What's new

Featured Chinese light tanks won't survive in battle with T-90s, say Indian tank commanders

.
These Indian T-90s will end up like Saddam's tanks in the 1991 and 2003 US invasions ... nothing but complete scrap metal on fire.

The Z-10s will be the worst nightmare for T-90s and T-72s besides drone attacks ... Indian armored formations are nothing more than very expensive coffins. How is the IA going to deal with massive formations of Chinese Z-10s and Z-19s when they have extremely rudimentary air defenses and the IAF is already completely destroyed? Your Apaches would have been destroyed by Chinese aircraft way before they even arrive on the battlefield. It would be much wiser to withdraw these precious assets further inland to prevent the inevitable Chinese drive southwards towards the plains.

Indian tanks will be unlikely to be attacked by Z-10 gunships directly. They will be taken out like petty criminals by drone.


The Z-10s will be there to receive the surrender of survivors.
 
. . .
I presume you done the same analysis on china, whose def needs go beyond India since they are border conflicts with 24 countries, who have to match American spending and that of NATO, and then come with worldwide bases, as we have?

You've made some serious assumptions all of which, in my opinion, are wrong.

The first assumption you've made is that the US has the support necessary to engage China in the Pacific.

With regards to NATO you need to review Article 5 of it's charter which states:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Article 5 ONLY relates to attacks on the NATO members states mainland not actions in the Pacific Ocean nor does it include defense of US "allies" who are non-NATO members like Japan, India or Australia.

China is the worlds largest consumer market, it's already Australia's largest trading partner and soon to be Japan's if it isn't already not to mention its part of a huge chunk of the worlds supply chain so what nations would seek to commit economic suicide for the US war of terror on the high seas?

Furthermore many of the nations that the US has naval bases in like Saudi Arabia, who export 70% more oil to the Chinese than the US, wouldn't allow their ports and naval bases in their country to be used to attack the PLAN if only out of purely economic reasons so it makes a lot of the US' bases/ports of call completely worthless in a fight against China.

If the US engages China in the Pacific it's on its own particularly in light of the fact that among the populations of many of Europe's biggest NATO members (ex. Germany, France and Turkey) support for the organization has declined considerably over the years and I don't see how any of their respective governments would even be able to garner the necessary public support to fight China in the Pacific when they won't even take on Russia in Ukraine.

The second assumption you've made is that the US has the capacity and capability necessary to engage China in the Pacific.

The head of PACOM, Adm. Philip Davidson, himself confirmed to the Senate Arms Committee when he was still a nominee that China has almost complete control over the South China Sea with capabilities they've developed/installed over the years:
https://freebeacon.com/national-sec...military-islands-now-control-south-china-sea/

It's only set to get worse.

Not only does China have the worlds largest, and likely fastest growing, Navy on the planet as confirmed by the Pentagon but the ships that the US does have are pre-occupied with a host of missions globally so they could never allocate all their assets for such a fight in the Pacific to begin with.
https://news.usni.org/2020/09/01/pe...st-navy-as-beijing-expands-military-influence

It's clear that many nations and groups will directly or indirectly attack the US and its "allies", many of whom are despotic regimes, globally once this war kicks off and the US is preoccupied by it.

So will the US Navy will just abandon despotic Gulf regimes?

So will the USN abandon its position in Europe or leave the US mainland vulnerable to attack and what about their missions in South America and Africa?

As for China isn't alone either and has ports they can call on aside from their large expanding naval base in Djibouti. While a sizeable chunk of the US military budget is required simply to maintain military/naval bases globally it doesn't go into the production and acquisition of actual war fighting material which isn't something China is required to do considering the Pacific is their own backyard while the Chinese are also expanding their naval footprint which is is largely coupled with economic projects making them far more sustainable than the US presence globally.

As for spending If China matches what the US spends as a % of GDP based on their nominal 2018 figures alone they'd have another ~$163 Billion a year they could put towards their armed forces specifically the navy so just imagine that over the next 5-10 years.

That increase itself would be almost triple the current Indian defense budget.

You also fail to realize is that the Chinese GDP (PPP) is over 25% higher than the US' and since they can produce advanced military technology on their own, whereas nations like India are required to import a significant portion of it, their money goes a lot farther.

Add the fact that China's position as a global manufacturing hub has given them a massive infrastructure advantage over the US which can be utilized towards the production of weapons systems on scale the larger US military budget doesn't have the same kind of impact you might have thought it did.

The chinese light tanks are more mobile and movable vis a vis the terrain concerned.

I told you fellows, lying and bullshit.ting is an art, and Indians excel at it ..... no one can match the mighty indians when it come to bullshit.ting !!

This is typical Indian nonsense.

They continually talk about "conventional superiority" in relation to Pakistan but suddenly "conventional superiority" doesn't mean anything when it comes to a fight against China.

They themselves are in a mad dash to procure light tanks, especially considering they have nowhere near the infrastructure developed in the territory they illegally occupy that China has in the liberated regions, but suddenly those light tanks don't give China an advantage:
https://eurasiantimes.com/indian-vs...-answer-to-chinese-type-15-lightweight-tanks/
https://swarajyamag.com/defence/ind...tandoff-with-china-heres-what-you-should-know

Israel, the US, Russia and France will bankrupt India supplying arms. probably the idea all along.

I personally don't think buying drones is going to bankrupt the Indian Armed Forces, though they won't be able to match the numbers the PLA can put forward considering they'll need drones with extensive protection against EW attacks which they don't have, but China's increased troop presence along the entirety of the LAC itself will push India towards spending A LOT more of its defense budget arming, feeding and housing soldiers versus acquiring actual war fighting capabilities.

This is why India is so desperate to stop China from pushing more troops along the LAC:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...nt-in-military-talks/articleshow/78263195.cms
 
Last edited:
. . . .
Asked about the performance of the tank in the high mountainous terrain, the commander said the Russian-origin T-90 tank is very well-suited for operations in extreme cold weather conditions which exist in the country of origin of the tank.


LoL

The question was on high altitude and he was answering about cold weather conditions in Russia. :hitwall::hitwall:

Forget about operating , will the tankers even be able to start their T-90 and T-72 tanks?
 
. .
ah, okay, you are looking at things from the prism of a video game - I get it. your comments now make sense. :wave: :rolleyes1:

so Japan feeling threatened by the USA in WW2 and attacking first.
Hitler, knowing he would have to fight a two front war attacking first.
Japan feeling threatened by Russia surprise attack the Russian fleet at Port Arthur.
These are just video games?

No, that is history. History repeats because people keep doing the same things. Here we go again.
 
. .
You've made some serious assumptions all of which, in my opinion, are wrong.

The first assumption you've made is that the US has the support necessary to engage China in the Pacific.

With regards to NATO you need to review Article 5 of it's charter which states:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Article 5 ONLY relates to attacks on the NATO members states mainland not actions in the Pacific Ocean nor does it include defense of US "allies" who are non-NATO members like Japan, India or Australia.

China is the worlds largest consumer market, it's already Australia's largest trading partner and soon to be Japan's if it isn't already not to mention its part of a huge chunk of the worlds supply chain so what nations would seek to commit economic suicide for the US war of terror on the high seas?

Furthermore many of the nations that the US has naval bases in like Saudi Arabia, who export 70% more oil to the Chinese than the US, wouldn't allow their ports and naval bases in their country to be used to attack the PLAN if only out of purely economic reasons so it makes a lot of the US' bases/ports of call completely worthless in a fight against China.

If the US engages China in the Pacific it's on its own particularly in light of the fact that among the populations of many of Europe's biggest NATO members (ex. Germany, France and Turkey) support for the organization has declined considerably over the years and I don't see how any of their respective governments would even be able to garner the necessary public support to fight China in the Pacific when they won't even take on Russia in Ukraine.

The second assumption you've made is that the US has the capacity and capability necessary to engage China in the Pacific.

The head of PACOM, Adm. Philip Davidson, himself confirmed to the Senate Arms Committee when he was still a nominee that China has almost complete control over the South China Sea with capabilities they've developed/installed over the years:
https://freebeacon.com/national-sec...military-islands-now-control-south-china-sea/

It's only set to get worse.

Not only does China have the worlds largest, and likely fastest growing, Navy on the planet as confirmed by the Pentagon but the ships that the US does have are pre-occupied with a host of missions globally so they could never allocate all their assets for such a fight in the Pacific to begin with.
https://news.usni.org/2020/09/01/pe...st-navy-as-beijing-expands-military-influence

It's clear that many nations and groups will directly or indirectly attack the US and its "allies", many of whom are despotic regimes, globally once this war kicks off and the US is preoccupied by it.

So will the US Navy will just abandon despotic Gulf regimes?

So will the USN abandon its position in Europe or leave the US mainland vulnerable to attack and what about their missions in South America and Africa?

As for China isn't alone either and has ports they can call on aside from their large expanding naval base in Djibouti. While a sizeable chunk of the US military budget is required simply to maintain military/naval bases globally it doesn't go into the production and acquisition of actual war fighting material which isn't something China is required to do considering the Pacific is their own backyard while the Chinese are also expanding their naval footprint which is is largely coupled with economic projects making them far more sustainable than the US presence globally.

As for spending If China matches what the US spends as a % of GDP based on their nominal 2018 figures alone they'd have another ~$163 Billion a year they could put towards their armed forces specifically the navy so just imagine that over the next 5-10 years.

That increase itself would be almost triple the current Indian defense budget.

You also fail to realize is that the Chinese GDP (PPP) is over 25% higher than the US' and since they can produce advanced military technology on their own, whereas nations like India are required to import a significant portion of it, their money goes a lot farther.

Add the fact that China's position as a global manufacturing hub has given them a massive infrastructure advantage over the US which can be utilized towards the production of weapons systems on scale the larger US military budget doesn't have the same kind of impact you might have thought it did.





This is typical Indian nonsense.

They continually talk about "conventional superiority" in relation to Pakistan but suddenly "conventional superiority" doesn't mean anything when it comes to a fight against China.

They themselves are in a mad dash to procure light tanks, especially considering they have nowhere near the infrastructure developed in the territory they illegally occupy that China has in the liberated regions, but suddenly those light tanks don't give China an advantage:
https://eurasiantimes.com/indian-vs...-answer-to-chinese-type-15-lightweight-tanks/
https://swarajyamag.com/defence/ind...tandoff-with-china-heres-what-you-should-know



I personally don't think buying drones is going to bankrupt the Indian Armed Forces, though they won't be able to match the numbers the PLA can put forward considering they'll need drones with extensive protection against EW attacks which they don't have, but China's increased troop presence along the entirety of the LAC itself will push India towards spending A LOT more of its defense budget arming, feeding and housing soldiers versus acquiring actual war fighting capabilities.

This is why India is so desperate to stop China from pushing more troops along the LAC:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...nt-in-military-talks/articleshow/78263195.cms

I'm afraid you have made a few typical assumptions that we've had forum posters and even military propagandists make (Like the infamous Baghdad Bob, or GlobalTimes), against our capabilities and resolve.

First, that the US would arbitrarily attack China. The circumstances of going to war will be if we are attacked first, directly or indirectly, or prevented from free access (in this case in the S.China sea). Remember, China lost its case in the UN over its S China claims, which makes FREE and unhindered access to the S China Sea, a legitimate legal right of every country globally. A war over the S China sea is a war for every country gaining access and NATO will be involved without a need for article 5 being invoked (see second point below). China threatens free access to over 5 trillion dollars of trade which passes through the region, where China claims exclusive rights over.

Second, an incorrect assumption is made in that we have to invoke article 5, to get the support of NATO nations. See the First and second Gulf wars.

The third assumption(s) made is on our capabilities.

- where you ascribe China's single Djubuti base to be more powerful & acting as a force multiplier versus our dozens of bases, simply because you imagined us to be stuck in our bases, else considered being as abandoning those countries? I'm not sure as to your line of thought on that. Abandoning it from what foreign attack, who is going to attack them? Do you imagine a world war 4 suddenly taking place if we remove assets from those bases & all hell break loose, and people attack those countries? That's quite a stretch.

- You proscribe some stranglehold of China over our partners because of economic issues, with examples of Japan and Australia. This does not hold true when one looks at the relationship between both countries and China. Japan has territorial disputes with China, where China continuously challenges its sovereignty. Australia has severely downgraded its relationship with China, challenging them continuously. Both countries purposefully called for and joined the QUAD, whose sole purpose is to challenge China. Ask yourself- Are those actions and behaviors of countries afraid of China's trade and economic strength?

- Same as above, but this time you proscribe Gulf Muslim countries who have been our partners for decades to flip the switch somehow and go with China because of oil exports. Do you imagine China buys oil from them as a favor to those countries? China has 'oil' needs and has to rely on multiple countries for it. Threatening to act against those countries only hurts itself, let alone to do so smack in the middle of a war. The US also guarantees and has gone to war to protect those Gulf countries. China will not or does not have any such commitment. Again, another stretch to imagine this overwhelming stranglehold and influence of China over those countries.

- You give an example of our admiral speaking to China's access and control over a region as somehow a deterrent for us. You may have misunderstood the nuances of what he stated as somehow being a deterrent. Every country we have gone to war has had complete control over their region. Our history is peppered with us going to war in several cases where we were the underdogs too. He was simply speaking to their control over the region and supply chain. BUT since you cite our admiral, I'd like to cite what we have also said...
US disregards Beijing's nonsense, says it can take down South China Sea islands

- I noticed towards the end of your reply to me, you've added a Chinese menu (pun intended) of assumptions as reality. Somehow, the Chinese navy, where the majority is still old vessels, is technologically as strong as ours, or its size is greater and capable of taking us on or comparing a Chinese military budget of $160B to our $800 Billion as being somewhat close and equal.

You also seem to ignore their GDP earnings are applied to a population of over 1.4 billion people, whereas ours is to over 350 million. You also assume that our allies will not contribute to the war machine in a full-on war scenario.

- Your reply flirts from the US and NATO taking on China to India and their capability, almost in mid-sentence. I suppose that's more to satisfy the animosity you two countries have for each other. You have fundamentally misunderstood their 'needed' capabilities for the scenario in the ladak region, but that's another debate altogether.

In my opinion,- two scenarios could happen vis-a-vis US/China.

  1. One is a limited war with China over disputed zones ONLY because nobody is interested in going after each other's mainland.
  2. Second, they go after each other's countries and it then becomes an article 5 NATO involvement because the US is attacked in the mainland.
As for China- There is NOT a single country that will challenge the US for China in any DIRECT military way. Not even Pakistan. They will support the Chinese war machine in small ways and secretively, but not single PAK military personnel will engage us directly. I guarantee it.
 
Last edited:
.
If OP cannot defend his erroneous assertions, than he should bow out, or be forced to do so.

We are a serious discussion forum here, and we don't have time for deliberate lies and manipulation of facts.

This drags down the quality of the whole forum.
 
.
This will be a limited engagement if it happens. Those two powers will not go for an all-out war over that inhabitable piece of land they are eye to eye for the moment.

Frankly, This was never meant to be a war. I can't see even a limited action with China mired in border conflicts with 24 countries. It's Doklum 2.0 The Chinese have lost the narrative. The entire Chinese gameplan was to embarrass India and sit an advantage. They got checkmated by the Indians taking those higher peaks.
What are the heights of these peaks? Are these peaks unapproachable to strike fighters or armed drones or loitering munitions or cruise missiles?

Every time you repeat the same narrative. Please change it.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom