Search results

Yes, they were just local militia. Most regular troops were in Cambodia at the time, with very few in the north. And yes, they did fine, considering the Chinese withdrew without penetrating far into Vietnam, and considering they failed to inflict any permament territorial losses. China's...

rant rant rant CHINA STRONG rant rant rant Save your shyt for someone else. I'm not wasting my time on you.

Why do Pakistanis love Arabs so much? Identity crisis?

The USSR did a lot more for Vietnam than China ever did. Give credit where it is due.

And what if Pakistan balkanizes into different nations with the Chinese infrastructure being shared by the different political units? What will China do then? And I only mention this because the balkanization of Pakistan seems a lot more likely than an Indian invasion.

1. What were China's goals in 1979? 2. Did China achieve those goals? Educate yourself on the answers to those questions, and then come back. 1962 was a Chinese victory because China achieved its political goals, limited as they were.

Why are you bringing India into this? Do you feel so insecure that you have to mention China's only succesful war in the past 60 years to make yourself feel better :disagree: From an objective standpoint, yes, Vietnam in 1979 was more powerful militarily than India in 1962. In 1962 defence...

If only you helped them in their wars too. In 1965 and 1971 China sat by and did nothing while Pakistan lost half its territory. In 1999 China actually supported the Indian position (lol) by asking the Pakistanis to withdraw to the LOC.

LOL, stop mentally masturbating over this thread. I guess if the Chinese "taught" the Vietnamese, it is one of those instances where the student gave a lesson to the teacher :)

USA and Russia. US-Vietnamese relations are very close nowadays.

Vietnam, by itself today, is a very capable nation militarily. I have no doubt they are capable of defending themselves. And if they do get invaded, they will recieve support, both from their former enemies (US and A) and their old friends (Russia). You guys are thinking the same way...

Georgia has 4 million people, Vietnam has 80 million. Vietnam has a relatively capable army and air force with plenty of experience. Georgia does not. Vietnam has one of the world's largest paramilitary forces. Georgia does not. Georgia had many restive regions that wanted to breakaway...

1. External aid helps, but is not crucial for a successful guerilla war. 2. If China invades Vietnam, do you think the entire world will sit still and watch?

Arabs never accomplished anything in history besides conquest of others' lands, plundering of others' resources, and stealing of others' ideas. The Arab Bedouin hasn't evolved at all since the Neanderthal age. All the great Islamic achievments of the past in art, architecture, etc. were done...

If the Chinese think they can actually invade Vietnam and succeed, they are kidding themselves. The Vietnamese are historical masters of guerilla warfare. Even the Americans with such a large arsenal of advanced war machines and weapons failed to subdue Vietnam - miserably. What does China...

Jackass, my one and only source is the Arthashastra by Chanakya. As far as I know, it is the only surviving text with in-depth information on ancient Indian warfare. The Mahabharat mentions the different formations but doesn't go into detail.

Why wouldn't they want to escalate the war? Soviets never cared about playing nice with China. When PLA tried to take Damansky Island the Red Army immediately responded with rocket artillery and recaptured the island. USSR had strategic bombers in Mongolia capable of hitting anywhere in China...

Soviets didn't intervene because there was no need to intervene. Vietnam handled the war fine by itself, considering most of the regular Vietnamese Army units were stationed in Cambodia at the time, and the PLA mostly faced local militia. As for the Soviet-Viet alliance, the largest overseas...

Yep, formations were as important back then as they are now. In fact, they were probably more important, given the lack of technology. Clever tactics had to make up for relatively simple weapons.

Since divya has been banned, I think I will hijack this thread :) The formations I will discuss are NOT, however, mythological. Rather, they are actual formations used by ancient Indian armies during the Maurya Empire, as described by Chanakya in his masterpiece Arthashastra. Chanakya...