Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Defence News & Discussions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Hence IBG
    Let's be clear about something. Pakistan will ALWAYS win the mobilization race. They're on the home ground. Their LOCs are internal. They're on well prepared defence (meaning that India will ALWAYS have to bring BIGGER NUMBERS to the fight). What IBG is meant for are raiding terrorist camps but as a show of force to scare Pakistan into compliance? Ain't going to happen.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Yes, because they are planning for ten days intense war not exceeding 20. Earlier it was 40 days. These days we won't get that far before the world shuts it down. So when those 20 days are up they have to have something to show.

    Now given how limited the deployment will be is 4 to 6 battalions per HQ still a problem ?
    You're going up against entrenched Bdes, Divs, and Corps.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The Bangladesh campaign in '71 was concluded in 2 weeks mainly due to good intel from the Mukti Bahini
    Army level operations.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • Colonel, what according to you should restructuring focus on the Indian Army (well Indian defence forces, IAF+IN+IA) to achieve all of which India, and me want to achieve? No 4 line answers that goes over my head.
      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


      • In a boost to its firepower, IAF inducts eight Apache attack helicopters

        Hoo Haa!!!
        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
          Colonel, what according to you should restructuring focus on the Indian Army (well Indian defence forces, IAF+IN+IA) to achieve all of which India, and me want to achieve? No 4 line answers that goes over my head.
          $600 Billion US per year for 10 years.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • You're joking right? 6 trillion USD for taking onto Pakistan. India better race ahead economically.
            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
              You're joking right?
              You want to achieve the ability to scare the Pakistanis into compliance or steamrolled them, right? Just like what the Americans did right after 11 Sept, either Pakistan allow the Americans to use their airspace to bomb the Taliban or get bombed along with the Taliban.

              To achive what the American military has achieve, you need an American military and that's how much it costs.

              Otherwise, scale back your desires.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                Let's be clear about something. Pakistan will ALWAYS win the mobilization race. They're on the home ground. Their LOCs are internal. They're on well prepared defence (meaning that India will ALWAYS have to bring BIGGER NUMBERS to the fight).
                Yes we'd need a 3:1 if we were attacking.

                What IBG is meant for are raiding terrorist camps but as a show of force to scare Pakistan into compliance? Ain't going to happen.
                This is a comment i've not seen before. IBG seems like over kill just to raid terrorist camps. If we do not also grab the land they'd just set them up again after we left.

                Why do that when we can just use standoff weapons. To keep them from escalating further an IBG could be a useful deterrent.

                They are also intended to take the fight to them so should an opportunity for offensive operations come up they'd go in.

                We're setting them up against China as well. Faster deployment. Show of force means we keep the status quo.


                You're going up against entrenched Bdes, Divs, and Corps.
                I don't know the purpose yet vis a vis Pakistan. All i hear is faster this and that. To what end ? this nobody answers

                You've suggested one which i'm sceptical of.

                We've done this before but larger formations in the past.

                I think we should see this as a work in progress and not the final cut, maybe what you said here will be implemented in time.

                Your fix does not seem too difficult. Add another HQ so they are dealing with less actions.

                Army level operations.
                A lot larger and we had the better part of the year to plan for. Text book execution.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Sep 19,, 06:14.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  This is a comment i've not seen before. IBG seems like over kill just to raid terrorist camps. If we do not also grab the land they'd just set them up again after we left.
                  4 battalions is overkill in that terrain? 1 fixing force, left and right envelopments, 1 reserve. If you can, helo insert a blocking force into their rear. That's 5 battalions.

                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Why do that when we can just use standoff weapons. To keep them from escalating further an IBG could be a useful deterrent.

                  They are also intended to take the fight to them so should an opportunity for offensive operations come up they'd go in.
                  At times, targets of oppertunity such as a teror leadership presence would necessitate a ground incursion.

                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  We're setting them up against China as well. Faster deployment. Show of force means we keep the status quo.
                  China has something called pre-positioned. With China, shows of force meant nothing. It was the political will that matter. China knows she can outspend India.

                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Ion't know the purpose yet vis a vis Pakistan. All i hear is faster this and that. To what end ? this nobody answers

                  You've suggested one which i'm sceptical of.

                  We've done this before but larger formations in the past.
                  You keep pointing out Op PARAKRAM, the invasion of Pakistani terrirtory. The responses that stopped the Op was the Pakistani response, aka, the mobilization of Bdes, Divs, and Corps to their staging areas, ie entrenched fortifications. IBG may beat the Pakistanis from manning their corps but no way in hell is India going to stop them from throwing Bdes and Divs into the fight.

                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  I think we should see this as a work in progress and not the final cut, maybe what you said here will be implemented in time.

                  Your fix does not seem too difficult. Add another HQ so they are dealing with less actions.
                  That's the point, there's nothing to be fixed. Bde and Div HQs already exists. You want to get rid of an HQ? Get rid of Corps and let Div COs handle their areas. There's only one Corps per area anyway. Raise a Field HQ as needed. Task Bde Cols and Div Gens with the proper missions and let them do their jobs.

                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  A lot larger and we had the better part of the year to plan for. Text book execution.
                  Exactly. Nothing fancy. No new wave thinking. Just proven battle hardened theories.
                  Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Sep 19,, 06:44.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    4 battalions is overkill in that terrain? 1 fixing force, left and right envelopments, 1 reserve. If you can, helo insert a blocking force into their rear. That's 5 battalions.

                    At times, targets of oppertunity such as a teror leadership presence would necessitate a ground incursion.
                    Fair. We had plans to take Pak posts and hold them. Back in 2001, just as they were about to go in September 9/11 happened. US aligns with the Paks and sinks the idea.

                    We could re-activate these ideas with a more resolute leadership. This will be more escalatory than Balakote.

                    Operation Kabaddi would include a wide spectrum of evolving punitive operations such as the execution of deliberate fire assaults to destroy military and terrorist points, and area targets across the LoC; ambushes and raids across the LOC; and company, battalion, and brigade-sized deliberate offensive attacks to capture objectives of tactical importance across the LoC that would improve the Indian Army’s counter-insurgency (CI) posture.

                    What would the Indian Army do with the captured territory and posts across the LoC? The chief was unambiguous that there would be no withdrawal of forces from the captured posts, unless the central government intervened and issued clear and direct orders for a pull-back. The thinking behind that was that the captured posts would improve the Indian Army’s defensive posture at the LoC both in the operational sense as well as to deter infiltrators.

                    However, according to Gen Nanavatty, “it was not a single, coordinated operation to commence on a prescribed date. There was no mathematical distribution of tasks to formations and units.” They were planned to take place in several phases based on various operational contingencies. There was a great flexibility built into Gen Nanavatty’s operational plans to deal with contingencies and Pakistani responses to a surprise attack by India.

                    It was to be a purely army operation – the Indian Air Force (IAF) was neither notified nor integrated into the operational plans. However, as the preparations progressed, Gen Nanavatty did suggest to Gen Sihota that the IAF be brought into the picture to effectively carry out the mission.
                    There you have it. A much more flexible setup than IBG it seems. Contingency based.

                    China has something called pre-positioned. With China, shows of force meant nothing. It was the political will that matter. China knows she can outspend India.
                    Story i'v e heard is India was late to get troops to incursion areas. PLA did not have the terrain obstacles. So the development in Ladakh will speed up and we will be able to show up sooner. We will have the capability which we lacked earlier.

                    Will was demonstrated at Doklam in 2017. China expected some meek diplomatic protests by Bhutan and that would be it. They never expected India to barge into a third country and stand up to them. End of 72 days, status quo held.

                    You keep pointing out Op PARAKRAM, the invasion of Pakistani terrirtory. The responses that stopped the Op was the Pakistani response, aka, the mobilization of Bdes, Divs, and Corps to their staging areas, ie entrenched fortifications. IBG may beat the Pakistanis from manning their corps but no way in hell is India going to stop them from throwing Bdes and Divs into the fight.
                    Agree. I was referring to earlier wars, '65 & '71 lend confidence we can punch through as we have an idea what we're up against through experience.
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Sep 19,, 08:03.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                      You want to achieve the ability to scare the Pakistanis into compliance or steamrolled them, right? Just like what the Americans did right after 11 Sept, either Pakistan allow the Americans to use their airspace to bomb the Taliban or get bombed along with the Taliban.

                      To achive what the American military has achieve, you need an American military and that's how much it costs.
                      If the Pakistan Army is not scared, why are they infiltrating terrorists across the LoC for 3 decades? As about steamrolling Pakistan, agree what you've said.

                      Otherwise, scale back your desires.
                      No. We'll find a way.
                      Last edited by Oracle; 04 Sep 19,, 15:34.
                      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
                        If the Pakistan Army is not scared, why are they infiltrating terrorists across the LoC for 3 decades?
                        It's cheap.

                        Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                        No. We'll find a way.
                        Go broke with bread lines.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                          It's cheap.

                          Go broke with bread lines.
                          It's cheap, yes, it's also the fact that the PA can never win a war against India. Not going to break the economy, we've been through this before. We'll think of something cheap too.
                          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 WABs_OOE View Post
                            It's cheap.
                            Also, "plausible deniability"...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                              It's cheap, yes, it's also the fact that the PA can never win a war against India. Not going to break the economy, we've been through this before. We'll think of something cheap too.
                              There's nothing cheap about steamrolling. Stalin burned through 100s of 1000s of men and 10s of 1000s of tanks steamrolling to Berlin.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                                Also, "plausible deniability"...
                                No country believes this Pakistani shit now.

                                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                                There's nothing cheap about steamrolling. Stalin burned through 100s of 1000s of men and 10s of 1000s of tanks steamrolling to Berlin.
                                What is it that we don't understand? I said India is not going to bankrupt itself for taking on a terrorist adversary like Pakistan. We'll find out cheaper options too. We also have a brain.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X