1962: For anyone who haven't read this...

[TexasJohn]

You are basically right on that war. China's withdrawal in 1962 was largely due to its weak logistics. China does understand that Tawang was not north China Plateau where they can wield their formidable army as easily as using chopsticks. The chinese army was outnumbered and running out of supply. They realized that an escalating war with india was not in its best interests and the victory they already had was unsustainable. Though india also had a tough time supplying its army in NE india, china's situation was way harder than it enemy. They went across Tibet as known as "the roof of world" to fight indian on feet because no veichles could possibly climb the vast tibetan mountains. It took a man a month time to carry two mortar balls from lhasa to the front. it is hard to image china could winn an full-scale war with india in south asia sub-continent at that time.

In some sense, any large scale wars can be seen as war of logistics. Stalin said USSR's victory over Hitler was decided by their sheer gas engine numbers in essence. Their stronger industry produced far more tanks and artilleries than facists did and through which they won the war.

PLA learnt a lot from Korea war, the chief commander of PLA in Korea, Peng Dehuai (if I am not mistaken) said that what chinese army could achieved in the battlefield was directly decided the logistic behind. Chinese army secured Seoul twice but was pushed back by Americans to regions near 38th parallel with great loss, because they had difficult time supplying the front under Korea's freezing climate and American's extensive Airstrike. In chinese's opinion, Ridgway was far better commander than McAurther, he welll observed the weakness of PLA - their offensivse barely sustained one week, he made UN Forces avoid direct confrontation with PLA, and fight back when chinese retreat. He successfully helped UN army walk out of the failure in North Korea and retook the initiative in the army and had PLA a tough year.

In India's case, Bejing didn't want to play fiddle too much and decided to compromise Tawang to keep the initiative they've gained. i think it was a correct decision made on reality and pragmatics. Still, China's de facto control line in east front still advanced after the war compared with pre-war line and they advanced alot to AKsai Chin in the west front.

AKsai Chin is a highland overlooking the NW india. it has signicifcant strategical importance for china, as it's easy to take defense for china and difficult for india to secure. The famous Kela-Qunlun highway connecting China and Pakistan is also running through that area. In case of war, PLA's steel current would advanced to the gate of India's heart area, New Delhi from Xinjiang in days through Aksai Chin.That is a much greater burden for india's defense than a few of mountainous regiments in the east front. As for China, they are less concerned about the safety of its wild wild west and Gobi desert adjacent to Kashmir, but for india, its northwest means alot.

China grabbing Aksai Chin was a smart move. India grabbing Saltaro Ridge on the Siachin glacier was smart also, inspite of the high cost of lives and equipment.

 

[gpit]

...

It was certainly a political defeat for China. The badwill it earned for itself on the world stage, was not worth Aksai Chin, which is all they really got.

...

Beg to differ, totally, on this.

Instead, China gained a big political win.

1) Towards India. Any conflict/war has its objectives. Chinese main objective for the conflict is to teach India a lesson and to stop the harassment from India of forwarding into Chinese territory, and to therefore maintain a peaceful border. It works like a magic: India thereafter has never dared to provoke China.

2) Western world. Western world has mostly been China’s enemy since the establishment of PRC, especially through Korea War. It wouldn’t be more enemy of China anyways. Instead, through Korea War and India conflict, the western world finally feels the will and muscle of China.

3) Subsequent impact on later wars. As China is the only Asian country that has stood up and says no to Western norms (so called "world stage") since WWII, the win on sino-india conflict only adds credit to China. China’s support of Vietnam on Vietnam War definitely made Vietnamese believed that China will do what it says, and therefore substantially enhanced their will of against US imperialists’ invasion.

In addition, the greatness of strategic values of Aksai Chin for China couldn’t be emphasized more. It has the only main route that connects Xinjiang and Tibet on west side, and it oversees the connection to Pakistan (Karakoram Path). This has been discussed to death in many forums. I believe China HAS to hold on to Aksai Chin regardless of whatever.

 

[TexasJohn]

Beg to differ, totally, on this.

Instead, China gained a big political win.

