Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Indian Defence News & Discussions
Collapse
X
-
Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Oracle View Post
What a lovely disaster in the making.Chimo
Comment
-
Why do you say its a disaster ?
The idea is faster mobilisation. Self contained units ready to go instead of waiting for components to fall into place.
20 days battle with some result at the end of it.
After the Parliament attack, in Op Parakram it took three weeks for strike corps to mobilise.
The Paks were ready by that time and nothing more could be done.
Then in 2004, they devised cold start which was 8 IBG's that would attack in different locations with limited objectives.Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Sep 19,, 06:20.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostWhy do you say its a disaster ?
If you need forces asap, get a brigade in there. Don't have to wait for a corps to wind up. A bde can punch through first follow by a division in 72 hours. The rest of the corps can follow through in 3-4 days time.Chimo
Comment
-
The IBG will encompass 6-8 battalions depending on the terrain where it is deployed and the purpose it is meant for...
Each IBG could have four to six battalions of infantry and armored units, two to three artillery regiments, an engineers unit, an integrated signals unit and dedicated integral logistics (eight thousand to ten thousand troops).
The Indian Army has been clear however that not every corps, division or brigade will be replaced by an Integrated Battle Group. The terrain, threat perception and options available to the enemy will be critical factors for determining whether or not an IBG will replace the present structure.
The number seems variable. They will pick one they are comfortable with. This was war gamed summer last year
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostThat is still info and task overload. 3 coys to a bn. 3 bns to a bde. 3 bde to a div. 3 div to a corps. 3 corps to an army. What you have here is essentially 2 bdes. Get rid of corps and keep the bde and div HQs.
Still not getting it.
3 bns to a bgde means bgde HQ is handling 3 actions
Same with 3 bdes under one div HQ
And on up to Corps
With the IBG it might rise to 4 to 6 bns instead of 3.
Can't you just have a bigger IBG HQ instead of two Brigade HQ's. Would that be the same thing?Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Sep 19,, 18:34.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostYes, IBG is larger than a brigade but smaller than a division.
What we're talking here is optimal. When do you see degration. At commanding 4 actions, you have acceptable but not optimal C3. At 5, it is unacceptable. At 2 bns per bde, it might be a bit of an overkill but it is not stressing the HQ as it is at 4.
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostCan't you just have a bigger IBG HQ instead of two Brigade HQ's. Would that be the same thing?Chimo
Comment
-
It seems you are saying the previous formations were better. Always remained at 3 formations per HQ.
Let's stick with IBG. I'm sure there is a simple answer to your question. Number of batallions is likely to vary.
Instead of 1 in reserve think 2. So if there are 5 or 6 bns to a IBG HQ at most there are 4 in action. With two ready to reinforce if necessary.
Would that be better.
Maybe only 3 would be required with 2 in reserve and the last on call for something else or not even present.
If they have been used to 3 per HQ so far it seems odd they would up the task load.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostIt seems you are saying the previous formations were better. Always remained at 3 formations per HQ.
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostLet's stick with IBG. I'm sure there is a simple answer to your question. Number of batallions is likely to vary.
The Chinese also tried it with their brigadization. Failed.
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostInstead of 1 in reserve think 2. So if there are 5 or 6 bns to a IBG HQ at most there are 4 in action. With two ready to reinforce if necessary.
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostWould that be better.Chimo
Comment
-
Will have to wait for some order of battle info to come out. The news articles don't go into much details. All i heard is faster mobilisation. To date the Paks mobilise faster than us. So maybe this closes the gap some.
What you pointed out must be well known. They war gamed this IBG thing last summer and were happy with the results and decided to formalise it. Maybe some one can put this question to a journalist to then get some clarity from the generals.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostWill have to wait for some order of battle info to come out. The news articles don't go into much details. All i heard is faster mobilisation. To date the Paks mobilise faster than us. So maybe this closes the gap some.
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostWhat you pointed out must be well known. They war gamed this IBG thing last summer and were happy with the results and decided to formalise it. Maybe some one can put this question to a journalist to then get some clarity from the generals.
The better alternative is pre-positioned stock but that costs money to set up and maintained.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 03 Sep 19,, 01:41.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostOh gee. Pakistan mobilized faster. I wonder why? Could it be that they're living in the battle area? And India has to bring the kitchen sink into Pakistan for the fight?
I know exactly what's happening. Budget doesn't reflect taskings. And the Generals start thinking how to get there the firstest with the mostest and hoping to hell that the combat won't rise above bn level.
Now given how limited the deployment will be is 4 to 6 battalions per HQ still a problem ?
The Bangladesh campaign in '71 was concluded in 2 weeks mainly due to good intel from the Mukti Bahini
The better alternative is pre-positioned stock but that costs money to set up and maintained.
Comment
Comment