PLA deployment against India

Now we seem to nearing the point where we are both talking about the same issue.
But we are not there yet...You see i'm not stating that China and Soviets used their political officers in similar ways, in fact the politruks in soviet army units had their role being varied several times. It was very soon discovered how badly it worked in practise, and the political officers were surpassed in the chain-of-command in quite early stage.

But again you fail to see my point about the athmosphere whihc isen't purely relative to any spesific issue, more of result of many fafourable (or in this cas infafourable) elements. But actually you nor I cannot awnser to my question, only those actually served PLA in those days can...

the communist army proved they are capable of switching from convential warfere to guerrilla warfare in 1937 proved they are capable of change. the fact the they manage to creat effective tatics that allowed them to break jap encircument proved they are capable of innovation. in the korean war they had to rapadily adpt from semi-guerrilla to trench warfere also proves my point.

I'm not going to venture to pointing out all non so succesfull efforts of PLA's operational history, we are already way too oftopic. But i will say this: If you take good look at all conflicts were PLA has involved, can anyone honestly say that it has performed without faults? I can name few good examples which will support my doupts quite unquestionably, but like i said it isen't the issue in this thread and we can do it in some other place.

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

I'm not going to venture to pointing out all non so succesfull efforts of PLA's operational history, we are already way too oftopic. But i will say this: If you take good look at all conflicts were PLA has involved, can anyone honestly say that it has performed without faults? I can name few good examples which will support my doupts quite unquestionably, but like i said it isen't the issue in this thread and we can do it in some other place.

if you want to know the exact athmosphere then only some PLA vetern can tell you but from all we already know my guess is its not ruled by fear as it stalins army

every army has its faults what matters its how quickly it can adpt in each war the Pla manage to get the better of its enemy by the end

Had a quick look around this interesting, yet easily escalated topic.

Good old 1960's
1. India army are no sloush at that time as individuals. They are battle harderned and has proven their valor in WWII for British Empire.

Problem: India was a clonial force. British Gov knows that the baton must be hold at their own hands. There for, the Officer are filled by Jolly old poms. Indian officer are very very rare. Most Indian makes good soldiers, but to the leadership of Other Rank only. They can be great up to the level of company, but any thing higher than that is missing. After the British pull out, the warrant officers and lower rank officer from the former colonial force raise quickly to the level of decission makers with out proper training. IMHO, they were experience and equiped to fight a battle, but not winning the war.

2. Human wave:
Yes, chinese army were Huge at that time. Still huge in numbers till these days. But in Tibert, it is a different story. PLA just don't have the money and logistic supplier to keep a large number of troops stationed in Tibet. Only after the conflict break out, Mao decided to purchase large airplane to ferry troops into Tibet. I did hear the stoy of one soldier hold of a large number of opponents. That was from PLA side though. There was other artical from Chinese source regard heavy losses too. If i remember correctly, it was a company trying to take over an fortiled position. It was successful initially, but one machine gun nest holding a choking point. Chinese toked very heavy casulty to over run that position. Not at the order or 50 but was 1 and half section in casulties.

3. Today.
The Natural terrian of Tibet will make a land assult costly as it did many many moons ago. The elite mountain warefare troop are still much limit in members compare to convensional army. The conflict is still centered with infantry tactics with small arms fire with battalion level fire support. Divisional fire support are very limited. logistic for the second wave are diffcult as well. So the conflict will remain as a quick boarder conflict. I think areial conflict will probably decide the few yard of boarder line..

Best thing. Set down and start deal making.

Originally Posted by lazzydigger

.
The Natural terrian of Tibet will make a land assult costly as it did many many moons ago. The elite mountain warefare troop are still much limit in members compare to convensional army. The conflict is still centered with infantry tactics with small arms fire with battalion level fire support. Divisional fire support are very limited. logistic for the second wave are diffcult as well. So the conflict will remain as a quick boarder conflict. I think areial conflict will probably decide the few yard of boarder line..

Best thing. Set down and start deal making.

I agree with some of the points however two points I can't agree with

1. It won't remain a quick border conflict. Please see Siachen

2. Artillery will be the deciding factor along with AA missiles

The PRC today isn't dependent on putting more troops in Siachen Glacier to fortiify its borders.

Canada's best defense in the past against being swallowed by the US was to build a railway across the nation and promote settlement westwards. With populated towns and cities, it's easier to maintain your claim than leaving them empty.

Unfortunately, Tibet region is both landlocked and high-altitutde, so a railroad across the border region with India and establishing settlements is out of the question. But the Qingzang Railway will at least bring more economic development to Lhasa and fortify PRC claim to the area, contributing to the "China Western Development" effort.

China's western region (as defined by the Western Development plan) accounts for 71% of China's territory but only contains 29% of its population and 17% of total economic output. Populating and developing those areas will fortify the PRC hold a lot better than putting more troops in. Look at it this way, who's going to invade from those border regions today?? The only threat is poverty, local nationalism, and instability.

Originally Posted by Red Guard

so far, one of the weakest military district is in that part of the country. in tibet, we only have some armed police units, and border guards. china has no interest about india.
i think we have a mountain division somewhere there between tibet and xin jiang.

1) Chengdu Military Region is responsible for India and Tibet. CMR is by far the best equipped MR.
a) 13th Group Army (56005 Unit), Chongqing

149th Mechanised Infantry Division, Emei, Sichuan is is rapid reaction unit.

2nd Army Aviation Regiment has front base at Lhasa, Tibet.

b)Tibet Military District has higher administrative power than normal provincial military districts.

* 52nd Moutain Infantry Brigade, Linzhi, Tibet
* 53rd Moutain Infantry Brigade, Tibet
* 8th Motorised Infantry Division, Shawan, Xinjiang
* Artillery Brigade
* AAA Brigade
* Engineer Regiment

2) Lanzhou Military Region comes second in line. It has higher administrative power than normal provincial military districts.

Originally Posted by simonov

That's unique, The Indian get training from British. And many of veteran involved in WW II. So if comparing with PLa during that time, PLA is nothing in experience. (PLA experince in Civil War and Korea War, The india is far experience than that, they involve in Asia, Western and North Africa Theatre during in WW II)

I read somewhere that the Indian leader Nehru "almost" disbanded the army. Indian Army started getting equipment after 1962.

Originally Posted by Indianfighter

India lost the 1962 war because Indian troops were outnumbered almost 1:30 in most theaters. The overall ratio was heavily against India.

Chinese troops suffered many more casualties than Indian troops. One lone Indian soldier manning a post killed 50 Chinese soldiers (when they attempted to climb up to his post), before he was martyred.

Today that numerical inferiority does not exist, and hence China cannot launch an attack on India on the same scale/strategy as 1962.

Wrong, Majority of the Indian troops did not see the Chinese. There were Indian outposts which fought and they were not equipped. The fighting which took place involved a small portion of Indian Army, this particular small section was out numbered.

The failure was because of Indian Leader Nehru and General Kaul who happened to be liked by Nehru inspite of his aversion to army.

Chinese causuality figure are not known, but they did have have atleast 2-3 soldiers for a gun. technically it means, if one soldier dies, the other one picks up the gun and fights. (i don't know how it was implemented)

I study a lot about India and China sitting here in India.

I read somewhere that the Indian leader Nehru "almost" disbanded the army. Indian Army started getting equipment after 1962.
....
.....

The failure was because of Indian Leader Nehru and General Kaul who happened to be liked by Nehru inspite of his aversion to army.

You are right on target Mate !!! Nehru was so di-illusioned with B.S theories like NAM , Peaceful coexistance , Asian Aliance .... .bla bla ....
Also Indian defence minister Krishna Menon shares half of the blame , he who rejected the calls for modernisation of army but later signed the order for aggressive patrolling !!! Its actually his and not Nehru's fault , Nehru being a Gandhian was easy to get chanted towards those fine looking theories !!!

Also a lot of men blame General Kaul, but its to be noted that he was heading a weak army directed by an ill conceived plan .

Chinese causuality figure are not known, but they did have have atleast 2-3 soldiers for a gun. technically it means, if one soldier dies, the other one picks up the gun and fights. (i don't know how it was implemented)

Now this is new to me !! Sounds like Soviet army conscripts and partizans in Leningrad , Kiev , etc !!!

Originally Posted by ArjunMk1

You are right on target Mate !!! Nehru was so di-illusioned with B.S theories like NAM , Peaceful coexistance , Asian Aliance .... .bla bla ....
Also Indian defence minister Krishna Menon shares half of the blame , he who rejected the calls for modernisation of army but later signed the order for aggressive patrolling !!! Its actually his and not Nehru's fault , Nehru being a Gandhian was easy to get chanted towards those fine looking theories !!!

Also a lot of men blame General Kaul, but its to be noted that he was heading a weak army directed by an ill conceived plan .


Now this is new to me !! Sounds like Soviet army conscripts and partizans in Leningrad , Kiev , etc !!!

Au Contraire General Kaul seems to be the cause of degradation of the army. But what do I know? I just read it in books and i derived the conclusion. I remember reading about a particular General who used to outwit the political Nehru. Jokes like Nehru used to sit in front of the Jeep to embaress the General and the good humoured general used to pull the driver to back seat and take over the wheels.

If you read the history, you will find the Indian Intelligence on Chinese was bad. The Kaul was clueless what was in offing. There is a outfit called SFF (special frontier Force, am I correct?) which is made of Tibetians. Their intelligence network was never used. CIA was using this force effectively for Tibet games. But the General kaul never planned for the Chinese. So did his boss. Yes you mention correct on a Menon character. He was a communist minded chap. Another man who was part of the failure was (he was never right on China policy) a character called Pannikar (spell?)

Another anecdote i recall reaiding is a Chinese military man witnessed Indian excerces in 1950's. I think kaul was interacting with him then. After the Chinese Military man left to Burma where he mentioned that Indians know knothing about fighting a war. Lol. the same Chinese was directing the 1962 war and Gen kaul was on Indian side.

That human wave (nice terminology ) is true. But i really don't know howit was implemented. Chinese were not rich then. They had more manpower than guns, so one gun was used by many men. The logistics was well planned. Chinese built good reads and ammo stocking was good.

Originally Posted by Mate

1) Chengdu Military Region is responsible for India and Tibet. CMR is by far the best equipped MR.
a) 13th Group Army (56005 Unit), Chongqing

149th Mechanised Infantry Division, Emei, Sichuan is is rapid reaction unit.

2nd Army Aviation Regiment has front base at Lhasa, Tibet.

b)Tibet Military District has higher administrative power than normal provincial military districts.

* 52nd Moutain Infantry Brigade, Linzhi, Tibet
* 53rd Moutain Infantry Brigade, Tibet
* 8th Motorised Infantry Division, Shawan, Xinjiang
* Artillery Brigade
* AAA Brigade
* Engineer Regiment

2) Lanzhou Military Region comes second in line. It has higher administrative power than normal provincial military districts.



I read somewhere that the Indian leader Nehru "almost" disbanded the army. Indian Army started getting equipment after 1962.



Wrong, Majority of the Indian troops did not see the Chinese. There were Indian outposts which fought and they were not equipped. The fighting which took place involved a small portion of Indian Army, this particular small section was out numbered.

The failure was because of Indian Leader Nehru and General Kaul who happened to be liked by Nehru inspite of his aversion to army.

Chinese causuality figure are not known, but they did have have atleast 2-3 soldiers for a gun. technically it means, if one soldier dies, the other one picks up the gun and fights. (i don't know how it was implemented)

I study a lot about India and China sitting here in India.

stop BSing is you have no proof the best equipted division in china at the time are those that fought in the Korean war E.G 39 38 50 army
troops near india are on the bottoum of the list for new equipment in 1958 they were still using bolt action rifle

as for 2/3 men per gun thats even more pathetic please look in the korean war thread for info on that matter they were alot better armed in 1962 the 1950. Humen wave in not possible in such mountainous territory. NO they were never used by the chinese army but a western myth India picked up to cover its defeat.

each squad had 2*Ak 1*RPD and the rest have CKC rifle not to mention flame throwers and RPG-2s

fire support include M1938 cannon and US 105s

Mate: please please do more reseach before you post again. we would like this to develop into a more professional forum with concret information that's backed by facts.

it is certainly NOT true that there's 2-3 soldier per gun, by 1962, chinese small arms industry was already fully developed and the soldiers were definitely well armed already.

the CCP have never used human wave tactics in korea or india, that is a proven myth. here's a question you can chew on.. how do you send millions of men to ther other side of the himalayans??? even today it's very hard to send a entire division over there, in 1962 it's almost impossible. so with limited troops, how can a officer use human wave??

darth sidious and PiSigma,

We have mil interaction programmes. We keep inviting Mil and ex Mil personnel. One of them happens to be maj gen (retd) E. D'Souza from IA. He served the IA against the Chinese in 1960's which included 1962 and 1965. He is Ex. British India veteran too. Its a fact and its confirmed by him. I am credible to the fact that have pointed out a living person. You can send the Chinese rep to the mentioned personnel for confirmation. It shouldn't be difficult. Some of the Chinese mil reps have already met in him a seminar. I was present there too. The Chinese reps were keen to learn the Indian ABM defences status from him. I am not aware of the full converstaion, but the Chinese do know him.

I have no intenton of taking sides. I just happen to stumble on this discussion which happens to be a subject of my study too.

i don't think a personal opinion can be considered as fact. and a general's opinion is equally as a grunt's, they are just opinions after all..

think of it this way. if the chinese commander wanted the indians to think they are using human wave and didn't actually use it, and the indians fell for the trap and believed in the chinese commander, their opinion of the war will automatically be that chinese used human wave when in reality they didn't.

mate you haven't been on this forum long enough to know my background.. i have an uncle that is a colonel in the PLA. he is in the chengdu MR working under the logistics department (this is from experience and not personal opinion since he doesn't run the department, and if you ask around you'll know chengdu gets some very good funding). from what he told me, chengdu region have some of the best logistics in the MRs. this reason was because of the sino-indian war. you see during the war, china used lessons they learned in korea about logistics, so they were able to make sure that all soldiers got warm clothing (in korea they didn't) and sufficient food and munition (and of course guns, without guns morale drops). as a result their logistics for the war was very good, and only when they couldn't support a longer supply route did the chinese pull back. and with more experience from the sino-indian war, chengdu MR still have some excellent logistics.

my uncle drive up to Lhasa every spring and fall with the troops and inspect the guards along the way, and trust me they definitly know what they are doing. i'm not entitled to tell you more information as i'm not even allowed to know it, so i'll stop here.

Its difficult to explain to non-Mils. Anyway, we have interactions with the PLA too. And much more aces to records. Anyway, I cannot find some usefull inputs i wanted here. I cannot post more. You see i got a job to keep. thanks for the co-op...

Originally Posted by Mate

darth sidious and PiSigma,

We have mil interaction programmes. We keep inviting Mil and ex Mil personnel. One of them happens to be maj gen (retd) E. D'Souza from IA. He served the IA against the Chinese in 1960's which included 1962 and 1965. He is Ex. British India veteran too. Its a fact and its confirmed by him. I am credible to the fact that have pointed out a living person. You can send the Chinese rep to the mentioned personnel for confirmation. It shouldn't be difficult. Some of the Chinese mil reps have already met in him a seminar. I was present there too. The Chinese reps were keen to learn the Indian ABM defences status from him. I am not aware of the full converstaion, but the Chinese do know him.

I have no intenton of taking sides. I just happen to stumble on this discussion which happens to be a subject of my study too.

How much does your general know about chinese army in the 50s????
from your post you have no idea what their equipment is let alone their tatics
country bashing and Flaming is not allowed

he may have known some command level thing but not down to equipment and squad tatics