Actually I would rather have persistent satellite coverage, transport and attack helicopters, and back on topic for this thread... heavy air transports and C-130 type gunships.
nothing beats a tank on the ground.
Actually I would rather have persistent satellite coverage, transport and attack helicopters, and back on topic for this thread... heavy air transports and C-130 type gunships.
nothing beats a tank on the ground.
Maybe an A-10, while the C-130 makes an excellent gunship, I doubt that any of the large heavy lift aircraft will ever be armed, I actually hate to see the newer 130 gun-ships with wing mounted rockets, as it will likely make all 130s more vulnerable, and there is little cover for those big turbo-props singing their song, although I am sure the six blades are much quieter than the old four bladed props with supersonic tips. What airlift does is open up your options, you have the ability to move lots of troops and equipment and put them on the ground in a very short span of time, depending on the size of your fleet, even helicopter gunships, which may actually trump a tank, so, with all the cards on the table, you can play the hand you want, not something dictated by equipment that is somewhere else. brat
Maybe an A-10, while the C-130 makes an excellent gunship, I doubt that any of the large heavy lift aircraft will ever be armed, I actually hate to see the newer 130 gun-ships with wing mounted rockets, as it will likely make all 130s more vulnerable, and there is little cover for those big turbo-props singing their song, although I am sure the six blades are much quieter than the old four bladed props with supersonic tips. What airlift does is open up your options, you have the ability to move lots of troops and equipment and put them on the ground in a very short span of time, depending on the size of your fleet, even helicopter gunships, which may actually trump a tank, so, with all the cards on the table, you can play the hand you want, not something dictated by equipment that is somewhere else. brat
well india doesn;t have any of that do they.
One assumption is that the armor would have some sort of aircover or non of this discussion is valid.
In sparsely populated land with insecure lines of communication over hundreds or thousands of kilometers it might make sense to have some tanks for local defense of important places like airbases or mining operations but it doesn't make sense to try to occupy or defend the grazing for yaks. In Tibet some hypothetical attacker would see his tanks decimated by Second Artillery even if the weather would hinder attacks by PLAAF.Its not over the Himalayas.
The potential conflict could fight over terrain that is the foot hills of HImalayas. and although terrain is not exactly desert flat land or lush central europe it is not pure light infantry and artillery land either.
in '62 Where PLA was on offensive in Aksai Chin, I think it used armor units to support its tactical attack , although could be wrong.
Much of Aksai Chin is plateau land and any defensive or offensive fight would require mobile troops. Anywhere you can drive a truck you can use armor.
Also, During 08 Lhasa Riots some of those video show mobile army units called dressed in Woodland Flecktarn, i..e elite units, , Some of them were riding in Type 89 APCs. Xinjiang and Tibet MR's Mobile reserves are all mechanized...
Also, think about it. if a major crisis erupts over sparsely populated lands where your lines of communication are not secure from inserted commando units, wouldn't you rather have armor than trucks?
In sparsely populated land with insecure lines of communication over hundreds or thousands of kilometers it might make sense to have some tanks for local defense of important places like airbases or mining operations but it doesn't make sense to try to occupy or defend the grazing for yaks. In Tibet some hypothetical attacker would see his tanks decimated by Second Artillery even if the weather would hinder attacks by PLAAF.
Well... India have helicopter gunships - Mi 35.
Airlift capabilities isn't only about being able to transport troops and equipment from point A to B, but also be able to support logistically such troop deployment.
Currently, China is limited in her heavy lifting capabilities, and I don't really don't believe that heavy brigade are able to be moved supported that way. MBT, IFV and artillery required a lot of supply, spare parts and maintenance, so does the infantry and and other supports services (such as Engineer, Health and Medical branch, etc).
For comparison purpose, Task Force 1-13, which will be the high readiness battlegroup of the Canadian Forces from July 2013 to July 2014, is only made of 1 mechanized infantry battalion (LAV III), 1 squadron of Leopard 2 (18 tanks), 1 squadron of Coyote Recon Vehicle (20 Coyote), 2 artillery battery (12 guns) and 1 company of combat engineer as combat element. By adding all the support services (health, logistics, etc), the whole task force is around 2500 men and women. But for this TF to be deployed and supported, it will take us most of our transport fleet of 2 CC-150 (Airbus 310), 4 CC-177 Globemaster, 17 CC-130J Super Hercules and 13 CC-130E/H Hercules for the whole length of the deployment (our high readiness TF is designed to be debloyable and supportable by air). Considering what China has for airlifting capabilities, I don't believe that she can move and support more than 10 000 men...