The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana wrote:
Looks like CPC did root cause analysis of the collapse of Soviet union and decided the Soviet Army was nationalist and after World War II had developed nationalistic thinking independent of the Communist Aprty. The Soviet army launched the coup and when it was opposed it got into a moral crisis as to how could it be opposed when it acted in national interest, and folded. That ended the Soviet Union.
So CPC has ensured since 1992 that PLA is subservient to the CPC and not the PRC.
This makes PRC and the head of state more like the Empire and Empire has its own flaw of folly.
Folly is acting against self-interest as defined by Barbara Tuchmann.
Most communists see the French revolution as their spiritual ancestor. Word “communism” is itself French in origin. Most Euro communists I met told me that the French revolution ended with the rise of Napoleon. Napoleon represented the military that was not controlled by the communist party. Napoleon caused all the gains made by the revolution to be lost. The lesson to be learnt in this case was that in future revolutions, the military had to be completely controlled by the party. Lenin, Stalin and Mao followed this completely. Winning was less important than keeping the military under party control. Napoleon gave victory many times, but this did not make the party victorious. The purges under Stalin prove that complete control of the army was needed for the party to survive the war. Remember the Soviet army may have been led by the generals, the control was always with the political commissars. The Chinese army has followed this system.
Gautam
g.sarkar wrote:
On second thoughts, who is this Shishir Gupta, of Hindustan Times. Who pays him? And who is this unnamed IAF officer that says that India has the equipment and ammo for 10 days only. It has to be a misinfo job. Why should the IAF tell such a thing even if it were to be true? So, lungi discarded, mandarin class cancelled, and mullah & barber appointment (for circumcision) cancelled. Back to SDRE normal life.
Gautam
He is the Executive Editor of HT, a fairly senior journalist and known to be partial to nationalist causes. So the access to an officer from IAF must have had official sanction. By the way he didn't say, the armed forces have ammunition only for 10 days. The reference to 10 days was for the period before international community intervenes. But the more serious lacuna in my opinion in the article is the absence of any reference to cyber warfare crippling productive capability before any formal military capability is unleashed. How would India react if a cyber attack that throws the power grid off-balance coupled with electronic traffic management system of Indian Railways being rendered ineffective before anything else? Does China have the capability to do something like that?
How networked and automated (aka smart) is our grid. Even masaland grid is slowly getting automated. So unless Chins are thinking about an emp bomb or something our grid is safe. There is always the danger of some terrorists blowing up a power station and causing temprory disruption, but it is not going to disrupt the whole grid. The same goes for railways. In fact, a lot of signaling and traffic control is done manually. So no die-hard istyle cyber attack is going to happen. Another myth that is created is that Chins are the best hackers in town. They may be the best to not have any ethical norms in using cyber technology for sure but that is not going to help them to do a 1962 redux in cyber warfare.
williams wrote:
How networked and automated (aka smart) is our grid. Even masaland grid is slowly getting automated. So unless Chins are thinking about an emp bomb or something our grid is safe. There is always the danger of some terrorists blowing up a power station and causing temprory disruption, but it is not going to disrupt the whole grid. The same goes for railways. In fact, a lot of signaling and traffic control is done manually. So no die-hard istyle cyber attack is going to happen. Another myth that is created is that Chins are the best hackers in town. They may be the best to not have any ethical norms in using cyber technology for sure but that is not going to help them to do a 1962 redux in cyber warfare.
All Indian grids are highly automated and really really smart. They also operate on a completely isolated network which is not connected to internet. In fact getting data out of these network for any kind of analysis or reporting is a highly asynchronous task. Our grid managers have the capability to manage a "Lets appreciate our COVID Warriors by putting on only Diya's - BY NDM" to Dhoni or Kohli on a century during the IPL and all the nonsense that goes on between those two end's of the spectrum and they do that with highly automated and secure platforms.
The missile was randomly chosen from the production stock and the entire launch activity was carried out by Strategic Force Command (SFC) of the Army and monitored by scientists of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as part of the training exercise, official sources said.
I think they will be upgrading some for tactical use by IA for anti runway ops.
Given the work ethics of our sarkari PSU's it may really be just a normal test to ensure that a randomly picked missile is really working. In any case - i doubt any chinese runways are in its range considering its launchpad will be atleast 50-100 Kms from the LAC
While the initial Chinese move was indeed a surprise, it was apparent after some thought that the Chinese plan must have started post Doklam to avenge the "loss of face" then, it being just ONE of the drivers of the current standoff however.
That China is preparing for a future conflict should not come as a surprise.
Where is the loss of face. They got what they wanted in Doklam. Once both sides disengaged - they came back in. Now they even have their Helipads in those areas.
And i guess India is okay with it since its Bhutanese Territory and we still have all heights there - can still keep an eye on the entire Chumbi valley from the entire eastern border of Sikkim
In Doklam, the Chinese did not want to stop in Bhutan, they were coming towards Sikkim, they were suprised that they were stopped at the Border and not allowed to construct in India.
ramana wrote:
Looks like CPC did root cause analysis of the collapse of Soviet union and decided the Soviet Army was nationalist and after World War II had developed nationalistic thinking independent of the Communist Aprty. The Soviet army launched the coup and when it was opposed it got into a moral crisis as to how could it be opposed when it acted in national interest, and folded. That ended the Soviet Union.
So CPC has ensured since 1992 that PLA is subservient to the CPC and not the PRC.
This makes PRC and the head of state more like the Empire and Empire has its own flaw of folly.
Folly is acting against self-interest as defined by Barbara Tuchmann.
Most communists see the French revolution as their spiritual ancestor. Word “communism” is itself French in origin. Most Euro communists I met told me that the French revolution ended with the rise of Napoleon. Napoleon represented the military that was not controlled by the communist party. Napoleon caused all the gains made by the revolution to be lost. The lesson to be learnt in this case was that in future revolutions, the military had to be completely controlled by the party. Lenin, Stalin and Mao followed this completely. Winning was less important than keeping the military under party control. Napoleon gave victory many times, but this did not make the party victorious. The purges under Stalin prove that complete control of the army was needed for the party to survive the war. Remember the Soviet army may have been led by the generals, the control was always with the political commissars. The Chinese army has followed this system.
Gautam
Same follows in Islam, where the political commissar is replaced by the Mullah.....
g.sarkar wrote:Just 10 days? After that we have Rezang La 1962 all over again? We have again to pay a political price for the Amreekhan help as in 1962?
You didn't understand the statement - I agree the wording was confusing. He meant that our assault will be very intense and the Chinese will not be in a good position. He hopes we can finish the job without other countries jumping in to press for ceasefire and talks. We have enough stockpile for well beyond 10 days.
If somebody knows - how is it that the Chinese are stopping us from patrolling beyond the Y-Junction (near Burtse). I can understand they have excellent surveillance in that area so they reach the Y Junction and stop our patrols from going further up the Raki Nala but can't Indian troops then take the southern route towards Jeevan Nala.
Something doesn't seem to be right in the information that's coming through. Assuming (from the info available and that its CORRECT) - that the Chinese haven't setup any permanent posts in that area on our side of the LAC - its impossible for them to be blocking both the Raki Nala & Jeevan Nala.
While the initial Chinese move was indeed a surprise, it was apparent after some thought that the Chinese plan must have started post Doklam to avenge the "loss of face" then, it being just ONE of the drivers of the current standoff however.
That China is preparing for a future conflict should not come as a surprise.
Where is the loss of face. They got what they wanted in Doklam. Once both sides disengaged - they came back in. Now they even have their Helipads in those areas.
And i guess India is okay with it since its Bhutanese Territory and we still have all heights there - can still keep an eye on the entire Chumbi valley from the entire eastern border of Sikkim
NO they did not ...
1. Go back to the period and read reports again what their objective was.
2. A video of General Anbu, hope I have the name right, and one other General with Nitin Gokhale discussing Doklam is must watch to understand what the current Chinese deployment on Doklam means. Not much.
Aditya_V wrote:In Doklam, the Chinese did not want to stop in Bhutan, they were coming towards Sikkim, they were suprised that they were stopped at the Border and not allowed to construct in India.
Their aim was Jampei (Hope I have the spelling right) ridge at least. They did NOT get to it then or now.
OTOH, the Chinese were always on the plateau through they have built up that area after Doklam incident.
Where is the loss of face. They got what they wanted in Doklam. Once both sides disengaged - they came back in. Now they even have their Helipads in those areas.
And i guess India is okay with it since its Bhutanese Territory and we still have all heights there - can still keep an eye on the entire Chumbi valley from the entire eastern border of Sikkim
NO they did not ...
1. Go back to the period and read reports again what their objective was.
2. A video of General Anbu, hope I have the name right, and one other General with Nitin Gokhale discussing Doklam is must watch to understand what the current Chinese deployment on Doklam means. Not much.
Their deployment in Doklam doesn't mean much the same way as their deployment on Finger 4 doesn't mean much tactically. But they got some land (and Bhutan lost it) and that always gives some depth - however shallow it is.
mihir.mehta wrote:If somebody knows - how is it that the Chinese are stopping us from patrolling beyond the Y-Junction (near Burtse). I can understand they have excellent surveillance in that area so they reach the Y Junction and stop our patrols from going further up the Raki Nala but can't Indian troops then take the southern route towards Jeevan Nala.
Something doesn't seem to be right in the information that's coming through. Assuming (from the info available and that its CORRECT) - that the Chinese haven't setup any permanent posts in that area on our side of the LAC - its impossible for them to be blocking both the Raki Nala & Jeevan Nala.
If someone can shed some light here......
The Chinese have surveillance and setup to intercept Indian patrol as soon as it crosses their version of LAC.
Micro analyze the *probable* route from Burtse to y-junction and Jeevan nala and follow up the analysis for about 5 km on other side and you will have the answer. It was also discussed a bile back on this thread with maps, co-ordinates.
1. Go back to the period and read reports again what their objective was.
2. A video of General Anbu, hope I have the name right, and one other General with Nitin Gokhale discussing Doklam is must watch to understand what the current Chinese deployment on Doklam means. Not much.
Their deployment in Doklam doesn't mean much the same way as their deployment on Finger 4 doesn't mean much tactically. But they got some land (and Bhutan lost it) and that always gives some depth - however shallow it is.
Its a NET GAIN.
And its the Jamperi Ridge.
They were ALREADY on the plateau right up to Indian Doka La post! On can check GE by going back in time.
They are still restricted behind this point. They have built up the area already under their control. Therefore, NO net gain of territory.
g.sarkar wrote:
Most communists see the French revolution as their spiritual ancestor. Word “communism” is itself French in origin. Most Euro communists I met told me that the French revolution ended with the rise of Napoleon. Napoleon represented the military that was not controlled by the communist party. Napoleon caused all the gains made by the revolution to be lost. The lesson to be learnt in this case was that in future revolutions, the military had to be completely controlled by the party. Lenin, Stalin and Mao followed this completely. Winning was less important than keeping the military under party control. Napoleon gave victory many times, but this did not make the party victorious. The purges under Stalin prove that complete control of the army was needed for the party to survive the war. Remember the Soviet army may have been led by the generals, the control was always with the political commissars. The Chinese army has followed this system.
Gautam
Same follows in Islam, where the political commissar is replaced by the Mullah.....
Islam is more powerful than Communism. Islam rewards its followers after death in behest. Communism does not believe in life after death, so it has to give rewards (material) to its followers in this life. The rewards are illusions of power, luxury, and sex.
Gautam
Where is the loss of face. They got what they wanted in Doklam. Once both sides disengaged - they came back in. Now they even have their Helipads in those areas.
And i guess India is okay with it since its Bhutanese Territory and we still have all heights there - can still keep an eye on the entire Chumbi valley from the entire eastern border of Sikkim
Not just this - some of the post makes me feel like we are Iraq of Gulfwar and China is the US... if war happens China will get their as* handed to them... our only issue is under estimating our capabilities and dont take initiative andin turn show complex. There is a saying in Tamil - "Saadhu miranda Kadu kollathu" meaning when an Elephant (i.e. calm person) runs amok everything in its path in the forest (Kadu) gets devastated...
mihir.mehta wrote:
Given the work ethics of our sarkari PSU's it may really be just a normal test to ensure that a randomly picked missile is really working. In any case - i doubt any chinese runways are in its range considering its launchpad will be atleast 50-100 Kms from the LAC
Could be normal test... though they can reduce the payload to circa 125kg or less which is enough for a runway denial mission and range increases. SFC is tri-services. GOI centralised C2 of these assets.
Cyber and communication failures would be of much more importance to chinese than Indians as xitler is looking to show off their new age capabilities. Most likely chinis run through this sort of wargames and simulations all day thinking of taking on adversaries that have heavy networking capabilities.
ramana wrote:
Please do so and can be posted in the 19th Congress thread also.
From Build People’s Armed Forces That Follow the Party’s Commands, Are Able to Win Battles and Have Fine Conduct * Xi's speech on March 11, 2013.
This one is from Reader Series on Important Speeches of Gen Sec Xi :
As is evident from these, Xi believes that Soviet collapsed in the way it did since the party did not "own" and "control" the military. It wasn't the case under Hu or Jintao. But under Xi there has been a concentrated effort to get PLA answer only and only to CCP.
Prem Kumar wrote:
Is Prithvi under the command of the SFC? If so, from a thinking/planning perspective, are we even looking at it as a conventional battlefield missile, under IA command?
I really hope we do, but whatever reports I've seen about Prithvi tests have always been done by SFC/DRDO. Happy to be corrected.
Most ballistic missiles have centralised C2 under SFC which is a tri-service organisation. SFC has increased vetting etc so they can make sure certain assets are only in trusted hands.
Brahmos is managed by arty folks in IA.
Last edited by shyamd on 24 Sep 2020 23:58, edited 1 time in total.
Re 2017 Doklam, the Chinese did end up gobbling up a huge chunk of the Bhutanese territory (IIRC around ~10Km visible from sat photos, upto 40km by some recent report), we can't really claim a success by solely by the limited objective of stopping them from getting to the ridge, while the PLA like an amoeba pushes ahead in areas of lesser resistance.
Linking LAC peace with good relations shows India still doesn’t get China
India’s threat to China is simple: show aggression at LAC and pay a cost in worsening ties. But the value of the threat, and hence its credibility, is questionable.
Value of the threat and credibility of the threat are two different things IMO.
Credibility of the threat is already quite strong--we killed a bunch of their soldiers, and hit them economically. There is overall upsurge in anti-China public opinion in India.
Is the threat valuable? Meaning, do the Chinese value good relations with India enough to change what they are doing? I would say no, or probably not. But GoI probably wants to not abandon even a small chance that the threat is valuable enough. The alternative is very costly for India, even if we don't extrapolate towards nuclear-level escalation. So, it. is wise to leave the door open for the small chance that Chinese will actually go for a reasonably stable and friendly-ish relationship.
abhik wrote:Re 2017 Doklam, the Chinese did end up gobbling up a huge chunk of the Bhutanese territory (IIRC around ~10Km visible from sat photos, upto 40km by some recent report), we can't really claim a success by solely by the limited objective of stopping them from getting to the ridge, while the PLA like an amoeba pushes ahead in areas of lesser resistance.
i thought this was debunked a while ago. why bringing this up again?
^^^
What exactly was debunked? The incursion along the Torsa river is there for everyone to see, the next step they will take is to build up on the ridge line on the east river which gives them a somewhat impeded view of the Siliguri corridor.
khatvaanga wrote:As is evident from these, Xi believes that Soviet collapsed in the way it did since the party did not "own" and "control" the military. It wasn't the case under Hu or Jintao. But under Xi there has been a concentrated effort to get PLA answer only and only to CCP.
Well then they must find the Indian military-politico relations really strange and incomprehensible. When the party in power also keeps changing constantly, and the military is answerable to the country, not to *any* party.
anupmisra wrote:
...Akin to the Wehrmacht which swore its allegiance to Der Fuehrer. Hitler, PLA swears its allegiance to Xitler, the grand Poohbah.
Looks like CPC did root cause nalysis of the collpase of Soviet union and decided the Soviet Army was nationalist and after World War II had developed nationalistic thinking independent of the Communist Aprty. The Soviet army launced the coup and when it was opposed it got into a moral crisis as to how could it be opposed when it acted in national interest, and folded. That ended the Soviet Union.
So CPC has ensured since 1992 that PLA is subservient to the CPC and not the PRC.
This makes PRC and the head of state more like the Empire and Empire has its own flaw of folly.
Folly is acting against self-interest as defined by Barbara Tuchmann.
If indeed the CPC did any such analysis, it is wrong. Stalin, among other things, stamped out nationalism within the Red Army making it subservient to CPSU interest - which in turn defined USSR interest to be the CPSU's interest. Can be argued Zhukov continued unharmed after 1945 because Red Army was for 1st time led by an epic-scale popular leader and was so armed it could confront even Stalin. Beria's ouster could happen because Krushchev suddenly found all the power he needed. CPSU went nationalistic after WWII, and Red Army followed suit. When a small faction of Red Army unseated Gorby, Red Army actually acted against national interest and in favour of CPSU interest
Xitler's fear of PLA is more of a baggage of historical Chinese autocracy.
Embedded piece that I haven't read myself. Relying on the quotes portion, it seems most of the Chinese intrusions in the Arunachal are in the fishtail area that India still controls. I did not know that India still controls the fishtail area partially or fully. I was under the impression that we had given up control on the map and on the ground.
Acc. to this report from a few months back, India has camps in fishtail areas of Arunachal for a long time even though are not shown as part of India in official Indian maps:
A large number of Chinese incursion reports in media, apparently happen in these areas.
Talking about Depsang Plains, one of the flashpoints in Ladakh, the sources said the issue there predates the current tensions between India and China. Without getting into a timeline, the sources said there are no Chinese soldiers camping at the Bottleneck, also known as Y-Junction.
“We go by foot beyond Bottleneck as vehicles cannot cross that area. The Chinese observe our movement and they have deployed two vehicles that come and block our path well before Patrol Point 10. But we have been reaching our patrolling points using other routes,” a source said.
“But since the tensions began, we have avoided pushing ahead so as not to create fresh escalation,” the source added, saying both sides have built up in depth areas.
- This is where I have a problem with our attitude. We're being too pusillanimous. Even after being back stabbed so many times - we're still concerned about offending the other side.
pankajs wrote:Embedded piece that I haven't read myself. Relying on the quotes portion, it seems most of the Chinese intrusions in the Arunachal are in the fishtail area that India still controls. I did not know that India still controls the fishtail area partially or fully. I was under the impression that we had given up control on the map and on the ground.
Acc. to this report from a few months back, India has camps in fishtail areas of Arunachal for a long time even though are not shown as part of India in official Indian maps:
A large number of Chinese incursion reports in media, apparently happen in these areas.
Can someone post coordinates of this place called FishTail?
Talking about Depsang Plains, one of the flashpoints in Ladakh, the sources said the issue there predates the current tensions between India and China. Without getting into a timeline, the sources said there are no Chinese soldiers camping at the Bottleneck, also known as Y-Junction.
“We go by foot beyond Bottleneck as vehicles cannot cross that area. The Chinese observe our movement and they have deployed two vehicles that come and block our path well before Patrol Point 10. But we have been reaching our patrolling points using other routes,” a source said.
“But since the tensions began, we have avoided pushing ahead so as not to create fresh escalation,” the source added, saying both sides have built up in depth areas.
- This is where I have a problem with our attitude. We're being too pusillanimous. Even after being back stabbed so many times - we're still concerned about offending the other side.
You have to trust that the military commanders know where to push and where to hold.
Any aggressive maneuver by the Indian side needs to have a specific tactical purpose towards a strategic goal.
The LAC should not turn into a free for all LOC where we lose men every week.
@VikramS - We trusted the army commanders and you see what we have. Commanders on the ground can make a lot of difference even without political backing. If Gen Sundarji had his way asking the army to vacate from Sumdorong Chu - we would have already lost Tawang by now.
The commander on the ground stood up asking for written orders to vacate(which obviously he never got) and we managed to save our territory. https://caravanmagazine.in/interview/ge ... mahon-line
As things stand right now - its already free for the Chinese at least - where ever they see an empty place - they come an occupy it. Are we going to wait for them to now establish permanent posts and then it'll becomes fait accompli.
We can only hope the commanders in Depsang have a clear idea of what is acceptable and what is not and the limits they'll go to to secure our interests. That Y-Junction is just 7 Kms from our only road access. The Chinese are not comfortable with the IA getting even a whim of their G219 and we're okay with them right upto our neck.
Lt. Gen. Kulkarni explains mountain warfare in some detail.
He points out a 9-12:1 ratio to dislodge a defender in the mountains. However, PGM from aircraft as was done in Kargil can make a significant difference. If the PLA somehow managed to gain air superiority in the region it would be very problematic to keep troops at those heights.
