Military Brass Credits Modi for Deafening Silence at LoC

[Icarus]

30 years spec ops plus training officers in tactics etc in training institutions and more! That's a whole lot of experience, what? That's more than the combined experience of most nominated 'military professionals' out here on PDF!!

@Icarus


Check out my post above!

Cheers!

Okay, definitely more experience than me for one.

@Icarus
Little off topic do engineers also get professional title ?

The Professional Title is only reserved for individuals with military experience.

 

[Dash]

Military Tactics 101, if you are carrying out an incursion into enemy territory, you DO NOT use covering fire to announce your arrival and also your position.

How about diversionary tactic?

 

[Icarus]

What is the purpose of cover fire then?

You are confusing a covert op with an incursion meant for no hide.

To put it very simply.
Covering fire is used to enhance movement in combat situations when both sides are already engaged in a firefight and therefore freedom of movement has been restricted as the troop's own position has been spotted and is taking fire. So when they have to move, they have to be given a fighting chance and to do so, you respond by giving them covering fire. Basically you trade accuracy for sheer volume as you open up at an enemy position with your maximum available firepower and force the enemy to duck for cover and shoot from behind cover, as they can't aim from behind cover, they stand a lesser chance of hitting moving troops. However, its not a guarantee of safety of security by any measure, a platoon of mine lost five men in a 30 meter stretch as we tried to take a militant complex in Bajaur, despite the fact that we had covering fire from a nearby tank mounted 12.7.

How about diversionary tactic?

That is a valid theory but then it would hurt the premise of the article which correlates fewer firing incidents with fewer militants crossing over.

 

[Dash]

That is a valid theory but then it would hurt the premise of the article which correlates fewer firing incidents with fewer militants crossing over.

The fewer cross border fire incidents have direct links with inflitration. We both can agree that, diversionary tactics will only be employed in a high risk penetration scenario, especially for a hot penetration. There are many ways inflitrators can cross over.

 

[Icarus]

The fewer cross border fire incidents have direct links with inflitration. We both can agree that, diversionary tactics will only be employed in a high risk penetration scenario, especially for a hot penetration. There are many ways inflitrators can cross over.

I have always maintained that although state sponsored cross-border movement was a reality from both sides until 2003, the ceasefire agreement effectively put a stop to it. And there was not a single firing incident until 2009, I believe. During that time, the Kashmir problem was still continuing and had not changed so the correlation between the two is erroneous, as per my limited experience. Though I agree that fringe elements do move across the border, however it is not as easy a task as many of our friends here seem to think. There are only so many places between India and Pakistan in Kashmir where the border is not separated by a river, making it impossible to cross. As for the land borders, there is often a mine field, multiple rolls of razor wire with cans to detect movement, guard towers and regular patrols.

 

[nair]

o put it very simply.
Covering fire is used to enhance movement in combat situations when both sides are already engaged in a firefight and therefore freedom of movement has been restricted as the troop's own position has been spotted and is taking fire. So when they have to move, they have to be given a fighting chance and to do so, you respond by giving them covering fire. Basically you trade accuracy for sheer volume as you open up at an enemy position with your maximum available firepower and force the enemy to duck for cover and shoot from behind cover, as they can't aim from behind cover, they stand a lesser chance of hitting moving troops. However, its not a guarantee of safety of security by any measure, a platoon of mine lost five men in a 30 meter stretch as we tried to take a militant complex in Bajaur, despite the fact that we had covering fire from a nearby tank mounted 12.7.

While respecting your experience in this field......From a Layman's point of view:

This what exactly pulsar has been speaking..... It is possible to fire at the border post and engage the soldier either by forcing them to take cover or by returning the fire, this gives a window of oppertunity to those who want to cross over, Without this so called covering fire they have a higher chance of being spotted...... I think you are using the logic of a full fledged war here.....

Edit: Also consider the terrain of LOC.....

 

[Icarus]

While respecting your experience in this field......From a Layman's point of view:

This what exactly pulsar has been speaking..... It is possible to fire at the border post and engage the soldier either by forcing them to take cover or by returning the fire, this gives a window of oppertunity to those who want to cross over, Without this so called covering fire they have a higher chance of being spotted...... I think you are using the logic of a full fledged war here.....

I am just trying to suggest that in the absence of active hostilities, it is actually more rewarding for me to try and mount an incursion silently. Of course if I am trying to mount an incursion and I am spotted, then I will immediately consider recourse to covering fire from an established, preferably entrenched position. However, I would not initiate firing as my primary option because that only increases the chance of a casualty and also announces our arrival to enemy. Sooner or later, these guys will move out of my effective 350m range and into enemy territory where I can no longer cover them, yet the enemy would know that an attempt at incursion has been made and will thus be able to isolate the party and capture/kill them, making the entire exercise futile.

 

[Dash]

I have always maintained that although state sponsored cross-border movement was a reality from both sides until 2003, the ceasefire agreement effectively put a stop to it. And there was not a single firing incident until 2009, I believe. During that time, the Kashmir problem was still continuing and had not changed so the correlation between the two is erroneous, as per my limited experience. Though I agree that fringe elements do move across the border, however it is not as easy a task as many of our friends here seem to think. There are only so many places between India and Pakistan in Kashmir where the border is not separated by a river, making it impossible to cross. As for the land borders, there is often a mine field, multiple rolls of razor wire with cans to detect movement, guard towers and regular patrols.

Just that bold part, the fring elements you are talking about are in both parts of the border. Although not easy by means of how you have described it later with reference to rivers and minefields, but looking through the lense I am wearing (and not limited to), only makes it a bit easier. I can fairly estimate that out of 500 attempts one group will succees and that "one" group is enough to get the job done and create mayhem. An example of which was in news in Indian media a week back about a group of infiltrators.

Second, we are increrasingly seeing mpore and more infiltration through sea route too. One example made headline and one two were recent, a les frequented and easier route as less secured. However its off topic as we are discussing land routes.

 

[Hellfire]

Military Tactics 101, if you are carrying out an incursion into enemy territory, you DO NOT use covering fire to announce your arrival and also your position.

Corollary to Military Tactics 101 - you do not do what your enemy would expect you to do ....! So what is it?

 

[Icarus]

Just that bold part, the fring elements you are talking about are in both parts of the border. Although not easy by means of how you have described it later with reference to rivers and minefields, but looking through the lense I am wearing (and not limited to), only makes it a bit easier. I can fairly estimate that out of 500 attempts one group will succees and that "one" group is enough to get the job done and create mayhem. An example of which was in news in Indian media a week back about a group of infiltrators.

Second, we are increrasingly seeing mpore and more infiltration through sea route too. One example made headline and one two were recent, a les frequented and easier route as less secured. However its off topic.

These fringe elements mostly consist of local militants who have family or sanctuaries on either side of the border, so I would not say that it is these guys who have been involved in the sea route movements and just for the record, movement through sea between the two states is surprisingly common, Indian liqour makes its way to Pakistan through the sea as smugglers pay fishermen to take them out into the sea where they can trade their cargo.

 

[Hellfire]

I still see the same holes in your argument, there's never a fixed, by-the-book approach but I have been posted to Kashmir during the escalation and have thus seen significant cross border movement from both sides, we never announced the arrival of our guys and neither did the Indians.

Its a trend which Pulsar is posting about. As far as I can say, for me it was marked by heightened UAV incursions by your side for some period at multiple points before ingress took place along with recce det from concerned launch commander. Now I am talking in the context of purely military interest as officially you will deny any such happenings and so we will be back to square one. But the fact remains, there have been patterns wherein like Pulsar has said, fire assault has been initiated in order to divert attention for a possible ingress (subsequently found as achieved) and patterns wherein there has been absolute silence for weeks prior to ingress.

 

[rockstarIN]

[QUOTE="Icarus, post: 8041454, member: 19602"]I have always maintained that although state sponsored cross-border movement was a reality from both sides until 2003, [/QUOTE]

What is the state sponsored crossing from Indian side to Pak side?

You mean to say we sent 'militants' to Pak Kashmir earlier?

 

[Dash]

These fringe elements mostly consist of local militants who have family or sanctuaries on either side of the border, so I would not say that it is these guys who have been involved in the sea route movements and just for the record, movement through sea between the two states is surprisingly common, Indian liqour makes its way to Pakistan through the sea as smugglers pay fishermen to take them out into the sea where they can trade their cargo.

Sir, you have mixed two things altogather. I was referring to the same fringe elements, who have hands in ploy to gather intel on troop movements and pass it onto the handlers cross border.

The reference to sea route was made as an alternative to your remarks on how difficult the land routes have become and i mentined that I will discuss only land routes.

That am trying to refute your observation that, pak army was not involved in diversionary firing to support ingression of militants recently. They have always supported inflitrators in scenarios I have cited above and some others just got lucky.

 

[Jamwal's]

True if we talk about 2015 India -Pak border clashes , there are more Indian casualties .
India : Pakistan
18 soldiers killed : 7 soldiers martyred
34 Civilians killed : 54 Civilians killed
Acording to WIki

Conclusion is Indian army tries to target Civilians ....
But its a good news that the firing has stopped , we should maintain this rhythm of peace .

Since when ISPR started giving correct figure of Pak Army casualties,and since pak media often complain to be under pressure from Army,these figures are hardly correct.

 

[Icarus]

[QUOTE="Icarus, post: 8041454, member: 19602"]I have always maintained that although state sponsored cross-border movement was a reality from both sides until 2003,

Saboteurs, intended to disrupt Pakistani operations by mining roads, brides and telecommunications infrastructure.