Why not? During second world war the american lend/lease kept the British supplied most of their war efforts.
Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates
- Thread starter Shashank
- Start date
Why not? During second world war the american lend/lease kept the British supplied most of their war efforts.
We need tanks and choppers (and fighter jets) more than ammo.
We need battle tanks, both MBTs and light tanks for the mountains. Sikkim along needs 6 battalions of MBTs.
We need more Apaches, but at the very least we need both Ka-226T and LUH. We can't go to war with our the ancestor of helicopters that we currently operate.
Most definitely. If we fight Pakistan, then no. But if we fight China, then a lot of players have a stake in India's victory. The US and Japan will go out of their way to fund India. And as will the GCC, for the reason I mentioned.
Look up Iran-Iraq War, who funded what.
It will be very expensive and they will virtually infiltrate our system it is trading one problem for another. We need to get deal with pakistan first as they are used as leverage against us until then it is not worth much taking on china. It will be half finished job. Suppose china backs off now , they will instigate pakistan to fight against us thru terrorists. Once we remove pakistan from equation then things bcome simpler.
Last edited:
Defeating common enemy is more important. Besides, they might run the risk of losing Modi as PM, then the decisivenss is lost.
Why are we going on a path we cannot fund?
Our strength does not lie in bottomless money banks that we can fund these purchases. Neither in China like tech theft and cheap knockoffs
Our strength is our ability to improvise. Instead of Light Tanks which will result in a Babu style wild goose chase with item numbers from DRDO, we should be focusing on our ability to kill the light tanks the Chinks throw at us.
Higher number of desi and foreign ATGMs that make deploying light tanks a costly idea for the chinks.
The Chinese call it the assassin's mace. Cost effective weapons that can pierce the hi tech armor of the adversary.
Instead of matching US ship for ship and carrier for carrier they invested in area denial tech. India could do well to build on the idea.
We can not operate a year in 3 shifts due to resources (material and human both) constraints. That's hypothetical. We do not have any precedence of manufacturing excellence in our history.
The question was not what we produce but how many and for how long we can with our current supply chain, procurement and human resource constraints.
I was going for the max number for the purpose of discussion. There are other limitations at work here.
I am fine till we start getting into ages of Mahabharata and Ramayana.
However we can take 2-3 centuries for this discussion.
Sadly those limitations are deciding factors. Established supply chain and skilled human resources are key here.
If they were my master comrades than how come associating Biharis with another comrade Yetchury becomes Bihari bashing?
@_Anonymous_ poor me.
Sure please do so and we can start by you quoting an era of Indian manufacturing excellence post WW2.
Tank itself is an outdated idea, and IA is going for light tank.pity.
More than tank we need howitzers. Ifm777 is costly go for kalyani's 105mm hummer mounted howitzers, its having same caliber that if a light tank.
Along with attack helicopters.
What makes you think we cannot fund it?
When the requirement to defend the nation comes up, the defence budget will get a boost in spending. During the 70s, our defence spending had almost reached 40% of the yearly govt spending. Now it's barely even 10%, just above 15% if you include pensions. However just 5% more will add about $25B to the capital budget. That will pay for everything we are lacking right now and a whole lot more than that.
If we end up spending 40% of our spending on defence, then we will have a $190B defence budget.
It's merely a matter of priorities.
Oh, you think we have supermen, faster than a speeding bullet, stop a train with one hand etc?
If Youtube has given you the assumption that regular infantry can fight tanks with ATGMs, then you have to stop watching Youtube. It's not as simple as aim and shoot. You are infantry, the best speed you can manage for short periods of time is just 10-15Kmph with all that heavy gear. A tank will do thrice your speed and will be able to see 3 times your distance. A light tank is even faster. And tanks are also generally well supported from the air, helicopters, UAVs etc. So your infantry is going to be seen and killed long before they can take action.
Just because you have a hand-held ATGM doesn't mean you go charging into a tank formation like a superhero, that's not how it works.
Now, you can put your ATGM on a pickup, but advanced electronics today will pick you up long before you can pick up a tank for targeting. So it's the same problem. Hell, even if you get first shot, the tank will simly use its main gun to kill you and then avoid that unguided ATGM easily after that.
ATGMs are not an army's primary anti-tank capability, neither are MANPADs the primary anti-air capability. But defintiely are for insurgents, we are not insurgents.
That's not how it works in a fight between two armies. You are confused between an insurgency and warfighting.
You don't outmatch the enemy ship for ship overall, you outmatch the enemy by having more than what your enemy has within your theatre. If the enemy has 2000 tanks, but can only bring 500 to your theatre, then you should match those 500 tanks with 500 tanks of your own. But when you try and match the enemy's 500 tanks with 5,000 ATGMs, then you've already lost.
He's not wrong though. It is what the Americans and the west want. They want Indians to be the cannon fodder to maintain their supremacy on the global stage. It will be killing two birds with one stone. A rising China will be defeated and India will be damaged beyond recovery. Status quo is maintained.
Let's compare we have one side that has an alliance system which limits your foreign policy but will share it's tech and economic muscle and also has been benevolent to those it has defeated. The success stories of this alliance are South Korea,Japan,Germany,Turkey and most of Europe.
The other side follows a vassalage system and uses the allied/vassalised country to dump its products while taking productive land and resources at cheap prices and makes the country indebted to it. The success stories from this side are Sri Lanka,North Korea and some African states. So it's clear which side is better if we get to the position of choosing one side.
Pakistan is backed by the Chinese and has still a strong lobby in the middle East and the west it taking it out won't be as easy as you wish it to be...
The flight of fantasy ... awwwww
Compliments on your imagination. Do yourself a favour and fall back on the general knowledge you love to tote. This was a planned NATO approach on the Fulda Gap.
Seriously Youtube??? Wont even bother responding.
Will it help if you knew the ATGM will probably outrange the tank gun. Unless you plan on lifting the tanking on your shoulder and rushing at the infantry like in your flight of fantasy.
Where are you going to mount the sensor package? Ground based, air based? You know there are counter measures for EW.
And you are clinging to a single scenario like a safety blanket.
If I can negate the other side's advantage that way will it matter?