International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Sep 2009 19:03

Chavez's windfall from the "Bear"! S-300 diplomacy at work yet again.

Russia lends Venezuela $2bn to buy tanks and missile system
President Hugo Chavez said that Russia has agreed to lend Venezuela $2.2 billion (£1.3 billion) to finance the purchase from Moscow of weapons including 92 tanks and advanced anti-aircraft missiles.

By Our Foreign Staff
Published: 12:02AM BST 14 Sep 2009

Hugo Chavez said Russia is lending Venezuela $2.2 billion to finance the purchase of weapons including 92 tanks Photo: REUTERS
The firebrand Venezuelan leader said the purchases agreed on a trip to Moscow last week included the advanced S300 missile system, which is capable of shooting down fighter jets and cruise missiles.

"We have to thank the Russian government, which approved a $2.2 billion loan for arms spending," Mr Chavez said on his weekly television show. He did not say how much the new weapons cost.

Related Articles
Israel warns Russia over weapons sale to Syria
Hugo Chavez wants Venezuela to build nuclear programme
Hugo Chavez freezes ties with Colombia over weapons row
Hugo Chavez to freeze relations with Colombia

US and Russia scrap nuclear pact after Moscow agrees to send warships to VenezuelaA major oil exporter, Venezuela's finances have suffered this year because of lower crude prices. Mr Chavez said Venezuela needed to borrow the money for defence spending to avoid cuts in education and health.

In recent years, Venezuela has bought over $4 billion of weapons from Russia including 24 Sukhoi fighter jets. Critics say Venezuela is fueling an arms race in Latin America, but Mr Chavez - America's nemesis in the region - says he is modernising the military for defensive purposes.

Venezuela is embroiled in a diplomatic crisis with Colombia over a deal to allow US troops access to more bases in the neighbouring country to fight drug traffickers and Left-wing guerrillas.

Mr Chavez, a fierce critic of US foreign policy, alleges the Colombian bases plan could be used to launch an attack on Venezuela and increases the risk of war in South America.

"Let me be clear, Venezuela has no plans to invade anybody, or to be aggressive towards anybody," Mr Chavez said on his show.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 15 Sep 2009 13:38

Russia Gives Up Mass Army
Leading Russian military expert Vitaly Shlykov spoke during one of the sessions of the Valdai Discussion Club last week about the sweeping reform of the country’s armed forces, which begins in December and will cut the number of tanks from 20,000 to 2,000 and reduce the number or reservists to just 100,000.

The reform, which Shlykov described as nothing short of a revolution, will significantly affect the Kremlin’s approach to the composition of and future cuts to the country’s military arsenal.

Shlykov, who heads the Security Policy Commission of the Defense Ministry’s Public Council, is a former deputy minister of defense and a retired colonel of the GRU military intelligence service.
This has to be a bloody joke!! Such a large country having just 2000 tanks??!! Simply unimaginable.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16962
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2009 18:20

It does seem like a huge drop. But then their threat perception and economy has also declined. I suspect they have only China, as a major threat, to contend with.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 15 Sep 2009 18:59

NRao wrote:It does seem like a huge drop. But then their threat perception and economy has also declined. I suspect they have only China, as a major threat, to contend with.

With all due respect,

Remember South Ossetia war last year? The entire NATO was gearing up at some level to confront Russia.
Remember the friction with the US over Patriots in Poland?
Remember Chechnyan war not too long ago?

All of the above three confrontations happened within the last decade.

China is the least of their problems. If at all, they might even increase their military aide to China in view of their loosening foothold in India.

Either the new article is false or its too fool hardy a decision.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16962
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2009 19:32

Do you see NATO threatening Russia?

I see the US making efforts to corral ex-Soviet states into NATO, but not threaten Russia itself.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 15 Sep 2009 20:58

NRao wrote:Do you see NATO threatening Russia?
With only 2000 tanks spread out over a huge area, Of course i do!
NRao wrote:I see the US making efforts to corral ex-Soviet states into NATO, but not threaten Russia itself.
Don't see Ombaba doing it. But he has enough keedas in his musharraf to instigate the Russians like decorating the Russian border with Patriots and AMDs, romancing Ukraine etc.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 15 Sep 2009 21:25


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16962
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2009 21:27

(First that 2000 figure looks a little tough to swallow.) IF the Russians perceived a threat to Russia from NATO, I bet they would not reduce it to 2000. They cannot, it would be suicidal. And, although their eco is relatively bad, I doubt if it is THAT bad.

From a NATO PoV, I just do not see any threat to Russia itself. Now with Obama the threat that may have existed with Bush is also gone. And, is there any NATO member in EU that has such ideas? I doubt it.

The NATO threat is to absorb the old Soviet countries into NATO. And, Russia cannot really do much about that with even 20,000 tanks.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 15 Sep 2009 21:39

Russia wants to reduce its conventional forces while boosting its nuclear forces.It is going to increase both its strategic and tactical missiles in huge numbers instead of having 1000`s of tanks and foot soldiers.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16962
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2009 21:39




RIA Novosti: So, basically, there is no more mobilization?

Shlykov: No mobilization, no large-scale war, no threats from NATO. Why was the threat of the NATO so popular with the military? Because it allowed them to keep up the old system, this mobilization system, and consider themselves useful, though the regular officers of those divisions have been doing nothing for the last 15 years -- no military training, no re-education. We had 20,000 tanks, now 2,000 tanks will be left. The rest will be turned into scrap.


QED?

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby krishnan » 15 Sep 2009 21:50

for people who dont known what APG (radar) means,

-- A indicates that the equipment is for installation on a piloted aircraft.

-- P means the equipment is a radar.

-- G indicates that it is a fire-control product.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 15 Sep 2009 23:08

NRao wrote:QED?
IMHO, Thats akin to SMK saying there's no threat from China. Moreover, Putin's giving feelers of his return as president in 2012. Don't think he'll let that happen.

JMT.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 15 Sep 2009 23:10

krishnan wrote:for people who dont known what APG (radar) means,

-- A indicates that the equipment is for installation on a piloted aircraft.

-- P means the equipment is a radar.

-- G indicates that it is a fire-control product.
Thats something i didn't know. Thanks. Anymore such codes that you know of?

Added later: Found this link (pdf) http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/servic ... revity.pdf

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby b_patel » 15 Sep 2009 23:36

Does anyone know which variant of the S-300 system Venezuela will be receiving?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16962
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Sep 2009 19:09

Dmurphy wrote:
NRao wrote:Do you see NATO threatening Russia?
With only 2000 tanks spread out over a huge area, Of course i do!
NRao wrote:I see the US making efforts to corral ex-Soviet states into NATO, but not threaten Russia itself.
Don't see Ombaba doing it. But he has enough keedas in his musharraf to instigate the Russians like decorating the Russian border with Patriots and AMDs, romancing Ukraine etc.


This is also a front page report in Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3afca064-a22d ... abdc0.html):

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... HI1air48Cg

NATO chief calls for closer ties with Russia: report

(AFP) – 13 hours ago

LONDON — NATO's chief called Wednesday for an "open minded and unprecedented dialogue" with Russia to reduce security tensions in Europe and confront common threats.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who took over the top job last month, said he wanted to begin an "open and frank conversation (with Moscow) that creates a new atmosphere."

"Russia should realise that NATO is here and that NATO is a framework for our transatlantic relationship," he told the Financial Times in an interview published Wednesday.

"But we should also take into account that Russia has legitimate security concerns," he said.

Although differences remained between the two sides, he said he had a "vision" of a "true strategic partnership" in which both sides collaborated on Afghanistan, terrorism and piracy.

He said he was prepared to discuss a proposal from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for a new security architecture in Europe.

"I have an open mind as regards the Medvedev proposal. If such a dialogue could create more confidence and take into account legitimate Russian security concerns, it could be very fruitful."

Ties between Moscow and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation hit a post-Cold War low last August when Russia and NATO hopeful Georgia briefly went to war. However, the alliance and Moscow agreed in June to resume political and military cooperation.

Georgia is seeking to join the alliance, but Moscow is deeply suspicious of NATO's expansion eastward.

When he took the NATO helm, Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister, made Afghanistan and Russia relations his top priorities for his four-year mandate.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 16 Sep 2009 20:25


chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1452
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby chanakyaa » 18 Sep 2009 07:13



Great Call, but Russians don't give a damn. The reason is that Russia is sitting on vast reserves of oil and gas which Europe is 100% dependent upon. Europeans don't like it but they have no choice. Russia is openly using its natural resources to blackmail Europe and Europeans can't do anything about it, not at least in the short run. On the other hand, Georgia doesn't realize that it is being used as a toy. They are being tossed between West and Russia. Earlier, Afghanistan was the toy between West and Russia, the roles are assumed by Georgia and to some extent Ukraine. Russia's cluster bomb technology is so powerful that it can reduce military while keeping an upper hand.

JAI HIND

Mahesh_R
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 00:46

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Mahesh_R » 18 Sep 2009 09:33

chanakyaa wrote:Russia's cluster bomb technology is so powerful that it can reduce military while keeping an upper hand.

