Thread: INDIA’S NEW "COLD START" WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED

I live in S FL. I'm going to Atlanta from Thursday to Monday for the Barkley Forum, then that week to Washington from Thursday to Monday for Gtown MUN. I hope there is an inordinate amount of snow to play with (I never have).

Originally Posted by Anoop C

So where does the air-force come into play? It comes into play when the Pakistanis respond by rushing forces to meet the Indian offensive - offering lines of communication and supply to be disrupted by air power - implying, if all goes well, that the IAF need be called in only after some consolidation has occurred on the ground.

Does this explain the apparent contradiction that a joint forces doctrine is being enunciated by a single service, namely the Army (or in the Colonel's words, why isn't the IA talking to the IAF)?

I would be hesitant to include the InAF at the moment simply because the doctrine is not spelled out. However, it would seemed that neither service wants to be subservant to each other.

The InAF would love nothing more than for the army to teligraph their movements so that the Pakistanis can mass to prevent the assualt and thereby offer a big juicy target.

The InA naturally wants the InAF to perform the role of air arty and thus reduce their fire footprint and therefore, increase speed.

What you suggest is a very good compromise but the way I see it, this would only work if you have one overall theatre commander in charge of all services in theatre. Such a thing is far from happenning.

People at the BRF love to bring up the destruction of the Pak supply depot at Kragil as an indication of the InAF success. I would argue that the depot's destruction means absolutely squat if the bellycrawlers could not take the hills from the defender.

Note that in 1962, the PLA were bingo food, water, and ammunition when they retreated.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

But that's the whole point. We don't want the enemy to stand and fight.

Find the enemy. Kill the enemy. Forcing them to stand and fight is an easy way of finding them.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

We just want to kill the enemy in numbers, doesn't matter which ones , civilians or military and scream to Pakistan and to the rest of the world,"Yeah you bastards, take that!" and then go home.

First, deliberately killing civilians is extremely disgusting to me and I think for the InA also. I gather it is for the Brigadier.

2nd, your suggestion is unfocussed and therefore, your results would be unfocussed. A hundred bee stings is exactly that, a hundred bee stings, not a knock out punch.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

If Pakistan captures some land which I highly doubt since we have far better recon than Pakistan and can readily detect whether Pakistan is going to launch an ground attack that can hold ground since the Kargil War, and take those forces on. I'm somewhat depressed by the time I am typing this. If Pakistan did attack and keep land, using the Kargil War as an example, India is not gonna go into Pakistan territory deep and take land. India will just tackle those forces possessing Indian territory and force them out b/c GoI leaders are too chickenshits to launch an invasion into Pakistan in fear of a nuclear strike and anger from US.

As I understand things, the military actions would not have time for the politicians to intefere. Whether or not the GoI would allow an attack into Pakistan is open to debate but an extremely focussed military operation with bold results would be attractive to say the least, if the military can present its case right.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

If we are not going to capture land or go into deep territory b/c we fear an nuclear strike, then what's the point of forcing the enemy to stand up and fight?

So, you can kill the enemy. A very bloody and very expensive Capture the Flag game. However, what that would also show is that the Pakistanis would have also lost the mobilization game.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

If you want the enemy to stand up and fight, for some reasons, the current structure of IA can easily do the job but combined with a fleet of bombers, they can kill the enemy a lot faster and more efficiently.

Only at the Corps level, there is a strong arguement for brigade/div level actions that are fast, bold, and decisive.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

The only value of Cold Start I can readily see is invading Pakistan so quick that they don't have time to launch their nuclear options. But that's a mighty tall order and very very hard to pull off.

The way I see Cold Start, it's designed to kill a Pakistani army (maybe even a soft kill).

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I am not talking about replacing the current IA with a fleet of bombers. What I am talking about is adding a fleet of bombers and leave the current structure of IA alone, ie, 3 strike corps backed up by the 8-9 holding corps. The current structure of IA can force the enemy to stand up and fight, it is just that the fleet of bombers will do the killing blow and a lot more faster and efficiently than Cold Start forces.

I doubt that. Kosovo.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Find the enemy. Kill the enemy. Forcing them to stand and fight is an easy way of finding them.



First, deliberately killing civilians is extremely disgusting to me and I think for the InA also. I gather it is for the Brigadier.

I understand the distinction but what I am talking about is high value targets that could be civilian in nature such as oil depots, oil refineries, media stations, power plants, factories.

2nd, your suggestion is unfocussed and therefore, your results would be unfocussed. A hundred bee stings is exactly that, a hundred bee stings, not a knock out punch.

That's right. Nobody would retaliate nuclearly if it was a beesting. But a knockout punch, yeah somebody would retaliate with nuclear weapons.

As I understand things, the military actions would not have time for the politicians to intefere. Whether or not the GoI would allow an attack into Pakistan is open to debate but an extremely focussed military operation with bold results would be attractive to say the least, if the military can present its case right.

For the 1 or 2 days yeah, the politicians won't intefere, but on the 3rd day and afterwards, the politicians would start intefering. The ColdStart requires at least 1 week to complete its course.

So, you can kill the enemy. A very bloody and very expensive Capture the Flag game. However, what that would also show is that the Pakistanis would have also lost the mobilization game.

Can ColdStart accomplish that before Pakistanis unleashing the nuclear weapons?

Only at the Corps level, there is a strong arguement for brigade/div level actions that are fast, bold, and decisive.

But how can a brigade or division launch a knockout punch? InA is not US Army. The knockout punch is delivered at least at the division level, not at the brigade. To do that would require a vastly enourmous of money and resources comparable to US and USSR spending levels. InA has over 80 divisions. That means 240 brigades. I am not saying that we equip all of them for the knockout punch. But equiping 10 brigades is very expensive for India.

The way I see Cold Start, it's designed to kill a Pakistani army (maybe even a soft kill).

What is the purpose of a soft kill iin this scenario? A soft kill is a kill that prevents someone from doing certain actions. As far as I am concerned, the PA has been stymied already by the defences prepared by India. It is the night raids by small numbers of terrorists that has bedeviled India. So what is the purpose of pursuing a soft kill?

I doubt that. Kosovo.

I think you misunderstood me. In Kosovo, there were no serious groundwork preparation by NATO till the last minute. In this case, there are very serious groundwork preparations underway and PA would have no choice but to respond to them, ie, massing up to meet the gauntlet thrown by InA. And when they do, we can use the bomber fleet to whack them.

Geez, this is fun even though I am badly out of my elements competing with you experience military veterans.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I understand the distinction but what I am talking about is high value targets that could be civilian in nature such as oil depots, oil refineries, media stations, power plants, factories.

You're aiming for a knock out blow. At least make life extremely uncomfortable economically for Pakistan.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

That's right. Nobody would retaliate nuclearly if it was a beesting. But a knockout punch, yeah somebody would retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Your results would also not be felt. Allow me to clarify, I'm not stating the InA march all the way to Islamabad but that the InA owns the Pakistani battlefield.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

For the 1 or 2 days yeah, the politicians won't intefere, but on the 3rd day and afterwards, the politicians would start intefering. The ColdStart requires at least 1 week to complete its course.

Again, depends on the OPOBJ presented. It takes 2-3 days for any order from the Capital to be executed. Remember how long it took the US to stop the Kuwait War? If the politicians loses nerve half way through the battle, the battle would have to be completed before the InA could withdraw.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Can ColdStart accomplish that before Pakistanis unleashing the nuclear weapons?

It's a sucker punch. Punch drunk your oppenant and leave before he recovers his senses.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

But how can a brigade or division launch a knockout punch? InA is not US Army. The knockout punch is delivered at least at the division level, not at the brigade.

As I stated before, we will have to wait for the IBG's TOE before we can see the tactical initiatives.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

To do that would require a vastly enourmous of money and resources comparable to US and USSR spending levels. InA has over 80 divisions. That means 240 brigades. I am not saying that we equip all of them for the knockout punch. But equiping 10 brigades is very expensive for India.

Not 10, 8 and I'm not sure the InA has even asked for anymore money. Certainly these IBGs ain't nothing like the Stryker Brigades where entire brigades are based out of new technologies.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

What is the purpose of a soft kill iin this scenario? A soft kill is a kill that prevents someone from doing certain actions.

A victory is a victory. It's up to the REMFs on how to play it out.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

As far as I am concerned, the PA has been stymied already by the defences prepared by India. It is the night raids by small numbers of terrorists that has bedeviled India. So what is the purpose of pursuing a soft kill?

Then, you will have situations like Kragil. Remember the 1st days of that war? It was a political disaster for New Dehli.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I think you misunderstood me. In Kosovo, there were no serious groundwork preparation by NATO till the last minute. In this case, there are very serious groundwork preparations underway and PA would have no choice but to respond to them, ie, massing up to meet the gauntlet thrown by InA. And when they do, we can use the bomber fleet to whack them.

The time delay in such a scenario is already discussed as being disadvantageous to India as international pressure builds.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Geez, this is fun even though I am badly out of my elements competing with you experience military veterans.

I think I created a monster. Like I said, I've got to stop posting at BRF, you guys are picking up my bad habbits.

Your results would also not be felt. Allow me to clarify, I'm not stating the InA march all the way to Islamabad but that the InA owns the Pakistani battlefield.

It's a sucker punch. Punch drunk your oppenant and leave before he recovers his senses.

A victory is a victory. It's up to the REMFs on how to play it out.

Colonel,
The objective is very similar to Chinese WZC....aint it?

Originally Posted by Jay

Colonel,
The objective is very similar to Chinese WZC....aint it?

May very well be my interruptation of the facts and I'm soley alone in this thinking. I'm really an outsider looking in without the benefit of studying indepth of the InA culture and history.

We do know that both armies have studied FM 3.0 and alot of the theories at work came right out of FM 3.0. Thus, it's not surprising that there are similarities.

It remains to be seen how the InA defines their OPOBJ which is the next step in trying to deduce this doctrine.