Lessons of 1962 War for a possible new Sino-India conflict

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 31 Dec 2005 23:28

This is India's neighbourhood. We, not the US, need to protect it.


Yeah well, China started building the military road in Arunachal Pradesh in 2000. What have we done to stop them? Nothing, because we are afraid of the Chinese retaliation, and can't handle simultaneous war with TSP and China. Now China is building a military road through Bhutan, and the latest news is that our mahaan politicians will complain to Chicom about it in January sometime (check link above).

Politicians, who don't even have enough balls to fight the Chinese when they are building military infrastructure on Indian territory, will surely do a lot about the Chinese road-building in Bhutan. :lol:

If we can't do anything about it, the best alternative is to get somebody who can. If we get American involvement, then that keeps TSP from attacking us while we take care of the Chinese infiltrations; IMHO that solves half the problem.

Getting Americans involved may also scare Chicom away; Chicom keeps throwing verbal threats of invasion at Taiwan, but why haven't they attacked it so far? Because they genuinely fear the US. Give the Americans military bases in India to operate out of, and I guarantee that they will forget TSP. India will become a major ally in the war on terror. Give the US a reason to protect India, since we certainly haven't been able to keep the Chinese off of our territory.
Last edited by appuseth on 31 Dec 2005 23:59, edited 2 times in total.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 31 Dec 2005 23:31

Re Anoop

I have pointed out my prescription, you have to suggest your alternatives, unless being inscrutainble was yours :P



Anoop wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote: Not doing anything will sure impress the neighbours.


You don't say! :D. On the other hand, maybe they will be impressed by India adopting the Chinese "inscrutability" :P

[quote='Raj Malhotra"] Well though out of policy even with US will not undermine Indian influence.


Which begs the question what this "well thought out policy" will be. [/quote]

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 31 Dec 2005 23:46

Anoop,

That is a very interesting report on China's statecraft. It ties in with the view that China's strategy relies on presenting fait accompli whenever possible. It does that by taking a 1000 minute steps, diverting attention elsewhere, until the adequate response to those steps would have to be a giant leap for the adversary, which due to the suddenness and large distance to be covered, is usually avoided. The correct and timely response would have been to take a 1000 minute steps ourselves, thereby frustrating their strategy at every step, rather than waiting for the final denouement. I believe that our countersteps should be directed at the playground (i.e. the governments of the third countries) rather than at the player (i.e. China). The devil, of course, is in the details.


While I generally agree with this, it will be interesting to figure out how the overt wars that China has fought whether with the US (proxy North Korea), Soviet Union (1969 - Ussuri river), Vietnam, India fit into this 1000 step strategy - or whether these were abberrations. I think that the 1000 step strategy is certainly being now followed vis a vis India and vis a vis the US as well.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 01 Jan 2006 03:13

Ldev,

I don't really know. I am still in the process of reading Swaine's and Tellis' "Interpreting China's Grand Strategy - Past, Present and Future". It is an interesting look at China's foreign policy choices from a US viewpoint. They mention how of late (post 1979), China has followed a "calculative" strategy vis-a-vis the US and its immediate neighbours that has avoided conflict while it is preparing itself for a greater role in Asia and beyond. In this, they mention how China has reduced US influence in ASEAN by dealing economically with each country individually and in effect setting up a competition among each other to attract more Chinese investment. The net result was a loss of US influence which had relied more on an ASEAN bloc structure to counteract China.

My own reading of the situation is that it is less relevant whether such a strategy is consistent with its historical security architecture or not. What is important for India is that over the past 25 years, China has focused on extending its influence in our neighbourhood using economic means - port and road development in Burma and Pakistan, nuclear help to Bangladesh - and political assistance to embattled regimes (Burma and Nepal) as the Trojan horse to bring itself closer to India's borders.

In this effort, they have been guided by the conviction that each of these moves, taken individually, have been below India's thresh-hold of hostilities. The Chinese probably figure that India is now in the same boat as the Chinese were post-1979, where maximum emphasis is on building the economy without going to war. Thus, the Chinese strategy would be to use India's reluctance to throw it's weight around in our neighbourhood for the next 20 years or so (a random number I chose) to build China's own political influence such that when India is finally in an economic, political and military position to coerce its neighbours into its orbit of influence, this influence would be for nought.

The question before India, as I see it, is how to frustrate the Chinese encroachment by expending minimal resources so that we can continue to pursue our main task of economical, military and political development.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 01 Jan 2006 03:28

appuseth wrote: ...Nothing, because we are afraid of the Chinese retaliation, and can't handle simultaneous war with TSP and China....

Politicians, who don't even have enough balls to fight the Chinese....

If we can't do anything about it, the best alternative is to get somebody who can......


So when are you going to become the gonad-endowned politician who invites the US military to protect India? Some gonads that shows....

Oh, and the US is currently force-feeding India F-22 stealth technology and it is the gonad-lacking politicians who are throwing up, right :roll:

appuseth wrote: Chicom keeps throwing verbal threats of invasion at Taiwan, but why haven't they attacked it so far? Because they genuinely fear the US.


And why has the US leaned on Taiwan not to declare independence?

appuseth wrote: Give the Americans military bases in India to operate out of, and I guaranteethat they will forget TSP. India will become a major ally in the war on terror.


400%? Earth to DCH...India did offer to become a major ally in the war on terror in 2001. The US politely declined because it needed to penetrate Pakistani society, in order to protect itself, not to protect India.

appuseth wrote: Give the US a reason to protect India,


Let's start by replacing "Jana Gana Mana.." with "The Star Spangled Banner".

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 01 Jan 2006 05:12

Tangentially related:

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?actio ... s&id=76357
High-tech security for Mizoram

Aizawl: In a move to upgrade the security system in Mizoram, a satellite communication system, POLNET (Police Network), is being installed in the state by the Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).

Mizoram Police sources said here today the state had been selected for installation of the POLNET system due to its strategic border location.

POLNET is a satellite-based communication system connecting the Home Ministry with national crime records bureau, state crime records bureau and state and district police, the sources informed, adding the connection also includes all para-military forces within the country.

The sources also stated that the POLNET will provide end-to-end connectivity on voice/fax/modem on a reliable and high speed connection and accurate information to deal with modern crime.

All district headquaters had been connected in the first phase of installation of the POLNET system in the state.

The next phase would include connecting all district headquarters to their respective police stations, expected to be completed within this year, the sources added.

The sources also informed that Mizoram Director General of Police Lalngheta Sailo had recently concluded the five-day training programme on the use of the POLNET equipment at the Mizoram Police Training Centre here.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 01 Jan 2006 05:19

Anoop,

You seem to be misinterpreting my arguments, but I am not surprised by that. Perhaps your solution is to not get any help from anyone, and just keep going with the "Chalta hai" attitude. :roll:

Keep wishing that the Chinese infiltration problem will just go away: Nothing new in that, the Indian politicians have been doing it for 5 years now, and that certainly does not take very big gonads. :roll:

As far as dealing with China without American help, in that case you will also have to simultaneously deal with TSP. If that is your suggestion, then I wish you good luck. :roll:

I never said that the US was going to transfer F-22 technology to India. All I said was that if we gave the Americans airbases to operate from, then they may help us in establishing air superiority in case of war with China. It's in American interest to reduce the numbers in the Chinese air force.

