China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Aug 2011 17:15

Can some one please tell me, where this 3:1 ratio in favor of PLA going to come from?

As we speak, between Sikkim in west to AP-Burma-China Trijunction in east, we have 9 Divisions dedicated for Indo-Tibet border. Over a period of next five years, we are likely to see addition of 2-4 new divisions and 1-2 Corps HQs. On top of that, if required, India can move in 3-4 divisions from west. So, please tell me, where are PLA 27-30 Divisions going to come from to achieve the famed 3:1 advantage? Is PLA going to pull in every formation from rest of China for Sino-India shooting match?

In the meanwhile, please read this (from Orbat.com):

Indian Army now world's largest The US DOD's annual report on Chinese military power 2011 gives the PLA's strength as 1.25-million with 17 infantry, 9 armor, 6 mechanized, 3 airborne, 2 amphibious, and 2 artillery divisions (39 total), plus separate brigades. For the first time this put's the PLA's manpower below India's. How much below? An odd thing about India is that no one is quite sure what the army's manpower actually is, but its likely headed north of 1.3-million. India has 36 infantry, mountain, and armored divisions, plus three artillery, plus five CI 'forces' that are the size of divisions (typically 12 large infantry battalions). Under raising are two divisions plus an artillery division, and authorized are one division plus an artillery division.

Pakistan 50 Airborne Division Readers have asked about this formation. Mandeep Singh Bajwa says this is a term being used as a HQ for Pakistan's SSG battalions committed to the counter-insurgency, and there is no airborne division. Moreover, while obviously the SSG are all parachute qualified, Pakistan has no parachute infantry infantry battalions. India has 12 SF and parachute infantry battalions, plus one raising, plus seven parachute qualified reconnaissance battalions for the Tibet border (with a long-range strike battalion raising). India has one parachute brigade HQ, 50th Para Brigade.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 28 Aug 2011 18:03

gakakkad wrote:@ Rajrang - The economic growth rate of the chinese has already slowed down . Last year India grew faster than China. Their is extreme inequality in the Chinese society. Far more than that of the Americans. The mango chinese does not live a good life. The inflation is at an all time high. There will be a lot of internal troubles. So a distraction is inevitable.

Indian food inflation is much less than that of the Chinese. And yet the Anna movement took place. People simply cannot tolerate food inflation.

So in the window period of 2015-2017 they have an oportunity to mess up with India.

This time around they ll get a bloody nose. If any misadventure is attempted , they ll probably disintegrate. Because the inflation would increase greatly. Also paki terrorist may go uncontrollable in Uighur land. Besides US will bring its navy in north vietnam sea . They may send re-enforcements to Taiwan. And the war would open on all fronts.

Having said that , I wish NREGA funds are diverted to defence..There may be some mole in the Indian parliament.. Who raised the issue of defence budget in the chinese border to be too much ? was it a trinamool MP?

Most of your reply is purely wishful thinking. I had the same opinion a couple of years back, when I came to know that there was some armed rebellion taking shape and got nailed down in no less than a year,I had to hold my horses down. AFAIK, Chinese internal security agencies are way efficient than their Indian counter parts. And the spin-off of that is nailing down any uprising at the beginning.

We cant keep our internal minds happy by wishing a breakup of chinks.Instead we have to nail them down where they are good at.( alike starting skirmishes and giving bloody noses)We gotta need to be more aggressive and irritate them at the border and thereby spreading out their border forces on all areas.

We cant place out bets on the economy of either sides. Currently the world economy is sort of a roller coaster ride and Indian external economy is dependent on it.There is no need for channeling of extra funds either. If the projects can be implements and awarding of contracts can be done in a short time line, the usual funds available are much sufficient to shore up the defences. IF a freaken MRCA contract itself takes couple of decades, that one example explains every thing.
Its problem with the babus and red tape that holding armed forces back.
Corruption is spreading its wings in forces too, this better be controlled now or else we will get to see N number of traitors sold out to chinese and pakis giving away our military secrets.

We aint a communist, or dictatorship regime to divert developmental funds to military.This will cast a wrong idea in the public.Increase defence budget to 3% and streamline the projects,it will be more than efficient for all the offensive and defensive weapons. L&T supposed to be awarded the contract for LPD a while ago and keel laying should have been done by now.Now that got struck in limbo. For what?
For gods sake kick those old babus out of planning and developmental and managing works and put some break neck paced youngsters.....we will see everything being inducted before the deadline.

The advantage 1 for chinese against Indians is controllability of new inductions in stipulated time.Advantage 2 is their aggressiveness and our lameness.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 28 Aug 2011 18:29

^^^ Your opinion is too cynical. As far as economy is concerned , I do agree that we cannot predict. But Chinese inflation is sky high. 50% of their growth is investment based. They have been doing keynesian stuff . Cannot last forever. Similar to soviet union.

I never mentioned any armed rebellion.. Their will be uprisings , but they ll be crushed brutally.

Dictatorial regimes need diversions. Attacking another country is one of them.

I am sure the next 5 years will be interesting to say the least.

The Indian gov't is lousy . But army does not need direct instructions. It ll do its job. This is not 1962. Besides most of chinese stuff is tin cans. I never said we should be complacent . I said that any aggression from their side will be foolishness

Minor border level skirmishes are frequent.. Everything does not get reported to the press.

Regarding mmrca contract , it ll get signed soon enough. You don't need to worry about that.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 28 Aug 2011 18:58

Philip wrote:There was another report recently,can't find it right now,where China is supposed to be able to quickly have in place no less than "30 divisions" against India in Tibet thanks to the Tibetan railway,etc.This the report says ,outnumbers the Indian Army "3 to 1".and is a grave cause for alarm.Added toi this is the fact that the Chinese have also deployed hundreds of tactical missiles against India from Tibet,etc.,indicates that in any crisis,it will be China that will strike first in massive missiles strikes to obliterate our key military bases,ommand centres and military deployments prior to a massive invasion from all 3 compass points.

Should China invade/atttack India thus,we will have NO alternative but to destroy every Chinese warship and merchantman in the IOR and Indo-China Sea.The miserable follow up to the great PRC threat is a scandal and the nation needs an Anna Hazare movement ,perhaps by former military men,to get the rulers cracking on meeting he challenge through immediate action.

China's About To Outfit Its Subs With Controversial "First-Strike" Nuclear Warheads

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon ... z1WJfhl4D8

Here are news links about China's ability to move 30 divisions to the Indian border:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... s-5-df-31a

http://www.uasvision.com/2011/06/07/ind ... na-border/

The time frame is not mentioned. But, even assuming that it is one year, what will India do in one year to counter such a surge of Chinese forces to the Indian border? Start raising additional divisions? Moving forces from TSP front should be ruled out, one should assume a military pressure from TSP under these circumstances.

So far no news article has rubbished the above suggestion, except for posters in BR.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 28 Aug 2011 19:10

rohitvats wrote:Can some one please tell me, where this 3:1 ratio in favor of PLA going to come from?

As we speak, between Sikkim in west to AP-Burma-China Trijunction in east, we have 9 Divisions dedicated for Indo-Tibet border. Over a period of next five years, we are likely to see addition of 2-4 new divisions and 1-2 Corps HQs. On top of that, if required, India can move in 3-4 divisions from west. So, please tell me, where are PLA 27-30 Divisions going to come from to achieve the famed 3:1 advantage? Is PLA going to pull in every formation from rest of China for Sino-India shooting match?

In the meanwhile, please read this (from Orbat.com):

Indian Army now world's largest The US DOD's annual report on Chinese military power 2011 gives the PLA's strength as 1.25-million with 17 infantry, 9 armor, 6 mechanized, 3 airborne, 2 amphibious, and 2 artillery divisions (39 total), plus separate brigades. For the first time this put's the PLA's manpower below India's. How much below? An odd thing about India is that no one is quite sure what the army's manpower actually is, but its likely headed north of 1.3-million. India has 36 infantry, mountain, and armored divisions, plus three artillery, plus five CI 'forces' that are the size of divisions (typically 12 large infantry battalions). Under raising are two divisions plus an artillery division, and authorized are one division plus an artillery division.

Pakistan 50 Airborne Division Readers have asked about this formation. Mandeep Singh Bajwa says this is a term being used as a HQ for Pakistan's SSG battalions committed to the counter-insurgency, and there is no airborne division. Moreover, while obviously the SSG are all parachute qualified, Pakistan has no parachute infantry infantry battalions. India has 12 SF and parachute infantry battalions, plus one raising, plus seven parachute qualified reconnaissance battalions for the Tibet border (with a long-range strike battalion raising). India has one parachute brigade HQ, 50th Para Brigade.

In think the 3:1 ratio is based on the phrase "10 Indian mountain divisions" that everyone has got used to for nearly 40 years compared with press reports about 30 Chinese divisions that can be moved to India.

It seems that an overwhelming fraction of India's mountain divisions are in the East (Sikkim, Bhutan, AP, Burma-corner). Therefore, China cannot have a 3:1 ratio in the eastern sector. However, in Ladakh, Uttaranchal the ratio may be far more adverse, because relatively very few divisions are facing China. If India is preparing for a two-front war, then the forces facing TSP in J&K cannot be shifted to Ladakh to face PLA. I personally would vote for equivalent number of mountain divisions in the western sector also facing Chinese (in addition to the Mountain strike corps) - closer to 20 divisions total.

I cannot believe that the Chinese army is only 1.25 million. Something seems to be terribly wrong. I have seen references to 2.25 million for some time now. See wikipedia link below (2.285 million):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 28 Aug 2011 19:35

A beautiful article in case it has not been posted on BR previously

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... er/446854/

Reading the last paragraph, it is surprising that Britain did not have "dhoti shivers" about a Chinese invasion of India through Tibet - comparable to their shivers with respect to Rusian invasion through Afghanistan. If they did, then India would have had mountain forces in place to intervene on behalf of Tibet and probably we would have an independent Tibet today. Perhaps because China was a non-threatening entity until 1949? PLA invaded Tibet promptly after taking over China in 1949 before such shivers in Delhi could have resulted in the creation of Indian mountain forces that could have intervened in Tibet. They do not let grass grow under their feet.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Aug 2011 19:53

PLA already controls most of the area that China claims.

our reactive doctrine will not establish to reverse such controls. what is the proactive plan now to get these controls back?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Aug 2011 20:16

rajrang wrote:
Reading the last paragraph, it is surprising that Britain did not have "dhoti shivers" about a Chinese invasion of India through Tibet - comparable to their shivers with respect to Rusian invasion through Afghanistan.

For a short while I had become an expert on this subject. A BRFite who rarely posts nowadays gifted me with 2-3 books on the initial exploration of Tibet by non Tibetans and it's a couple of years since I read them (I still have them)

The first exploration by non Tibetans and the first non Tibetan to reach Lhasa and get out was an Indian working for the brits at a time when Britain used to worry about a possible Russian invasion via Tibet. I forget the man's name - but the man posed as a Buddhist monk and walked all the way to Tibet, recording his experiences as actually measuring the distance by counting his steps. He had earlier been trained to take steps of a very precise stride length and the counting was tracked by a fake Buddhist string of beads. If anyone had counted the beads they would have realised that it was fake - it was merely a step counter.

Among the things he found out was that the terrain and weather were extremely hostile and the only thing more hostile than the terrain and weather were the Tibetans themselves who brutally killed all intruders who failed to comply after initially warning them to turn back. After this guy there were a few others including a white lady doctor IIRC.

It turned out that the Russians had been turned back and would never come that way. (IIRC) Teh Chinese were constantly trying to get into Lhasa - but again were held back by the Tibetans. Tibet is not an easy country for any human. I think it is difficult to realise that for those who fly in, stay in a hotel and fly out. The Chinese know that well. And Tibetans do not have much love lost for the Chinese. Even in the last few years a person I know of a certain ethnicity to which Tibetans are sympathetic was sold stuff at vastly reduced rates when the Tibetan shopkeeper in Lhasa discovered his ethnicity. And the man expressed his hatred for the Han Chinese.

The Chicom government has of course been brutal - and to that extent they fear/distrust the vast mass of "Tibetan fifth columnists" living in India. This is where the importance of Aksai Chin comes in. The Tibet-Xinjiang road runs through Aksai Chin and that is why the Chinese wanted it in the first place. but I was reading recently that the Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin was a 1962 version of Kargil - the area was basically unoccupied by India - at least it was unoccupied by the Maharaja of Kashmir who acceded to India (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

The link between Xinjiang and Tibet would be one of the first things to cut in conflict. That may explain Chinese anxiety to have a presence in PoK. But teh Indian occupation of Siachen actually mad it more difficult for the Chinese and their Tarrest and deepest Gonorrhea riddled plostitute, the Islamic republic of Pakistan (the islamic brothers of the people of Uighuristan) to dominate the area. It is only Indian dhoti shivers that say that india is going to back out of Siachen. But then again dhoti shivering is an Indian speciality.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Aug 2011 20:54

The advantage 1 for chinese against Indians is controllability of new inductions in stipulated time.Advantage 2 is their aggressiveness and our lameness.

Awww...the one person whose posts always reveal super-duper secret advances being made by Desi agencies also has not much hope in this area... Sad and scary

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 28 Aug 2011 21:16

Rajrang,

I would request you to observe the difference between total military manpower under the PLA which consists of the PLGA ( ground forces), PLAAF, PLAN, the second artillery corps and just the PLGA. I am not including the reserves here.

that 2.25 million figure corresponds to the active strength of the PLA ( even this is actually an old figure) and not the PLGA. Moreover the PLGA has gone through several downsizings in the last two decades. I am too tired to get you the links at the moment, but it has happened.

when we say PLA we actually mean PLGA. And another thing. This year the Chinese have officially renamed their forces as the Chinese Army, Air force and Navy. So officially there is no PLA anymore.

of course they also have a PAP, reserves and militia which together number around 3 million and can be used for both security and defence purposes.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 28 Aug 2011 21:24

Rohit Vats,

You are never going to be able to convince people here that the 450,000 troops thingy is utter tripe. Bas ek baar 30 divisions sun liyaa to sun liyaa.

There's absolutely no point in doing a hardcore logistical analysis and paper deployment exercise to convince anybody. It is now purely a "I believe or I don't believe" issue.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Aug 2011 21:34

This year the Chinese have officially renamed their forces as the Chinese Army, Air force and Navy. So officially there is no PLA anymore.

So, the Chinese Army( not the erstwhile PLGA) is now lesser in number than the IA and so IA is largest?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 28 Aug 2011 21:41

o, the Chinese Army( not the erstwhile PLGA) is now lesser in number than the IA and so IA is largest?

I am actually willing to go with ORBAT.com's position on this. Especially with our new raisings by 2014ish the IA would certainly be larger.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Aug 2011 21:53

D Roy wrote:Rohit Vats,

You are never going to be able to convince people here that the 450,000 troops thingy is utter tripe. Bas ek baar 30 divisions sun liyaa to sun liyaa.
There's absolutely no point in doing a hardcore logistical analysis and paper deployment exercise to convince anybody. It is now purely a "I believe or I don't believe" issue.

I know.

But then, one hopes that people will read and learn and start using their faculties to question the urban legends and go beyond them to more serious analysis.

For example, the planned railway line from east to west will improve the lateral connectivity for Chinese and allow them move reserves to switch forces between sectors more easily. The way geography is in the NE (AP-Tibet border), most of the sectors are stand-alone with next to no lateral connectivity between sectors. The geographical situation is like a Japanese fan - with lines of communication running from a common point(s) in Brahmaputra Valley with practically no connection between adjacent sectors. This is where the Chinese are going to gain once their east-west connectivity in terms of rail line comes in. And what we should be debating.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 28 Aug 2011 22:00

shiv wrote:
rajrang wrote:
Reading the last paragraph, it is surprising that Britain did not have "dhoti shivers" about a Chinese invasion of India through Tibet - comparable to their shivers with respect to Rusian invasion through Afghanistan.
For a short while I had become an expert on this subject. A BRFite who rarely posts nowadays gifted me with 2-3 books on the initial exploration of Tibet by non Tibetans and it's a couple of years since I read them (I still have them)

Reading your posts I can see that your are an expert on many subjects.

Can you share the names of the above books? I have a couple of books on Afghanistan and a couple on the British Empire but the exposure to Tibet in these books is minimal.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 28 Aug 2011 22:02

And what we should be debating.

I agree. I see no option other than just increasing manpower all over the place. every sector must have its own reserves. Of course once the trans-arunachal road is in place things may get easier. Helos would also help.

And I wonder if the IAF's 12-15 HLH purchase will actually go up.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 28 Aug 2011 22:13

D Roy wrote:
o, the Chinese Army( not the erstwhile PLGA) is now lesser in number than the IA and so IA is largest?
I am actually willing to go with ORBAT.com's position on this. Especially with our new raisings by 2014ish the IA would certainly be larger.

According to wikipedia the airforce is around 330,000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s ... _Air_Force

Again the navy is around 250,000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_L ... _Army_Navy

So the three wings of the armed forces total 1.83 million assuming the army is 1.25 million. Then, about 450,000 men are "missing" compared to the total of 2.285 million:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army

Given the size of their navy and airforce, the above wikipedia figures seem reasonable. Then the army strength should be closer to 1.7 million.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Aug 2011 22:40

Here is a short analysis on present and planned Orbat for LAC:

a) Northern Sector - Ladakh and Himachal Pradesh - Tibet border

1. Ladakh - 3 Infantry Division+(I) Brigade for Siachen+ a brigade level troops comprising of Ladakh Scouts units.

Planned:(I) Infantry Brigade and (I) Armored Brigade.

Apart from this, 39 Mountain Division is considered as Northern Command Reserve and based in Himanchal Pradesh. Should be readily available for Sino-India border.

2. Sugar Sector - HP-Tibet border. This is a brigadier level commanded sector. Not much aware of troop level. Shipki La pass, on the old Hindustan-Tibet road, is in this sector.

b) Central Sector - Uttarakhand-Tibet border

The Barahoti pass in this region was the first Indian territory on which Chinese laid claim in 1954. High mountainous country and considered not conducive for any large scale military maneuvers. Lipulekh Pass, the access point for the Kailash-Mansarovar yatra, is also present here.

Presently has a (I) Mountain Brigade based in Joshimath. Apart from this, 6 Mountain Division, based in Bareilly, can be depoyed here in case of requirement.

Planned: (I) Infantry(Mountain?) Brigade.

c) Eastern Sector

1. Sikkim: 33 Corps - 17, 20 and 27 Mountain Divisions.

2. Western Arunachal Pradesh: IV Corps - 5, 21 and 71 Mountain Divisions. Of these, 71 MD is the new Division raised last year.

3. Central/Eastern Arunachal Pradesh: III Corps - 2, 56 and 57 Mountain Divisions. 56 MD was raised last year. Also, 2 MD was with IV Corps but was shifted under III Corps for rationalization of AOR between III Corps and IV Corps. By moving 2 MD under III Corps, eastern/central AP

Planned: New Corps HQ with 2 new divisions under Eastern Command HQ+Artillery Division.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Aug 2011 23:18

orbat's likely source is US DoD's annual publication on china's military and the 1.25 million figure occurs in a comparison between PRC and ROC forces in taiwan strait.
2011 version, page 82
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2011_CMPR_Final.pdf

PLA has seen major downsizing, copying US army reforms, they have converted entire divisions to combined armed brigades, almost halving in size in the process.
that said, the largest manpower cut was not a cut at all, in the 80's during deng era a substantial part of the PLA was simply transferred to the PAP, the people's armed police. the PLA also has a large reserve which is more active than ours AFAIK.

I would recommend other PLA watchers to track issues of the jamestown foundation, they are very informative and incisive.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 28 Aug 2011 23:41

Rahul,

That was the 4.2 to 3.2 million cut (late eighties). then in the late nineties and early 2000s there were more cuts which brought us to this 2.25 mil figure. (overall)

then there was supposed to be a 500k cut in PLGA which has been subsequently denied by their ministry. But analysts in hong kong etc believe that it is happening anyway. In the sense that the 1.65-1.7 figure is now more of a "sanctioned strength" kind of thing than actual strength.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Aug 2011 23:43

I came across another pdf called asian military balance which refers to IISS data that puts PLA GF at 1.6 million. I would take pentagon data over IISS data because pentagon has every reason to inflate PLA manpower.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 28 Aug 2011 23:46

Rahul,

The Pentagon report is also very clear

The PLA has about 1.25 million ground force personnel,

approximately 400,000 of whom are based in the three military regions (MRs) opposite Taiwan.

This is from the latest CMPR. So the Pentagon also believes in 1.25 million onlee.

This is on pages 4-5 of the report. ( page number 14 if you go by the pdf)

They said the same thing in the 2010 CMPR as well:

The PLA has about 1.25
million personnel in its ground forces, with
roughly 400,000 based in the three MRs
opposite Taiwan.

I'll say one thing though - having the larger army doesn't necessarily mean an advantage. The declining Chinese Army numbers are a clear indication of their increasing turn to hi-tech warfare wherein they need more 'qualified' people to operate new systems rather than merely grunts.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Aug 2011 00:53

rajrang wrote:Reading the last paragraph, it is surprising that Britain did not have "dhoti shivers" about a Chinese invasion of India through Tibet - comparable to their shivers with respect to Rusian invasion through Afghanistan.

The Qing dynasty in China collapsed in 1911 leaving China to mercy of warlords. In the previous centuries, Britain - using Indian troops - had defeated the Chinese in the Opium Wars and Boxer Rebellion.

The present animosity of the Chinese people towards India is because Indian troops enforced colonial rule in China. And because Opium grown in India was used to weaken Chinese people and colonialize them. Prince Dwarkanath Tagore (our national poet's grandfather) and the Parsi community prospered immensely on this account. The British Bank HSBC - Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation started out as a part of the Opium Trade.

shiv wrote:I forget the man's name

Nain Singh

shiv wrote:It turned out that the Russians had been turned back and would never come that way.

On the contrary the British were damm concerned about the Russians and sent the Francis Younghusband mission comprising Gurkha, Sikh and Pathan soldiers that machine gunned Tibetans into submission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younghusband_Expedition

Later, when Qing dynasty collapsed in 1911, the British drew the MacMahon line in 1913 to define the boundary. Because of the turbulent state of Chinese affairs, China was denied signatory rights claiming its a bilateral issue between Tibet and India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon_Line

Zhou Enlai offered to accept the McMahon Line in 1956[citation needed], but only in the context of border negotiations as equals, because simply accepting the British boundary would leave the stigma of the unequal treaty and hurt Chinese pride. But Nehru maintained his 1950 statement that he would not accept negotiations if China brought the boundary dispute up, hoping that "China would accept the fait accompli.

Curiously, Zhou-en-Lai did accept the McMahon Line as the boundary between China and Burma. Nehru's modeling himself in the British mould, not diplomatically resolving the Chinese perceived grievances listed above combined with his attempted emasculation of the defence forces, led to the debacle.

shiv wrote:But then again dhoti shivering is an Indian speciality.

No, Zorawar Singh and the Dogras defeated Chinese Qing armies in their expeditions, and brought Ladakh and Western Karakorams into the Indian fold.

Very frankly, building up our military capabilities - what Gen Sunderji did during Operation Falcon - and smart diplomacy can resolve the border issue. Just that we dont have statesmen who can rise to the occasion.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Aug 2011 02:12

1) One of my reasons to peg 2015-17 is Indian technology maturity. My gut feel (no solid reasons - so far) is that India will have the engine/radar technologies for the air crafts by then - in production. The kicker (again IMVHO) is that the PLA (tPLA) will have the technology too, but since they have not invested too much in R&D will face a road block when it comes to improving the technologies. India will not face that issue - again my read.

I feel that things like network-centric stuff will be fully integrated, the personnel trained in such matters, etc, etc, etc.

My feel is that by 2017ish India will be able to absorb and then retaliate on two fronts. ????? Comments?

2) The 3:1 ratio - IIRC - came from the US report. However, my recollection is that it was very specific - in one month tPLA will be able to amass 450,000 while India will have a third of that - thus the 3:1 ratio

3) The ability to move such large forces does not mean that the tPLA will use them

4) The ratio is important in another dimension: experience. I feel that the IA has far more experience, that will be put to very good use in the event of a conflict, than tPLA. The combination of #1 an #4 should change the 3:1 (do not know to what - yet)

5)

Just that we dont have statesmen who can rise to the occasion.

: ). Just a small quibble. Not to be mean - which occasion can they rise to? They need to wake up first.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 29 Aug 2011 03:41

tsarkar wrote:
rajrang wrote:Reading the last paragraph, it is surprising that Britain did not have "dhoti shivers" about a Chinese invasion of India through Tibet - comparable to their shivers with respect to Rusian invasion through Afghanistan.

shiv wrote:But then again dhoti shivering is an Indian speciality.
No, Zorawar Singh and the Dogras defeated Chinese Qing armies in their expeditions, and brought Ladakh and Western Karakorams into the Indian fold.

Also Mrs Gandhi's victory over TSP in 1971

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Aug 2011 06:07

rajrang wrote:
Can you share the names of the above books? I have a couple of books on Afghanistan and a couple on the British Empire but the exposure to Tibet in these books is minimal.

Will do - I need to dig them out of a copious collection (my entire family have become fundamentalist book jihadis) for which reason I have stopped buying books till I get through my current bunch.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 29 Aug 2011 15:52

I have a question. How would they manage to get thousands of soldiers acclimatized to the high altitude of tibet in as short time? I mean if you cant drop someone to 4500 m altitude suddenly and expect him to fight right away .

It takes time to adjust to atmospheric pressure changes and reduce partial pressure of o2. Consequences can be disastrous.

Is there anything know about lizards arrangements with this respect ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Aug 2011 16:12

gakakkad wrote:I have a question. How would they manage to get thousands of soldiers acclimatized to the high altitude of tibet in as short time? I mean if you cant drop someone to 4500 m altitude suddenly and expect him to fight right away .

It takes time to adjust to atmospheric pressure changes and reduce partial pressure of o2. Consequences can be disastrous.

There is a man in Kolkata called PC Sorcar, magician. Maybe they will contact him? People from Kolkata are close to China eh Rahulda?

More seriously I made some posts about this and what the Chinese are doing in the FAQ thread a while ago.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Aug 2011 16:21

I think the Chinese are way too smart to try and bring 450,000 men into Tibet. They will fight smart - with small numbers of men and plenty of machines. That is what we need to watch out for.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 29 Aug 2011 19:11

^^ the risk of high altitude Pulmonary edema and cerebral edema is real. Hyperbaric chambers and erythropeitin injections have been a way to possibly counter these. But if I was in their place I would send the men months before the intended aggression . And I would have to do so without the Indians knowing.

As far as machines are concerned that in itself is a challenging task . And perhaps give Indians some advantage. Has the high altitude performance of Chinese MBT been discussed ? I mean the fact that po2 is less so the compression ratio in the engine too has to reduce . no? That would reduce their efficiency. What kind of diesel engine does it have?

The Chinese would have to be real nuts to attack India after all this. But never the less interesting to discuss.

Besides why is US dhoti shivering on our behalf? Every known report has an American connection.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Aug 2011 20:45

^^^Thank you for asking some sane questions which should be obvious to people, yet, a single drop of leaf somewhere on LAC and you have people writing reams about PLA advantage.

That aside, I believe Chinese have lost the game in terms of one upmanship - at least militarily. They tried that in 1987 and IA showed them that 1987 was not 1962. What matters is how the political class behaves. For example, IMO, while PLA lacks resources for large scale (brigade level) surprise assault on IA positions, it may still try to overwhelm a small position (platoon/lesser) and create a pressure situation. While IA may well have all the resources to pay back in the same coin and some more, and assume offensive positions to deter any hanky-panky, it is the MEA and geniuses in GOI that I worry about.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Aug 2011 21:35

posting for the second time
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/20100710.aspx

The Chinese military is spending a lot of time, effort and money trying to solve this problem. Currently, most of the troops in the Chinese Chengdu Military Region are in the eastern, lowland half. In the western portion (Tibet), they station the 52nd and 53d Mountain Brigades, and struggle to keep these 5,000 troops fit for duty. If there's an emergency, as there was two years ago, the nearby 13th and 14th Group Armies can send troops from their lowland bases. Over 20 percent of these troops will be hampered by altitude sickness once they reach the highlands, and commanders are trained to deal with that.

Chinese troops operating at the highest altitudes (4,500 meters, on the Indian border) now have access to exercise rooms (one of 1,000 square meters and another of 3,000 square meters) that are supplied with an oxygen enriched atmosphere. Troops exercising in these rooms increase the oxygen in the blood, and are much less likely to get hit with a case of altitude sickness. Thus the troops can stay in shape without getting sick. For border patrols at high altitudes, troops usually carry oxygen bottles and breathing masks.

So far, the Chinese have only been able to limit the attrition from altitude sickness, not eliminate it.

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/chi ... round.html

2011-03-14 (China Military News cited from strategypage.com ) -- India believes that China now has five airfields in Tibet (Gongar, Pangta, Linchi, Hoping and Gar Gunsa) that are bases for military aircraft. India is also seeing more Chinese warplanes being based full time in Tibet. This was somewhat unexpected, and it's all about thin air.

It was less than a year ago that, for the first time, Chinese J-11 jet fighters were seen training over Tibet. J-11s are the most modern Chinese made fighters. More than 200 have been built since they were introduced in the late 1990s, they are appearing in more unexpected places (like the Chinese naval air force). For a long time, the Chinese Air Force had no combat aircraft stationed in Tibet, except for some older (MiG-21 clones) J-7s that were flown in regularly, for temporary duty at major commercial airports. Some of these J-7s now appear to be there permanently.

The main reason for not stationing fighter squadrons in Tibet probably has to do with the high altitude of the area, and the expense of moving the large quantities of fuel and other supplies needed to maintain air units. There is only one rail line into Tibet (recently built) and few heavy duty truck roads. In all of Tibet, there are only 58,000 kilometers of roads.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Aug 2011 21:44

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nsp/Featur ... %2Bnation/

CHINA'S border guards in the Tibet Autonomous Region brave altitude sickness, privation and loneliness on snowy peaks but they say their mission to protect the nation is glorious. Ma Shukun reports.

Twenty-year-old Lu Zhouyang gazes at snowy mountains several kilometers away along China's border, catching his breath after climbing 15 flights of stairs while carrying four hot water flasks.

"The snow-covered mountains are quite beautiful, and I never get tired of them," Lu says with a smile.

He says enjoying the beauty of the snowy mountain has been a happy and relaxing for him during his one-year tour of duty as a border guard at a watch house 4,900 meters above sea level in Takexun in the Tibet Autonomous Region in southwestern China.

Insufficient oxygen at such a high altitude makes climbing stairs exhausting, requiring frequent breaks, even for a young man.

His reverence for the mountains has a deeper meaning, since he sees the mountains as a reflection of Chinese border guards in Tibet - magnificent in stature and unrelenting in protecting the nation.

"We (frontier guards) are like the snowy mountains standing here, so the nation can enjoy peace," he said.

Every day he patrols several kilometers or stands guard at a sentry post.

Harsh conditions

He says pride and honor help him endure Tibet's harsh environment.

Tibet's average elevation is 4,500 meters, making it "the roof of the world."

For most people, the low oxygen level at high altitude is the biggest challenge since it can cause altitude sickness, including acute headaches, faster breathing and insomnia. Severe cases involve life-threatening buildup of fluid in the lungs and brain. Many areas are utterly inhospitable to humans.

At the Takexun watch house in southern Tibet, the air's oxygen content is only 40 percent of that in other inland provinces. The average annual temperature is around 4 degree Celsius, and temperatures plunge as low as minus 40. Strong winds are prevalent and the sunlight and UV radiation are intense.

"I had headaches and insomnia during my first two weeks," Lu says. He had worked hard to prepare himself mentally for the difficult adjustment. He signed up for military service in 2010 after quitting college. He had been a sophomore studying preschool education in Henan Province in central China.

"Now I am acclimated but strenuous exercise is not recommended and it is easy to get worn out," he says.

Every young man from lower elevations at first experiences adverse physical reactions to the high altitude, according to military officer Zheng Guangbin. He says low temperatures can also cause chilblains in the ears and hands as well as rheumatism.

Transporting daily necessities is difficult. Zhanniangshe watch house, for example, stands at over 4,600 meters on a peak, with slopes of up to 70 degrees on all sides.

All roads to the post are sealed from October to June because of snow, forcing soldiers to start carrying fresh vegetables for storage starting in August. They hike around 30 kilometers per trip. In the other months, troops regularly deliver vegetables by road.

For the seven soldiers at the watch house, lack of water is a bigger problem than lack of oxygen. They must use snow and rain for drinking, cooking and washing all year. Showers are luxuries, says Ma Guanjing, a 23-year-old guard from Henan.

"What I want most is take a nice, hot, hour-long bath," Ma says.

But physical challenges pale in comparison with loneliness and boredom. Sometimes soldiers regret their choice of assignment, but no one has backed out.

Loneliness

Like Lu, hundreds of young people who were born in the late 1980s or in the early 1990s chose to guard the border in Tibet rather than continue their education and work in cities. They represent more than half the total of border soldiers in Tibet.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 30 Aug 2011 08:01

Mahendra wrote:What is the rationale for the so called 2015 to 2017 window, just a few months ago it used to be 2011-2013 window

And a few years ago it was the post-Olympics(2008) window. It's just fanciful dreams of silly warmongers, people who don't know what they're wishing for.

On an aside, this board moves a bit too fast for me to reply consistently. I just had a brutal pulmonary system test in school, and I come back to this board and the thread has already moved a whole page!

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 30 Aug 2011 09:20

Varyag boosts aircraft carrier tourism

Wasn't our first AC was supposed to be turned into Tourist spot has well ??

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 30 Aug 2011 13:49

D Roy wrote:

Your central bank does not have any more room for another fiscal stimulus. Your "high" growth rate is completely dependent on Government spending. Inflation targetting isn't working and given that you are an "open economy" you can't really target the interest rate anyway.

This OT for the thread but please be careful when you make claims -
China's debt to GDP is much smaller than India. So Chinese central bank does have more room than India for any stimulus.

Chinese growth is also no more dependent on Govt spending than Indian (Govt spending as a % of GDP is lower for China).

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 30 Aug 2011 14:33

Don't ask me to be careful my friend.

You are not talking to one of your "subjects" on some chicom server. Get that straight into your effing head.

You are already overbuilt, there is tremendous excess capacity in infrastructure. throwing more money at it through deficit financing will not lead to revenue enhancing growth and/ or intensive growth. Your whole model like that of the FSU is centred around extensive growth which has limitations. And no it isn't about "the literacy rate" either. Its about organic innovation and efficient use of capital. Neither of which you do better than India. India's ICOR is much better than yours.
So understand something, it is not a question of the debt/ratio GDP , it is a question of room to maneuvre in terms of sterilization, because given overcapacity you are in no position to keep flooding the market with government bonds.

And cut this bullshit about your govt spending being less than India's as a percentage of GDP. A much bigger chunk of your economy is public sector owned, while ours isn't. so it's very easy to move heads into the dividend/loss accounts of these enterprises. Your system hides huge inefficiencies which you have so far masked by making a maglev here and an airport there.

Turn your mind back to the 1930s, the SU was building the biggest dams, roads ( Moscow actually has three ring roads, the M-Khad is the size of the river), but that was all extensive growth and wasted money in some public projects that probably won't break even in a hundred years. Just like some of your high speed lines.

In any case, the chicom drones are not finding life easy here. People would notice that they started manifesting themselves right around the Beijing Olympics and most of their posts center around "showpiece" display vis a vis India.

This is also around the time when the PLA started paying for a lot of candidates to study in British institutions. Which is actually a good thing, because the more Chicom drones spend time in good old Vilayat, the more warped their thinking will become along with the acquisition of a faux poshness that comes in the wake of a thirld worldwala spending time in dear old vilayat.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 30 Aug 2011 14:59

alexis wrote:
D Roy wrote: Your central bank does not have any more room for another fiscal stimulus. Your "high" growth rate is completely dependent on Government spending. Inflation targetting isn't working and given that you are an "open economy" you can't really target the interest rate anyway.
This OT for the thread but please be careful when you make claims -
China's debt to GDP is much smaller than India. So Chinese central bank does have more room than India for any stimulus.

Chinese growth is also no more dependent on Govt spending than Indian (Govt spending as a % of GDP is lower for China).

If one believes the chinese figures, then yes alexis you are right, China's debt to GDP ratio is smaller compared to India. India's debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the biggest in Asia if not the world. But you have discounted many things over here

1) The stimulus size which China will require, to get over the anticipated double-dip recession or demand destruction in the north-Atlantic countries, will be bigger than what India will require. The reason being, India's export-to-GDP ratio is smaller than China's. In other words India has a significant amount of GDP which is internally driven. This is not the case with China.

2) The NPA's which have accumulated in the chinese banking/financial institutions due to the last stimulus. They will have to be washed away first.

3) The last Chinese stimulus, was the largest in Asia and about second largest in the world after the US stimulus. The problem with last stimulus was that instead of kick starting a domestic industry or demand, it ended up being spent on fixed asset investment. Which frankly was a wastage of the stimulus. In hindsight it appears that Chinese just threw Stimulus money out of the window into the street. Rather than helping the industries retooling themselves, so that they could carter to domestic demand, the money was spent on houses which were bought just so that their prices could appreciate.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 30 Aug 2011 15:32

wow !! what a jhapad delivered by Roy saar.

I d like to add that the actual Chinese debt / GDP ratio may well be 150% or something of that sort. Their official figure of 18 % is bull. Even a beijing based agency puts it at 89% (dragonomics). Some analysts claim situation is even worse than portugal. Actual ratio may be extremely high since most of the Chinese companies are state owned. So their debt can be counted as Gov't debt as well.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ica-s.html

More than public debt , bigger problem is of non performing assets like bullet train , huge number of empty cities and the like. When you build stuff for prestige rather than utility thats what happens. And the problem is that they must keep investing to grow . ie keep creating non functioning assets to keep growing.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 30 Aug 2011 15:40

All roads to the post are sealed from October to June because of snow, forcing soldiers to start carrying fresh vegetables for storage starting in August. They hike around 30 kilometers per trip. In the other months, troops regularly deliver vegetables by road.

So even if the hypothetical attack from tibet needs to happen it can only happen between june to september end .
Besides the air fields / rail lines could have been built for giving their pandu's fresh pigs and vegetables when it snows.
We have been training soldiers in pressure chambers . But that does not mean that we ll attack someone through siachen.
But of course , as it with all China related matters I put a disclaimer that we must not remain complacent .