What's new

If India & China go on war who will win?

Just check the map of china and see how far lhasa is from beijing. Maintaining a supply line for continuous war will become very hard for them. Thats the reason they backed off in 1962. They can use ballistic missiles but that will all out war and will cause a lot of damage to both sides.
This post made me laughed out. China has 5 intergrated theater command centres.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater_commands_of_the_People's_Liberation_Army

The Western Theater consist of the Tibet Region and is headquatered in Chengdu, which itself- is a major population, agricultural and industrial centre of China's Mid-west, mere hours away from Lhasa by air and just 47 hrs away by rail.

The metropolitan area is situated in the Chengdu plains, surrounded by mountains that forms a natural,protective geographical feature and is connected by gradual-rising hills to the Tibetan plateau in the west. This demonstrates the strategic depth China has in conducting military activity in and adjacent to her wild west.

Thus, why would the PLA, PLAAF and PLARF in the Tibet Region resort to depending on Beijing for supplies?

Lol@ your self-patting in the back.

Continue cheating yourself
 
Last edited:
.
Who says there will be war ? Idiots in PDF maybe

But situation is not good.I like your defense minister statement that India is no longer India of 62.good powerful statement but please use diplomatic channels and each country troops must back off. War will only destroy our region.
 
.
The one who keeps their combat plane flying high, with greater loads and for longer will maintain Air Dominance- Geography suits India here-

India will never have air superiority over China in this region regardless how you claim to have a sea level advantage for take off. Tibet itself is an AWAC platform, any Indian fighter jet take off and landing are under Chinese radar screen even any planes that land in New Delhi.
 
.
No need for ballistic missiles, even China's conventional rocket artillery has a range of over 400+ km. And conventional rocket artillery shells are extremely cheap and easy to mass produce.

It's India's misfortune that New Delhi is only 300 km from the border, and needless to say, basically every major target in North and Northeast India will also be in range.

Not a favorable situation for India, to say the least.

Due to very High Mountains and deep valleys, Conventional rocket and artillery would be not very effective- Chinese bunker sits on mountain shadows, hence India has been developing steep diving missiles to take them out- I sure China also realizes this- Our troops have got a good experience on this thanks to long artillery duels between India and Pakistan from 1996 to 2003 in a similar terrain-

In some places even flying a fighter jet is dangerous due to very seep curves in deep valleys-

Artillery units are not kept on Borders they are hidden behind ridges and mountains to prevent them from being sitting ducks, unless they are moving with Armor under full air superiority even then armor stays 20km ahead to clear any counter firing units, and Artillery units in that case is SPH which change position quickly, you clearly have no idea of warfare- :disagree:

India will never have air superiority over China in this region regardless how you claim to have a sea level advantage for take off. Tibet itself is an AWAC platform, any Indian fighter jet take off and landing are under Chinese radar screen even any planes that land in New Delhi.

Doesn't that make It a great target for missiles like Brahmos- India doesn't have to get air superiority over China, they just have to be at advantage in 150 km-
 
.
No need for ballistic missiles, even China's conventional rocket artillery has a range of over 400+ km. And conventional rocket artillery shells are extremely cheap and easy to mass produce.

It's India's misfortune that New Delhi is only 300 km from the border, and needless to say, basically every major target in North and Northeast India will also be in range.

Not a favorable situation for India, to say the least.
I dont think China will target New Delhi, bro. We just need to subdue them in the border.
 
.
We have a treaty and we got into the action as per the treaty. What is the outcome...I don't know. Will come to know gradually.

But you may have informal treaty with pakistan but history shows china not getting involved. Of course it may change with CPEC but this is irrelevant in this thread.

We don't involved because India has not cross our red line, and the relation still manageable, but with the Bhutan affaire, you can be sure that China support Pakistan over J&K is not theoric-ly impossible...and India will have no excuse to complain.
 
.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...risky-could-lead-to-war-bhutan-public-2490189

China's actions on border risky, could lead to war: Bhutan public

India is fully supported by Bhutan," Bhutanese local Chundu Singye told ANI.

Criticising China for constructing a road inside Bhutanese territory, residents here have stated that this action by Beijing could lead to war and cautioned the latter not to transgress Bhutan's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

"What China is doing on the border lines is very risky and it encourages war. India is just trying to warn them that China should respect Bhutan?s sovereignty. India is fully supported by Bhutan," Bhutanese local Chundu Singye told ANI.

Singye further stated, "Bhutan is a small country, but no one can invade our territory because the topography and geography is such, that invasion is nearly next to impossible."

Another Thimphu resident Tsheltrim Dorji said, ?I think China, India and Bhutan should come together and find a solution to the issue.?