1) Towards India. Any conflict/war has its objectives. Chinese main objective for the conflict is to teach India a lesson and to stop the harassment from India of forwarding into Chinese territory, and to therefore maintain a peaceful border. It works like a magic: India thereafter has never dared to provoke China.
2) Western world. Western world has mostly been China’s enemy since the establishment of PRC, especially through Korea War. It wouldn’t be more enemy of China anyways. Instead, through Korea War and India conflict, the western world finally feels the will and muscle of China.

3) Subsequent impact on later wars. As China is the only Asian country that has stood up and says no to Western norms (so called "world stage") since WWII, the win on sino-india conflict only adds credit to China. China’s support of Vietnam on Vietnam War definitely made Vietnamese believed that China will do what it says, and therefore substantially enhanced their will of against US imperialists’ invasion.

In addition, the greatness of strategic values of Aksai Chin for China couldn’t be emphasized more. It has the only main route that connects Xinjiang and Tibet on west side, and it oversees the connection to Pakistan (Karakoram Path). This has been discussed to death in many forums. I believe China HAS to hold on to Aksai Chin regardless of whatever.

OK. Granted China HAS to keep Aksai Chin.

If your stance that "India never dared to provoke China" is correct, how do you explain this?

1987 Sino-Indian skirmish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both sides decided to not go to war.

That was not the only incident. The other forum I frequent actually has a complete discussion on it, Invite you to read it.

India Vs. China (borderline War)

Some of the people there (Lemontree is an Indian Army arty officer), OOE is a retired Canadian Forces Colonel ( and an avid China watcher - he is Chinese also) and there are others. Both sides know it is a pi$$ing contest. Given the terrain, there is no clear winner.

 

[CardSharp]

OK. Granted China HAS to keep Aksai Chin.

If your stance that "India never dared to provoke China" is correct, how do you explain this?

1987 Sino-Indian skirmish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both sides decided to not go to war.

That was not the only incident. The other forum I frequent actually has a complete discussion on it, Invite you to read it.

India Vs. China (borderline War)

Some of the people there (Lemontree is an Indian Army arty officer), OOE is a retired Canadian Forces Colonel ( and an avid China watcher - he is Chinese also) and there are others. Both sides know it is a pi$$ing contest. Given the terrain, there is no clear winner.

Indian members always hold 1967 and other "incidents" as some kind of proof that India has stood up to China. I'm not convinced. They are just minuscule in scope and likely at the time they happened, there was no higher input than divisional command. The most you can say for this is that, the central government didn't green light any escalation of the situation.


and I've read Lemontree's posts, he's pretty run of the mill Indian nationalist, as for the fact that he served? doesn't really add to the debate unless he served in 1962 (and maybe not even then). As for OOE? He's a western moderate (pretty knowledgeable on China, I like his posts), but the fact that he's ethnic Chinese doesn't really mean that he is at all sympathetic to the CCP's POV.

The western POV all in all is about lending moral support to a bruised Indian, then and now.

 

[idune]

Once and when india loose these occupied territories, indian consolation would be it was just mountain and snow not worth keeping any way. Those days are bit far but not far fetch.

 

[DesiGuy]

very less comments from Indian.

 

[TexasJohn]

Indian members always hold 1967 and other "incidents" as some kind of proof that India has stood up to China. I'm not convinced. They are just minuscule in scope and likely at the time they happened, there was no higher input than divisional command. The most you can say for this is that, the central government didn't green light any escalation of the situation.


and I've read Lemontree's posts, he's pretty run of the mill Indian nationalist, as for the fact that he served? doesn't really add to the debate unless he served in 1962 (and maybe not even then). As for OOE? He's a western moderate (pretty knowledgeable on China, I like his posts), but the fact that he's ethnic Chinese doesn't really mean that he is at all sympathetic to the CCP's POV.

The western POV all in all is about lending moral support to a bruised Indian, then and now.

Unfortunately, I can't speak for Indian posters.

However, you are right - these conflicts never went beyond Divisional command (actually far lower) and neither Govt. on either side has ever given the green light for escalation since 1962. There is a good reason for this.

I do respect those who have served in combat, unlike me. Both OOE and Lemontree have.

It's OK to be a nationalistic - which soldier with combat experience won't be? we cannot take that away from them. I can't get my 87 year old dad to back off sometimes either, he is a WWII veteran. He too is nationalistic.

But moving along, yes the PLA (especially after they watched Desert Storm unfold) decided to re-learn a lot of their tactics. The Vietnam mis-adventure taught the PLA a lot also. They also went into Vietnam to "teach them a lesson". They got a bloody nose instead.

The PLA is revising a lot of old school thoughts and improving, and so is India. You can't compare either the Indian Army or PLA based on what happened almost 49 years ago.

There are a few big differences though. The CCP controls both the media and the PLA. They will parrot the party line ( unless they want to be shot). The Indian Govt. cannot control their press and hence the shrill "China scare" they blare out.

Policy decisions happen far quicker in China as a result as compared to India, which will take forever to reach consensus on anything of consequence.

As far as western support for India and it's "anti-China" stance, if that were true, why is everything here, including the T-shirt I am wearing say " Made in China"? The US and China have a symbiotic relationship.

Trade has replaced war between India and China. Both sides would rather make money than war.

But let the little green men in the field play in the dirt, and make jingoistic noises, and have some fun, (we feed them MREs for God's sake) the Govt. of both countries will never escalate to war.

The age of territorial conquest is pretty much over, IMHO.

Not sure if I made my point, so feel free to ask.

 

[CardSharp]

(what I’m about to say is complete heresy and likely to offend all sides, so I apologize ahead of time.)

I do respect those who have served in combat, unlike me. Both OOE and Lemontree have.

Most of my personal Hero are military men and moreover American military men but I am also bewildered by the unquestioning deference to combat troops that civilians have. It takes no special skill to get shot at and vast majority of men with the proper training don’t run and can do their jobs under fire. There a job in the army for every fool, officer or not.

So in my negible opinion, being in the military doesn’t automatically give your opinion more weight. You still have to prove the reliability and logic of your opinion to me. (this is not to mean I don't have respect for men like your father)

Also, nationalism comes in different flavours, just because you don’t blindly take sides don’t mean you doesn’t love your country (or in my case countries). But I am strictly against the pervailing Indian brand of nationalism that gets trumpeted in India media with its saccharine self congratulation, and timid chest thumping against China. (not saying idiot nationalism doesn’t exist in China, it does). The citizens able to do their country the most benefit, are the ones who can see their nation for what it is, flaws and all. This is especially important in a Democratic nation when the government directly relfect the sentiment of the people.

But moving along, yes the PLA (especially after they watched Desert Storm unfold) decided to re-learn a lot of their tactics. The Vietnam mis-adventure taught the PLA a lot also. They also went into Vietnam to "teach them a lesson". They got a bloody nose instead.


The PLA is revising a lot of old school thoughts and improving, and so is India. You can't compare either the Indian Army or PLA based on what happened almost 49 years ago.

Also moving along. Yep in 1979 the PLA tried to fight a modern combined arms battle and paid in the blood of brave men for their complete inexperience. No arguement from me. But I’ll stick to my original view, Indian members bringing up 1967 and 1987 skirmishes are too often applying a salve for wounded pride in 1962, than expressing any legitimate point.

I'd also like to point out that I didn't really compare the current fighting ability of the PLA and IA, nor will I start now as it will likely be a useless debate that leave both sides unsatisfied.

There are a few big differences though. The CCP controls both the media and the PLA. They will parrot the party line ( unless they want to be shot). The Indian Govt. cannot control their press and hence the shrill "China scare" they blare out.

Policy decisions happen far quicker in China as a result as compared to India, which will take forever to reach consensus on anything of consequence.

I don’t quite get what you wanted to get across by this part here so I’ll leave it.

As far as western support for India and it's "anti-China" stance, if that were true, why is everything here, including the T-shirt I am wearing say " Made in China"? The US and China have a symbiotic relationship

Despite all the criticism I hurl at the US, I am still hold a good opinion of it. Of the possible world hegemones, it is probably still an easier dominant power to live with than most other possibilities. The relationship between China and the US like the POTUS said will shape the 21st century. (so I damn well better be optimistic right?)

It's a pleasure discussing things with you and I look forward to a reply.

 

[gambit]

Most of my personal Hero are military men and moreover American military men but I am also bewildered by the unquestioning deference to combat troops that civilians have. It takes no special skill to get shot at and vast majority of men with the proper training don’t run and can do their jobs under fire. There a job in the army for every fool, officer or not.

No...But it takes exceptional training to shoot back. If the military life is as easy as you tried to make it out to be, in veiled contempt for those who chose such life, then there would be no need for even basic training, is there?

So in my negible opinion,...

It is.

...being in the military doesn’t automatically give your opinion more weight.

Depends on the subject. An infantryman does not intrude into the brain surgeon's work. And vice versa.

 

[CardSharp]

I told you I was going to offend.

No...But it takes exceptional training to shoot back. If the military life is as easy as you tried to make it out to be, in veiled contempt for those who chose such life, then there would be no need for even basic training, is there?


It is.


Depends on the subject. An infantryman does not intrude into the brain surgeon's work. And vice versa.

Agree with highlight and re-read this if you think I have contempt for those who choose the military as a path.

Most of my personal Hero are military men and moreover American military men

but it does mean, I don't have to respect some air force pog's opinion on modern Vietnam and geopolitics.

 

[siegecrossbow]

No...But it takes exceptional training to shoot back. If the military life is as easy as you tried to make it out to be, in veiled contempt for those who chose such life, then there would be no need for even basic training, is there?


It is.


Depends on the subject. An infantryman does not intrude into the brain surgeon's work. And vice versa.

I think most Chinese members are flattered by your diligent and informative replies to their post. Have you given up on the Vietnamese welcomes China's military development topic?

 

[siegecrossbow]

but it does mean, I don't have to respect some air force pog's opinion on modern Vietnamese opinion.

His opinion is not representative of the U.S. armed forces. Most servicemen I encountered on other defense websites, even when they disagree with you completely, reply politely and get along with everyone in private.

 

[gambit]

I told you I was going to offend.

You did not offend me. You have not said anything worthwhile to be considered 'offensive'. I dismiss it the way I would dismiss any 'fanboy' who has no experience in the relevant subject but tries to portray himself as its 'expert'.

Agree with highlight and re-read this if you think I have contempt for those who choose the military as a path.

A sop.

but it does mean, I don't have to respect some air force pog's opinion on modern Vietnam and geopolitics.

No...You do not have to...But this is a publicly available accessible forum, therefore your respect is irrelevant to me. What matter is the contents of your arguments. You are not Vietnamese. Dare I presume that you either have never been to VN or seldom? Considering that am old enough to survive and remember the 1968 Tet Offensive, have sent monies back to VN to support my kin, and that I have been back several times, the readers will judge.

 

[gambit]

I think most Chinese members are flattered by your diligent and informative replies to their post.

Glad I could clear up a lot of misinformation, especially on the technical front.

Have you given up on the Vietnamese welcomes China's military development topic?

Like I said, the Chinese members can say anything they want about China. They just need to be historically accurate and exercise some reasonable logical thinking about Viet Nam.

 

[CardSharp]

You did not offend me. You have not said anything worthwhile to be considered 'offensive'. I dismiss it the way I would dismiss any 'fanboy' who has no experience in the relevant subject but tries to portray himself as its 'expert'.


A sop.


No...You do not have to...But this is a publicly available accessible forum, therefore your respect is irrelevant to me. What matter is the contents of your arguments. You are not Vietnamese. Dare I presume that you either have never been to VN or seldom? Considering that am old enough to survive and remember the 1968 Tet Offensive, have sent monies back to VN to support my kin, and that I have been back several times, the readers will judge.

Agreed, you believe what you want and I'll do likewise. Also I haven't said a word about public opinions in Vietnam, you're confusing me with someone else you hate.

fanboy out.