PLA deployment against India

well Soviet Misschieves werent exactly results of the Tsarist russian tradition, but rose from the proplems of Stalinism, that same political system that PRC fielded, and From what I have heard, It only proovens my assumptions. Tactics and even stratecigs have little to do whit it, but if you consided this 'human wave' that has been on the trapestry lately, You will find it almoust similar than NPP tactic of Soviet union dating from '34 field manuals...
But where it is seen most is in the officers working enverioment, and things like Cultural revolution didnt anyways improve the situation.

ahs thousand of grants / M-4 superior in quality and quanity to the PanzerIII. as for aircraft the english has an even better advantage.

Click to expand...

British didnt have thousands of Grants/M-4 in the beging of the 41 when Rommel came along, And it was Crusader tanks that fromed the bulk of British troops and it wasent anyway superior to Panzer III ...and remember Rommel still lost the war...

their defeat to the japanese in 1942 in just pathetic jap army has no tank limited air support and some old cannons and outdated infantry weapons

Click to expand...

?? They were colonial troops, thousands of miles away from their homeland and support...they didnt have any change at first place.

Gollevainen said:

well Soviet Misschieves werent exactly results of the Tsarist russian tradition, but rose from the proplems of Stalinism, that same political system that PRC fielded, and From what I have heard, It only proovens my assumptions. Tactics and even stratecigs have little to do whit it, but if you consided this 'human wave' that has been on the trapestry lately, You will find it almoust similar than NPP tactic of Soviet union dating from '34 field manuals....But where it is seen most is in the officers working enverioment, and things like Cultural revolution didnt anyways improve the situation.....

Click to expand...

get it put of your head that the PRC based their infantry tatics on the russian model in organization they were closer to the jap/nationalist army if you have no clue then look in the korea war thread

find me one chinese general that had military training in the CCCP and did well
in fact none of they communist commandrs in 1962 had military training in the soviet union

there was no such thing as human wave if they tried that the 2 chinese division would have been wiped out long ago

in the chinese army poltical commisers are not what they are in soviet union
several key differance
1 commisser usue;y have battle experiance they have been fighting the japanese/kmt for 20 years not you average stalist

2 military comanders have power to over ride their decision even if the general is a KMT defector

culteral revoulation =1966-1976 if 1962 ther was no such thing

Gollevainen said:

ritish didnt have thousands of Grants/M-4 in the beging of the 41 when Rommel came along, And it was Crusader tanks that fromed the bulk of British troops and it wasent anyway superior to Panzer III ...and remember Rommel still lost the war....

Click to expand...

when they british used the crusader tank( again with superior numbers) the german did well aginst british armour with a kill ratio of 4:1 they lost when the odds wher like 40 panzer VS 250 M-4

Gollevainen said:

?? They were colonial troops, thousands of miles away from their homeland and support...they didnt have any change at first place.

Click to expand...

they have the advantage of numbers and equipmant whey can they win ????

get it put of your head that the PRC based their infantry tatics on the russian model in organization they were closer to the jap/nationalist army if you have no clue then look in the korea war thread

Click to expand...

Thats your saying I already said that isent a factor of it. I speak about commanding athmosphere, not organisations

in the chinese army poltical commisers are not what they are in soviet union
several key differance
1 commisser usue;y have battle experiance they have been fighting the japanese/kmt for 20 years not you average stalist

Click to expand...

The fact that they have political officers speaks a lot about my suspicious, But again You fail to show any example of Why the PLA commanding atmosphere wouldnt have been similar than in other totalitarian armyes.

But Guess by consulting someone inside PLA would be sufficent enough to answer this dilemma

culteral revoulation =1966-1976 if 1962 ther was no such thing

Click to expand...

I gave it as overal example of what sort of things the PRC managed to conduct as second hand evidence that based on these you cannot deny my orginal sucpicous. Korean War and its cassualty rates also Speaks from my behalv.

they have the advantage of numbers and equipmant whey can they win ????

Click to expand...

support base, support base...Why did German lost WWII? couse they couldnt support their troops in Russia sufficently ennough...This is basic 'art of war' if using eastern terms and I think there shouldnt be any guestion what so ever over it.

"I gave it as overal example of what sort of things the PRC managed to conduct as second hand evidence that based on these you cannot deny my orginal sucpicous. Korean War and its cassualty rates also Speaks from my behalv."

It clearly does not. If you were to take the US counts at face value, the entire PVA would have been dead before reaching the 37th parallel.

As for the command atmosphere of the PLA during 62 and before, let me ask you this: can an army that was brought up in unconventional warfare and must keep fighting superior enemies AFFORD to be tactically inflexible? Because the Soviet army was anything BUT flexible, and they paid dearly, in the initial defense of the Motherland, and in Finland. Mind you, Stalin and Mao approached military command from very different angles, Stalin wanted a wave of steel, while Mao prefered a more...indirect approach. These ideologies are passed down the command structure.

And the political atmosphere during 62? It wasn't as bad as the Soviet Union during 52, that's for sure. The real proverbial shit did not hit the fan until 66.

well the thing is that (like i have said now couple of times) strategical or tacktical thin´king isent the factor in this....Perhaps I havent been clear enough But I try to explain it now from the iron...

Im talking about atmosphere, commanding enverioment. How much chinese officers have liberty to decissions. Who makes the strategical decissions? What sort of pennalty system/philoshophy they have? How big importance does doctrines and textbooks have? Is everything covered in there or do they allow adjustment and improvisation? what is the fate of failuring officer? failuring mens?

Answer to these questions And you will get closer to what I mean. Dont take it as offence that I seem to see things from differnt eye when Im not looking behind 'chinese' eyes and I have actual first hand experience of how military units works and operate and How big issue is the commanding enverioment.
Wars arent won by weapons and tactics alone but by supply and innovativety of company/battalion level commanders. Tactics and strategyes aply to the situation before the battle, There are useless in actuall combat where the officers and mens capapilty to adjust to the situation makes the difference.

When It seems to be clear that no one of us has any information nor experience of these matters in PLA (or if anyone has, Please share it whit us), we just have to make assumptions. And in that ligth several factors speaks against PLA. The fact that Chinese communism has always been the most authoritan by its nature isent exactly benefit to the open enviroment which is the key to the innovativity. If one has to drawn single unificating factor of why west has overal succeeded in any cases better than its counterparts, Is the innovativity and athmosphere to support it.

Gollevainen said:

well the thing is that (like i have said now couple of times) strategical or tacktical thin´king isent the factor in this....Perhaps I havent been clear enough But I try to explain it now from the iron...
Im talking about atmosphere, commanding enverioment. How much chinese officers have liberty to decissions. Who makes the strategical decissions? What sort of pennalty system/philoshophy they have? How big importance does doctrines and textbooks have? Is everything covered in there or do they allow adjustment and improvisation? what is the fate of failuring officer? failuring mens?
Answer to these questions And you will get closer to what I mean. Dont take it as offence that I seem to see things from differnt eye when Im not looking behind 'chinese' eyes and I have actual first hand experience of how military units works and operate and How big issue is the commanding enverioment.
Wars arent won by weapons and tactics alone but by supply and innovativety of company/battalion level commanders. Tactics and strategyes aply to the situation before the battle, There are useless in actuall combat where the officers and mens capapilty to adjust to the situation makes the difference.When It seems to be clear that no one of us has any information nor experience of these matters in PLA (or if anyone has, Please share it whit us), we just have to make assumptions. And in that ligth several factors speaks against PLA.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean so style of management

here is the thing during the korean war when the chinese supply was over streched and they had to abandon soul there was strong objection from the the soviets and Kim without direct order from Mao the chinese comander order the whole army to retret.( thats what saved them from the encirculment of the 8th army)

innovativity is essencial for the surival a weaker army. Many PLA comanders wree ex-nationalist if the princaple of Stalinism apply here they would have been shot insted of promotred

in the chinese civial war there are plenty of example of military commanders overriding dicision by the political leadership to achive victory.

the working relationship bewten the commisers is different from the model in soviet union

in CCCP they are nembers of communist party with little military experince in warfere sent by the party to watch tarist commander.

in china the commisers are usuely military commanders themself Deng Xiaoping was a capable commander before he become the head of the communist party. their main purpose is to teach communist princaples to to the ranks sothey are better motivated .

the generals them self are usuely menbers of the CCP so the need for political policing is far less then the soviet union

in fact to attempts to politicalized the PLA in 1935/1940( again started by soviets) both failed proves you point is moot

Gollevainen said:

The fact that Chinese communism has always been the most authoritan by its nature isent exactly benefit to the open enviroment which is the key to the innovativity. If one has to drawn single unificating factor of why west has overal succeeded in any cases better than its counterparts, Is the innovativity and athmosphere to support it.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gollevainen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

lazzydigger said:

.
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.

Click to expand...

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