Officer of Engineers

Sir,

I think I may have misunderstood your postings. I had thought that you wanted to know how an InA attachment would fit into a Coalition Force but now, after re-reading the threads both here and the BRF, I'm thinking you wanted to know what changes are necessary to propel the InA into the future.

Sir, I am ill qualified to comment on those changes. In order to have an idea where you're going, you have to have an idea where you've been and I'm lacking in knowledge concerning the InA history and culture/institutional thinking.

However, I may be able to explain a few things about American doctrine.

Pre-positioning should not be viewed as a tool for an initial entry force but as a tool for re-enforcements or more accurately, flushing out in theatre forces to full strength. The prime example of this thinking is Exercise/Operation REFORGER.

Thus, it should not be viewed as somehow to deliver an American military presence where this was none before. The presence is already there.

A USMC MEU is not designed to win wars. It is designed to give an initial American armed presence. Anoop already gave you a link to that.

Speaking of which, Anoop, 55 hours reaction time is fast. Gen Shinseki originally designed the Stryker Bde Combat Team to be air inserted in 72 hours.

Captain,

Forgot that you were light infantry. However, that being said, I don't know about adding a MANPAD pltn to a bn. You guys would be pretty flushed out and yet still trying to be "light." Do you really need more weight that would slow down your deployment schema?

You will have to educate me on what kind of support you normally get and what kind of threats you would be expecting. I cannot imagine deploying my light guys without the proper air support since that's the only way that they can get in there.

__________________
Chimo

lemontree

Sir,
The current standard infantry battalion of the Indian army is akin to any other Commonwealth battalion. The "word" light infantry (in my regiment The Sikh Light Infantry) is only to differentiate it from the other Sikh Regiment, due to difference in class composition.

The type of support we noramlly get depends on the sector/terrain we get deployed in. In the plains we get are in close proximity to our armour and mech guys and hence have the benifit of a full compliment of their AD assets to back us up. But when we are in the mountains, then due to terrain restrictions the heavy AD elements have to remain near vital installations, leaving us dependent on the AF CAPs, and we happen to have a lot of mountains where we fight (a major protion of Kashmir and the entire China front is mountainous.

I believe that in the US army infantry battalions 1 x MANPAD launcher is part of the rifle coy HQ.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Blademaster

When I watched Lakshya, I never understood why the IA infantry carry some bunker busting weapons like RPGs or the portable anti-tank killers.

It certainly would have cut down the casaulties and the need to make a frontal assault on those bunkers. If the artillery cannot take them out by direct hit because of the lack of atmosphere, certainly being up close with a RPG can take care of the job.

How come there was no grenade launcher among the infantry? That would have been a great asset.

It seems to me that it would be better if the IA could invest in more fire controllers and wireless headsets so that they can radio the arty and direct the fire onto specific locations. The IA need to build more arty support among the battalions such as portable 81mm mortars.

Also, it would be good if IA could train more sniper teams. I really think that the use of sniper teams during the Kargil War would have cut down on the casualties and retake the peaks quicker. Because in order to fire, you need to show yourselves. So IA could have easily provide covering fire or make a show of assaulting, the sniper teams could have pick off the enemy LMG teams and mortar teams.

Blademaster

If you ever had to resort to using the bayonet strength, then you are in deep ****. It is not a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is a question of maximising effectiveness and capabilities. For instance, if I have to let go 1/3 of my men to order to get the bunker busting or area carpeting weapons and train 6 sniper teams with radio capabilities, I certainly would be more effective and have more capabilities. Sure there is a limit on how much you can downsize but I still think that you can cut some men in order to get the longer range and more accurate weapons that would certainly cut the need to have more men and be more effective in terms of deployment, resupply, sustainment.

giggs88

Ranks up there with all the others listed.

Officer of Engineers

Bayonet strength refers to the number of riflemen available, not fixing bayonets for combat.

Would you? You've got a bunker buster but you're facing a bayonet charge. You have 6 sniper teams with radios and the enemy is doing a recee by fire. You're barraging an entire area but the enemy birds are already looking at you. See your problem? You've gotten way too specialized not to be able to handle other threats.

In the final analysis, no matter how vaunted the support, how advance the fire, hpw long the reach, all of these things are to allow a rifleman to finally plant his boot on the ground. If his boots ain't on the ground, then all of these assets are for nothing.

lemontree

Sir,
I understand that problem. But it is just a matter or an increase in 2 men per rifle coy. In the plains that should mean that the auth str goes up tp 136+2 and in mountains it would be 124+2 (since the RCL platoon is not there in mountains, techinically at least).
Or they can just raise new AD units and attach them to us (like the Mahars machine gunners were pre 1965).

lemontree

Why base your assumptions on a bollywood movie?...
An 84 mm RR is part of each platoon.
There are auto grenade launchers in each battalion, and each rifle section (the No.3) has rifle grenade launcher.
In attack the arty fires according to a fireplan, and the Forward Observation Officer (FOO) of the arty accompanies the attacking infantry to bring down fire on oppertunity targets. The infantry Mortar Fire Controller (MFC) co-ordinates the infantry mortar fire.
Each battalion has one platoon of 81 mm mortars.
The enemy MGs are in bunkers, firing from slits. Snipers cannot see them in the dark from any distance.
In mountains the approach to the top is limited to a few places and these are covered by machine guns.

BM, don't study infantry tactics from Indian made war movies.

Blademaster

It's all I have to view the IA in action.

Were they any effective in reducing the casualties and retaking the peaks much quicker?

Those areas manning the machine guns, is it hard to pinpoint the locations of those nests? If not, why not direct the arty shells directly onto them to take them out? Or use RPGs to take out the nests?

Can snipers be equipped with night scopes and night vision goggles? and also don't they have explosive .50 caliber rounds that they can aim through the slit? How close do they have to be? When going up?

It seems to me that in fighting up, the Pakistan have the advantage of height but the disadvantage of not being able to resupply or be reinforced. Why not use a methodical and piece set manner to take out the bunker one by one conserving resources and men? Yeah it might take longer but the Pakistanis will realise that they would have to do something and use a frontal assault or something in which we will be well prepared. That way it will cut down on their numbers for the future fighting and thus allowing us to take over the peaks in shorter time.

Besides, I never really understood the order not to cross the LOC. The pakistanis already did so why can't we do it?

Well those movies had IA technical advisors and they are all I had to base and judge IA's performances.

Blademaster

Then we are already in deep **** and no amount of men is going to stop the bayonet charge. If we cannot take the bayonet charge out with the arty, we are really in deep **** whether we have the men or not.

Recee by fire means going in with a company strength or a platoon strength? And it means probing with arty barraging or just aimlessing shooting at random picked areas? I have a hard time visualising recee by fire.

If the enemy birds can see me, well it means that my air force or AD is not doing their jobs of protecting my arty. Yes there is a danger of becoming too specialised but there is also a danger of not being specialised to meet the oncoming threat. I am saying that there is a balance that we need to reach. Of course the hard part is figuring out what the hell is the balance. That comes from experience and training and skills which I have absolutely zero.


Right, I am only advocating those that will help the boots to be on the ground, especially among the peaks without sacrificing a battalion's manpower strength.

Officer of Engineers

A machine gun, hopefully from behind a minefield. However, I have no qualms about tossing grenades against those doing the bayonet charge.

It's a rolling barrage along the axis of advance. If there's nothing there, it's a waste of ammo but presumably, you've got ammo to waste. If there is something there, they would be way too shaken up and not enough time to recover before they're on the end of a bayonet.

I think you're missing the point here. Riflemen are the most flexible of all trades. Jack of all trades but master of none.

lemontree

Try to get some CDs of actual war footage from Films Division (remember the old B & W news reel makers).
Only if you use proper fire and move tactics.
No it is not hard to locate them once they start firing and yes we use all that to knock them off.
Using snipers in attack in mountains useless.
Why do you think they have not been able to reach the heights in Siachin - its killing just to climb up there and with an enemy is firing at you the task is even more difficult.
I asked similar questions as a kid, but got the answers only after operating in moutains.
What would have been the aim?...just to throw out the PA or to capture and hold ground?
Lakshay was only technically better than the others, like sound effects but the rest was crap.

Blademaster

Where is the Films Division online?

I guess it can only be learned from experience of being there and through baptism of fire and steel.

As I saw one scene in Lakshay, the Col said we only have 3 sides instead of 4. Why foreclose a venue of attack just to please the world?

If you cross the LOC, you can cut off the line of supplies and communication. That would make the people up there real nervous. Then they would be force to man 4 sides instead of 3 sides.

Capturing ground would certainly be useful because it sends a very powerful message to the pakistanis. Attack and you will lose more than your men and dignity. You will lose land. To me, that is an effective deterrance.

lemontree

In mountains and deserts ones defences are in all round defence and not just 3 sides.
What success would we have had when the PA was already deployed in their main defensive positions?...