you ever seen the cartoon where one soviet general says to another "anyway, who won the air war?" . If you have its the same concept to what the chinese forces were doing. The only real CAS fighter the PLA eventually got was the Q-5 attack plane

And about the amount of planes. My estimates range from 50-100 planes that could be supported.



Then there's the bit about how effective MiG 15s would been against interceptors like the Folland Gnat which were a generation ahead. The MiG's would had it rough with the fighter bombers like the Hunter,Ouragon,Mystere anyways.


According to wikipedia

The Gnat proved to be a frustrating opponent for the technically superior Sabres

en.wikipedia.org...

If the Sabre was technically superior to the Gnat and the Mig-15 was comparable to the sabre than that would make the Mig-15 better or at least equal to the Gnat in performace except for the climb rate.

But if some Mig-19s were added


And if the chinese had problems with the British then they should've taken it up with them then and there. Why wait for 15 years and then march on into Tibet?


They did.

Both the communist governement and the KMT declared that tibet was soverign chinese land. The government that china was under also refused to sign the treaty to hand over tibet.

If china wasn't being invaded, having a civil war then that would have been first priority. Why would china need to attack the first day when it can wait and attack when its house is in order.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite



According to the official Indian history
of the war published by the MoD in 1992, the PLAAF was estimated to have
about 1,500 frontline fighters of the MiG-15, MiG-17 and MiG-19 class (refer
Table-1).9 The PLAAF had only six airfields in Tibet.

Link



We're talking about 1962 and not 1992. You have no info on 1962.


If one sets up a airbase and airfields there would have been aircraft stationed at those bases. They were no commerical airports but military airbases. Commerical filght was non-existant in china at the time. The only aircraft china had at the time in service were either Mig-15/17/19 or even the Mig-21. If three airbases or six airfields were not filled with planes when they had just been built in the 1950s why would they have been built for?


No only the MiG -15s were in service at the time in question.
The MiG 17s or J-5s were available in few numbers and production only picked up in the late 60s.
Even the J-6 was introduced in early 1962, so deploying for the 62' was out of the question.



Do you think that the PLA or china had a non-existant truck or car industy in the '50s?. China had been mass producing trucks since 1953 and there were over 100,000 trucks built for all purposes.

No, I'm saying there wasn't any infrastructure to support the same, east of Xian esp in Tibet in 1962.
Prove me wrong.



If you think that they couldn't have been used to move supplies into tibet very quickly and most problay faster than what the indians coud supply to their own forces then your kidding yourself.

You're kidding yourself.
I can give you maps which show roads and rail routes upto all the fwd bases I've mentioned before. All this in 1962.



How big was indias war industry?. Oil supplies?. Logistics organistion?.

It wasn't big, but it was more capable of supplyling the same fwd bases than China would have been able to.
You contest that?Prove me wrong.
If you want I can give you the same road/rail maps.



I know china was self sufficient in war materials because they had their own industries, In oil until the 1980s and the logistics had been tested for five major compaigns


ALL of China? Even tibet? A region China had just waltzed into only a couple of years back?


The chinese ground force did not need CAS support



The chinese airforce doctrime has always been air denial. They would go in for the intercept so that ground pounders like the Hunters,Ouragon and Mystere of the indian would be distracted from their mission to be able to furfill it properly. All the chinese fighters needed to ahve done was keep the indian fighters busy so that the ground force could do its magic.

Yeah.. they'd barely be able to make to the theatre before having to scurry back because of fuel shortages. Get real cw. The a/c the PLAAF had had ranges which were barely enough to get to the areas in question EVEN if you had airfields in the Lhasa region. We've not even considered the extra fuel consumption that occurs in mountainous regions.



And about the amount of planes. My estimates range from 50-100 planes that could be supported.


You'd need at leas 3 BIG or 5-6 small airfields to support that quantity you estimate. So we come back to the same point. Which airfields?




According to wikipedia

The Gnat proved to be a frustrating opponent for the technically superior Sabres

en.wikipedia.org...

If the Sabre was technically superior to the Gnat and the Mig-15 was comparable to the sabre than that would make the Mig-15 better or at least equal to the Gnat in performace except for the climb rate.


I admit that the MiG 15 was comparable to the Gnat ,but its lacked a vital feature for mountainous warfare which as you mentioned was rate of climb.






If china wasn't being invaded, having a civil war then that would have been first priority. Why would china need to attack the first day when it can wait and attack when its house is in order.

Why attack? Why not let the people decide?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The Popular Science magazine web site has posted a slide show of planes and other gear that have performed above expectations in the current Iraq conflict. Here is that link:

www.popsci.com...

Also, in their link for "Current Issue" contents, they include the article on "Wired War" strategies, tactics, and current problems. Perhaps in July 2006 they will have the actual article online, but check out the June 2006 issue itself at a newsstand or library in order to appreciate the well-done graphics, since graphs and illustrations don't always make it into the final online transcripts (which are sometimes text-only).



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
We're talking about 1962 and not 1992. You have no info on 1962.


It clearly said published in '92


According to the official Indian history of the war published by the MoD in 1992


That is indias own idea of chinas capability during the war using post-war data. That assement cant be refuted


No only the MiG -15s were in service at the time in question.
The MiG 17s or J-5s were available in few numbers and production only picked up in the late 60s.


First number is for 1960 and th second is for 1963

IL-28 420 ______________315
MIG-15* 1,850_________ 645
MIG-17* _____________ 1,030
MIG-19 ____ __________150

* MIG-15, MIG-17 totals consolidated for early years.

FAS.org

J-5 production started in 1956 and by 1963 had over 1000 planes in service. This is not a few numbers but a large total of planes. Mig-15s in service declined during that time because Mig-17s replaced the Mig-15s built by the soviets during the korean war. Unless all the Mig-17s were built in 1963 than that would mean the Mig-17s were in chinese service in large numbers

J-6s entered service in the PLA in'64 but Mig-19s from the russians were already in service at that time.



No, I'm saying there wasn't any infrastructure to support the same, east of Xian esp in Tibet in 1962.


You mean roads or something?. You should check what types of tucks the PLA had in service because they were the same trucks which would be used in the jungles of vietnam. Yep, off-road vehicles


I can give you maps which show roads and rail routes upto all the fwd bases I've mentioned before. All this in 1962.


Sure, maybe you could give me pictures to show trains or a truck driving up a hill. From many accounts of the war indian troops in forward deployed bases were suppiled by helicopters because it was so high up and to steep to supply by tran or roads

Also links to support indian oil production, munition production for that time


ALL of China? Even tibet? A region China had just waltzed into only a couple of years back?


Yeah. China only had 100,000-500,000 troops in tibet at that time along with fighting a gurilla war. They already had a active supply line in tibet already established.


Yeah.. they'd barely be able to make to the theatre before having to scurry back because of fuel shortages. Get real cw.


If you want to prove that ranges were insufficent than find out how much less range the Mig-15


The Mig-15 has about a range of 800km. Here is a map i made showing the distances. This is for ranges of the Mig-15 and not for the Mig-17 which had range of more than doule the Mig-15

Mig-17
Range 1,290 miles.

Mig-15
Range 500 miles

- The green line is 500km so 800km is obviously longer.
- The red dot is Lhasa and the red box is where one of the two major battles were taking place in NEFA
- The blue dot is hotan where their is a airbase/air field. and the blue box is askin chin where the other big battle took place

-The Mig-17 range is even longer than the map i put can show


This is with internal fuel tanks and with external tanks has a much longer range compensating for the higher altitude. Even if the inital take off takes 50% of the fuel the Mig-17 still has more than enough range for the ask. And assuming 50% is very generous



You'd need at leas 3 BIG or 5-6 small airfields to support that quantity you estimate.


Lhasa was a airbase not a airfield. Hotan has two run ways and could use the recently built highway china had just built in 1961.



I admit that the MiG 15 was comparable to the Gnat ,but its lacked a vital feature for mountainous warfare which as you mentioned was rate of climb.


Mountainious warfare?. Planes would be flying higher than mt everest. The Gnat would be at lower altitudes to protect the escorts instead of trying to gain altitude and trying to jup the Mig-17s. So it would be dogfighting and rate of climb was be a non factor


Why attack? Why not let the people decide?


decide what?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I don't think there is gonna be WW3 any time in the near future, because of the power of UN securiy council.
But that doesn't mean that WW3 will never happen. If it ever happens in the far future, I predict it is more likely to be a group of coutries vs another group of coutries. ie. NATO vs SCO

if that's the case, then it's gonna involve more complicated matters to win the world, not the USA alone.

and as for NK and Iran...i don't think they'll play an important role in the war, and i don't think the USA will have any difficulties dealing with them.

i think it will more likely be USA+EU+other south pacific countries VS PRC+Russia+Middle Eastthat kind of things

but i really don't think ww3 will happen any time soon



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Why is it skewed?.

I am doing a comparison between the indian airforce then and now. If it was not able to hit a fixed target with bombs how is it going to hit a moving target in a vast expanse or small mountain trails in a jungle. Where is the wayward comparison?

Not to mention that the indian airforce was using aircraft which were two generations ahead of anything avabile in '62. The question stands, Fixed vs Moving


Why is it skewed?This is why and I've said this before:
1) The only thing partially common between kargil and 62' is the proximity of the terrain, even though the terrain is very different.We're talking about average heights of 12000ft to 15000ft with an average contour gradient much higher that that in Aksai Chin.That involves valley strafing of the likes of Star Wars and Independance day to get proper taget acquisition and suitable angles of attack; all this while the enemy can launch shoulder held SAMs off the mountain slopes. This leads into point 2.
2) There were major considerations about crossing the border here and so bombing runs were not as optimal as they could have been. PAF F-16s were ready waiting on the other side, and MANPADS were ready waiting on the ground. One jet was lost due to this. There was no such restriction in 62'.
3) The positions that the insuregents had got themselves into were extremely defensive, well protected and were mostly open to aerial attack from the Pakistani side only. This again asserts point 2.
4)The weaponry required to assure 100% dislodging/destruction of such fortifications would probably be only available with countries like the US
(actually only the US) bunker busters, daisy cutters et all..
5)The role of the IAF in Kargil was pivotal in dislodging the militants from their perch. Critcism of how it was done(employed too late, collateral damage/friendly) is obvious and complementary in cause and effect; i.e. if the IAF was called on in the early stages the troops could have been held back while they pounded the targets. Since the IAF was employed 26 days too late the troops were already embedded on steep mountain slopes and not all were continuous contact with command. Anyways collateral was not severe and nobody died because of it. Not that I know of at least. If you've got something that says otherwise please share.

Now in order to prove me wrong you got to counter each and every point. I ain't going over it again.



Your saying it as though the chinese forces were the only ones having a supply problem

If we do a comparison or ratio between the amount of troops involved and the amount of bombs dropped per soldier the korean war still had by a long shot more weight or fire per soldier than any indian attack.


So you're concluding that the amount of firepower deployable against PLA on a per soldier basis would have been much lesser in 62' than the korean war?
I can refute that. First we need to ascertain how many PLA soldiers were in combat in 62' and how much firepower was available with the IAF. Then we compare this with Korea.



The chinese in tibet would have had as much support per soldier as did in korea. Simply because the fact that 1962 was a much improved situation for the PRC as a whole compare to china in 1950. And the fact that 100,000-500,000 PLA soldiers were already in tibet at the time. Either logistic soldiers or combatants.


100000-500000 is a wild range. In 1950 Tibet was not even a part of China. It was annexed only in 1959. The troops stationed there would have been a part of the contingent that sent out to annex Tibet. Tibet is also a massive area. Anyways Tibet was not developed at all in 1962. Not as well developed as the Indian side for sure. A long drawn out battle would've seen the PLA at major logistical debacle.



Like i have already mentioned in the past few pages, Tibet is not isolated. Its not the tibet of movies where the terrain is unbelievably difficult to move in. Once you get past the intial hurdles like sichuan, the places flattens out because its a plateau.


Either its difficult terrain to traverse which screws up logistics or its flat open terrain open for enemy a/c fire. Take your pick.
My pick is that it was a combination of the two.



I dont know why its so hard to accept that tibet wouldn't have been as hard to supply as you are describing

Its hard for everybody to accept, except you.



By the time in the korean war, china had seen war for almost 100 years. In 1962 china was centrally controlled and better organized than during the korean war and able to supply a army offnsive beter. Not to mention that Chengdu was more developed than Manchuria if we have a 1950 comaprison to a 1962 comparison


How much better? Maybe we shouldn't be talking relatively here. What were the exact rail/road routes available in tibet in 1962. How much time would it have taken the PLA to build roads/rails to supply the forward areas with sufficient logistics under the influence of the IAF. What is the amt of forces/supplies these routes would have been able to channel into tibet say on a weekly/monthly basis?
All this would be inferior in capability to the same on the Indian side. That again is the basis for my reasoning behind why the PLA stopped its advance when it did.



You suggest that the indian airforce if utilized would have turned the war in favour of indian ground forces. While i am saying that the indian airforce would ahve had a effect but mimal at best to stop the chinese advance

Thats a shade lighter than your stance a few pages ago.
Anyways its improvement nonetheless



At the battle of Chosin Reservoir. The PLA fought againest a marine divison while being pounded by air, sea and land yet the marines with all the firepower concentrated on the chinese still did not win that engagment.


That means that nothing short of nukes would stopped the venerable chinese infantry?




The PLA was even in a better situation in '62 fighting a enemy with low morale, low supplies (which ever reason you like), and a airforce with a small amount of offensive ablility. That means the indina airforce was not able to drop much weapons on the PLA troops

The morale was low, agreed, but all it takes is a little air power to get it back on track. Its an unwritten rule which has been verified time and again.
I contest your claims of the offensive capability of the IAF in 62. Please back them up. What do you mean?



Sure the indian airforce could have had some affect on a advance, maybe a few days difference. But in no way could the indian airforce have won the war or had given effective ground support. With aircraft at least two generations ahead of anything in '62 the indian airforce was still unable to give support to ground troops. The question comes again. If the indian airforce was unable to give effective ground bombardment on a fixed enemy. How well is it going to be against a enemy moving on small tracks which is moving.

The first half of this question is wholly answered by the first part of this post.
The last sentence is absolutely preposterous. Are you trying to say that forces on the move are more protected against aerial attack than those dug into bunkers with SAM umbrella of at least 3 km?



The past conflicts have taught the PLA how to avoid air cover. The vietnamese which were PLA inspired also showed how ineffective airpower was againest a moving attacking force

Its all about the terrain in this case. In the open moving troops are vulnearble as hell.



It would seem like it. If the PLA withdrew without a lost in battle nor looked like losing another battle and claimed all the land which was claimed, which way would the cards have been turning?


I 'll answer this and the remaning part of your post later. Basically before the war both aksai chin and arunchal were in India's possession as per international maps and understanding. What you're trying to say is that the chinese took some of that land(Aksai Chin) and then wanted to trade it in for some other land(much bigger) which anyways belonged to India in the first place? huh?

Nobody would trade in Aksai Chin for Arunchal.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Lol,

took your time



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
It dosent matter if the USA starts to get our butt kicked, we will win because we have nuclear weapons. I know you said don't use that, but its true. The question your asking is not realistic. The USA is the most powerful country.



new topics




 
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join