Battle of the Asian Titans: India vs. China in conventional war

Great Debates
61

Yeah and they probably sacked Lahore and Multan more times than I have fingers. However they failed to really penetrate the central part of the Gangetic plain to any great extent. In fairness it has been argued that India was never really a conquest goal to begin with, but more an attractive source of plunder, including slaves, hence the efforts were not as determined as they could have been and more a matter of constant large-scale raids.

The period of 1297-1303 is equivocal - some scholars have speculated that it was a full-on attempt by the Chagataids to break out of their land-locked straight-jacket, others have dismissed the idea, saying the Ilkhanate would have been a more logical target for such a move. Regardless, the assaults in that period were certainly in the realm of major invasions - ten tumens ( reported as a lak of 100,000 troops or more, but tumens in at least the earlier imperial period were generally well below paper strength, 60% of that would be a more conservative guess ) under Qutlugh Qocha in 1299-1300 and and reportedly as many 120,000 under Taraghai in 1303. More “normal” incursions in that period were mobile groups of 10,000-15,000.

62

About 1297-1303, I’m skeptical. It’s not that Duwa wouldn’t have accepted India had he won it, but his main goal was to play off the Ilkhanate and the Yuans.

And why don’t you consider the Timurids as Mongol? The Khanate had adopted the Turkish language and a lot of Turkish and Persian customs, but Babur could trace his ancestry back to Genghis Khan on both his father’s and mother’s side.

63

The proper plural of tumen is tumet, not “tumens.” Someone please slap me with a large land-locked yak.

Quite possibly, I’m neutral on the matter myself. Though one argument would be that it would be an awfully large expenditure of manpower for something less than a territorial grab. Then again, Targhai’s sudden retreat in 1303 is a little inexplicable if he intended to push on through, he hadn’t been hurt that badly yet. Although Ala al-Din may have simply bought him off and the details have been lost to history - he was certainly the cagiest bastard ever to sit on the throne at Delhi.

Babur could ( on his mother’s side, certainly ), Timur probably could not ( by most estimations, anyway ). It’s fair enough to call the Mughuls ( in the strict sense of the Indian dynasty ) Mongol-descended. But Babur came on the scene even later, in the 16th century. Though both Timur and Babur derived their military resources from old sections of the Chagataid state, I think it is a semantic confusion to refer to at least Babur’s successful as a “Mongol conquest”, which sort of implies to my mind earlier states with closer cultural roots to Mongolia. The Timurid rump state was by then really more “Turco-Persian” in culture than anything else.

64

I thought that Timur was either descended from or married a descendant of Chagatai Khan, and derived legitimacy that way, and Babur was descended from that woman.

65

Descended from, probably not. Such was claimed, but most scholars seem to regard that claim as spurious. Especially insomuch as Timur never tried to effect direct rule, but rather ruled through a puppet Khan, taking only the subsidiary titles of amir and ‘guregen’ ( meaning he had married into the royal Chingisid line ). Such wouldn’t have been necessary if he had strong claims to royal legitimacy.

As above he did marry a Chingisid princess and used that as one basis for his authority. However I believe that didn’t occur until after he ousted his former ally and brother-in-law Amir Husayn in 1369. Miranshah, the third son of Timur that was Babur’s ancestor, was born ~1366. I don’t recall if another of Babur’s male-line ancestors married into the royal line or not - I’ll have to drag out my copy of the Baburnama when I get home ( I think the intro to my copy has a more detailed breakdown of his ancestors ).

66

Both sides advantage is numerical and neither has the operation capability to deploy across Oceans or the Himalayas in strength.

Cutting off passes is easy and both have to ship supplies over the Tibetan Plateau or by sea.

I predict 30 die of starvation, disease or exposure for every soldier killed by bombs.

Either way the aggressor is proper fucked.

67

Well even if the Russians and the Americans and the Europeans PRETEND neutrality, they’ll have vested interests. I see the Russians and the Americans favoring India over China, much arms, munitions and logistical support might happen even under the guise of neutrality. the Russians will probably be even more in favor of India than we would, because they have a lot history of fighting with China, whereas India and China have no such history, and the Himalayas form an effective barrier between them, as opposed to the very porous border between northern China and Siberia.

68

Of course, but we’re talking about a hypothetical war between the two, not normal operations.

The Russians would certainly favor India; Indian defense spending has helped to prop up the Russian defense industry since the end of communism. I doubt the US would favor India, though, except in an all-out war; openly supporting India means upsetting Pakistan.

In the end, it would probably come down to a balance of power consideration. Like British policy on Europe for a few hundred years, American policy in Asia should be focused on ensuring that neither China nor India becomes the dominant power in the region (both in economic and strategic terms). China is currently the ascendant power, of the two, so American interests would currently suggest we support India. If the situation was to reverse in 20 years, so would the policy consideration.

69

First off let me say, any war between the two would be extremely bloody. Both sides know this, so a major war is highly unlikely.

So everything I’m writing here is in the extremely unlikely event than China and India decide to try and wipe the other off the map, and are willing to put their entire nation and many years towards the effort.

If either side did decide to engage in a major war with the other, China would probably win. Here’s my reasoning.

A war between China and India that lasts long enough to redraw the border in any significant way would take years. There’s no way around that, the terrain is just too rough for blitzkriegs and sudden movements.

The longer wars go on, the less it becomes about clever strategies and generals fighting each other, and the more it becomes a battle between nations. The ability to produce more tanks, shells, rifles, bullets and soldiers than the other side.

The Chinese economy is over twice as large as India’s. Also manufacturing is a larger part of China’s economy than India, accounting for around 50% of China’s economy compared to around 20% of India’s.

In a long conflict where both the countries gear for war, this means that for every shell, bomb and bullet that India fires at China, China fires four or five back at them.

Also, the majority of Chinese industry is quite far from India, and hard to damage as a result. But a lot of Indian industry is within striking range of China. So China would have an easier time than India at damaging the other side’s ability to wage war.

Some other factors I think might be important are that the Indian-Chinese border is not Iraq. Iraq is pretty flat and open. You can’t move your troops in Iraq without a technologically sophisticated enemy being able to see them from air, space or with radar from HUGE distances. In a mountainous region, especially one with lots of trees, you’re not going to be able to see anywhere near as much from the air or from space. High tech sensors won’t be as important. The ability to see and hit things 5kms away won’t be relevant when you’re rarely see more than 1km without a hill, ridge or tree in the way.

Look at Bosnia for an example. It’s a very mountainous region covered with trees. They faced NATO attack from the air for three months, yet NATO couldn’t even completely stop the Bosnian air-force from flying. By flying low down in the mountains, the Bosnians found they could make brief flights. And at the end of the three month campaign, the vast majority of the Bosnian ground forces came out of hiding completely intact.

So tactical air attacks and tactical reconnaissance would be fairly unimportant roles for the air-forces of both sides. Strategic attacks and reconnaissance would be a different matter. Striking at each other’s industry, dams, bridges, roads, etc would probably more effective.

As for reconnaissance. Tactically due to the limited ability to see far, you can’t rely on the ability to spot a vehicle, platoon or company. There’s just way too much nature in the way. But on the large scale, spotting the movement of Armies and Army Groups, reconnaissance would be vital.

The border between the two nations is very long. A quick estimate on a map gives me around 1,000kms. Concentrating 8 million men on a 100km section would be a likely strategy. Strategic reconnaissance would be needed to spot this before it happens. Could either side’s air defences and anti-satellite defences actually reduce the other sides ability to spot what’s going on for long enough for a surprise attack? I’m not sure.

Also if we are talking a large scale long term war, then both side’s armies are going to grow huge. 20+ million men isn’t ridiculous. if you’ve got an army that big, then having hundreds of thousands, maybe up to a million of them acting as engineers is very possible. Even the Himalayas become a lot more traversable when you have that many engineers working for years building tunnels, bridges and roads.

As for logistics, yes now neither country could project enough force far enough to completely defeat the other side, but in a hypothetical major longer term war between the two, both sides could buy or build huge numbers of trucks, trains or whatever else then need to move supplies.

In the end, if India managed to conquer half of China it would probably be the southern and western region. This would impact China’s ability to make war, but not destroy it. However if China managed to conquer half of India, it would be the northern region. This would severely impact India’s ability to make war, and would probably make the war unwinnable for India. If you could ever call having a war that destructive winnable.

So on that basis, the war would be easier for India to lose than for China to lose.

If China loses an army in a strategic mistake or due to great Indian plans, they could replace the losses, especially the weapons an vehicles, with greater ease than India could, due to China’s much bigger industrial capabilities.

Again making any strategic defeat less of a problem for China than it would be for India.

If China lost the air war, then the lack of surprise would be a hindrance, so they’d have to resort to a war of attrition. But for the above reasons they could win such a war. Especially with their Industry being largely untouchable due to it’s location.

If India lost the air war, they just couldn’t win a war of attrition, and without strategic surprise, there’s no real room for clever Indian plans to tip he balance in their favour. Any large scale force build ups or movements would be spotted.

There’s just too many ways India could lose. For them to win they’d need to make virtually no major mistakes for year after year, while they take enough Chinese territory to knock them out of the war. Yeah, they could do it, but I’ve read enough history books to know it’s pretty impossible to run a war that long without a major setback or mistake or two.

Anyway, that’s my reasoning. Feel free to rip it to shreds and point out all the glaring errors. =)

70

Its easy to talk
Here is a documentary about the India Pakistan engagemnet at Siachen. Just look at the terrain. It has to be seen to be believed. You are talking about areas where the valley’s are at altitudes higher then the Alps.

There is a reason that India and China have rarely fought wars in the last 4000 years.

71

I’m not sure I get your point.

The Himalayas are hard to pass? Yeah, I knew that already. It’s the highest mountain range on earth. If you’re saying they’re impassable, then that’s just wrong. There are roads across. People do pass from India to China and vice versa.

In 62 China attacked India and took some Indian territory in just a few days. It’s doable, it has been done.

72

It’s not quite that simple. The Allies beat the Axis during World War II because we “outproduced” them, but no matter what your history teachers say, it wasn’t because of Rosie the Riveter and the superior American work ethic or industrial capacity.

It was because American factories and supply lines were immune to attack. Allied aircraft were bombing German industrial centers almost from the first day of the war in Europe. By contrast, American industry had little more to worry about than (ultimately non-existent) fears of sabotage.

That may or may not be the case in this hypothetical war. India’s smaller manufacturing capacity is decentralized, while China’s is largely contained within the boundaries of a half-dozen urban centers.

73

I wouldn’t say the fact the US industry being immune from attack was the main reason the US out produced Germany.

The main reason is the US was the most industrialised nation on earth in 1940, and a lot of those peace time industries were capable of being turned into factories making military equipment.

The bombing of Germany did impact production in that country, but even so, German output increased throughout the war until 1945.

Another factor could be that the Allied countries combined had a greater human population than the combined Axis nations.

As for the hypothetical China vs India war. I know little about Indian industry. So when you say decentralised, if you mean they have a factory here and a factory there, scattered about, then that makes little difference compared to having lots of factories in one area, since neither side is likely to try WW2 style area bombing. Whether together or spread out, individual factories would be aimed at.

China having a lot of factories in a few areas would also offer an advantage of allowing them to concentrate air defences over a smaller number of areas rather than having to cover the entire nation equally.

Also, most Chinese industry is on the east coast, 2000-2500km away from India. India uses the MiG-27 and SEPCAT Jaguar for ground attack, and they have a combat radius of 800km and 550km respectively. The only way they could reach most of the industrialised areas of China would be through using multiple tanker aircraft over China, which would be suicidally dangerous even against the weakest air defences.

India does have the Su-30 multi-role fighter, which has a combat radius of 1600km, although that’s probably only carrying missiles, it could be less carrying bombs. The Su-30 might have the range to do some damage to the Chinese factories closer to India.

On the other side, major cities like New Deli are only 400km from China , meaning pretty much any jet in the Chinese inventory can reach them.

China also has JH-7s with a combat radius of 1,700km and Su-30s with a combat radius of 1600km. They could reach all of India except the southern quarter.

So, I just can’t see how India could really impact Chinese industrial output to any great degree due to the huge distance.

Only the 100 Su-30s of India’s 600ish strong air-force could even get near to the most industrialised areas of China. But pretty much all of China’s 900ish main aircraft could reach at least some of India’s factories.

74

Those are excellent points, actually, although I doubt western China has much in the way of air defence. On the other hand, the ancient Indian (originally British) carrier INS Viraat has an air wing mostly made up of Harriers, which could hit eastern China - but how much damage two dozen Harriers would do is questionable.

Another consideration is the fact that 90% of Indian military equipment is imported - largely from Russia, Israel, Britain and France - so manufacturing output might not be a concern at all.

China, on the other hand, builds its own stuff, even if it’s mostly knockoffs of Russian designs.

75

Does either nation have subs equipped with missile launchers?

76

India has a surprisingly large submarine fleet- 15, with an additional 15 to enter service in the next 5 years. All the current boats are diesel-electric and optimized for patrol, but 10 are capable of launching anti-ship cruise missiles and will probably be refitted to carry/launch the BrahMos cruise missile. Three indigenously developed ballistic missile nuclear submarines will be enter service in the next five years.

China has about thirty submarines, but only one which carries ballistic missiles.