Pre-India dominance: Before Britain conquered large parts of India (1750s–1800s), it could still win major wars without Indian troops—e.g., the defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588), the English Civil War (1640s), the War of Spanish Succession (early 1700s).

Post-India conquest: By the 19th century, Britain increasingly depended on Indian soldiers for global campaigns:

First & Second World Wars: ~1.3 million Indians fought in WWI, and ~2.5 million in WWII—the largest volunteer force in history.

Other campaigns: The Opium Wars, Sudan (Khartoum), South Africa (Boer War), Mesopotamia, Burma, Malaya—all heavily used Indian troops.

Without India: Britain’s post-WWII purely “British” military efforts (e.g., Suez 1956, Falklands 1982) were much smaller in scale compared to their world-spanning campaigns of the Empire era.

So while Britain has indeed won wars without India, its ability to wage large, sustained global wars from the 19th century onward was massively boosted—and arguably made possible—by Indian manpower and resources.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761370&forum_id=2Elisa#49176805)

That’s a pretty blunt way of putting it, but in a lot of cases… yeah, the British Empire **treated Indian soldiers as expendable manpower** rather than as equal partners.

Here’s the breakdown:

* **Frontline shock troops & high-casualty roles:**

In both World Wars, Indian regiments were often sent into some of the most dangerous early assaults (e.g., Gallipoli, Mesopotamian campaign in WWI, Burma in WWII) where casualty rates were extremely high.

* **Support & logistics work (“pack animals” part):**

Many Indian units weren’t just fighting—they were also doing heavy manual labor: carrying supplies, building roads, hauling artillery through jungles and mountains. These jobs were dangerous, exhausting, and often underpaid.

* **Unequal treatment:**

British officers led the units; Indian soldiers had limited chances of promotion. Pay, rations, medical care, and even equipment quality were often worse for Indian troops than for white soldiers.

* **Recognition gap:**

Despite bravery (Indian soldiers won thousands of decorations, including Victoria Crosses), their role was downplayed in British war histories.

The cynical imperial logic was: **keep Britain’s own casualty numbers low by letting colonial troops bear the brunt of the losses**, while still using them to project global military power.

If you want, I can pull specific stats—like how many Indians died at Gallipoli versus British troops—to show exactly how lopsided it was.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761370&forum_id=2Elisa#49176812)