Although I agree that Pakistan and India dont have a highly modernized force in terms of the equipment that each soldier carries and all as compared to the US or the UK; they do get backpacks (for operations) carrying different equipment (according to their needs, but not as highly advanced as those of the American troops) and of course they get a bulletproof vest and a head gear and all (this aint the 50s or the 60s for pete's sakes)! Talking about which army is better, I would say Indian army has the advantage of numbers over the Pakistani Army but the Indian army lacks flexibility to deploy troops; meaning that Pakistani Army can deploy and re-deploy its troops faster than the Indians (2003 Estimate by CSIS says Pakistan has around 1200 APCs-Armoured Personnel Carriers while India has around 200 or something). Now this might not be an accurate estimate but I would also say that with respect to the size of the Indian forces, they desparately need more APCs; you cannot go around in army trucks all the time, you need armoured protection for your troops to deploy them faster. The geographical part plays its point here as well because during war-time given the lesser strategic depth of Pakistan, its forces can be put to the border with India relatively quite faster than India can do that. So its not just about whose army is better with the equipment they have in their hands, it takes in to account a lot of other things that contribute towards an army's effectiveness and battle worthiness.
About how many soldiers are there in their armies, I would put CSIS figures here once again, Pakistan has 550,000 and India 1,100,000 (almost the double of Pakistani Army) but their reserves are almost the same at half a million. :smokingc:
