Thread: No ‘Cold Start’ doctrine, India tells US

Originally Posted by zraver

Sir, in the US at least the USMC all use beefed up organic helo or fixed wing assets as flying artillery and still are not prepared to really slug it out and win vs a heavy mech force.

Z, that is not a battle of manuever. That is a battle of annhilation. The fundamental axiom of the battle of manuever is that it is NOT force-on-force engagement. It is a force-on-weak engagement.

Or as the jarheads like to put it, getting there the firstest with the mostest. It is not getting there with the mostest the firstest.

Like everything else though, theory is not practice but in this case, while towed tubes ain't ideal, they certainly also can do the job against any mech force, especially when you have time to lay out and set up your fields of fire, long before the mech force can arrive onto the battlefield. If you arrive early enough, you can even setup mine fields to channel the mech force into your kill zones.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z, that is not a battle of manuever. That is a battle of annhilation. The fundamental axiom of the battle of manuever is that it is NOT force-on-force engagement. It is a force-on-weak engagement.

Sir, I agree except that when you have to heavy mech forces each seeking advantage over the other a battle of maneuver can also be a battle of annihilation.

Like everything else though, theory is not practice but in this case, while towed tubes ain't ideal, they certainly also can do the job against any mech force, especially when you have time to lay out and set up your fields of fire, long before the mech force can arrive onto the battlefield. If you arrive early enough, you can even setup mine fields to channel the mech force into your kill zones.

Sir, that is all true but within the discussion of an Indian force punching the Indo-Pak border- mine laying and canalization are more likely to be factors the Indians have to face until the PA gets ready to counter attack. In such a situation where a forward unit has been gobsmacked and needs supporting fires, it needs them now.

Pakistan has invested heavily in sp arty and has a significant edge in being able to get tubes into the fight. SP is faster into the fight and faster out of the CBF danger zone.

Plus the 100 or so M109A5's that the PA has can be easily upgraded to the A6 standard which might well prove to be a game changer since via GPS it knows where it is in relation to where the supporting fires are needed and can quickly stop, fire and then move with no real prep time. I am not sure the US will ever give Pakistan this capability, but it is something to consider.

Armour approaches are specified by terrain. If the approaches are limited then the defender would muster up multiple AT weapons for each tank approach. When hitting a strong point the defender will cause attrition with AT weapons. The defender would use his armour for out flanking the attacker. Hence, the attacker would do well to use arty to pound the defender to shreds so that the en armour can be taken head on or held till own attack choppers/ arty can pick them off.

Airborne assaults are considered, infact they are vital for shock and surprise.

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

The problem with pounding each and every Pakistani strongpoint with artillery is that it takes artillery away from providing support fire to the mechanized forces.

The attacker has some thing known as a "fire plan"...it is as vital as the "attack plan"

Originally Posted by zraver

They have to be at least deep enough to either threaten a major target and thus force the PA to fight, or deep enough to somehow isolate a major PA formation and then destroy it/force it to surrender. Anything less is just territory that may or may not be important in and of itself, but that lets the PA know where the IA is.

Again - We would not be holding ground.
In the Indo-Pak context, you move in 5 Km and you have a battalion...about 8 km and you have taken out a brigade. That would be it, if the strike is fast and does not last more that a couple of days.

Artillery failed the IDF, and more of their assets are modern systems rather than towed tubes. Arty is only marginally useful against forces that do not rely on heavy concentration but instead rely on heavy cover like a town or high mobility like anti-tank teams equipped with trucks and jeeps.

IDF was fighting guerillas...
We would be fighting a regular army in prepared defended localities, with a lot of old 106 mms along wirth ATGMs.

For India to use the bulk of her artillery she has to move it forward, set it up, and then fire and quickly un-ass if there is a danger of PA CBF missions. That is a slow dangerous way to use towed tubes. India's tube artillery is barely adequate at best and is more reasonably described as obsolete. The guns lack mobility, range, and numbers as well as most being under gunned in the amount of HE filler they throw vs PA 155mm guns

Do you thing we would have to move around our guns much if the target formation is max 10 km deep?
In cold start the Pak army arty would be no where around till the 2nd day if they are fast enough. By then their forward battalions would been chewed up by us.

India's Smerch system on the other hand is an absolute beat down hammer vs any PA force of massed armor, at least until the PA counters with enough A-100's of its own. But, sub munitions are not effective at reducing strong points and cost more per salvo than tube rounds.

It is quite a good weapon to tie down their fwd airbases on the opening day of the offensive.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Black Label? That swamp water? I miss my scotch but I will NEVER TOUCH THAT swamp pee.

Sir, that is what is available in our army canteens...

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

Sir,

Do I owe you a Black Label pitcher with your favourite..."Tandoori Chicken" already?

Any time buddy...