Pakistani Military Strength

[Quwa]

Mastan Khan - 2002 standoff achieved its strategy - India was claiming pak sanctioned & trained terrorists were involved in the Parliament attack, Mush backed down and promised to crackdown on terrorists in Pak. Thus India achieved it's strategic aim of forcing Pak to clamp down on terrorism and also gained International focus on State sponsored Terrorism in Pak.

Mush had to ban the Terrorist organisations due to India's & world pressure. Thereafter Kashmiri terrorist groups were banned by USA & UK.

Not a shot was fired, no one was killed and yet the result was achieved.

And Indian soldiers STILL died...and that due to India's poor mobilization.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The reply by Malhot shows that victory has different explanations for different nations. Some nations in their extreme humiliation declare victory. Is this the future super-power that the republican party is betting upon!
Yeah, this guy flies his damaged plane back to his base and is awarded "VEER CHAKKAR" just fo rbringing the damaged plane home. VOW. For some nations it is indeed a task of great MARVEL.

 

[Kaiser]

Pakistan in the 02 stand-off showed the world that our troops where prepared to fight at any given moment

We were able to mobilize 575,000 troops and call in a reserve force of 200,000 in just under 10 days. We were able to move our full ascets which where based in the west to the border in that time period as well. That is something India doesnt come close to achieving. IA troops and equipment got badly managed in the mobilization of the standoff.

Our fighters where ready to strike IA and IAF targets at any given time. Our navy and subs where put out into the sea. If it wasnt for international pressure we would have attack india on the 12th day of the stand off showing Pakistans armed forces doctrine of pre-emptive strike, we were in close reaches to wiping out much of IA's resources just by air strikes

 

[malhot]

The terminology used was " Coercive Diplomacy" put military pressure on Pak and at the same time put diplomatic pressure - the results are there for everyone to see, Mush reversed the Jihadi policy and banned them.

Guys - please Google, the answers are there, all you need is the wish to read the truth.

 

[Kaiser]

The terminology used was " Coercive Diplomacy" put military pressure on Pak and at the same time put diplomatic pressure - the results are there for everyone to see, Mush reversed the Jihadi policy and banned them.

Guys - please Google, the answers are there, all you need is the wish to read the truth.

Umm... and when did that happen?

In your dreams of taking over the world with the great army of hanuman?

What really happened was that when mushy threatened to nuke hindoostan your prime minister pussied out and agreed to demobilize its troops that is the truth

I dont think you see do you? WE WILL CONTINUE SUPPORTING THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS ASLONG AS THEY WANT FREEDOM this has even been said by mushy and parliament

 

[Bull]

Pakistan in the 02 stand-off showed the world that our troops where prepared to fight at any given moment

We were able to mobilize 575,000 troops and call in a reserve force of 200,000 in just under 10 days. We were able to move our full ascets which where based in the west to the border in that time period as well. That is something India doesnt come close to achieving. IA troops and equipment got badly managed in the mobilization of the standoff.

Our fighters where ready to strike IA and IAF targets at any given time. Our navy and subs where put out into the sea. If it wasnt for international pressure we would have attack india on the 12th day of the stand off showing Pakistans armed forces doctrine of pre-emptive strike, we were in close reaches to wiping out much of IA's resources just by air strikes

PA is a credible org,dot make it look like fiction of imagination by these commenTS!!!

 

[Sid]

Pakistan in the 02 stand-off showed the world that our troops where prepared to fight at any given moment

We were able to mobilize 575,000 troops and call in a reserve force of 200,000 in just under 10 days. We were able to move our full ascets which where based in the west to the border in that time period as well. That is something India doesnt come close to achieving. IA troops and equipment got badly managed in the mobilization of the standoff.

Our fighters where ready to strike IA and IAF targets at any given time. Our navy and subs where put out into the sea. If it wasnt for international pressure we would have attack india on the 12th day of the stand off showing Pakistans armed forces doctrine of pre-emptive strike, we were in close reaches to wiping out much of IA's resources just by air strikes

Grow the hell up! Instead of posting hogwash, try to be more meaningful and realistic in what really happened. Pakistan armed forces do NOT have a pre-emptive strike doctrine.

 

[Kaiser]

Grow the hell up! Instead of posting hogwash, try to be more meaningful and realistic in what really happened. Pakistan armed forces do NOT have a pre-emptive strike doctrine.

Do you have common sense? Look at PAF, PN'S and PA'S doctrine of warfare... there main liability is quick mobilization and pre-emptive action before the enemy can launch an offense at the same time stay defensive

Pakistani Army has espoused a doctrine of limited "offensive-defense" which it has tried to refine consistently ever since 1989 when it was pushed out to the formations during "Exercise Zarb-e-Momin". The main purpose of this strategy is to launch a sizeable offensive into enemy territory rather than wait to be hit from the enemy's offensive attack. The doctrine is based on the premise that while on the offensive, the enemy can be kept off-balance while allowing Pakistani Army to be able to seize enemy territory of strategic importance which can be used as a bargaining chip on the negotiating table. In order to do this, currently Pakistani Army maintains two sizeable strike Corps which will be backed up by holding Corps forming the defensive tier behind the strike corps. By pushing the offensive into the enemy territory, the Pakistani Army hopes to consolidate its gains inside the enemy's territory and will attempt to keep the war on the enemy side of the border rather than giving ground on the Pakistani side.
In the 1990s, the Army created a strong centralized corps of reserves for its formations in the critical semi-desert and desert sectors in southern Punjab and Sindh provinces. These new formations were rapidly equipped with assets needed for mechanized capability. These reserve formations are dual-capable, meaning they can be used for offensive as well as defensive (holding) purposes.
Pakistan, today has a 45 day reserve of ammunition and fuel as compared to only 13 days in 1965 and has fairly effective and efficient lines of communication and can fully mobilize its formations in less than 96 hours owing to the lack of depth in the country's North South axis.

If you know so much of the Pakistani military's doctrine then please share it with us :toast:

 

[Sid]

Then what is it idiot?

Do you have common sense? Look at PAF, PN'S and PA'S doctrine of warfare... there main liability is quick mobilization and pre-emptive action before the enemy can launch an offense at the same time stay defensive

I realize, your lack of debating etiquettes mires your ability to argue without using foul language.

Secondly, the piece you quoted needs a 'link'.

And what you have stated so far, has only confirmed my suspicion that you do not know anything about military strategy but are dying to be pro-claimed as a 'wannabe' General of sorts. Lets see now, 'pre-emptive' strategy is not the same as 'offensive-defence' strategy simply because 'pre-emption' is when you strike an opposing force before it strikes you but you have to be certain that an imminent strike from that force is anticipated and this strategy is usually deployed at the start of hostilities. 'Offensive-Defence' comes in to play when hostilities are already well under-way and you want to 'take the fight to them' instead of getting bogged down on your own territory; this being used to pressurize the opposing force in to making concessions at any negotiations that would follow the hostilities.

Time and again, 1965 and 1999 being prime examples; Pakistan has NOT used a 'pre-emptive' doctrine since an imminent Indian attack was NOT anticipated in either scenario. The operations that led to full-scale standoffs between the two forces were mere adventurism on the part of Pakistan Army to gain a territorial foothold swiftly. And when the hostilities started to go fullscale, Pakistan used its 'offensive-defence' doctrine to take the fight to the Indians which is consistent from what it claims.

Hope that is enough for starters.

 

[bobloblaw]

I realize, your lack of debating etiquettes mires your ability to argue without using foul language.

Secondly, the piece you quoted needs a 'link'.

And what you have stated so far, has only confirmed my suspicion that you do not know anything about military strategy but are dying to be pro-claimed as a 'wannabe' General of sorts. Lets see now, 'pre-emptive' strategy is not the same as 'offensive-defence' strategy simply because 'pre-emption' is when you strike an opposing force before it strikes you but you have to be certain that an imminent strike from that force is anticipated and this strategy is usually deployed at the start of hostilities. 'Offensive-Defence' comes in to play when hostilities are already well under-way and you want to 'take the fight to them' instead of getting bogged down on your own territory; this being used to pressurize the opposing force in to making concessions at any negotiations that would follow the hostilities.

Time and again, 1965 and 1999 being prime examples; Pakistan has NOT used a 'pre-emptive' doctrine since an imminent Indian attack was NOT anticipated in either scenario. The operations that led to full-scale standoffs between the two forces were mere adventurism on the part of Pakistan Army to gain a territorial foothold swiftly. And when the hostilities started to go fullscale, Pakistan used its 'offensive-defence' doctrine to take the fight to the Indians which is consistent from what it claims.

Hope that is enough for starters.

Dude, I admire your language skills.. its so calm and to the point, but at the same time, not vulgar

:toast:

 

[vnomad]

Pakistan in the 02 stand-off showed the world that If it wasnt for international pressure we would have attack india on the 12th day of the stand off showing Pakistans armed forces doctrine of pre-emptive strike, we were in close reaches to wiping out much of IA's resources just by air strikes

And the PAF would have destroyed the vastly inferior IAF through pre-emptive strikes? Very very unlikely. It doesn't work that way.

 

[vnomad]

Yes yes
And great 1 million man army of hanuman marched to the border then back

Your indian army is the one that backed down right after our foreign minister said that we wouldnt hesitate to nuke hindoostan.

Pakistan will not, repeat not go nuclear inspite of a military defeat as along as its existance as a nation is unthreatened. The Indian leadership is well aware of this fact.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Pakistan will not, repeat not go nuclear inspite of a military defeat as along as its existance as a nation is unthreatened. The Indian leadership is well aware of this fact.

1. Its not that simple. As the situation deteriorates militarily, Pak. militarily will increase the risk of nuclear exchange. For e.g. as the fighting continues the warheads might be mated to the missiles, as it continues further it might be placed under the go command of low level commanders and so on. That is as the situation worsenes, the Pak. military will steadily increase the risk of mutual harm (by nuclear exchange) without making an ultimatum threat but by making clear that it is "losing" control in a controlled manner and that if India continues on its current path there is always the possibility that a nuclear exchange might happen by "mistake".

Such a manner of making increasing probabilistic threat will ensure that it might deter the Indians while at the same time ensuring that the risk is not unacceptabily high as it would occur from a simple ultimatum threat. In short it is a game of brinksmanship and sometimes in brinksmanship things go wrong and therefore it is wrong to assume that a nuclear exchange might not occur even if Pakistan's existence is not threatened.

 

[vnomad]

1. Its not that simple. As the situation deteriorates militarily, Pak. militarily will increase the risk of nuclear exchange. For e.g. as the fighting continues the warheads might be mated to the missiles, as it continues further it might be placed under the go command of low level commanders and so on. That is as the situation worsenes, the Pak. military will steadily increase the risk of mutual harm (by nuclear exchange) without making an ultimatum threat but by making clear that it is "losing" control in a controlled manner and that if India continues on its current path there is always the possibility that a nuclear exchange might happen by "mistake".

Such a manner of making increasing probabilistic threat will ensure that it might deter the Indians while at the same time ensuring that the risk is not unacceptabily high as it would occur from a simple ultimatum threat. In short it is a game of brinksmanship and sometimes in brinksmanship things go wrong and therefore it is wrong to assume that a nuclear exchange might not occur even if Pakistan's existence is not threatened.

Are you sure about the delivery systems being in the hands of junior officers. Because it seems stupidity to sacrifice one's nation 'by mistake'.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Pakistan will not, repeat not go nuclear inspite of a military defeat as along as its existance as a nation is unthreatened. The Indian leadership is well aware of this fact.

I disagree.
It was precisely bcoz of the fear that cross-border strikes on terrorist camps may lead to a nuclear war that actual war never happened in 2002 despite the armed forces pressuring the govt. to act tough.After the parliament attack morale among indian troops was high and they were eager to fight.One of the ex-army generals revealed that later on.But our politicians were afraid of nukes.