?Indo-Bhutan share a really good relationship. Bhutan is small country, not proper way to acquire forcefully,? Choki Wangmo, another Bhutanese local said.

Echoing similar sentiments, one more Bhutanese local Namgay Dorji said, ?India and Bhutan are having good relationship since 1961. India is supporting our government in every aspect.?

Locals in Bhutan are severely critical about China proposing to construct the road inside Bhutanese territory, which they say is a direct violation of the agreements and affect the process of demarcating the boundary between the two countries.

Bhutan had last month issued a demarche to the Chinese envoy in India, asking Beijing to restore the status quo in the Doklam area where Chinese soldiers tried to unilaterally build a road towards their army camp in the Zomplri area.

China who refer to Doklam as Donglang was part of Chinese territory ?since ancient times and it doesn?t belong to Bhutan?.


 
. . .
Do you understand how costly It would be for China to sustain a campaign in Tibet- What are the problems associated with such altitude, climate and geography- forget about man, even machines under perform and fail regularly-

India has to sit on the ridges and make sure the standoff situation for 5-8 years with a minimum presence of 400-600 thousand Chinese troops near Indian border- China will fall, I am not even talking about Tibet. For China to win they have to cut across Silliguri corridor with Tank and Mechanized divisions and mount a Naval Marine landing of 200-300 thousand troops in Calcutta or Bangladesh-

There's a reason China withdrew in 1962 war even when they had already won the territory they are so ferociously claiming even today- Tawang and the region around that was captured by China, yet they withdrew- In 1986 when the Indian troops again crossed the line and took positions on Sumdorong Chu they choose peace and negotiation and Indian demand of keeping that zone demilitarized was accepted-

Interestingly Sumdorong Chu is on the eastern ridges opposite to Namka Chu which triggered the 1962 war when Indian troops occupied that position- Indians troops as of Today is in far better positions near Namka Chu and Sumdorong Chu, In the event of war these positions will fall quicker and they will be in a position of creating another valley of death in the Tawang region as they already have in Sikkim region WRT to Chumbi valley thanks to the higher positions at Nathu la, and Dokh la- Place where current stand off is going on-

I would advice you to open the Google map and see the regions and geography, Indians are at disadvantage in Daulat Beg oldie in Laddakh sector and Tawang, rest of the places our troops are in good positions- As of Infrastructure the roads are of the class of what you saw during Kargil war or better, you would remember Indian troops mobilization during that war and how fast It was done-

In 5-6 years there will be rail connectivity to both Tawang and Leh laddakh- Chinese rail is presently at Lahsa which is 200-300km from the Indian border- The closes Chinese airfield is also 200km from Indian border-



The one who keeps their combat plane flying high, with greater loads and for longer will maintain Air Dominance- Geography suits India here-

Yes I do understand, but you fail to take into account that a costly campaign in Tibet may be worth the gains to be made. China's going to fall because Indian troops remain on the ridges? The Chinese have far better infrastructure there and the ability sustain a prolonged presence. You're also bringing in the past, of course the Chinese withdrew due to the logistical limitations but they have moved on from that now.

For your reference again;

China’s improved infrastructure in the TAR and near the LAC has added immensely to its military capacity. China’s ability to rapidly deploy forces has increased “tremendously with the infrastructure built up over the last decade.” All-weather roads and rail infrastructure in addition to a number of airstrips that have come near the LAC give it an “edge in deploying forces.” With the improved infrastructure, China can now deploy up to 32 divisions (previously only 22), and, importantly do so year-round. Additionally, China’s creation of logistic and fuel depots near border regions suggest that China is attempting to improve its ability to not just rapidly deploy forces but also to sustain them for a significant period of time. [8] Clearly, China’s infrastructure development gives it a huge advantage over India at the LAC.

India’s capacity for an effective counter-deployment has been undermined by its torpid approach to improving its overland travel infrastructure near the LAC. Chinese border roads run almost up to the LAC or even cross the LAC into the Indian side; a road in the Siri Jap area in Ladakh runs 5 km into Indian territory, for instance (Times of India, May 26, 2013). Indian border roads, in contrast, stop well ahead of the LAC, sometimes even 50–70 km from the disputed border (Asian Age, July 21). [9]

Daulat Beg Oldie, India’s most significant outpost adjoining Aksai Chin, is yet to be linked by road. Tawang, an important bone of contention in the Sino-Indian border dispute, has just a single, narrow, pot-holed road linking the town to Bum La, the last border post on the Indian side of the McMahon Line. Conditions on the Tawang-Bum La Road are so poor that it takes three hours to cover the 30 km distance. Even trucks and other heavy vehicles cannot ply this road. While the condition of this road hasn’t improved since 1962, the Chinese have constructed a four-lane highway running within 4 km of the McMahon Line. It takes the Chinese a mere 45 minutes to reach the Bum La Post from Sonajung town, which lies 37 km from the McMahon Line on the Chinese side (Arunachal Times, June 6, 2012 and Outlook, October 22, 2012).

