Pak Army's mass mobilization strategy

[Signalian]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a21418/chinas-air-force-largest-military-aircraft-y-20/

@Sarge Sir the AK could become airborne if we had some of these.

The main purpose of such aircraft is to supply reinforcements and weaponry to huge formations in far flung areas. IL-76 and C-17 are made for the same job.

Pakistani Army is not deployed at far flung places in the world in large numbers except KSA to keep such a massive transport aircraft in inventory. Pakistan itself is not a large country terrain wise like Russia, China etc that rapid deployment needs large transport aircrafts to the opposite edges of the country. Even if it carries para troopers to be deployed in a war, its like putting all eggs in one basket, one missile can make it history.3-4 C-130's can do the same job and have more chances of survival.

The sole purpose of just deploying airborne tanks doesnt justify its procurement. Para dropping tanks over mountainous terrain may not be a good idea. Infact tanks operating in mountain can easily be ambushed. One ATGM team sitting at peak can stop the advance of the whole armoured column. The roads are usually one lane or two lanes only. tanks cannot manoeuvre and exploit terrain. Tank becomes a mobile direct firepower weapon only where as indirect firepower like artillery is much more important in mountain warfare.

Here is a scenario for you and its very easy. use google maps if you dont know the area.

War has started. You have to take Uri and then advance towards Baramula. Pakistani forces advance from two sides towards Uri. One Pakistani force from Chakothi engages Indian Army at Salambad, west of Uri. Second force takes a difficult route and enters India from south through mountains and engages Indian Army around Dachi to cut off the Uri - Gharkote Road. Both forces face stiff resistance and cannot make progress. Indian reinforcements from Baramula are expected

You para drop a force between Uri and Baramula , bulk of your forces get dropped near Uri Hydro electric project and now you have to advance towards Baramula as well as send some forces north to engage Indian Army at Uri from a third direction along the Jhelum river.
Its a single road from Uri to baramula along jhelum river.

how will you employ airborne tanks on this terrain?
will you divide your forces to move towards Baramula or Uri as u r sitting between both?
will u take all forces and just go towards Baramula?
will you take all forces and help capture Uri?

how will your infantry move? on foot through mountains or on trucks through road? from where will you motor transport for them?
will you have airborne artillery? where will you deploy it?some of the area north of Uri maybe under cover of pakistani artillery.

 

[CriticalThought]

The main purpose of such aircraft is to supply reinforcements and weaponry to huge formations in far flung areas. IL-76 and C-17 are made for the same job.

Pakistani Army is not deployed at far flung places in the world in large numbers except KSA to keep such a massive transport aircraft in inventory. Pakistan itself is not a large country terrain wise like Russia, China etc that rapid deployment needs large transport aircrafts to the opposite edges of the country. Even if it carries para troopers to be deployed in a war, its like putting all eggs in one basket, one missile can make it history.3-4 C-130's can do the same job and have more chances of survival.

The sole purpose of just deploying airborne tanks doesnt justify its procurement. Para dropping tanks over mountainous terrain may not be a good idea. Infact tanks operating in mountain can easily be ambushed. One ATGM team sitting at peak can stop the advance of the whole armoured column. The roads are usually one lane or two lanes only. tanks cannot manoeuvre and exploit terrain. Tank becomes a mobile direct firepower weapon only where as indirect firepower like artillery is much more important in mountain warfare.

Here is a scenario for you and its very easy. use google maps if you dont know the area.

War has started. You have to take Uri and then advance towards Baramula. Pakistani forces advance from two sides towards Uri. One Pakistani force from Chakothi engages Indian Army at Salambad, west of Uri. Second force takes a difficult route and enters India from south through mountains and engages Indian Army around Dachi to cut off the Uri - Gharkote Road. Both forces face stiff resistance and cannot make progress. Indian reinforcements from Baramula are expected

You para drop a force between Uri and Baramula , bulk of your forces get dropped near Uri Hydro electric project and now you have to advance towards Baramula as well as send some forces north to engage Indian Army at Uri from a third direction along the Jhelum river.
Its a single road from Uri to baramula along jhelum river.

how will you employ airborne tanks on this terrain?
will you divide your forces to move towards Baramula or Uri as u r sitting between both?
will u take all forces and just go towards Baramula?
will you take all forces and help capture Uri?

how will your infantry move? on foot through mountains or on trucks through road? from where will you motor transport for them?
will you have airborne artillery? where will you deploy it?some of the area north of Uri maybe under cover of pakistani artillery.

Sir the way I look at the map, Srinagar is a valley surrounded by mountains. I would avoid face to face conflict in the mountains. As a first maneuver, I would try to claim approx. the territory marked in red. The air drop would be around Srinagar which looks to be amenable to both infantry and tank movement. The mountains will face heavy aerial bombardment, followed by heli-borne forces.

Of course this is only a very high level strategy where I am missing a lot of knowledge on the lay of the land and concentration of enemy troops and his capabilities. But in any case, the level area in and around Srinagar feels like the ideal place for air drop.

 

[Basel]

What did they achieve by Operation Gibralter and Kargil,India has balls thats why both the operation objective get failed badly ,Inbetween you also miss Siachin.

Don't try to divert the talk, Siachin was not military area that was an coward act because you knew there will be no response as it's not militarized by both sides. If you have balls do something Pakistan have done previously in militarized areas. Since 2002 you Indian only talk big on ground 7 times larger country look impotent.

Without winning air supremacy over the battlefield the Pakistani army will not even leave their bunkers LET alone go 50km into indian territory. Before you step foot into indian land you need to have won the air battle OTHERWISE the indian mirages & jaguars will annilhate your forward columns .Your entire military is a defensive /reactionary military short range fighters modest transport planes and helicopters.

Your military is hold and fight

AS FOR HAVING BALLS - I suggest you read saichen 1984 how the Indians snatched the heights from you.

DONT FORGET BASEL the Pakistanis are the ones whosome want Kashmir - FOR WHICH you have to fight for it - At the moment you talk AND throw mortars over BUT nothing else.

Chest thumping on Siachin shows how impotent 7 times larger our foe is. It was not militarized area and both countries knew that placing units there is useless due to geography of area, India captured area because Pakistan never knew that India is so desperate to militarize useless Siachin.

Edit.

Currently Pakistan don't want to fight any war with anyone due to the economic opportunity created by CPEC and India knows that and they want to exploit the situation. Pakistan is responsive now in terms of fighting on LOC.

For your first para we need another thread to discuss it because it not simple.

 

[Signalian]

Sir the way I look at the map, Srinagar is a valley surrounded by mountains. I would avoid face to face conflict in the mountains. As a first maneuver, I would try to claim approx. the territory marked in red. The air drop would be around Srinagar which looks to be amenable to both infantry and tank movement. The mountains will face heavy aerial bombardment, followed by heli-borne forces.

Of course this is only a very high level strategy where I am missing a lot of knowledge on the lay of the land and concentration of enemy troops and his capabilities. But in any case, the level area in and around Srinagar feels like the ideal place for air drop.


View attachment 357716

should have gone from easy to high level instead of jumping

another few points.
1. You need ground forces to link up with air borne forces otherwise the para dropped forces will get decimated when surrounded after sometime. Airborne forces alone cannot take all the red line you have marked. Airborne forces help the ground forces speedily capture area. Both need to work together.
2. you need to have jump off points to launch your next attacks and these jump off points are usually critical intersections or strategically located cities. sometimes its important to bypass points which can cause un necessary causalities.
3. Enemy AD and IAF is a threat for all transport planes, the more deeper you fly into enemy territory, the more dangerous the task becomes. Planes need to make it back also for next missions.

All these factors will come into play about location of air drop. In any case, you should study terrain, road network, communication infrastructure and other significant factors like dams, airports, weather, enemy reinforcements. enemy positions etc

 

[GR!FF!N]

Firstly, An amphibious assault is even harder than an airborne or air assault ops.

Actually,you're wrong. Amphibious Assault brings Warships into the picture as well as it can bring Armor ashore to fight.Though this form of battle is also extremely tough,but Airborne Assault and Air Assault is hardest form as the troops doesn't enjoy any armor support(unless they achieve some for of breakthrough to connect them) and surrounded by enemies.Along with it,These soldiers generally remain less provisioned and lightly armored and though sometimes they carry ATGMs and Light mortars to support,it is considered "Lightly Armed".They generally provisioned to fight a battle upto 2-3 days.That is why "Hold and Seizure" kind of ops are considered extremely dangerous and history proved one thing,Number counts to nothing if support doesn't come soon.Example,Operation Market Garden.Extraction is another headache.If proper Anti Air weapons are in place,then both insertion as well as extraction can prove extremely risky.

Secondly, Air assault operation doesnt include Para troopers, it includes infantry riding in helicopters and dropped at Landing Zone through touch down or rappel. An Airborne operations includes para troopers who are para dropped through parachutes by transport planes on Landing zone.

I meant both Air Assault as well as Airborne Assault.India has experience of both.During 1971,we inserted heli borne troops in East Pakistan,in 80s in Sri Lanka. Poor planned and misfortune made Sri Lankan operation a disaster.Which only proves that even professionally trained special forces can suffer catastrophe if something goes wrong against insurgents.That is why it is considered so risky,because you're dropping your soldiers into a furnace and hoping everything goes according to planned.

Thirdly, Air Assault troops can carry powerful weapons with them like ATGM, Mortar, SAM etc which can give them a lethal punch against enemy. These weapons help them engage heavily entrenched enemy in bunkers or hardened shelters, tanks and other armoured vehicles. In some cases, Gunships also accompany air assault troops and provide devastating fire power.

As I mentioned earlier,it is unless Enemy Air defense is down.For that,One has to achieve Total Air superiority,like USA did in Iraq War.

Fourthly, do yourself a favour and get out of the past. Doctrines and strategies are constantly evolving. This can be seen through Military excercises and relevant training.

Yes it is.We're seeing forms like "Fake Insurgency" where boundaries are not White and Black rather Gray.But if you are talking to a form of warfare in a whole,which was applicable 70 years ago is still applicable now.

 

[ravi gupta]

Don't try to divert the talk, Siachin was not military area that was an coward act because you knew there will be no response as it's not militarized by both sides. If you have balls do something Pakistan have done previously in militarized areas. Since 2002 you Indian only talk big on ground 7 times larger country look impotent.



Chest thumping on Siachin shows how impotent 7 times larger our foe is. It was not militarized area and both countries knew that placing units there is useless due to geography of area, India captured area because Pakistan never knew that India is so desperate to militarize useless Siachin.

Edit.

Currently Pakistan don't want to fight any war with anyone due to the economic opportunity created by CPEC and India knows that and they want to exploit the situation. Pakistan is responsive now in terms of fighting on LOC.

For your first para we need another thread to discuss it because it not simple.

I think we are going offtopic here,However on Siachin either you are ignorant or tried to be.
FYI find out about iconic Quiad post,how it get converted in Bana post,you will get to know what balls IA have.

 

[Tom M]

First of all I want to note my own lack of knowledge of the terrain along the LoC. Also, my intention is to raise the topic and via this forum make sure relevant people are thinking about it.

As far as I know, the mountainous terrain along the LoC does not lend itself to mass mobilization of armor and infantry. If the Pak army is serious about freeing Kashmir at some point in the future, it needs a plan for mass mobilization. To me, the most optimal way is through air drops. This means having a large fleet of cargo aircraft and regular practice of air drops involving both infantry AND armor. Especially, I am unaware of any exercise by Pak army where air drops of armor have been practiced.

Moving away from LoC, let us discuss how such a maneuvor would unfold in practice. Air superiority will be a must, along with complete clearance of enemy's air defence. This will be followed by the actual drop.

The situations where such a technique could be employed are:

1. Completely unexpected flanking/surrounding of the enemy from behind, or from the sides. This will be beneficial in multiple theatres: the plains of Punjab, deserts of Thar and Cholistan, LoC, and the rugged mountains of Afghanistan.

2. Avoiding areas of high radioactivity. In case the Nasr comes into play in response to an Indian cold start, such a maneuvor would be highly beneficial to get own troops across radioactive areas.

In short, air mobilization is an extremely useful tool in the general's belt and I would like to see our army being capable of employing it as and when needed.

EDIT: After seeing multiple posters making the mistake, I need to point out this thread is about developing future capability rather than an analysis of current situation.

To be frank, after reading your hypothetical scenario I genuinely feel you might have forgot or missed one important part. If Pakistan want to win a war against India, you need a complete Navel superiority along with Air as well. Else this is not gonna work. A complete naval blockade of Pakistan means you won'be able to sustain the war for a long time. The majority of cargo come over sea not air or land.

 

[The Sandman]

FYI find out about iconic Quiad post,how it get converted in Bana post,you will get to know what balls IA have.

https://defence.pk/threads/bravery-beyond-comparison-hony-capt-bana-singh.173040/page-2#post-5189454

 

[Tom M]

Sir the way I look at the map, Srinagar is a valley surrounded by mountains. I would avoid face to face conflict in the mountains. As a first maneuver, I would try to claim approx. the territory marked in red. The air drop would be around Srinagar which looks to be amenable to both infantry and tank movement. The mountains will face heavy aerial bombardment, followed by heli-borne forces.

Of course this is only a very high level strategy where I am missing a lot of knowledge on the lay of the land and concentration of enemy troops and his capabilities. But in any case, the level area in and around Srinagar feels like the ideal place for air drop.


View attachment 357716

I beg to differ with you sir, not because your scenarios is bad or non-realistic but given the sheer concentration of troops currently in Kashmir alone, by the time you launch an attack on Srinagar, Muzaffarabad, Sialkot or even Islamabad will be already under attack. That's the only reason to maintaining such high concentration of troops in Kashmir.

 

[ravi gupta]

https://defence.pk/threads/bravery-beyond-comparison-hony-capt-bana-singh.173040/page-2#post-5189454

Thanks,your thread proved there was a fight and we took it back,pakistani has tried several times to take back there iconic post,however failed.

 

[CriticalThought]

To be frank, after reading your hypothetical scenario I genuinely feel you might have forgot or missed one important part. If Pakistan want to win a war against India, you need a complete Navel superiority along with Air as well. Else this is not gonna work. A complete naval blockade of Pakistan means you won'be able to sustain the war for a long time. The majority of cargo come over sea not air or land.

I beg to differ with you sir, not because your scenarios is bad or non-realistic but given the sheer concentration of troops currently in Kashmir alone, by the time you launch an attack on Srinagar, Muzaffarabad, Sialkot or even Islamabad will be already under attack. That's the only reason to maintaining such high concentration of troops in Kashmir.

First, my scenario is not intended to cover a whole year. It is crafted to show the efficacy of a particular maneuver which I want our army to practice. As I have said before, using it in actual combat is up to the generals.

And you have missed the part on heavy aerial bombardment. Anyway, when you are discussing maneuvers and tactics, you make a lot of assumptions. Trying to treat all contingencies would mean you can't ever discuss any tactic in isolation.

 

[Tom M]

First, my scenario is not intended to cover a whole year. It is crafted to show the efficacy of a particular maneuver which I want our army to practice. As I have said before, using it in actual combat is up to the generals.

And you have missed the part on heavy aerial bombardment. Anyway, when you are discussing maneuvers and tactics, you make a lot of assumptions. Trying to treat all contingencies would mean you can't ever discuss any tactic in isolation.

Well I suppose it is the contingency and threats, including the worst case scenario one should be considering first before planning such operations. You cannot expect the enemy to be simply defending the assault. Enemy will surely mount a counter attack. If there is preparation to counter that, the entire exercise will obviously fail.

 

[Signalian]

Actually,you're wrong. Amphibious Assault brings Warships into the picture as well as it can bring Armor ashore to fight.Though this form of battle is also extremely tough,but Airborne Assault and Air Assault is hardest form as the troops doesn't enjoy any armor support(unless they achieve some for of breakthrough to connect them) and surrounded by enemies.Along with it,These soldiers generally remain less provisioned and lightly armored and though sometimes they carry ATGMs and Light mortars to support,it is considered "Lightly Armed".They generally provisioned to fight a battle upto 2-3 days.That is why "Hold and Seizure" kind of ops are considered extremely dangerous and history proved one thing,Number counts to nothing if support doesn't come soon.Example,Operation Market Garden.Extraction is another headache.If proper Anti Air weapons are in place,then both insertion as well as extraction can prove extremely risky.

Allow me to again correct you again and try NOT to spread mis-information for the sake of an argument .

Air Borne forces use all the heavy weapons:

1. Tanks/armoured vehicles
The Russians use BMD series of armoured vehicles, the US forces used M-551 Sheridan Tank. US uses LAPES system to drop tanks without landing the aircraft.

2. Artillery
A version of M-101 105mm howitzer, in use with Pakistan Army also. Interestingly, Russians even used SP guns like ASU-57.
Rest of Airborne artillery is mentioned here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_gun

3. UAV's even now..
Russians use Orlan-10.

Anyways, here is a complete list of HEAVY WEAPONS used by Russian Airborne Forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops

I have already explained weapons of Air Assault Forces, dedicated Gunships give them extra firepower.

I meant both Air Assault as well as Airborne Assault.India has experience of both.During 1971,we inserted heli borne troops in East Pakistan,in 80s in Sri Lanka. Poor planned and misfortune made Sri Lankan operation a disaster.Which only proves that even professionally trained special forces can suffer catastrophe if something goes wrong against insurgents.That is why it is considered so risky,because you're dropping your soldiers into a furnace and hoping everything goes according to planned.

Now that you have been enlightened about the basic difference between AIRBORNE and AIR ASSAULT, take it to an Indian Army related thread. This thread is about Pakistan Forces.

As I mentioned earlier,it is unless Enemy Air defense is down.For that,One has to achieve Total Air superiority,like USA did in Iraq War.

Depends upon terrain and many other operational factors. Just enemy AD and AF cannot deter all aerial movements. In any case USA-Iraq example isnt relevant in India-Pakistan war. India cannot also achieve aerial superiority over Pakistan.

Yes it is.We're seeing forms like "Fake Insurgency" where boundaries are not White and Black rather Gray.But if you are talking to a form of warfare in a whole,which was applicable 70 years ago is still applicable now.

Try to stick to the topic, take your conspiracy theories to related topics.

I beg to differ with you sir, not because your scenarios is bad or non-realistic but given the sheer concentration of troops currently in Kashmir alone, by the time you launch an attack on Srinagar, Muzaffarabad, Sialkot or even Islamabad will be already under attack. That's the only reason to maintaining such high concentration of troops in Kashmir.

That is true unfortunately.

 

[Tom M]

That is true unfortunately.

Well yes, really unfortunate for the enemy.

 

[CriticalThought]

Actually,you're wrong. Amphibious Assault brings Warships into the picture as well as it can bring Armor ashore to fight.Though this form of battle is also extremely tough,but Airborne Assault and Air Assault is hardest form as the troops doesn't enjoy any armor support(unless they achieve some for of breakthrough to connect them) and surrounded by enemies.

Please do not spread misinformation.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_warfare

Since the 20th century an amphibious landing of troops on a beachhead is acknowledged as the most complex of all military maneuvers. The undertaking requires an intricate coordination of numerous military specialties, including air power, naval gunfire, naval transport, logistical planning, specialized equipment, land warfare, tactics, and extensive training in the nuances of this maneuver for all personnel involved.