The rest of your post is just childish, so I am going to ignore it. :)

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 01 Jan 2006 05:45

appuseth wrote: You seem to be misinterpreting my arguments,


Wasn't aware that there was any, apart from inviting the US to defend Indian territory. Do you even know whether the Americans are even remotely interested in basing themselves in India's NE? Or should we accept as a given that because you are willing to provide us guarantees?.

appuseth wrote: Perhaps your solution is to not get any help from anyone, and just keep going with the "Chalta hai" attitude. :roll:


Time to add "comprehension disorder" to "flights of fancy". What about my posts re. the need to win over our neighbours can you not understand?

Getting US help does not have to involve using F-22 flights from India. Hint: The US has agreed to AWACS transfer to India, while denying the same to China.

appuseth wrote: As far as dealing with China without American help, in that case you will also have to simultaneously deal with TSP.


Why? Because you say so? What does dealing with China involve? What exactly can Pakistan do to India, given the US presence in that country?

Why can you not process the idea of an escalation ladder? Why does it have to be F-22 flights to "reduce China's air-force" or nothing?

appuseth wrote: It's in American interest to reduce the numbers in the Chinese air force.


And how exactly can you presume to know what American interest is vis-a-vis a shooting match with China? What makes you think the US is going to involve itself directly in a fight with China on India's behalf?

Such breath-taking assumptions...and you say this?

appuseth wrote:The rest of your post is just childish


:lol:

Vijay Hirani
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 17 Apr 2005 01:23

Postby Vijay Hirani » 01 Jan 2006 05:46

Appuseth,

Keep wishing that the Chinese infiltration problem will just go away: Nothing new in that, the Indian politicians have been doing it for 5 years now, and that certainly does not take very big gonads


I for one agree with Appuseth, but because we don't have much of a choice.

I for one do not accept that India does not need friends. Corruption has caused India to be many years behind in its economy and defence modernisation.

Look, China will always put India down and keep it on the defensive.

There is a tendency to put USA as Evil. I accept that a lot of things they do are nasty and bad. Like support for totalitarian regimes, not helping palestine, bombing of Innocent people.

You have to look at the History of the world to see barbarity committed by the likes of Gengis Khan, Tamburline, Mohammed of Ganzhvi.

The USA has the power to annialate entire nations in the middle east, just like China is in the process wiping off Tibetan civilisation, But the very structure and the constitution of the USA prevents that.

The USA is one of the least worst of world superpowers in the history of humanity. I would rather have them than a caliphate or a Chinese superpower.

I wish that India was a Superpower but it will not be for a long time, perhaps never. I for one support close defence relations with the USA, but after thorough negotiations and discussions.


Vijay

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 01 Jan 2006 14:00

As an example of buying influence with Nepal, we could have muted our public criticism of the King's decision and supplied arms on the quiet. One of China's instruments of foreign policy is to maintain the "non-interference in internal affairs of the country" line, which is a cover to keep both sides of the domestic squabble happy. In Nepal the King wanted public support for his decisions and arms to fight the Maoists and the political parties wanted public condemnation of the King's decision to suspend political activity. Both might have been satisfied with a non-committal statement from India and the Palace would not have had to publicly demonstrate its gratitude to China at India's expense.

With Bhutan's own alarm at China's transgression into their territory, it is time to increase the numerical strength and publicity profile of the Indian military advisor program.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 01 Jan 2006 14:31

I said that exactly a few times- our Nepal policy has been an unmitigated disaster, and so has been our internal policy wrt the Maoists. We can talk to Musharraf but seas of ink were spent wailing over the loss of democracy in Nepal, w/o taking the Maoists into account at all. Plus with our overt statements we as usual ended up being heralded as the bad boys by the local agitprop machine.

ripusingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 01:03

Postby ripusingh » 01 Jan 2006 19:04

I think the tone of this discussion is degenerating fast. Someone in one of their post ran down the whole political setup for the last 30 odd years, well as they say "a country gets a goverment that it deserves" , no one is better.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 01 Jan 2006 21:31

One thing is sure: That without American involvement, Pakistan would not have declared the current ceasefire with India.

This is why I think that getting American help to militarily stop the current Chinese road building on Indian territory (Arunachal Pradesh) and in Bhutan will keep Pakistan from getting involved, in case of a war with China. Pakistan and China both genuinely fear the US, while they do not fear India in the same breadth. Plus the US has Pakistan on a leash right now, which will keep Pakistan from joining the war on the Chinese side.

Offering Americans a few air bases to operate from is not something that India has tried before, and this may well be worth the effort: It may act as a deterrence to keep the Chinese out by scaring the hell out of them. In exchange for the bases, we would want help for containing the Chinese in the form of stealth jets operating from the air bases. This would scare the Chinese even more. Often times war can be averted just by pressuring the enemy enough, and I think that this may get the Chinese off of Arunachal Pradesh (and Bhutan) without a shot being fired.

Finally, those who say that all this is a theory, sure it is; but I think that it is worth a try. By the way, this is just a discussion board for ideas, so that is what I am throwing around. :)

The one thing that the US has in common with India is the desire to contain the Chinese, so they may actually take up this offer of getting a few Indian air bases to operate stealth jets out of, in exchange for an alliance: To get the Chinese off of Arunachal Pradesh (which we have not been able to do since the Chinese road building started in Arunachal Pradesh in 2000) and Bhutan. Again I do not know if the US will take us up on this offer, but it is worth a try. Also, the stealth jets (including the F-22) can't operate off of a carrier (not until the JSF is inducted in another 10 years; and the JSF is limited in capabilities compared to the F-22), and operating them from Indian air bases would benefit the US greatly in a possible war with China. It would open up a second front for the US to fight China from. It would also scare the crap out of the Chinese. :lol:

And the current American hesitation in giving India the Arrow ballistic missile defense and other weapons may also go away if the US Air Force is operating out of Indian air bases. :wink:

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 01 Jan 2006 23:37

China has 1.8% of the world oil supply and 30% of that is located in Xingjiang, where it has an insurgency. It depends on half its oil requirement from imports and its demand for oil surged nearly 40% in the first half of 2004 (I don't have the latest figures). At that point of time, one third of world's oil increase in consumption was of China. It is reported that it has an annual oil demand increase of 7% and that it would need 21 million barrels a day by 2022.

This in itself is an important input in the shaping of future Chinese strategy (One must also remember the Chinese concept of "Shi").

In this context, the sealanes from the Middle East is of paramount importance to China. Her strategy of "string of pearls" is relevant in this scenario (as also the urgency with which India is pursuing her blue water navy transformation and the US interest in the Indian Ocean including a submarine bay in the Andamans. It should also ring a bell as to why the US is so keen on military bases in the CAR as also why she is hell bent on organising "revolutions" of the colour of the rainbow in the same vein as in Ukraine and Georgia).

To offset this disadvantage of oil supply interruption, China has opened up the pipeline from CAR to augment her oil requirement and is vigourously attempting to rejuvenate the "Shanghai Five".

The security of the CAR China pipeline is a source of concern to her. To ensure that the insurgency in Xinjxiang is not worrisome to that extent, it is essential for her to appease Pakistan, the womb of Islamic terrorist machinery. A friendly Pakistan is a failsafe mode to keep Islamists under control without external stimuli.

Tibet, though is not openly hostile having been subjugated by force as also through modernisation and cultural ********, is still an area to reckon with.

If China is to have her hegemony supreme in Asia and at the same time close the gap with the US, she requires to ensure a non hostile environment for her oil supply, for without the same, her economy will collapse and the social turmoil already manifesting itself in China will go into an unrecoverable tailspin with serious consequences for China as a nation.

Therefore, it is a moot question if China would adopt a bellicose posture leading to war with India.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 02 Jan 2006 04:00

RayC,

Then why is China building military roads in (Indian side) Arunachal Pradesh and Bhutan (check earlier posts)?

satya
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Postby satya » 02 Jan 2006 04:23

RayC,

Then why is China building military roads in (Indian side) Arunachal Pradesh and Bhutan (check earlier posts)?



Sethjee,


India and China are negotiating rite ? Indian Army maintain active forward posts and border patrol rite ? Now these roads have been made into areas where Indian army has not gone into ? Or are u suggesting tht our troops r way ahead and chinese are coming behin them to make these roads? Frankly u r talking like as if Chinkies are going to attack tommorow ? Give me one single good reason Why now ? Any answer why not before when we were more weaker ? So dont over hysterical ok.

As for ur roads , these have been built but then Indian Army is not having any posts there else tht would have been termed as an '' intrusion'' something like 'Kargil'' if u understand wht i mean.

So stop with ur Martians are here in our backyard . and yep Ray has given u more than polite and a very reasoned answer .

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 02 Jan 2006 07:38

Hmm, okay Satya: So you think that I am making a big deal out of nothing and everything is okay on the India-China border despite the aggressive Chinese stance of claiming the entire state of Arunachal as a part of China while simultaneously building a road 5 km into Indian territory. True it's not near any of our posts, so we did not detect it early on, and now we can't push the Chinese away without starting a conflict, which our govt. is afraid of doing. But in your opinion sab kuch theek hai, aur negotiations chal rahe hain. Chalta hai, right?

One question, Satya Ji. How do you explain away the recent Chinese road-building activity almost 20 km into Bhutan? Also, are we supposed to do anything about this, or just sit by and watch?

Hey, I have a really good idea. In order to make peace with China: Jo Chini Indian territory or Bhutan territory mein road bana rahe hain; humare soldiers ko unko chai banake pilani chahiye. Bechare Chini thak jate honge. :D

No need for miltary alliance with the US. Sab theek-thaak hai.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 02 Jan 2006 08:01

Ray C,

As paramount as China's energy requirments are, the Iraq war taught them to diversify. Prior to 2003 China had concentrated its energy imports entirely from the Middle East. Under that scenario the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean and the Malacca straits through the South China sea were potential choke points within easy reach of India. But the Iraq war clearly indicated a US desire to dominate the energy resources of the Middle East.

That forced the Chinese to rethink. If you look at the energy investments/agreements they have made globally in the last 2-3 years, it is truly impressive. They have gone on an investment binge bidding out India which has been a late starter and lethargic bidder - Angola, Sudan, Iran, Kazhakstan, Canada, Australia, an attempted bid on Unocal in the US (for $18 billion, later withdrawn), a stated willingness to invest $ 5 Billion in Argentinian natural gas etc. . The Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea sealanes are still important but not as critical. IMO, the last thing the Chinese want to be dependent on is US control of the Persian Gulf sealanes. Maybe the new choke point for Middle Eastern and African oil/LNG will be the Malacca straits. For Chinese imports from Australia and the Americas, it is the Pacific Ocean. Does India's reach extend that far afield with the present and projected reach of the Indian Navy? Or will it will have enter into some sort of cooperative security venture with the Japanese, South Koreans and the US?

As such I see no lessening in the Chinese desire to be the top dog in Asia subordinating all other countries viz. India, Japan, South Korea etc to its ambitions. Only when it has achieved that status in Asia can it begin to challenge the US globally.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 02 Jan 2006 11:16

appuseth wrote:RayC,

Then why is China building military roads in (Indian side) Arunachal Pradesh and Bhutan (check earlier posts)?


"shi".

Checking Indian reaction(?)

Remember the last time they encroached during Sunderjee's time? What happened?

That apart, what are the comments on my post?

Do you feel that the post is nebulous and far out?

What one should remember is that strategem is the need of the hour, not impotent armed sabre rattling or going to war when we are on the threshold of greater glories.

One must be clear as to what can be achieved. Neither China nor India, can move invasion forces through the narrow passes in the East.

The West has boulder strewn corridors.

The terrain must be kept in view.

Indeed, armed confrontation will not achieve great results. Mere loss of lives and finance and skewing the Indian economy, much to the delight of Pakistan and Bangladesh and one could throw in Nepal too!

Insurgencies in China and Pakistan (Balochistan*, NWFP and Northern Area) is what is answer. They will snowball (if these insurgencies are serious and Xingjian is ideal since they are Muslims and most Moslems put Islam before nation) and China itself will reel over on its own. This will also encourage the Tibetans. Therefore, without firing a shot, even in anger and without any loss to India financially or in manpower i.e. lost lives, we would have achieved greater goals than entering into an armed conflict.

One has to just look at the Kashmir including Siachen situation. It is wasting in manpower and finance. If this was put to productive use, then the situation of India would be different!

Just a thought.

*Pak media claims that RAW is at it!
Pakistan is very worried and chary that India has opened up consulates in Eastern Afghanistan.

Uday
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 23:32

Postby Uday » 02 Jan 2006 11:39

RayC wrote:
"shi".

Checking Indian reaction(?)

Remember the last time they encroached during Sunderjee's time? What happened?

That apart, what are the comments on my post?

Do you feel that the post is nebulous and far out?

What one should remember is that strategem is the need of the hour, not impotent armed sabre rattling or going to war when we are on the threshold of greater glories.

One must be clear as to what can be achieved. Neither China nor India, can move invasion forces through the narrow passes in the East.

The West has boulder strewn corridors.

The terrain must be kept in view.

Indeed, armed confrontation will not achieve great results. Mere loss of lives and finance and skewing the Indian economy, much to the delight of Pakistan and Bangladesh and one could throw in Nepal too!

Insurgencies in China and Pakistan (Balochistan*, NWFP and Northern Area) is what is answer. They will snowball (if these insurgencies are serious and Xingjian is ideal since they are Muslims and most Moslems put Islam before nation) and China itself will reel over on its own. This will also encourage the Tibetans. Therefore, without firing a shot, even in anger and without any loss to India financially or in manpower i.e. lost lives, we would have achieved greater goals than entering into an armed conflict.

One has to just look at the Kashmir including Siachen situation. It is wasting in manpower and finance. If this was put to productive use, then the situation of India would be different!

Just a thought.

*Pak media claims that RAW is at it!
Pakistan is very worried and chary that India has opened up consulates in Eastern Afghanistan.

