Is India Ready for the Next Kargil?

[Progressive1]

Different?

When nation acheives its obejectives in war and its enemy fails to do so, the nation is considered victor.

This is the standard defintion of victory.

different as a part of national rhetoric, for me victory will be in purely military strategic terms, I will simple not call anything a victory where to face 10 you deploy 500 and after suffering heavy losses clear the area, that is like Police fighting robbers and calling encounter a military victory.

 

[IND151]

Its mountain warfare.
The thumb rule for an attacking force in mountain warfare is 9:1

Unfortunately we could not muster a 9:1 force ratio, which is why we suffered more casualties.

And I dont know what you call victory, but retaking our own territory in a military action is considered victory.

The failure was an intelligence failure. A direct result of one of our earlier Prime Minister winding up the large intel network in Pakistan as he was a pacifist. That network is till date not at the level where it used to be. That said, it is being rebuilt.

Perfect explanation.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

The Pakistanis are badly tied up in Pakistan currently & their economy is also in a very bad shape.Logic Suggests that it is not the best time for PK to wage wars on India.

Wrong...every time Pakistan is in this kind of scenario.. the possibility of Pakistani Army trying something stupid goes up drastically...just in order to get public behind them and get their attention away from the internal mess...Pakistani Gernails have a time tested "Brahmastra" ..."ATTACK INDIA"... and everything will fall into its place.

 

[Contrarian]

different as a part of national rhetoric, for me victory will be in purely military strategic terms, I will simple not call anything a victory where to face 10 you deploy 500 and after suffering heavy losses clear the area, that is like Police fighting robbers and calling encounter a military victory.

Being daft while not yet a crime, should be made so. I reiterate my post:

I dont know what you are taught in Pakistan, that maybe 5000 terrorists and PA regulars should have been fought with 5000 sword wielding Indians and defeated for it to be considered a victory.
---------------------------------------
Its mountain warfare.
The thumb rule for an attacking force in mountain warfare is 9:1

Unfortunately we could not muster a 9:1 force ratio, which is why we suffered more casualties.

And I dont know what you call victory, but retaking our own territory in a military action is considered victory.
------------------------------------------
A victory is when the objectives of any side were met. India's objectives were met, Pakistan's were not. Ergo, it was victory for India and loss for Pakistan.

 

[Progressive1]

Being daft while not yet a crime, should be made so. I reiterate my post:

I dont know what you are taught in Pakistan, that maybe 5000 terrorists and PA regulars should have been fought with 5000 sword wielding Indians and defeated for it to be considered a victory.
---------------------------------------
Its mountain warfare.
The thumb rule for an attacking force in mountain warfare is 9:1

Unfortunately we could not muster a 9:1 force ratio, which is why we suffered more casualties.

And I dont know what you call victory, but retaking our own territory in a military action is considered victory.
------------------------------------------
A victory is when the objectives of any side were met. India's objectives were met, Pakistan's were not. Ergo, it was victory for India and loss for Pakistan.

you are not getting my point call it successfully clearing area all that whatever you want but look at what the article is writing

"India's victory over Pakistan Army in the Kargil War"

He is making it like it was a war on a open field with both Indian and Pakistani generals riding on horses and using full of their military power/strategies/men at disposal and India beat Pakistan employing superior military tactics.

 

[Contrarian]

you are not getting my point call it successfully clearing area all that whatever you want but look at what the article is writing

"India's victory over Pakistan Army in the Kargil War"

He is making it like it was a war on a open field with both Indian and Pakistani generals riding on horses and using full of their military power/strategies/men at disposal and India beat Pakistan employing superior military tactics.

I dont know how you derive the concept of 'open field'.
It was a war. A war in which Pakistan Army had to cede territory it had captured to India. Pakistan suffered more casualties than India, despite the fact that it was mountain warfare where an attacking force requires overwhelming odds to attack. The thumb rule as I mentioned for an attacking force is 9:1 in Mountains, something we could not muster.

 

[Voltaire]

different as a part of national rhetoric, for me victory will be in purely military strategic terms, I will simple not call anything a victory where to face 10 you deploy 500 and after suffering heavy losses clear the area, that is like Police fighting robbers and calling encounter a military victory.

I don't know where you came up or to with this definition of victory.But let me enlighten you how the rest of the world measures victory and defeat in military campaigns and very shortly at that-

Military campaigns are used to achieve the interests and objective of the state.If these objectives were met,victory is declared.If however,it is not met,then it is a defeat.

Hence you can see that in the real world,victory isn't measured in how many one killed or got killed of its own,how much equipment destroyed or lost.Whether the opposite side was bigger or smaller or any other childish factor you may have.

 

[GURU DUTT]

thanks, i will simply call it regulation job done victory for me will something like defending against 5:1 or annihilation of a unit etc, since when you mobilize such large numbers of forces you are bound to push the smaller non regular ones back(here I will judge things by financial/man power efficiency). but every country has different definition for all this so I will not argue with you.

so acording to you the objectives and goals achieved dont define a victory but the valour and courage of the loosing side is in terms victory...right

well dear in lay man terms people call it blabberring after terrible loss

Different?

When nation acheives its obejectives in war and its enemy fails to do so, the nation is considered victor.

This is the standard defintion of victory.

In Vistu Oder Offensive, the germans had 4,50,000 soldeirs and Sovietshad 22,30,000 troops, so by your logic, the Soviet victory in that battle, wasn't victory, right?

you nailed it bro .. thanks

 

[sancho]

Simple answer: No if we wish to have minimum/minimal casualties.

I would disagree on that! If we talk about another Kargil, we have the look at the same conflict in the present with todays capabilities and what have changed. It is true that our forces have certain deficiencies, but at the same time they have improved much compared to the Kargil war. IA soldiers are far better equipped then back then, our infrastructure in the area is much better, with IAFs improved transport capabilities, the support of the troops will be much better, IAF has deleted the precision strike problem, while maintaining an advantage in air superiority, the helicopter fleet is far more capable today to support high altitude transport and attack operations, which is another deficiency that we have deleted since 1999...
It always can be better and the chances in a similar conflict against China might be different, but it's far fetched to say that we are not fit for another similar conflict today. If IA finally get their artillery modernisations done, another core field of that conflict would be improved.

 

[illusion8]

so acording to you the objectives and goals achieved dont define a victory but the valour and courage of the loosing side is in terms victory...right

View attachment 41408

well dear in lay man terms people call it blabberring after terrible loss


View attachment 41409

you nailed it bro .. thanks

Christine Fair and her new book comes to mind - she nailed it to the tee.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Definitely things are better but a few systems would make us more potent:-

●Apache
●Javelin
●C130 Gunship (cannot be bought but should be developed indigenously)
●compact UAVs
●Artillery
●Blood clot bandage

 

[KalaGhoda]

Honest and no trolling answer : We're always ready for pakistan. India doesn't do (mis)adventures on Kargil scale, so yes...article or no article, yes we are.

And I believe except raising a snow leopard type force, we have all we need. except artillery.

Moraly and military wise, i think we are good for now. but i want IA to raise a force like james bond villains on ice for snow fighting.

 

[IND151]

Definitely things are better but a few systems would make us more potent:-

●Apache
●Javelin
●C130 Gunship (cannot be bought but should be developed indigenously)
●compact UAVs
●Artillery
●Blood clot bandage

AC 130......................

 

[Lord ZeN]

India is always ready & thats why we didn't have another Kargil in past 14 years.

 

[farhan_9909]

We are in war since 2001,otherwise in the meantime 3 More kargil were planned

In

2005 (Take up Kashmir valley)
2009 (Take up Whole of J&K)
2013 (Offensive in tamil nadu to engage india in the south aswell)