Army to induct 'offensive' corps along China border

[Dash]

You cannot win a war against China. This is not even a possibility with Pakistan. Nowadays no war is winnable specially when the adversary has more than enough capability to deny victory to you.

Strike corps in the context of Mountain warfare is a non-starter. If anything, you can throw more infantry, mobility and mountain artillery at it but its nothing different than what is being done right now.

I was walking one day on the street looking at two dogs barking at a dog.
The two dogs didnt belong from the teriroty of the dog they were barking at...

Now what happend meanwhile the dog who belongs to that place braught its teritorial influence called in other dogs from its territory and the two who were barking started running away..

Bottom line. never underestimate the enemy's role in its own teritory, coz you dont belong there and dont know its capability...

 

[Markus]

There is no problem, India is doing on their own territory however the question is they should not cry / whine about other countries doing it.
Not long ago when China developed oxygen apparatus to help breathing at high altitudes, Indian media reported it as an act of provocation !

Whereas if they deploy offensive corps which in reality IS provocation, it is normal.

I have no problem what India is doing but please quit double standards.

I read the TOI and other reports on this. Nobody called this as a provocation.

Pls provide links where Indian media called it a provocation.

As far I know, even DRDO was working on developing something similar for Indian soldiers deployed in Siachen.

 

[Old School]

I was wondering about the logic behind the formation of this new strike corps and the relevant costs of maintenance to support this corps. The terrain and the depth of the theatre in question do not have much to offer for offensive operations for the either parties. India opted for disengagement in the 1962 war against the Chinese under special circumstance applicable for that time. But now the time has changed and so is the dynamics.
What India can better do is to either acquire or locally develop Strategic Bombers to take care of the Northern border giving the fact that India does not have any interest deep inside Chinese territory. This option is more effective.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I was wondering about the logic behind the formation of this new strike corps and the relevant costs of maintenance to support this corps. The terrain and the depth of the theatre in question do not have much to offer for offensive operations for the either parties. India opted for disengagement in the 1962 war against the Chinese under special circumstance applicable for that time. But now the time has changed and so is the dynamics.
What India can better do is to either acquire or locally develop Strategic Bombers to take care of the Northern border giving the fact that India does not have any interest deep inside Chinese territory. This option is more effective.

Its a historical fact that most 'strategic doctrines' in this part of the world are army-centric. Question is; the composition of the strike corps. The key to operations on the ground here is mobility of formations; which was the logic behind raising 'mountain divisions' post 62.
Strategic Bombers/Missiles is another option. But the mandarins will come up with something.

 

[navtrek]

There is no problem, India is doing on their own territory however the question is they should not cry / whine about other countries doing it.
Not long ago when China developed oxygen apparatus to help breathing at high altitudes, Indian media reported it as an act of provocation !

Whereas if they deploy offensive corps which in reality IS provocation, it is normal.

I have no problem what India is doing but please quit double standards.

Dont really know abt the incident ur talking about but i feel its really normal for any country to show its discomfort and to make it clear that weapons made for maintaining peace can in hands of wrong ppl can cause war.

One famous E.g. Kargil.

So when such expressions are made its important to realize the context.

 

[navtrek]

I was wondering about the logic behind the formation of this new strike corps and the relevant costs of maintenance to support this corps. The terrain and the depth of the theatre in question do not have much to offer for offensive operations for the either parties. India opted for disengagement in the 1962 war against the Chinese under special circumstance applicable for that time. But now the time has changed and so is the dynamics.
What India can better do is to either acquire or locally develop Strategic Bombers to take care of the Northern border giving the fact that India does not have any interest deep inside Chinese territory. This option is more effective.

Didnt really get the point why acquire bombers ?

 

[Justin Joseph]

Reagan's words are appropriate to reflect India's position.

"Deterrence" means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the India, or our vital interest, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack.

We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.

 

[Old School]

Didnt really get the point why acquire bombers ?

Not bombers but Strategic Bombers.. Link provided.

 

[nietzche]

I was wondering about the logic behind the formation of this new strike corps and the relevant costs of maintenance to support this corps. The terrain and the depth of the theatre in question do not have much to offer for offensive operations for the either parties. India opted for disengagement in the 1962 war against the Chinese under special circumstance applicable for that time. But now the time has changed and so is the dynamics.
What India can better do is to either acquire or locally develop Strategic Bombers to take care of the Northern border giving the fact that India does not have any interest deep inside Chinese territory. This option is more effective.

Theater offensive ops can be launched in this terrain as the chinese demonstrated in 61. Considering the chinese claim on tawang there are 3 main lines of advance and a major chinese transport head end bang opposite the tawang border. Chinese tactics could include a repetition of the human wave significantly bolstered by their rapid formations with firesupport and the PLAAF. In short the chinese tactics here could resemble a blitz with chinese characteristics. Defense against a mobile enemy requires a judicious mix of static and mobile elements. At the very least this offensive division could offer more concentrated firepower and options. Time too for the long logistical tail behind. Induction of the IAF is a given. The next war here will be significantly different from the last one and the outcome may not be a given repetition of history.

 

[Old School]

Its a historical fact that most 'strategic doctrines' in this part of the world are army-centric. Question is; the composition of the strike corps. The key to operations on the ground here is mobility of formations; which was the logic behind raising 'mountain divisions' post 62.
Strategic Bombers/Missiles is another option. But the mandarins will come up with something.

Military doctrine is usually formulated after following the full work flow of the military decision making process which is very reliable, scientific and detailed in nature. We regularly collect data on others' MDMP process due to obvious reason. Therefore, we are very much aware of the events going on at the HQ on the other side of the border. Sometimes even opponents' some decision surprises me and later we just take it as a "strategic move" rather than' formulation error'.

 

[Old School]

Theater offensive ops can be launched in this terrain as the chinese demonstrated in 61. Considering the chinese claim on tawang there are 3 main lines of advance and a major chinese transport head end bang opposite the tawang border. Chinese tactics could include a repetition of the human wave significantly bolstered by their rapid formations with firesupport and the PLAAF. In short the chinese tactics here could resemble a blitz with chinese characteristics. Defense against a mobile enemy requires a judicious mix of static and mobile elements. At the very least this offensive division could offer more concentrated firepower and options. Time too for the long logistical tail behind. Induction of the IAF is a given. The next war here will be significantly different from the last one and the outcome may not be a given repetition of history.

When we analyse the METT-T of this particular theatre, we do not see it to permit rapid advancement as far as offensive operations are concerned. Please correct me if I am wrong. What I believe to be the right approach, is the Retrograde Operations or a combination of both. The reason is that the METT-T is certainly at the favour of the Chinese than the Indian forces in this theatre. Retrograde Operations will force the Chinese to engage in an undesirables conditions.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Not bombers but Strategic Bombers.. Link provided.

i have an issue with the 'strategic bomber' bit. Firstly that role has been superseded by strategic missile forces. Then again, the doctrine of 'strategic bombing' in its heydays (i.e. WW2 and Cold War) was called into question- e.g. strategic bombing in Europe during WW2. Now with Strategic Missiles in the picture, the role of these bombers is redundant and further debate unnecessary.
The only existing bombers suitable for such a role are the TU-142s of the IN (range 12000km unrefuelled) which are being modified for Brahmos fitment.
But the doctrine in that theater still seems to be army-centric, i.e. 'boots on the ground'.

 

[Old School]

i have an issue with the 'strategic bomber' bit. Firstly that role has been superseded by strategic missile forces. Then again, the doctrine of 'strategic bombing' in its heydays (i.e. WW2 and Cold War) was called into question- e.g. strategic bombing in Europe during WW2. Now with Strategic Missiles in the picture, the role of these bombers is redundant and further debate unnecessary.
The only existing bombers suitable for such a role are the TU-142s of the IN (range 12000km unrefuelled) which are being modified for Brahmos fitment.
But the doctrine in that theater still seems to be army-centric, i.e. 'boots on the ground'.

We often under utilize the joint operational doctrine in the sub-continent. The army centric doctrine will certainly change in the future because there is already debate going on in New Delhi on this issue. Strategic missiles have limited tactical values. For this reason,USAF is going to keep it's strategic bomber (B-52) options open for more days (until at least 2040) to come.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

We often under utilize the joint operational doctrine in the sub-continent. The army centric doctrine will certainly change in the future because there is already debate going on in New Delhi on this issue. Strategic missiles have limited tactical values. For this reason,USAF is going to keep it's strategic bomber (B-52) options open for more days (until at least 2040) to come.

i certainly agree with some of your points. Joint operational doctrines have been under -utilized in the sub-continent because of turf wars. The doctrine is changing, witness beefing up of IAF assets- with the intention of their use. And this is being done unlike the 62 scenario when use of the IAF was not seriously considered.
But the USAF will have to use its strategic bomber forces, simply because USA will never fight a war on its door-step (and it never has). And the old workhorse B-52s still have some residual life- which helps.

 

[archangel]

You cannot win a war against China.

And how can you say so??????? Just because they have digi camos and a large number of soldier, doesn't make them any superior. War is decided by tactics and proper & precise execution of objectives and plans. How big you are doesn't decide anything........ Rather it exposes a much larger part of it which can be hit and won.

This is not even a possibility with Pakistan.

What did you think Pakistan is that you went on to compare it with China????????? Its like in a fight between a pig or goat against a wolf, a pig may escape once from the wolf but how long?????? BTW, I thought you were friends.

Nowadays no war is winnable specially when the adversary has more than enough capability to deny victory to you.

Wars are never won. Once they start, they never end. Its just a situation were one competitor cannot stand up at that moment that you declare the other competitor, a winner. It doesn't conclude a war. But something that is common to all kinds of war is- you hurt yourself as much you hurt the enemy. The consequence may have been in the past or may just be happening or might even happen in future but it would definitely happen.

Strike corps in the context of Mountain warfare is a non-starter. If anything, you can throw more infantry, mobility and mountain artillery at it but its nothing different than what is being done right now.

So, what do you want us to do?????? Break open the mountains or concentrate all our armed force there on the border or are you trying to ask us to put up animals instead of humans at that border.

Look buddy, you walk everyday. When you feel you are getting late you may walk fast or at most run. You definitely won't just fly there.

So refrain yourself from posting such thoughtless posts. What you think isn't a fact. But what happened/ happens/ might happen are facts...........