Indian Army: News & Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 07:04

Some of the realistic films on War are:
1. The Longest Day
2. A Bridge Too Far
3. The Battle of the River Plate (on the Graf Spee)
4. Battle of Britain.
5. Patton

There are avenues for enlisted men to become officer – ACC, SL,

Rahul M

The MOH got me confused for a moment. In the Indian Army MOH = Meat On Hoof!

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 07:16

I think this recommendation came from AVS committee and makes sense on certain aspects of organizational structures. Major General and Lt Gen are last leg of officer's career. It makes sense to separate two functional areas and create specialist leaders. Something similar is being implemented for IAS too. It makes sense especially after implementation of AVS II which has increased the number of Generals. Instead of choosing the senior most officer from administrative duty for last 3 years and than promoting him as in charge of command to be a moved again to an administrative position when next opening comes up in 3-4 years.

By the time these folks are selected for Staff College courses they and army should know what is their interest/competence is. Some would be good at administrative jobs others may be better commanding troops. Keeping those streams separate makes sense for creating highly specialized (and job satisfied) leaders.


One has to understand the psychology and psyche of most Army or even Armed Forces officer.

They joined the Army because they liked the adventurous life and for a career full of excitement.

They did not join the Army or the Armed Forces to be Babus!!


From a Lt to the Chief, the psyche remains the same.

Therefore, if suddenly because of subjectivity someone is told that from now on he is a Babu and not a soldier, that man will lose interest in work and would have seriously be afflicted with low esteem and will not be looked upon with awe by his juniors. Therefore, even the issue of Leadership will be at stake!

It is a Matter of Honour; and honour is something that no Army man is ready to give up!

There are people who have resigned when not given command of his own unit!!


I know of a case (and no names Negi, but he is from your part of the world) and this officer was selected for the ‘Staff’ stream when this type of a selection process came into being under Gen Sunith Rodrigues. He made a ROG, which was upheld and he went into the Command Stream. He rose to be Lt Gen in the Command Stream!!

Now, this is an example of how subjective this whole issue is!

Take the case of Jaswant Singh and his going to Kandahar.

IIRC you are a naval child. Remember INS Khukri? The Captain went down with the ship! The Naval saying goes - Don't Give Up the Ship!

Some may criticise him for his act and why not, but then maybe his old instinct as an Army man goaded him to be 'with the boys'.

How many Ministers were there including those in the Maharastra govt, who were there 'at the front' when the action was on at the Taj Hotel in Mumbai? These Ministers were not leading from the front since they had decided early in life that they are the "Staff" stream!

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 22 Aug 2009 07:27

RayC wrote:2. The Northern Army Commander, Lt Gen P C Bhardwaj, PVSM, AVSM, VrC, SC, VSM is a General and and a Paratropper.

3. The former COS of Northern Command Lt Gen PC Katoch, UYSM, AVSM, SC a paratrooper. Please note UYSM and SC.

Lt Gen IS Gill, PVSM, AVSM, MC. MC = Military Cross equivalent to Sena Medal and given for gallantry. He too was a Paratrooper.


Just to add to Ray Sir's post: Both PC Bhardwaj and PC Katoch are Para Commandos - not just any paratrooper :mrgreen: PC Katoch led the raid on Akal Takht during Blue Star. Inder Singh Gill is of the Gorgopotamos bridge fame during WWII. So yes, even SF men (who according to popular lore get stuck at Colonel rank) rise to greater command ranks.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 22 Aug 2009 07:30

abhiti wrote:I don't see too many becoming generals from soldiers even with MOH. But a large number of them seem to rise to Colonel. I totally agree it is harder to get PVC than MOH. All the more reasons the ones who survive should rise quickly. They do seem to rise to Captain or Major. Don't know why...may be due to difference in education level of folks.


The comparison is a problematic because MOH recipients number in the 100s whereas you can count the number of PVC recipients on one hand. Even with such small numbers and even smaller numbers of live PVC recipients, we have 2 who became Colonels as Ray Sir pointed out.

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 07:33

Raja Bose wrote:
RayC wrote:2. The Northern Army Commander, Lt Gen P C Bhardwaj, PVSM, AVSM, VrC, SC, VSM is a General and and a Paratropper.

3. The former COS of Northern Command Lt Gen PC Katoch, UYSM, AVSM, SC a paratrooper. Please note UYSM and SC.

Lt Gen IS Gill, PVSM, AVSM, MC. MC = Military Cross equivalent to Sena Medal and given for gallantry. He too was a Paratrooper.


Just to add to Ray Sir's post: Both PC Bhardwaj and PC Katoch are Para Commandos - not just any paratrooper :mrgreen: PC Katoch led the raid on Akal Takht during Blue Star. Inder Singh Gill is of the Gorgopotamos bridge fame during WWII. So yes, even SF men (who according to popular lore get stuck at Colonel rank) rise to greater command ranks.


PC Katoch is the CO of PC Bhardwaj and hence he did not want to serve as Bhardwaj's COS.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby abhiti » 22 Aug 2009 07:34

Raja Bose wrote:The comparison is a problematic because MOH recipients number in the 100s whereas you can count the number of PVC recipients on one hand. Even with such small numbers and even smaller numbers of live PVC recipients, we have 2 who became Colonels as Ray Sir pointed out.


Agreed, Ray did provide the info I was missing. Now I will be waiting for Yogendra Singh Yadav to become at Colonel. :D

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 22 Aug 2009 07:37

abhiti wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:The comparison is a problematic because MOH recipients number in the 100s whereas you can count the number of PVC recipients on one hand. Even with such small numbers and even smaller numbers of live PVC recipients, we have 2 who became Colonels as Ray Sir pointed out.


Agreed, Ray did provide the info I was missing. Now I will be waiting for Yogendra Singh Yadav to become at Colonel. :D

^^^ Amen to that and don't leave out Sanjay Kumar who went from an autorickshaw driver to the bravest of the brave 8)

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 07:37

abhiti wrote:
I don't see too many becoming generals from soldiers even with MOH. But a large number of them seem to rise to Colonel. I totally agree it is harder to get PVC than MOH. All the more reasons the ones who survive should rise quickly. They do seem to rise to Captain or Major. Don't know why...may be due to difference in education level of folks


That is where the nub of the issue lies - not all PVC make good COs.

I know of a case of a PVC who was outwardly a cool chap but actually was a wild chap and could do any action that required guts, but he was a drunkard and created a whole lot of problems for his seniors and his juniors!!

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 22 Aug 2009 07:38

RayC wrote:PC Katoch is the CO of PC Bhardwaj and hence he did not want to serve as Bhardwaj's COS.


So they are both 1 Para Cdo??

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 07:41

Raja Bose wrote:
RayC wrote:PC Katoch is the CO of PC Bhardwaj and hence he did not want to serve as Bhardwaj's COS.


So they are both 1 Para Cdo??



And in IPKF.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 22 Aug 2009 07:42

^^^And you served under them? :mrgreen:

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 22 Aug 2009 07:43

RayC wrote:I know of a case of a PVC who was outwardly a cool chap but actually was a wild chap and could do any action that required guts, but he was a drunkard and created a whole lot of problems for his seniors and his juniors!!


I wonder who this one is? hmm......... :-?

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby abhiti » 22 Aug 2009 07:47

RayC wrote:That is where the nub of the issue lies - not all PVC make good COs. I know of a case of a PVC who was a wild chap and could do any action that required guts, but he was a drunkard and created a whole lot of problems for his seniors and his juniors!!


Agreed. An orgn needs to balance rewards for contribution (even from not too talented) as also from those with talent. Therefore I hope where ever possible army finds a way for these folks to rise.

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 07:55

I gave the example of how guts and brains are also matched wherein so many gutsy chaps became Generals!

As the wag in the Army said:

PVC = Permanently Very Confused.

MVC =Mentally Very Confused

VrC = Very Royally Confused.

We, in the Army, with our huge moustache and many thinking that we are Brainless Wonders, actually have brains and most importantly, can laugh at ourselves.

If we lost our humour and the capability to see the funny side of life, we would be no better than killers on hire!

We are as human as anyone else, have to have a sense of humour to face the grim realities of war and also have our brains in the right place.

As Patton said:

Bravery and Courage is nothing else but keeping a tight ars*ehole, lest the brains fall out!!

:wink: :rotfl:

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby negi » 22 Aug 2009 08:01

Brigadier Ray ; I was only trying to highlight the fact that by quoting the article and taking too simplistic a view perhaps in this case is not appropriate ,at least criticism of the Army chief is unwarranted (but I am unhappy with IA top brass on ARTy acquisition programme :mrgreen: ) based on a mere report which has very little information .

Infact if I be allowed to speculate one of the possible reasons for such a classification might be the fact that the folks(officers and men) who are not exactly in the thick of the things or action usually miss out on promotions (I am very well aware of the fact that in IA field postings have more credit points vis a vis say a family base ; same is the case in IN and IAF i.e more points for serving on board a ship/forward base or even in a squadron as compared to head quarters/CABS or even Arms depots).Now the issue is whether we like it or not folks who are not exactly in the mechanized division/armored corps/infantry i.e. say in logistics/records/administration/medicine usually miss out on high ranks simply because the latter do not see actual action on the front line and they are by no means contributing any less for they are doing what they are tasked to do.

Perhaps it is for the officers from above bolded departments the classification system is being proposed (I have no clue just speculating).

Btw I know the Lieutenant General in question. (not in person) :)

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Gaur » 22 Aug 2009 08:09

^^ Doesn't matter! Everyone experiences field postings. Even doctors are posted in Siachen.
So, no matter the core, every army man gets posted in the fields.

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 08:18

Now the issue is whether we like it or not folks who are not exactly in the mechanized division/armored corps/infantry i.e. say in logistics/records/administration/medicine


Everyone has slots in field, operational and HAA including JAG Branch!!

The said General spoke to me just yesterday!!

He was my Cdr and GOC and a very fine senior Officer and a great leader and combat commander!

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Y I Patel » 22 Aug 2009 10:19

The news item about bifurcation of Major Generals and higher into command and staff streams has me intrigued. I do not know if it is a good idea or bad, since I have not been able to grasp the full implications.

But I do know that two of the world's finest military organizations - the German Whermacht and the Soviet Armed Forces both relied on specialist staff officers. The Germans had their General Staff, whose officers specialised from a fairly junior rank (Colonel? Major?) IIRC. And of course, the Soviets had their Stavka, which was/is their equivalent. Looks like other Western European countries (France, UK) and US did not go with that system, though.

From what I understand, and I have to admit it is not much, the General Staff serves as a repository of institutional memory (there I go with my favourite term, Surya!). The commanders provide the vision, the impetus. The general staff officer, who is the Chief of Staff of the formation, works out the detailed operational plans to translate the vision into a campaign. The corporate equivalent, to some extent, would be a CEO and a COO. CEO provides the vision. COO makes the plans, allots the resources, sets the priorities to make it happen.

Now obviously, one does not need a dedicated or specialised General Staff officer for all this. One could argue that someone with command experience would have that much extra insight into framing a good plan. And therein lies the source of my curiosity. Ajai Vikram Singh was a very capable Defense Secretary. Sundarji, if he is the source of this inspiration, was also highly respected. What made people like those two want to go for such a system?

Incidentally, for those of you who didn't get a hidden implication - in the Soviet/Russian system, the Stavka is a body common to the three branches of the military. If you want a CDS, that person will be the Chief of Defense Staff. Maybe that is the angle some in IA want to work thorugh this specialization?

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 10:27

I cannot comment on the other armies and their policies since I have not served with them.

The only issue I have is that if you have not gone through the mill, then how can you visualise the issues involved and their interplay?

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Y I Patel » 22 Aug 2009 10:38

Ray Sahab, any gen on Lt Gen PC Bhardwaj? If he becomes VCOAS instead of Lt Gen VK Singh, is he likely to be the next COAS?

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 22 Aug 2009 10:49

Y I Patel wrote:Ray Sahab, any gen on Lt Gen PC Bhardwaj? If he becomes VCOAS instead of Lt Gen VK Singh, is he likely to be the next COAS?


No idea.

What is happening is really surprising me.

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 23 Aug 2009 02:04

City firms to roll out anti-bomb robot for Army soon
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/City- ... oon/505338

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Aug 2009 06:40

Raja Bose wrote:^^^And you served under them? :mrgreen:


They are juniors in service. ;)

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Surya » 23 Aug 2009 07:01

lol

yeah - been some time with the institutional memory :)

Now there are scenarios I see this as an advantage although I would like some flexibility. Its the rigidity that worries me.

Yogi

Its not just the IA - there have been some thoughts in certain Air Force quarters.

Will talk to you about it later - its been some time since we yakked

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Y I Patel » 23 Aug 2009 09:04

Surya, you've got mail!

It saddens me that we Indians have a tendency to trivialize serious arguments - and military matters are especially prone to this both from the journalist side as well as the military officer side.

Now if there is an issue that has grounds for a substantive discussion, it is this new approach of specializing Generals into staff and command streams. I remember an earlier debate on CDS, and at that time I had time to dig stuff up. In particular, there was a wonderful exchange between Gen Vijay Oberoi and Air Marshal Vinod Patney that was published in Journal of USI. I wonder if something similar has been published this time around? Anyone here motivated enough to do some digging?

One argument that I can advance in favour of specialization is that staff posts involve a lot intricacies than people do not give them credit for. Of course, in the current system these posts get derogated because 'Command' posts carry a cachet and lead to the highest command. However, if one steps back and thinks about it, there are some extremely vital staff posts - I would rate the DGMO as a prime example. I understand IAF has a DGMO equivalent as well. And just think about the Directors General of Arty, Armour and Infantry. Or to take a more modern example, think of Director General of Information Warfare (Lt Gen Katoch is occupying that post now - I hope I got the right name for the post). These are all staff positions, I would imagine. Think of the power and responsibilities that go with these posts. Think of how they would benefit from specialization.

Perhaps the biggest argument for such a specialization would be that there would be some specialized staff officer who would be able to explain what some highly reputed military organizations have been able to get from this specialization :) That's why I came up with examples of Stavka and German General Staff. Why dismiss their example so cavalierly, Ray Sahab? Do you think they would have gone with this system without having given it a lot of thought?

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Aug 2009 10:36

Y I Patel wrote:Surya, you've got mail!

It saddens me that we Indians have a tendency to trivialize serious arguments - and military matters are especially prone to this both from the journalist side as well as the military officer side.

Now if there is an issue that has grounds for a substantive discussion, it is this new approach of specializing Generals into staff and command streams. I remember an earlier debate on CDS, and at that time I had time to dig stuff up. In particular, there was a wonderful exchange between Gen Vijay Oberoi and Air Marshal Vinod Patney that was published in Journal of USI. I wonder if something similar has been published this time around? Anyone here motivated enough to do some digging?

One argument that I can advance in favour of specialization is that staff posts involve a lot intricacies than people do not give them credit for. Of course, in the current system these posts get derogated because 'Command' posts carry a cachet and lead to the highest command. However, if one steps back and thinks about it, there are some extremely vital staff posts - I would rate the DGMO as a prime example. I understand IAF has a DGMO equivalent as well. And just think about the Directors General of Arty, Armour and Infantry. Or to take a more modern example, think of Director General of Information Warfare (Lt Gen Katoch is occupying that post now - I hope I got the right name for the post). These are all staff positions, I would imagine. Think of the power and responsibilities that go with these posts. Think of how they would benefit from specialization.

Perhaps the biggest argument for such a specialization would be that there would be some specialized staff officer who would be able to explain what some highly reputed military organizations have been able to get from this specialization :) That's why I came up with examples of Stavka and German General Staff. Why dismiss their example so cavalierly, Ray Sahab? Do you think they would have gone with this system without having given it a lot of thought?


I wonder if anyone trivialises military issues. I sure hope it is not me you had in mind. Be rest assured that what I post is not based on my experience alone, but the amalgam of experience and interaction with other professionals, who I daresay are not aware of their profession and the interplay. I am sure they are more reliable to judge issues than theoreticians whose knowledge is based not in actual service!


On the issue of being cavalier, I have not been able to get through to you.

I had said that I would not be in a position to comment on foreign armies since I have not served with them. I take it that is not being cavalier and instead, quite pragmatic and honest.

One just cannot superimpose foreign ideas or systems merely because these foreign armies are ‘modern’ and popular lore grants them an aura of superior knowledge in the management of war.

The US Army follows Auftragstaktik , while the Russians are said to adhere to Befelstaktik. While some senior officers claim that the IA follows Auftragstaktik (since it is fashionable), in reality it still adheres to Befelstaktik and they themselves are the hurdles to changing to Auftragstaktik.

Notwithstanding the pretensions that the IA follows Auftragstaktik, why do we follow Befelstaktik?

The answer is not hard to find.

Indians, in all walks of life, are not used to being adventurous and instead are very sensitive to failures. We like an orderly form of life. We are less prone to taking risks. That leads one to accept Command by Directives i.e. every move calculated and planned. We don’t like the freewheeling format of Command by Mission.

Thus, what is fine for other countries need not be fine for us!

Therefore, what is fine for the US and the Germans need not be fine for us, unless we change our psyche and ethos!

Specialisation is indeed the need of the hour. However, the experience is that unless one has studied combat, participated in it (and we have had ample opportunities to do it and understand its value better than most), one cannot grasp the issues involved even in Staff Work (which in any case is not as complicated as one would like to believe).

If a DGMO has not seen and participated in combat, he would be merely a paper tiger sending people to meet their Maker! That is why an EME officer can never be a DGMO. Combat and repairing or recovering a vehicle or a tank in an operational area and fighting up front are two different things. Specialisation for Staff appointees is there, but it is also tempered with the background of the person.

What little I know of the German General Staff is that they alternated from being Staff with line service and that is exactly what we do!

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1874
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby manjgu » 23 Aug 2009 10:57

The Germal Gerernal staff traces its history to the prussians who were always finding ways to bring order to the conduct of war.

While the Germans had a dedicated General staff its officers alternated between Line and staff duties. Von Moltke modernised the general staff. he recruited people and trained them to think exactly like him, to bring a uniformity to planning, preparation of war. these officers while being part of the general staff went to operational/regimental duties and then back to staff duties. this was a way to preserve and institutionalize lessons learnt, best practices in the conduct and planning of war. there were staff officers at subordinate formations/headquaters who implemented his directives as per doctrines and methods established ( they were his extended arms) ... while his opponenets got bogged down in admin work and thought different ways of executing war plans. the staff officers also spent time working on different war scenarios and preparing plans for different possibilities.

the germans developed a unique system ..the
Chief staff officer could overrule the commanders plans.. though this system took a hit with hitler often issuing directives against the thinking of the general staff. heinz Guederain ( the father of modern combinded arms doctrine) also served as the Cheif of General staff.

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Aug 2009 12:04

How is it different from the IA?

In fact, we are better.

If you do not do the Staff College Course, you do not get staff appointments that matter.

And those who then go for Higher Command are ready to grab for the Stars.

And then the National Defence College and you are made.

However, yes, the Staff Officer cannot override the Commander's plan in theory. He can and they do, tell their Commanders to get the subordinate Commander's plans changed!

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Aug 2009 12:16

In painting this picture of the Kaiserheer most of historians have focused
on the General Staff and its head, and the origins of Germany’s failed
strategy and battlefield doctrine are generally found in the teachings of
Alfred von Schlieffen, Chief of the Prussian General Staff from 1891 to
1905 and author of the infamous plan which bears his name. Gerhard
Ritter, in his classic study of the Schlieffen Plan, wrote of Schlieffen as a “pure technician” who ignored the political implications of his war plan and thus sowed the seeds of Germany’s defeat.6 JehudaWallach traced the origins of the “dogma of the battle of annihilation,” which kept Germansoldiers blind to other approaches, back to Schlieffen.7............

German General Staff

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Aug 2009 12:24

The plan also shackled German operational commanders. As his great wheeling movement was to sweep forward on a front of 300 kilometers with about thirty corps, each one would have only ten kilometers of front in which to make its advance. The precise road assignments for each German Corps in the marching wing had to be planned
out and assigned ahead of time. To avoid marching columns thirty miles long, parallel roads had to be found and assigned to each Corps, division, and regiment. Only by such painstaking staff work, could the German forces advance the needed 20 miles per day.
Even in 1905, Schlieffen worried that the road system itself, without any resistance from the Belgian army, could slow the German advance to a crawl. Schlieffen admitted the fundamental tactical problem facing Germany in his final draft of the plan. Any attempt 6 to increase the number of attacking troops would result in a huge traffic jam: “an unnecessary mass will be formed behind the firingline.”

Speed was essential but geography, mathematics, physics, and even human weariness could dislocate the whole plan. After all, the German Army of 1914 could only move rapidly as far as the railway extended. Once the German soldiers left the trains, the advance from the railheads to Paris required six weeks of forced marches. At best, soldiers march at a universal rate of four miles per hour. There was also little consideration for the plans of the enemy. Schlieffen wrote: “Should the English land and advance, the Germans will halt, defeat the English and continue the operation against the French.” The plan allocated no time for the defeat of the British Army.


THE SCHLIEFFEN PLAN

That much for specialisation and the German General Staff being superior!!

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Aug 2009 12:52

I do not grudge anyone being enamoured by foreign concepts or equipment as I do not grudge anyone preferring a western blond for his better half. It is each man's choice and good luck to him because luck is an important factor in love and war! :)

While I am accused of being a McCauley clone, yet on what I understand, I am swadeshi and have no shame to admit it.

I am not impressed with the idea of cloning the IA on foreign concepts, systems and terminology and gobbledygooks. Our threat perception, psyche, equipment etc are not the same.

Take Afghanistan and Kashmir. Who has been able to control the situation? And we don't use air, artillery or tanks!!

I agree with what Rumsfeld said - "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want" because none can give me the army that I want!

We must cut our coat as per our cloth!

And lastly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - has the Armed Forces let the country down with all its warts and shortcomings that the good intentioned citizens and NRIs feel that we are not up to the mark?

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 881
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby ParGha » 24 Aug 2009 00:16

RayC wrote:How is it different from the IA?


Exactly. That is what I don't understand about this discussion. The French, under Berthier, invented the modern General Staff system - and pretty much everyone has adopted and adapted it to their use. I don't know enough about the Soviet staff, but all NATO armies run under the same system - including the US and UK. :-?

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Y I Patel » 24 Aug 2009 00:18

Ray sahab, I was not thinking of you when I made my comment about we Indians trivializing issues. But you have to admit, when we read articles about the military from those in the military or out of it, mostly they come across as jeremiads that caricature issues and trivialize them.

But for right now, I am sitting back with a satisfied expression on my face. Glad my prods seem to have gotten members to start probing deeper into the merits of the issue!

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 24 Aug 2009 10:42

ParGha wrote:
RayC wrote:How is it different from the IA?


Exactly. That is what I don't understand about this discussion. The French, under Berthier, invented the modern General Staff system - and pretty much everyone has adopted and adapted it to their use. I don't know enough about the Soviet staff, but all NATO armies run under the same system - including the US and UK. :-?


Do the the US, UK and NATO have a specialised General Staff cadre as the Germans had? Any links or reference to books?

Since you are aware, do give some details.

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

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby RayC » 24 Aug 2009 10:57

Y I Patel wrote:Ray sahab, I was not thinking of you when I made my comment about we Indians trivializing issues. But you have to admit, when we read articles about the military from those in the military or out of it, mostly they come across as jeremiads that caricature issues and trivialize them.

But for right now, I am sitting back with a satisfied expression on my face. Glad my prods seem to have gotten members to start probing deeper into the merits of the issue!


Ah these Yirməyāhū!

Each Chief, having passed his time, would like to leave behind some footprint on the sand of time.

Mostly, they are cosmetic cloaked to appear cerebral.

JJ Singh, changed the Gorget Patch and replaced it with stars appropriate to the rank equivalent of the US Army and added it on the Flags of the Staff Cars!

The reason, in America, the US Army cannot recognise the rank. What's teh big deal? I received the Chief of the US Army and I could not recognise him too since his uniform appeared as if he has come on a safari trip! And being poor at maths, I could not count his stars either as if his appearance put stars in my eyes!!

While I have been taken to task in these Hinduvta threads for being Hinduism illiterate, it nevertheless does not make me any less proud to be an Indian and demand that others accept me so. I won't change to suit foreigners under any circumstances!

Now, as far as the stars on the flag is concerned. Are we to understand on that small flag on the car bonnet, flapping in the wind, the people can count those stars? Therefore, a totally stupid idea.

Take the flag and the British. They had different shapes of flags for flag cars - easily identifiable!

So, Deepak Kapoor had to reinvent the wheel that had already met its Waterloo earlier!

It is not your prodding that has got people thinking. It is the wonderment that a failed system is being revived.

The other issue that you mentioned is the VCOAS issue.

What's up?

Leaving a legacy of controversies as your hallmark or are you buckling down under political pressure, Mr Chief, (not you, but the COAS) and are there lollies in the waiting?

ovein
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 16:53
Contact:

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby ovein » 24 Aug 2009 17:46

Indigenous T-90 tanks roll out
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article8173.ece



From the picture i count at least 10 tanks. Cheers

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby AmitR » 24 Aug 2009 18:06

ovein wrote:Indigenous T-90 tanks roll out
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article8173.ece



From the picture i count at least 10 tanks. Cheers

Indigenous T-90 :rotfl: :rotfl: .
So what is Arjun, American?

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Anabhaya » 24 Aug 2009 19:48

Yesterday must have been a sad day. Another 1000 or so T-90S are coming even as ARJUN awaits a repeat order - of a mere 124 pieces.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 881
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby ParGha » 25 Aug 2009 06:41

RayC wrote:Do the the US, UK and NATO have a specialised General Staff cadre as the Germans had? Any links or reference to books? Since you are aware, do give some details.


To clarify, I meant that the US and most of NATO run on the Continental System, and since joining the NATO the British and Canadian forces have also significantly modified their practices for interoperability (http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organiz ... ficers.htm).

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Indian Army Discussion

Postby Brando » 25 Aug 2009 08:39

RayC wrote:I am not impressed with the idea of cloning the IA on foreign concepts, systems and terminology and gobbledygooks. Our threat perception, psyche, equipment etc are not the same.

Take Afghanistan and Kashmir. Who has been able to control the situation? And we don't use air, artillery or tanks!!


Mr Moderator,

I gather that you have served in the Indian Army. If so then you have already been practicing "foreign" concepts, systems and terminology which has been passed down by the Royal British Indian Army. What difference does it make if now you adopt practices from America considering that you have already been following Imperial British tradition for so long that you now claim them as your own ?? The ability to rapidly adopt new ideas has never been proven to be foolhardy.

As to your point on Afghanistan vs Kashmir, I would ask you how many men you have lost in Kashmir vs how many men have been lost by Colition forces in Afghanistan in a 10 year period ? Your doctrine for better or for worse is manpower intensive and more reactive to threat scenario, while conversely the Colation doctrine calls for more pro-active approach utilizing lesser man power. Also, I'd like to mention that Afghanistan is much larger than Kashmir while offering similar operational and logistical obstacles .


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests