Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Both get half of each of the disputed areas lengthwise?

This wouldn't work because along Aksai Chin, it wouldn't be acceptable to China and along Arunachal Pradesh, it wouldn't be acceptable to India.

The main solution is the one China has been offering since the 1950s - Aksai Chin is Chinese and both sides formally demarcate the Ladakh side dispute with China's offers since that era or whatever version of it, arguing over 1% or 2% of entire disputed area so it's not as important as demarcating and settling. India refused in the 1950s and still refuses to demarcate. China formally stops claiming Arunachal Pradesh as the Ladakh side dispute is settled. I think China is more than happy to do this because, well it's been suggesting this since before China made a claim on Arunachal Pradesh. The main reason that I suspect for China to make a claim on Arunachal Pradesh is to pressure India to stop claiming Aksai Chin.

The history of this basically goes:

1. China under the Yuan dynasty invaded and annexed Tibet (this was well before European colonialism btw for those who aren't aware of history).

2. The land that is today's Aksai Chin was administered under the Kingdom of Tibet. As China incorporated Tibet (however one wishes to call it let's call it annex here), China administered Aksai Chin since the Yuan dynasty.

3. China went through many periods of internal warring and dynasties and every time there is weakness in the center of power in China, Tibet attempted to break away.

4. During China's revolution period and civil war period of the 20th century, Tibet wanted to break away and the idea was sort of supported by China's adversaries. Tibet did not manage to break away and as the civil war resolved with KMT escaping to Taiwan and calling themselves the Republic of China, PRC maintained rule over Tibet. It's important to note for context that India during the 20th century has already at the conclusion of the century, annexed multiple kingdoms that were independent of the new India. At this point in history, the USA has annexed many parts of Mexico to incorporate into California and Texas. What I'm trying to say is that if China is a "bad guy" for annexing, keep in mind that this was done during the Yuan dynasty under Mongol rulers. Throughout this time, Western powers have done much more "annexing". Tibet can be "freed" rightfully less so than Australia should be "freed" of Anglo rule, Canada should be returned to natives and the USA... well go figure.

5. India is a new country in 1950s during the initial confrontation and disputes on the only source of dispute (Aksai Chin area), China is a country going through revolution and just finished civil war and WW2. The British invited both sides to demarcate this stretch of land that no one previously settled in or used properly. China did not recognise the legitimacy of the British being involved due to viewing it as an imperialist power and having no genuine intentions so did not attend the meeting. The British and Indians simply then drew their own lines as they considered "fair" and "fit" and those included Aksai Chin as part of India. China disagrees and there is the beginning of the Ladakh side dispute. Made more complicated after Pakistan and the history following British India -> India transition.

6. India refused to stop claiming Aksai Chin because there is a false legitimacy from the British India unilateral demarcation during the transition to independent India. In an effort to mirror what China considers India's unilateral claim making, China also made a claim on a piece of land that was administered by India since day 1 (to use a figure of speech) and that piece of land is a stretch along Arunachal Pradesh which China knows is strategically worrying for India due to what's commonly referred to as the "chicken's neck" since Bangladesh became independent of India.

So if India stops claiming Aksai Chin, I personally think China would stop claiming Arunachal Pradesh since that claim was made to mirror India's claim of Aksai Chin. This of course isn't a known certainty but it's pretty obvious. Furthermore, I think that China has no desire to keep these dramas going and potentially flaring up every once in a while. China dislikes it. India cannot possibly prefer having it either BUT India has in more recent years, politicised these aspects of tensions and confrontations with China with the backdrop of ... well let's just say the obvious geopolitical shifts and grand power struggles happening. It has been militarising Hindu extremism and letting go of a claim that Hindu extremists and various bhakt varieties alike have been taught to hold close to their hearts in the context of India's "competition" with China, well that wouldn't work out for any Indian leader. Hence they are damned in they do, damned in they don't and right as things are is a comfortable place ... considering the alternatives that they have tried, Amit Shah declaring to Indians that India will "pay with blood" to get Aksai Chin during a speech back in 2019 (which btw Indian media has now scrubbed this of because it's a piece of evidence they had the desire to capture it in 2020).

Not going back to the Ladakh crisis discussions which have been covered n^n times in the Ladakh crisis thread, to answer the question is there a solution? Yes but is there a realistic one where Indian PM can actually perform as China has been waiting for them to do? Not really. China could cede Aksai Chin to India like China has done with some of the Stans and Russia wrt initial border disputes during the 20th century.

The tricky thing with borders is that as a country changes like these two have during their history with colonialism and civil war invasions etc, different ruling parties, different systems, different generations of leaders, will have their own designs on it. ROC's borders for China are much greater than PRC's. If the KMT won the civil war, China would have a lot more land in the Stans, in Russia, huge swathes of Mongolia, and demanded more from India in southern Tibet, not just Aksai Chin's borders but much further beyond, at least to PRC's "ideal" borderlines on the Ladakh side (many kilometers further than PRC's demarcation border offers since 1950s).

In time, these sorts of land disputes become increasingly pointless, non strategic, counterproductive. Resolution depends on how well these two countries develop. This Ladakh dispute is relatively worthless land in terms of natural resources and to China is also relatively non strategic. It is more strategically important for India due to proximity to Kashmir and Pakistan and of course its proximity to New Delhi.
 

coolgod

Senior Member
Registered Member
I recently learnt that India has two airforce bases in Tajikistan. This doesn't seem to be in the interest of China, or is there another opinion about this in China? Does anyone know if China has or wants to pressure Tajikistan to remove them? It seems like China has geopolitical weight and can convince Tajikistan to do so.
 
Last edited:

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
An Indian equivalent to the PCL-181 and Caesar SPH? Wonder how much of this is actually genuinely indigenous to India?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Indians always have to boast about some "best in the world" BS. What exactly is: "the highest firing range in its category in the world"? Knowing how India works, this is definitely a very dubious statement.



The MGS does not have the highest firing range in its category in the world. The PCL-181 firing RAP 155mm rounds has a max range of around 70km.

The Indian MGS is not ground-breaking stuff. It is actually India just trying to catch up in truck-mounted artillery systems. These systems are contemporary technology. Hence the real surprise is what took Superpowa India so long to finally catch up in this field. The other question is when will the MGS actually enter service? Knowing Indian military procurement history, it should be longer than everyone expects. Lastly, how much would each MGS cost vs PCL-181 or Ceasar? I won't be surprised if the MGS is more expensive than both.

My biggest problem of heir iteration of the 155mm wheeled howitzer would be why the hell are they using such heavy duty truck platforms! Strategic mobility of these systems are better served with a system that is light, easy to transport, and cost less fuel to move around.
 

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
only the truck chassis is license built(tatra).
they put on a new armoured cabin for the chassis.
the gun itself is completely homemade.

View attachment 100472
this is another mgs by Bharath forge - 155mm/39cal one
The problem with this system is the relatively low level of automation, and I presume, relatively low level of digitalization/informationization.
The PL181 is a great system in which it is light, fully digitized/informationized, and semi-automatic loading. The semi-auto loading is a great compromise as it decreases the over-all weight and the complexity of the system, as opposed to full-auto loading. This creates a light, fast reacting, fully-informationized, reliable system.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
How legitimate is this use of using dogs to hear incoming drones and then sending a bird (don't know if it's a Falcon or an eagle) to then swathe down the said enemy drone. Interesting integration of animal-machine integration by the Indian Military.


the second video indicates that the bird is an eagle, undergoing training since 2020. The eagle is then fitted with a camera.

 

tygyg1111

Senior Member
Registered Member
How legitimate is this use of using dogs to hear incoming drones and then sending a bird (don't know if it's a Falcon or an eagle) to then swathe down the said enemy drone. Interesting integration of animal-machine integration by the Indian Military.


the second video indicates that the bird is an eagle, undergoing training since 2020. The eagle is then fitted with a camera.

Might work, but there would be too many countermeasures.
E.g. Decoy drones fitted with small explosive to incapacitate trained birds
 

Abominable

Captain
Registered Member
How legitimate is this use of using dogs to hear incoming drones and then sending a bird (don't know if it's a Falcon or an eagle) to then swathe down the said enemy drone. Interesting integration of animal-machine integration by the Indian Military.


the second video indicates that the bird is an eagle, undergoing training since 2020. The eagle is then fitted with a camera.

It may work on toy drones, but even small military drones are pretty big. Prop blades spin very fast and can cause serious injury.

I can't see any bird surviving after taking out a drone like the ones used to drop grenades in the Ukraine.
 

beijing_bandar

New Member
Registered Member
Ashley Tellis, an Indian-born American strategist specialing in China and India writes:
China’s nuclear capabilities vastly outstrip India’s, while Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities are comparable or marginally superior. India, however, enjoys significant conventional military advantages against both adversaries.
Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The footnote supporting his claim of significant Indian conventional military advantages is from Frank O’Donnell and Alex Bollfrass, The Strategic Postures of China and India: A Visual Guide (Cambridge: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 2020).

I'm highlighting this part of a much longer monograph by Tellis because it provides insight into a major reason India chooses to pursue confrontation against China. India vastly overestimates itself now and in the future. Indians generally like Tellis have a hard time coming to terms with India's disappointing development in economy and power and easily believe false and exaggerated assessments of India like in the area of conventional military capability. Americans like Frank O'Donnell manipulate information to provide false and exaggerated assessments of Indian capability to persuade Indians to keep on pursuing confrontation with China as part of the Quad strategy to spread China thin. It's subtle, effective, and goes a long to explaining where we are today in Ladakh.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Major
Registered Member
Ashley Tellis, an Indian-born American strategist specialing in China and India writes:

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The footnote supporting his claim of significant Indian conventional military advantages is from Frank O’Donnell and Alex Bollfrass, The Strategic Postures of China and India: A Visual Guide (Cambridge: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 2020).

I'm highlighting this part of a much longer monograph by Tellis because it provides insight into a major reason India chooses to pursue confrontation against China. India vastly overestimates itself now and in the future. Indians generally like Tellis have a hard time coming to terms with India's disappointing development in economy and power and easily believe false and exaggerated assessments of India like in the area of conventional military capability. Americans like Frank O'Donnell manipulate information to provide false and exaggerated assessments of Indian capability to persuade Indians to keep on pursuing confrontation with China as part of the Quad strategy to spread China thin. It's subtle, effective, and goes a long to explaining where we are today in Ladakh.
Not that this idiocy should be entertained, but China has 200+ fifth generation fighters. India has how many?
 

Top