Rahul M wrote:
________________________
was this posted before ?
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/06/se ... ndias.html
A seminar on modernisation of India's infantry was held on May 25 by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies in Delhi. Here's a brief list of some of the immediate recommendations that were drawn up after the seminar:
*
An infantry battalion or individual should preferably be rotated between two different or three near congruous terrain profiles only.
*
A project to reduce weight of the present medium machine gun, automatic grenade launcher, and anti-material rifle by at least 6-8 kgs should be undertaken.
*
Replacement of the existing Hand Grenade No 36 should be expedited with the introduction of a variety of grenades to meet all requirements.
*
81 mm Mortars should be made lighter and possibly based on tracked carriers and their range should be not less than 7,000 metres.
*
A man-portable unmanned aerial vehicle troop (four-six aerial vehicles) should be authorised to the intelligence and surveillance platoon of infantry battalion. This would enhance the infantry battalion’s area of influence.
*
The ‘bayonet strength’ of a rifle section should be preserved. In a single section, there should at least be 6-7 persons available for launching an assault on the enemy.
*
Custom-built obstacle crossing expedients should be made available to infantry for negotiating water obstacles as well as mine fields.
*
Infantry company ‘F’ echelon should be based on two 1.5 ton capacity low silhouette vehicles.
*
Ghatak platoons should be trained for helicopter-borne operations and provided with light strike vehicles.
any comments from the knowledgeable ones ? RayC ?
The suggestion to specialise units and individuals in two different or three near congruous terrain in not a practical sugggestion.
The terrain profile varies from High Altitude Area (HAA) to mountains, to jungles, to deserts, to plains, to flats as in Kutch et al.
The operational profile varies from offensive, defensive, CI which is different in Kashmir and different in NE, DCB, Amphibious Warfare. Jungle Warfare, Mountain Warfare, HAA Warfare, Riverine Warfare etc.
Therefore, dedicating units and individuals in such a varied terrain and operational mix and given the permutations and combinations, it will be a nightmare to rotate units and individuals and ensure that none are over extended in their areas beyond the mandatory tenure.
Further, it will not be fair to the units and individuals to typecast and bound to only a set of operational and terrain conditions as it will only induce boredom through stereotype scenarios.
Promotion management and personal management will also be problematic since the vacancies may not be commensurate to their slot and thus, though cleared for the next rank, if there is no vacancy in one's specialisation in operational and terrain environment, he will have to languish, while his juniors get promoted since vacancies exist in their areas of specialisation. If a person moves out to command in areas not his specialisation, it will not be fair to him or the troops he will then command.
Take the role of the Scouts battalions. They were for a specific purpose. Right now, they are being used like Infantry!
Square peg in a round hole.
Reducing the weight of weapons for the infantry is always welcomed. However, reduction of weight causes a weapon to shake vigorously when fired in the auto mode. Therefore, at best, I think it is a wishlist, but then the DRDO may come up with something novel. No harm in wishing!
This vareity of grenade for specific purpose is not understood. On the one hand, we want to reduce weight and on the other, we recommend an increase in the inventory. If a variety of grenades are to be carried, the weight carried by the man will increase and if such a type of grenade does not find its use during the operation, it will be unproductive weight being carried.
Modernisation of the Infantry is always welcomed, but it should not be at the expense of the bayonet strength. The fact that they are talking of 6 to 7 in a section indicates that already the bayonet strength has been milked away for man other ''fancier'' equipment that are also essential!! A situation of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The suggestions of the new equipment that should be inducted is excellent, but then one has to ensure that the Govt and the Army takes a hard look and increase the manpower of the Infantry battalion and not to the usual adhoc business of 'managing' the induction by cutting corners and inducing an inefficent fighting potential.
It must be understood that it is the Infantry Company that will deliver in the attack and in defence and no amount of fancy weaponry, weapon platforms and gadgetery will change the situation. The bayonet strength cannot be denuded as it is being done.
One aspect one forget is the psychological impact of manpower. Imagine the situation where a police force is attacked by 10 men in a riot situation to being attacked by 100. 10 men can be handled with ease. 100 will create worries and even panic. Now, given that as a background, check how many in a section today actually are the 'bayonet sterngth'. Who cares if out of the 6 or 7 men in the section as suggested, only 3 are the chaps who attack me?
I have not read the blog and these are my first impressions on what was written on the post.
I also visited my unit recently and asked them the same question and well, I got some real "interesting" answers!
It is a good idea that the Ghataks are HB operable. In fact, they are even now. But what is a light strike vehicle and with which helicopter are they to be heli-lifted?
I was looking for the small thumbs up icon B-R used to have before.
, if it is deployed will have a longer effect. Mind u, a temporarily blinded person can still fire his AK, but a person who is not able to breathe, whose lungs and eyes are on fire due to the chilli powder can be dispatched to his 72 that much more easily and safely by our own forces.
If we can find a way to home into the latter one, AoA!
.