Ray Sir,
Had written the same earlier on a different thread but it applies here too.
The problem is twofold as it can be percieved.
1) If aggressive patrolling are launched(combined with covert operations+ building new roads+helipads+telecommuncations+new posts) then it may provoke an even larger retaliation,leading to a death spiral. Given our poor infrastructure at NE it may prove to be disastrous right now.
2) If we react cautiously or sit quiet, even then it will lead to a nibbling of our boundaries,with escalatory in nature over period of time, gradully increasing in intensity. Many chinese patrols have been discvered in Bhutan in recent time. Also they have violated LAC many times seeking adavantage of the hostile atmosphere prevalent in our western sector.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 02 Jan 2006 11:43

Idev,

There is no doubt that China wants to be the top dog as you all are also indicating that you wanting to be top dogs too! :D

However, they are not impetuous. They do long term planning. It is not that they have suddenly decided to become a world power.

Each of their actions including against the USSR had been meticulously planned and they having achieved their political objectives ("teach a lesson" - a neat way to indicate that they are "pacifist" but forced into action! :eek:) they withdraw to lines of their choosing.

Notice, how their diplomacy is working. Without firing a shot, they have posed as a 'threat in being' to India. India is encircled by Chinese "friends". Sri Lanka is still neutral, but they have tried and still trying.

That is "shi".

What are we doing?

Impotent sabre rattling!

There are great opportunities to "encircle" China thorough diplomatic and economic means. We are moving in this direction. We are also using "shi" (that is if I have understood "shi" a wee bit; it is too complicated for me). The latest conference in the Far East attended by the PM has achieved some results in this direction.

India requires to build up strong ties in all facets with countries on China's periphery and also in the Australasian belt.

India should show interest in nations which are involved in the Spratley oil standoff with China. Indian naval vessles should use those sealanes for "friendly" visits to "friendly" nations. Indian presence will make China worried and react. This is the principle in the Chinese game "Go" which is based on "Shi".

I am not claiming any expertise, but while we should be ready for the worst case, India must go hard in the strategem arena.

During the Kargil issue, India used strategem (many have criticised not crossing the LC) to such a great advantage that she has come out as a "matured" nation while Pakistan was consigned to the doghouse. Today, the US India cosy up and even the US trusting India on the nuclear deal is but a fallout of this strategem. If India had crossed the LC or matched Pakistan's nuclear threat with a similar threat, then the story could have been different!

Notwithstanding all the Hinduvta hooh hah of the BJP, Vajpayee was a master in the game of confusing the world with his strategems. He has even confused his own party and India with that parting shot!

Again, it is my view and it may not be correct!
Last edited by RayC on 02 Jan 2006 11:47, edited 1 time in total.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 02 Jan 2006 11:45

RayC wrote:Checking Indian reaction(?)

Remember the last time they encroached during Sunderjee's time? What happened?


My understanding is that those incursions were suitablely replied to! What do you say? I think these incursions should also be replied to in the similar cross incursion manner but with some more tangential steps to tell China not to fu*k around in long term also


One must be clear as to what can be achieved. Neither China nor India, can move invasion forces through the narrow passes in the East.


That is the reason we must have huge investment in SF, Paras, MLI etc as all our potential zones of action with China, LoC, LAC, COIN, UN peace missions, require these sort of forces.


Indeed, armed confrontation will not achieve great results. Mere loss of lives and finance and skewing the Indian economy, much to the delight of Pakistan and Bangladesh and one could throw in Nepal too!


Nobody is recommending armed provocation against China but one should have a feasible and ready response. Indian forces were caught with pants down in 1999 and had no vision in 2001 (inspite of lot of josh). Look at what sort of equipment has been ordered since 1999 for last six years. Have we even today improvement our capacity to fight high altitude war across the board. By ordering stupid equipment we are telling our enemy that we "are hoping" that war does not take place. Which is an invitation to incursion

Insurgencies in China and Pakistan (Balochistan*, NWFP and Northern Area) is what is answer.


We cannot do that without Uncle implicit support.


*Pak media claims that RAW is at it!
Pakistan is very worried and chary that India has opened up consulates in Eastern Afghanistan.


If RAW was at it, Pak would have raised temperatures in J&K. But I think it is time to fish in troubled waters.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 02 Jan 2006 12:06

Raj Malhotra wrote:
My understanding is that those incursions were suitablely replied to! What do you say? I think these incursions should also be replied to in the similar cross incursion manner but with some more tangential steps to tell China not to fu*k around in long term also


That is correct. It was not force on force alone. I believe elsewhere where China was vulnerable, posturing took place! No war, but a piece of the Chinese game "Go".

That is the reason we must have huge investment in SF, Paras, MLI etc as all our potential zones of action with China, LoC, LAC, COIN, UN peace missions, require these sort of forces.


What exactly is this SF? Can someone tell me?

What huge investment has taken place for Paras?

What is MLI? Honestly, we call Maratha LI as MLI and they get wild about it.

How does this help UN Missions?


Nobody is recommending armed provocation against China but one should have a feasible and ready response. Indian forces were caught with pants down in 1999 and had no vision in 2001 (inspite of lot of josh). Look at what sort of equipment has been ordered since 1999 for last six years. Have we even today improvement our capacity to fight high altitude war across the board. By ordering stupid equipment we are telling our enemy that we "are hoping" that war does not take place. Which is an invitation to incursion


If one goes by the posts of some, we have nearly decimated China. That is why I have taken the liberty of posting some of my thoughts and as I said, they need not be correct.

Why we were caught with our pants down in 1999 is a very long story and the short answer is that the Army HQ throughout had held the view that it was impassible! Many a time, the local commanders, including my Brigade Commander (1988 (?)) brought out the fallacy. But then it is very difficult to change the mindset!

The equipment has been bought and some of them maybe useful, but I am afraid they have caught the bull by the tail.

We cannot do that without Uncle implicit support.


I am quite sure Uncle is in it up to its neck. Balochistan is important for the CAR pipeline to Gwadar thorugh Afghanistan. And, to my mind, all this cosying up with Musharraf is actually to "dope" him into a sublime state of ecstacy and then when Afghanistan simmers and is within the US grip, drop him like a ton of bricks and have an independent Balochistan to wedge Iran from both sides! Activate the Northern Area (where Pakistan is changing the demography by bringing in Pathan sunnis to outnumber the Shia) and have a Pathan Shia conflict seriously raging and thus veer the Pathan interest East and lower the pressure on the West i.e. Afghan border. It must be remembered that the Sunnis love for Shia is as strong as their love for the Great White Satan!

If RAW was at it, Pak would have raised temperatures in J&K. But I think it is time to fish in troubled waters.


The temperature has been raised. But the whip of the US is also there. Money and F 16s too. Two F 16s given free for being good boys!

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 02 Jan 2006 12:40

RayC wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:
My understanding is that those incursions were suitablely replied to! What do you say? I think these incursions should also be replied to in the similar cross incursion manner but with some more tangential steps to tell China not to fu*k around in long term also


That is correct. It was not force on force alone. I believe elsewhere where China was vulnerable, posturing took place! No war, but a piece of the Chinese game "Go".

So we agree that Indians are not such babies in the wood, as made out to be. Though political class and babus also need to develop some josh

That is the reason we must have huge investment in SF, Paras, MLI etc as all our potential zones of action with China, LoC, LAC, COIN, UN peace missions, require these sort of forces.


What exactly is this SF? Can someone tell me?

What huge investment has taken place for Paras?

What is MLI? Honestly, we call Maratha LI as MLI and they get wild about it.

How does this help UN Missions?

I meant so say that we must MAKE huge investment in light infantry and their support equipment. (SF=Special forces, MLI = Mountain Light infantry) UN missions also require light expeditionary forces.


Nobody is recommending armed provocation against China but one should have a feasible and ready response. Indian forces were caught with pants down in 1999 and had no vision in 2001 (inspite of lot of josh). Look at what sort of equipment has been ordered since 1999 for last six years. Have we even today improvement our capacity to fight high altitude war across the board. By ordering stupid equipment we are telling our enemy that we "are hoping" that war does not take place. Which is an invitation to incursion


If one goes by the posts of some, we have nearly decimated China. That is why I have taken the liberty of posting some of my thoughts and as I said, they need not be correct.

Why we were caught with our pants down in 1999 is a very long story and the short answer is that the Army HQ throughout had held the view that it was impassible! Many a time, the local commanders, including my Brigade Commander (1988 (?)) brought out the fallacy. But then it is very difficult to change the mindset!

The equipment has been bought and some of them maybe useful, but I am afraid they have caught the bull by the tail.

i think it would be obvious to most that I extremely critical of the type of equipment and the priority thereto, being ordered.

The issue in kargill is not only of surprize but also that the equipment of both IA and IAF was unsuitable. Indo-China skirmish will be 10 times kargill, SO it demonstrates that we are only "hoping" that indo-china confrontation does not take place but not preparing that 'what if' it takes place, or trying to "force" it not to take place.

The lack of equipment shows wrong priority rather than lack of funds


We cannot do that without Uncle implicit support.


I am quite sure Uncle is in it up to its neck. Balochistan is important for the CAR pipeline to Gwadar thorugh Afghanistan. And, to my mind, all this cosying up with Musharraf is actually to "dope" him into a sublime state of ecstacy and then when Afghanistan simmers and is within the US grip, drop him like a ton of bricks and have an independent Balochistan to wedge Iran from both sides! Activate the Northern Area (where Pakistan is changing the demography by bringing in Pathan sunnis to outnumber the Shia) and have a Pathan Shia conflict seriously raging and thus veer the Pathan interest East and lower the pressure on the West i.e. Afghan border. It must be remembered that the Sunnis love for Shia is as strong as their love for the Great White Satan!

Amen, but I don't think Uncle thinks in that complicated manner. They will just try to buy Mush

If RAW was at it, Pak would have raised temperatures in J&K. But I think it is time to fish in troubled waters.


The temperature has been raised. But the whip of the US is also there. Money and F 16s too. Two F 16s given free for being good boys!

What I am more afraid of is hundreds of IT, TI, Comms which Pakistan may buy or get, rather than 2 F-16. Just imageine what would investing US$ 2 Billion in Balcohistan bring to india rather than in Gorky


RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 02 Jan 2006 18:27

Uday wrote:
Ray Sir,
Had written the same earlier on a different thread but it applies here too.
The problem is twofold as it can be percieved.
1) If aggressive patrolling are launched(combined with covert operations+ building new roads+helipads+telecommuncations+new posts) then it may provoke an even larger retaliation,leading to a death spiral. Given our poor infrastructure at NE it may prove to be disastrous right now.
2) If we react cautiously or sit quiet, even then it will lead to a nibbling of our boundaries,with escalatory in nature over period of time, gradully increasing in intensity. Many chinese patrols have been discvered in Bhutan in recent time. Also they have violated LAC many times seeking adavantage of the hostile atmosphere prevalent in our western sector.


There is constant improvement of the defence posture; of that there should be no doubt. Patrolling. per se, is always aggressive. There is a mistaken idea of equating patrolling with perambulating, which is not so.

If one is talking about constructing highways and roads, some places are left to tracks in the scheme of the design for conduct of war in that particular area. It is being done so by design.

Chinese have been patrolling along Bhutan and have intruded. But it is for the Bhutan govt.

I don't think that India sits still if there is any intrusion within India. Posturing will surely be done. The CO of my unit in such a situation did posturing and posed a threat in being and the Chinese withdrew after an armed showdown without firing.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 02 Jan 2006 18:45

Raj Malhotra wrote:
So we agree that Indians are not such babies in the wood, as made out to be. Though political class and babus also need to develop some josh


Indians and babes in the wood? I don't think so.

I meant so say that we must MAKE huge investment in light infantry and their support equipment. (SF=Special forces, MLI = Mountain Light infantry) UN missions also require light expeditionary forces.


Equipment is based on doctrines. I think we have adequate for the moment. Let the arms industry glossies not impress unduly.

All Infantry is light. Mechanised Infantry is merely mechanised. There is nothing like Mountain Light Infantry. One must not fall prey to western labels. They have various types to suit their designs and doctrines. Our UN Missions are doing quite well. What exactly do you have in mind that would make it "expeditionary"? To me the word "expeditionary" merely appears a romantic one!

My point of what is the SF is that what is the differentiation? Lighter weapons? Are they the same as Infantry? Same as Parachute units? Or are they different?

i think it would be obvious to most that I extremely critical of the type of equipment and the priority thereto, being ordered.

The issue in kargill is not only of surprize but also that the equipment of both IA and IAF was unsuitable. Indo-China skirmish will be 10 times kargill, SO it demonstrates that we are only "hoping" that indo-china confrontation does not take place but not preparing that 'what if' it takes place, or trying to "force" it not to take place.

The lack of equipment shows wrong priority rather than lack of funds


First of all, the Indian Army does not plan on hopes. We plan and if it does not materialise, then it is for the better.

As far as Kargil is concerned, I don't think there was any mismatch in equipment.

Amen, but I don't think Uncle thinks in that complicated manner. They will just try to buy Mush


Good for them. If they want my pension to help them on the way, I will readily offer the same! :D


What I am more afraid of is hundreds of IT, TI, Comms which Pakistan may buy or get, rather than 2 F-16. Just imageine what would investing US$ 2 Billion in Balcohistan bring to india rather than in Gorky


Maybe we have the money to invest in both the areas of your concern! ;)

Remember the sealanes are where the chips will be down with China! The choke points!

satya
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Postby satya » 02 Jan 2006 19:16

One question, Satya Ji. How do you explain away the recent Chinese road-building activity almost 20 km into Bhutan? Also, are we supposed to do anything about this, or just sit by and watch?


Sethjee,

Remember wht happend in 62' when Indian Army was forced to do agressive patrolling in forward areas and posts were made tht were not sustainable through logisitics ?

Best explaination i can give for current IA's forwards and border patrol is logistics and reserves tht can reach them easily and they dont want to repeat the mistakes of 62' . It also means tht IA better understands its limitations both in terms of manpower and equipments .

