Concentrating Forces and Audacious Action: PLA Lessons from the Sino-Indian War

[ganimi kawa]

Kudos to Cardsharp for initiating a discussion on such an important topic and to indians (especially Mr. Shearer) for discussing it in an impartial manner and without lapsing into any of the old rhetorics.

While brooding over a defeat is a sure sign of a feeble mind, analyzing it with an open mind is often the first step towards redemption!

Keep up the good work!

 

[CardSharp]

This is the beginning chapter of "When Generals Fail" by Brigadier General Darshan Khullar (rtd). It is entitled "The State of the Army in 1962" and he is brutal frank about the shortcomings of Indian Army at the time.

 

[CardSharp]

Here is a good campaign map taken from Brigadier General Dalvi's book Himalaya Blunders

 

[CardSharp]

The following picture were taken from "when generals fail" and gives us an idea of the kind of terrain that the battles took place in.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

 

[Joe Shearer]

My connection is down, so a detailed reply tomorrow. Just two points:

The Khullar book makes each and every point that I should have liked to have made, and kind of takes the wind out of my sails. Nevertheless, I will try to gild the lily.

Second, from the map, please look at the Bailey Trail. It brought the PLA column to the centre of the spread-out Indians, spread out serially on the mountain road, facing the notional threat coming in from the road-head, and allowed the line to be broken in half.

But Khullar says it all.

More tomorrow.

 

[CardSharp]

Been going through Bgd. Dalvi's book. It is every bit the disappointment I feared it would be. Will make a critique in detail soon but interestingly, the two others books by the junior officers (at the time) criticizes Bgd Dalvi's memoir.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Here is a good campaign map taken from Brigadier General Dalvi's book Himalaya Blunders

I return to the question of maps and strategies.

As you will have realised, the western and eastern campaigns were hugely different, in terms of topography, in terms of strategic options.

In the west, we have barren frozen desert, trackless wastes, and flatlands, which, some observers believe, can tolerate mobile movements and armoured manoeuvres. The highest military use of tanks was at Zoji La in 48, although there may have been engagements of tanks and armoured cars and APCs in 'crowd control' situations (not by India) in higher places. Lines of communication were stretched for the Indian Army, to the utmost, due to the single line road from the plains to the highland plateau that is the terrain beyond the Vale of Kashmir, Little Tibet. This area, rimmed by mountain peaks but with the Indus River and other river basins providing some flat land in between, and with the 'grain' of the country running north-west to south-east, that is, parallel to the strategic road built by China which caused the flare-up in the first place, extends dozens, even hundreds of miles beyond the point where it reaches Srinagar. It travels by Dras to Kargil to Leh, finally, and there are tracks in the rest of that terrain, some of which have become 4 wheel drive adventure drives subsequently, with increasingly military use encouraging civilian use. These alternative tracks run at right angles to the original regular road between Leh and the dividing mountains between Little Tibet and Himachal Pradesh, and is not an all-season road - not yet.

Baltistan, which was a part of this Little Tibet, but politically different, due to the weakness of the administration in Leh, was separated in the 17th century time of troubles in plains India, and was separately conquered by a Dogra general sometime in the mid-19th century. It was declared independent by its British administrators in 48, separately from the developments taking place about the Vale in general, and does not appear in the narrative of 62 at all. However, culturally, this was part of the greater Tibetan Empire of the 9th century, and certainly for significant periods of time thereafter.

This ought to be taken up separately from any consideration of the manoeuvres in the east.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Here is a good campaign map taken from Brigadier General Dalvi's book Himalaya Blunders

In contrast to the frozen desert of the west, in the east, other than the broad swathe of the Brahmaputra Valley, and other tributary rivers, all the terrain consists of steep hills climbing to high hills, but not to mountains, not within the theatre (there are mountains to the north-west of the scenes of action, on the Bhutan-Tibet border, also on the Sikkim-Tibet border, and further west). We can see from the very beautiful photographs from Khullar's book what this dispupted country looked like. Further, we can combine the information about the Bailey Trail with the sketch map shown in the propaganda video on YouTube.

Having said that, please note that there were Alpine meadows at points in the east as well. There are photographs showing these.

Please connect the point midway between the international border as indicated and the road leading upwards to Tawang, thereafter forking to Le inside Tibet and to Bum La on the border (just go along with me on these descriptions; it will make the narrative unbearably long-winded to achieve political correctness at all points, at all times). On this road, the Bailey Trail debouches about midway between Bomdi La and Dirrang on the map.

Now consider the YouTube schematics, showing three Indian brigades lined up one after the other on the road. The description on YouTube and this map tie up in this manner. There was no head-on attack; rather, the PLA troops infiltrated into a flanking position, ready to ambush the Indian Army units in movement, and their attack, when it came, was wholly unexpected and led to disaster.

Sometime in the late 50s, two generals of the Indian Army fought a war game simulating a mysterious and unnamed Red Force (aha!) against a Blue Force. Three times, Red Force was led by a gunner, who was a POW during WWII, a brigade commander at that time, and went on to be the COAS later. He was a member of a noted family which also contributed a minister (two, counting the next generation) and a chairman of a major coal mining company. On each of the three occasions, Red Force attacked using the Bailey Trail or a parallel path, close to the Bhutan border. Three times, this general, General K, won.

The Indian Army knew that these positions were not defensible.

 

[Srinivas]

Thank you for your interesting post. It is not clear exactly what was sought to be expressed, so let us clarify as much as we can.

1. Are you aware that there was a Chinese representative at the Tibetan Court symbolising Chinese suzerainty at least from the 19th century onwards?
2. Are you aware that Imperial Russia and Imperial India both acknowledged Chinese suzerainty over Tibet?
3. Are you aware that the Dalai Lama and his court acknowledged Chinese suzerainty? it became a question of suzerainty stiffening into sovereignty under the communist regime, and India, officially, recognised the Chinese take-over. This was formally conveyed by the Government of India.
4. Are you aware of the nature of the respective claims to Aksai Chin? How did India get title to Ladakh and to those territories?
5. Are you aware that the Aksai Chin area was never clearly demarcated in British maps? That the dispute began after independence, when the Chinese built roads through what they considered an integral part of Tibet? That the Government of India changed its stand, and its maps, several times?

I am not sure what prompted your post other than excess of patriotic spirit.

If My post expresses patriotism then its ok for me. Let me validate the facts in your post.
1) Tibet was not an integral part of China if yes why it has to take over by military action and Tibet is same as Kashmir is for India if not worse as there are lot of human right violations and cultural destruction is happening there.
A simple representative from China will not indicate that Tibet is an integral part of China. Tibet remained as an independent Empire until mid 19th century.

2) Opinions will always change buddy but facts and history remains constant.

3) Yeah India acknowledged that But we can give visas in loose sheets to Tibetans to indicate that India is with Tibetans.

4) Aksai Chin along with the part of Kashmir ceded by pakistan to China are disputed parts as the map of India shows. India never recognized those parts.

5) I agree with the last point with you as there is no clear demarcation of line so NO WRONG WITH NEHRU'S FORWARD POLICY.
To remind you the regions inhibited by mongoloids are not supposed to be chinese parts in south asia as china thinks.

Yes we need friendly relations with China but not by accepting its dubious claims

 

[Joe Shearer]

If My post expresses patriotism then its ok for me. Let me validate the facts in your post.
1) Tibet was not an integral part of China if yes why it has to take over by military action and Tibet is same as Kashmir is for India if not worse as there are lot of human right violations and cultural destruction is happening there.

Saying that A could not have been a fact because if it was a fact, why was B action not taken, is silly. You need to see the historical records and then check. This is history, not arithmetic. There is a slight difference.

Would you agree that India has a connection with the Tibetan boundary only as the successor of the British Indian state?

If so, in terms of British India's acceptance of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet we are held to similar behaviour ourselves, unless the Government of India thinks otherwise.

As it happens, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs does not seem to have heard that you disapprove, as they continue to state as India's official position that Tibet is part of China.

Whose position are you representing? Your own or the Indian State?

A simple representative from China will not indicate that Tibet is an integral part of China. Tibet remained as an independent Empire until mid 19th century.

We are discussing the 20th century and the 21st century.

If you go back to the 9th century, Tibet ruled China for a brief period (you may like to consult histories of China and of Tibet). That no longer means, and did not mean after the reign of Kublai Khan, that Tibet had rule over any part of China. What is important is not what was true two hundred years ago, which is incidentally incorrect history, but what was true thereafter. Please let me know on what basis you think Tibet was an independent empire, considering the evidence to the contrary.

2) Opinions will always change buddy but facts and history remains constant.

I do not understand the reference.

3) Yeah India acknowledged that But we can give visas in loose sheets to Tibetans to indicate that India is with Tibetans.

You are hereby authorised to issue visas in loose sheets to Tibetans to indicate that India is with Tibetans. Until you have completed this, please do not post again.

4) Aksai Chin along with the part of Kashmir ceded by pakistan to China are disputed parts as the map of India shows. India never recognized those parts.

Would you kindly read up on the history of Nehru's actions with regard to the cartographic claims on Aksai Chin? I do not want to get into a quarrel with someone who has obviously not gone into the basics, without giving him an opportunity to refresh his knowledge.

5) I agree with the last point with you as there is no clear demarcation of line so NO WRONG WITH NEHRU'S FORWARD POLICY.

Nehru's forward policy, based on reassurances with no foundation from the IB and its Director, was to progressively push Indian troops into territory claimed by the Chinese, in spite of opposition. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as you can win. If he had supported this forward policy with intelligent deployment of force, he might have got his point. Instead, he started this provocative policy, against a China that was then hyper-sensitive about territorial claims (please read about the incidents on the Amur River), with a completely demoralised military apparatus.

Either you should have the facts on your side, or you should have the muscles on your side. In this case, we had neither the facts nor the muscles. What are you objecting to?

To remind you the regions inhibited by mongoloids are not supposed to be chinese parts in south asia as china thinks.

Err, yes.

In argument, this is known as the straw man.

First you create an imaginary opponent. Then you knock him down. Then you claim a famous victory.

Since I never claimed that the regions 'inhibited'(sic) by mongoloids are supposed to be Chinese parts in south Asia, I am not sure why you feel it so urgently necessary to remind me. Don't create your own suppositions, refute them and feel you have achieved something.

I presume you are not 'mongoloid' yourself, from your supercilious and condescending tone.

Yes we need friendly relations with China but not by accepting its dubious claims

What has that got to do with history and with historical analysis? Why should I falsify facts to suit your jingoism, and make concessions to your obvious and evident lack of knowledge?

If you do not have any better arguments or evidence, please stop wasting time. If you persist, I will simply put you on the ignore list, and let the aggressive Chinese members take you apart. They will not necessarily use logic and reason, more likely blunt knives, on sensitive parts of your anatomy. You are welcome to what follows; it seems you want to fight with someone, anyone, on something, anything. Not me; I'm not interested. Go find someone else.

 

[CardSharp]

More maps of the North west sector (7th Brigade) of the NEFA.

The blue box represents the area covered by the second map

 

[CardSharp]

This map shows the attack on the 7th Brigade's position.


The 7th Brigade was posted at the extremity of the Indian line stretching across from Thagla ridge to Bomdila with each Indian brigade posted roughly along the axis of the road. Their position was to say the least extremely exposed and it was with this low hanging fruit that the PLA chose to start their attack.

Note extensive use of mortar in the attack, the use of infiltration/flanking tactics by the infantry, and the use of troops to preoccupy the units on the Indian flanks (stopping them from reinforcing the main position.)

 

[CardSharp]

Err, yes.

In argument, this is known as the straw man.

First you create an imaginary opponent. Then you knock him down. Then you claim a famous victory.

Since I never claimed that the regions 'inhibited'(sic) by mongoloids are supposed to be Chinese parts in south Asia, I am not sure why you feel it so urgently necessary to remind me. Don't create your own suppositions, refute them and feel you have achieved something.

I presume you are not 'mongoloid' yourself, from your supercilious and condescending tone.



What has that got to do with history and with historical analysis? Why should I falsify facts to suit your jingoism, and make concessions to your obvious and evident lack of knowledge?

If you do not have any better arguments or evidence, please stop wasting time. If you persist, I will simply put you on the ignore list, and let the aggressive Chinese members take you apart. They will not necessarily use logic and reason, more likely blunt knives, on sensitive parts of your anatomy. You are welcome to what follows; it seems you want to fight with someone, anyone, on something, anything. Not me; I'm not interested. Go find someone else.

I chuckled at your reply and I think this interlude would serve nicely as a segue to introduce an amusing book I found in the same section as the others. If I were to say this book entitled "what ails the army" is written with an Axe to grind it would be a several understatement.

It is written by one Brigadier Man Mohan Sharma and if 'Trolling' existed in those days and in book form, this would be it.

Check out the abbreviations he uses.

 

[CardSharp]

In his introduction to 1962, he starts off with the premise that Tibet was a part of India...

and the book gets better from there, but I am going off-topic, so I'll just say it is a very amusing book.

 

[CardSharp]

In contrast to the frozen desert of the west, in the east, other than the broad swathe of the Brahmaputra Valley, and other tributary rivers, all the terrain consists of steep hills climbing to high hills, but not to mountains, not within the theatre (there are mountains to the north-west of the scenes of action, on the Bhutan-Tibet border, also on the Sikkim-Tibet border, and further west). We can see from the very beautiful photographs from Khullar's book what this dispupted country looked like. Further, we can combine the information about the Bailey Trail with the sketch map shown in the propaganda video on YouTube.

Imagine my surprise when the evidence supports the youtube's phase of battle. I think I am starting to understand the situation as you described it. You're emphasis on enfilading was on the brigade scale, where because the Indian brigades were strung out facing from one side of the road to the other, the PLA was able to attack them end on via the open flank created by the 7th brigades collapse and the sneak attack through the Bailey trail.