Lessons of 1962 War for a possible new Sino-India conflict

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 04 Jan 2006 00:27

satya wrote:Raj,

For thermal imagers, i can tell u they have been issued one for every platoon way back during Op. Prakaram on Rajasthan Front.



I am glad to hear it but I hope you are not confusing thermal imagers with image intensification binoculars!

One per platoon on general issue would imply an inventory of something like 25,000 including stores and issue to para military forces. I am really amazed if we have purchased that many. My personal estimate was in the region of ~1000 or less

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Jan 2006 12:37

I was reading about the US Light Rapid Reaction Force requirement and it states or suggests that the organisation is woefully lacking the desired capability!

When one looks at what is the "wish list", it appears that the Force is readying itself for the Star Wars!

So, it is all over the world. Insatiable desires and requirements.

But then if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride!

One does appreciate the issues discussed, but then there are so many factors that one has to juggle, it ends up in a via media. Nothing ever gets to be perfect.

But then that is how it is. The fortunate part is that the adversary too has the same problems!

Of course, it does not mean that one sits on the haunches and I agree on that or that one should just clam up. We must point out the deficiencies and then hope that they are addressed at least, if not met!

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 05 Jan 2006 13:16

RayC wrote:
So, it is all over the world. Insatiable desires and requirements.

But then if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride!

Of course, it does not mean that one sits on the haunches and I agree on that or that one should just clam up. We must point out the deficiencies and then hope that they are addressed at least, if not met!


:lol: :lol:

And Ray sahib being careful as usual :wink: :wink:

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Jan 2006 14:39

I was never careful ever in my life.

The course had a reunion in Delhi, 21 Dec I think. I wasn't there.

They all remembered me as the frank, forthright and blunt chap who gave his seniors a feeling of insecurity!

My comments were something similar to this (which is from a US think tank study);

SINCE THE END OF THE COLDWAR, the U.S Army has largely been operating in a “come as you are” format, responding to one major regional war and a series of crises around the world with equipment and doctrine optimized for that earlier Cold War era. In some sense, the momentum of the acquisition process is now resulting in a mismatch of capability with respect to emerging needs. Although one perception is that the Army now has more combat capability than it may need, which may result in inefficiencies, another perception is that the Army does not have the right kind of capability, which may result in an inability to operate effectively in future contingencies.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 05 Jan 2006 15:35

It was not meant to be a personal remark/insult and I hope you don' take it as such. I meant to say that you are "careful" in using words by saying things in a subtle understated manner (perhaps as it is open forum). This is not say that you cannnot go bear hunting with bare hands if required be! :wink: (Note-NGOs can be pretty dangerous)

Though I suppose we are drifting in the same direction that there has to be relook at "priorities".

I think massive upgrade of light infantry equipment is very very essential as most of the action IS taking place there and is also LIKELY to take place in that arena.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Jan 2006 18:00

Raj,

No I don't take it personal at all.

I knew that you were just ribbing. I just thought I should mention that I wish I were a bit more diplomatic in life! :shock:

The US quote is exactly what is the problem. You reach a level and then you think, hey, that is not good enough! :wink:

Happens all the time! :lol:

Sanju
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 01:00
Location: North of 49

Postby Sanju » 05 Jan 2006 19:54

Ray Saheb,

Didn't the Chinese get a bloody nose :) in 1967 in the Natu La area when Sam Bahadur was in charge of Western Command. Here is the quote from this link:
Link

He was officiating as army chief in 1967 when the Chinese had their first clash with the Indian Army since 1962. This occurred at the 14000 foot high pass, Natu La, in Sikkim where the Chinese learnt to their cost that the Indian Army of 1967 was a different kettle of fish from that of 1962. He was summoned to a meeting of the Cabinet where, as he recalled later, everyone present at the meeting was vying with the others to present to the prime minister his grasp of the situation and offering one suggestion after another as to what should be done. After hearing most of the speakers, the prime minister enquired whether the officiating army chief, until then a silent spectator, had something to say. "I am afraid they are enacting Hamlet without the Prince," he said. "I will now tell you exactly what has happened, and how I intend to deal with the situation." He then proceeded to do so.


I am not aware of what happened under Gen Sundarji. Any links would be great. Thanks in advance.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 05 Jan 2006 21:36

RE Ray

While US quote is relevant to the extent but they are now rapidly re-focusing at their infantry when it started doing heavy lifting in Iraq. In any case, two wrongs do not make a right. Further they can afford to make mistakes, as they are not sandwiched between China and Pakistan. The media also makes their equipment problem seem bigger then it is.


As I understand, that the thing we agree upon is that some improvement is required.

The thing (I assume) we seriously disagree upon is that I am calling for massive and serious upgrade of infantry (in preference-within reason) to other arms. We have change the thinking in the army brass as to how even a platoon will be asked to react to or tackle a situation.

On a larger canvas, the Army brass cannot ask the politicians to create the right Geo-political situation for them and remove the time and space constraints to mobilise, they have equip themselves to fight in a given situation.

This basically rules out corp level or even brigade level "initiative". They can only "react" at that level. The biggest “initiated” action I think will be fought at company level or even lower. Now in mountains, COIN etc this type of action is in any case the norm.

To take your example, we can conventionally attack an enemy post with artillery cover-illuminating flares etc and take it at the tip of the bayonet. Or we can side step, go behind it and set up our own flag.

The who is behind whom will depend on night fight capacity & Comms. Our post will find it difficult to get easy support of our artillery (if it is deep or in difficult terrain) and logistics will be tough.

To make each bullet count and to maintain limited re-supply without running into enemy we need good comms, optics and night sights. On China border or even say with some of our minor truant neighbors, various little games will have to be played to make it effective. But the given reality is that we still find it difficult to even do effective night time COIN, a lot of time.

As an analogy, it is easier for even USA to send a UAV to fire a missile in Pak. Can it send a manned aircraft with support and protection which means a package of 20 aircraft to loiter for hours inside Pak for a strike?

The modern theme would be to apply pin point strikes even at infantry level. Something like replacing suppressive fire with sniper fire (again within reason).

We have not adopted the concept of modern soldier in our mind and soul. Like we knew about LGB and UAV but did not adopt them with conviction. They were just fancy toys. Navy did not want to adopt Anti-ship missiles in sixties. Why did it take IA forty years to go in for AKs etc etc?

Will Army even consider seriously unmanned ground vehicles or small toy type robots to breach mine fields? (I am talking about just a basic remote control toy type machine)

The point is that lot of tools that are not very expensive and should be easily available for general issue are given in ad-hoc half hearted manner with dis-interested initiative.

You rightly ask what is SF or Para? I ask you what is it ? In a voluntary army like India with all soldiers having long service (training periods)?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Jan 2006 23:53

Raj Malhotra wrote:
While US quote is relevant to the extent but they are now rapidly re-focusing at their infantry when it started doing heavy lifting in Iraq. In any case, two wrongs do not make a right. Further they can afford to make mistakes, as they are not sandwiched between China and Pakistan. The media also makes their equipment problem seem bigger then it is.


The US strategy during the Cold War was single focus i.e. USSR. Today, they have changed to "multi focus" and the threat does not warrant a "heavy" because the armies they will face are not high tech. Therefore, they are midst a permutation and combination mode. It does not mean that just because the US sneezes, we must catch a cold. :)

We should tailor our coat as per our need.

Since you talk of the Infantry, indeed they are the force of decision and import.

Let me amplify lest I am misunderstood. Any area captured beyond the IB has to be eventually returned, but not so on, and across the LC. And we are basically fighting for Kashmir. Therefore, whatever is captured in Kashmir is material to our cause for which the wars are started by Pakistan. Thus, infantry is the arm of decision and import in my opinion, if indeed one is keen on making such distinction, though I think there is no need to do so.

Night fighting equipment etc are "force multipliers". They obviously help. However, they are not the "be all and end all" of warfighting.

I started my career with 57mm RCL for mountain - a heavy and cumbersome weapon. It was augmented with 3.5 Rocket Launcher. Upgraded to 84mm Carl Gustaf and better still is the Missiles! So it goes on. Some stuff has come in because of the Counter Insurgency operations and has been forced fit to be useful for normal operations for the conduct of war - at least that is what I think!

As far as tactics go, the echelons in the battalion know their job and any equipment that is given is fitted into the scheme of things. Tactics has not changed much, but some innovative drills and manoeuvres have come into being owing to peculiar requirements of the terrain and the enemy.

As I understand, that the issue we (you and I) agree upon is that some improvement is required.

On a larger canvas, the Army brass cannot ask the politicians to create the right Geo-political situation for them and remove the time and space constraints to mobilise, they have equip themselves to fight in a given situation.


I agree that the Army cannot demand that the govt create the right geopolitical situation. But then the Army does expect that dumb people are not their political bosses who do not understand that the geopolitical situation requires nurturing so as to make things easier for the country and the Army is but just another cog in the machinery!

This basically rules out corp level or even brigade level "initiative". They can only "react" at that level. The biggest “initiated” action I think will be fought at company level or even lower. Now in mountains, COIN etc this type of action is in any case the norm.

To take your example, we can conventionally attack an enemy post with artillery cover-illuminating flares etc and take it at the tip of the bayonet. Or we can side step, go behind it and set up our own flag.

The who is behind whom will depend on night fight capacity & Comms. Our post will find it difficult to get easy support of our artillery (if it is deep or in difficult terrain) and logistics will be tough.


I have not understood what you mean by "initiative". Initiative is the essence in all walks of life and in all echelons of the army.

Attack by Infilitration is a part of the teaching and has been practiced. It must be remembered that while infiltration can be done, the link up is paramount. If there is no link up, the force infiltrating is but isolated and the enemy will decimate it in detail. The conduct of war is very easy on paper with huge arrows streaking down impressively. But the conduct on ground is another kettle of fish. The mismatch of Corps exercises, sand model exercises, war games with the results of the various wars fought should indicate that daydreams on such formats are bogus posturing for impressing seniors because in war (as has been observed), the same fancyfoot characters come a cropper. That is one of the reason why you thought I was being 'careful'. It is not that I am "careful', it is just that I am pragmatic and English does not impress me since I have seen that on ground English is not much of a weapon of war that I was made to believe it was! ;) I like your words "take it on the tip of the bayonet". Ah, I wish it was so. Many dead bodies would also be strewn before the bayonet did penetrate the enemy! Therefore, while those words do rally me to greater heights, yet the next minute reality strikes and the beauty of your word vanishes. I would have also used such words before an attack, but then the men would be so charged up that they would not have had the time to reflect as I have been able to do in front of my computer in placid circumstances!

Compare the make belief that one sees on the forums of "scenarios" that are created and fought. If they were really feasible, the world would have been a different place! Take the US in Iraq. What they expected has not happened and they have all the wherewithal that any Army would love to have!

I have not understood as to why the force that has infiltrated cannot guide artillery fire. They can.

To make each bullet count and to maintain limited re-supply without running into enemy we need good comms, optics and night sights. On China border or even say with some of our minor truant neighbors, various little games will have to be played to make it effective. But the given reality is that we still find it difficult to even do effective night time COIN, a lot of time.


You seem to be obsessed with night vision devices. They help but they are not the end of the world! It never replaces the vision as by day that would make a person comfortable with the happenings taking place.

As an analogy, it is easier for even USA to send a UAV to fire a missile in Pak. Can it send a manned aircraft with support and protection which means a package of 20 aircraft to loiter for hours inside Pak for a strike?


Any reason why they cannot?

The modern theme would be to apply pin point strikes even at infantry level. Something like replacing suppressive fire with sniper fire (again within reason).


The US is thinking of TV guided ammunition in the next 30 years!

We have not adopted the concept of modern soldier in our mind and soul. Like we knew about LGB and UAV but did not adopt them with conviction. They were just fancy toys. Navy did not want to adopt Anti-ship missiles in sixties. Why did it take IA forty years to go in for AKs etc etc?


Good question. One day someone will also ask why we are not thinking of TV guided ammuntion. These are questions that cannot be answered since there are so many reasons for some equipment though thought of is not procured. UAV was thought of in the 70s in the India or maybe even before. The DRDO was at it. We are at many things too like the MBT. The rifle and allied systems too. It seems that for the DRDO domani never comes! Yet, let me tell you that I would be the first person to be proud of India developing its own stuff. The DRDO scientists are great chaps, but then they realise it is greater fun to be a bureaucrat. The same is applicable to the Army too!

Will Army even consider seriously unmanned ground vehicles or small toy type robots to breach mine fields? (I am talking about just a basic remote control toy type machine)


They should and I am sure the DRDO are at it and we should expect it in another 30 years.

The point is that lot of tools that are not very expensive and should be easily available for general issue are given in ad-hoc half hearted manner with dis-interested initiative.


I totally agree. The DRDO must be at much of the experiments that are required and well I do hope they materialise in my life time.

You rightly ask what is SF or Para? I ask you what is it ? In a voluntary army like India with all soldiers having long service (training periods)?


This was my question to you. Are they the same animal or is there a difference?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 06 Jan 2006 04:51

Ray Sir,

If the Army expects quality bread and butter items then they have to do what the Navy did -in a manner of speaking- bypass the OFB and go towards other PSUs and the private sector, which for all their warts are still much better run and managed. The DRDO can come up with prototypes, but prototypes without adequate support from the manufacturing side are a lost cause. In the case of defence electronics- where DRDO products have pulled it off- radars (BSFR, Indra variants, now the CAR), EW (Tu-142, Do228, Sea Harrier, MiG ESM suites, jammers for the IAF, Samyukta for the IA, Ellora for the IN), they had solid support from other PSUs like BEL, ECIL etc which are competently run and the private sector for subsystems. This linkage is lacking in the DRDO- OFB tieup. Latter have too many constraints and labour issues to be viable product R&D hubs.
License manufacturing at the OFB will not help beyond a limited point. They need a massive cleanup on the lines of the Augean stables.
I'd suggest that the Army make some future procurements single vendor at the expense of the OFB, in favour of L&T, et al. Cant be helped.

Just my two cents.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3514
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Postby KLNMurthy » 06 Jan 2006 09:12

Here is a non-military scenario by which India can "win" Maybe far-fetched, but not implausible to my mind:

Assuming that, as China grows economically, increasingly prosperous Chinese will find themselves dissatisfied with the enforced cultural sterility of the purely materialist communist culture. If India manages to grow sufficiently while keeping its culture and spiritual heritage alive, we could perhaps effect a cultural "reconquest" of central and East Asia. Can we imagine a scenario in which Chinese elite devoted to various Indian gurus and swamis will form an effective Chinese fifth-column that saps the Chinese will to dominate India, analogous to the way today's pro-Chinese Indian fifth-columnists have effectively undermined India's China strategy for nearly 60 years?

Of course, this assumes that our own fifth-columnist Mao-bhaktas would have been, over time, consigned to theri proper place in the trash-heap of history.

JYang

Postby JYang » 06 Jan 2006 09:30

KV Rao wrote:Here is a non-military scenario by which India can "win" Maybe far-fetched, but not implausible to my mind:

Assuming that, as China grows economically, increasingly prosperous Chinese will find themselves dissatisfied with the enforced cultural sterility of the purely materialist communist culture. If India manages to grow sufficiently while keeping its culture and spiritual heritage alive, we could perhaps effect a cultural "reconquest" of central and East Asia. Can we imagine a scenario in which Chinese elite devoted to various Indian gurus and swamis will form an effective Chinese fifth-column that saps the Chinese will to dominate India, analogous to the way today's pro-Chinese Indian fifth-columnists have effectively undermined India's China strategy for nearly 60 years?

Of course, this assumes that our own fifth-columnist Mao-bhaktas would have been, over time, consigned to theri proper place in the trash-heap of history.


Great, just what the world needs. Chinese hippies. :lol: :roll:

Imaginative, but I'd rate a once in a blue moon scenario. Not plausible at all.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3514
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Postby KLNMurthy » 06 Jan 2006 09:51

appuseth wrote:Anoop,
All I said was that if we gave the Americans airbases to operate from, then they may help us in establishing air superiority in case of war with China. It's in American interest to reduce the numbers in the Chinese air force.


US is definitely interested in containing China, but the jury is still out on what mix of encouragement/containment is embodied in their India policy. They tell us that they want us to balance Chinese power out of one side of their mouth, but then team up with China to keep India out the UNSC.

It is unclear whether US would be interested in tangling with China in particular theaters (like Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh) just because that might suit India. I for one haven't seen any evidence that these theaters are a priority for the US at present. Assuming I am right, it would mean that the US (no strategic slouches) would treat India's idea of cooperation in Bhutan /ArPr as a favor to India, and would extract a quid pro quo.

A more independent approach would be to recognize that the more China develops and grows the more their leadership and people have to lose, would be afraid to lose. The threat of a mix of privation, defunct communist idealism, and lack of political freedom has to be a major worry for the CCP. No amount of Sun Tzu will change that. As their enemy, it is our job to keep the threat alive, while paying minimum price for doing so.

We can create trouble for them with WTO, e.g., get on the western bandwagon about piracy, dump Pancha Sheela and sign up with the US in muttering about prison forced labor, etc.. Enough to make them issue some of those turgid hostile communist statements, but not enough to make them go to war. For more substantial attacks, we could buy off some of the Kashmiri terrorists, or some tame Hazaras to stir the pot with the Uighurs, all in a plausibly deniable way of course.

shaunak
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Pune, India
Contact:

The Navy, gentlemen, the Navy!

Postby shaunak » 06 Jan 2006 16:04

Naval power is one area where the Chinese have no superiority over us. And I think we should focus on improving our Naval power if we want to contain the Chinks. One look at the map of China makes it obvious that most of their important cities are located on or near the coast.

Besides, even if we wish to avoid having our fleet parked within range of the PLAAF, a bluewater navy will be able to strangle China's oil supplies and cut them down to size (or bring up MAD scenarios).

God may not have given us good neighbours or good natural resources, but damn it, we have one sexy location straddling a sea lane through which 90 % of all cargo passes. It's about time it became the Indian Ocean in fact, and not just in name.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 06 Jan 2006 16:40

China is rapidly building up a very powerful navy.It surprised the US with its new sub class,the Yuan or Super Song,depending upon which source you prefer.Apart from building its own classes of subs,it is buying another batch of improved 636 Kilos from Russia in addition to its current Kilo fleet.It is also building new nuclear boats with Russian help and has plans for carriers and is producing a large number of surface vessels with vast improvements over its previous frigates and destroyers.It also has a large number of SU-27s to support naval forces and is trying very hard to build up a navy that can stymie the USN.One also needs to mention the master plan in the IOR that China is putting into place and the strong ties thatiti has with our neighbours like Sri Lanka (where it is helping the SL govt. in many spheres and projects,both military and civilian,the latest being a giant coal fired power project close to Indian shores),the Maldives ,Burma,Bangladesh and Pak (Gwadar base).It si only a matter of time before chinese warships traverse the IOR as regularly as the USN or its allies.

Ramanujan

Postby Ramanujan » 07 Jan 2006 07:18

JYang wrote:
KV Rao wrote:Here is a non-military scenario by which India can "win" Maybe far-fetched, but not implausible to my mind:

Assuming that, as China grows economically, increasingly prosperous Chinese will find themselves dissatisfied with the enforced cultural sterility of the purely materialist communist culture. If India manages to grow sufficiently while keeping its culture and spiritual heritage alive, we could perhaps effect a cultural "reconquest" of central and East Asia. Can we imagine a scenario in which Chinese elite devoted to various Indian gurus and swamis will form an effective Chinese fifth-column that saps the Chinese will to dominate India, analogous to the way today's pro-Chinese Indian fifth-columnists have effectively undermined India's China strategy for nearly 60 years?

Of course, this assumes that our own fifth-columnist Mao-bhaktas would have been, over time, consigned to theri proper place in the trash-heap of history.


Great, just what the world needs. Chinese hippies. :lol: :roll:

Imaginative, but I'd rate a once in a blue moon scenario. Not plausible at all.


I have to say that KV Rao's scenario is a bit too far fetched. But what is not far fetched is the possibility that perhaps we can get a good chunk of Chinese population addicted to opium again...Indian opium did it once - why not again? :D
If that doesnt work, I think we can certainly get the Chinese to become obese based on their exploding affinity for McDonalds and Burger King amongst young affluent Chinese. (of course, Indians are not too far behind in that respect and Americans have been there, done that :D).

what say you, JYang? :P

btw JYang, talking about food, some really good chinese food can be sampled in Mumbai...you should try it out someday. Most of these restaurants were setup by the Chinese refugees that managed to escape before Mao's great leap forward (or backward - depending on your perspective). Of course these Chinese are "Indians" now and from what little I know, very good and loyal citizens. Perhaps some day, democracy and freedom will come to China and they will be able to go back to experience the land of their ancestors.

JYang

Postby JYang » 07 Jan 2006 18:57

Forget McDonalds and Burger King (I don't think BK even has a presence in China, or maybe only a very small one). It's all about the Kentucky Fried Chicken, the most popular fast food business in China. As for opium, I'm not even sure if India grows enough poppies. There is already a burdgeoning heroin problem in southern China due to the proximity of the golden triangle. Unfortunately mass opium addiction of the 19th century is not going to happen again, not unless India gets some much bigger gunships :P

Actually, most of the Chinese presently in India are not communist refugees. Their families have been there much longer, since the time of the British raj. As I understand it, the total population of Chinese in India, never that great to begin with, saw an expansion after the communist takeover, but followed a steep decline as they headed for ever greener pasteurs. The only ones left are the ones who's families have generational roots. Most of India's Chinese have already either gone back to China or use India as a jumping point to emigration to Canada, UK, US, etc. As for them being good loyal citizens, it didn't stop the GOI from treating them like second class citizens after the 62' war. :x

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 07 Jan 2006 23:06

As for them being good loyal citizens, it didn't stop the GOI from treating them like second class citizens after the 62' war.


Making up lies is what Chicom (and drones like JYang) is all about, which is why such statements are made without giving any sources.
Last edited by appuseth on 07 Jan 2006 23:24, edited 1 time in total.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 07 Jan 2006 23:22

It is unclear whether US would be interested in tangling with China in particular theaters (like Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh) just because that might suit India. I for one haven't seen any evidence that these theaters are a priority for the US at present. Assuming I am right, it would mean that the US (no strategic slouches) would treat India's idea of cooperation in Bhutan /ArPr as a favor to India, and would extract a quid pro quo.


KV Rao, the idea is to give the Americans airbases to operate from as compensation for helping stop the current Chinese invasion in the Indian NorthEast (and Bhutan). The US plays hard ball (especially with regard to the security council issue; mainly because they don't want another power that keeps vetoing their wars), but I think the US is always interested in putting their military in strategic locations. I could be wrong, but it's definitely worth a try.

JYang

Postby JYang » 08 Jan 2006 04:01

appuseth wrote:
As for them being good loyal citizens, it didn't stop the GOI from treating them like second class citizens after the 62' war.


Making up lies is what Chicom (and drones like JYang) is all about, which is why such statements are made without giving any sources.


Have you seen the BBC's recent broadcast, The Legend of Fat Mama? It's about the Chinese community in India, Calcutta specifically.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 08 Jan 2006 07:27

I haven't seen that broadcast, but I have seen the one on how Chinese soldiers slaughtered and imprisoned a million people in Tibet. I am sure that we cannot compete with that. :)

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 08 Jan 2006 19:55

JCage,

The Army also procures equipment from ECIL, BEL etc.

Rifles, artillery pieces, tanks cannot be procured by other than the OFB.

Ramanujan

Postby Ramanujan » 09 Jan 2006 02:58

JYang, I think every patriotic American should own some KFC stock since thats what we have to offer as a counter to the heaps of consumer goods from China. About the drug-addiction, gunships are necessary only if you want to churn out exorbitant profits - (not applicable here, we aim to please). India is one of the largest producers of poppy (and one of the few places where such farming is lega) - Trust me, India can manage the output if certain Chinese establishments take care of the marketing. The cutural memory for the sweet times should put the wind behind marketing efforts :) - In fact, theres a surprise for China waiting when the land routes to the Indian NE open up - cheap, high quality opioids subsidized by certain NGOs. Hint: dont be so hasty about a land route to the warm waters of Bay of Bengal.


Return to “Military History Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest