Sino-India conflict

[President]

sino-india war, pictures from china perspective (no offense to indians). anyone up load these pictures into this thread plz. and translate the PLA's tactics.
http://jczs.sina.com.cn/bbs/p/2005/1102/07561925.html totally 4 pages

[adeptitus]

Google translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjczs.sina.com.cn%2Fbbs%2F p%2F2005%2F1102%2F07561925.html&langpair=zh-CN%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

[ArjunMk1]

Images from Indian side :

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1962War/Images/Artillery.jpg

[ArjunMk1]

The Indian forces were ill trained for mountanious warfare . They were ill clad and ill equipped . They carried WW2 vintage Enfield .303 single shot bolt action rifles. While Chinese carried Ak47 and SKS rifles !!! :(
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images2/0563.jpg

[ArjunMk1]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images2/0561.jpg

9mm Sterling SMGs were also used but were few in
numbers and were no match to AKs in range and punch !!!

[ArjunMk1]

Image courtesy : bharatrakshak.com .

Neither India nor China has released an official record of this border skirmish but much can be known from news papers and quotes from ex soldiers .
Its interesting to note that both India and China had similar no of casualities though PLA in those areas was much more stronger and had better logistics !!!

As far as I know , PLA fought like a 'people's army' !! They preffered 'wave style' attacks , which in turn caused many casualities .

[chinawhite]

@ Arjun

**-Neither India nor China has released an official record of this border skirmish but much can be known from news papers and quotes from ex soldiers . -**

China did release the number of casulties

**-Its interesting to note that both India and China had similar no of casualities though PLA in those areas was much more stronger and had better logistics !!!-**

A attacking force needs a 3:1 advantage to lauch a attack (the soviets use 6:1). china didn't have three times as much troops on the attack.

**-They carried WW2 vintage Enfield .303 single shot bolt action rifles. While Chinese carried Ak47 and SKS rifles !!!-**

The Enfield is a excellent weapon. better than the AK or SKS in that type of terrain.

The AK is inaccurate at the ranges the Enfield could fire at.

Dont let the age of the weapon fool you.

Regards,

Chinawhite

[President]

Neither India nor China has released an official record of this border skirmish.

i think both government selectively avoid and ignored this unhappy past record. i have to say that was the only conflict between india and china in thousands years neighbourhood history. i hope it wont happen any more in oncoming thousand years. let's enjoy our country construction and economy development in next thousand years.:)

[adeptitus]

Though older and of bolt-action design, the Lee Enfield rifles has twice the effective range to AK-47's.

The simple reason why the PRC won the skrimish is that, the PLA was prepared, and the Indian army wasn't. But they were ordered to go fight anyway. Kinda like Rumsfield telling the troops "you go to war with what you have". x_X


As far as I know , PLA fought like a 'people's army' !! They preffered 'wave style' attacks , which in turn caused many casualities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack
"There is also the myth that it was a tactic that was employed widely and successfully by the North Korean and Chinese armies during the Korean War, because to the UN troops, the enemy seemed to be everywhere. However, what the communist forces actually used is more aptly described as inflitration assault, since it is necessary to sneak past the enemy and complete the encirclement before heavy fighting begins."

[ArjunMk1]

The Enfield is a excellent weapon. better than the AK or SKS in that type of terrain.
The AK is inaccurate at the ranges the Enfield could fire at.

Indeed Enfield 303 is better than any modern assault rifle in terms of range and accuracy . But a single shot weapon is no match to an automatic weapon with in a few hundred metres !!! Its known that most infantry soldiers combat with in the range of 300 m , the longer distance shootings are done by Snipers and MMG crews !! So in close combat 303 had little chance against AKs !!!

A attacking force needs a 3:1 advantage to launch a attack (the soviets use 6:1). china didn't have three times as much troops on the attack.

Yes, but Indian troops were dispersed through out the northern border and there were no means of easy transport. You know that supply was air dropped to the Indian troops !!! :( (which was scarce and inaccurate).
China didn't attack the whole border but it chose several pockets for attacking . As they had better communiation system so they could move troops easily. So at the attacking points they easily massed the troops !!! According to Indians China had more than 1:10 adantage at the attacking points only in manpower. The advantage of artillery and mortar was even greater !!!! :(

As far as I know , PLA fought like a 'people's army' !! They preffered 'wave style' attacks , which in turn caused many casualities

By wave style Indians mean the tactic of attacking an enemy post with a large number of men after initial bombardment ( if you look it from a distange , you feel that a large wave of men is going to engulf you )!!! Its an old WW1 tactic. The soviets utilised it very effectively against the Germans .
Chinese used this against the Japanese and forces loyal to Chian Kaishek .


If you see the movie 'Enemy at gates' wou can see a cruel form of it !!
Two soldiers with just one rifle and a single clip !!! :eek:

[chinawhite]

@ arjun

**-Indeed Enfield 303 is better than any modern assault rifle in terms of range and accuracy . But a single shot weapon is no match to an automatic weapon with in a few hundred metres !!! Its known that most infantry soldiers combat with in the range of 300 m , the longer distance shootings are done by Snipers and MMG crews !! So in close combat 303 had little chance against AKs !!!
-**

It is true that in close combat the Enfield had the disadvantage but the terrian they were fighting on gave the soldiers sight of the enemy at a fair ditance.


End Note

This is my last post in this thread(i hope). i am quite well aware of the racial tensions between these on-line cultures so i wont go and respond in a never-ending slug-fest.

Hope both countries are properous in the future

Regards,

Chianwhite

[Gollevainen]

It is true that in close combat the Enfield had the disadvantage but the terrian they were fighting on gave the soldiers sight of the enemy at a fair ditance.

Well tough this is bit offtopic, but anywya...and this is not intended to anyone particulary, just a general tought

i've come agros these statements before, bolt-action riffle being more accurate than automatic rifles...and therefor more suitable to "these kind of terrains"... well ofcourse the rifle may be accurate, but is the guy using it? Shoot a person from even 300m using open sight is thing that propaply 1/100 of us could do. In my battery only one other guy besides me (and i've been doing sportshooting since i was 11) scored over 90 points from 100 in 150m...most of them didn't even get all the ten rounds to the target. talking to other guys in the brigade, their batteryes and companyes had pretty much similar results. If we would have go to the 300m range...none of us would have propaply hit the target...(150m target was pretty much same widht (the so called black area, from 7 onwards) as avrage person)

So automatic rifles pretty much beats boltaction rifles in every other aspects otherthan true sniperworks...

[Liberator]

Any pictures of the Chinese side? lol.

[Obcession]

"By wave style Indians mean the tactic of attacking an enemy post with a large number of men after initial bombardment ( if you look it from a distange , you feel that a large wave of men is going to engulf you )!!! Its an old WW1 tactic. The soviets utilised it very effectively against the Germans .
Chinese used this against the Japanese and forces loyal to Chian Kaishek .

If you see the movie 'Enemy at gates' wou can see a cruel form of it !!
Two soldiers with just one rifle and a single clip !!!"

What you see as the Soviets did to the Germans in WWII in open warfare during the later years is not "human wave" tactics. It is only assaulting the enemy with overwhelming numbers. Human wave tactics are more like Red Army at Stalingrad. And I can assure you Chinese don't do that. Instead, we "assault the enemy with overwhelming numbers". Human wave tactics is implying that the commander just simply throws thousands of men to their deaths, often ill equipped and ill trained, without giving consideration to casualty numbers. The Chinese never did that.

[chinawhite]

@Gollevainen

**-i've come agros these statements before, bolt-action riffle being more accurate than automatic rifles...and therefor more suitable to "these kind of terrains"...

So automatic rifles pretty much beats boltaction rifles in every other aspects otherthan true sniperworks...-**

Actually....

That figure of 200metres was for a Ak shooting only one round each time not on automatic mode. If that advantage is taken away and both rifles can only fire one round at a time.

The indian soldiers i presume were taught to fire with a En field , so i dont know why they would be any less than any other person.

PS: the figure of 300hundred metres for a AK is meant to be 200.


A assualt rifle is (like its name says) for assualt. I dont when the chinese fired their weapons but it was more of a bayonet fight first(?) Korean war and Vietnam 79 give you clues to how they fired them.

Regards,

Chinawhite

[Gollevainen]

well I doupt that chinese soldiers were trained to always seek close range bayonet struggle against its enemyes...

but what do you mean whit those numbers cuold you be more spesific??

[chinawhite]

Numbers?

You mean those accuracy figures?

Well thats what i got off a NRA forum.

Update

I found this at a Ak-47 site.

The basic Kalashnikov rifle, the AK47 and variants, is the other common true assault rifle. It uses a minimalistic 30 caliber cartridge (7.62x39) and is meant to be easy to manufacture and maintain. Actually hitting anything with one much past 100 yards is problematical.
http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php


The figures i posted before are cast in doubt now.:(

[Gollevainen]

well I wouldnt say so...at least the finnish AK is accurate enough for me at least (I always wished to be a sniper, but they didnt train snipers in artillery:( )....have you ever fired whit any rifle?? If you have, then you know what its like. A trained and experienced shooter have no proplems whit hitting targets over 150m whit Ak, at least they convinced us in the army...

[chinawhite]

The only thing i fired is a .22:mad:
And that was only at birds.

I couldn't fire to 200 metres but anyway im not a soldier.

If the army tells you that then they might want to consevre ammunition(it waste a lot of ammo taking post shots 200metres out)

Regards,

Chinawhite

[Gollevainen]

Well You dont need to be soldier to fire rifles...just seek out if there is any sportshooting activity in your hometown or if your relatives own hunting rifles...

but conserving ammunitions, my army denied the use of rabid fire in non-emercy situations.

[Yimmy]

I know Kalashnikovs are not of great accuracy, due to their poor tollerances, but I am surprised that people think they are unable to hit 200m targets?

A Western 5.56mm assault rifle is fully capable of hitting a torso size target out to 500m's with low power optics, and 400m's with iron sights. Anybody trained to shoot a rifle should be able to hit the 300m target the majority of the time.

[Lavi]

The differnce in recoil between a 5.56 and a 7.62 is huge, especially with older rifles. One of my friends currently in the Finnish army said that he wouldn't use automatic fire in case of a war, due to the massive recoil of his Kalashnikov-copy that is a few years old. He explained that when firing burst you hardly can manage to make all bullets hit the target, and that is one the firing range. Other of my firends currently in the ranks said the same.

Also, the 7.62s usually have worse ballistic profiles than the lighter 5.56s, but on the other hand the 7.62s packs a much heavier punch, as have been discussed earlier.

[Yimmy]

Hmmm, you have a few misconceptions.

7.62x39mm only has a very slight bit more recoil than 5.56x45mm, which is the higher pressure cartridge. Both rounds are also fairly accurate, although the Russian round has more of a ballistic arc due to its lower velocity.

Recoil only becomes more of a factor when you step up to full power rifle rounds.

[Lavi]

Well, I have never actually fired anything heavier than a .223, I only retell what my friend said. He argued that the heavy recoil also is to blame on the poor design of the stock of the rifle. I don't know exactly which rifle model the PLA used in that conflict, but I believe that it is close enough to older Finnish ones (bought fro China I believe) to be included here.

The Lee-Enfield doesn't even play in the same league as the AK-47, as Gollevainen explained, there is a reason for nearly all the armies having converted to automatic rifles instead of a sub-machine gun/bolt-action rifle mix as used in WWII.

[Ender Wiggin]

Stalin had in 1941 ordered mass wave attacks with anything that a commander had without making adequate preparations due to the desparation at the time, but in 1942 onwards Wave tactics became far less frequent.

Once equipment and munitions production finally kicked in and numbers switched to the Russians in all fields the tactics changed as things became more stable, attacks with large amounts of infantry, artilly and tanks was common but it wasn't done helter skelter, there was always strategy involved, except with alot more men and material used.

Try to research the "Russian School" of thought which used a combination of numbers, mobility, and the toughness of the average Russian to win in "shock attack" engagements. The Russian Civil war (the miliary side) is a better view of this.

The Chinese under Mao favored Mobile "People's War" doctrine, of "luring the enemy in deep", utilizing the peasant masses to form a "wave of humanity" to stop the enemy in which the red army could become "fish among water", and favored flexible tactics of attacking the enemy where they were weakest to weaken them in whole.

These tactics first used against the GMD in the Jiangsi Soviet Republic, then against the Japanese in WWII, and finally again against the GMD in the second Chinese Civil War.

I'm certain that they were used to drive the Americans back to the 38th parallel but I don't know much else after that.

[adeptitus]

I go to indoor shooting ranges once in a while to do a little plinking with friends. Since I've never served in military, I can only speak as an amateur shooter.

From experience, smaller caliber guns like the .22 Ruger pistol, in the hands of an amateur shooter, is more accurate than a larger caliber gun, like the .357 magnum revolver. I can empty a 10 round (22 cal) clip faster and with more accuracy from a Ruger. As an added bonus, the .22 ammo is also a hell lot cheaper (than bigger cal ammo) in boxes of 500 at local sports shops. =/

[chinawhite]

@ Lavi

**-The Lee-Enfield doesn't even play in the same league as the AK-47, as Gollevainen explained, there is a reason for nearly all the armies having converted to automatic rifles instead of a sub-machine gun/bolt-action rifle mix as used in WWII.-**

Assault rifles are like the name suggest. its for assaulting or attacking. Most modern army uses infantry in conjuction with tanks to launch a attack. This needs a large concentration or fire which a assault rifle is better than a bolt action(because of the higer rate of fire) and the sub machine gun(which is less accurate)

In the style of combat the indian and chinese forces used in the sino-indian war was in terrain which had a high visibility.

In ww1 where the bolt action rifles were useful in defense at the ranges they were fighting while in ww2 defense switched to offense (because of the tank) and a high amount of concentrated fire was needed.

Regards,

chinawhite

[Gollevainen]

Well whit assault rifles you have to also remember that thougth some older NATO rifles are listed as ones, their long .308 caliber makes them really a automatic rifles whit full rifle cartiges. That sort of weapons like FN FAL and H&K G-3 would be best type of weapon in high visipility-long distance mountain regions, as they somewhat compinates good (or bad depending on your stance and favours) qualities of the both

[jason_chiu888]

Image courtesy : bharatrakshak.com .

Neither India nor China has released an official record of this border skirmish but much can be known from news papers and quotes from ex soldiers .
Its interesting to note that both India and China had similar no of casualities though PLA in those areas was much more stronger and had better logistics !!!

As far as I know , PLA fought like a 'people's army' !! They preffered 'wave style' attacks , which in turn caused many casualities .

please read and enlighten yourself!

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm

[ArjunMk1]

please read and enlighten yourself!

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm

Link doesn't work !!! Any way u pls paste in in your next post ...

[crazyinsane105]

Quite odd. The link does work for me. And it is a very LONG source.:rofl: Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll be reading it in the weeks to come.

[chinawhite]

here is a kinda essay i wrote in another forum. Please just read and dont reply

Topic: Indian border

The whole indian claim rest on the McMahon Line. A line drawn up by the british themselves during their colonial time in india. This was suppose to have been signed at the Simla Conference.

The only reason the chinese attended the Simla Conference was because it was acknowledged that it had sovernity over tibet during the conference. The british presented china with a treaty to sign (McMahon Line included) and they refused. Later they secretly forced the tibetians to sign in exchange for their independece.

This breached the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, in which Britain was to "engage not to annex Tibetan territory," but also of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. which made a treaty that acknowledged chinese soverity over tibet

Their is no legallity with only tibetian representives signing without the chinese signing since they (the chinese) had sovernity over tibetian affairs. You might later say the chinese manchu empire was gone and tibet was soverign but it is not true according to the secession of states theory. Why did the british again approch china in 1919 to have another tripartite conference again?

Why did the british want to have a large boundary of land which was useless to them? Because of their greedy intentions to have a buffer at the chinese and tibetians expense. They tried to do the same in afganistan but the russians were there

No one during this time acknowledged tibet as a soverign country and NO country gave tibet diplomatic recognition. Only after the 1959 rebellion (with the help of india and the CIA) did the tibetians start telling the world that they were independent.

If they were so independent why did tibetian representatives go in 1947 to watch the drafting of a new constitution for the ROC?. If they weren't part of china why would they need to be there. Again they signed a treaty with china in 1951 which they had full knowledge of what they were signing why did they sign? Or why did the tibetians accept the gold jiang jieshi gave the dalai lama for being chosen to be the next dalai lama which all chinese empires had to do to, which the tibetians accept to acknowledge that they were under chinese rule. the cermony is called "sitting on the bed". That is a rough translatio of what it means

Now most if not all of you guys dont know what system the tibetians had before the chinese occupation. It was based on land owners and serfs which are slaves to the lamas. This system was roughly similar to pre-communist russia(Tsar) and againest every priciple communism is about. When the chinese tried land reform in the country the lamas rebelled againest chinese rule.

Why is western media saying that is was a general rebelion againest chinese rule? why would the slaves rebell againest a system which set them free. Claims that tibet was a peacful country. Not every was a monk. Who was making the food

Now with that written what is the basis of the indian claim which is legal?

The people on the other side of the border are mongolia type people. that means looks chinese/tibetian and are tradtional tibetian areas. Find any map before the drawing of the McMahon line and you will see that none of the areas india claims have been originally indian

Why do the indians think that the McMahon line is the boundary? Because they think that what the british said they were entitled to. The PRC doesn't reconize the Mahon line the ROC doesn't reconize the McMahon line only the indians do.

When china started to build a major road through askin chin it took the indians two years to realize what happened. This incident only shows how much the indians cared about the region .


Reagards,

chinawhite

[ArjunMk1]

The people on the other side of the border are mongolia type people. that means looks chinese/tibetian and are tradtional tibetian areas. Find any map before the drawing of the McMahon line and you will see that none of the areas india claims have been originally indian


Looking mongolina doesn't mean that they should be Chinese . Indian Gurkha , Mizo, Naga,Riang,Kuki,Tripuri, Manipuri people are mongoloids. Other people like Garhwalis, Ahoms and some other people have mongoloid features !!!

[chinawhite]

Didn't you read the bit after that?. Traditional tibetian areas. Those people trace their heritage to areas in tibet. And the most important one is that they have their family over the border.

You know why modern india incorperates mongoloid people? Because of british expansion north. Not because any of those peopel were traditionally indian.

Only after 1870 did these areas actually been draw into a indian map with the mc McMahon line.

Now you have any edvidence for the legality of the indian claim? or is it just that?

--------------------------------

This is my last post about this subject until you provide edvidence why india has any legal claim to askin chin or the North-East Frontier Agency (aka Arunachal Pradesh.) :)



Regards,

chinawhite

[Zhu Ge Liang]

what a coincidence just few days ago i saw some sino-indian wars film documentary and to my surprise that i found that most of the indian soldiers didn't have the courage to fight frontal wars with the chinese soldiers at all, they simply just fled to the surrounding forests ( happened near towns/garrisons units before Dawang/eastern sector) abandoning all their newly received war equipments fr the west, even fr israel ! someone will said that it's because of human wave tactics, no, actually it's because chinese commanders found some narrow passages in one side of the mountain ranges to reach positions behind enemy lines and attacked fr both sides also cutting their supply lines ! (what a surprise attack/tactic, the indian soldiers never expected them at all !!) :)
the film also described other war scenes, but i couldn't tell all of them here !
there are also a widespread chaos and confusions in new dehli when they heard chinese soldiers occupied last mountain defence town in the western sector ! (many chinese shops were burned & looted too !)

actually, i'm wondering why in the first place nehru's government wanted to provoke china with their aggressive policy by building many military posts beyond the mcmahon line ?
india at that time was a non-aligned country and suffered alot fr british colonialism, why should india follow the imperialism doctrine of their former ruler ? if nehru wanted to raise their national pride & dignity 'cause of the long british occupation, they should choose other smaller targets like pakistan or burma etc instead of china !

china and india are both 5000 years old civilizations who lived/co-existed peacefully since the ancient times (buddhism even came fr india to china) and i don't see why these two nations should fight each other now or in the future or to be used by western imperialism to be a counter-weight to each other to create regional instability!

[mach]

I reckon that Peace and stability between China and India won't last long.There still remains a lot of disputes about territory between them.Until
now India still have occupied parts of southern Tibet which originally belonged to China,and these problems will never be solved by negotiation.
There must be a war in future!

[vincelee]

why did Nehru do it? Because he was a moron. He thought India was bad-ass enough to fight against a country which more or less fought 3 of the five major powers of the WWII period. He believed that by aligning India with Russia, he could project the possibility of a two front war to China, but of course, as was mentioned before, he was a moron, and thus calculated wrongly.

and then India had to beg to every god damned country on Earth to provide arms and supply, looking like a piss dumb coward in the process, but of course it never realized that the war was already lost because the Indian Air Force was not deployed during the beginning days of the war.

In my not so damned humble opinion, half of the ministry of defense, a quarter of the ranking army staff, and Nehru (actually Nehru and his entire line), should be castrated and then shot because of blatant incompetence.

[crazyinsane105]

Actually, I read in Rueters that if the IAF had been deployed, it would have serioulsy hindered the advancement of the PLA, but by no doubt it would have turned into a full blown war. Nehru was smart not to deploy the IAF: if he would have done that, this conflict (or skirmish) would have been far more serious.

[PanAsian]

I completely agree with Zhu Ge Liang. Strategically China and India have a lot in common and both would only suffer severely if they went at each other especially with plenty of third parties who would pounce on the lesser loser in such a scenario.

Practically, the status quo is very bearable at least in situations where China and India deal directly with each other. Where the two spheres of influence overlap and compete indirectly on the turf of third parties would require much more active and delicate management. Areas such as Nepal, Burma... and ofcourse there is Pakistan. But that is where China is more of a side player.

[vincelee]

deploying the IAF in the tactical roles would not escalate the conflict. Indeed, the CCP made it very clear that the strike was punitive and LIMITED, which is one of the fundamental aspects of active defense. Only if the IAF was deployed in the strategic role, like bombing Lahsa, would there be strategic backlashes like the widening of the conflict area.

[patriot]

The Indian troops, due to Neheru's "forward marching" policy, went too far, many moved to the back of Chinese border post positions, even beyond the the border Indian claimed. Their officers knew that and reported to Indian DOP, but the high level rejected their withdraw request, out of the fear disobeying Neheru's command.

So when Chinese army attacked, there weren't much resistance from Indian troops at front. They easily wiped out Indian 7th brigade, which was the first stage.

And then Indian enforced the front with 4 new brigades, looking for revenge. Chinese army this time decided to launch a major offense, totally eliminating Indian threat at the border. The attack started on Nov 16, due to Indian 11st brigade provocation offense in the east.

Indian deployed their 4 brigades along the only mountain road, in the valley with the two sides as high as 16,000 feet, in this way they thought their flanks were pretty safe. But Chinese found in historic records there was a difficult pass called Bailey Trail explored by a British officer Bailey in 1913, which could reach the back of Indian troops. So they sent 1,500 soldiers through the trail. It took them the whole week to arrive the target, enduring numerous hardship and difficults, but the risk paid back finally. In 4 days, Indian 11st, 62nd, 65th, and 48th brigades collapsed under the front attack of Chinese 55th division and troops cutting off the road.

This was the major victory for Chinese since Indian lost all her combat units at the front and coundn't provade valid reserves, the whole country fell into panic. And at this time China declared the withdraw, actually this was partly due to the secret talks of Neheru and Zhou En Lai through sri lanka premier, in which Neheru promised Indian wouldn't lanch any border military actions in the future.
The development of major battle


Some battle field scenes, tons of them, I should post some footage to the web

[Greyfalcon]

Can anyone provide information about the Sino-Indian War of 1962 ? I'm particularly interested in PLA orbats of the War.

[ArjunMk1]

There was a thread on this topic , but mods locked due to flamings !!

U may ask them to reopen the old thread !!!

[Greyfalcon]

Can anyone post a Chinese orbat for the War ? For both sectors please ?

[Gollevainen]

Thread merged: If you can discuss the subject in civilized manners, you can do it in this thread.

[inferno]

BATTLE OF NAMKA CHU, 10 OCT - 16 NOV 1962

INTRODUCTION

Namka Chu a name seared in Indian memory, a place where the decisions made by a pacifist Prime Minister, an arrogant Defence Minister and a politically connected General caused the rout of a proud Brigade with many of its men dying like animals in a cage. Namka Chu, a gorge situated east of the remote Tri Junction of Tibet, Bhutan and India. It is 200 km from the railhead of Misamari and 60 km from the road head of Tawang. The Nyamjang river flows through from Tibet and enters India at Khinzemane. It meets Namka Chu 1½ miles south of Khinzemane. Local grazers used seven improvised bridges to take their cattle across the Namka Chu. They were from East to West known as Nos I - V, Log bridge and Temporary bridge. Following Hathung La route to Dhola Post, the track hit Bridge I. Across it the track forked, the eastward branch reached Khinzemane, the one going North West along the river and re-crossing to the South across Bridge II. This led to Dhola Post opposite Bridge III.

A little away was Bridge IV and close to Tsangle was Bridge V. Between IV and V were the Log and Temporary bridges. The bridges were useless when the river was in spate. In October one could walk across the river bed. The Thagla ridge which sprawls from west to east overlooks Namka Chu and has four prominent passes Dum Dum La (17,000 feet), Karpola II (16,000 feet), Yamatso La (16,000 feet) and Thag La (14,000 feet). To get to Tawang the road traverses from Misamari up to 2743 metres to a place called Eagle's Nest, another 200 metres to Bomdi La. Then it drops to 1676 metres to Dirang Dzong, followed by an ascent to Se La at 4180 metres, another drop to 1524 metres to Jang with a final climb to Tawang (3048) metres. From here the journey had to be along tracks with mules and porters. There were no staging areas for acclimatisation.

PRELUDE

The dispute in this area revolved around Thagla Ridge. The Chinese claimed it was on the Tibetan side and India claimed it was on its side of the McMahon line. Accordingly in 1959 an Assam Rifles post was established at Khinzemane. The Chinese disputed it and a force of 200 Chinese pushed back the weak Indian force towards the bridge on the Nyamjang Chu at Drokung Samba which they claimed was the McMahon line. After the Chinese retired the Indians again reoccupied the post. The Chinese again tried to dislodge but this time were resisted by the Assam Rifles. This time they withdrew and started a chain diplomatic exchanges between the two Governments.

Under Nehru's forward policy some extra posts were ordered to be deployed on the McMahon line. One such post was proposed at the Tri junction. A party under Captain Mahabir Prasad from 1 Sikh went to locate the post. However due to heavy snowfall it could not access it, so they located the post at Che Dong on the southern bank of the Namka Chu. While the post was dominated by the surrounding area, it was easy to maintain with access to water. However this should have been a temporary post and should have been relocated at a later time. For some reason it never was. An Assam Rifles unit was sent to man it.

On September 8th, Chinese troops laid siege to the Assam Rifles post. In order to get a quick response the post commander inflated the number to 600 enemy troops. In many other places similar situations were met with an order to stay put. Probably because the higher number, the 7th Inf Bde were ordered to move in and evict the Chinese. The 7th Brigade was part of 4th Division commanded by Major General Niranjan Prasad. At this time two battalions of 7th Brigade, the 9 Punjab and 1 Sikh were in Towang, the 1/9 Gorkha Rifles in Misamari on its way back after a 3-year tenure in NEFA. There was no airfield and all maintenance was by air drops. Raw and un-acclimatised troops with cotton uniforms and canvas shoes were sent into the mountains. All this was done under public clamour and alerted the Chinese. The first man to protest was Lt. Gen. Umrao Singh. When Lt. Gen. Sen in charge of Eastern Command refused to heed his advice, he followed it up with a written protest.

14 Sept - 09 Oct 1962: Deployment

The 7th Inf. Bde. was commanded by Brigadier J.P. Dalvi and consisted of 9 Punjab, 4 Grenadiers, 2 Rajputs and 1/9 Gorkha Rifles plus some symbolic artillery. 9 Punjab was led by Lt. Col. R.N. Mishra. With harvesting time in the region the men had to move everything by themselves for the long arduous trek. Each man carried one blanket, 100 rounds of ammo, 2 grenades, 3 days rations and LMG clips. It came to 35 kg per person. After a forced march it reached Bridge 1 on September 14. Next morning leaving one company behind at Bridge I, Lt. Col. Mishra took the rest to Bridge II, where a company of Chinese troops was in position both sides of Namka Chu. Ignoring the Chinese shouts in Hindi to go back, he left two companies about 50 metres away and took the last one to the Che Dong post. The logs at Bridge II were destroyed and a 50-man Chinese detachment occupied the opposite side.

The next night the Punjabis at Bridge II crept in close forcing the Chinese to move most of their troops to the north bank. Meanwhile Lt. Gen. Umrao Singh's protests were causing a problem for the Government and the Army HQ. To avoid the impasse, General Thapar and Lt. Gen. Sen formed 4 Corps to handle NEFA leaving 33 Corps with Lt. Gen. Umrao Singh. Lt. Gen. B.M. Kaul was put in charge of 4 Corps - an most unusual step for a Chief of General Staff (CGS) to to do with direct access to the Prime Minister. Lt. Gen. Kaul took charge on October 4th. Meanwhile 2 Rajput and 1/9 Gorkha Rifles had reached Lumpu. The men were in cotton uniforms, canvas shoes and were living in the open after marching through slushy roads. The 4 Grenadiers who had arrived at Tawang a few days earlier were in no better shape. The buildup of troops to Tsangdhar was slow. There were no porters and everything had to back packed.

Furthermore poor planning in the air drops did not help. Instead of snow clothes & ammo they got tent pegs, kerosene was dropped in 200L barrels. Many rolled down slopes and although some could be retrieved, many were given up. Especially high were losses from drops by C119s due to the higher speed of the aircraft. Meanwhile two platoons of MMGs from 6 Mahar and 34 Heavy Mortar Regiment reached Lumpu. The mortars had no ammo. A little later four 75mm guns of the 17 Field Parachute regiment were dropped at Tsangdhar. On October 6th, Lt. Gen. Kaul and Maj. Gen. Prasad made their way to Namka Chu. The Brigade HQ was located at Rongla and Tactical HQ at Zimithang. The troops were extended on a frontage of 12 miles or 20,000 yards - more than 6 times their normal frontage. Furthermore the Corps, Divisional and Brigade commanders were all there. Lt. Gen. Kaul now seeing for himself the deathtrap set up for the Indian troops tried get all available resources. He sent a message to Eastern Command for "marshalling of all military and air resources."

Late in the game Lt. Gen. Kaul realised what he had gotten into and was now desperate. The Govt. however was not ready to escalate the border clash into an all out war. Meanwhile the Grenadiers, Rajput and Gorkhas were on the way to Tsangdhar. The units had marched through severe cold, with groups of 3 men sharing 2 sheets. As mentioned they were in cotton uniforms resulting in a good deal of sick casualties; frostbite and pulmonary disorders. Two Gorkhas died of pulmonary-edema the next day. So Lt. Gen. Kaul now turned to his pet 'positional warfare' theory while Major General Prasad and Brigadier Dalvi wanted to find a way from their untenable position. The Chinese meanwhile had advantage of position and had now mustered up to a division at Thagla.

So Lt. Gen. Kaul set his plans in motion on the morning of October 8th. He decided that 2 Rajput would occupy Yamatso La west of Thag La peak as it was unoccupied using the Tseng-Jong approach. Brigadier Dalvi was stunned. The plan meant moving a battalion to a peak 16,000 feet above sea level under Chinese view with no artillery support. Brigadier Dalvi convinced Lt. Gen. Kaul to at least send a patrol of 9 Punjab to find a suitable crossing place for the Rajputs and cover them by taking positions at Tseng Jong. The Rajputs, less one company, left behind at Bridge 1 were to advance on first light October 10th.

The patrol of 9 Punjab led by Major Choudhary left on October 8th and established itself by 3 p.m. Meanwhile two companies of the 2 Rajput was in the Bridge 4 area with the rest at Dhola post. It was as unprepared with only 90 sleeping bags, no ammo for its 3" mortars. Meanwhile the close proximity between Chinese and Indian troops caused skirmishes. A grenade attack on September 20th on the Punjabis, was met with effective retaliation. 4 Punjabis were wounded and 1 Chinese was killed. October 9th passed uneventfully except for a grenade attack in the Bridge 4 area. One more platoon from the 9 Punjab had reinforced the Tseung Jong area and one section from it, was stationed at the spur of Karpo La II.

10 October 1962: The Skirmishes Begin

October 10th dawned without a hint of what was to come. At first light, Lt. Gen. Kaul was shaving while his batman was preparing tea. Suddenly the calm of the morning was shattered by the incessant fire of small arms fire and the thumps of mortars. The Tseung Jong position had come under fire and was retaliating. Around 8:00 a.m., 600 Chinese troops attacked the post. The Indians totaled 56 men with only pouch ammunition. Still they beat back the first assault. Around 9:30 a.m. the Chinese attacked a second time. By now the section at Karpo La II had moved to the flank of the Chinese. When the Chinese emerged, it opened up on them inflicting heavy casualties. The Chinese retaliated by bringing down mortar fire. As the first fire rang out the Rajputs were strung on the Southern bank of the Namka Chu. According to their orders they were hurrying up to Yamatso La. The forward company was about 450 meters from the Temporary bridge with Lt. Col. Maha Singh Rikh following behind with the second company. Lt. Gen. Kaul now proceeded to give another order. He asked Lt. Col. Rikh to hold on and set defensive positions. Protests about the positions being dominated by the Thag La ridge were brushed aside. He then left handing over command to Brigadier Dalvi saying, "It is your battle." Moreover a company of the 1/9 Gorkhas had to accompany the party to provide protection.

Meanwhile Major Chaudhary was asking for mortar and machine gun fire. Brigadier Dalvi had two 3" mortars and two machine guns but he had to make the painful decision of not opening fire as the retaliatory fire from the south bank would decimate the Rajputs who were still milling around. Helplessly they watched the Chinese reinforcements clamber up for a second attack. The Chinese attacked a third time from three directions and at this time Major Chaudhary asked the unit to withdraw. By that time the Chinese were on Major Chaudhary's position, hand-to-hand combat was in process. Somehow he withdrew what was left of his two platoons. Sepoy Kanshi Ram brought back a AK-47 snatched from a Chinese soldier. The withdrawal was made possible by the gallantry of Naik Chain Singh. Asking his men to fall back, Naik Singh covered their withdrawal with an LMG, till he was gunned down by a machine gun burst. Major Chaudhary, Sepoy Ram and Naik Singh were awarded the Maha Vir Chakra. The Punjabis outnumbered 20 to 1 lost 6 dead, 11 wounded and 5 missing. Peking Radio admitted to a 100 casualties. Later that day the Chinese buried our men with full military honours in view of our men. It was a clever move to beguile the Indians into complacency. Meanwhile the Chinese started reinforcing their positions with more troops and heavy mortars. A long line of mules and porters were seen carrying equipment. Firing lines were cleared with mechanical saws, and barbed wire & punji sticks used to defend their positions.

Meanwhile the Grenadiers, led by Lt. Col. K.S. Harihar Singh, arrived and started deploying. The Chinese taunted them for their efforts to cut trees with machetes and digging tools. Attempts to withdraw the Punjabis from Tsangle were rebuffed by Lt. Gen. Kaul. The Lt. Gen. who was sick, instead of giving up his command and admitting himself to the hospital, went to his residence and commanded from from his sick bed. In the Army of 1962 this no longer seemed strange. On October 18th the Chinese preparations intensified. Officers were holding conferences and pointing out Indian positions at Namka Chu and Tsangdhar. Bearings were taken and noted down. Tsangle Post and Bridge V came under fire for 90 minutes. With a foot of snow falling, Brigadier Dalvi was forced to take whatever snow clothes from the men at Namka Chu and give it to those in Tsangle. A company of the 1/9 Gorkha Rifles was ordered to be deployed at Tsangle. Brigadier Dalvi protested at this piece meal deployment but was threatened with a court martial. The next day the Chinese activities climaxed. The Rajputs counted 2000 men with stores in the area between Tseng-Jong and Temporary Bridge. Mules and porters came across Thag La. Men were laying tape markers for night assaults. Brigadier Dalvi protested again asking to withdraw his men from this deathtrap. He offered to resign, rather than watch his men get massacred. Brigadier Dalvi thought the attack was going to come the next day and in three days his brigade would be wiped out. Major General Prasad promised he will be there the next day to share the fate of the brigade.

So by October 19th the troops were deployed as follows;

• 4 Grenadiers, commanded by Lt. Col. K.S. Harihar Singh
- 1 Bn less 2 Coy - Bridge I
- 1 Coy - Drokung Sambha (under Div HQ)
- 1 Coy - Serkhim with 1 platoon at Hathung La

• 9 Punjab, commanded by Lt. Col. R.N. Misra
- 1 Bn less 1 Coy - Bridge II
- 1 Coy - Bridge V and Tsangle

• 2 Rajput, commanded by Lt. Col. M.S. Rikh
Total Strength - 513 men, 8 Officers
- 1 Bn less 3 Coy - Bridge IV
- A Coy - Bridge III
- B Coy - Log Bridge
- C Coy - Temporary Bridge

• 1/9 Gorkha Rifles, commanded by Lt. Col. B.S. Ahluwalia
- 1 Bn less 2 Coy - Che Dong - Tsangdhar Track
- 1 Coy - behind Bridge II (near Brigade HQ)
- 1 Coy less platoon - Tsangdhar
- 1 Platoon - between Tsangdhar and Bridge V

• Assam Rifles
1 Platoon - Che Dong

• 34 Heavy Mortar Battery less platoon - Tsangdhar (no ammo)

• Field Regiment - 17 Para
1 Troop - Tsangdhar (2 operational - 260 rounds of ammo, no radio sets for OP)

• 6 Mahar
1 MG Coy less platoon*
(*Platoon with 1/9 GR, rest with Rajputs at Bridge V)

• 100 Field Coy - Rong La
• Brigade HQ - 100 yards behind Rola (Dhola Post)

Against this the Chinese forces consisted of 11th Division with 3 regiments (equal to a brigade). On the night of the 19th the Chinese went into their forming up areas. In utter contempt of the Indians across the river, they lit fires to warm themselves. To Major Gurdial, the 2-in-C of the 2 Rajputs, the idea of his under strength battalion fighting the hardened veterans of the Korean war seemed suicidal. He looked around at his isolated weak companies, un-acclimatised & weak, 150 rds/rifleman, 17 magazines (28 rounds) per LMG and 2 grenades per soldier. The battalion's 3" mortars had 60 rounds of ammo, equal to five minutes firing time. The night was dark and bitter cold. The stars stood out brightly. The sentries of 2 Rajput stood wrapped in blankets shuffling around to keep warm. The men were huddled in twos and threes for warmth. Still sleep eluded them as they waited for the stand to at 0430 hours. Unknown to them in the thousands of yards that separated the posts, with visibility under 20 yards, Chinese infantry columns were infiltrating through the large gaps. Fording the river was easy. To avoid slipping they removed their shoes and walked barefoot across. Once across they dried and wore warm socks. They quickly moved past the link roads where Indian patrols might operate.

The overhead communication wires were left alone to be cut just before the attack so that the Indians may not be alerted. Once in the dark shadows of the coniferous forests the noises were muffled by the thick moss on rocks. Slowly the Chinese columns gathered into battalions. Each got into a position above and behind the Rajput companies. Other columns likewise moved to the Tsangdhar position to take on the Gorkhas. Other Chinese columns had moved 2 nights before and gone to Hathung La to carry out blocking movements. The fires and other activity of the earlier nights had kept the defenders focus on the front. The plan was to hit like a battering ram at the centre, into the Rajputs, and the left flank and cutting off the rest of the troops. At 4:30 hours Lt. Col. Rikh was woken up by his batman. Outside the temp was well below zero and the fires lit by the Chinese still flickered. His adjutant, Captain Bhatia, who was to be posted to Poona soon was checking with the companies & patrols and they reported all was well. The first pre dawn light could be seen when the darkness was broken by the hollow booming sound of mortars. The muzzle flashes were followed by a pause before the valley erupted in a roar. It was 0514 hours and the Battle of Namka Chu had begun.

20 October 1962: The Battle

At 5:14 a.m. 150 guns and mortars opened upon all the localities at Namka Chu and Tsangdhar. The 82mm and 120mm rounds crashed into trees & rocks, forcing the men in the open to take refuge in the bunkers whose firing bays faced forwards. It continued for an hour, as the Indians helplessly watched unable to counter it with any weapon. The Indian 3" mortars made an futile attempt to fire back. Even as they tried to get the range right, the Chinese ranged in on them and blew them away. The signals bunker was zeroed in quickly using 75mm recoilless guns, and blown up, killing all in it including Captain Mangat - the Signals Officer.

After an hour or so there was a brief lull for 7 - 15 minutes before the Chinese bugles and whistles for an infantry attack became audible. To the shock of the defenders, the attack was from above and behind. This meant their trenches were exposed and they had to scramble out of their bunker to face upwards. At Temporary Bridge, Subedar Dashrath Singh realised what was happening and moved Naik Roshan Singh's section to a bump 150 yards upslope. Barely had Roshan's men taken position when the Chinese came into view. With AK-47s opening up, they charged. Roshan and his men poured fire into the bunched up Chinese cutting down many.

2nd Lt Onkar Dubey with 7th platoon along with Subedar Janam Singh rushed with 15 LMG clips and 2 men to support Roshan. From the flanks he and his men poured fire on the Chinese breaking up two attacks. Firing the last 2 clips at the enemy he was severely wounded in the stomach & chest and fell down unconscious. He was later taken prisoner. Meanwhile Subedar Dashrath Singh's men turned uphill and opened fire on the advancing Chinese. The Chinese rushed down using cover from tree to tree. Dashrath and his men repulsed 3 attacks. On the fourth they came in to hand-to-hand combat losing four more men. Subedar Dashrath fell unconscious and was taken POW. On the eastern flank, Major B.K. Pant's D Coy platoon under Jemadar J.N. Bose came under attack. The crescendo of AK-47 fire overshadowed the noise of Indian LMGs and rifles.

Roshan's unit was finally overcome with every man killed. The attention now turned to Jemadar Bose's platoon. After three waves of assault there were only 10 men surviving. The gallant Bengali led the remaining men into a bayonet charge. Most of the men were killed. Major B.K. Pant meanwhile tried to rally the men. Hit at the beginning of the battle in the leg he had to take over after Major Sethi was killed in the first round of mortar attacks which collapsed his bunker. Hobbling from position to position he kept inspiring his men on. He was hit again in the stomach and leg. Still he continued to inspire his men to break a fourth attack. At this point the enemy targeted him and hit him all over with machine gun fire. He uttered the Regiment's war cry before his last breath.

Meanwhile at Log Bridge, B Company was having its own problems. As the first shells landed, Lt. Subhash Chander reacted quickly and turned his men around to face uphill. However a salvo of mortar shells set fire to his command post as well as the company kitchen. The resulting fire to ghee & wheat engulfed the post trapping him inside and burning him to death. Subedar Har Lal, of 5th platoon, now rallied his men quickly dispersing them amongst the trees and rocks. He kept exhorting his men and when ammo ran out asked them to use their rifles as lathis. Jemadar Gian Chand's 4th platoon too got a few minutes to get into position amongst the trees. They held of 3 waves of attacks before he too was overwhelmed. With Subedar Mohan Lal killed early in the battle only Naik Hoshiar with 6th platoon was left. With the other two platoons absorbing the first few attacks, 6th platoon got more time to get into position. Using their Lee Enfield .303s they inflicted heavy damage. In spite of firing upwards, the Rajputs were effective because the ricocheting bullets continued to drop the Chinese.

Little by little the superior volume of the Chinese AK-47s overwhelmed the Indians. With ammunition running out the Chinese moved in. Each and every soldier had to be overcome by hand-to-hand to combat. Percussion grenades were extensively used. As Naik Hoshiar ran out of ammo he grabbed a Sten gun and was trying to reload when a percussion grenade exploded, hitting him in the arms & chest. As he regained consciousness, he found four Chinese holding him. A services wrestler, Naik Hoshiar struggled for some time before being overpowered. Meanwhile the area under Bridge IV continued to get pounded with the Btn HQ getting special attention. Major Gurdial, 2-in-C, under mortar fire rallied his men around. Seeing no enemy activity across the river he realised the attack was coming from uphill. Frantically he tried to set the Vickers MG around to face uphill. Men were being hurried out of bunkers to face uphill. Lt. Bhup Singh joined up with Lt. Col. Rikh in the Btn command post.

The full brunt of the attack struck Lt. Bhup's 12th platoon under Jemadar Biswas, the Btn command post in the centre and Subedar Ram Chander's C platoon to the east. The bunched up Chinese were cut down by volley's of rifle and LMG fire. Yet the Chinese continued to attack. The advantage of the Ak-47s along with HE and percussion grenades thrown down proved decisive. The Indians had to throw uphill, a task much harder. As the men in the upper slopes struggled, some of the men in the lower slopes started withdrawing towards Bridge III including the 11 platoon led by Subedar B.C. Roy. Meanwhile the now depleted C Coy and the Btn HQ had held off two attacks. The Chinese attacked a third time from the south and south west. With Major Gurdial rallying them, they desperately tried to fight back but succumbed to the inevitable. Major Gurdial was overpowered and captured.

With the flanking platoons almost wiped out to a man the remnants fell back to the battalion bunker. Captain Bhatia and Lt. Col. Rikh and a few others were now in the bunker. The Chinese opened up with a machine gun trying to break through the bunker. When that failed, a Chinese soldier crawled up to the bunker and threw a grenade just as Lt. Col. Rikh was peeping out. The grenade hit his rifle and exploded, breaking his jaw and cutting his lips. Lt. Bhup rushed out and shot the Chinese soldier and dragged Lt. Col. Rikh back in. He was propped up and given an LMG to resume firing. Another Chinese LMG burst through the door killing Captain Bhatia and hit Lt. Col. Rikh again in the shoulder breaking it. He however managed to gun down the Chinese soldier. Yet another Chinese broke through and rounds hit him in the elbow and leg, consequently breaking them. The pain and loss of blood caused him to collapse. Lt. Bhup continued to hold them off with one jawan. The Chinese had now encircled three sides and were pouring machine gun fire. Finally the defenders' ammunition ran out. On this the Chinese threw percussion grenades and overpowered Lt. Bhup and the jawan.

The fourth and last locality, Bridge 3, was held by A company with a platoon of Assam Rifles holding the Che Dong are. The Assam Rifles held the top of the spur while 2 platoons No.1 and No.2, held the lower slopes 600 hundred feet below. A 3rd platoon held a position another 800 feet lower overlooking Bridge 3. The initial hour long shelling drove the Assam Rifles unit from the post. As the shelling lifted Captain Ravi Eipe began to move towards the Assam Rifles post to get a better view. As he approached there was firing from the post. Thinking it was the AR men firing in panic he shouted out. Soon he saw some figures in khaki and realised the Chinese had already taken over the post. He alerted Company Havildar Major Saudagar Singh's men to reposition themselves just as the attack began. The Chinese then attacked from the top and the West. Facing them were the 2 platoons of CHM Singh and Subedar Basdeo Singh. CHM Saudagar's men had reorganised and took a heavy toll on the attacking Chinese. CHM Singh himself snatched an AK-47 from a Chinese soldier and blew away 5 Chinese soldiers. By 0700 hours the platoons were being swarmed by Chinese troops. 1 platoon got cut off and fought to the death.

Captain Eipe was hit on the shoulder and could not take any further part. The remnants of the battered 2 and 3rd platoons were asked to withdraw. With this the last Rajput position was overrun. Temporary and Log Bridge were overpowered and the systematic mopping up began. The attack had begun at 5:14 a.m. with the shelling lasting till 6:30 a.m. By 9:30 a.m. mopping operations were in full swing till it ended at 11:30 a.m. The main positions of 1/9 Gorkha Rifles were above Che Dong on a track from the Assam Rifles post. 'D' Coy held the central location with 'A' and 'C' Coy on either side. The fourth company was above bridge II protecting the Brigade HQ. As the Gorkhas were getting into their morning stand, the first salvo of Chinese shells hit their positions. As the officers scrambled to figure the situations they found the telephone lines were dead. Now the Chinese who had infiltrated past them in the last 2 nights launched their attack. The Gorkhas fought back.

Their 3" mortars opened up only to be silenced by the Chinese guns. By 6:25 a.m., C Coy was under attack by 500 Chinese troops. Company Commander, Captain Gambhir, was killed and 2nd Lt. Dogra, platoon commander, was wounded. Lt. Col. Ahluwalia asked Subedar Major Jit Bahdur Chetri to take his men and reinforce 2nd Lt. Dogra's platoon. By 7:15 a.m. 2nd Lt. Dogra's platoon was overrun. Wounded, he continued to fight with an LMG allowing the remnants of his platoon to fall back. Subedar Dhan Bahadur Chand also covered with an LMG. By 7:30 a.m., A Coy was under attack from rear as well as the front. Lt. Col. Ahluwalia was wounded in the shoulder as hand-to-hand fighting began. With no hope, the CO ordered a withdrawal towards Tsangdhar. Meanwhile word came of Subedar Chetri's platoon being encircled and captured. Captain Mahabir Prasad and Lt. Mahindra were wounded and missing. The Gorkhas fell back in confusion. One lot went towards the Tsangdhar track the other towards Bridge II.

Many of the attempts to reach Karpo La II or Rong La were thwarted by the Chinese who got there ahead of them. Even at this point there were defiant attacks of bravery. Subedar Bhab Bahadur Katwal with 15 men was heading for Karpo La I. The route was blocked by a Chinese MMG. Subedar Bahadur lead his men in a charge with the Gorkha war cry, Ayo Gorkhali (The Gorkhas have come). The machine gun chattered and then there was silence. All the men were killed or wounded & captured. Small parties of men however did make it across the Chinese encirclement and reached Bhutan. Many others perished due to the cold & starvation as they tried to make their way in the cold, hostile and desolate mountains with no blankets or winter clothing. The Sikh Para Gunners also displayed an astonishing defiance. With no ammo they took up LMGs & rifles and fought the Chinese after the Gorkha platoons were overrun. The Chinese encircled them and called them to surrender. They refused and continued fighting till they ran out of ammo. One third were killed and the rest were wounded and captured.

7th Brigade had lost all cohesion within the first hour of the battle. By 8 a.m. the first stragglers of the 1/9 Gorkha's came back to HQs with news that the Btn was overrun. This meant his middle & left defences were already broken. Small arms fire was now homing in on Brigade HQ. Brigadier Dalvi now got Div HQ's permission to leave Rong La and fall back to Tsangdhar hoping to reform and fight. The Rajputs and Gorkhas were expected to fall back to Tsangdhar. Brigadier Dalvi and his men left for Tsangdhar after destroying all documents. However they soon found that Tsangdhar was already breached and changed directions to Serkhim. The group wandered around for days avoiding Chinese patrols. At one point they had been without food for 66 hours. Sometime on the morning of October 22nd they ran into a Chinese Company and were captured. At Bridge II, the 9 Punjab had not been shelled. After communications with Brigade HQ was cut off, they remained in touch with Div HQ. At 11 a.m. on October 20th, Major General Prasad ordered them to withdraw to Hathung La. The withdrawal attracted heavy Chinese mortar fire. This was followed by an attack on the positions of 'D' Coy under Major Chaudhary.

Once again repeated attacks collapsed the defence and all the men went down fighting. Another group of 20 men under Havildar Malkiat Singh were on their way to reinforce the Tsangla defences. They stumbled into a large Chinese force. In the unequal encounter, the Punjabis inflicted heavy casualties before going down. Havildar Singh was amongst those who were killed. With the Chinese reaching Hathung La before the Punjabis, they too had to take the route through Bhutan. At Drokung Samba, C Coy of Grenadiers came under attack from three sides by a battalion of the Chinese. Soon the bridge was blown up cutting off any withdrawal. With no hopes, the men under 2nd Lt. Rao fought wave after wave of attacks. Most including the 2nd Lt. Rao were killed. The rest of the Grenadiers at Bridge I received orders to pull out and managed to escape through Bhutan. It took them 17 days. Thus ended the Battle of Namka Chu. The word 'battle' is grossly misleading, for what was essentially a massacre. Within the first hour of the battle 7th Brigade had lost all cohesiveness. It was then essentially a desperately one-sided battle with many Indian platoons fighting to the death, to the last round, last man.

The 2 Rajputs suffered horrendously but lived up to the Regiment's reputation. Of the 513 all ranks, 282 were killed that morning, 81 were wounded and captured, 90 were captured unwounded. Only 60 men, mostly rear elements got away. The Gorkhas lost 80 dead, 44 wounded and 102 captured. The 7th Brigade lost a total of 493 men that morning. The Chinese also lost heavily. Lt. Col. Rikh was captured & subjected to repeated interrogations on the characteristics of the Rajputs. He was told it was because the Chinese suffered their maximum casualties in NEFA (North East Frontier Agency). In the bitter flush of defeat, the valour of these men went un-recognised. In the small village of Lumpu, on the track leading to the Hathung La pass, stands a memorial. A memorial consisting of a tin shed under which loose wooden boards are stacked with names of those who fell in the battle. To rub salt in the wounds, not all the men are mentioned. This is considered sufficient to honour them!


A poem by Ms. Harji Malik captures the anguish of the men;

As the brutal rock shatters the placid glass
into a thousand irreparable fragment
A bitter grief is hurled at normalcy and peace.
Never will they be quite complete again
The crack of pain and death will always show
The weeping of wives bereft, of the anguished old
Will echo down the years of history
The wasted unspent lives, the loss of years
Too many to be counted
Too precious to be valued
A generation unborn, man's immortality...
there is the bitterness
So violent that the heart revolts and weeps
unceasing, arid, unshed tears
The sense of shame, of betrayal unforgivable
Never to be redeemed
Of sacrifice avoidable, insensate
that is the guilt we share
The valley is silent shrouded in death's immobility final and absolute.
But the soundless cry from the mountains beats upon our ears
Pitiless and Undeniable
We died, unsecured, helpless
We were your soldiers, men of bravery and pride
Yet we died like animals, trapped in a cage with no escape
Massacred at will, denied the dignity of battle
With the cold burning flame of anger and resolution
With the courage both of the living and the dead.
Avenge our un-played lives
Redeem the unredeemable sacrifice
In freedom and integrity
Let this be your inheritance
and our unwritten epitaph.

Inferno

MOD EDIT PiSigma: it doesn't seem like you wrote this, give credit to the actual author of this work please, plagiarism will not be tolerated

[KYli]

This is just a one side story. I could probably find hundred of documents to refutt it. If you are serious want to talk about Sino-india do post something that are not that bias.

[Kampfwagen]

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/27chin.htm

An article about the Sino-Indian war from the point of view of an Indian. I found it while looking for a few pictures from the Chinese point of the conflict. However, this is that one solider's particular opinion and not mine or anyone elses. I figure it should be taken with a grain of salt since he did, aparently, serve.

As far as the conflict it's self, it definately intrests me. These are two radicaly diffrent cultures. And from the estimates I read, it was alot more than a mere border-clash as some have so brazienly called it. (and rather ignorantly too)

I can see now how strongly people feel about the conflict. It was a terrible loss for India and many indians feel strongly about it. I imagine to the Chinese it is considered a victory.

I am sorry I cant really provide much else to the table. I feel rather shameful at the fact that I had once myself thought of it as a mere border conflict.

And as far as the whole Enfeild V.S AK thing. I personaly think that with good training and skill, a squad of men equiped with Enfeilds (or K-98s or whatever) can do a good job against troops carrying AK-47 rifles, but the AK does have an advantage. It has a cartridge that is very close to a full rifle cartridge and definately has some real punch behind it. But the Enfeild has range and accuracy on it's side. However, if it had to be a non-Assault rifle, I would definately pick a Garrand rifle. Personal opinion, of course.

By the way...I am sorry I could not pick a more...unbiasased article, but this one was one of the better ones and there was little other info that probably was not known to members of the site.

[ArjunMk1]

Pls check the 1st page , it contains detailed discussion abt AKs vs Enfield , also it has some pics of Indian side posted by me !!!

[Red Guard]

ja, right. in one hand, you say indian mountain troop is the best in the world. and in another hand you say they use enfield. okay, okay, tell me, how much trucks you owned back then? and i know at the time, you had helicopters, which one general ran away with it and the PLA soldiers had seen it taking off. so you are saying, indian army used enfield while they have helicopters. what a surprise............no hard feelings, i just think sometimes you people are trying to find so many excuses to cover up the lost of glorious indian army.......... even though it's a problem everyone faces, i don't like to mention the lost army in korean war either, hehehe.

MOD EDIT PiSigma: watch your language a bit, it is fine to state facts, but try not to use a tone of voice (writing) that could be interpreted as insulting. thx.

[ArjunMk1]

I never said Indian army is best in mountain warefare , neither it has all advanced equipments !!!

Back in 62 India had almost no high altitude warefare training, the short war in Kashmir(in 1948) was long forgotten !! Indian army wore all WW2 fatigues and the Government was disillusioned in so called 'Non Aligned Movement' !!!

[taijisheng]

The Chinese under Mao favored Mobile "People's War" doctrine, of "luring the enemy in deep", utilizing the peasant masses to form a "wave of humanity" to stop the enemy in which the red army could become "fish among water", and favored flexible tactics of attacking the enemy where they were weakest to weaken them in whole.

These tactics first used against the GMD in the Jiangsi Soviet Republic, then against the Japanese in WWII, and finally again against the GMD in the second Chinese Civil War.

I'm certain that they were used to drive the Americans back to the 38th parallel but I don't know much else after that.

Many people completly misunderstood Mao's people's war concept and his millitary strategy, not knowing they are two different things. " People's war" has nothing to do with running up to enemies in great numbers, it is not even about anything happening in battlefield. It is about gaining support among the people, when you have the support of the people, you are strong, this is how Mao managed to survive with a tiny army and made it big, whenever he went, people supported him and provided him what he needed. This has nothing to do with his millitary strategy.

Mao's millitary strategy is about movement, not confront the enemy in front, instead keep moving to spread up enemy forces and supply lines, divide enemy into smaller groups, then choose the weakest group and destroy it with superior force. This is how Mao managed to win the 3 major battles in the chinese civil war, in which he effectivly divided, surrounded and destroyed a total of over 1 mil KMT forces, while his own forces were actually smaller in size. Later in the chinese civil war, when PLA started to gain superiority in numbers, they did what Sun Tzu said: attack when you outnumber your enemy by 3:1, surround your enemy when you outnumber them by 10:1. There is nothing wrong about it, it is simply the right thing to do.

About Sino-India war, there is really no way that India could have won. Chinese army was supprior in number and quality,by quality I don't mean in weapons only, had terrian advantage, and was better prepared. Actually I think if the battle were to be fought again, removing all the advantages china had, with equal forces and eqiupment, china would still have won, because the chinese army at that time was the best in Asia, with the best generals in recent chinese history and very experienced, battlehard soldiers.

Could IAF do much ? I doubt it, Chinese army had gained extensive experience in fighting under enemy's air superiority in Korea, and korea is much a mush less mountainous area, I doubt IAF could do much better than the US airforce in korea.

[simonov]

What happen if IAF attack? is any reaction from PLAAF?

[ArjunMk1]

Many people completly misunderstood Mao's people's war concept and his millitary strategy, not knowing they are two different things.


Actually In sino-Indian conflict China was to complete the war with in a short time !! China could have used her superiority of artillery in order to break Indian defences but it would have taken some time , enough for Indian mobilisation also there was a fear of US and Soviet pressure !!!
So we Indians refer this tactics of attacking positions with a lot of men as 'human wave' , 'mao's style ' or what so ever !!! :coffee:
This method makes a huge casualty of the attacking force but it ensures vuctory in a very short time .

You may compare this with Indo-Pak Kargil conflict in 99. India used Artillery and MRLs to smash targets and infantry soldiers advanced under artillery cover , it took time and costed $$$, but human casualty was checked !!!

[vincelee]

2 things.

If IAF was used in a purely tactical role, maybe you'll see a few J-2s and J-6s flying air superiority missions. If IAF did strategic attacks on Lhasa.....bad things happen.

[darth sidious]

Actually In sino-Indian conflict China was to complete the war with in a short time !! China could have used her superiority of artillery in order to break Indian defences but it would have taken some time , enough for Indian mobilisation also there was a fear of US and Soviet pressure !!!
So we Indians refer this tactics of attacking positions with a lot of men as 'human wave' , 'mao's style ' or what so ever !!! :coffee:
This method makes a huge casualty of the attacking force but it ensures vuctory in a very short time .

You may compare this with Indo-Pak Kargil conflict in 99. India used Artillery and MRLs to smash targets and infantry soldiers advanced under artillery cover , it took time and costed $$$, but human casualty was checked !!!

plz provide evidance of huge chinese casulties

[Indianfighter]

plz provide evidance of huge chinese casulties
They are unavailable outside the Great Wall.

Reference to the following may be made:
----------------------------
The China-India Border War
CSC 1984
SUBJECT AREA: Warfighting
ABSTRACT
Author: CALVIN, James Barnard, Lieutenant Commander,U. S. Navy
Title: THE CHINA - INDIA BORDER WAR (1962)
Publisher: Marine Corps Command and Staff College
Date: April 1984

The object of this paper is to present an overview of
the 1962 China-India Border War. The paper chronologically
examines the 19th and 20th Century roots of disputed border
areas between China and Indian the increase in tensions and
conflicts in the late 1950s, the skirmishes along the China-
India border, the October-November 1962 hostilities, and the
ceasefire.
---------------------
The following is a quotation from the research paper:

"Yet, an important example of the limited Chinese information available has been this author's inability to obtain Chinese casualty figures
for the Border War."

The entire paper is available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

Some excerpts:

India's casualties for the Border War were finally reported as follows:
Killed 1,383
Captured 3,968
Missing 1,696
India released no figures for Wounded, but casualties were
high.
China released no casualty figures.

The paper details Indian companies being attacked by Chinese brigades. It also highlights that the Chinese had much superior numerical and machine-gun fire as compared to India.

Here is another excerpt:

An Indian patrol of fifty Rajputs had moved to Yumtso La
without incident on the evening of October 9th. At daybreak
on October 10th, they began to move toward the Yumtso La
bridges. Outnumbering the Indians by about 20:1, a full bat-
talion of Chinese emerged from their positions and quickly
moved down the ridge, to form for attack. The Indian positions
came under fire from heavy mortars. The Indians were able to
hold off the first Chinese assault; the Chinese were apparently
unaware of the Indian positions covering Tseng Jong village
from the flank, and enfilade fire caused heavy Chinese
casualties. The Indian commander at Tseng Jong asked for
covering fire while he withdrew from what he felt was a hope-
less position; but the covering fires were refused. As the
Chinese pressed their attack, the Indian force of fifty was
ordered to disengage and retreat to the river; engagement at
Tseng Jong would have meant disaster for the Indians. The
Chinese allowed them to withdraw, and held their fire as the
survivors crossed the bridge to the south. Chinese casualties
were 33 killed or wounded. Indian casualties were seven
killed, seven missing, and eleven wounded--50% casualties.
The Chinese buried the Indian dead with full military honors,
in plain view of the retreating Indian comrades withdrawing
south of the river.

[ArjunMk1]

Actually neither China nor India released official record of 62's war !! But India is a multi party Democracy so she has to release the casualty figures while China being a Communist nation has no such urge, and in Chian Kaishek's time, things were tougher !!!

The details story of Indian war is reconstructed from the memories of veterans and journalists no effort has been made from Government . In Chinese side only a few defence specialist narrate their story , which is very much blurr and appears to be sensored !!!

But I personally feel that Chinese attack on Indians was one of her greatest blunders , she lost her ablest frend of Asia and the whole developing world !!

[taijisheng]

There is no proof of high chinese casualty, the low Indian casualty is caused by the fact that large number of indian soldiers surrended without a fight, according to chinese sources thousands of indian soldiers and officers were made prisoner of war, including a general I think.

I don't get why Indian side keeps repeating how they were outnumbered in the war, as if it's therefor not their fault to have lost the war, well, to outnumber your enemy is part of a general's job, its part of the war.

here some Photo's

1. PLA officers inspecting the situation
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2650/officers6hg.jpg
2. PLA soldiers taking over Indian position
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2034/takingover5ee.jpg
3. PLA soldiers advancing
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8122/vehicles4kp.jpg
4. Indian POW's having a good time in chinese prisoner camp
http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/8637/prinsonercamp4lw.jpg

[KYli]

Hi indianfighter Hi ArjunMk1

I already provide you one source on data about casulties from both sides.

http://www.onwar.com

Ok, since you guys try to come up with misleading idea, i guess i will try to ditch up more informations.:D

[taijisheng]

Actually neither China nor India released official record of 62's war !! But India is a multi party Democracy so she has to release the casualty figures while China being a Communist nation has no such urge, and in Chian Kaishek's time, things were tougher !!!

The details story of Indian war is reconstructed from the memories of veterans and journalists no effort has been made from Government . In Chinese side only a few defence specialist narrate their story , which is very much blurr and appears to be sensored !!!

But I personally feel that Chinese attack on Indians was one of her greatest blunders , she lost her ablest frend of Asia and the whole developing world !!

There are plenty stories of chinese side, but we use chinese and not english, so it's much less accessble for foreigners. The fact that India is a democracy doesn't mean their figures is right, each side will always keep its own story.

At that time India wasn't acting like a friend, the 'forward policy' pushed china too far, the war secured china's southwest boarder and tibet area.

[Indianfighter]

Mr taijisheng, your source doesnt mention its sources. The only mention are : Chinese casualties 3000; Indian casualties 3000.

Such frivolous claims must be backed by credible sources; otherwise they are nothing but pixel illuminations on the monitor.

My source is a much larger research paper by a US military officer. He has also provided sources, and hence I believe that is more credible.

Chinese are not taller, stronger, faster than Indians. They won the war simply because they outnumbered Indian forces (upto 20:1 in some theatres), not to mention their superior firepower.

I request the Chinese members to devote at least 15-30 minutes to patiently read the neutral research paper that I provided.
It has been mentioned how often entire Chinese regiments/brigades etc. were against Indian guard posts and small camps.

Speaking of Democracy, few years after the war ended, India's film industry made a film on it titled "Haqeeqat" (meaning reality).
It shows how Indian positions were overrun by Chinese and how Chinese troops used to shout "Hindi-Cheeni Bhai-bhai..." (meaning, Indians, Chinese brothers-brothers...).

Had China lost the war, there would have been a law in China forbidding its discussion like the law on discussing Holocaust in Europe. I can say so with conviction knowing the nature of the CCP.

[taijisheng]

Mr taijisheng, your source doesnt mention its sources. The only mention are : Chinese casualties 3000; Indian casualties 3000.


It's not my source, I know some chinese websites but I didn't provide a source, I only know there is no official figure provided by china.


My source is a much larger research paper by a US military officer. He has also provided sources, and hence I believe that is more credible.


" US .. " and "truth" , these two words are in my opinion quite opposite to each other...maybe you want to believe whatever the americans says, I certainly don't.


Chinese are not taller, stronger, faster than Indians. They won the war simply because they outnumbered Indian forces (upto 20:1 in some theatres), not to mention their superior firepower.


No, but chinese soldiers are more diciplined, and the PLA at that time was simply more superior, look at the wars they have been through, first against japanese, then KWT army, then the US army. And how many wars did the Indian army had at that time ? To hide behind such excuses as being outnumberd and outgunned is lame, its like a boxer lost a fight then says he didn't prepare it well.


Had China lost the war, there would have been a law in China forbidding its discussion like the law on discussing Holocaust in Europe. I can say so with conviction knowing the nature of the CCP.

China lost in the opnium war, and couldn't prevent a japanese invasion, and there are plenty of movies made about those lost wars. Chinese don't deny defeats, becuase we learn from them. If you fool yourself by denying the defeats, you will never learn from them.

You know very little about China or the CCP, it may not be democratic, but it can face the fact.In the vietnam war, china suffered heavy casualty, nobody denied, because it really happened, vietnamese army was very wel prepared against a chinese invasion and made the best usage of the terrain, the vietnamese army at that time had extensive fighting experiences while the chinese army hadn't had a war for more than 10 years and all the good officers were fired in culture revolution. But in the sino-indian war, a better trained chinese army, with superior equipment and number, with terrain advantage, with advantage of suprise, sufferred heavy casualty while overrunning the poor trained, unprepared, low-moral,poor-supplied Indian army ??? get real, it's not what happened.

[ArjunMk1]

I don't get why Indian side keeps repeating how they were outnumbered in the war, as if it's therefor not their fault to have lost the war, well, to outnumber your enemy is part of a general's job, its part of the war.



Its actually the fault of Indian politicians !!!

Indian Political leadership could never estimate the depth of the situation , neither there was adequate intelligence info. They put those ill armed , ill clad soldiers to some what called 'aggressive patrolling' !!! Also the troop's position was determined by the political leaders , for example troops were deployed in open valleyes , river banks , when the hills at both sides were left for the Chinese to occupy!

Actually the political leadership was so di-illusioned in 'Indi-Chini bhai bhai' concept that they thought China will never attack , also they ignored what ever little intellegence that was available about Chinese built up .

[taijisheng]

Its actually the fault of Indian politicians !!!
Actually the political leadership was so di-illusioned in 'Indi-Chini bhai bhai' concept that they thought China will never attack , also they ignored what ever little intellegence that was available about Chinese built up .

I never understood the concept of 'Indi-Chini bhai bhai', really, if two Indian 'bhai' have a dispute over a piece of land, one can just take it without thinking, and the other will just do nothing ?

Its actually the fault of Indian politicians !!!
Also the troop's position was determined by the political leaders , for example troops were deployed in open valleyes , river banks , when the hills at both sides were left for the Chinese to occupy!


I can hardly belive it, the political leaders tell the army where to delopy ???
and how about the army officers, they don't know uphills is a safer position than down in the river bank ? I can't believe the politicians can control the army at that low level, even the CCP, which has a party officer at company level, can't tell the captain to do that.

[Jagan]

Hello there,

This is my first post on this forum (infact my first day).

Can someone post what this page is about? this is posted in the first link of this thread
http://jczs.sina.com.cn/bbs/p/2005/1102/07561925.html

I am interested in the last set of pictures that show some IAF related helicopters. can anyone tell me what the accompanying text says?

While I am at it, i would like to add to Arjun's post. While india never published an official account, its ministry of defence did put together an official history of the war that was never published. however a few years ago it has been 'leaked' by a leading newspaper and now it is available for download on the Bharat-Rakshak website.

As far as indian casualities are concerned, the names of the soldiers lost and missing in teh war can be queried from www.amar-jawan.org.

regards

Jagan

Apologies,

I found the 'translated' link from the second post and have been able to understand it to an extent.

However the machine translated text really does notmake much sense..

"then Mr. Carr will ride Soviet assistance from the Soviet Union were still driving metres -8 are here inspections have reaction from the helicopter was on the Chinese army seized, causing Mr. Carr will ride the ox pull unit jeeps braved money, either one insert the company lost, Raul will be on the Chinese people are. This aircraft metres --8 helicopter is the only one China and seized the Indian army helicopters, the Chinese war of the TNI to announce the return of all seized equipment, but helicopters did not have. "

Where can one find the original film from which the screen shots have been taken from?

[jatt]

I wasn't gonna get invloved in the this heated debate but it seems some sone just doesn't have common sense. I won't say anynames.
First off its a fact IA was outnumbered during the initial confrontation. If you think they weren't then your seriously loosing common sense. Second they had inferior equipment. PLA attacked IA very strongly. IA retreated. I would too. PLA walked in unchallenged into a lot of Indian land. Now after that India recieved aid and ammunition. What happened next is IA moblized the army from Kashmir to the Indo-Tibeten bordar. Its a freakin fact that IA would have soldiers at the Pakistani bordar. Makes sence doesn't it? When the IA was moblized to fight the PLA with full force and romours that IAF will get involoved PLA moved back. Not just back but retreated from the land they claimed as theirs. IA never got the chance to get back at the PLA. PLA declared victory and India declared defeat because everything was a mess. After that you do remember 1967,1988 etc???:)

[KYli]

I wasn't gonna get invloved in the this heated debate but it seems some sone just doesn't have common sense. I won't say anynames.
First off its a fact IA was outnumbered during the initial confrontation. If you think they weren't then your seriously loosing common sense. Second they had inferior equipment. PLA attacked IA very strongly. IA retreated. I would too. PLA walked in unchallenged into a lot of Indian land. Now after that India recieved aid and ammunition. What happened next is IA moblized the army from Kashmir to the Indo-Tibeten bordar. Its a freakin fact that IA would have soldiers at the Pakistani bordar. Makes sence doesn't it? When the IA was moblized to fight the PLA with full force and romours that IAF will get involoved PLA moved back. Not just back but retreated from the land they claimed as theirs. IA never got the chance to get back at the PLA. PLA declared victory and India declared defeat because everything was a mess. After that you do remember 1967,1988 etc???:)
I think you should ask yourself first. If you want a discussion, you should be more open mind. If you are already believe what you believe, that there are no point for debate. Jatt and india members if you think Indians are outnumber, Ok, believe what you told. If you think Indians have inferior equipment, find. If you think indians are better, great.

[vincelee]

can we stop with the "Chinese out numbered Indian" crap? It's the same shit thrown around by the Americans when they had to do a unilateral retreat in Korea. Just because you read it from some bullshit Indian paper doesn't mean it's true (and just because there are lots of Indian papers doesn't mean they're all valid sources).

Chinese success stems from the same ABLE leadership that led the PVA counterattack against UN(US) forces in Korea. I think we should all keep in mind that Patton said "Undisciplined courage is useless in the face of educated bullets". Instead of keep quoting some Indians bitching and moaning about running from a Chinese offensive AFTER THEY LOST THE WAR, as two Indians members here REPEATED do, it's time to look at this in an academic manner (I realize that this is asking quite a bit from the aforementioned members).

Just to get this started, one of the primary, yet rarely mentioned, factors in the entire conflict is Zhou En Lai. I think members here, especially the Indians, should read into his diplomatic plays during the 6 months before the opening salvos.

[Indianfighter]

Hello there,
This is my first post on this forum (infact my first day).

Jagan, arent you one of the admins at BR ? If yes, then nice to meet you.

Can you specifically tell about the troop deployments of China vis-a-vis India ? I posted a very detailed research paper by a US Navy personnel (1984), and it says that Indian troops were heavily outnumbered by Chinese troops at many fronts of the war.

If you have any information on that, it would be very helpful if you post it.

Thank you.

P.S The research paper is a few posts before this one.

[Jagan]

Jagan, arent you one of the admins at BR ? If yes, then nice to meet you.

Can you specifically tell about the troop deployments of China vis-a-vis India ? I posted a very detailed research paper by a US Navy personnel (1984), and it says that Indian troops were heavily outnumbered by Chinese troops at many fronts of the war.

If you have any information on that, it would be very helpful if you post it.

Thank you.

P.S The research paper is a few posts before this one.

Hi indianfighter, yep i am from BR (The IAF Site webmaster). My knowledge of the indian orbats is solely based on the Indian book son the topic. I claim no knowledge on the chinese orbats.

going by what i have read, for the intial battle, the brigade on thagla was certainly outnumbered . I recommend the book "Himalayan Blunder" by Brig JP Dalvi, who was the brig commander and a POW of the Chinese later on. its one of the best books on the china war ever written. Dalvi writes in detail of his brigades deployement - they were too strung out along a long frontline to be effective.. and they were understrength and under supplied.

While Indian army was certainly outnumbered on the initial battle, there were some ocassions - say the Brigade based at Se La. They could have held on if they had stuck ground. They had to withdraw due to an order from the divisional commander (who was panicky) and were caught up in the chinese attack. It is generally considered that they could have held out but for that decision.

i am pretty sure that most of our formations in the Aksai Chin sector were outnumbered as well, but then the reverses in tha sector were not really as haphazard as they were in NEFA

I havent read the paper that you have posted yet.. will do so shortly.

[Indianfighter]

Thank you for replying Mr. Jagan. The information given by you was good, and is a step forward in the confirmation of the fact that Indian troops were outnumbered in quite many--if not all--of the fronts of that war. I shall try to get the book by Brig. Dalvi.

The research paper on the 1962 war by Lt.Com James Calvin (US Navy), is here :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

[FreeAsia2000]

Thank you for replying Mr. Jagan. The information given by you was good, and is a step forward in the confirmation of the fact that Indian troops were outnumbered in quite many--if not all--of the fronts of that war. I shall try to get the book by Brig. Dalvi.

The research paper on the 1962 war by Lt.Com James Calvin (US Navy), is here :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

Hi

Welcome to Mr Jagan. No offense Jagan but I would call you probably the
most biased person after reading some of the stuff on your site so forgive
me if I take your claims with a pinch of salt.

Similarly Lt. Com James Calvin wrote his paper as he himself admits with very little access to chinese archives however we have now been blessed with a great deal of information in the years since.

I'll use the indian website Rediff.com as a source if I may because you are obviously familiar with it's exposure of a number of Indian political and military scandals. Mr Neville Maxwell was able to get access to secret Indian documents which were NEVER revealed to Lt Com Calvin


1. India was responsible for the war which it caused by provoking India
under the impression that Chinese forces were weaker.

Indians will be shocked to discover that, when China crushed India in 1962, the fault lay at India, or more specifically, at Jawaharlal Nehru and his clique's doorsteps. It was a hopelessly ill-prepared Indian Army that provoked China on orders emanating from Delhi, and paid the price for its misadventure in men, money and national humiliation.

and also

When the Army's report into its debacle in the border war was completed in 1963, the Indian government had good reason to keep it Top Secret and give only the vaguest, and largely misleading, indications of its contents. At that time the government's effort, ultimately successful, to convince the political public that the Chinese, with a sudden 'unprovoked aggression,' had caught India unawares in a sort of Himalayan Pearl Harbor was in its early stages, and the Report's cool and detailed analysis, if made public, would have shown that to be self-exculpatory mendacity.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/23spec.htm

2. As can be seen from the above it is obvious that the Indian military
had not planned a military campaign against China properly, however
contrary to the mantra from members of BR and certain Indian nationalists
the soldiers facing Chinese troops were not some college kids

Now many units of the once crack Indian 4th Division dissolved into rout without giving battle and, by November 20, there was no organised Indian resistance anywhere in the disputed territories. On that day, Beijing announced a unilateral ceasefire and intention to withdraw its forces: Nehru, this time, tacitly accepted.

Thus it is obvious to anyone that if you decide to launch a campaign
against a nation and lose please don't behave like children and whine
about 'but they used human-wave tactics' (they didn't) or 'they
outnumbered us' (why didn't you think of that prior to attacking?)

As for comments about democratic india and how we have to provide
information to the public...

After consultation with Mullik, Palit took it upon himself to rule that HB/B should not have access to any documents emanating from the civil side -- in other words, he blindfolded the enquiry, so far as he could, as to the nexus between the civil and military. As Palit smugly recounts his story, in an autobiography published in 1991, he personally faced down both Henderson Brooks and Bhagat, rode out their formal complaints about his obstructionism, and prevented them from prying into the 'high level policies and decisions' which he maintained were none of their business.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/24spec.htm

[Jagan]

Welcome to Mr Jagan. No offense Jagan but I would call you probably the
most biased person after reading some of the stuff on your site so forgive
me if I take your claims with a pinch of salt.


If you mean the forum, ofcourse we are biased - I dont expect to come to sinodefence and expect them to be pro-india. I expect them to be pro-chinese. So naturally BR will always be a nationalistic site - and it can be extreme in its opinions.

But if you are talking about the main site which has the actual content, I will disagree with you to a large extent. The Army Site IMHO does not have any 'created content'.. i.e content generated and written by the webmasters or by the forummembers. whatever is there is basically reproduction /rewrites from published sources or contributions from veterans. There are a number of articles written about LN Subramanian who has done lot of reading and done interviews in one context He had writtne only about the battles (Namka Chu, Rezang La) etc. I dont see anything biased in those articles. you may want to read them and then point out where they are wrong.

I'll use the indian website Rediff.com as a source if I may because you are obviously familiar with it's exposure of a number of Indian political and military scandals. Mr Neville Maxwell was able to get access to secret Indian documents which were NEVER revealed to Lt Com Calvin

Rediff is a great site, but its not a specialised military site. And they dont specialise in History .. They do bring out good articles but these are for the general public, not for dedicated historians.

Neville Maxwell has written his book in the 60s., or 1970. Contrary to Maxwell claims, he only saw some kind of a summary of the report, not the entire Hendorson-Brooks report. (Ref "Debacle to REvival" by SD Pradhan).


http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/23spec.htm

Thus it is obvious to anyone that if you decide to launch a campaign
against a nation and lose please don't behave like children and whine
about 'but they used human-wave tactics' (they didn't) or 'they
outnumbered us' (why didn't you think of that prior to attacking?)


And when did i say that? I took only the example of Namka Chu and Rezang La (in Aksai Chin) when i take the examples of being outnumbered. I clearly said in Se La, India wsa sufficiently stocked - if not for poor leadership at the command level. ARe there any accounts of REzang La battle from the Chinese side (I think Nov 21/22 in the Chshul sector). There wree 120 Indian troops on the ridge - and all but five or six perished in the battle. Surely they would have been outnumbered? I would like to know if not.


As for comments about democratic india and how we have to provide
information to the public...

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/24spec.htm

Sorry , cant take Maxwell words for it. Rediff (Bless thier souls) does an impartial job most of the time. Neville Maxwell s left leanings are well known, While his book was good to an extent (his information on the indian army's problems in command was quite good), he has developed this extreme hatred of everything Indian over the years. It is very much present in his writings. For example he wrote an article in 1968-69 or was it early 70s predicting that India wont last beyond 1990.... I dont need to elaborate on that.

And what does maxwell do currently, he runs a thinktank dedicated to promoting study of China and its influence. He is a chinese specialist - and like it or not is quite biased towards China and is anti-india.

[Gollevainen]

Welcome Jagan from my behalf also. It's good to have new members wiht lots of knowlidge and civilized ways of expressing it. Now i do have to remind you and others that we are stricktly militaryforum, concerated on chinese military particulary. We do allow discussion of other militaryes as well, but it should be done in the dedicated world armed forces subforum. You also find out that we keep extremely strict line prevent topics going offtopic so i advise all to just stick in the Sino-Indian conflict 1962 in this thread. Discussion in other matters can be done in other threads.

Also please take notice that we wont allow any sort of political discussion which has nothing to do wiht military, as they tend to be the most flaming subjects and usually couses trouple to us mods.

But i hope i didn't scare you too much, enjoy and be kind and give proper introduction of yourself in the Members club room so that we know who we are talking to :china: :china:

[FreeAsia2000]

If you mean the forum, ofcourse we are biased - I dont expect to come to sinodefence and expect them to be pro-india. I expect them to be pro-chinese. So naturally BR will always be a nationalistic site - and it can be extreme in its opinions.

Rediff is a great site, but its not a specialised military site. And they dont specialise in History .. They do bring out good articles but these are for the general public, not for dedicated historians.

Neville Maxwell has written his book in the 60s., or 1970. Contrary to Maxwell claims, he only saw some kind of a summary of the report, not the entire Hendorson-Brooks report. (Ref "Debacle to REvival" by SD Pradhan).

Sorry , cant take Maxwell words for it. Rediff (Bless thier souls) does an impartial job most of the time. Neville Maxwell s left leanings are well known, While his book was good to an extent (his information on the indian army's problems in command was quite good), he has developed this extreme hatred of everything Indian over the years. It is very much present in his writings. For example he wrote an article in 1968-69 or was it early 70s predicting that India wont last beyond 1990.... I dont need to elaborate on that.

And what does maxwell do currently, he runs a thinktank dedicated to promoting study of China and its influence. He is a chinese specialist - and like it or not is quite biased towards China and is anti-india.

Hi

Personally I would expect the forum to be unbiased in terms of analysis and biased in terms of content. Thus Gollevainen does a GREAT job of ensuring we stay ON TOPIC by reference to affairs that must pertain in some way to China
however I would be appalled if suddenly we were all expected to announce that everything created by China was the best in the world. Yes and I'm aware that this problem isn't unique to BR...certain pakistani forums have the same problem...because i was so tired of his bull about pakistan producing the best in the world i recently told a friend that pakistan had produced a double barrelled tank....:)

Do you have any evidence that his analysis is incorrect ? ie other documents ? bear in mind that it was a deliberate decision on Nehru's part not to keep minuites of the meetings. You would accept however that Neville was present at the time in India when the war took place and it was his willingness to ask questions when many western commentators were accepting uncritically indian claims that had him nearly thrown out of India ?

Btw you can read maxwell's book here so we don't have to blame rediff for their failures though you would accept that rediff has been proved spectacularly correct on Indian affairs in the past ?

http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm

Maxwell writes for an asian affairs journal...very indepth and authoritative perhaps you can check at

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.com/iss_detail00.htm

His last article is titled "The Sino-Indian Border: A Scenario for Settling this Vexatious Issue"

Also your perhaps I should give Mr Maxwell the last word regarding your comment that 'he said India would fall apart"

(It is typical of this kind of reaction that it contains some misrepresentation. For example, Mr. Plastrik says, "Maxwell states that India will 'inevitably' fall apart," although I make no such statement. The phrase, "the inevitability of it all," which Mr. Plastrik quotes, referred in my review to events in the final phase of the dissolution of Pakistan.)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10189

Perhaps you should read the source for yourself rather than relying upon biased hearsay

[Indianfighter]

I have read Neville Maxwell's article, and I too think that he harbours pro-China viewpoints.
For a completely neutral and technical viewpoint of the politics and military action of the 1962 war, I strongly suggest the reference of the research paper by the former US Navy Lt. commander, James Calvin.

a] Aksai Chin was handed over by a representative of independent Tibet to British India, without Chinese intervention. Thats why when Indian forces moved to reclaim Aksai Chin, they were acting in accordance with the signed treaty and not "provoked aggression" as Mr. Maxwell stated.

b] That is the reason why His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a guest of India, and so are thousands of Tibetans who seek independence from China.
India doesnt recognize Tibet to be a part of China, but a territory that is under occupation and still officilly demands the seccession of Aksai Chin from Chinese control to India.

c] The cause for the so-termed "cowardice" was because India had already lost or was badly losing a lot of territory, and the generals in upper command did not want to lose more men in fighting a much stronger enemy.

Please do note, that it was this very defeat that Pakistan hoped to exploit just 3 years later in the 1965 war, when it tried to capture Kashmir from India and LOST.
India ended up capturing over half of Pakistani territory, and also occupied some parts of Pak occupied Kashmir including Kargil. Pakistan also occupied large parts of Indian territory, but couldnt achieve any of its objectives especially vis-a-vis Kashmir.
9 years later, in 1971, India liberated East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) from the Pakistani military.

Hence to say that the Indian army is incompetent or "cowardly" would be, naive.

[Jagan]

Free Asia,

I do have Maxwells book in my personal collection. I have almost every other book on the China War written by Indian army personnel till the 90s. I can say with conviction that most of the military history books written on the china war by indian army officers or historians are quite fair - they tell the story as it is . They point out the flaws ans lacunae as they exist. some of them ofcourse are more like personal accounts and would have been written keeping in view the personal defence of the author. but other than that, regimental histories, and others are quite fair and accurate.

My quote on maxwell was based on this
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2005/07/17/stories/2005071700140300.htm

the premise of the above link is like this - there are two ways of looking at india - the optimistic view and the pssimistic view. maxwell took the latter - which meant he gives no credit to india or its inbuilt strengths like democracy. and we are talking of 1967, which i believe was much before he wrote his book. Maxwells book is a good read, but its not the final say on this topic. He had based his book on Kauls and Dalvis book for what happened at the Namka Chu battle. for the rest of it, I am not sure what his sources are (Apart from the dubious claim that he had the henderson brooks report - he probably had a summary of it rather than the complete report). there have been many other histories that have been written after the war that give better descriptions of the battle. They are too numerous to list out here.


Off the topic: Coming to the sites - When it involves India and Pakistan, the opposite of what you say ("I would expect the forum to be unbiased in terms of analysis and biased in terms of content. ") stands true most of the time.. Usually the sites are done by a smaller team, perhaps half a dozen people. The forums on the other hand consist of thousands of people posting in thier free time. to expect unbiased opinion out of them is unrealistc. Whether its an indian site or a pakistani site.

[FreeAsia2000]

I have read Neville Maxwell's article, and I too think that he harbours pro-China viewpoints.

Hence to say that the Indian army is incompetent or "cowardly" would be, naive.

Hi

India doesnt recognize Tibet to be a part of China,

Actually it does.

In 2003, India said it recognized the Tibet region as an autonomous part of China and Beijing recognized Sikkim as part of India while both sides decided to appoint special representatives for finding a solution to the boundary question.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/article_1136308.php/India_China_hold_boundary_talks

please see also

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0626/p01s03-woap.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EG09Df01.html

I could give you more sources but maybe your're in possession of some
information that India has decided not to recognise it again ?

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that the Indian soldiers were
cowards. I believe that India lost because Nehru was being his usual
duplitious self.

As for 1965 or 1971 or Brass tacks, Kargil etc NONE of these are relevant :off

[vincelee]

"Hence to say that the Indian army is incompetent or "cowardly" would be, naive."

Really Indian "fighter"? I think you should look into the POW counts.

[Indianfighter]

In 2003, India said it recognized the Tibet region as an autonomous part of China and Beijing recognized Sikkim as part of India
Recognizing as an autonous part is not the same as an integral part.

That does not mean India has given up its claim on Aksai Chin, which independent Tibet gave to India. The news reports provided by you itself say that India still has claims on Aksai Chin that independent Tibet handed to India.

Even Kashmir is an autonomous region of India, yet India and Pakistan treat it as a dispute. India only provides for defence and communication, whereas Kashmir makes its own laws [even the President cannot interfere in their affairs].

Please note that the Government of Free Tibet in exile is in India. Their headquarters are in north India, and they run their government from