Sino-Indian War of 2020! (or the Brawl in the Nathu La!)

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
How would you compare both their militaries?

The warhawks would both love to tout their prowess but how would you rate both of their army qualities?

China hasn't exactly done much major engagements so I can't really rate them well. India has minor ones thanks to local disputes and Kashmir.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
How would you compare both their militaries?

The warhawks would both love to tout their prowess but how would you rate both of their army qualities?

China hasn't exactly done much major engagements so I can't really rate them well. India has minor ones thanks to local disputes and Kashmir.
China has been loosing wars constantly for the last 500 years, but india hasnt done anything in 500 years.

Its the un-unstoppable Force VS the Unconscious Object.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
They weren't alone. They had North Korean help.
Eh? It was Chinese soldiers who pushed UN forces back from the Yalu River.

(Through overwhelming numbers to be fair) but still.

China fought in Vietnam.

India has been in wars with Pakistan.

So they both have some experience, just relatively limited.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
As it's within half a century wouldn't the Korean war count?
Eh? It was Chinese soldiers who pushed UN forces back from the Yalu River.
(Through overwhelming numbers to be fair) but still.
China fought in Vietnam.
India has been in wars with Pakistan.
So they both have some experience, just relatively limited.
China was fucking mauled in Korea though? Taking ten, twenty, even forty to one losses in engagements and maintaining a tenuous hold over half of what they wanted, at best?

China fought in Vietnam, and ate shit. They even tried to take vietnam after we left, and still ate shit despite the NVA being so crippled from the war that it literally dissolved.

The chinese "military" is so incompetent that it couldnt even conquer vietnam after Vietnam had been bombed and shot into the fucking stone age.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
China was fucking mauled in Korea though? Taking ten, twenty, even forty to one losses in engagements and maintaining a tenuous hold over half of what they wanted, at best?

China fought in Vietnam, and ate shit. They even tried to take vietnam after we left, and still ate shit despite the NVA being so crippled from the war that it literally dissolved.

The chinese "military" is so incompetent that it couldnt even conquer vietnam after Vietnam had been bombed and shot into the fucking stone age.
Good enough to beat India when they started feuding over Tibet.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
As it's within half a century wouldn't the Korean war count?
They weren't alone. They had North Korean help.
Eh? It was Chinese soldiers who pushed UN forces back from the Yalu River.

(Through overwhelming numbers to be fair) but still.

China fought in Vietnam.

India has been in wars with Pakistan.

So they both have some experience, just relatively limited.
China was fucking mauled in Korea though? Taking ten, twenty, even forty to one losses in engagements and maintaining a tenuous hold over half of what they wanted, at best?

China fought in Vietnam, and ate shit. They even tried to take vietnam after we left, and still ate shit despite the NVA being so crippled from the war that it literally dissolved.

The chinese "military" is so incompetent that it couldnt even conquer vietnam after Vietnam had been bombed and shot into the fucking stone age.
China only did so good during korea because of a lot of numbers and being able to overwhelm the UN force. They took such heavy losses though compared to the UN forces.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Some of the losses were overstated. If I recall correctly the Chinese Second Offensive (the one that kicked the United Nations forces halfway down the peninsula) was the one where the Communists suffered 80,000 casualties, and 30,000 of those in combat. The United Nations forces by comparison suffered somewhere around 29,000 casualties minimum, with maybe just over 20,000 minimum in combat. And not including a substantial number of RoK casualties due to terrible recordkeeping at the time.

It was Matthew Ridgway's Offensives starting the new year in 1951 that might've created some interesting casualty ratios though overall I can't recall any campaign against the Chinese having anything approaching forty to one casualties. At least in first year of the war when mobile operations were still going on. Operation Ripper had like... seven to one causalities because General Ridgway was brilliant in planning limited attacks that were developed solely to inflict casualties on the expected Chinese counter attacks, especially as the Spring weather warmed everything up and returned mobility (and general comfort) to the United Nations forces who were also replenished by fresh units coming in from abroad. Maybe the Chinese/KPA suffered more casualties that are unknown, but so did the RoK most likely.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Some of the losses were overstated. If I recall correctly the Chinese Second Offensive (the one that kicked the United Nations forces halfway down the peninsula) was the one where the Communists suffered 80,000 casualties, and 30,000 of those in combat. The United Nations forces by comparison suffered somewhere around 29,000 casualties minimum, with maybe just over 20,000 minimum in combat. And not including a substantial number of RoK casualties due to terrible recordkeeping at the time.

