Can India liberate Tibet if it wanted to?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Stealth Spy no India will not be able to take on Chinese Navy. China has the Semernovy Class DDGs that are built to take care of aircraft carriers. Also India has a smaller airforce with less upgraded aircrafts. It does matter if you are trained well. Large numbers have an edge. Also China has 400 Su-30MKKs and they have Su-27s. I can bet that they train their pilots very good on their new aircrafts. They will not just through in a newbie into their best aircraft. Over all China is not weaker then India. It might even have an edge over India.




posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Stealthspy is selling the Chinese short, no doubt about it. The Chinese airforce could pose a real problem just by sheer weight of numbers, but not early in the war, because of the places where the two countries have their airforces and logistics placed.

In Tibet specifically, India has a strong logistical advantage with a shorter and less mountainous supply line.

I am not aware of the strength of India's air defenses, however I believe that Indian surface to air missiles would play a crucial role in creating a workable tactical situation in the air.

India could possibly have it's way (depending on the objective), but this could be one of those wars where the first one to make a mistake loses it all.

Also, India can not afford to bet on Pakistan staying put. Pakistan very well might not stay put, because an expansionist India would be a frightening prospect. If they felt they were next, they would be wise to strike first and fight the war on their own terms.



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Stealthspy is selling the Chinese short, no doubt about it. The Chinese airforce could pose a real problem just by sheer weight of numbers, but not early in the war, because of the places where the two countries have their airforces and logistics placed.

In Tibet specifically, India has a strong logistical advantage with a shorter and less mountainous supply line.

I am not aware of the strength of India's air defenses, however I believe that Indian surface to air missiles would play a crucial role in creating a workable tactical situation in the air.

India could possibly have it's way (depending on the objective), but this could be one of those wars where the first one to make a mistake loses it all.

Also, India can not afford to bet on Pakistan staying put. Pakistan very well might not stay put, because an expansionist India would be a frightening prospect. If they felt they were next, they would be wise to strike first and fight the war on their own terms.


Good point on the "the first one to make a mistake loses it all." But if on e can wager that Pakistan will will not sit and watch, im sure other countries will not be fence-sitters either. Whats your take on that Vagabond?
Your scenarios are pretty realistic and plausible



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Well, I would like to repeat that this is a VERY unlikely war specifically because not too many nations want it to happen or want to be involved in it.

IF it happened, Pakistan is so likely to jump in because of the perception that they are next. By this logic, only nations which were afraid that the victor would turn on them are likely to get involved.

I will provide a worst case scenario which starts with the most likely events and degenerates into what would probably be called wild fantasy. Before anyone blasts me too hard, just remember that a single assassination in the midst of the proper international environment started both world wars (they were really a single war after all- the 1920s were just half-time.) Please note that I haven't spent a lot of time on this, so I'm open to corrections if I've missed anything in this little breakdown. I'm just playing "predict the end of the world" because i was asked to and its fun.

If America were providing logistical support to India they would be inclined to move forces into the area to deter Chinese retaliation- This seems almost a given if such a war happened.
This opens the door for a 3rd party mistake: If North Korea mistakenly believed that there was about to be an all-out war between American and China, then they might cross the 38th to pre-empt expected American aggression. -This is somwhat possible, but not likely at all.

Most likely- China will not support North Korea. North Korea will have to use nukes against American and South Korean forces. America will nuke North Korea back. China will declare North Korea a protectorate, promise no further aggression from N. Korea, and threaten retaliation against any further US attacks.

Less likely- China supports N. Korea and starts WWIII.

China can't follow the popular model here. To ensure the defeat of America in the pacific they have to take Japan, and this will divide their logistics and airpower which are concentrated against India.

To keep logistics simple, China can invade Afghanistan and begin moving troops into Pakistan and Iran (after convincing Iran to invade Iraq in exchange for military hardware and economic partnership.)- If things get this bad, Iranian participation is almost assured.

With Chinese help, Iran can become an immediate threat to Turkey and Eastern Europe, as well as the middle East. This means that NATO will set the priorites and America can't go straight after China. "Middle East First" would be the policy, because without oil you can not prosecute the war on China itself.

Japan would obviously be all over China after about a year or two. They just have to raise, train, and equip a sizeable force first. Once Japan gets after you though, it aint pretty. Has anybody else noticed that America STILL wont let them build a large military, over 50 years after Japan's one little transgression against us?

Russia will be strategically very important in this situation- neutrality is very likely.
They won't invade Europe because it drops their guard against both sides in Southern Asia and it leaves the middle east for China to take.
They could side with NATO in hopes of crushing China and replacing America as Europe's favorite super-power. This is the next most likely thing-it's cautious, and mildly profitable.
They could invade Turkey, which positions them to hold China out of the middle East, cuts NATO supply lines, and gives them an important strategic position in the post-war world.- This option really depends on Russia's confidence in themselves because it's the most risky. If they fail, either NATO or China would eat them alive at the end of the war.

Israel can't get involved because any movement on their part is going to whip up the middle east, and they have to guard themselves against the possibility that Ba'athist arabs may see this as the moment for a socialist pan-arab state to arise: Syria would definately be up for it, and if either Egypt would go along or if a coup in Saudi Arabia could bring that nation into the movement it could definately happen.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Stealth Spy no India will not be able to take on Chinese Navy. China has the Semernovy Class DDGs that are built to take care of aircraft carriers. Also India has a smaller airforce with less upgraded aircrafts. It does matter if you are trained well. Large numbers have an edge. Also China has 400 Su-30MKKs and they have Su-27s. I can bet that they train their pilots very good on their new aircrafts. They will not just through in a newbie into their best aircraft. Over all China is not weaker then India. It might even have an edge over India.


true, i guess i got a little bit too carried away with this. the indian navy may not be able to beat the chinese one, (and even if they did , it would be hard on them too)

But the indian navy operates 2 aircraft carriers, has lots of Sea-Harriers, lots of russian, indegenous destroyers.

But the admiral gorshkov it will acquire in some time, will put things in a different place.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
hhahah,,

Where did people get the idea that indian are better trained? If any thing, 1962 has shown they are not fit for war? Who have indians fought besides being badly kicked by us and a few draws with a smaller Pakistan while China fought US, Russia and Vietnam since WWII?

In terms of airforce, we have comparable technology while we have a huge numerical advantage and we are producing our own J10 while they can't make crap and Indian air force is called the "flying coffin".

In terms of navy, we not only have a huge tonnage advantage, with the new Sovys DDGs and our own 4 052 Aegis-equivalent DDG, we have a huge advantage over the two old carriers that aren't seaworthy at all. This is on top of our huge numerical and technological advantage in terms of subs. Also, remember, india's entire navy is bought while we make most of our own ships. The new 052 DDGs and the new stealth frigate are huge leap forward for us while they can't make crap. Seems most people here are quite ignorant of our the 052 DDG and 054 frigates we made recently and the Yuan-class subs and 094 nuke subs.

In terms of army, missile/space tech, let's not argue here. There is no comparison between the two countries.

One more point, our two armed forces are similar in size with china a bit larger, while our military budget is 3X times that of india and they purchase a huge proportion of their equipments form others while China make the majority of ours and only buy to fill in the technical gaps.

Please guys, don't even compare us cause we are entirely two different levels in terms of our armed forces. Taking Tibet will only be a wet dream when all they did is running in 1962.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Hawkssss]



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Here is an interesting article written by indians comparing china and india economically. You draw your own conclusion. The fact that we are making more and more of our own weapons (examples are our 052 DDG, 054 Frigates, Yuan-class subs, J10, space tech, missile tech) while india buys most of its top-of the line weapons tells you that the gap between China and india is widening, not narrowing. In terms of army or small arms, China is light years ahead of india.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Here's something interesting.

news.bbc.co.uk...


"China doesn't want to accept US leadership. Confrontation is inevitable."

At present China can't compete militarily with the US. But it's important to remember that American military might is built on the superiority of the US economy. The day when China has more money than anyone, it'll have a better defence than anyone


And here's a cross posting of one of the chinese posters in an indian defence forum:


Heya guys, I hope some of ya still remember me. Kinda left the forum when this whole thread turned into a holocaust. Only came back a few weeks ago. Seems like we can have more serious discussion nowadays. I feel kinda lonely, though, me being the sole commie drone left *sniff*

Anyway, several points to make. That "Crouching Tiger Soaring Dragon" article made me laugh my ass off. I can't believe an Indian could write that on a healthy stomach. Shanghai isn't insanely well-developed because China is, but rather because the Chinese economy is highly centralized. If you moved the local governments of Mumbai, Bangalore, New Delhi, and maybe Calcutta into a single port city, you'll get something resembling what Shanghai is (adjusted for GDP and human development index, but still about the same). Either that or they'll bicker like monkeys on acid and burn it to the ground. Anyway, Shanghai is overdeveloped compared to the rest of Chinese cities (which is why we have a real-estate bubble there). While I cannot claim to have ever been a resident, I did live there for a month in '98 and another month in '03. What a difference 5 years made.... Pudong, especially. Actually this kind of centralized overgrowth is common in East Asia. If any of you ever get a chance to go to, say, Japan, go check out Osaka first before seeing Tokyo. Both are highly-developed major cities, but there is no denying that Osaka feels like a poor cousin compared to Tokyo (but don't say that to Osakans, they'll lynch you on the spot). Same thing with Seoul. No other major Korean city is as cosmopolitan (not to mention huge) as Seoul. Even Indonesia's Jakarta feels like that in comparison to any other Indonesian city. Bottomline is, go anywhere in East Asia and there's bound to be this gigantic, monstrous, overdeveloped city sitting in the middle of what look like midget cousins in comparison.

One other thing, Shanghai ain't the New York of anything. As arrogantly bourgeoise as Shanghainese are (can you tell I don't like them?) they're still significantly friendlier than the typical New Yorker. Plus most of Shanghai still feels (as ironic as that may sound) less cramped than New York is.

That doesn't mean the rest of the Chinese cities are underdeveloped, mind you. Point is, the glittering Chinese city landscapes are quite real, not PS as some here have suggested in the past. I toured some of 'em last July and yep, they're there, just where the pictures show 'em. Check it out yourselves if you have a chance. Maybe a forum member can be appointed official "BR spy" and sent on paypal-pooled money to check out some cities. Great cities though, tall skyscrapers, mostly new. What is often unmentioned is that, excepting Shanghai, these are examples of our "headstart infrastructure development". Build 'em, then wait for 'em to be occupied. Of course, most of those shots posted here in the past were taken back in '01 -'03, and most have gained occupancy by now. An American colleague speculated that China might already have more large skyscrapered cities than the US. At first I laughed at the suggestion, but then I recalled that construction costs in China are significantly lower than in the US, with significantly higher investment going into infrastructure, and I began to wonder.

And then I began to worry. I can see now why it's necessary to cool down the economy FAST! With an economy half the size of the US', what economic justification can we produce for having more huge skyscrapers than the US? Professional analysis aside, a man on the streets can easily see that we are entering a period of irrational growth fueled by overoptimism just by walking through these cities. I found out from a relative living in Guangzhou that he recently rented a posh office in a new building for a small textile conglomerate he had only just started. He hadn't even started production yet, and he already got himself this expensive office. We talked about his plans and he said he was preparing for the end of textile quotas. He used that as justification for the "explosive growth" he was expecting by next year. I pointed out that thousands of other entrepreneurs like him were banking on the exact same bet. That was when I found out the reason for the posh office: It makes his company look established and professional. Face! It was all face! That was his plan of attack, make himself look cool so potential customers would be dazzled enough to place orders. The scary thing is, it might even work... probably already had, even, given how the apparel industry operates. The scarier thing is that I bet he wasn't the only one with this idea. China is a huge country. I can easily imagine a thousand entrepreneurs renting posh offices in newly-built skyscrapers betting on appearances to land them contracts.

What it felt like was the go-go period of the late '90s Silicon Valley.

Just before the Dot Bomb.

Yeah, there's definitely a bubble in China.

On the other hand, Mr. Liao the textile magnate is probably a good example, brash as he is, of why that bubble popping would not mean a halt on China's growth. You see, if there is one great quality he has, it is resilience. His last business, the one he used to obtain capital for this one, was making pirated golfing equipment in a suburb of Shenzhen. Until the authorities steamrolled that business out of existence, that is. He still complains about favoritism in that debacle, but seems as unrepentant (and faux-cosmopolitan) as ever. The greatest strength of China today lies not with the big-time financiers of Hong Kong, or the magnates of Taiwan, or even the giant MNCs kowtowing to Beijing. If anything, our greatest strength lies with ambitious, unbreakable, opportunistic robber barons like my relative in Guangzhou. Regulations and politics be damned! Give 'em a niche, they'll fill it like quicksilver.

BTW, is it just me or is the Indian media spouting off the "Chinese consensus" from every orifice nowadays? Everywhere I look Indian commentators and economists are touting reforms that strongly resemble Deng's in '78. If anything, I think every country has its own identity, and borrowing from China would not help India in this case. For one thing, how would you enforce? Having been born in Shenzhen, I know the gov't took some pretty draconian measures to make sure Deng's reforms were followed. Most of those weren't pretty, and I seriously doubt Indians would stomach that. Another thing to consider is the relative collectivist tendency of us Chinese. It was easier for victims of those reforms to survive in China by relying on familial networks. This is because for every ten Liaos living in the (relatively untouched) countryside there would be one or two living in the (very much touched) cities to lend a helping hand. When Deng's reforms initially gave advantage to the country, some of us went back there to get work. When the opposite happened, we went back to the cities for same. Is there any social network of this kind in India?

One last thing: Congratulations on the UNSC bid, though I admit I wish we hadn't been quite so cynical as this. Ah, well, politics is politics, guys. I always knew China would have relented in India's case (though not in Japan's), but this coupling the issue to the Dalai Lama bit is bloody stupid and feels like a last-ditch political concession to some hardliners in Beijing. It makes the whole deal inconsistent and seem like an afterthought.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   

IF it happened, Pakistan is so likely to jump in because of the perception that they are next. By this logic, only nations which were afraid that the victor would turn on them are likely to get involved.


Pakistans cozy relations with China might not be that prevalent. I would say the moment there are already cracks appearing in their present relationship. Its probably only because there is an American backing that the Chinese are not going gung-ho against the Pakis. Beijing has been deeply suspicious of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus' involvement in the Islamic insurgency in its Xinjiang province


I will provide a worst case scenario which starts with the most likely events and degenerates into what would probably be called wild fantasy. Before anyone blasts me too hard, just remember that a single assassination in the midst of the proper international environment started both world wars (they were really a single war after all- the 1920s were just half-time.) Please note that I haven't spent a lot of time on this, so I'm open to corrections if I've missed anything in this little breakdown. I'm just playing "predict the end of the world" because i was asked to and its fun.

If America were providing logistical support to India they would be inclined to move forces into the area to deter Chinese retaliation- This seems almost a given if such a war happened.


In order for this to happen, Americas national interests must be at stake. If America tries logistical support, it in most probability will start with intel on the Chinese movements but hardly any movement of forces.


This opens the door for a 3rd party mistake: If North Korea mistakenly believed that there was about to be an all-out war between American and China, then they might cross the 38th to pre-empt expected American aggression. -This is somwhat possible, but not likely at all.


North Korea has neither the resources nor the military might for any pre-emptive strikes. Its a given that if they indeed try this, it will be a cake walk for the Americans. Both South Korea and Japan will be increasingly alarmed and would not sit still.


Most likely- China will not support North Korea. North Korea will have to use nukes against American and South Korean forces. America will nuke North Korea back. China will declare North Korea a protectorate, promise no further aggression from N. Korea, and threaten retaliation against any further US attacks.


America will not require Nuclear weapons for this war. Cluster bombs, smart bombs and B52 bombers across with South Korean support will finish off any attempts by North Korea.


Less likely- China supports N. Korea and starts WWIII.


Highly improbable. Chinas economy is at stake by upstaging the very western forces from which China stands to gain economically.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Your argument's fundamental flaw is that since US controls the world economy, therefore China has no chance whatsoever. If your premise is correct, why do you think that India will have a better chance? You think Americans are naturally more friendly towards india than China?

I read that piece written by a chinese on Bharat Rakshak forum. He is rather modest but that still means india is hugely behind china in terms of infrastructure. I do not agree with him on many points. If you go to all the capitals of china's provinces or most coastal cities, anyone of them can beat your infrastructure in say Mumbai, Dehli or Bangalore.

Here is a recent BusinessWeek article and it shows india is hugely lacking in terms of infrastructure.


www.businessweek.com...
Bangalore: Tech Eden No More?

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Hawkssss]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Hawkssss
Your argument's fundamental flaw is that since US controls the world economy, therefore China has no chance whatsoever. If your premise is correct, why do you think that India will have a better chance? You think Americans are naturally more friendly towards india than China?


I never said India has engineered any inhibitions to world domination. I am merely contradicting Vagabound's theory as not plausible. However, it has to be said America has been making the right overtures towards India, the leaders of which calling "India and US as Natural Allies".

Yeah, I read about Bangalore, I know its congestions and traffic problems. It's a pity we get all the bad press in US/UK when it comes to 'outsourcing' and you guys get a much bigger piece of the pie.


Learn to chill dude. Relax, take a deep breath. Don't be so "xiao". We ain't fighting


[edit on 25-10-2004 by aryaputhra]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
hahaha, see again, you think Uncle Sam loves you indians more so than Chinese. lol wake up friend. Uncle Sam's only interest is its own interest. Do you think India and US are more natural allies than say France and the US??? Why you cross Uncle Sam, he will push aside anybody. We have known this since 1940s and that's why China always stands up against the US while you indians only dream of being the "natural ally" with US.

The only reason they haven't called you "enemy" or "competitive partner" is because india is not strong enough to pose a threat to the US (India only acquired nuke capability recently and still doesn't have the ability to hit continental US).

Please, since Korea, China is viewed as an evil empire and probably the only evil commie state left in the world in the eyes of the americans and our obstacles are way, way, way more than any india has ever seen. Yet, we have done much better in light of all the sanctions from the west left and right. So please, don't cry as if China is viewed favorably by americans while Indians are unfairly prejudiced. Americans only respect raw power, not your bhai this, bhai that mentality.

Stand up, my friend and be on your own because no one is your true friend!

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Hawkssss]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkssss


The only reason they haven't called you "enemy" or "competitive partner" is because india is not strong enough to pose a threat to the US (India only acquired nuke capability recently and still doesn't have the ability to hit continental US).

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Hawkssss]


I disagree on that clause. A country whcih has the technology to luanch geosynch satellites can easily target any place in the world with nukes.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:25 AM
link   
If India decided to move and invade Tibet the rest of the world would sit back and watch, no way in hell the US, Russia or the EU is going to step between Indian and China.

India could make fast progress early, they have terrain on their side and they could catch China off guard that far from Imperial City. They'd move massive amounts of troops and take some fast airspace, but their supply lines are limited by two major factors.

1: India lacks heavy support and airlift aircraft in large numbers, they would probably need overland routes for large troop movements

2: Weather is horribly unpredictable in that area, helicopter supply lines would be very shaky at best.

This would probably go on for a week or two before China really noticed the bee stinging its backside and responded like nothing the world has seen since World War Two. China will respond with massively overwhelming force, they would throw as many troops, planes, tanks and support at the Indian army as they could pack onto their rail lines and highways.

The key to understanding China's malestorm of force is understanding the Chinese people and politics:

China was under the thumb of Europe, the US and Japan for long enough (with brutal enough results) that any invasion will be seen as a direct and critical threat to their nation. Also one must understand the Asian mentality of warfare and honour:

An attack from such an obviously inferior opponent as India would be a grave disgrace to China, one that could not go unpunished. The Dragon would sweep down as swiftly and devastatingly as the world's largest country could.

The inital Chinese attack would be postitively overwhelming. I would theorize that the Chinese would remember the first engagements against the US in Korea, and use a large combine arms strike to slam the Indian groundlines with MOAB-style weapons while blasting the Indian navy into pecies and reclaiming theater-wide air superiority in one strike. Then the Chinese ground troops and tank units would ram into strategic points along the Indian lines, supported by ground attack aircraft and heavy bombardment.

By this time the Indians have a choice, continue with a decimated air force, shattered navy and scattered, yet still sizeable, ground force against the full Chinese force. If I were them, I'd retreat right then and sue for peace, hoping the Chinese would disengage and not follow the retreating troops back into India and seizing territory within.

It'd be a total strategic disaster for India, they'd be the aggressor, as such waving all international support while going up against a better trained, better armed and much larger force that has a chip on its shoulder leftover from years of oppression and abuse by invading powers.

In short, yea India could try it, but it would be suicide.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   
No way, they can not even liberate Kashmir from the Paks. How you figure they can stand up to China. Give me a break.

TUT



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   
the last two posts were highly dramatic to say the least but not a shred of data backing them up. And we don't want to liberate kashmir, its ours

Plus wot we've done in kashmir with are 'inferior' forces even the US is having trouble doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Islamic insurgency and terrorism is new to the US , India has been dealing with it for the last 10-15 years.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Astral City
If India decided to move and invade Tibet the rest of the world would sit back and watch, no way in hell the US, Russia or the EU is going to step between Indian and China.

1: India lacks heavy support and airlift aircraft in large numbers, they would probably need overland routes for large troop movements

2: Weather is horribly unpredictable in that area, helicopter supply lines would be very shaky at best.

This would probably go on for a week or two before China really noticed the bee stinging its backside and responded like nothing the world has seen since World War Two. China will respond with massively overwhelming force, they would throw as many troops, planes, tanks and support at the Indian army as they could pack onto their rail lines and highways.

The inital Chinese attack would be postitively overwhelming. I would theorize that the Chinese would remember the first engagements against the US in Korea, and use a large combine arms strike to slam the Indian groundlines with MOAB-style weapons while blasting the Indian navy into pecies and reclaiming theater-wide air superiority in one strike. Then the Chinese ground troops and tank units would ram into strategic points along the Indian lines, supported by ground attack aircraft and heavy bombardment.
~Astral


What/Where/how? Dude read the entire post first!! Your presumpstions that the Indian Navy would be "blasted" is crazy! China does not have any AWACS capability while India does. At least read the first post (mine) before shooting up your theories..
And what theater wide superiority?China does not have the infrastructure or logistics to assume such superiority over tibet. India does
And I suppose the Indians would just wait and watch as the chinese airlifted those tanks of theirs over the region.
And the pressumption that the rest of the world would just watch..no i dont think so. Japan, U.S., russia would jump at the opportunity to pinch CHina in thier own way.China has done so before.
Also you claim the chinese have experience fighting korean and vietnam wars. But they were fighting an aggressor who was not based nearby but was continously flying in stuff from overseas.
India has fought two wars in which they were attacked, by forces that were evenly matched to theirs. India only used western and northern command forces to repel the attack.The forces at the chinese border and in the south were pretty much the same.




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I appreciate your Nationalistic Pride. However I need no facts on Kashmir it is forefront in the public domain. I do not not praise the presence or failure of the USA in Iraq. I do not mean to imply India is not a formidable force.
I simply enforce China is a sleeping giant that if provoked would be an adversary for the world. With the only hope of victory being annihilation through nuclear victory.

TUT



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 05:12 AM
link   
India and China fight a war...didn't they do that already? Who lost ground then?

Numbers = China.
Economy = China.
Masses of unmarried young men you can waste = China.

Choice of systems = India.

India and Pakistan are a couple of those few nations who didn't lock themsleves into NATO supplies. India flies Russian jets, drives British tanks far superior to anything Chinese and looked over Uziel Galil's shoulder for rifle inspiration.

Since the Centurion came out the Brits have led the way in tank design and the Indians recognised that.

China still fields T55s (although pretty much as ready reserve) We saw how well they did in Iraq.

Two years ago India grounded its MiG fleet because of crashes...not a good sign.

China - no carriers.
India - two.

As for DDGs killing carriers...how many carriers sailed for the South Atlantic, how many came home?

The whole point of a carrier is that surface ships can't kill them. You need other aircraft or a submarine and the Indian navy's officers learnt their stuff at Dartmouth.

But would the Indians transit their carriers to the Straits of Taiwan? Leaves a big gap for the Pakis, the sole reason for purchasing Hermes and co.

As for infantry weapons...you couldn't give me a Chinese Type 56. My father used to have a Chinese SKS and it was the most useless piece of crap I've ever seen used. He hated it, traded it for a 1918 Lee Enfield with a Kevlar body/stock and a Tasco sight. A Lee Enfield! 1918!

[edit on 27-10-2004 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   
So what is your point Howl





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join