Sorry, I just saw this. I will do that, for the special attention of
@Signalian,
@T-123456 and your kind self.
There are others:
@Aamir Hussain
@Armchair
@IceCold
@MastanKhan
PN was not given importance in the past based on the length of the coastline of Pakistan. The unfolding of events has shown that the flaw in that thinking pattern.
Frankly, I have my problems with even this opening sentence: the length of the coastline of Pakistan has got NOTHING to do with the strength of the Pakistan Navy. The PN should be oriented to meet its major tasks and objectives; if I might take the liberty of summarising these, they would be:
- Defending Pakistan's Sea Lines of Communications (SLOC);
- Preventing a naval attack on shore-based installations;
- Preventing an amphibious attack, either a tactical attack or a strategic one, on Pakistan's mainland;
- Preserving control over economic resources within Pakistan's Exclusive Economic Zone;
So that includes the curious case of the dog in the night-time (note to Moderators: this is a quotation from the body of works describing the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, specifically The Adventure of Silver Blaze, and I am not calling any member a dog), but I will expand on that in the next block of text.
The point is that nowhere does the length of the coastline figure in this, not even in #2 or in #3; those two tasks are detection tasks, and interdiction tasks, not tasks for a naval ship (IMO).
Now most of areas of PN are being expanded; surface combatants, subs, aircrafts, helicopters, installations, basesi and of course Marines.
This worries me: why 'of course'?
[Warning:
Lecture follows - skip this section for a quick read] As we all know, the first Marines were historically Roman legionnaires who used the 'corvus' to neutralise Carthaginian superiority at sea, in seamanship and ship-handling. Closer to our times, we have the Royal Spanish Marines, who still exist and are, I think, the oldest Marine Corps in the world; they were followed by the Royal Marines of Britain, who served as armed guards on HM ships, as additional hands for physical labour intensive shipboard tasks (in the pages of Hornblower stories there is a description of such Marines handling a capstan and releasing the trained crew to go topside), to fire on enemy ships clearing their masts and picking off their officers, and to make landings on shore. This amphibious capability took a long, long time in coming, and was really a modern phenomenon; the US Marines do have a stronger tradition, from 'the walls of Montezuma', long dead by assassination by the conquistadores, to 'the shores of Tripoli', reminding us all that Syria is a chapter in a large book.[
End of Lecture]
The question is: did Marines figure in the military doctrine of, say, the Germans, or the Russians? Or even the French? (the Dutch have Marines, but they didn't do much invading with them). So why 'of course'?
Nobody other than the Anglo-Americans had the amphibious capability and expeditionary doctrine, right from the outset. In spite of Walcheren, in spite of Dieppe.
When talking of Marines, the equipment shows them as light infantry with AD capability, mostly like National Guard of Pakistan. NG battalions have the same role and almost the same equipment, the only difference being that NG is deployed on land while Marines are deployed on coast. However, if you look closely, there is one huge difference (no not the uniforms or hierarchy of who they report to !!!), Pakistan Marines are trained for carrying out assaults (amphibious and conventional) while the NG is trained primarily to defend an area.
My point being :The role of Marines, based on their training, not equipment, is to fight a war on enemy's turf just like regular infantry of Pakistan Army.
ARE the Pakistan Marines trained for carrying out assaults (amphibious and conventional)? How and where did this happen? There are two divisions, that's about 30,000 troops, of the Indian Army that are actively involved in amphibious operations training: a quick look at the command structure will tell any literate person where they are. A third is reported to be facing in the opposite cardinal direction.
In a lighter vein,
Those students of military affairs who have followed the growth and development of nearby navies will already have noticed that the Indian Navy already has the following amphibious capability:
- Amphibious transport dock - 1 (this vessel is over 15,000 MT displacement; just for comparison, that was approximately the displacement of the original INS Vikrant)
- Landing ship tank - 5 (5,600 MT)
- Landing ship tank - 3 (1,100 MT)
- Landing craft utility - 2 (500 MT)
- Landing craft utility - 5 (830 MT)
The point being? How does this connect up to the discussion on the Pakistan Marines?
Simply to point out that any serious training of the Marines to fight on the enemy's turf (that should probably read,"...sandy beaches...") needs serious investment in supporting equipment, starting with ships; the landing craft utility class mentioned in the list above, the 830 MT class, is being churned out in local shipyards and is expected to be deployed in large numbers). Is this the correct strategy for Pakistan, for Pakistan's Navy and for Pakistan's Marines?
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Can the Marines operate with just amphibious ships? What about the equipment needed to carve out a bridgehead and to hold it? What about air cover, against an enemy that plans to run two aircraft carriers, and attack aircraft out of those? Or marine reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft covering the Arabian Sea thoroughly?
Instead, should not the Navy be concentrating on getting more submarines, more shore-based anti-ship missiles, more MRAS aircraft, more radar equipment along the coasts?
In order to enhance the offensive capability of the ground formations of Pakistan Military, the role of Marines in future conflicts is being expanded. lets talk about the training part first and then we can come on the equipment part. Training of Marines is carried out in Army's institutions (such as Infantry School, Quetta etc). You will be familiar with the level of instruction, training, tactic etc taught at that institution. Marines are being trained not to police inside Pakistan but to fight inside India. Marines work closely with Army and presently depend upon heavy fire support support from Army.
Those are good things, but how do the Marines get inside India? Who gives them 'heavy fire support' during their landings, the USS Nevada?
The training of Marines as seen in amphibious warfare is assaulting beaches, riverines etc, not carrying out IB-Ops like FC, Police etc.
Marines use light weapons as they still are tasked with guarding installations, raiding ships if necessary to assist Coast guard and safe guard the coast.
These two statements just flatly contradict each other.
We still haven't 'got' why we need Pakistan Marines to get into amphibious warfare, assaulting beaches and riverines, and we still haven't got why they shouldn't stick to guarding installations, assisting the Coast Guard and safeguarding the coast.
Coming to the equipment part, If PA is generous enough to hand over MBT and artillery to ParaMilitary (FC), then there are bright chances that Marines could get equipment seconded from the Army.
Again and again, we come up against the same puzzle: why are the Pakistan Marines being pushed into taking on tasks that may never arise, and that will prove fatal if they do arise? Why are they being trained on equipment that they do not have now, and that they will acquire by spending a defence rupee that might have gone to an already hard-pressed Army and Air Force? What is the comparative advantage of building up this new force, as against reinforcing the Army and the Air Force?
Although FC has got its own training schools, out of necessity FC was given training on this heavy equipment in Army's Armor and Artillery Schools. Since the FC operated in an environment and against an enemy where such weapons were necessary, something that couldn't have been expected maybe two decades ago. Now Marines, who already are trained in Army institutions and operate closely with Army, at some stage can be given training on heavy weapons as the need arises.
<sarcasm warning>There are very, very few amphibious landing ships that the Army can lend the Pakistan Marines.
Whenever there is talk of CPEC, protecting the waters and the coast becomes the focus of everyone. It is true that expansion of Navy is linked with CPEC project, however, there is much more at stake in case of war with India.
Respectfully, the CPEC should remain the focus of the Marines task, NOT a hypothetical task in case of war with India. The one is a plausible role, not entirely covered by any other body, one that needs to be done as a combination of a Rangers role (Pakistani Rangers) and an FC role. The FC role, because this force, possibly the Pakistan Marines, should have the capability of operating heavy firepower, the Rangers role because they need to remain a light infantry (supporting and assisting the regular civilian police, without getting into day-to-day police administration).
It may be best to leave consideration of the next two paragraphs to a later point of time, once other preliminary discussions are over. This post therefore ends HERE.
25 Mech Div of 5-Corps is tasked with penetrating eastwards inside India with jumping off point provided by 16 ID and 18 ID. Therefore, 5 Corps will leave its peacetime area and move out Sindh zone into India.The coastline is now empty of Army, with Rangers deployed in Karachi and assisting Army on the border. The formations based in Quetta will either go eastwards or north-east, to reinforce threatened sectors. FC will be deployed in Quetta and on western border. If the Marine formation is about a division strength or more, the coastline can be well defended in case of an amphibious attack, the rear area of 5-Corps can be protected by Marines incase of an air drop of IA into Sindh and the Marines can also protect the southern flank of 5-Corps by entering into India staying on 5-Corps southern flank, supported by 5-Corps assets for supplies and heavy firepower. A brigade sized Marine force can do neither of these tasks, division strength is required. Considering the size of IN, an amphibious attack by PM would be suicidal but that depends upon circumstances present at that time.
During peace time in southern Pakistan, while the coast guard stays in waters, Rangers and FC Patrol the cities, Army sits in barracks or conducts exercises in desert, the Marines protect the creeks, the coast, Naval installations and assist navy and Coast Guard in Coastal Operations. IMO, to give more operational capabilities to Marines, they should be deployed on LOC and take part in WOT with Army. Extra 2-3 battalions of Marines on LOC with support of artillery from X-Corps or 12 ID will boost defensive and offensive capability of Pakistani assets in the region. The units of PA which need to go back to peace area deployment in cantts from Western border, can be replaced with a battalion or 2 of Marines. There is presence of Army required in Swat, a detachment of Marines can also serve in that area. Due to the training on Army's standards, Marines can easily replace infantry battalions of Pakistan Army whenever needed. Marines could form back up for Army, better than NG, FC and Rangers.
)