It was Matthew Ridgway's Offensives starting the new year in 1951 that might've created some interesting casualty ratios though overall I can't recall any campaign against the Chinese having anything approaching forty to one casualties. At least in first year of the war when mobile operations were still going on. Operation Ripper had like... seven to one causalities because General Ridgway was brilliant in planning limited attacks that were developed solely to inflict casualties on the expected Chinese counter attacks, especially as the Spring weather warmed everything up and returned mobility (and general comfort) to the United Nations forces who were also replenished by fresh units coming in from abroad. Maybe the Chinese/KPA suffered more casualties that are unknown, but so did the RoK most likely.
Oh yeah, but they definently had taken a beating they could not come back from easily, should the war have gone on a lot longer.

I do have access to the 2ID museam here on pen, and when we are able to go to Seoul I can check out the war museum to figure out what they got.
Even then the Chinese took a very very very big hit during the war, and the US was not even putting their full might into it, we never went total war. CHina had the numbers, but we owned the Sky and had the better equipment
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Good enough to beat India when they started feuding over Tibet.

Maybe not though.

Chinese military infrastructure in Tibet is actually rather limited compared to that of what is in place in Northern India. India has more troops, military bases, airbases and infrastructure leading to Northern India then the Chinese do in the Tibetan plateau... and several times over in some cases. India has literally dozens of military bases in Northern India and China has like two major military bases of comparative size in Tibet.

It would take days to weeks for China to bring to bear it's significant superiority in airframes and missile spam into Tibet to properly support any operations in the Sino-Indian Border. Plus the Chinese clear advantage in superior ground equipment such as how most of India's ground formations are merely motorized while China's are mechanized would also be negated by the terrain.

Furthermore India has a lot more mountain troops then China does and they're in all honestly, probably better quality and experienced as well. They proved their mettle in the Kargil War which only happened in 1999. Along with literal battalions worth of Gurkhas (Britain's loss is India's gain) large numbers of Indian troops recruited from Northern India are actually trained specifically in Mountain Warfare and Light Infantry stuff. In total its estimated India has something along the lines of twelve divisions worth of troops who are specialized in various forms of high altitude or mountain warfare. And India has been practicing this sort of warfare on a larger scale since the 1970's.


Their High Altitude Warfare School was established in 1948 and personnel from North America and Europe go there to train.

Comparatively, according to Wikipedia anyways, China has two Mountain Combined Arms Brigades, both stationed in Tibet and in fact outside of scads of Border Guard regiments, seem to be the only PLA forces in the Tibet Military District.

Furthermore, the Indian Himalayas is way harder to capture (and hold) then the flatter Tibetan plateau terrain wise.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Maybe not though.

Chinese military infrastructure in Tibet is actually rather limited compared to that of what is in place in Northern India. India has more troops, military bases, airbases and infrastructure leading to Northern India then the Chinese do in the Tibetan plateau... and several times over in some cases. India has literally dozens of military bases in Northern India and China has like two major military bases of comparative size in Tibet.

It would take days to weeks for China to bring to bear it's significant superiority in airframes and missile spam into Tibet to properly support any operations in the Sino-Indian Border. Plus the Chinese clear advantage in superior ground equipment such as how most of India's ground formations are merely motorized while China's are mechanized would also be negated by the terrain.

Furthermore India has a lot more mountain troops then China does and they're in all honestly, probably better quality and experienced as well. They proved their mettle in the Kargil War which only happened in 1999. Along with literal battalions worth of Gurkhas (Britain's loss is India's gain) large numbers of Indian troops recruited from Northern India are actually trained specifically in Mountain Warfare and Light Infantry stuff. In total its estimated India has something along the lines of twelve divisions worth of troops who are specialized in various forms of high altitude or mountain warfare. And India has been practicing this sort of warfare on a larger scale since the 1970's.


Their High Altitude Warfare School was established in 1948 and personnel from North America and Europe go there to train.

Comparatively, according to Wikipedia anyways, China has two Mountain Combined Arms Brigades, both stationed in Tibet and in fact outside of scads of Border Guard regiments, seem to be the only PLA forces in the Tibet Military District.

Furthermore, the Indian Himalayas is way harder to capture (and hold) then the flatter Tibetan plateau terrain wise.
That was then we don't know now. The tables can turn as you mention India's recent accomplishments.

The best victories is learning from your own defeats so in the next war you do better.
 

Shadow of the sky

It's actually me
Good enough to beat India when they started feuding over Tibet.
Actually, India had the advantage in that fight during 1962. The reason to why they lost was because the government at the time downright refused to support the army by restricting the air force from providing help in anything beyond supply runs.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
They do know this helps the US and their allies figure out what tech they have and how to counter it right?
I don't know. That's up to what their military is told to wave their toys in public to say the PLA exists and has all this hardware.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top