Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
More like a disaster
1965 Armoured thrust Which steel beasts won?
- Thread starter .
- Start date
M.AsfandYar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,707
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Plz do break it up
Thats understating it a lot.......More like a disaster
Reichsmarschall
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2016
- Messages
- 12,109
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
whyMore like a disaster
AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,025
- Reaction score
- 175
- Country
- Location
Both tanks performed better at defensive role.Pattons performed better at long range and centurions at mid-short ranges.I did do a battle report write up on asal uttar battle for indian defence forum,but didn't post it here because maybe people would take offense and consider it gloating.But yeah,reliable writings on indo-pak military history are very rare with proper maps.
https://www.amazon.in/Patton-Wreckers-Battle-Asal-Uttar/dp/9384038660
This is a very good book from the indian POV written by one of the officers of the defending indian tank regiment with excellent maps,that i based on.For a neutral source on 1965 tank battles osprey patton vs centurion is another source.
https://ospreypublishing.com/m48-patton-vs-centurion
https://www.amazon.in/Patton-Wreckers-Battle-Asal-Uttar/dp/9384038660
This is a very good book from the indian POV written by one of the officers of the defending indian tank regiment with excellent maps,that i based on.For a neutral source on 1965 tank battles osprey patton vs centurion is another source.
https://ospreypublishing.com/m48-patton-vs-centurion
M.AsfandYar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,707
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Can you mail me your report on Assal uttar?
Also what about usual historic reports you post?
I havent seen one after Kalka River.
MiG-35-BD
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Meaningful combined arms was lost with a heady focus of tanks, employed unimaginatively. By both sides. Meaningful artillery, use of infantry together with tanks, and using surprise and flanking maneuvers would have been better. Attacks were highly predictable and driving straight towards the enemy lines.
This basically is a training problem. When the British left, they didn't actually train the former British colonial armies to think and act strategically. The "yes sir" brown sahib was never capable of understanding strategy and tactics meaningfully.
This meant that the maneuver warfare lessons learned where completely lost on all forces.
If you talk to officers of any South Asian army, you will see that they still basically pass their exams by memorizing notes. Most officers don't really have a passion for understanding war, technology and maneuver warfare.
Perhaps the Patton would have performed better if it was employed differently. With its relative lack of mobility, it would have been better used as an infantry tank.
The Pakistan and India and general South Asian scenarios have unique features and characteristics. This requires unique and specialized weapon systems. This has something that has totally been ignored as the brown sahibs on all sides can only mimic white masters. So, they just buy what they see as nice and shiny from foreign suppliers.
The unique features of the scenario, terrain and weather patterns could, if though innovatively, create a whole new form of conventional warfare.
Here are some of the salients (and I am being very broad brushed):
1. Between Sialkot to Lahore we essentially have hardened static lines, with severe reinforcements and natural barriers including canals, rivers, etc. There is very little chance of maneuver warfare on either side of the border here. You don't need a light and fast tank like the Al-Khalid here. you could go for a simpler tank, with a lower power to weight ratio and non-western FCS. Artillery is king in this area, as would be a CAS aircraft ala Stuka. See for instance the British SABA design. Attack helicopters in anything but the northern mountains is a suicide mission for both sides, given the broad range of SAMs available. There is no meaningful cover and tree cover is outdated given thermal imaging. Anything that doesnt fly fast and nap of the earth is going to be dead very fast.
Perhaps an effective "new" system would be a mobile mortar system. Something like a 120mm wheeled or tracked mortar.
2. Between Lahore and the desert there is some room for maneuver. This is where you could potentially see manuver warfare. AK was born and bred for this geography.
3. The desert people imagine is for maneuver warfare. But the desert between India and Pakistan is very inaccessible. The sand is such that vehicles have a hard time of moving, let alone maneuver. Pakistan has cut a long line of a trench near its settled regions, going all the way to the coast.
This is actually WWI style trench warfare that both sides are fighting. They haven't yet graduated to WWII maneuver warfare. Let alone the 21st century, at least in terms of strategy and tactics on the ground. Main mobilization is also similar to WWI based on trains. The railway tracks have been modernized to the same standard as Japan but issues remain.
If I were to rethink warfare, following needs to be done:
1. take into account new disruptive technologies and take advantage of them. not in small quantities for special forces, but in cheap, mass produced form for all troopers
2. The weather problem. Tanks, APCs were designed in Europe and we only copied them like monkeys. Europe is a cold place. South Asia is a hot place. Humid place. Our vehicles need to be designed from the ground up to keep soldiers and equipment cool. To keep out rain. To deal with mud.
3. South Asia is not wealthy. With huge populations. We cannot afford uber weapons in small quantities. Even if our brown sahib officers / generals want them. KISS and mass produced weapons are the bread and butter of war. We aren't doing this right, except in bits and pieces for Pakistan. India is a joke.
4. I won't touch upon this here but the defense of Bangladesh needs a complete rethink. The terrain is a delta. In a monsoon heavy region. Tanks, APCs, any vehicle needs to be designed with that in mind. Will need a separate thread to discuss BD.
Here are some potential solutions based on the above:
1. An infantry support unmanned vehicle. That can be controlled via a remote by the soldiers. Will take of a lot of burden from the infantry units and will help them navigate the terrain better. A small unmanned vehicle where a unit can put some of their equipment will improve mobility and firepower of the units.
2. mobile mortar. 120mm. Will give effective fire support in the battlefield. With the increase in the disruptive technology of guided missiles, direct fire weapons (such as tanks and IFVs) are increasingly more vulnerable. This means that one has to supplement them with indirect fire weapon systems. See:
3. Use of disruptive technologies yields some fine weapons. ATGMs and RPGs are some of those. This needs to be properly infused into the armed forces. as well as SAMs.
4. Meaningful modern comms and squad level tactical enablers
5. thermal / infra red / night vision devices. This needs to be mass produced as its the most effective single tactical system that is in the battlefield today. Not just for special forces and a handful. Needs mass deployment.
Rethinking tanks.
Tanks need to be rethought. See: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rethinking-the-tank-al-khalid-2-the-future.545239/
Both India and Pakistan can go at each other for approximately 2 weeks before they run out of resources to continue the fight. Lets be conservative and say 1 month. But both sides are not in a position to fight a long war. That is precisely what the next fight is likely to be like. A protracted confrontation of gradual escalation in Kashmir and eventually all along the border.
Additionally:
Both sides do not have enough artillery, enough tanks, enough APCs / IFVs and definitely not enough Close Air Support which is nonexistent, given the size of the armies they have.Don't compare numbers with medium weight western countries, they have much smaller armies.
Numbers win wars.
Long wars need local production capacities:
Fighting long wars needs local production capacity. You can't keep buying stuff. All south asian countries are failing in this. India can't build a meaningful defense industry. Pakistan has anemic production of the Al Khalid. Pakistan would be far better off having an alternate design in parallel with the Al Khalid that is simple and easy to build, and can be rushed into service when hostilities start. Something that can be produced at 100 units per month at least. A simple tank not a complex tank with parts from 12 different countries.
This basically is a training problem. When the British left, they didn't actually train the former British colonial armies to think and act strategically. The "yes sir" brown sahib was never capable of understanding strategy and tactics meaningfully.
This meant that the maneuver warfare lessons learned where completely lost on all forces.
If you talk to officers of any South Asian army, you will see that they still basically pass their exams by memorizing notes. Most officers don't really have a passion for understanding war, technology and maneuver warfare.
Perhaps the Patton would have performed better if it was employed differently. With its relative lack of mobility, it would have been better used as an infantry tank.
The Pakistan and India and general South Asian scenarios have unique features and characteristics. This requires unique and specialized weapon systems. This has something that has totally been ignored as the brown sahibs on all sides can only mimic white masters. So, they just buy what they see as nice and shiny from foreign suppliers.
The unique features of the scenario, terrain and weather patterns could, if though innovatively, create a whole new form of conventional warfare.
Here are some of the salients (and I am being very broad brushed):
1. Between Sialkot to Lahore we essentially have hardened static lines, with severe reinforcements and natural barriers including canals, rivers, etc. There is very little chance of maneuver warfare on either side of the border here. You don't need a light and fast tank like the Al-Khalid here. you could go for a simpler tank, with a lower power to weight ratio and non-western FCS. Artillery is king in this area, as would be a CAS aircraft ala Stuka. See for instance the British SABA design. Attack helicopters in anything but the northern mountains is a suicide mission for both sides, given the broad range of SAMs available. There is no meaningful cover and tree cover is outdated given thermal imaging. Anything that doesnt fly fast and nap of the earth is going to be dead very fast.
Perhaps an effective "new" system would be a mobile mortar system. Something like a 120mm wheeled or tracked mortar.
2. Between Lahore and the desert there is some room for maneuver. This is where you could potentially see manuver warfare. AK was born and bred for this geography.
3. The desert people imagine is for maneuver warfare. But the desert between India and Pakistan is very inaccessible. The sand is such that vehicles have a hard time of moving, let alone maneuver. Pakistan has cut a long line of a trench near its settled regions, going all the way to the coast.
This is actually WWI style trench warfare that both sides are fighting. They haven't yet graduated to WWII maneuver warfare. Let alone the 21st century, at least in terms of strategy and tactics on the ground. Main mobilization is also similar to WWI based on trains. The railway tracks have been modernized to the same standard as Japan but issues remain.
If I were to rethink warfare, following needs to be done:
1. take into account new disruptive technologies and take advantage of them. not in small quantities for special forces, but in cheap, mass produced form for all troopers
2. The weather problem. Tanks, APCs were designed in Europe and we only copied them like monkeys. Europe is a cold place. South Asia is a hot place. Humid place. Our vehicles need to be designed from the ground up to keep soldiers and equipment cool. To keep out rain. To deal with mud.
3. South Asia is not wealthy. With huge populations. We cannot afford uber weapons in small quantities. Even if our brown sahib officers / generals want them. KISS and mass produced weapons are the bread and butter of war. We aren't doing this right, except in bits and pieces for Pakistan. India is a joke.
4. I won't touch upon this here but the defense of Bangladesh needs a complete rethink. The terrain is a delta. In a monsoon heavy region. Tanks, APCs, any vehicle needs to be designed with that in mind. Will need a separate thread to discuss BD.
Here are some potential solutions based on the above:
1. An infantry support unmanned vehicle. That can be controlled via a remote by the soldiers. Will take of a lot of burden from the infantry units and will help them navigate the terrain better. A small unmanned vehicle where a unit can put some of their equipment will improve mobility and firepower of the units.
2. mobile mortar. 120mm. Will give effective fire support in the battlefield. With the increase in the disruptive technology of guided missiles, direct fire weapons (such as tanks and IFVs) are increasingly more vulnerable. This means that one has to supplement them with indirect fire weapon systems. See:
3. Use of disruptive technologies yields some fine weapons. ATGMs and RPGs are some of those. This needs to be properly infused into the armed forces. as well as SAMs.
4. Meaningful modern comms and squad level tactical enablers
5. thermal / infra red / night vision devices. This needs to be mass produced as its the most effective single tactical system that is in the battlefield today. Not just for special forces and a handful. Needs mass deployment.
Rethinking tanks.
Tanks need to be rethought. See: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rethinking-the-tank-al-khalid-2-the-future.545239/
Both India and Pakistan can go at each other for approximately 2 weeks before they run out of resources to continue the fight. Lets be conservative and say 1 month. But both sides are not in a position to fight a long war. That is precisely what the next fight is likely to be like. A protracted confrontation of gradual escalation in Kashmir and eventually all along the border.
Additionally:
Both sides do not have enough artillery, enough tanks, enough APCs / IFVs and definitely not enough Close Air Support which is nonexistent, given the size of the armies they have.Don't compare numbers with medium weight western countries, they have much smaller armies.
Numbers win wars.
Long wars need local production capacities:
Fighting long wars needs local production capacity. You can't keep buying stuff. All south asian countries are failing in this. India can't build a meaningful defense industry. Pakistan has anemic production of the Al Khalid. Pakistan would be far better off having an alternate design in parallel with the Al Khalid that is simple and easy to build, and can be rushed into service when hostilities start. Something that can be produced at 100 units per month at least. A simple tank not a complex tank with parts from 12 different countries.
t_for_talli
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,243
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