The absence of roads to the LAC means that supplies for outposts in forward positions have to be airlifted. This is the case with Daulat Beg Oldie, for instance, where supplies must be airlifted, leaving personnel and operations here extremely vulnerable to poor weather conditions and enemy action (India Strategic, September 2013). The absence of roads and rails would be felt especially in a time of crisis. India’s mobilization of forces to forward posts would be severely hampered as it will have to depend on aircraft to augment force levels. Importantly, the full potential of augmenting troop levels, raising strike corps and improving air strike and defense capabilities are likely to be tapped only if these are supported by robust road and rail links. In the latter’s absence, “the cruel Himalayan terrain reduces even the largest divisions to isolated groups of soldiers sitting on widely separated hilltops” (Business Standard, April 25, 2013). With a strong road and rail network, India could reduce force levels in the forward areas and station them instead at lower altitudes, with better weather conditions. It could rush troops to the borders when needed; trucks and trains would enable it to move large numbers of soldiers at short notice. This makes it imperative for India to focus its attention on improving overland links to the LAC.

The plans for strategic roads and railways could make a positive difference. Construction of the Tawang-Vijaynagar highway and the Guwahati-Tawang Road via Tashigang in Bhutan could reduce India’s current vulnerabilities along the McMahon Line. The latter, for instance, would not only reduce dependence on the current Tawang-Bum La route but also allow for bypassing the Se La pass that is prone to avalanches and landslides. It would also cut travel time between Guwahati and Tawang by six hours (Indian Express, October 16, 2014 and Arunachal Times, April 30). Besides, the Indian government plans to construct three strategic railway lines—the Missamari-Tawang railway line, Murkongselek-Pasighat-Tezu-Parasuramkund-Rupai line and the North Lakhimpur-Along-Silapathar line—in the Northeast. Of these, the Missamari-Tawang railway line would strengthen logistic support to the strategic Bum La post. Missamari is home to an infantry division, air force station, oil depots etc. Troops stationed at the base here could be transported in large numbers via train to Tawang within hours (Economic Times, May 10, 2015).

India is however addressing some of the shortcomings, but it's a case of playing catchup not taking the initiative, which lies with the Chinese and continues to grow.

I am talking of Real war ;not the PDF wars

We are ready for a Two front war

The Chinese will beat you alone, please don't talk about a two front war.
 
.
whoever is aggressor will lose, high Himalays are like trench warfare of WW1, if somebody is in open is a sure shot kill. Currently India deploys around 200k well equipped and well supplied men on Indo-Tibetan border, its a long border and in some areas its impossible for man or machine to operate due to terrain.

If no MAD option is utilized it will be to and fro with every aggressive move crushed. PLA has disadvantage here due to long supply lines from han heartlands PLA will find it increasing difficult to sustain long war.
 
.
We don't involved because India has not cross our red line, and the relation still manageable, but with the Bhutan affaire, you can be sure that China support Pakistan over J&K is not theoric-ly impossible...and India will have no excuse to complain.

Chinese support of pakistan was always there. It was always chinese decision to what extend.
 
.
Yes I do understand, but you fail to take into account that a costly campaign in Tibet may be worth the gains to be made. China's going to fall because Indian troops remain on the ridges? The Chinese have far better infrastructure there and the ability sustain a prolonged presence. You're also bringing in the past, of course the Chinese withdrew due to the logistical limitations but they have moved on from that now.

For your reference again;

China’s improved infrastructure in the TAR and near the LAC has added immensely to its military capacity. China’s ability to rapidly deploy forces has increased “tremendously with the infrastructure built up over the last decade.” All-weather roads and rail infrastructure in addition to a number of airstrips that have come near the LAC give it an “edge in deploying forces.” With the improved infrastructure, China can now deploy up to 32 divisions (previously only 22), and, importantly do so year-round. Additionally, China’s creation of logistic and fuel depots near border regions suggest that China is attempting to improve its ability to not just rapidly deploy forces but also to sustain them for a significant period of time. [8] Clearly, China’s infrastructure development gives it a huge advantage over India at the LAC.

India’s capacity for an effective counter-deployment has been undermined by its torpid approach to improving its overland travel infrastructure near the LAC. Chinese border roads run almost up to the LAC or even cross the LAC into the Indian side; a road in the Siri Jap area in Ladakh runs 5 km into Indian territory, for instance (Times of India, May 26, 2013). Indian border roads, in contrast, stop well ahead of the LAC, sometimes even 50–70 km from the disputed border (Asian Age, July 21). [9]

Daulat Beg Oldie, India’s most significant outpost adjoining Aksai Chin, is yet to be linked by road. Tawang, an important bone of contention in the Sino-Indian border dispute, has just a single, narrow, pot-holed road linking the town to Bum La, the last border post on the Indian side of the McMahon Line. Conditions on the Tawang-Bum La Road are so poor that it takes three hours to cover the 30 km distance. Even trucks and other heavy vehicles cannot ply this road. While the condition of this road hasn’t improved since 1962, the Chinese have constructed a four-lane highway running within 4 km of the McMahon Line. It takes the Chinese a mere 45 minutes to reach the Bum La Post from Sonajung town, which lies 37 km from the McMahon Line on the Chinese side (Arunachal Times, June 6, 2012 and Outlook, October 22, 2012).

The absence of roads to the LAC means that supplies for outposts in forward positions have to be airlifted. This is the case with Daulat Beg Oldie, for instance, where supplies must be airlifted, leaving personnel and operations here extremely vulnerable to poor weather conditions and enemy action (India Strategic, September 2013). The absence of roads and rails would be felt especially in a time of crisis. India’s mobilization of forces to forward posts would be severely hampered as it will have to depend on aircraft to augment force levels. Importantly, the full potential of augmenting troop levels, raising strike corps and improving air strike and defense capabilities are likely to be tapped only if these are supported by robust road and rail links. In the latter’s absence, “the cruel Himalayan terrain reduces even the largest divisions to isolated groups of soldiers sitting on widely separated hilltops” (Business Standard, April 25, 2013). With a strong road and rail network, India could reduce force levels in the forward areas and station them instead at lower altitudes, with better weather conditions. It could rush troops to the borders when needed; trucks and trains would enable it to move large numbers of soldiers at short notice. This makes it imperative for India to focus its attention on improving overland links to the LAC.

The plans for strategic roads and railways could make a positive difference. Construction of the Tawang-Vijaynagar highway and the Guwahati-Tawang Road via Tashigang in Bhutan could reduce India’s current vulnerabilities along the McMahon Line. The latter, for instance, would not only reduce dependence on the current Tawang-Bum La route but also allow for bypassing the Se La pass that is prone to avalanches and landslides. It would also cut travel time between Guwahati and Tawang by six hours (Indian Express, October 16, 2014 and Arunachal Times, April 30). Besides, the Indian government plans to construct three strategic railway lines—the Missamari-Tawang railway line, Murkongselek-Pasighat-Tezu-Parasuramkund-Rupai line and the North Lakhimpur-Along-Silapathar line—in the Northeast. Of these, the Missamari-Tawang railway line would strengthen logistic support to the strategic Bum La post. Missamari is home to an infantry division, air force station, oil depots etc. Troops stationed at the base here could be transported in large numbers via train to Tawang within hours (Economic Times, May 10, 2015).

India is however addressing some of the shortcomings, but it's a case of playing catchup not taking the initiative, which lies with the Chinese and continues to grow.



The Chinese will beat you alone, please don't talk about a two front war.

Again it is your opinion versus mine

What we believe is that Pakistan will definitely enter a war started by China

So a Two front war becomes inevitable

I dont understand why Pakistanis DISBELIEVE that India is serious about
a Two Front Scenario
 
.
Due to very High Mountains and deep valleys, Conventional rocket and artillery would be not very effective- Chinese bunker sits on mountain shadows, hence India has been developing steep diving missiles to take them out- I sure China also realizes this- Our troops have got a good experience on this thanks to long artillery duels between India and Pakistan from 1996 to 2003 in a similar terrain-

In some places even flying a fighter jet is dangerous due to very seep curves in deep valleys-

Artillery units are not kept on Borders they are hidden behind ridges and mountains to prevent them from being sitting ducks, unless they are moving with Armor under full air superiority even then armor stays 20km ahead to clear any counter firing units, and Artillery units in that case is SPH which change position quickly, you clearly have no idea of warfare- :disagree:

-

Not quiet sure about your statement but as long as Chinese cheap rockets can reach New Delhi, this will scare the hell out of Indian government if they acknowledge that these rocket are aimed on their decision center. And the only way to validate your statement to have some tests if there is any conflict :azn:
 
.
Again it is your opinion versus mine

What we believe is that Pakistan will definitely enter a war started by China

So a Two front war becomes inevitable

I dont understand why Pakistanis DISBELIEVE that India is serious about
a Two Front Scenario

They disbelieve because it is ridiculous and you will be beaten badly. That's why people laugh at it.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom