What's new

India's conventional military superiority over Pakistan is exaggerated.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please stick to the subject of the thread..

@The SC


Any source India had the support of Commonwealth nations and Pak didn't ?

Also do tell us what were the Russian equivalent arms which India had compared with what i mentioned above.


When Pak inducted F 16, India only had Point defense fighter Mig 21.

During Kargil war Pak had Arry locating Radar AN/TPQ 36 while India had nothing of that sort.

Kandu from Canada, jaguar from Britain and a whole lot more..
 
.
Please stick to the subject of the thread..



Kandu from Canada, jaguar from Britain and a whole lot more..

India had been approached as a possible customer for the Jaguar as early as 1968, but had declined, partly on the grounds that it was not yet clear if the French and British would themselves accept the aircraft into service. A decade later they would become the largest single export customer, with a $1 billion order for the aircraft in 1978, the Jaguar being chosen ahead of the Dassault Mirage F1 and the Saab Viggen after a long and difficult evaluation process. The order involved 40 Jaguars built in Europe at Warton, and 120 licence-built aircraft from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) under the local name Shamsher ("Sword of Justice").

As an interim measure, 18 Royal Air Force Jaguars were loaned to the Indian Air Force, with the first two loaned aircraft operational with Western Air Command on 27 July 1979. The second batch of aircraft for the Indian Air Force were 40 Jaguar Internationals built at Warton, the first aircraft being delivered in March 1981. Batch Three was the assembly of another 45 aircraft by HAL of kits shipped from the United Kingdom, the first kit being shipped to India in May 1981. In the following phases more aircraft would be built in India with less European content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar
 
Last edited:
.
India is useless before Pak defence and missile capabilities. Now :closed:
 
.
Exactly! The question is, how long will Pakistan be able to fight a war with a far, far smaller industrial base than India? 10 days? 15? And after that? You won't be able to last even a fortnight. Your limited assets like dams, power stations, ports, oil refineries etc are all in an area having no depth which will be taken out in the first few days of war. And I'm not talking of a nuclear war, which will never happen.
it may be smaller but not far far smaller, and what makes you think that these limited number of Indian industrial zones and main power grids would be safe from PAF and Pakistan's ballistic missiles force. :azn:
 
.
Special case .. I don't know if Indian troops were fighting in Eastern China or Western Afghanistan with no supply or not arriving when it is needed the most, what would have happened to them..

But Eastern China is a part of China and Western Afghanistan is a part of Afghanistan. East Pakistan was Pakistan and not just that it also had 56% of the population of Pakistan. PA was fighting a war in its own country and familiar territory which favoured the defending side. Apples and Oranges really.

Now coming to the topic and the article presented in the OP. I can debunk most of the "facts" presented in the article and to be honest, it looked like a very amateurish approach to a complex scenario. If mods can provide me with the required leeway, @waz @WAJsal @HRK .
 
.
India's conventional military superiority over Pakistan is exaggerated. Hence Pak needs TNW.
 
. . .
Most of the people in the forum already agree that Pak has much superior Military build compared to India ( also add me in with out a second thought) .... So it's concluded :sleep::closed:
 
.
What is it ? Some supernatural weapon ?

No, it was your first nuclear reactor.. and up to this day , you have benefited from exeptions..Canada and Australia are supplying India with Uranium as an exeption to world laws against proliferation!? Does this ring a bell for the help from the commonwealth countries up to now?
 
.
No, it was your first nuclear reactor.. and up to this day , you have benefited from exeptions..Canada and Australia are supplying India with Uranium as an exeption to world laws against proliferation!? Does this ring a bell for the help from the commonwealth countries up to now?

That was CIRUS.

So what's this thread about conventional war or Nuclear proliferation ?
 
. .
This is a strategic study based on well known facts, it states that neither India nor Pakistan can be the winner, they will come to a stand still and diplomacy will take over!!!

India will need at least a 2:1 ratio in every aspect of the armed forces to be able to think that it can overwhelm Pakistan.. but, for example, General Montgomery took that to 10:1 ratio to be able to overwhelm and defeat field Marshal Rommel and his special troops in the Lybian desert during WW2..And it only became possible after the overwhelming ratio of the Soviets and the US for an average ratio of more than 6:1 over German armed forces.. meaning that India has to have very strong allies willing to get involved in a war alongside it, otherwise it will always be a stand still, since Pakistan armed forces are always narrowing that gap and won't let india get that minimum ratio of 2:1, it is about numbers and science of warfare balance..
Pakistan also have missiles capable of reaching every part of India, so the real concern is about the second strike capabilities assured by the nuclear subs..
You are quoting the examples of world war 2,However the future war will be fought in different scale.
Job of army will be stalemate at the border,However strike package will be delivered by IAF Super Sukhoi MKI armed
with 3 Brahmos NG will target 5,000 strategic location of Pakistan.Thtas why India is Modernizing IAF and increasing squadron strength to 42 while buying 4++ Gen aircraft like Rafaels.
Indian Navy will move to complete blockade of Pakistan ports in Karachi and Gwadar.
This are just examples future war will be mostly fought in air and sea.You need air superiority to hold the war.
 
. .
Yeah you guys would know better considering your army came in 2001 and 2008 and did nothing except watch . :lol: .
In 2008 we didn't mobilize army. In 2001, we were aggressively persuaded by americans.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom