What's new

India is perfectly capable of Winning a Two-Front WAR

It wont be pleasant for the other two either :P. What's being talked about here is purely conventional forces. China simply cannot bring the resources needed across the Himalayas to bring to bear in a relevant way against India on India's turf (given India will simply be fighting a defensive war (with appropriate targetted aggression with that defense in mind) on that front in this hypothetical 2 war front scenario). Please read gregor clegane's analysis posted earlier:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...ng-a-two-front-war.481737/page-2#post-9268051



Not yet sir. You have given enough to everyone to ruminate over. I shall interject only if I feel I have something constructive to add ;)

I for one do not know so many details of China's century of humiliation past the overall basic events....compared to specific historical chapters in other parts of the world. Simply have not gotten there yet to study in precise detail.
i highlighted that china does not have infrastructure in tibet. once they put resources to it id imagine they make a significant imporvement. but will they put resources to it? no.
as for the analysis, yes i read that.
now in a two front would india win?
 
.
now in a two front would india win?
What does win mean? that depends on what situation we are in and what our goals are.

If the goal is defending from aggression is success then it is a win.
Well India does have good enuf capability to defend attacks from both the side without losing much territory in a short term war.

Can it take war to enemy territory and hold the fort ? that is way too hard given our capability ( and economics as well) is more of defensive rather than offensive.
 
.
now in a two front would india win?

Define winning? It would depend on the nature of the conflict. If India defeats and occupies Pakistan (while mitigating the nuclear exchange to say near 0 or 0 levels)....would China keep the "war" going? What do the new set of objectives become? What was the original scenario defined anyway (sudden?, ramped up over short, mid , long term? WW3?). If strategic or even tactical nukes are engaged by any side (esp if a global war) then basically the world is probably doomed anyway....so I leave that out of the hypothetical analysis.

Tibet + Himlayas is a severe buffer and hindrance for conventional Chinese forces that give defenders advantage a real boost (no matter who is attacking). Relying on conventional asymmetry (MLRS saturation bombardments etc) also mean such point source systems become increasingly valuable targets (for the opposition's own assymetric resources) compared to a more grunt-based sustained conventional attack.

Any breaches formed on Indian soil by China also mean the logistics supply chain are that much longer and vulnerable too...thus they would be temporary and salient in nature. Only arguable exception could potentially be in North Eastern India where the supply routes could be routed through Kunming/Yunnan over Northern Burma (which China would have to occupy or be part of an alliance with etc)....but the density of defenses and forces available to India in the gangetic plain?... in the time available for China to release pressure on Pakistan? I really doubt it given mother nature + defenders advantage basically.

This holding action plan was what was employed by India during 1971...should China have decided to intervene. Also the reason why India delayed the action in East Pakistan till winter with that in mind (passes get snowed in etc).

If this is a war on Indian terms, the timing will again be selected appropriately....and even without the timing (saw war thrust upon us)....Indian forces are designed to have a defensive front along the Himalayas and use conventional superiority to the fullest where no such obstacles lie (on the west).
 
.
If that none violence is your tactic to survive why India is buying more arm than all South Asia nations combined, if Indian get alone Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan with no arm, I'm pretty sure they will do India no harm...LMAO, but Instead India is armed to teeth to impose it will to these smaller neighbors :disagree:

I did tell you to read Sun Tzu. Maybe if you do, you shall emerge a bit wiser. Something that is the hallmark of Chinese foreign policy for generations. I assume you spend way too much time on PDF and are getting influenced with the pre-dominant thought or lack thereof, here.

Read your history. Understand your history. Understand what victory means. Understand what makes China so unique. You are claiming it is unique, but you fail to understand what makes it unique.

If, by chance you do understand, you won't be posting drivel like the one as quoted by me.


We don't have territory problem with Pakistan, not now and never will have...but do I need to remind you that we have with India an unfinished territory issue to settle, don't expect Chinese to swallow the unfair and unequal treaty imposed to us and expect us to forget...soon or later we will settle that with India once for all.


The issue is not whether you have a territorial dispute with anyone. The issue is the Chinese philosophy, which is centred around Middle Kingdom still. It is admirable. You signed a treaty in 821/823 AD with Tibet - 'never to be changed' ...... between Tsan-po from Tibet and Hwang Te of China. Read your history of treachery and deceit ..and waiting for the 'right time' to strike.

Please. Do not educate me on your history with the fictitious version being spewed by you.

As long as Sino-Indian border remains unsettled, the boundary dispute with Pakistan is non-existential. Once it is settled with India, it crops up wth Pakistan.

Your foreign policy hinges on the fact that China as a concept is never ending. When Mongols invaded China, you were ruled by them. But you absorbed them. Here comes the twist - the Chinese considered every territory from where their invaders originated - their own. Hence, Mongolia was claimed and subsequently outer Mongolia.

The limitation has not been to point of origin merely. It includes all territories as claimed by the said invader. For example - Mongols had Turkestan under their control - hence, Chinese had control for brief periods over CARs too. Extending the logic - what you said earlier - Moscow - Kiev etc.

Tibet was paid tribute by Ladakh as also principalities of Gilgit ...... guess who has control of Gilgit? Pakistan .....
 
.
Define winning? It would depend on the nature of the conflict. If India defeats and occupies Pakistan (while mitigating the nuclear exchange to say near 0 or 0 levels)....would China keep the "war" going? What do the new set of objectives become? What was the original scenario defined anyway (sudden?, ramped up over short, mid , long term? WW3?). If strategic or even tactical nukes are engaged by any side (esp if a global war) then basically the world is probably doomed anyway....so I leave that out of the hypothetical analysis.

Tibet + Himlayas is a severe buffer and hindrance for conventional Chinese forces that give defenders advantage a real boost (no matter who is attacking). Relying on conventional asymmetry (MLRS saturation bombardments etc) also mean such point source systems become increasingly valuable targets (for the opposition's own assymetric resources) compared to a more grunt-based sustained conventional attack.

Any breaches formed on Indian soil by China also mean the logistics supply chain are that much longer and vulnerable too...thus they would be temporary and salient in nature. Only arguable exception could potentially be in North Eastern India where the supply routes could be routed through Kunming/Yunnan over Northern Burma (which China would have to occupy or be part of an alliance with etc)....but the density of defenses and forces available to India in the gangetic plain?... in the time available for China to release pressure on Pakistan? I really doubt it given mother nature + defenders advantage basically.

This holding action plan was what was employed by India during 1971...should China have decided to intervene. Also the reason why India delayed the action in East Pakistan till winter with that in mind (passes get snowed in etc).

If this is a war on Indian terms, the timing will again be selected appropriately....and even without the timing (saw war thrust upon us)....Indian forces are designed to have a defensive front along the Himalayas and use conventional superiority to the fullest where no such obstacles lie (on the west).

Nobody could win two front wars, unless USA beat Canada + Mexico, among equals it's impossible, just look how Germans overestimate themselves.

However with this said, this scenario would not happen, China does not see India as main existential threat but USA, our most resources will be allocated in the east to counter America.
 
.
Nobody could win two front wars, unless USA beat Canada + Mexico, among equals it's impossible, just look how Germans overestimate themselves.

However with this said, this scenario would not happen, China does not see India as main existential threat but USA, our most resources will be allocated in the east to counter America.

Like I said no one is really going to win....and the situation is very non-likely to begin with. China did not intervene in previous conflicts India and Pakistan had while it was friendly/allied to Pakistan (1971, 1999) because it knows the constraints of diverting from where its military might is located en masse (on the east for shock forces and centre for reserves) and deploying in a very terrible border area with India and inadequate logistical area (tibet) for a prolonged conventional campaign which would be required in this hypothetical scenario.

Chinese planners know very well of the advantage defenders have in himalayan terrain and logistical vulnerability. It would need massive amounts of chinese forces to be attempted, and that also opens up China's own population centres should the war turn into a global one (which it likely would at that stage).

Thus yes its a silly thing to talk about anyone winning given China isn't going to commit the forces needed for invasion, simply from the logistical exercise and vulnerabilities given your threat perception of the US and her allies relative to India in the first place....and adding the nature of the battleground being heavily unfavourable to the aggressor (relative to say open flat land and plains).
 
.
You are not that innocent bharati. You know I am talking about 62 war where you had to face the only time a power bigger than you and failed completely.

As for 65 war I know the lies that you have been fed about it. I would give it a pass too. For 71 you brought it again for facesaving but that won't help you in a two front war where certain humiliation is waiting for you. Siachen or Kargil are again more attempts for further facesaving since 71 wasn't enough.

We have no two front war. If you think last desperate TTP attacks from Afghanistan are some sort of two front war for Pakistan then I can only laugh at your immaturity. You were never a very shining example. You should limit yourself to liking posts of other bharatis instead of wasting my time and this forum's space with your meaningless posts.

You can't win against china even in a single front and if that hurts you then sorry I can't sugar coat it for you.
I know debating with you it will come down to personal attack or calling others as i have seen in past.
never mind you enjoy your delusion and find solace that india cant defeat china as you are sure single front with pakistan how many hours will you and your PAF survive,We are arming our self with teeth with the prospect of 2 wars however we are getting prepared for our CSD.
 
.
India has to face more than 2 country at a time :

Maoist guerrillas

insurgency in NE india

Kashmiri guerrillas

Separatist of Ghurkhaland
 
.
China alone is enough to beat India two times within a week and then again a third time just to score a hat-trick.

These articles are meant to satisfy frustrated and warmongering nation of India.

Chinese are aware what Indian nation is capable of .

Chinese are arming Pakistan, Myanmar , North Korea and even Chinese influence is clearly visible in Iran and Syria. Missile and Nuclear Proliferation has been done to very large extent.

Chinese are having border disputes with Republic of India, Japan Senkaku islands , South Korea Socotra Rock phillipines spartly island , Malaysia, Vietnam etc .

And here you are terming Republic of India as warmongering nation ?o_Oo_O

wow! hindus are quite delusional

Indians are aware what they are dealing with .

How is India going to respond to Pakistan's tactical missiles?

3 Tier Missile shield is placed.

utter nonsense.

India can never win a two front war. Take Germany for example.

During World War II, a total of about 13 million soldiers served in the German Army. Most army personnel were conscripted.

During 2010, the Indian Armed Forces has a reported strength of 1.4 million active personnel and 2.1 million reserve personnel. In addition, there are approximately 1.3 million paramilitary personnel.
 
. .
Come On India! Give it a try, if u have some balls!
images (1).jpg
 
. . . .
don't know about two front...
but gaganshakti showd thay can distroy pakistan within 48 hours...
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom