PLA deployment against India

tphuang · Mar 1, 2006

simonov said:
No I'm not kidding. I saw from different poin. Under the British Command The Indian officer fought in North Africa, Asia (burma n Malaya), and Europe. ts mean they officer who become the basic of India Armed Forces very rich in experience, bcoz they fight in 3 continent and they fought with Germany which have a brilliat General. I saw from point of this
Of Course PLA winning 3 war with Nasionalist, IJA and Allied in Korea. But the 2 of them is 50% (IJA and Nasionalist with bitterness in guerilla war)

No, PLA was still a small force compared to the Nationalists in the WWII, that's why it was not the mian force against the Japanese. Of course, PLA vs Nationalists was a 1 on 1 thing. The Korean war was again one on one vs the Americans. The North Korean army was pretty much defeated already by the time PVA entered Yalu. In all three wars, PLA started off as the far inferior side. That's how it pretty much mastered guerilla warfare and fighting in different types of terrains. From early 30s to early 50s, that's 20 years of continuous warfare. PLA had pretty much the most experienced troops by the end of the Korean war. You think that having British command means you would get the most trained troop? Basically, the real fighting that the British got themselves into was in Africa in 1942, western europe from 1944-45, Italy in 43 and 45 and south Asia in 44-45. There is no way the British troop even had as much experience as the Russians let alone PLA.

You failed to mention that General Montgomery was a great general in his own right. Maybe not as a good as Rommel, but he was basically the one that turned the tides of the war. And basically, Rommel was ruined by the insane commands of Hitler. Pretty much every great German general from WWII was hampered by the stupid commands of Hitler. So, attributing beating Rommel to the Indians is totally hogwash.

You should read up on what the Americans thought of PLA for the Korean war. Let's just say they were quite amazed. Considering how inferior PLA was compared to the Americans in Korean war in terms of weapons, it was amazing what PLA was able to do.

vincelee · Mar 1, 2006

can we please stop with the "human wave" shit? It's not human wave, but superior tactical planning and execution. Question is, if it were a shitload of people charging a defensive position, why the hell didn't US/UN notice it in Korean? Why didn't the Indians notice it during 1962? Of course it is a rhetorical question.

crazyinsane105 · Mar 1, 2006

About the Indians in mountain warfare, I am not dobuting they are not good, but during the whole Kargil episode with Pakistan the Indian Army made regular infantry (guys who never really trained or fought at high altitudes) climb up the hills and try to retake the positions captured by Pakistan. Now, as to why that happened there are two reasons:

1. India doesn't have any good mountain warfare troops
2. India did, but they were limited in number

Number one has been refuted so we have number two. India probably did have good mountain warfare troops, but the Kargil skirmish was quite large (dozens on peaks had been captured by Pakistan) so the Indian soldiers that were specially trained in mountain warfare were probably in short supply. Now one can argue that since Kargil India has decided to increase the number of mountain troops substantially, but Kargil took place decades after 62 yet India still wasn't completely prepared. How would Kargil be any different?

As for China, the Chinese have an extremely good advantage. The PLA holds the high ground against the Indians and PLA ELINT and radar units would be able to detect any Indian ground and air movement hundreds of miles away (similar to the situation of Golan heights: the Israeli ELINTs can detect all the movements of the Syrian army). Above that, several sources have pointed out that the PLA has made an extraordinary system of roads that can be used to attack the Indian border at any front, but the main purpose of the roads are for economical purposes. Also, I am not sure if the tactical Chinese aircraft bases by the Indian border have the mainatanence ready for China's more advanced aircraft (MKK, J-10, Su-27, etc.)

darth sidious · Mar 1, 2006

Indianfighter said:
I may daresay that the 1962 Sino-Indian war was probably the first war in modern times, in which the victors lost far more soldiers than the defeated side.

But China cannot repeat a 1962 today, because :

a] Indian armed forces have modernised significantly since then.

b] There cannot be forced mass-recruitment of young boys and men from rural areas and pushed into the war because China has also come a long way from Mao-style dictatorship.

china does not want to repeat 1962 right now it seeks to improve relation with India if you notice most of the chinese units are the weakest avilible mainly armed police

tphuang said:
No, PLA was still a small force compared to the Nationalists in the WWII, that's why it was not the mian force against the Japanese. Of course, PLA vs Nationalists was a 1 on 1 thing. The Korean war was again one on one vs the Americans. The North Korean army was pretty much defeated already by the time PVA entered Yalu. In all three wars, PLA started off as the far inferior side. That's how it pretty much mastered guerilla warfare and fighting in different types of terrains. From early 30s to early 50s, that's 20 years of continuous warfare. PLA had pretty much the most experienced troops by the end of the Korean war. You think that having British command means you would get the most trained troop? Basically, the real fighting that the British got themselves into was in Africa in 1942, western europe from 1944-45, Italy in 43 and 45 and south Asia in 44-45. There is no way the British troop even had as much experience as the Russians let alone PLA.
You failed to mention that General Montgomery was a great general in his own right. Maybe not as a good as Rommel, but he was basically the one that turned the tides of the war. And basically, Rommel was ruined by the insane commands of Hitler. Pretty much every great German general from WWII was hampered by the stupid commands of Hitler. So, attributing beating Rommel to the Indians is totally hogwash.
You should read up on what the Americans thought of PLA for the Korean war. Let's just say they were quite amazed. Considering how inferior PLA was compared to the Americans in Korean war in terms of weapons, it was amazing what PLA was able to do.

the british army is one ofthe weakest in WWII matbe slighty above the japanese

Rommel was defeated through lack of supplies if he had half the number of tanks the english had then Montgomery would have been kicked out long ago
funny some one mentioned Humen wave. in north africa it was the BRITISH that resorted to massive numders to defeat the germen panzers

JonMan · Mar 9, 2006

ArjunMk1 said:
Yes uts true , Chinese suffered more casualty than the Indians in 62 though Indian army was completely routed !!

Actually Chinese were using wave-style attacks , means charging posts with a large army which appeared as sea waves . In this situation the indian soldiers got time to empty their LMGs and Chinese had casualty, but they did win the battle and in a short time !!!

Actually Chinese were using their tactics of Korean war , charging with a lot of men, making sound with whistles , shouting , etc . But Indians were not Americans !!!!!

Chinese may have suffered more than Indian casualties, but both sides closer to the same number. Indian soldiers are not superior to Chinese, and you did not do your homework when researching tactics. I know an American high ranking officer who told me how the Korean war really went. Rarely attacks were in waves, but mostly Chinese used good tactics.

Chinese only lose about one and half soldiers per american army that includes tanks and vehicles, even though Chinese soldiers had almost no tank support. And the UN recognizes this count. They didn't even lose more than 2 men for each 'superior' american. They used flanking and attacking in the night, and very coordinated attacks. They still had to use grenades to destroy the tanks, but they did good. It was the same way they beat India. India didin't have good military leaders, and didn't know how to support outlying bases when both under attack, by coordinated forces.

PLA does not use wave style attacks as the normal. They know how ineffective it was even before sino-indian war and korean war. PLA does not fight like nationalist, like you think. You do not know the PLA. And many Indian generals gave bad excuses to losing. One report is that 600 chinese soldiers storm fort, but was really 60. It is a true story.

jatt · Mar 11, 2006

I agree. In this mountian warfare. Wave attacks wouldn't happen. It was I imagine something like Kargil. Dozens of men moving around. Of course the attackers need suprise. 1962 was a suprise. No one can argue that. The attacker always has to have numbers on their side. 1962 PLA deployed rather rapidly sinking into Indian territory. Gaurded by light Indian mountian infantry. PLA after realizing they had taught India a lesson to fast realized that they had walked too far in. If they did not step back the IA would deploy full force. India was getting international attention aswell. New weapons arrive for the IA. PLA's supply line is stretched thin obviously. PLA moves back while IA advances on what China sees as their territory. But PLA had to move back to their proper barrier to recieve supplys. IA didn't have this to worry about. The IAF would have sent enough biscuts and tea bags for 2 Chinese New Years.

And thats how I think it went down. How else do you explain PLA giving up what once China claimed to be their territory? It was a must.

tphuang · Mar 11, 2006

darth sidious said:
the british army is one ofthe weakest in WWII matbe slighty above the japanese

Rommel was defeated through lack of supplies if he had half the number of tanks the english had then Montgomery would have been kicked out long ago
funny some one mentioned Humen wave. in north africa it was the BRITISH that resorted to massive numders to defeat the germen panzers

The British army may not have been at the same level as the Germans or the Russians, but the one that was in Africa was still quite good after years of fighting against the Germans and Italians. Rommel was defeated through lack of supplies and lack of numbers in general, but that was because Hitler forced him to battle to the end in spite of his situation. As a result of that, the German losses were a lot worse than it should've been.

rommel · Mar 11, 2006

Hum...I'll have to say that most british tank wave was easily break with 88 Flak... There's a anecdote saying that Rommel, interrogating a british prisonner, told the prisonner, I admire your bravour to charge on my defence, but you attacked my defence with 3 armor brigade one after each others... And the British answered: But's it's unfair, you are using FLAK against us, which none of our tank can resist. Rommel just said, well, it's your fault... You are using tank that only our 88 can destroy (Matilda II).

In fact yes, Rommel lost his north africain campaign due to a lack of supply and renforcement also. He rarely receive the replacement tank for those he lost during battle and the RAF and the RN cut his supply pretty well... To give you idea, from 1942, most of his supply were captured british stock... Including his command truck which a british one....

Sorry, i'm drifting offtopic... i'm bad...

So to get back to mountain warfare.

I'll have to say that's we cannot take what happen in the past and apply it to our modern time. It's only up to the moral, the tactical brightness and the will of the soldier which can determine a fight now... Rommel, in 1916-1917, was in a Gebirjaeger Regiment (sorry about the spelling,it's a mountain regiment) He manage to capture an Italian of 1000 men with only his company (which was the machine-gun compagny).

Also, I think that most people have a fake idea of what could have happen, human wave and things like that... Read more book people, knowledge is the key to the world.

It's better to look dump and don't say anything than open you mouth and prove it.

Gollevainen · Mar 11, 2006

well I 'forgive' you of going bit offtopic..the Uk warmachine indeed earns a defending from such immature accusisations. Rommel (real life's) Lost his gampaing and I wouldnt call any army a weak that can achieve military victoryes....

But if we return to the topic (and do remember, going offtopic can be looked trough fingers, if the subject stays intresting and doesent attract negative side effects), The most important factor to determ wich army is wich, Is the commanding atmosphere and the innovativity of the officers.

-Moscow could have been invaded in 1941 if The generals would have been able to decide what to do, not the national leaders...the 2nd Armoured Group (Guderian) did manage to adventure lot and show remarkable manouvrability, but in what end?

-The whole invading nazi horde could have been defeated well before 1942 if the red army would have been enjoing same sort of athmosphere than....lets ay we did. That no generals have to fear of getting shot after ill-fated campaing and ifLower officer could have worked in liberal and innovative-supporting spirit, miracles could have happen...

To my knowlidge, PLA inherited much of its military culture from the red army, and from the political choices of its mother government, So i could just imagine in what kind of athmosphere there were back in 60's if you add the Cultural revolution to it. This kind of misschieves in the overl military life usually ends up, in the actual warfighting to massive (and useless and easily avoidaple) loss of lifes....lack of using the advantages that sudden situation changes afford...lack of capapility to exploid the quantative or qualitive advantage of own forces...And Sino-indian confrontations are good examples of this...supraisngly from both sides, But I wouldnt give the credit of Indians poor showing to british army. It would have ended far differently if there would have been british forces in place of Indian ones.

darth sidious · Mar 11, 2006

Gollevainen said:
well I 'forgive' you of going bit offtopic..the Uk warmachine indeed earns a defending from such immature accusisations. Rommel (real life's) Lost his gampaing and I wouldnt call any army a weak that can achieve military victoryes....

But if we return to the topic (and do remember, going offtopic can be looked trough fingers, if the subject stays intresting and doesent attract negative side effects), The most important factor to determ wich army is wich, Is the commanding atmosphere and the innovativity of the officers.

-Moscow could have been invaded in 1941 if The generals would have been able to decide what to do, not the national leaders...the 2nd Armoured Group (Guderian) did manage to adventure lot and show remarkable manouvrability, but in what end?

-The whole invading nazi horde could have been defeated well before 1942 if the red army would have been enjoing same sort of athmosphere than....lets ay we did. That no generals have to fear of getting shot after ill-fated campaing and ifLower officer could have worked in liberal and innovative-supporting spirit, miracles could have happen...

To my knowlidge, PLA inherited much of its military culture from the red army, and from the political choices of its mother government, So i could just imagine in what kind of athmosphere there were back in 60's if you add the Cultural revolution to it. This kind of misschieves in the overl military life usually ends up, in the actual warfighting to massive (and useless and easily avoidaple) loss of lifes....lack of using the advantages that sudden situation changes afford...lack of capapility to exploid the quantative or qualitive advantage of own forces...And Sino-indian confrontations are good examples of this...supraisngly from both sides, But I wouldnt give the credit of Indians poor showing to british army. It would have ended far differently if there would have been british forces in place of Indian ones.

my finnish friend your knowledge of the chinese army is a bit lacking

the pla in its early days has much more in common with the japanese army then the the red army relieing more on its solider then equipment, night infantry attack is also very similar

right before the long march moscow send some advisers to china they quickly took over the command of the red army and ordered it to enage in fronteal battle with the KMt the end result is the destruction of the suthern communsit base and suriveror were forced into the long march. for this reason the chinese did not adopt the soviet armys tatics en mass

also the chinese army in 1962 has superior equipment compared with the indians
Ak-47/CKC vs lee enfield
M-1938/D-30vs 25 pounder
RPG-2 vs well nothing same goes for flamethrowers
RPD is also superior to the BREN

also the british is not as invincible as you claim most of Rommel tanks are PanzerIII( old G/H not newer J or N) when he invaded egypt he had only 25 panzer IVf2. aginst this the british ahs thousand of grants / M-4 superior in quality and quanity to the PanzerIII. as for aircraft the english has an even better advantage.

their defeat to the japanese in 1942 in just pathetic jap army has no tank limited air support and some old cannons and outdated infantry weapons

PLA deployment against India

tphuang

Lieutenant General

vincelee

Junior Member

crazyinsane105

Junior Member

darth sidious

Banned Idiot

JonMan

New Member

jatt

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

rommel

Bow Seat

Gollevainen

Colonel

darth sidious

Banned Idiot