As for doing nothing on Bhutan Border , frankly tht's we have been doing for past 43 yrs , but yep when the Chinese did try to go ''beyond'' a certain tipping point as happend during '87 when whole brigade was air dropped in AP , it stopped the Chinese .

Negotiations are like a chess game and these roads have been made into areas which both india and bhutan claim as their territory and China claims its own so it is disputable .

For Indian Army to do any thing there, they definitely need more Mountain Divs. , 22 to be precise whereas they have only 11 atleast on paper ?

And u must be knowing , Divs are not raised in a matter of months , it takes time to train manpower considering its more of a specialised divs.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 02 Jan 2006 20:21

RayC wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:
So we agree that Indians are not such babies in the wood, as made out to be. Though political class and babus also need to develop some josh


Indians and babes in the wood? I don't think so.

But then Hope sustains life, n'cest pa! :twisted:


I meant to say is that we must MAKE huge investment in light infantry and their support equipment. (SF=Special forces, MLI = Mountain Light infantry) UN missions also require light expeditionary forces.


What I want to say is that we must focus on equipment for Light infantry rather than for mechanised thrust through Rajasthan. For instance massive orders for Thermal imagers etc

i think it would be obvious to most that I extremely critical of the type of equipment and the priority thereto, being ordered.

The issue in kargill is not only of surprize but also that the equipment of both IA and IAF was unsuitable. Indo-China skirmish will be 10 times kargill, SO it demonstrates that we are only "hoping" that indo-china confrontation does not take place but not preparing that 'what if' it takes place, or trying to "force" it not to take place.

The lack of equipment shows wrong priority rather than lack of funds


First of all, the Indian Army does not plan on hopes. We plan and if it does not materialise, then it is for the better.

As far as Kargil is concerned, I don't think there was any mismatch in equipment.

The equipment was adequate for a skirmish on the scale of Kargill, but would not have been adequate for long drawn war in mountains say with China or even with Pakistan. As the focus remained out-of-focus

for instance, why were all IAF not equipped with flare dispensers? Were they not watching Afghanistan and Pak orbat for 20 years ? It is not a costly piece of equipement but shows lack of focus

Why were inventory of UAVs, LGBs, LDPs so low?


Amen, but I don't think Uncle thinks in that complicated manner. They will just try to buy Mush


Good for them. If they want my pension to help them on the way, I will readily offer the same! :D

:twisted:

What I am more afraid of is hundreds of IT, TI, Comms which Pakistan may buy or get, rather than 2 F-16. Just imageine what would investing US$ 2 Billion in Balcohistan bring to india rather than in Gorky


Maybe we have the money to invest in both the areas of your concern! ;)

hope so, though I wonder how much does the corressponding spine costs? :twisted:

Remember the sealanes are where the chips will be down with China! The choke points!

Chips may be down with China in sea lanes in "future", what about chips that are already down in COIN, LoC, LAC and Chinese incursions?

There was an article posted in another thread started by you

From the USI Journal, Vol. CXXXlV, Issue Jul-Sep, pp. 355-375, 2004.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Army - A Perspective on Future Challenges, Force Development and Doctrine

Lieutenant General V K Kapoor, PVSM (Retd)

HERE

I cannot agree with it more, though I wonder how much is under implementation?





Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 02 Jan 2006 20:23

Satya,

We must also keep in mind how the extra 11 Mtn. Divs. that you propose to raise, will be employed. Along the India-China border, there are few routes along which supplies, ammo and men can be transported. Conversely, there are only few routes that need to be defended. That leads to a natural limit on the number of formations that are required, along with associated reserves. On the other hand, there are natural limitations on how many formations you can sustain at those heights due to logistical constraints i.e. only so many tons of food, clothing and ammo can be transported and stored during winter in that terrain. While I am not competent to judge whether the current number is adequate or not, I am confident that the IA, due to its 40 year vigil on those mountains, is the best judge on whether we need more Mtn. Divs. or not. So far, I have not read anything that suggests that they are asking for more and are being denied that.

A couple of other things to keep in mind:

The AR and other IA's COIN formations in the NE can be converted into combat formations soon enough, if need be.

During Op. Parakram, the Kalimpong Div. was moved to the Western theatre. That should give some pause to the forum's Vitalstatistix on the need to invite the US to prevent Sino-Pak skies from falling on India's head.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 02 Jan 2006 22:39

Why do we want more Divisions? Why 11 More Divisions? What is the rationale?

In mountains, one does not guard every piece of ground. One holds Vital Area and grounds of tactical importance and approaches to that Vital Area and grounds of tactical importance.

Deployment is based on the Terrain, the Enemy (as evaluated), Approaches, Relative Strength and the Time and Space factor. Logistics is woven into this.

It is not purely mathematical to the linear length and a wee bit of depth.

As far as reserves are concerned at each level there is reserves and once committed, they are recreated within the resources. If an offensive has to have any teeth, the contact maybe on a broad front, but to make a tactical decision in battle, there has to be a narrow front. It is similar to a needle being pierced into someone's skin and compare that being hit with a blunt ladle! Obviously, the blunt ladle will not penetrate even if it hurt the skin!

In so far as Infantry in the mountains is concerned, there is no doubt that the mountains are what can be called "decisive point" in so far as area captured is not to be returned (the protocol after the Simla Agreement). However, in modern war, there is no "total war" and "total annihiliation" because of a variety of reasons. Therefore, the outcome has to be on the negotiation table. If that be so, then the amount area captured is important for bargaining. In the mountains, attack and capture is most difficult and time consuming. In the plains, owing to the DCBs, population centres (there will be an international hue and cry and pressures built up even before we have struck effectively), it is worthwhile, but not terriffic in terms of wanting to capture area. In the desert, the sky is the limit in so far as statistical account is concerned. Therefore, I leave it to you to decide where the emphasis lies.

In Kargil, it may have been a skirmish. However, it would not be correct to assime that a war could not have been undertaken. In fact, equipment wise, it was an overkill. It is because of the High Altitude mountains that the speed of the offensive was tediously slow.

The Air Force was used for various reasons. I have my own reservation about its efficacy in High Altitude owing to the temperature layers of the atmosphere which make weapon delivery immense difficult. I am sure the Air Force is training towards it, as the Artillery learnt in the Siachen long back.

UAVs were not bought because of tardiness and because the DRDO was still making the same and so import was not fashionable. You all are fans of the DRDO, so why the change of tack?

What is LGBs and LDPs?

Lt Gen VK Kapoor is an Armoured Corps officer and has raised interesting issues. However, his experience of the mountains is not there. Theoretically many understand the terrain, but practical experience especially at the unit level is important to understand the subtle nuances that divides defeat from victory. Notwithstanding, his article is interesting.

Let me give an example. I can comment on the inadequacies of the Iraq War theoretically, but then I would be better qualified to understand the rationale for some action or the other in the Iraq War is I was involved in the war!

1962, the Indian Army was more of a cermonial army. with little hands on experience. Therefore, 1962 should not be a baseline except to learn lessons. The Indian Army has moved quite far ever since.

satya
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Postby satya » 02 Jan 2006 23:38

Anoop , Ray


Reasons i felt tht IA actually proposed to have ''22 mt. divs'' might have been to :

1] further forward post and patrols than exisiting ones

2] to have enough troops available for action on eastern front , considering most of the action on eastern front is of high terrains.

3] to have in real a offensive formation


The only reason now for IA not to actually have its forward posts much more deeper into the 'dispute areas' where PLA is making inroads is cause of existing strains on '' logistics' and lack of ' manpower'' , so its doing best wht it should have done way back in '62 to make stand where the positions can be sustained with both reserves and supply .

Anoop, i accept tht the troops currently engaged in COIN ops in NE areas can be converted quite fast into regular IA formations but then it will hit us in the rea position something on lines of jihadis trying to attack our supply lines had there been an offensive across the LoC ? , and i think tht was the reason why IA also decided to keep RR more into a regular formation rather than part timing to keep its rear guard safe thereby secure supply lines.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 03 Jan 2006 00:03

Ray C,

What one should remember is that strategem is the need of the hour, not impotent armed sabre rattling or going to war when we are on the threshold of greater glories.

One must be clear as to what can be achieved. Neither China nor India, can move invasion forces through the narrow passes in the East.

The West has boulder strewn corridors.

The terrain must be kept in view.



In 1962, the Indian Army was more of a cermonial army. with little hands on experience. Therefore, 1962 should not be a baseline except to learn lessons. The Indian Army has moved quite far ever since.



Remember the sealanes are where the chips will be down with China! The choke points!


Totally agree with you. I dont think that either India or China can plan on any great breakthroughs on the land frontier. As you state the Indian army has moved quite far since 1962. Taking a base level of preparedness, I believe that additional manpower, equipment will result in diminishing returns because of the terrain.

The sealanes on the other hand could be the area where either China or India get a nasty suprise ala 1962. Whether India manages to control the choke points or whether China manages to breakthrough will IMO be the swing factor. For India to do that successfully all of the other strategms i.e. cooperative security with Australasian nations, strengthening the air/naval bases at Port Blair and Car Nicobar and increasing the reach and firepower of the Indian navy as well as the Indian airforce/naval aviation become important. If India does play its strategies well enough the Chinese will get the message and there will be no need to go to war as you say when India is on the cusp of greater glories.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 03 Jan 2006 09:44

Today's Telegraph has an article titled "Tokyo Eyes Strategic Ties".

Therefore, Indian outlook surely is taking the benefit of the cold war collapse and instead of meandering rudderless on the high moral pedastal of Non Alignment is now cautiously seeking alignments to protect her national and security interests.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 03 Jan 2006 10:10

Re Ray

It is but natural that people who have served in a terrain will be way more conversant with the challenges the local geography throws up.

Having said this, the issue I am trying to raise is that whether within the technology capabilities are we modifying the equipment and tactics to take out the maximum out of it?

For instance, Israel used /using UAVs as a very effective tool even though this technology has been known to all nations and is pretty mundane.

So in Indian context, for instance, do we have satellite comms as normal wireless has problems due to mountain features, do we have Nag missile launcher which is portable-helo droppable in mountains for direct fire interdiction of moving targets or is it only NAMICA for deserts & plains, do we have short range SAMS like those mounted on Tungushka mounted on light launchers or Light portable radars usable in mountains, are we even thinking of inducting supersonic suppressors for guns for infantry, similarly light single tube launchers for Pinaka, Lighter 155mm guns, what is our “emphasis” on night fighting capacity for infantry ?

I am not saying that it is not ‘adequate’ but adequate does not cut it. We should put emphasis where it is due! (Emphasis does not necessarily means Billon dollar deals) I think you rightly put it that we have got the issue by the ‘tail’

Note LGP, LGB are laser guidance pods and laser guided shells.

Also I am not a fan of DRDO but of ‘indigenous production’ which is different but we are stuck with DRDO-OFB ain’t we?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 03 Jan 2006 11:25

Raj Malhotra wrote:
Having said this, the issue I am trying to raise is that whether within the technology capabilities are we modifying the equipment and tactics to take out the maximum out of it?


It is an ongoing process and no army can affort to be in a "timewrap". They continuously evolve to remain relevant both technologically and in doctrines and application.

A weapon system requires a minimum of 10 years gestation period. The problem lies in the fact that there is always a weapon system in the developed nation that seems to solve a niggling tactical problem and while the DRDO had been tasked to solve it, it has to run the course of the gestation period. Since India did not have much of expertise in the armament field right from the designing stage to prototype building, DRDO apparently takes a longer period of time and the finished product does not quite meet the requirement.

Yet, the moral dilemma lies - should we import and abandon our own DRDO or should we accept a system that the DRDO has produced that fall below par! At the same time, there are fields where the DRDO has excelled itself!

So in Indian context, for instance, do we have satellite comms as normal wireless has problems due to mountain features, do we have Nag missile launcher which is portable-helo droppable in mountains for direct fire interdiction of moving targets or is it only NAMICA for deserts & plains, do we have short range SAMS like those mounted on Tungushka mounted on light launchers or Light portable radars usable in mountains, are we even thinking of inducting supersonic suppressors for guns for infantry, similarly light single tube launchers for Pinaka, Lighter 155mm guns, what is our “emphasis” on nigh fighting capacity for infantry ?


I would say we have the items that you have mentioned. Satellite communication is passé especially in the era of Network Centric Warfare, we have radars and they have to pass the DGI tests where there is the drop test criteria as per the role of the equipment, we have a range of missiles for various roles and heights, Bofors are serving us rather well and so the issue of "light" 155mm is not understood. I am not aware of what is being meant by you as supersonic suppressor for infantry weapons. Could you explain or give a link? Night fighting capability for the infantry has been incorporated.

Note LGP, LGB are laser guidance pods and laser guided shells.

Also I am not a fan of DRDO but of ‘indigenous production’ which is different but we are stuck with DRDO-OFB ain’t we?


I am not aware of laser guided weapons and so I cannot comment.

The day DRDO and OFB become like GAIL and ONGC, things will surely look up. Till then, we can expect the ilk of Gurudas Dasguptas and Somnath Chatterjees to rule supreme!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 03 Jan 2006 11:28

Also, Raj, may I request full forms of the abbreviated acronyms? I am not very well versed with US or private acronyms.

Still in the good old colonial "Glossary of Military terms" and "Appendix C of the Staff Duties in the Field" mould! :D

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 03 Jan 2006 13:58

RayC wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:
Having said this, the issue I am trying to raise is that whether within the technology capabilities are we modifying the equipment and tactics to take out the maximum out of it?


It is an ongoing process and no army can affort to be in a "timewrap". They continuously evolve to remain relevant both technologically and in doctrines and application.

Yet, the moral dilemma lies - should we import and abandon our own DRDO or should we accept a system that the DRDO has produced that fall below par! At the same time, there are fields where the DRDO has excelled itself!

Actually I am talking of adapting tactics and strategy to Indian Industrial Capacity. But then OFB is a disaster par excellence. Like should we order Bofors or Indian Pinaka + Mets will do?

So in Indian context, for instance, do we have satellite comms as normal wireless has problems due to mountain features, do we have Nag missile launcher which is portable-helo droppable in mountains for direct fire interdiction of moving targets or is it only NAMICA for deserts & plains, do we have short range SAMS like those mounted on Tungushka mounted on light launchers or Light portable radars usable in mountains, are we even thinking of inducting supersonic suppressors for guns for infantry, similarly light single tube launchers for Pinaka, Lighter 155mm guns, what is our “emphasis” on nigh fighting capacity for infantry ?


I would say we have the items that you have mentioned. Satellite communication is passé especially in the era of Network Centric Warfare, we have radars and they have to pass the DGI tests where there is the drop test criteria as per the role of the equipment, we have a range of missiles for various roles and heights, Bofors are serving us rather well and so the issue of "light" 155mm is not understood. I am not aware of what is being meant by you as supersonic suppressor for infantry weapons. Could you explain or give a link? Night fighting capability for the infantry has been incorporated.

I missed the connection between satellite communication and radars :?: . I am saying light 155mm gun which can be more easily inserted by helo dropping (in parts) or equivalent manner. Bofors weigh around 12 tons while such gun will weight around 4.5 tons.

I am really interested in Knowing "to what extent" night fighting capacity has been incorported. Say at company level how many IT and TI we have?

Supersonic suppressors (flame suppressors), suppressors optimised to be used with light weapons firing normal (supersonic ammo). They help in reducing the flash so the night sights work better with them. Also in day time it makes it difficult for the enemy to guess the direction, type and extent of fire. It is cheap enough for general issue. I am talking about this item as an example, am sure there may be many such items which will enhance the combat efficiency of the infantry without multi-billion dollar investment.

http://guns.connect.fi/rs/general.html
http://www.special-operations-technolog ... ?DocID=900
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/hush.html

Your answer on the missiles is pretty general. for instance, Do wefield a Short range SAM (not manpads) on light launcher which can be helo insertable ?




Note LGP, LGB are laser guidance pods and laser guided shells.

Also I am not a fan of DRDO but of ‘indigenous production’ which is different but we are stuck with DRDO-OFB ain’t we?


I am not aware of laser guided weapons and so I cannot comment.

The day DRDO and OFB become like GAIL and ONGC, things will surely look up. Till then, we can expect the ilk of Gurudas Dasguptas and Somnath Chatterjees to rule supreme!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 03 Jan 2006 21:18

Raj Malhotra wrote:
Actually I am talking of adapting tactics and strategy to Indian Industrial Capacity. But then OFB is a disaster par excellence. Like should we order Bofors or Indian Pinaka + Mets will do?


OFB does have slippages. Therefore, what has to be done by the government and the political parties is to ensure that trade unionism is not rampant nor the go slow jaisa kam waisa dam attitude. If the assembly line for a fine equipment is in place, why think of otherwise?

I am afraid one does not plan strategy or tactics on the temperament of workers; and that too in India, where good people around the country and on the internet forums are always sniffing for conspiracies (Arjun etc)!

Given the infrimities of the Indian system, all one can say is that the Indian public will get the war that they deserve!

I missed the connection between satellite communication and radars :?: . I am saying light 155mm gun which can be more easily inserted by helo dropping (in parts) or equivalent manner. Bofors weigh around 12 tons while such gun will weight around 4.5 tons.

I am really interested in Knowing "to what extent" night fighting capacity has been incorported. Say at company level how many IT and TI we have?


Stripped, any weapon is airportable or air dropped!

As far as IT and TI, their efficiency drops with use. The Indian Army cannot have the luxury to equip each man with the equipment. Suffice it to say, there are enough of such equipment available to execute the task. Of course, as India gets economically stronger, the array will improve as also the numbers.

Supersonic suppressors (flame suppressors), suppressors optimised to be used with light weapons firing normal (supersonic ammo). They help in reducing the flash so the night sights work better with them. Also in day time it makes it difficult for the enemy to guess the direction, type and extent of fire. It is cheap enough for general issue. I am talking about this item as an example, am sure there may be many such items which will enhance the combat efficiency of the infantry without multi-billion dollar investment.

http://guns.connect.fi/rs/general.html
http://www.special-operations-technolog ... ?DocID=900
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/hush.html


The soldiers ears are pretty strong and so the noise of a shot makes no difference.

There are flash hiders and they have not proved unsuitable.

In an attack noise and flash is immaterial. In defence, again it is immaterial since the position will be known to the enemy if he has closed in and if he has done so, he would be able to see the firing bays. At night, he would use illumination to see where the enemy defences are and then open fire.

This suppressor is cosmetic to me and also a way to finance the arm industry. It is like a shopkeeper using a computer for billing. Whether it is a Pentium or something newer, it makes no difference.

A sniper may require it, but I wonder if a soldier requires it.

Your answer on the missiles is pretty general. for instance, Do wefield a Short range SAM (not manpads) on light launcher which can be helo insertable ?


You must realise one thing. It is fine to have an array of missile, guns etc in the Air Defence (AD) role. Also helicopters and fighter aircrafts will be massing the sky on various tasks. Do not look at each weapon individually. Just imagine the AD management involved.

The enemy aircraft at the low level, medium level and at the high level can be attacked.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 03 Jan 2006 23:22

Re Ray

You have answered a lot of issues on general terms so one cannot comment on them specifically.

The overall point I am making is that whether there is good emphasis on the role of “light infantry”.

While it is good to plan for the future but what are most likely war-battles-skirmishes that are likely to be fought?

I think they are short intense border actions in mountain terrain or COIN in mountain terrain.

While all hype of IAF, IN and mechanized columns are fine and dandy, what will be the most “likely” answer to the Chinese incursion, it will be cross incursion (Incidentally – what did you mean by perambulating?). Who will do it? Arjun tank or T-90 or MRCA or Scorp?

In fact the best “cold start” will be by infantry which is already on the borders in numbers, and then IAF and light elements of ground strike force can join the melee.

One cannot deny that everything is adequate, but many things like night fight capacity of infantry require EMPHASIS. To put it in numbers, for instance, I think there should be one Thermal imager down till platoon level and two image intensification binocs per section.

The issue of night fighting capacity and suppressors are couple of such issues. My very very limited knowledge about COIN in J&K leads me to believe that a lot has to be done on this score.

Even UAVs, flares dispensers were adequate till Kargill exposed the vulnerability. Apart from the surprise of kargill, could we equiped ourselves to “react” faster to Kargill like situation?

Could we outmaneuver and outflank and seep into the enemy forces “easily”?

Do we have “good’ equipment for it? Have we “adapted” our normal equipment for it? Is the emphasis on the recent purchases “correct”?

In fast moving action - Who is behind whom, and who is cut off and who is outflanking, who is outflanked, is sometimes more about – confidence, night fighting capacity, communications and non-conventional logistics.

Everything is airdropable in parts, even perhaps the aircraft carrier :) but what is more convenient and fast? Normally what is easily airdroppable or helo movable also lends to movement by ponies and stuff, so more easily deployable and usable in mountains.

satya
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Postby satya » 03 Jan 2006 23:50

Raj,

For thermal imagers, i can tell u they have been issued one for every platoon way back during Op. Prakaram on Rajasthan Front.


Return to “Military History Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest