What's new

Many factors led to Army giving up in 1962. But psychological collapse played a big role

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
14,665
-7
16,488
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom

Many factors led to Army giving up in 1962. But psychological collapse played a big role​

The Army had studied PLA tactics in the Korean War and knew the antidote to its strategy. But on ground, it violated all the fundamentals.

LT GEN H S PANAG (RETD)
17 November, 2022 12:31 pm IST
Remembering-1962.jpg



The defeat of the Army in Phase 1 — 20 to 27 October — of the 1962 India-China war can be attributed to flawed political decisions, based on the premise that China will not initiate a war, and the acquiescence of the military leadership. Aggressive competitive flag-marking and a foolhardy plan to throw the Chinese out of Thagla Ridge led to the war. Isolated troops fighting from non-tactical defences without adequate logistics put up a heroic fight but were defeated in a matter of a few hours of actual fighting.


In Phase 2 — 14 to 20 November — there was little to no political interference. The Army was defending the ground of its own choosing with one divisional and two brigade-defended sectors. Main defences were connected by road except for Walong and air supply continued uninterrupted. All sectors were prepared for 7 to 10 days of battle. Yet, this formidable force was routed within two days of actual fighting.

At Sela-Dirang-Bomdila, 4 Infantry Division “psychologically collapsed” and disintegrated virtually without a fight in 24 hours. At Chushul, 114 Infantry Brigade inexplicably withdrew with a loss of only two companies out of 12. Only 11 Infantry Brigade at Walong fought a cohesive battle for 48 hours before withdrawing.

Flawed appreciation of enemy, terrain and weather, and psychological collapse of the leadership, which had a cascading effect on the rank and file, were the primary reasons.

Adverse terrain and weather

The campaigning season in the high-altitude areas of Ladakh and the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) is from June to November. Logistics and the troop built up for Phase 2 of the war were completed only by mid-November, leaving only 15 days for effective military operations. December onwards, operations get severely restricted due to the extreme cold and snow. There was no way the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could have sustained a large force in winter over tenuous and lengthening lines of communication with then-available infrastructure. The relative advantage was with the defender.

Our communications had shortened, and additional troop buildup was rapidly taking place. All that the Army had to do was to hold fast for two weeks to force a winter pause and possible withdrawal by the PLA. The Indian military leadership — from the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) to brigade commanders — failed to appreciate the terrain and weather factor and also lacked the will to defend resolutely. That the Chinese, obliged by our psychological collapse, announced a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawal to begin on 21 November and conveyed it to the Indian chargé d’affaires on 19 November, only proves the point. Ironically, on that very day, 4 Infantry Division was abandoning its defences without a fight and an intact 114 Infantry Brigade began its withdrawal from Chushul.

Enemy strength

The commanders had little to no knowledge of the enemy strength. In Ladakh, the PLA had only one division available for operations as is now known from Chinese accounts. Given the vast sector, it had to regroup to attack Chushul with barely one reinforced regiment. Hence, at best, it had the capacity to capture three to four infantry company-defended localities. In reality, it captured only two. It did not have any residual force to progress further. Yet, such was the moral ascendency of the PLA that 114 Infantry Brigade was ordered to withdraw to defend Leh.

At Sela-Dirang-Bomdila, 4 Infantry Division did not appreciate the fact that the PLA could build up to three divisions for the offensive, which was a remarkable feat as it was operating over the same area where we could barely commit one brigade. Consequently, the simultaneous envelopment, isolation and attack on all three brigades led to the collapse of 4 Infantry Division without a fight.

PLA tactics

The PLA was a seasoned army that had won a prolonged civil war lasting for two decades. It also fought the Japanese from 1937 to 1945 on the mainland and in erstwhile Burma. In Korea, from 1950 to 1953, it evicted the United States and United Nations forces from North Korea to ensure a stalemate along the 38th parallel. It had mastered the art of manoeuvre. Infiltration, outflanking, and isolation tactics to envelope enemy defences were its forte.

Sela, was attacked from all directions with one division. Simultaneously, from the east, a division minus one regiment using the 161 km-long Bailey Trail over very treacherous terrain, isolated and attacked Dirang and Bomdila and cut off the road axis. Another division infiltrated from the shorter western flank, and so did a battalion from the eastern flank to isolate Sela, assist in its capture and also attack Dirang and Bomdila. Thus, the divisional defended sector was cut into three parts with all routes of escape blocked.

At Walong, the PLA preemptively outflanked the defences to secure the higher features in the west to attack from a position of advantage and also threatened the rear of the brigade, making the defences tactically untenable to force a withdrawal. At Chushul, the two flank companies were captured to make the rest of the Kailash Range tactically untenable and also threatened the only road axis, from Rechin La.

Indian Army tactics
The Army had studied PLA tactics in the Korean War in detail and knew that the antidote to infiltration, envelopment and isolation, was to remain steadfast in main defences, keep the flanks and infiltration routes under surveillance to prevent or delay enemy advance along these approaches, and maintain an adequate reserve for spoiling/counterattacks. However, on ground, it violated all these fundamentals.

There was a fundamental flaw in the deployment of 4 Infantry Division. As per all appreciations done over the years, the Bomdila-Mandala complex was considered the best defensive position as it stretched the enemy’s lines of communications and shortened ours and could not be easily bypassed. The altitude was 9,000 to 10,000 feet. A compact divisional defended sector would have forced the PLA to attack from lower to higher heights. If Sela had to be defended, there was a requirement for an additional brigade to cater for the outflanking movements.

No viable effort was made to delay or defend the outflanking/infiltration manoeuvre of the PLA via Poshing La to Dirang and Bomdila or around Sela defences. Fire brigade actions at a late stage only led to denuding the defences of Dirang and Bomdila. As a result, the PLA was able to attack and threaten all brigade-defended sectors with a division-size force. All defended sectors were stocked for 7 to 10 days. A determined fight would have forced the culmination of the PLA’s attack as the bulk of its forces was operating on a man-pack basis. Instead of a determined fight, the divisional commander panicked, and the corps commander also lost his nerve to order a withdrawal that turned into a disorganised flight to the rear. The Chief of Army Staff, Eastern Army Commander and the Director General of Military Operations were present at the corps headquarters as mute spectators when this fatal decision was taken. For the Indian Army, 17 November 1962 was a disgraceful day.


At Chushul, 114 Infantry Brigade failed to secure the dominating feature called Black Top, which was initially not held, allowing the enemy to attack Gurung Hill from higher ground. No attempt was made to secure the eastern spurs of Kailash Range or carry out a covering action or aggressive patrolling to prevent the buildup of the enemy. The main effort was to defend the Spanggur Gap approach, which tactically was least likely to be used. More so when we also had six tanks to guard the same.

There was a yawning gap of 10 km between Magar Hill and Rezang La, and the most dominating feature, Mukhpari, was not held, allowing both to be isolated and attacked from flanks and rear. Rezang La on limb without fire support was literally set up for slaughter. Despite the odds, two of the most heroic battles of the war were fought at Rezang La and Gurung Hill. Inexplicably, one battalion, which was in depth and not even shelled, and the troops in the valley were not used for a counter-attack. The PLA had no capacity to progress further operations beyond the Kailash range or in any other sector, let alone to advance Leh. The corps commander took counsel of his fears and withdrew an intact brigade after a loss of only two companies to defend Leh, 160 km behind.

At Walong, the fundamental error was not to hold the higher features on the western flank, allowing the brigade to be attacked from higher to lower ground and also isolate the entire sector. However, 11 Infantry Brigade fought a cohesive battle. Apart from aggressive patrolling, a heroic spoiling attack was launched by the 6 Kumaon and 4 Dogra to preempt the use of the vulnerable western approach. Unfortunately, once it failed, the brigade defences became untenable, and a relatively, better-organised withdrawal followed within 12 hours of the main attack.

Psychological collapse

It is empirical wisdom that the outcome of battle lies in the minds of the commanders and the troops. Both the attacker and the defender endeavour to create rapidly changing situations to make the adversary perceive that they can not cope with them. This brings about a psychological collapse and defeat. In attack, this is created by relatively higher mobility, manoeuvre, isolation, firepower, and finally, tactical battle for dominating ground. The defender tries to neutralise all these factors by aggressively interfering with and delaying the buildup and manoeuvre from the flanks, prevent isolation by deployment in depth, spoiling attacks, determined fight at the main defences and counterattack. As brought out earlier, the PLA tactics exploited all these factors, and the Indian Army remained passive in defensive positions. The outcome was inevitable.

The moral factor played a big role. The rout and destruction in Phase 1, particularly, the complete decimation of the 7th Infantry Brigade, adversely affected the psyche of the commanders and the troops. The PLA’s moral ascendency was absolute. How else can one explain the disintegration of 4 Infantry Division even before the battle began and the withdrawal of an intact 114 Infantry Brigade from Chushul? The Indian Army, despite all odds, had the capability to defeat the PLA in Phase 2 of the war, but it psychologically collapsed and gave up without a fight.

Almost happened in 2020-2021 if the Indians hadn't backed down.
 

walterbibikow

FULL MEMBER
Nov 12, 2022
931
-4
1,305
Country
India
Location
India
Almost happened in 2020-2021 if the Indians hadn't backed down.
PLA no longer patrols PP14 which they used to do in the past
@beijingwalker @SIPRA @etylo @Beast @Black Tornado @Cheepek @VkdIndian @Skull and Bones
Clip circulated in 2020 by 🇨🇳 media showed Indian troops had transgressed into the Dongzhang area some 100m meters across LAC. In 2021 on regular patrol PLA troops were detained by IA for several hours in this area. PLA WTC refuted these Media claims. (3/n) https://t.co/UnGHljxAeU

🇨🇳 tourists filming forward 🇮🇳 army posts at Dongzhang. It is located in a valley near Langpo township, Cona county, Shannan city, Tibet. Dongzhang waterfall region was occupied by Indian Army in 2001 and have sentry posts in the region since.
27°46'45"N 91°58'39"E (1/n) https://t.co/OsLOU9J0VZ


45 bridges, 27 roads, 2 helipads & much more, as @BROindia goes deep into remote areas w/ its infrastructure projects & bolsters country's defence preparedness as well as local economies https://t.co/t6X0DC1aCW

LoL, Who told you this crap? China provided lots of photos and video evidence of that clash, do you want to see them agian? and why India side couldn't provide any of them besides lying words?

And it indicates the deadly and contentious incident – in which at least 20 Indian and 35 Chinese troops died, and reportedly a handful on each side were captured and subsequently released. "It does the very opposite of what China wanted," the source says. "This is not a victory for China's military.

 
Last edited:

Dungeness

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 21, 2015
7,528
1
20,924
Country
China
Location
United States

Many factors led to Army giving up in 1962. But psychological collapse played a big role​

The Army had studied PLA tactics in the Korean War and knew the antidote to its strategy. But on ground, it violated all the fundamentals.

LT GEN H S PANAG (RETD)
17 November, 2022 12:31 pm IST
Remembering-1962.jpg



The defeat of the Army in Phase 1 — 20 to 27 October — of the 1962 India-China war can be attributed to flawed political decisions, based on the premise that China will not initiate a war, and the acquiescence of the military leadership. Aggressive competitive flag-marking and a foolhardy plan to throw the Chinese out of Thagla Ridge led to the war. Isolated troops fighting from non-tactical defences without adequate logistics put up a heroic fight but were defeated in a matter of a few hours of actual fighting.


In Phase 2 — 14 to 20 November — there was little to no political interference. The Army was defending the ground of its own choosing with one divisional and two brigade-defended sectors. Main defences were connected by road except for Walong and air supply continued uninterrupted. All sectors were prepared for 7 to 10 days of battle. Yet, this formidable force was routed within two days of actual fighting.

At Sela-Dirang-Bomdila, 4 Infantry Division “psychologically collapsed” and disintegrated virtually without a fight in 24 hours. At Chushul, 114 Infantry Brigade inexplicably withdrew with a loss of only two companies out of 12. Only 11 Infantry Brigade at Walong fought a cohesive battle for 48 hours before withdrawing.

Flawed appreciation of enemy, terrain and weather, and psychological collapse of the leadership, which had a cascading effect on the rank and file, were the primary reasons.

Adverse terrain and weather

The campaigning season in the high-altitude areas of Ladakh and the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) is from June to November. Logistics and the troop built up for Phase 2 of the war were completed only by mid-November, leaving only 15 days for effective military operations. December onwards, operations get severely restricted due to the extreme cold and snow. There was no way the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could have sustained a large force in winter over tenuous and lengthening lines of communication with then-available infrastructure. The relative advantage was with the defender.

Our communications had shortened, and additional troop buildup was rapidly taking place. All that the Army had to do was to hold fast for two weeks to force a winter pause and possible withdrawal by the PLA. The Indian military leadership — from the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) to brigade commanders — failed to appreciate the terrain and weather factor and also lacked the will to defend resolutely. That the Chinese, obliged by our psychological collapse, announced a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawal to begin on 21 November and conveyed it to the Indian chargé d’affaires on 19 November, only proves the point. Ironically, on that very day, 4 Infantry Division was abandoning its defences without a fight and an intact 114 Infantry Brigade began its withdrawal from Chushul.

Enemy strength

The commanders had little to no knowledge of the enemy strength. In Ladakh, the PLA had only one division available for operations as is now known from Chinese accounts. Given the vast sector, it had to regroup to attack Chushul with barely one reinforced regiment. Hence, at best, it had the capacity to capture three to four infantry company-defended localities. In reality, it captured only two. It did not have any residual force to progress further. Yet, such was the moral ascendency of the PLA that 114 Infantry Brigade was ordered to withdraw to defend Leh.

At Sela-Dirang-Bomdila, 4 Infantry Division did not appreciate the fact that the PLA could build up to three divisions for the offensive, which was a remarkable feat as it was operating over the same area where we could barely commit one brigade. Consequently, the simultaneous envelopment, isolation and attack on all three brigades led to the collapse of 4 Infantry Division without a fight.

PLA tactics

The PLA was a seasoned army that had won a prolonged civil war lasting for two decades. It also fought the Japanese from 1937 to 1945 on the mainland and in erstwhile Burma. In Korea, from 1950 to 1953, it evicted the United States and United Nations forces from North Korea to ensure a stalemate along the 38th parallel. It had mastered the art of manoeuvre. Infiltration, outflanking, and isolation tactics to envelope enemy defences were its forte.

Sela, was attacked from all directions with one division. Simultaneously, from the east, a division minus one regiment using the 161 km-long Bailey Trail over very treacherous terrain, isolated and attacked Dirang and Bomdila and cut off the road axis. Another division infiltrated from the shorter western flank, and so did a battalion from the eastern flank to isolate Sela, assist in its capture and also attack Dirang and Bomdila. Thus, the divisional defended sector was cut into three parts with all routes of escape blocked.

At Walong, the PLA preemptively outflanked the defences to secure the higher features in the west to attack from a position of advantage and also threatened the rear of the brigade, making the defences tactically untenable to force a withdrawal. At Chushul, the two flank companies were captured to make the rest of the Kailash Range tactically untenable and also threatened the only road axis, from Rechin La.

Indian Army tactics
The Army had studied PLA tactics in the Korean War in detail and knew that the antidote to infiltration, envelopment and isolation, was to remain steadfast in main defences, keep the flanks and infiltration routes under surveillance to prevent or delay enemy advance along these approaches, and maintain an adequate reserve for spoiling/counterattacks. However, on ground, it violated all these fundamentals.

There was a fundamental flaw in the deployment of 4 Infantry Division. As per all appreciations done over the years, the Bomdila-Mandala complex was considered the best defensive position as it stretched the enemy’s lines of communications and shortened ours and could not be easily bypassed. The altitude was 9,000 to 10,000 feet. A compact divisional defended sector would have forced the PLA to attack from lower to higher heights. If Sela had to be defended, there was a requirement for an additional brigade to cater for the outflanking movements.

No viable effort was made to delay or defend the outflanking/infiltration manoeuvre of the PLA via Poshing La to Dirang and Bomdila or around Sela defences. Fire brigade actions at a late stage only led to denuding the defences of Dirang and Bomdila. As a result, the PLA was able to attack and threaten all brigade-defended sectors with a division-size force. All defended sectors were stocked for 7 to 10 days. A determined fight would have forced the culmination of the PLA’s attack as the bulk of its forces was operating on a man-pack basis. Instead of a determined fight, the divisional commander panicked, and the corps commander also lost his nerve to order a withdrawal that turned into a disorganised flight to the rear. The Chief of Army Staff, Eastern Army Commander and the Director General of Military Operations were present at the corps headquarters as mute spectators when this fatal decision was taken. For the Indian Army, 17 November 1962 was a disgraceful day.


At Chushul, 114 Infantry Brigade failed to secure the dominating feature called Black Top, which was initially not held, allowing the enemy to attack Gurung Hill from higher ground. No attempt was made to secure the eastern spurs of Kailash Range or carry out a covering action or aggressive patrolling to prevent the buildup of the enemy. The main effort was to defend the Spanggur Gap approach, which tactically was least likely to be used. More so when we also had six tanks to guard the same.

There was a yawning gap of 10 km between Magar Hill and Rezang La, and the most dominating feature, Mukhpari, was not held, allowing both to be isolated and attacked from flanks and rear. Rezang La on limb without fire support was literally set up for slaughter. Despite the odds, two of the most heroic battles of the war were fought at Rezang La and Gurung Hill. Inexplicably, one battalion, which was in depth and not even shelled, and the troops in the valley were not used for a counter-attack. The PLA had no capacity to progress further operations beyond the Kailash range or in any other sector, let alone to advance Leh. The corps commander took counsel of his fears and withdrew an intact brigade after a loss of only two companies to defend Leh, 160 km behind.

At Walong, the fundamental error was not to hold the higher features on the western flank, allowing the brigade to be attacked from higher to lower ground and also isolate the entire sector. However, 11 Infantry Brigade fought a cohesive battle. Apart from aggressive patrolling, a heroic spoiling attack was launched by the 6 Kumaon and 4 Dogra to preempt the use of the vulnerable western approach. Unfortunately, once it failed, the brigade defences became untenable, and a relatively, better-organised withdrawal followed within 12 hours of the main attack.

Psychological collapse

It is empirical wisdom that the outcome of battle lies in the minds of the commanders and the troops. Both the attacker and the defender endeavour to create rapidly changing situations to make the adversary perceive that they can not cope with them. This brings about a psychological collapse and defeat. In attack, this is created by relatively higher mobility, manoeuvre, isolation, firepower, and finally, tactical battle for dominating ground. The defender tries to neutralise all these factors by aggressively interfering with and delaying the buildup and manoeuvre from the flanks, prevent isolation by deployment in depth, spoiling attacks, determined fight at the main defences and counterattack. As brought out earlier, the PLA tactics exploited all these factors, and the Indian Army remained passive in defensive positions. The outcome was inevitable.

The moral factor played a big role. The rout and destruction in Phase 1, particularly, the complete decimation of the 7th Infantry Brigade, adversely affected the psyche of the commanders and the troops. The PLA’s moral ascendency was absolute. How else can one explain the disintegration of 4 Infantry Division even before the battle began and the withdrawal of an intact 114 Infantry Brigade from Chushul? The Indian Army, despite all odds, had the capability to defeat the PLA in Phase 2 of the war, but it psychologically collapsed and gave up without a fight.



The article would have been painful to read if I were Indian. I would rather indulge myself in Bollywood version of the war.

This people basically lack the capacity of critical thinking and introspection to distinguish fiction and fact, the author of this article is one of few exceptions. That's why they are so delusional and still believe IA is invincible, especially against supposedly inferior enamy "Chinki". Most of them still can't accept the fact that they lost Galwan fight 20 (or 28 according to an Indian whose father was working in army hospital in Leh at the time of the conflict) to 4, even after seeing thousands of battle ground pictures. They would rather lie to themselves that CCP hides the casualty.

Dishonesty is running deep in this people, and they are not going to change that any time soon. So future conflicts with China are bound to happan.
 

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2011
54,320
-19
97,083
Country
China
Location
China
And it indicates the deadly and contentious incident – in which at least 20 Indian and 35 Chinese troops died, and reportedly a handful on each side were captured and subsequently released. "It does the very opposite of what China wanted," the source says. "This is not a victory for China's military.

Major drowned? This "major"?
deec-kfxsuvx1791143.png
 

SIPRA

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 31, 2019
13,555
3
23,274
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Indians live in their delusions.

Yes, their common public, but not their political and military leaders. The later are very much sane and pragmatic. It was only Pandit Nehru, who committed a delusional mistake, by initiating "Forward Policy". Even, at that time, this Policy was not supported by most of their top Generals. India never repeated that mistake after 1962 fiasco, which means they learned their lesson well.
 
Last edited:

Dungeness

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 21, 2015
7,528
1
20,924
Country
China
Location
United States
Yes, their common public, but not their political and military leaders. The later are very much sane and pragmatic. It was only Pandit Nehru, who committed a delusional mistake, by initiating "Forward Policy". India never repeated that mistake after 1962 fiasco, which means they learned their lesson well.

Dont know about that part. It is the IA field commander who was responsible for acrossing LAC into Chinese territory that led to the Galwan conflict. IA soldiers are very cocky and aggressive when they enjoy numerical advantage, but they can be easily collapesing at the moment whenthe tide turns.

GoI is currently replacing IA with ITBP along LAC, and the reason could just be IA leadership is not as sane and pragmatic. Anyway, neither GoI nor IA had officially charllenged PLA's casualty number, so they at least have centain degree of sanity left.
 

renhai

FULL MEMBER
Aug 29, 2022
560
-30
468
Country
China
Location
Hong Kong
Sir, why doesnt pla patrol to finger 4 in pangong any more (59 claim line)? Why no more patrols to burtse (59 claim line) in depsang? Why pla withdrawn 26 miles into its own side of galwan while nearest indian base is 2 miles away? Why pla have buffer zone on its own side in hot spring?
Why did ccp suppress public funerals for pla soldiers killed in galwan? Why didn't ccp confirm or deny us intelligence claim that 35 chinese soldiers died in galwan?
If china had a upper hand it would have escalated in ladakh rather than withdrawing from pangong tso and continuing to be denied access to its patrol line near burtse in depsang. In depsang india is blocked from its patrol points 8km east of y-junction while china is blocked from its point 7km west of y-junction. Both deny each other access.
India's on paper LAC claim is 18km east of y-junction in what is historically Pla controlled territory. Which is why Indian troops only asserted control up to 8km east of y-junction via patrols.
In pangong tso for example china claims & patrolled up to finger 4 and india to finger 8. current buffer is f4 to f8. And China used to patrol till F-4. They can no longer come there either
Want to know the answer? This is the reason.
005Meirwly1gxxtv16npoj31gz0u0wwa.jpg

005Meirwly1gxxtv1yvx5j31gz0u01a6.jpg
005Meirwly1gxxtv0qqz9j31h40u0wt4.jpg
005Meirwly1gxxtv0ckz2j31h20u0aqo.jpg
005Meirwly1gxxtv0ckz2j31h20u0aqo.jpg
74410330aeb247c9b035f6ef7a2471db.png
421715089.jpg
e98e2475e748b073.jpg


Because no matter how many jokes India makes. The Chinese army still controls GALWAN.

We all know that Indians are brainwashed slum pariahs. so Indians should not bring Indian jokes to our modern civilized world. And try to make our modern civilized world believe some Indian jokes.

Yes, their common public, but not their political and military leaders. The later are very much sane and pragmatic. It was only Pandit Nehru, who committed a delusional mistake, by initiating "Forward Policy". Even, at that time, this Policy was not supported by most of their top Generals. India never repeated that mistake after 1962 fiasco, which means they learned their lesson well.
real?

main-qimg-0cfbf1f17644ca4d4ab53bcd8f07d079-pjlq.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 9f331143a8ff4737afdd7f905c55e924.png
    9f331143a8ff4737afdd7f905c55e924.png
    180 KB · Views: 2

Hellfire2006

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2022
398
0
346
Country
India
Location
India
Dont know about that part. It is the IA field commander who was responsible for acrossing LAC into Chinese territory that led to the Galwan conflict
Chinese built infrastructure in disputed area violating all prior agreements. What do you have to say about that? It's hilarious how you people always portray yourselves as victims, funnily enough you call the 79 war with vietnam as " self defensive counter attack " only god knows what that means
. IA soldiers are very cocky and aggressive when they enjoy numerical advantage, but they can be easily collapesing at the moment whenthe tide turns.
IA soldiers have held out against numerically superior foes many times in the past . What better example than perhaps the battle of Rezang La (1962) or battle of Longewala(1971)
GoI is currently replacing IA with ITBP along LAC, and the reason could just be IA leadership is not as sane and pragmatic.
Bogus, IA leadership is far saner than PLA, those guys don't cross the line until they're told to. PLA always looks for an opportunity for misadventure. Replacing ITBP with IA will enhance detterence. All of this wouldn't have happened if PLA hadn't moved 3 divisions from xinjiang to oppose a single indian division in eastern ladakh back in march-april 2020
Anyway, neither GoI nor IA had officially charllenged PLA's casualty number, so they at least have centain degree of sanity left.

 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,341
14
5,366
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
A PLA division which had served in koream war was moved from chengdu to

I guess you haven't even watched the video. She never claimed that india defeated china in 1962. I hope you understand English
I guess, you didn't read what I said, which part are you finding difficult to understand?
Or like most Indians, do you prefer to pick and choose your facts?

She is attempting to muddle facts, put a twist on history, it's pretty shameless.
 

Hellfire2006

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2022
398
0
346
Country
India
Location
India
Want to know the answer? This is the reason.
View attachment 898035
View attachment 898036 View attachment 898037 View attachment 898038 View attachment 898038 View attachment 898039 View attachment 898040 View attachment 898041

Because no matter how many jokes India makes. The Chinese army still controls GALWAN.

We all know that Indians are brainwashed slum pariahs. so Indians should not bring Indian jokes to our modern civilized world. And try to make our modern civilized world believe some Indian jokes.


real?

View attachment 898049
Galwan valley is really really long you know. The disputed area is around PP14 and the river bend. The images you've shown of PLA is towards the upstream area. India controls the part of the valley beyond the bend. No side controls the disputed territory in Galwan. There is a 2km buffer zone on both sides.

I guess, you didn't read what I said, which part are you finding difficult to understand?
Or like most Indians, do you prefer to pick and choose your facts?

She is attempting to muddle facts, put a twist on history, it's pretty shameless.
What are you trying to convey ? I was replying to the part where your countryman said that indians believe we won the 62 war.
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,341
14
5,366
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Galwan valley is really really long you know. The disputed area is around PP14 and the river bend. The images you've shown of PLA is towards the upstream area. India controls the part of the valley beyond the bend. No side controls the disputed territory in Galwan. There is a 2km buffer zone on both sides.


What are you trying to convey ? I was replying to the part where your countryman said that indians believe we won the 62 war.

I fail to understand why you are having difficulty in understanding what I said, it is a video, and I expressed my observations very clearly, I am shocked at the level of confusion being displayed by yourself, and your ex-foreign secretary.

Clearly she is trying to say India was not defeated, she is displaying her views very openly.
she is basing her silly claims by putting the onus of her statement onto fictitious Chinese personal.

Is she not Indian?

When you try to muddle obvious facts, it clearly shows you have not accepted the reality nor the facts.
I really don't understand your objections, yet you continue.
 

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2011
54,320
-19
97,083
Country
China
Location
China
Galwan valley is really really long you know. The disputed area is around PP14 and the river bend. The images you've shown of PLA is towards the upstream area. India controls the part of the valley beyond the bend. No side controls the disputed territory in Galwan. There is a 2km buffer zone on both sides.
Who seem to be the aggressors?

b9b1eff88e1a43468911212498a475ea.png
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom