Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Large armies are as much liabilities as strengths, hence why the China's army is far larger than the USA's but by virtue of flexibility and projection the USA remains the far more powerful. There's no point in a fist that can't swing
I bring this up because I just stumbled on India's ammunition shortage because they have too many dudes in their army and not enough bullets coming out of their factories, if they were to fight a war right now they'd be out after 20 days, which is an interesting thought experiment

Indian hoplites wen?

[smjjames]

I guess they were hoping and maybe banking on that the first volley of nukes (if against Pakistan) would end it?

[Culise]

Well, it seems to me that the only major opponents that would start a full shooting war with India are Pakistan and China; both of these would on the balance of probability be conducted in a limited zone of engagement with limited objectives in highly difficult terrain logistically where only a limited number of troops could be supplied regardless of how many bullets there are in New Delhi.  Any escalation would likely only occur in the case of Pakistan, and that would indeed go nuclear if it became a total war.  That said, as the article notes, this sounds like a combination of corruption, malaise, inefficiency, and inattentiveness, rather than any intentional hope.

[Loud Whispers]

China's unlikely to invade India, even over Kashmir. Pakistan maybe, but nukes make things a spicy situation. Though in the event of an invasion how would Pakistan or China win?

[Culise]

China's unlikely to invade India, even over Kashmir. Pakistan maybe, but nukes make things a spicy situation. Though in the event of an invasion how would Pakistan or China win?

You are correct that China has no reason to start a fight over Kashmir; China already has all of Kashmir (specifically, the region administered as Aksai Chin) that they actually want/need, and only India contests that.  The major site of conflict between China and India today is the region between the de jure border and the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh, which is also Chinese-occupied but has recently become more of a point of contention.  That said, the fact that these in my opinion are the closest potential shots at getting into a full shooting war India has, however, should suggest how likely it is to me that India will get into a full shooting war.

That said, in the event of an invasion, either nation would win by securing limited objectives and preventing India from retaking/taking the lands occupied, regardless of whether they come to permanent terms after or not.  An attempt to invade the Indian heartland would run into tremendous logistical difficulties, but is thankfully completely unnecessary to actually win.  China has the advantage over India as they already occupy pretty much everything they want in both Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh already, giving them a defensive advantage in difficult terrain, and in both areas have a huge advantage in available forces and in logistical development to move more forces and supplies to the front; that situation has only worsened for India since the last war in 1962, in spite of Modi's attempts to change the situation of late.  That is to say, China has in fact already demonstrated the viability of this strategy in how they took these regions in the first place.  Pakistan is, however, a wreck, coming up short in numbers, conventional arms, force projection, and domestic unity; short of nuclear arms, I don't believe they would stand a chance, especially if it escalated from Kashmir alone into a full war along the entire border. 

EDIT: Grammar pass.

[Strife26]

In India, the norm is that WWR should last for 40 days of intense fighting, allowing time for production to be ramped up and delivered to the military.

This isn't a thing. A modern, conventional war burns expendables much faster than a country is going to be able to produce.

[Culise]

In India, the norm is that WWR should last for 40 days of intense fighting, allowing time for production to be ramped up and delivered to the military.

This isn't a thing. A modern, conventional war burns expendables much faster than a country is going to be able to produce.

No, that part isn't a thing; that's in fact what they expect.  The "thing" is that India only actually has enough for half that at the most in spite of their planning, which means that there is an unfortunate gap of 20-30 days (depending on weapon) where they won't have anything to fire between the point where their pre-war supplies run out and purchases from other countries arrive and combine with an increase in internal production to make up the difference.  Mind you, it still seems like a tempest in a teacup to me, but that is the "thing", insofar as it is a thing.

[mainiac]

In India, the norm is that WWR should last for 40 days of intense fighting, allowing time for production to be ramped up and delivered to the military.

This isn't a thing. A modern, conventional war burns expendables much faster than a country is going to be able to produce.

Well it's hard to say given that no developed country has come anywhere near full mobalization in like 50 years.

[Sheb]

Isn't that the case for most countries, with the possible exception of the US? I remember France needing special deliveries of bombs to sustain their campaign again ISIS, and that's far from "intense fighting".

[Parsely]

I say we take this discussion to the Armchair General thread and really pull it to pieces there.

Well what would happen in a large scale war is:

One side would get air superiority- the other side would have their HQ destroyed|
To prevent that, they'd have to have a non-readily-discernable base.
Ergo, guerrilla warfare.

Has any war ever been won via decapitation? That is to say, the enemy deliberately managing to destroy their opponent's "HQ"? The only close example I can think of is fictional, from the comic Über, when-

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

-Winston Churchill is killed by a super soldier.

Three million bakers' sons with rifles and hats are no longer useful, since an enemy with proper equipment could field assets they are legitimately incapable of disabling.

https://youtu.be/jzihQE1O27g?t=1m36s

The British regulars [in World War 1] were a paid, professional army of well-trained and very often battle-experienced soldiers; no conscription. Now there is really...no question, in my mind, at least, that the British professionals were the best soldiers in the world at the outbreak of the war, but, there weren't that many of them. There were around 100,000 of them against, for starters, a couple million German conscripts, right? By the end of 1914, that professional, British army, was no more. It was replaced by volunteers, and eventually conscripts- [...] See the British had relied on that small, very well-trained army [...] and this, did not work so well in mainland Europe.

[Arx]

That isn't the issue Amp is suggesting though, as far as I can tell. A better trained force can be overwhelmed with numbers, because the trained soldiers are irreplaceable. A better equipped army is much harder, since not only are they presumably running a better casualty ratio, their casualties are as replaceable as the enemy's.

And quite aside from that, I am skeptical that we will see total war until a nation develops a near-perfect missile shield. And if we do, I still don't see huge numbers of infantry being deployed because of massively superior force multipliers. WWI was a century ago - it's difficult to quantify how relevant data from that era is to the current era, but it's probably safe to say that it's nowhere near a perfect comparison.

[Sheb]

Amp said "no longer useful". Pointing out that it was very useful 100 years ago doesn't disprove his point.

[Strife26]

Amp said "no longer useful". Pointing out that it was very useful 100 years ago doesn't disprove his point.

These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure. Professional soldiers take time to train, more time than you get when rotating people through every year.

[Erkki]

Amp said "no longer useful". Pointing out that it was very useful 100 years ago doesn't disprove his point.

These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure. Professional soldiers take time to train, more time than you get when rotating people through every year.

Dont you think that it depends on what tasks the military is required to achieve, which include being a deterrent against potential hostilities? Quantity does indeed have a quality all of its own(if well equipped, even if lacking in training due to not being professionals). That said, conscript army doesnt IMHO need to be a badly trained army either.

There are still militaries out where special forces, navy, pilots etc. and headquarters and most of the middle and higher levels of leadership are professional but the rank and file are, in a war, conscripts.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure.

*cough* Israel *cough*