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: 17
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
nah man 2-0 to england...(rooney & owen)


the way argentina are playing i wouldn't want to play them until the final, the goal they scored the other night was brilliant.




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
Well that's really debatle especially since it uses an inferior mechanical radar rather than the much more advanced phased arrays, used on American ships.


just do a search on google dude


Why don't you post some links, I have seen just many articles claiming it is inferior to the katest american frigates.





It is still inferior to a Virginia class sub and probably a Seawolf Class.



niceone


is this your 'opinion' though or 'fact' - links please


Oh so the burden of proof lies with me eh ? Why don't you provide some facts showing the Astutes is even equal to the Virginia ?




Some people say it isn't
Considering the Leopard 2 of CHallenger have never really seen combat, it's pretty silly to use inuendo.

iraq/afghanistan


NO armour was deployed to Afghanistan, and the CHallenger 2 saw bugger all combat in Iraq. The Leopard 2 of course hasn't been deployed outside of Europa so it has never seen combat.




Erm yes, tehy are, seems every second SAS trooper writes a book. However the best units ar ethose which keep a low profile. US Delta and SEALS are easily just as capable as the Brit SAS, although inferior to the Australian SASR.


oh yeah i forgot about 'the delta force', its not that low profile though because i'm sure i seen a film with chuck norris in


LMAO, erm right - that was make believe , haha. You do know the difference
It had no relation to the US Army Delta Force.
You remember Andy McNAb, the guy who made up all those fanciful tales about Bravo 20, hahaha. Seems htese ex SAS guys can't even tell teh truth, they are better at making up stories,



what you mean like all the rape storys you heard about american soilders did during the 'vitenam war?'


Hmm you're comparing this to 500 years of rape and plunder by teh British Empire, LOL.



but yes we forgot how the old british empire burned people in churches and things like that, we've all seen hollywoods 'patriot'


Not sure if that happened, but I've read about far worse, buring people in churches is rather weak compared to some tof the British Empires other crimes. All one has to do is pck up a history book.




LOL, you're lucky teh Argies dropped so many incorectly fused bombs on their A-4's otherwise half the British fleet would have been sunk. I think they had more strikes with dummy bombs than properly fused ones.


lady luck is always on our side my friend 'the sun never sets on britain' (still we did it in 6 weeks though)!!


LOL, good for you. The Americans would have had it done in 6 hours.



what happened in vietnam though
oh thats right, politics even though you dropped more explosives than the WHOLE of WW2 put together, americans like to put down the loss to vietnamese to politics


Simple politics. The Military always had one hand tied behind it's back. Common knowlege.












[edit on 20-6-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Can you reply to these two post first?


Originally posted by Daedalus3
1) The only thing partially common between kargil and 62' is the proximity of the terrain, even though the terrain is very different.


Ill pretty sure you know that the whole area gets covered by a layer of snow during winter?. You telling me how high the kargil war was fought yet you dont take into account that askin chin is the area which starts the decent down. It took chinese troops less than a week to go down the karakoram pass.

You do realise where the actual fighting took place dont you?. Chinese forces where already in askin chin and where moving out of the actual area. We even built a big highway right though askin chin without india even knowing about it. In three days the chinese infantry already reached Pangong Lake and Ladakh

You're thinking that chinese forces would need to go across askin chin and all that open space. But if you read some history you would have known that the chinese forces attacked from the Askin chin border


There were major considerations about crossing the border here and so bombing runs were not as optimal as they could have been.


Why would there be need to cross the border during kargil?. I do not see the need to since you could just as easily have went parallel to the border instead of straight into it.

The indian airforce were unable to hit a fixed target already painted by infantry and which positions were already known, how are they going to be effective againest moving infantry on mountain passes. And yes they were mountain passes, karakoram pass was the first then saser pass. I hope you dont think the war was fought in a desolate landscape


The weaponry required to assure 100% dislodging/destruction of such fortifications would probably be only available with countries like the US


Even with LGBs the indian airforce only managed one hit on a large supply base, and that supply base had a large open top. They didn't need to dislodge the troops inside by themselves but shut off the bunker openings which they failed to do


5)The role of the IAF in Kargil was pivotal in dislodging the militants from their perch.


yet my article tells otherwise, The article actually quotes a indian offier which took part in the conflict and was his professional opinion on the indian airforce. Whats the amount of time have to do with whether the indian airforce could hit a target or not?. Even if they were deployed that month eariler, they still would being missing the same targets they started off with

The IAF had the main use of supplying the enemy and not much more. The indian infantry was the one which actually did all that work while he artillery was the one doing some accurate hits



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?


Are we including artillery as well?. Because the amount of firepower the UN had dropped on PLA positions were alot more than what the indian forces could have managed (per soldier). Also come up with your korean war figures and i will come up with mine


100000-500000 is a wild range. In 1950 Tibet was not even a part of China. It was annexed only in 1959.


????????????????

Are you sure you indian history books are correct?. Check out your sources again then you can answer this part properly


But anyway on the figures,

By 1954, 222,000 members of the PLA were stationed in Tibet. In April 1956, the Chinese inaugurated the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet (PCART) in Lhasa, headed by the Dalai Lama and ostensibly convened to modernize the country and bring about democratic reforms.

Link

This was for 1954 and does not take into account the PLA troops that would have been moved there during the 1959 rebellion.

Here is also a source about the PLAAF airforce in tibet BEFORE 1962

Despite this and other successes, the US aid now served no serious purpose any more. By 1962, the Chinese have built a number of roads and airstrips, establishing strong lines of communications, which enabled them to deploy a large number of Army and PLAAF units in Tibet.


And the types of aircraft deployed

Initially, the US support had minimal effects on the war that raged through Tibet, and in which the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was meanwhile deploying at least two regiments of fighter-bombers to hit towns under guerrilla control. Exactly what types were deployed by the PLAAF in Tibet remains unknown, but various Tibetan sources indicate the use of Ilushin Il-10 fighter-bombers, Ilushin Il-28 and Tupolev Tu-4 bombers, as well as MiG-fighters (MiG-15s and MiG-17s). From few available reports, it is known that in October 1958, the Khampa guerrillas have shot down at least one Chinese aircraft on a bombing mission, and that this has had a crew of five, as well as a “turret with powerful machine guns” and internal bomb-carrying capability. This would indicate the use of some other type but the already mentioned. Certainly, the Il-28 was the preferred solution, then it had the range as well as good load capacity; but, it has never had a crew of five.


If you already know about the site ACIG then you would know its farily accurate about figures though its a little bit opinionative
www.acig.org...

Tibet may be a massive area but the whole region is not populated and there are only a few population centres so PLA troops would ahe been concentrated in a few areas. I know in Lhasa there was a concentration of about 30,000~50,000 combatants.

In tibet land reforms had already started and people were located in collectives. The building progress in tibet was well under way in the 1950s


A long drawn out battle would've seen the PLA at major logistical debacle.


Like i mentioned before, the PLA would have been supplied form its own industries and could have waited out any war with india. India was still being supplied by western countries and had a non-existant armoury.(non-existant as in insunificant).

Am i right in saying that during 1965 india only had a month left of supplies before the war actually finished and the only way india did win the war was because pakistan had a even smaller supply than india themselves. I think your asumtion should be the other way around. Chinese indsutry and logistics supply was indias senior by a long shot. Chinese forces were experienced in mountainous warfare and partipated in one of the largest wars ever againest the US which was at its prime

What wars had india been in?. Lost 1962, stalemate againest pakistani in 1965. How, according to you is india meant to wage a war if it has no experience espeically againest a enemy which has had experience and showed them where it counted in the actual war we are talking about



My pick is that it was a combination of the two.


Tibet proper is a plateau while the border with india is harsh terrain. There is no combination, The whole area is rocky, at high altitude and sometimes very high up with only one little path going down. The post you replied to was regarding supply lines in tibet and not where the actual fighting would have taken place.

AP or the NEFA is at high altitude and where the fighting took place was junglish with its river valleys and mountain slops



Its hard for everybody to accept, except you.


Really?. Names please

Or you might like to disagree with the 1.3billion people with my same opinion. Or neville maxwell which was hired by the indian government to which i share the same opinion with. Or the indian government which puts blame on everything except itself




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.


Well its a project you can conduct then.

The FACT of the matter is.

* Chinese forces did not get halted by indian forces at any significant point
* When they called their advance off no indian forces could have opposed their advance if they choose to go on
* They controlled three times more area than they claimed
* And the fact that the PLA already built up a extensive supply line in tibet aready and had a active supply line working in tibet supplying roughly 100,000~500,000 troops already in tibet



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 02:21 AM
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, 23 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   


Ill pretty sure you know that the whole area gets covered by a layer of snow during winter?. You telling me how high the kargil war was fought yet you dont take into account that askin chin is the area which starts the decent down. It took chinese troops less than a week to go down the karakoram pass.
You do realise where the actual fighting took place dont you?. Chinese forces where already in askin chin and where moving out of the actual area. We even built a big highway right though askin chin without india even knowing about it. In three days the chinese infantry already reached Pangong Lake and Ladakh


Which whole area? What I'm saying is the topology of the Kargil area and Aksai Chin is different.The Indians didn't know about the highway because they didn't administer Aksai Chin.
Hurray chinese troops!!




You're thinking that chinese forces would need to go across askin chin and all that open space. But if you read some history you would have known that the chinese forces attacked from the Askin chin border


I read History thank you very much.I was talking about what routes any reinforcements would have to take.


Why would there be need to cross the border during kargil?. I do not see the need to since you could just as easily have went parallel to the border instead of straight into it.


Fly parallel?Oh I guess they didn't think of that then!!

chinawhite your statements are quite idiotic and baseless!!
Fly parallel..hmm..
lets see.. The targets are not a bloody red cross on a flat surface. They aren't equally accessible from all sides. There are cliff faces to consider, positioning of the bunkers on the hills/mountians, and the proximity to the border. If a post is barely 2 km from the border, and your flying at speeds suitable for bombing then a overshoot is very possible if not probable. And the Border is not one long straight line. There are indentations and protrusions which are occur very often, sometimes every few kilometers. How in blazes do you expect NO border violations while flying 'parallel' in such cases at such speeds? There is something known as optimal ground speed for dropping different kinds of bombs, iron bombs,free fall bombs, LGBs etc. etc. All this and the above have to be worked out in a strike mission plan. Its not a damn video game!! Chinawhite please don't post absolute balderdash about stuff you have very little if not ANY info on!! I mean is there no limit to your oh-so obvious sledging of the IAF? It infact looks like your out to discredit the IAF! I take that as a very serious accusation and will respond accordingly if you don't cease this nonsense!!



The indian airforce were unable to hit a fixed target already painted by infantry and which positions were already known, how are they going to be effective againest moving infantry on mountain passes. And yes they were mountain passes, karakoram pass was the first then saser pass. I hope you dont think the war was fought in a desolate landscape


How? How??!! So lets get this straight: You're attacking the very competency of the IAF in carrying out missions. There's very little I can do to counter that (there's very little I want to do infact). Anyways I can always start a new discussions by taking pot shots at the PLA/PLAAF/PLANAF/PLAN and simultaenouesly showing you how 'competent' the IAF infact is(flight hours/comparisions with other AFs incld th PLAAF). But these are all 'grey' topics. I prefer to stick to equipment and logistical analyses, which do NOT involve 'what ifs'.

The weaponry required to assure 100% dislodging/destruction of such fortifications would probably be only available with countries like the US




Even with LGBs the indian airforce only managed one hit on a large supply base, and that supply base had a large open top. They didn't need to dislodge the troops inside by themselves but shut off the bunker openings which they failed to do


Are you trying to say that all other LGBs employed went astray? What are you trying to say? More bombs missed than hit? Well if you are then out with the figures please. About the Bunker openings: Yeah if the openings are ideally positioned for a frontal assault. What was the accuracy of the LGBs employed?What were the size of the bunker openings? Again as before how were they positioned. Soooo many variables and you're blatantly generalising. Maybe its not worth continuing this discussion then.



yet my article tells otherwise, The article actually quotes a indian offier which took part in the conflict and was his professional opinion on the indian airforce. Whats the amount of time have to do with whether the indian airforce could hit a target or not?. Even if they were deployed that month eariler, they still would being missing the same targets they started off with.

Time has everything to do with it.There would be no danger of collateral damage. I think I've written all this before.You're not even reading!!
If time had nothing to do with it, then the Indian Army, Airforce could've waited till next summer for godsakes. I could shove 10 articles down this thread which explain the problems caused by employing the IAF so late in Kargil. But since you're soo good at weeding out articles written by participants about that war, maybe you should pull such articles. But then they would prove you wrong wouldn't they?




The IAF had the main use of supplying the enemy and not much more. The indian infantry was the one which actually did all that work while the artillery was the one doing some accurate hits.


Nobody's taking anything away from the infantry or armored divisions. Not me, never. What I'm trying to say is that the IAF helped a great deal in softening the targets which were so difficult to hit in the first place.And whats this rubbish about the IAF supplying the enemy??!!!



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?




Are we including artillery as well?. Because the amount of firepower the UN had dropped on PLA positions were alot more than what the indian forces could have managed (per soldier). Also come up with your korean war figures and i will come up with mine.

No we're not.Why? Because you never talked about army munitions. You always compared the UN airforces and the IAF.
Why should I come up with ANY figures??!! You're the one making the claim. YOU back it up!!




The FACT of the matter is.

* Chinese forces did not get halted by indian forces at any significant point
* When they called their advance off no indian forces could have opposed their advance if they choose to go on
* They controlled three times more area than they claimed
* And the fact that the PLA already built up a extensive supply line in tibet aready and had a active supply line working in tibet supplying roughly 100,000~500,000 troops already in tibet


1) No. They held back at quite few locations but the PLA finally overran those positions after repeated attacks and a numerical superiority of 5:1. Can't blame the Indians for that!
2) Maybe. I'm not saying the Indian Army could have ever pushed back alone, esp. with the odds against them. But American and Soviet help was on the way or had already arrived... oh wait.. the PLA would've wasted them too right?

3)And so the logistical problem. The chinese had taken more than they could defend.
4)There could be a million troops in tibet. There were only 50000 involved in the war.period. Where was this 'active' supply line? Was it even remotely close
(100s of km) to the war theatres? 100000 to 500000 is not a rough estimate. Its an estimate that varies by a multiplicative factor of 5!!!



Initially, the US support had minimal effects on the war that raged through Tibet, and in which the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was meanwhile deploying at least two regiments of fighter-bombers to hit towns under guerrilla control. Exactly what types were deployed by the PLAAF in Tibet remains unknown, but various Tibetan sources indicate the use of Ilushin Il-10 fighter-bombers, Ilushin Il-28 and Tupolev Tu-4 bombers, as well as MiG-fighters (MiG-15s and MiG-17s). From few available reports, it is known that in October 1958, the Khampa guerrillas have shot down at least one Chinese aircraft on a bombing mission, and that this has had a crew of five

So you're saying that the Aircraft used in battling dimunitve tibetian rebels would've sufficed against the IAF? In the mountains? Sure they would've!! I forgot the IAF sucks and the PLAAF can appear anywhere miraculously and also fly in adverse conditions w/o any setbacks!!

Where were these airbases? Within reach of the war theatres?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   


Am i right in saying that during 1965 india only had a month left of supplies before the war actually finished and the only way india did win the war was because pakistan had a even smaller supply than india themselves. I think your asumtion should be the other way around. Chinese indsutry and logistics supply was indias senior by a long shot. Chinese forces were experienced in mountainous warfare and partipated in one of the largest wars ever againest the US which was at its prime

No you're not. The forward divisions which had made their way to just outside Lahore had to withdraw because the supply lines hadn't kept up with the pace with which the divisions. Where did you get this information from?



What wars had india been in?. Lost 1962, stalemate againest pakistani in 1965. How, according to you is india meant to wage a war if it has no experience espeically againest a enemy which has had experience and showed them where it counted in the actual war we are talking about

huh?!! What are you trying to say?
Lost 62? Agreed..
Stalemate 65?!!!! According to whom?!!!
Pakistan attacked first and we pushed em' back and even went as far as upto 10km from a major city!
The air war in 65 was more to Pakistan's favour as the attacking IAF was always attacking deep in enemy territory.
1972 : Resounding victory

1999: Victory

What lack of experience are you talking about? Stop taking pot shots at India' ability to wage war!!



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
You still did not answer the second post


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Which whole area? The Indians didn't know about the highway because they didn't administer Aksai Chin.


Kashmir

""""""""""If you can see the aksai chin border was decided AFTER 1962. Before that it was a part of India but it wasn't administered by India. It was DEFEINITELY not with China."""""""""""""

Talking about the highway was to prove a point. You claimed that the area was not with china while the highway already highlighted that the chinese government was already established in Askin chin

The british claimed and forced the tibetians to sign a treaty which they did not ratify and thus was nulled. Even the tibetians knew that and were adminastrating the tawang region. Even though the british claimed that area and the areas of the McMahon line they never adminstatered it until 1944


In 1938, the Survey of India published a map of Tibet, which showed the Tawang tract as part of that country. Even the first edition of Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery Of India showed the Indo-Tibetan boundary as running at the foot of the hills. The Tibetans did not accept this 'annexation' of the Tawang tract and challenged the British attempts to expand their government into this area.

Link

Here goes your theory that the tibetians agreed to hadn over tawang to the british


I was talking about what routes any reinforcements would have to take.


So, while the chinese soldiers were advancing though the northern half of india, the indian airforce would be attacking re-enforcments in a war which had only 500 deaths (indian claim*) on the chinese side?

One soviet general says to another in Paris, "who won the air war anyway?"

Like i pointed out before, the chinese forces numbered 100~500 thousand in the tibetian area. That is more than two group armies for the lower estimate or about 8-9 for the higher estimate. The chinese group army is provided with AA batteries and they were pretty much simialr to the ones in the 1980s-90s

Here is the setup of a army corps


* One armoured division or brigade
* Two to three infantry divisions or brigades
* An artillery division or brigade
* An air defence (SAM/AAA) brigade
* A communications regiment
* An engineer regiment
* A reconnaissance battalion (group)
* A pontoon bridge regiment (only in some GAs)
* A chemical defence regiment (only in some GAs)
* Other combat service support units such as medical and transportation

SinoDefence OrBat

Unless your going to claim that there was no air defence in a PLA corps than that is air defence, and no doubt that a chinese corps would have been moved to the askin chin highway when the indians attacked first


Fly parallel?Oh I guess they didn't think of that then!!


Pardon my ignorance general, Sounds like you made some bombing runs yourself there (unless you are a airforce pilot what does all those mean?).

I hear every excuse in the book why the indian airforce did so poorly in the kagril war from yourself while my article from a officer in the INIDAN ARMY paints a different picture than what YOU SAID.

