World Affairs Board - View Single Post

**Officer of Engineers** · 12-14-2005, 10:43 AM

Sir,

I am going to post my detailed reply here instead over at the BRF. I cannot stand YIP's know-it-all attitude. The guy thinks he's qualified for Staff College. Clown College is more like it.

For India to ignore military developments across the globe is an invite to repeat the British exeprience. The Chinese are certainly going through a transformation of its own. The most recent and most radical change thus far is going from the regiment-division-army model to the battalion-brigade-corps model. This is even more radical than the US UA model. I think the Chinese are making a mistake in abandonning division but I also do think that they will learn more about the limitations of brigade and corps than anybody else.

For YIP to suggest that India should rely on manpower numbers in this regard is ludicrous and compeletely idiotic. All that means is that anybody who learns how to manouver good will trap entire Indian Armies in a killing box. At the very least, the Indian Army will have to learn how to break out of the box.

As I see things, India needs to win wars at home or near at home but only needs to win battles in UN or Coalition Operations. There is only one country that can win wars half way across the globe. Two or maybe three who can against weaker opposition in a very limited scenario (ie, the Falklands). Most other expeditionary powers can win battles. When the major deployment schema, even with the British is the Battle Group (re-enforced battalion), that's just way too few bodies to win a war. However, Battle Groups can and do exert decisive control over its AO. Indian Army General Jetley in Sierra Leonne comes to mind.

In this view, alot of things are simplified for the Indian Army. Concentrate on how to win wars and India's expeditionary needs are automatically covered. While the USArmy WAS aiming for a 72 hour deployment window. Simple truth, Sir, it's at least a week, even with pre-positioning. People just don't land, get out of the airplane and jump into gas up tanks already to go. Equipment and people got to be preped, fed, and more importantly adjusted (jet lag) before they can go.

The InA can fly a battalion in on a commercial flight in a week's time, as do most everybody else.

For a major campaign like the Iraq War, civilian cargo ships are readily available and a hell of alot cheaper than buying LSV. The US took 6 months to build for that campaign. India can ship a brigade over there.

I know the US had asked India for a division for Iraq peacekeeping but examining it from the other non-US players, only the Brits have sent a division. The Poles sent a reduced brigade. Everybody else sent battalions. The Flag is more important to the US than the actual force though nobody on the ground would refuse an Indian division.

I'm still waiting on the TOE of an Integrated Battle Group before I will further comment on Cold Start.

12-14-2005, 10:43 AM	#8 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,915 Country:	Sir, I am going to post my detailed reply here instead over at the BRF. I cannot stand YIP's know-it-all attitude. The guy thinks he's qualified for Staff College. Clown College is more like it. For India to ignore military developments across the globe is an invite to repeat the British exeprience. The Chinese are certainly going through a transformation of its own. The most recent and most radical change thus far is going from the regiment-division-army model to the battalion-brigade-corps model. This is even more radical than the US UA model. I think the Chinese are making a mistake in abandonning division but I also do think that they will learn more about the limitations of brigade and corps than anybody else. For YIP to suggest that India should rely on manpower numbers in this regard is ludicrous and compeletely idiotic. All that means is that anybody who learns how to manouver good will trap entire Indian Armies in a killing box. At the very least, the Indian Army will have to learn how to break out of the box. As I see things, India needs to win wars at home or near at home but only needs to win battles in UN or Coalition Operations. There is only one country that can win wars half way across the globe. Two or maybe three who can against weaker opposition in a very limited scenario (ie, the Falklands). Most other expeditionary powers can win battles. When the major deployment schema, even with the British is the Battle Group (re-enforced battalion), that's just way too few bodies to win a war. However, Battle Groups can and do exert decisive control over its AO. Indian Army General Jetley in Sierra Leonne comes to mind. In this view, alot of things are simplified for the Indian Army. Concentrate on how to win wars and India's expeditionary needs are automatically covered. While the USArmy WAS aiming for a 72 hour deployment window. Simple truth, Sir, it's at least a week, even with pre-positioning. People just don't land, get out of the airplane and jump into gas up tanks already to go. Equipment and people got to be preped, fed, and more importantly adjusted (jet lag) before they can go. The InA can fly a battalion in on a commercial flight in a week's time, as do most everybody else. For a major campaign like the Iraq War, civilian cargo ships are readily available and a hell of alot cheaper than buying LSV. The US took 6 months to build for that campaign. India can ship a brigade over there. I know the US had asked India for a division for Iraq peacekeeping but examining it from the other non-US players, only the Brits have sent a division. The Poles sent a reduced brigade. Everybody else sent battalions. The Flag is more important to the US than the actual force though nobody on the ground would refuse an Indian division. I'm still waiting on the TOE of an Integrated Battle Group before I will further comment on Cold Start. __________________ Chimo