It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Lol,
took your time
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i was not aware that there was a " requirement " to post replies at your beck and call . other poeople have lives outside the internut , ATS is a hobby - NOT a duty . only in the formal debates is thier any time limit on posting schedules .
maybe you should reply properly yourself -- instead of sniping -- as you seem to think that prompt reply is so important
alternativly -- try getting out more
Originally posted by Daedalus3
CW.. no I didn't take my time.. just haven't visited weaponry/this thread in a long time.. anyways there was nothing in my post that required research. Most of it is common knowledge.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
You've changed your signature too..
Originally posted by yuanshao101
Industrial capacity, yes now the USA are the modern Day nazis and the Chinese are the Modern Day USA, un rival'd in production capabilities, for every ship we take out they replace it with 2, the Chinese have passed a law meaning everyone capable of working IS DOING JUST THAT, thats over 300,000,000 people all producing weapons to crush the United states with,
Originally posted by Daedalus3
1) The only thing partially common between kargil and 62' is the proximity of the terrain, even though the terrain is very different.
There were major considerations about crossing the border here and so bombing runs were not as optimal as they could have been.
The weaponry required to assure 100% dislodging/destruction of such fortifications would probably be only available with countries like the US
5)The role of the IAF in Kargil was pivotal in dislodging the militants from their perch.
So you're concluding that the amount of firepower deployable against PLA on a per soldier basis would have been much lesser in 62' than the korean war?
100000-500000 is a wild range. In 1950 Tibet was not even a part of China. It was annexed only in 1959.
By 1954, 222,000 members of the PLA were stationed in Tibet. In April 1956, the Chinese inaugurated the Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet (PCART) in Lhasa, headed by the Dalai Lama and ostensibly convened to modernize the country and bring about democratic reforms.
Despite this and other successes, the US aid now served no serious purpose any more. By 1962, the Chinese have built a number of roads and airstrips, establishing strong lines of communications, which enabled them to deploy a large number of Army and PLAAF units in Tibet.
Initially, the US support had minimal effects on the war that raged through Tibet, and in which the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was meanwhile deploying at least two regiments of fighter-bombers to hit towns under guerrilla control. Exactly what types were deployed by the PLAAF in Tibet remains unknown, but various Tibetan sources indicate the use of Ilushin Il-10 fighter-bombers, Ilushin Il-28 and Tupolev Tu-4 bombers, as well as MiG-fighters (MiG-15s and MiG-17s). From few available reports, it is known that in October 1958, the Khampa guerrillas have shot down at least one Chinese aircraft on a bombing mission, and that this has had a crew of five, as well as a “turret with powerful machine guns” and internal bomb-carrying capability. This would indicate the use of some other type but the already mentioned. Certainly, the Il-28 was the preferred solution, then it had the range as well as good load capacity; but, it has never had a crew of five.
A long drawn out battle would've seen the PLA at major logistical debacle.
My pick is that it was a combination of the two.
Its hard for everybody to accept, except you.
All this would be inferior in capability to the same on the Indian side. That again is the basis for my reasoning behind why the PLA stopped its advance when it did.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
Thats a shade lighter than your stance a few pages ago.
Anyways its improvement nonetheless
That means that nothing short of nukes would stopped the venerable chinese infantry?
I contest your claims of the offensive capability of the IAF in 62. Please back them up. What do you mean?
Its all about the terrain in this case. In the open moving troops are vulnearble as hell.
Basically before the war both aksai chin and arunchal were in India's possession as per international maps and understanding.
What you're trying to say is that the chinese took some of that land(Aksai Chin) and then wanted to trade it in for some other land(much bigger) which anyways belonged to India in the first place? huh?
Originally posted by rogue1
Going back a few pages about teh Korean War. He's some good gun camera footage of the US Sabres shooting the crap out of CHinese Mig-15's.
military.discovery.com...