Meeting India's military challenge

[TaimiKhan]

taimi that was not a good answer
I think a moral cause is more than enough to make anyone victorious
anyways best of luck in case we have another war
actually India and Pakistan are like tom and jerry they cannot live together and even cannot live without each other

In today's warfare, moral cause not gives you victory.

Russians had moral cause against the Germans, but it did not got them anywhere even after doing plenty human wave attacks. But once they started to get weapons, good tactics and human numbers combined with moral cause, they kicked out the Germans and captured Berlin.

So with moral cause, you need weapons, resources and good quality and quantity wise soldiers to win.

 

[DavyJones]

Hi Pak posters. Few questions just for info sakes. I too believ we will never see a India Pak war. We will have sideshows in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

1. Does Pak have enough fuel and ammo for a long war (1 and half months or even 1 month) with India ? This assuming the world does not intervene.

2. Will Pak generals use offensive defence ? If so will pressure be mounted on Aknoor again ? What do you think ?

3. Will we see militants and LeT, Taliban types being used to infiltrate and create havoc in civilian areas ? Will civilians be fair game ?

4. India's likely offensive action would be towards Rahmiyar Khan (to cut the North south road) and I also forsee an amphibious assault. What actions are likely to meet this by Pak ? Are Pak coasts defended well enough ?

5. How is Pak's SAM and radar network towards the western border ?

6. Are Pak canals deep and wide enough to stop Indian tanks ? India will try and not repeat mistakes of 1965 and bridge canals fast and effectively.

7. Will Pak submarines try and hunt the Indian ships and move toward Mumbai ?

8. What about attacks on Indian economic targets ? Will those be a significant part of the war plan ?

 

[DavyJones]

Somebody here mentioned using missiles to stop tanks and subs to take out Carriers. Excellent points !
The 1973 Yom Kippur war and 2006 Lebanon conflict showed that mighty tank forces can be stopped using simple weapons at close range. Pak army has an effective tank force as well and is equal or better in artillery than India.
Subs are difficult to track and can really cause India headaches.

I feel Indian strategists need a rethink - Carriers can be a liability - you need several units to guard them. Plus I can't see Indian carriers closing in towards Karachi too much in case of war cause of the Pak subs. How will they support ops against Pak is a mystery. Better to stick them in the Indian ocean and Bay of Bengal out of the way. They should be meant for China.

I can see amphibious assaults by India on the Pak coast. Resupply will be a problem for this though. Can India maintain a beach head on the sea. Could be that this will a diversionary attack or a behind enemy lines attack on the Sind coast - with a landborne assault moving quickly to encircle the Pak forces. I don't think Pak beaches will be well defended on the Sind coast.(just an opinion!)

Taking salients will be important

 

[su-47]

In today's warfare, moral cause not gives you victory.

Russians had moral cause against the Germans, but it did not got them anywhere even after doing plenty human wave attacks. But once they started to get weapons, good tactics and human numbers combined with moral cause, they kicked out the Germans and captured Berlin.

So with moral cause, you need weapons, resources and good quality and quantity wise soldiers to win.

A moral cause is essential for victory, but doesnt mean sides with moral cause always win. Lets take a couple of examples:

Sides with moral cause losing

1) Russo-Finnish War (1939): The Finns believed in fighting for what was rightfully theirs. They fought exceptionally well, inflicting heavy casualities on the enemy but in the end, had to concede to overwhelming Soviet numbers.

2) Indian Rebellion (1857): Under oppression from the British, Indian sepoys carried out a mass rebellion. They had the moral cause of fighting tyranny, but in the end were crushed by a combination of poor leadership and superior British equipment and tactics.

On the other hand,

Sides without moral cause losing

1) Vietnam War (1959-1975): US didn't have a just cause for participating in this war. US civillians, and many soldiers, didnt believe they should be involved. This led to severe pressure on US forces to exit Vietnam, and despite having vastly superior technology and better tactics, USA lost the war.

2) Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-1989): pretty much the same as above. A lot of soviet soldiers underwent severe mental stress. Also, the mujahideen, despite severe casualities, fought for what they believed in. Soviet soldiers lacked motivation and felt they were fighting for a wrong cause.

Conclusion

A moral cause doesnt guarantee victory, but is a very important factor nonetheless. Soldiers need to believe in what they are fighting for, otherwise they will lack motivation and morale. Remember, morale is to equipment as three is to one.

This is evident if u look at Iraq war.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

3. Will we see militants and LeT, Taliban types being used to infiltrate and create havoc in civilian areas ? Will civilians be fair game ?

I may be wrong, but i think we are the only two nations on the planet who have almost never bombed each others Civilian places just for the sake of 'breaking down the soul'
65, 71 has proved that forces on both sides concentrated on 'military installations' rather than cheap tactic of bombing civilians without any reason

6. Are Pak canals deep and wide enough to stop Indian tanks ? India will try and not repeat mistakes of 1965 and bridge canals fast and effectively.

the PA defense is based on using terrain so is the case with IA, IA will push towards the place where the terrain suits their armored offense for quickly gaining the advantage (Sindh)
It will be difficult to by pass the canal defensive positions with the fact in view that PA has got effective Armour Units, we might see the first tank battle of this century

5. How is Pak's SAM and radar network towards the western border ?

MBDA SPADA 2000 will be in place this year & FT-2000(the anti radiation version of HQ-9) is coming, don't know about its induction time frame

just my thoughts

 

[fatman17]

Dear fatman,
This just goes to prove the old army adage that there are no bad troops only bad officers.the problem in 71 was that they deployed more than required soldiers in the east with the intention to suppress rebellion unaware of the fact that they had insufficient resources
by the way who were you referring to General Tikka khan?
well the only reason why the Co's were replaced was because the number of casualties reported were higher than the actual casualties
that was done by mistake
the risk averseness was true in the case of Pakistanis specially in the chamb sector but you cannot think of victory without sacrifice can you?
must have said it earlier thanks for your reply Sir

i made a 'generalised' statement and you are assuming otherwise.

 

[ambidex]

Both sides have made catogorically clear, that any new war will be a decisive. Both are preparing for such as the geography of 1971 is not the same.

Respected Gazzi,

Decisive war depends on range.

Australia would defend area below Brisbane in case of war with Indonesia.

Do Pakistan has that range I am sure you will not tell me that your missiles can hit every single Indian city.

regards

 

[pakpower]

Blain bhai, if, as you so sagely put it, India has no realistic options, then why are we uselessly arming ourselves to the teeth day by inexorable day .... for defense against you?

Or as a cash bailout to the western arms industry deprived of a good pipeline of wars worldwide ..... out of the goodness of our hearts?

Or are we building an ever larger army as part of the Congress's latest rural employment guarantee five-year plan?

I am sure you do realise, as someone with more than a fair share of military acumen, that india long ago crested the credible defensive threshold ..... and anything above and beyond that is only building towards one thing.

And about the "tumko saath lekar rahenge" ..... yes, that would be the last clutch at a straw of a drowning man ..... but we all know how much floatation that straw actually affords the one sinking don't we?

Cheers, Doc

You are sick demanted person infact all the indians have the same thing in common as u do. You know nothing about the Pakistan Armed Forces capabilities so will you stop your bullshit along with other indian guys are doing in this particular thread.

 

[fatman17]

Dear fatman,
This just goes to prove the old army adage that there are no bad troops only bad officers.the problem in 71 was that they deployed more than required soldiers in the east with the intention to suppress rebellion unaware of the fact that they had insufficient resources
by the way who were you referring to General Tikka khan?
well the only reason why the Co's were replaced was because the number of casualties reported were higher than the actual casualties
that was done by mistake
the risk averseness was true in the case of Pakistanis specially in the chamb sector but you cannot think of victory without sacrifice can you?
must have said it earlier thanks for your reply Sir

well the closest I can come to what pakistan will do is this...

"Ours is a defensive strategy with a limited offensive capability to cause such a territorial loss to the enemy so as to end the war on favourable terms, facilitating our diplomacy to take it on further. Our forces are configured to meet such a contingency, and at the best the war will end in stalemate. There is also a need to view military geography of India and Pakistan to understand each other’s soft points. In the military strategy, the selection of the objective area is the master stroke. The threat to such a location decides the outcome of the war – stalemate, further escalation in conventional war or playing the nuclear bluff."

 

[ek_indian]

You are sick demanted person infact all the indians have the same thing in common as u do. You know nothing about the Pakistan Armed Forces capabilities so will you stop your bullshit along with other indian guys are doing in this particular thread.

Thank you very much. It gives your POV even without reading your comments on the topic.

 

[pakpower]

Taimi bhai, thank you for sparing our cities .... one jadoo ki jhappi for Taimi from all Indians here!

But tell me Taimi, what happens if the "advancing Indians" have already overrun Lahore ..... or Islamabad ..... or Karachi ..... and stop advancing ..... and wait ...... thodi daaru ..... thoda relaxation ..... some bridge.

Will you still use these "tactical" nukes then on these "advanced Indians" general taimi sir?

Cheers, Doc

You can only dream of over running the cities you mention here so sweat dreams baby boy you need to grow up and needs a reality checkup dude.

 

[deltacamelately]

well the closest I can come to what pakistan will do is this...

"Ours is a defensive strategy with a limited offensive capability to cause such a territorial loss to the enemy so as to end the war on favourable terms, facilitating our diplomacy to take it on further. Our forces are configured to meet such a contingency, and at the best the war will end in stalemate. There is also a need to view military geography of India and Pakistan to understand each other’s soft points. In the military strategy, the selection of the objective area is the master stroke. The threat to such a location decides the outcome of the war – stalemate, further escalation in conventional war or playing the nuclear bluff."

Troop concentration along with intel gave away this on both sides in all the past battles. In today's world, mass mobilization, so as to accomplish Operation Grandslam type objectives can not go undetected. Further, 3rd party intel-sharing is all the time spilling the beans everywhere. Atleast that is part of the logic given behind the rationale of having 8 manouvering battle groups keeping the enemy guessing about the main axis of attack.

 

[fire_in_shadows]

I think there are 2 misconceptions which both India and Pakistan need to understand.

1. India will not honor or respect the U.S pressure if India see it in the benefit of its state to attack Pakistan and if India thinks that it can gain strategic superiority out of it.

2. India has a big misconception regarding nuclear warheads and missile technology of Pakistan. Even if Pakistan and India goes to war U.S can not take over or diffuse Pakistan nuclear arsenal neither India can touch it.

I think these are 2 points which both of our countries need to keep in mind .. I think cold war is what India is playing and they will keep doing it same as our ISI doing in some parts of India and in Kashmir ..

 

[jarnee]

Agree with you - "fire_in_shadows".
Only game both countries can play is proxy game. India will not move out of Afghanistan , and till then Pakistan will not stop sending proxies in Kashmir or Mumbai.
The game is of bleeding each other and playing on patience.
Another 26/11 will also not result in war, Pakistan knows it, hence is keeping few assets up its sleeve like Hafiz sayeed / Dawood etc.
India cannot expect Pakistan to surrender its geopolitical interests.
Its a time game ..who ever bleeds to death first.
Full scale war needs to have purpose, at leaset for India, India does not want any more territory, even though the official stand is Pak occupied Kasmir is part of India.
But given a opportunity India might settle for as is.

 

[fatman17]

Troop concentration along with intel gave away this on both sides in all the past battles. In today's world, mass mobilization, so as to accomplish Operation Grandslam type objectives can not go undetected. Further, 3rd party intel-sharing is all the time spilling the beans everywhere. Atleast that is part of the logic given behind the rationale of having 8 manouvering battle groups keeping the enemy guessing about the main axis of attack.

3rd party intell will still be available, and that is why PK advocates a 'defensive' strategy, spreading its troops evenly - and terrain cannot be discounted - a 'riposte' will only be committed to if a favourable situation materialises.