About the positioning of bunkers, Why must all of the bunkers be facing towards the indian side when the whole place with a zone defence of bunkers. Do all the cliffs and mountains now face the indian side of the border?

Apart from the fact the the indian arforce had Paveway II type LGB bmbs they were still not able to hit accuratly. The indian airfore did have bombs to it re-enforced targets with the matra bombs while the article i provided has such a different view than yourself

And about the intruding border


I dont see why it would be such a hard task since the paveway II guidence has hit harder targets in simulated attacking senarios. Even if the cliff was facing the other way there was more than one approach to hit the same bunker or cliff face. And if there were two cliffs covering the same bunker than that wouldn't be a good position since you have barely any arc of fire from that position

And the other argument the indian army put forward was the fact that the pakistanis were on the high ground and they had to attack uphill which would have exposed the pakistani forces to a better bombing position. I doubt they would have hid right in their bunkers hidden in a cliff face if they were planning to hold the hill instead of giving it up by hiding inside their bunkers


I prefer to stick to equipment and logistical analyses, which do NOT involve 'what ifs'.


Thats very noble of yourself but wasn't yourself that started the WHAT IF the indian airforce entered the war? . Very noble indeed?. Now if you dont want to do these what ifs then it would be impossible to do it with the information we have now,. So any more "what ifs?"

Im glad you will do equipment and logistical analyses. But i have one problem when you try to do that, your chinese figures or information are always wrong. Your information about the chinese airforce was wrong, your informatin about chinese forces in askin chin was wrong, your figures about the PLA in tibet were wrong, I actually have a lot more things i have a beef with but this just shows that you cannot do a what if with the information you have



Are you trying to say that all other LGBs employed went astray? What are you trying to say? More bombs missed than hit?


Im only going to refer to my article the fifth time


'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 article surely implies that meaning, and your own excuses paint the indian airforce going though hell and back to get to the actual fighting


I could shove 10 articles down this thread which explain the problems caused by employing the IAF so late in Kargil.


By all means, This is a friendly exchange of ideas or article of the source. But one condition, its not from anyone that was planning the kagril war air campaign since i have noticed most of them are either full of excuses of cmpliments about what they did rong and how hard it was to fight some pakistan light infantry in fixed bunkers.

If your going to go and claim how effective the indian airforce would have been and won the war in indias favour by their mere participation, then you have to show how effective the indian airfoce did in war before and after the war. And i would ahve to show the effect of airpower on chinese doctrime and forces over the time of their creation. And i provided you examples of airpower on chinese forces or chinese inspired in the vietnamese in terrain which is similar to the terrain being faced by the chinese forces on the indian border


What I'm trying to say is that the IAF helped a great deal in softening the targets which were so difficult to hit in the first place.


Whos arguing that?. Im saying the indian airforce was not that effective in the kagril war, not that it did nothing. I know that they were the ones that took out the main supply base. Its not as if the indian airforce was there missing all targets and was there just drawning fire, They were there to try and hit the target which took many more hits than expected to hit the target

And about the IAF supplying the enemy, It was meant to say its own soldiers. The indian airforce wasn't there just to provide fire support but where also there to supply the indian forces which were high up in the mountains and unabed to be supplied by rail or road since it would have taken to much time


Why should I come up with ANY figures??!! You're the one making the claim. YOU back it up!!


Because we'll have cnflicting figures. I know the figures of the chinese forces in the korean war and the tibetian region while i want your figure to confirm each other

During the korean war the US airforce dropped 22,000 tons per month on the chinese forces, That was only 68 per cent of total munitions on the chinese forces. In total the US airforce dropped 476,000 tons. The chinese forces in korean never totaled more than a million soldiers while only 2 million were rotated during the war. The chinese forces in tibet number about 200,000-500,000 troops in tibet at that time

Did india have 50,000~100,000 tons of munitions at their disposal to drop?.





[edit on 25-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
1) No. They held back at quite few locations but the PLA finally overran those positions after repeated attacks and a numerical superiority of 5:1.


Not that they kept on walking without stopping, but the objectives they set out on were not hindered by any indian defence. Meaning that every objective was taken and that any defence was overrun.

And i contest your figures of battle, the PLA had 50,000 troops deployed for battle on the indian border while the indian army had more than 4 divisions. If the indian forces kept on retreating and only leaving some other forces to do battle than how is it the PLA problem that they had a 5:1 advantage. The indian forces had more forces at their disposal while being pushed back in all areas. The chinese forces took half of indias kashmir before the PLA went back. They made it all the way to Leh


But American and Soviet help was on the way or had already arrived... oh wait.. the PLA would've wasted them too right?


One of the reasons the americans didn't want to cross the 17th parallel in the vietnam war was because of you know who


Soviet help?. Good one, i must not factor in the defense pact between china and the soviet union then. What the chinese were angry at was the soviet union took a netural stance againest china and india even though china was their ally. In no way did the soviet lean on th indian side. If push came to shove the soviet would have entered the chinese side if america entered the war. The main reason fo the spilt was because the chinese took a hardline position and the soviets wanted to have peacful co-existance. The soviets started resuming technology transfered again in 1961 with the MiG-21 finally started after soviet help

And i contest american aid, China was not another country the US was going to win over by giving aid to the other country and hoping it would even out, they were competeting againest a country which was able to produce a 1000 fighters in a year and even more ground equipment and other arms and was self suffiecnt in raw materials. The chinese armed forces were at their peak of their effectivness before the cultral revolution and started to supply other countries with arms. The US would have to provide more or equal amount of arms to help india which would be a very big task since this was the most intense time of the cold war after the bay of pigs incidents

Also if we want to factor in a big war between india and china, we might as well factorise in a global war since any big involment in the american side would have made the soviet union act because of the defence pact and all ther other areas in the world that would ahve acted. Malay insugency, vietnam, korea, cuba again, the middile east and no doubt india and pakistan would ahve fought again


And so the logistical problem. The chinese had taken more than they could defend.


They had even more or the same amount of troops the indians had in the same area which were battle hardened and suppiled. The indian forces attacking would be fighting uphill againest the chinese instead of what the chinese did and fight downhill from the mountains. Chinese forces were also suppiled by helicopter. The Z-4 you might know of.

And one of the main excuses the governemtns use is that fact that they were " very very very poorly supplied in that war" (quote from you). If the chinese forces were even worse off how did they advance since one of the most important failures the indians suffered was lack of supply. Hence a better supply chain on the chinese side as compared to the indian forces which were very very very poorly supplied in that war


There were only 50000 involved in the war.period. Where was this 'acti linve' supplye?


This is in contrast to your original reply that the IAF would take the fight into tibet attacking the supply chain and PLAAF airbases. This draws all the PLA troops into defensive mode and will be brought forward. Those troops had spent their better half of their career fightin a mountnious war

The active supply line was the one supplying the troops already stationed in tibet and hence it was active and didn't need to establish a new one to supply those troops. The lines they would have used to supply the front would be the same ones the tibetans used to go over to the indian border (rough esitmate of a million in 59) and the same lines commerce was done with the tibetans on both sides before 1944 and the areas the tibetians adminstered


So you're saying that the Aircraft used in battling dimunitve tibetian rebels would've sufficed against the IAF?


The dimunitive tibetian rebels did a better job than a professional indian army. Not those aircraft but the article was there to show the airbases already established in tibet and the infrastruture for the planes were alread created like your eariler claims that there was nothing up there while the article proves that planes were not only stationed there but used in combat already.

My stance has already be said before and includes Mig-15s, Mig-17s and possibliy Mig-19s in tibet at that time

Here is your original statment
""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.""

Now do you get it?


In the mountains? Sure they would've!! I forgot the IAF sucks and the PLAAF can appear anywhere miraculously and also fly in adverse conditions w/o any setbacks


deja vu?

"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."


Stalemate 65?!!!! According to whom?!!! Pakistan attacked first and we pushed em' back and even went as far as upto 10km from a major city!


Stalemate as defined by Dictionary.com

"A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock."


The situation did not move and each country could not advance much further into each others areas. Hence stalement. It does not mean who won more or whatever your thought is, it means no movment or advance. Western front WW1, germany had won a lot o french land and was refered to as a stalment. Germany and russia in WW2 in 1942-43 was a stalemate. The indo-pakistani war ended as a stalemate

And 1971 was nothing to be proud of. So was Kagril which was 10,000 to 30,000 or including all indian forces 300,000 altoghter



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
IT definitely wasn't as well supplied as the one in Korea and/or the one that skirmished with the soviets.


Really?

Did you know that the chinese forces in korea were almost going blind in the dark because the amount of Victim C they were meant to get where not going though. One of the most important chinese doctrimes were night fighting and because they weren't getting enough of that victim C in carrots they could barely see in the dark and the chinese leadership was forced not to make much offensives because chinese soldiers were now less effective in night combat.

The US/UN airforce might done badly bombing the trucks once they got over the yalu river but once they saw suppiles coming from the yalu on barages they did it effectivly because they were big and slow moving. Hence Mig alley and the concentration of battles going on there. The supply chain was large but was extremly hard to supply the forward troops with the 22,000 tons the american airforce was dropping each month (only 68% of the total amount)

The soviet battle is no contest. After three five year plans, china was on its way for bigger things and could ahve easily suppiled there now industrial centre


I am unaware of such figures. My sources put chinese troops involved in the war of 62 to more or less 50000.


You said the indian airforce was going to take the fight to the enemy which includes the 100,000~500,000 (And for the record im using the 100,000 figure for your benifit since that is the lowest possible estimate i made "myself" to make this fair since the lowest estimate i had was 220,000). The reason i am thinking is that you are just counting the PLA forces that were fighting and im counting all forces in tibet that you said would be attacked hence the different results

The first invasion was about 40,000 men to march on Lhasa, then it slowly built up once the PRC was adminstrating tibet and then expanded once the rebellion in 1959 which saw a lot of PLA soldiers inside tibet along with their airforce


I doesn't mean that India's on a war footing.Anyways the deployment employed in the build-up to 62 was a move to assert the Indian version of the border between the countries, not an act of war.


That was Nehrus way of showing to the third world that india would go toe to toe with china. At that time china and india was competing for the leadership of the third world. When he made this diplomatic push he did not factorise in that the chinese would invade tibet and that created conflict because he thought tibet was going to be a buffer state like the british planned it. The chinese on the other hand claimed tibet and never gave up that claim and did not reconize tibets status as a free country like every other country in the world except mongolia since no one but mongolia had diplomatic relations or reconized its status as a country.

Indian post were created right next to chinese ones to show that india was a great power as well, and to try and stop further perceived chinese advances. What really bugged the chinese was that the indians built their bases on a line the chinese didn't not agree to and even in some aras forward of the line itself. This was bound to attract conflict. Which it did


I thought the Allies and the British were the same thing.
.

Except that china was a BIG FOUR of the allies and would never have agreed to any map made without including askin chin and the NEFA into chinese terrioty. The ROC even outlines that in their consitution which states that greater china inlcudes those areas and mongolia. So allies and the british are DIFFERENT since they have different interest

And about the USSR support, they offered planes to india at a higher price to the world market. It was not aid it was a arms deal, which was the same thing the soviets were doing to other countries. It was a deal to manufracture Mig-21s and the sale offered was more than what they asked for in 1961



The region wasn't administered. That doesn't mean you go and build a highway through it.


It was administered. It was shown as a district in chinese maps and was given a offical to plan and build infrastruture though it. Hence the building of a highway. The difference between your comparison to canada is wrong, every area of canada is spilt into different areas and each area in canada is given a governor or county offical to ADMINISTER the land they are given. Same with askin chin and the rest of china. Now country designates an area of no mans land in their own country. Askin chin isn't even called askin chin and isn't even in the shape on the maps because the maps only show where the bit india claims is



Wikipedia as a source for politically sensitive information?!!
You should know better than that!


Im using wikipedia as a reference for facts not opinion. All the things in the article actually happened and cannot be debuked. Only when a article starts showing their emtional or opinion than thats when wikipedia is wrong


The boundaries of the MacMohan Line clearly demarcated all of the Tawang tract as a part of British India.


That was only after 1938 where the Survey of india still listed Tawang as part of tibetian terrioty and there after claimed it and only took it in 1944. The McMahon line does clearly show that that tawang is british india, but lets not forget the fact that THEY DREW IT. That is a strawman defence since you point to the very piece of thing in dispute to show your claim


The tibetians had NO problem whatsoever with the Mac-Mohan Line or the fact that the Tawang tract was a part of British India. What's more they even rejected the tibetian ability to take a stance on such decisions without prior chinese consultation!


That seems to be false


The Tibetans however, did not accept this “annexation” of the Tawang Tract and challenged the British attempts to expand their government into this area. They, however, tacitly accepted the rest of the McMahon demarcation

IndiaDefence.com

It clearly says they didn't agree to the tawang area going to the british and thats the reason why they were still administrating the region even when india got its independence and was then only force out by the british. Maybe another british lie that told them the could keep tawang and made then sign another secret agreement

And the chinese were the legal mouth the tiebtians had

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 suzerainty over tibet.


Suzerainty is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy but controls its foreign affairs. The more powerful entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the head of state of that more powerful entity, is called a suzerain

Link

The british themselves reconized that the chinese had suzerainty over tibet and that the chinese were the only ones able to make agreements effecting tibetians external politics. A example of this would be if you let your under 18 child get s credit card. Thats not possible because you need a guardian to sign it off for you since they have you legal responsiblity. Tibet was even reconized by any country as a country and yet the british would sign off on this agreement with a country it was trading off independence with

The british didn't even ratify the agreement with tibet which nulls that out since their is no legal link if its not rafied by both sides. Also the fact that the british only made the McMahon line their boundary in 1935 shows that the simla conventions wasn't taken very highlyin india at that time.


Furthermore considering the fact that almost ALL of the Tibetian resistances,govts in exile and refugees now reside and operate from India itself


There are two governments for tibet, one in tibet and one in india. Which one do you think has more presence?. The fact that they are governing from a different country tells us that they dont matter in the actual politics. The tibetians out of tibet might accept that but they are not tibetians but indians since they do not hold tibetian ciztenship but indian.


Just because I don't see eye to eye with chinese interpretations of the events that unfolded in 1962, doesn't mean I have a 'lack of knowledge'.


Not the events that unfolded in 1962 and not the chinese interuptations.

You said that china invaded tibet in 1959, which they did not. You said that china wanted AP for Askin chin which they did not. Even though china clearly wanted Askin chin and kept that you still said that. What china wanted to do was very clearly marked in history books about the chinese offer and the USSR backed one and i would have though common sense since the chinese kept askin chin instead of AP



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3They see it as an objective attained(Aksai Chin) and a quick cessation of hostilities before the Americans and Soviets could get their hands into the situation.Now whether the cease fire offer by the chinese was presented before this pledge of force assistance by the US and/or USSR, is not clear.


The chinese offered the cease-fire on the 24th of october before the pledges by the US to help india to the last indian. The indians rejected and lanuched a counter-attack while they were negoitating still and the chinese continued their advance until they "punished" the indians enough for that counter-attack and went back to the deal they offered india on the 24th of october

The soviets again did not offer aid but selling aircraft that india was already scheulded to self produce. The were not planning to fight china. The relation was not between two countries but between mao and Khrushchev and their views of the fight between the East and West and how to handle it. I think you might already know the stance but ill say it here, Mao wanted world revolution while Khrushchev wanted peacful co-existance. The Soviets sold india the right to produce the Mig-21 aircraft in 1962 may sometime, even before the war was being fought

The american contribution was no different from the one it provided pakistan and their own attempts to help china againest india in 1971 by also sending a carrier into the indian ocean. The americans weren't planning to nuke china during that conflict only to make sure the chinese did not bring communsim to india. Hence chinas limited campaign

Also the americans threatened to nuke china in 1950, 1960s (chinas nuclear program, vietnam war). But they didn't back down at that nor would they have backed down with this new threat. Remember Mao thoughts about nuclear weapons being a Paper tiger. The chinese were planning to fight a peoples war and not someone war on its border with india. China was much different in fought and aspiration as it is now

[edit on 26-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Ok.. this is getting out of hand..
Not worth replying to anymore. Also I don't have the time like you seem to.

Firstly, you're pin-pointing the Kargil TOWN not the areas of conflict. If you knew better, you'd know that the war raged in two more sectors : Batalik and Drass.Also the war was fought on hills like Tololing and Tiger Hill. Those were not in Kargil Town.
Anyways, bottomline is you're claiming that the IAF was not that helpful in Kargil as it could have been if it was better trained/equipped etc. etc..
That is what I am going to take up as a separate topic. Enough has been said on this thread. Need to focus on your accusations separately.
Regarding you're article:
For the umpteenth time, Its a freakin free country, and anybody can write whatever they want. It is not necessary that everyone shares the same opinion or infact the majority of the opinion. You quote an article that in turn quotes an unnamed army officer. Under what circumstances were those statements made?
Will you ever here a squeal of a similar kind EVER come from countries like China or even Pakistan??

Its a sniper article thats all; probing a point of view that will sop up lots of sales..
Just like the MiG 21 'Flying Coffin' stunts the media has pulled.

And as for your claims of Sino-Soviet relations in the early 60s:



The Sino-Soviet Split (Return to Index)

Many factors influenced Sino-Soviet involvement in the Vietnam War but no factor was as influential in their levels of involvement as dictated by their relationship towards one another. This above all things would serve to guide their actions in Indo-China.

Tensions between the two countries could be felt as early as 1956. Soviet intervention in Hungary was met with criticism by Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Mao Tse-Tung. Perhaps the most estranging move between the two countries came at a poolside conference between Mao and Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev. The subject was the Communist attitude toward the west. As recorded in Krushchev's diary, Mao was recorded as saying,

Mao replied by trying to assure me that the atomic bomb itself was a paper tiger! "Listen Comrade Khrushchev, he said. "All you have to do is provoke the Americans into military action, and I'll give you as many divisions as you need to crush them-a hundred, two hundred, one thousand divisions." I tried to explain to him that one or two missiles (nuclear) could turn all the divisions in China to dust. But he wouldn't even listen to my arguments and obviously regarded me as a coward.

This incident itself left a permanent impression on Khrushchev. His relationship towards Chairman Mao had previously been one of high regard and admiration, but from this point on a distancing between the two can be felt. At the root of this separation was the issue of the U.S.

The Soviet attitude towards the United States was always one on a professional level. As is evident in Mao's comment above the, the People's Republic of China (PRC) held a more militant position than their neighboring communists. Khrushchev's attempts in the late '50s (1959) to coordinate efforts with the U.S. was met with more criticism from the Chinese Communists. His trip to Camp David was proof of this as Mao called Khrushchev's notion of peaceful co-existence a "bourgeois pacifist notion'. At about this time the split between the two countries was confirmed. It would mark the last time that leaders from either country would visit one another.

On another note, the Soviet Union never wished to engage the U.S. in armed conflict. It can even be surmised that relations with the U.S. were more revered than those with the Chinese. Whether or not this peculiarity was apparent in the early '50's it was certainly clear to the Chinese by the time that the Vietnam War came around. In support of this, "The Russians, while actually giving important military aid, have sought to avoid unduly provocative threats that might seriously damage their relations with Washington". The position that the Soviets took in 1958 with the Taiwan incident defends this statement. The Chinese had for some time been wanting to invade the island of Taiwan and crush the remaining Kuomintang, anti-Communist, pro-U.S., Chinese nationalists (KMT). When the Soviets were asked to back this incursion they declined. The Chinese were left to do it themselves and at the risk of provoking nuclear war with the U.S. they finally backed down. The refusal on the part of the Soviet Communists to support their comrade’s left the Chinese feeling alienated.

The Taiwan incident alone would serve to be one of the primary reasons for poor relations with the U.S. in the late 1950's, and the course of the 1960's. The Chinese understood the actions on the part of the Americans, via their military and political presence, to be a direct and intended threat to China. On this note, Premier of China, Chou En-lai stated,

It is the imperialist policy of the U.S Government, and not merely the fact that U.S. troops have invaded and occupied China's Taiwan, that has put the U.S. Government in the position of being the enemy of these peoples. The invasion and occupation of Taiwan can only make the U.S. the enemy of the Chinese people.

This excerpt from an interview in 1960 between Edgar Snow and Premier En-lai marks the Chinese attitude towards the United States. It's significance becomes critical when taking into account Soviet-American relations, and the repercussions those alliances would have on the PRC.

Feelings between the two further deteriorated with Chinese actions against India in 1962. For some time the frontier disputes between China and India had gone unabated. The situation reached critical when the Chinese invaded India causing a rebuttal from the U.S. Again the Soviets refused to support or defend the actions of the Chinese. From the Soviet point of view this was again an attempt to devaluate the importance of Khrushchev's attempts at peaceful co-existence. Whether or not the Soviet government secretly advocated the Chinese invasion was insignificant. The conditions of the time prevented them from acting. As summarized by one historian, "Soviet power is not unlimited, and the USSR cannot challenge the U.S. to a nuclear duel for the sake of other socialist countries."

The Chinese Communists marked the exact opposite of the Soviets dealing with the 'Imperialists' of the west. For example, "In contrast, loud threats and temperate actions came to symbolize the Chinese posture in the Vietnam conflict." For Mao and the Chinese Communists the war against the Americans was an ideological one,

It is my opinion that the international situation has now reached a new turning point. There are two winds in the world today, the East Wind and the West Wind. There is a Chinese saying, "Either the East Wind prevails over the West Wind or the West Wind prevails over the East Wind." I believe it is the characteristic of the situation today that the East Wind is prevailing over the West Wind. That is to say, the forces of socialism have become overwhelmingly superior to the forces of imperialism.

The specifics of each other's foreign policies would be decisive in determining how much aid or pledged support would be given to the communists in North Vietnam. In turn their ideologies would serve to respectively draw them into the conflict in Indo-China. For these reasons and more to come the Chinese and the Soviets would resort to differing levels of involvement in accordance to their relations with the Vietnamese, Americans, and one another.





Note the article states 'China invaded India'. Hence my point: the majority feel that China invaded India, irrespective of your chinese twists to historical documents.

Anyways, enough about The historical bickerings of 62. We won't see eye-to-eye on that ever.
However more needs to be discussed about the role of the IAF in Kargil. Any comparisions drawn between that and the possible involvement of the IAF in 62 are purely brought up by you.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Not worth replying to anymore. Also I don't have the time like you seem to.


Im on my holiday break, so between work i have lots of spare time


Firstly, you're pin-pointing the Kargil TOWN not the areas of conflict.


Only to show possible flight paths to the area. Its quite obvious it wouldn't ahve taken place in the town of kargil


Will you ever here a squeal of a similar kind EVER come from countries like China or even Pakistan??


Dont be tempted to take cheap shots


And as for your claims of Sino-Soviet relations in the early 60s:p


The article doesn't mention anything i dont know. I'm refering to the fact that the soviets support chinas peace plan and did not offer any assitance they were offering before the war even started.


Note the article states 'China invaded India'. Hence my point: the majority feel that China invaded India, irrespective of your chinese twists to historical documents.


What majority?. Your article is a BRIEF introduction into a complex subject. An american article also says that the american plane crashed into the chinese plane in '01 even though the american view point was that the chinese plaen crashed into the american one

The article is so critical of chinese actions and blames everything that happened on the chinese behalf. Here is a vietnamese opinion on the sino-soviet spilt and the sino-vietnamese war
Link

Like you said yourself beforehand

"It is not necessary that everyone shares the same opinion or infact the majority of the opinion."


Anyways, enough about The historical bickerings of 62.


I got historical proof that the McMahon line was just a land grab from britian. I will debate this issue with you and you will not be able to prove this wrong. I know every point you will try to make and i ahve a counter point for each one.Take this to the political section.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Cheap shots??!



Like the ones you take? Trying to question the very comptency of the IAF?
I'm just saying that the article you quoted is bogus.. compromises of a free media..
You know its not a cheap shot. Its a very valid point. Any criticism of the chinese military by the chinese media would be a big surprise..
Is it because the chinese military is devoid of any mlapractices? Yeah.. you wish..



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I thought we were talking about a military subject there D3
.I know very well its a cheap shot bcause it has nothing to do with airplanes vs infantry or anything other than the names india or china

A cheap shot is a easy target to change subject, which i did not do. Instead i brought up an issue involving the same forces in question about the subject




Any criticism of the chinese military by the chinese media would be a big surprise


In china you critise indiviuals not an organisation because if you critise an organisation your implicating everyone even though some people are not involved. I have many examples of critism, Health minister got critised and fired after SARS, Qiao Liang (senior colonel in the PLAAF) was crisited for writing "Unrestricted warfare" even though he was a high ranking PLA member. General Zhu Chenghu was critised in china BY THE CHINESE MEDIA for provocative statments about nuking america

One thing that sets the chinese media from other media (like indias) is they are not out there just to sell papers but to present a viewpoint. Ever heard of sensationlized reporting


Is it because the chinese military is devoid of any mlapractices? Yeah.. you wish


Never claimed so, so dont you put words in my mouth

[edit on 27-6-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Yeh... sure..You'll find anti-nuke policy/anti-nuke articles by the dozen in India. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the kind of article you pulled and rubbed all over this thread even though it has no substance. Can you find any such articles written in the chinese media? About the AF saying that the Army in incompetent or vice-versa or anything similar for that matter.
Anyways the bottom line is the article you quoted is a aberration that's all.
Nobody died in collateral damage and it didn't impede the infantry movement to a notable extent. More so it helped.
Anyways I've moved this onto another thread now. That's the only thing worth discussing left. Everything else is moot.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
not...on....TOPIC



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

BEIJING (AFP) - The deputy commander of China's navy has been sacked for abuse of power, corruption and "economic crimes" after his mistress reported his activities to authorities.


Wang Shouye, 62, has been stripped of his post as deputy commander of the People's Liberation Army navy as well as being forced to resign as a member of China's parliament, Xinhua news agency said.

Xinhua said the action was taken after an young unmarried woman reported to authorities on Wang's "problems" and admitted she had been in an "improper relationship" with him for a long time.

The People's Liberation Army ordered that disciplinary measures be taken against Wang in January this year, according to documents submitted to the National People's Congress, China's parliament, cited by Xinhua.



Heres another example of the chinese media criticsing indiviuals instead of the organisation
Link



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I have just one thing to say and it goes to the guy who made this thread, trustseeker i belive. I have read Red Storm Risisng and it completely underestimates Russian military potential. Not to mention that it is a completely biased book and that the scheme developed by the russians to have an excuse to go to war is absolutely absurd and would NEVER happen. I am making that claim on personal belife so don't come back asking me "how do you know for sure". On my personal knowledge of Russia and it's people if they ever wanted a war with europe the wouldn't give you an excuse. Further more Russia would not wage a global war for oil unlike the US. And in general the strike delivered by the USSR upon europe is so underestimated in the book it's almost insulting. Tom Clancy can only hope to be a writer.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
A world war meaning no gloves and no BS r.o.e. whats a win global domination? Do we have our traditional allies England Aus Jap ect?

US wins hands down

I mean really who going to stop us?

China nope The US is already gearing up to wipe out any threat they are. They are a paper tiger with a large inferior force. Their industry can be crippled quick that huge damn they are building... The rest of asia is a joke. Invading may suck but no offensive danger from them.

Russia and their satelite states we'd supply the satelite states to attack russia.

Africa. Don't make me laugh.

Middle east. see africa have fun suicide bombing remotley opperated vehicles.

Europe. We'll have the brits look at the french wrong and thats done, the germans know better twice, My portugal would never, spain please I'd arm portugal and have them kick their ass. Itally changes sides like well alot.

South america see the middle east

Before anyone can say booo we can cripple anyones industrial complex and wipe out most military power they posses.

So as one poster said it becomes a guerilla war... But ahhh its WW3 and we don't patrol towns on foot we do it in tanks with air power and blast first ask questions later like WW2. In fact its ww3 and R/D has sped up exponentially all the government secrets are reality now. Remotely operated tanks with heavy heavy armor and fierce firepower are operated by kids sitting in bunkers in their home town drinking coffee burning the midnight oil to see who can score the highest.

Its a comic but it real. And you can see it starting to happen today in the military. Imagine a couple of fleets of armed robots controling the sky and laying waste to the enemy on the ground. Its not far off. And once we have it its ours we'll stay far ahead like we do now of anything they can make.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
WOW, thank you for that lovely stereotypical point of view from our great patriot - American Madman (I think the name already says everything about him).

Just to brief you on the situation; the US army is 500,000 men strong and is already widly spread throughout the world, so even those countries that do not have the ability to cross the ocean can strike at US garissons and take out a large # out of that 500,000. North Korea would through all they got at south Korea and all the US troops stationed there with the help of CHina and it's 2.5mil men strong army (which in a state of war can easily turn into a human wave of 200mil if needed as displayed in the war with north korea (wich made the US back down). Japan with no military of its own would fall next. Next you have to look at how much the US relies on supplies such those from china or the oil from the middle east. If at war with those countries the US cannot simply hold all those locations in the world with only 500,000 men. US wins hands down huh, lol alright, lets take a look at some of those comments you made. The chinese industry crippled quick? I don't think you realize how much the US industry relies on the chinese lol, taking them out or going against chine like that is suicide. A large inferior force is a huge understatement since that was the force that made the US back out of the korean war and turn to negotiations. You'd supply russia's satalite states to attack russia? LMAO!!!!!!!! And why the f*ck would they fight for you? just so they can have a mcdonalds to go to? You're so narrow minded i'm curiose, how old are you? I've heard more sensible comments from 13 year olds, or did you just grow up reading "captain america" comic books? Russia has asn army of 1.5 mil and that army is capable of striking anywhere in the world, just like that of the US. Oh, and brag about your carriers all you want, instead of investing in carriers during the cold war like the US, Russians built plenty of planes designed to blow those carriers out of the water. You can doubt the germans all you want, but that is a big mistake. Oh and please, do not take the burden upon yourself of saying it was the US alone who won WW2 and WW1, because clearly you have no knowledge of history. With all the anti-american media in south america, i'd think you should watch out for them a bit more, since they are closer than the rest of the world to you. And with all those illegal immigrants crossing the border in texas i don't think the whole of south america should have a problem =). Brag all you want about your airforce but planes can't take off without fuel. even though US holds iraq, if the WW3 should take off I presume it's correct to say all the arab nations would attack the US army there and destroy it once the supplies stop comming through (the USAF would be way too busy concentrating on the russian planes to be able to spare enough effort into iraq. Plus how many US airbases are stationed around the world, think how many planes they would loose in a sudden breakout of war. Brittan would help, and i'd love to see what france would be like lol, but still, look at it from a realistic point of view; the USA is not exactly one of the best self supplying countries in the world. War with the world means HUGE loss of resources for it.

And all though Japan is allies with the US, their army is still the US army, they dont' have an army of their own anymore since the US said they couldn't after the conquered in in WW2.

I want to say plenty more on this idiot's comment but my head is starting to hurt, i'm off to sleep.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join