Does India have cluster bombs ?
I remember long back reading an article in which India has placed order for Cluster bombs with US of A and they were suppose to be delivered in couple of years...there is NO news on that...

Guru's,

can any one provide info on that ?
If we don't have cluster bomb tech we can get from Russia right.....one gud thing about Russians is they will provide anything to everything if you pay for it... :D

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 18 Sep 2009 10:09

^^^
Countries that have stocks of cluster munitions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bo ... _munitions

manish
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 29 Jan 2009 16:13

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby manish » 18 Sep 2009 13:54

Don't know if this has been posted before. Here's a Times UK feature on UK's Nuclear Weapons history and issues.
Trident: Britain's Nuclear Debate
Has a timeline of events presented in the form of a flash movie with embedded video footage and photographs. Pretty nice.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55232
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ramana » 22 Sep 2009 02:24

X-posted....
Gerard wrote:Iran and IAEA re-enter missile row
"We want them to explain to us that the design studies are not for nuclear weapons," said the official. "We're saying, you say you've done re-entry vehicle re-engineering [on Shahab-3], so show us some documentation."



Buried in this article are details of the new Iranain Re-entry vehicle!

According to a detailed analysis by the Armed Combat Information Group (ACIG), the upgraded version of the Shahab-3 has an improved guidance system and warhead, as well as completely new re-entry vehicle with a different guidance system based on rocket-nozzle steering rather than a spin-stabilized re-entry vehicle.

The new re-entry vehicle is smaller than the previous version, according to the former head of Israel's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. That gives the improved version greater precision.

But the most significant feature of the new variant, according to the ACIG analysis, is the capability for changing trajectory repeatedly during re-entry and in the missile's terminal phase. That capability allows the Shahab-3 to evade the radar systems associated with Israel's Arrow 2 missile.


Something it think about.

chand
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 25 May 2004 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby chand » 22 Sep 2009 06:29

Mahesh_R wrote:
chanakyaa wrote:Russia's cluster bomb technology is so powerful that it can reduce military while keeping an upper hand.

Does India have cluster bombs ?
I remember long back reading an article in which India has placed order for Cluster bombs with US of A and they were suppose to be delivered in couple of years...there is NO news on that...

Guru's,

can any one provide info on that ?
If we don't have cluster bomb tech we can get from Russia right.....one gud thing about Russians is they will provide anything to everything if you pay for it... :D

FYI, about anti cluster bomb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00492.html

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 22 Sep 2009 22:37

UK's Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) program

http://www.defense-update.com/features/ ... ent_1.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Sep 2009 10:06

Long Shot

Russian military leaders confirmed last week that the development of an all-new long range air defense system, dubbed S-500, is under way, and revealed some operational parameters of the future weapon.

Air Force Commander Gen. Col. Alexander Zelin was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying that S-500 will be a completely new system, not a further development of the current S-400 Triumf SAM. He mentioned that the target detection range of the new system will be extended by 150-200 km compared to the S-400.

According to the Almaz-Antey company, the designer of the S-400 and the future S-500, the Triumf has a detection range of 600 km, implying that the S-500 will be able to detect targets at 750-800 km. The S-500 is also expected to be able to engage 10 targets simultaneously, four more than the S-400 and the earlier S-300PM.

Zelin said that the S-500 will be ready “in the near future”. The Russian Air Defense Forces, a part of the Air Force, have just started to receive the S-400. The first S-400 regiment was deployed near Moscow in 2007, the second one in 2008. Earlier, military officials said that the long-term program calls for the acquisition of 23 Triumf battalions by 2015.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 23 Sep 2009 10:11

I think they will not go for even bigger missiles. the current SAMs look like IRBMs almost. might take off from 9M96e2 platform (120km) and improve speed, height, sensors & terminal stage (active from AAM) to match the proposed 170km range SM-6 missile.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/sm-6.htm

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 16:22

Here is some clarification on the tank debate link

In the next ten years, army divisions will be replaced with permanent readiness brigades and battalions operating 2,000 to 2,300 combat-ready main battle tanks whose number will increase somewhat. Training units will have several hundred more tanks. Another 3,000-4,000 tanks will remain at storehouses. Consequently, the Russian Army will have a total of 6,000 to 7,000 tanks.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 09 Oct 2009 18:02

http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDA&i=4314376

The SMSS can be controlled in a number of ways. It can be manned and driven in a conventional way; it can be remotely operated via a joystick; it can be tele-operated from beyond line-of-sight via its own sensors; or it can go into true autonomous operation.
In autonomous operation, it can even be told to follow a particular soldier. It takes a picture of that soldier and then follows him wherever he goes.
Nimblett said the company is also exploring the possibility of adding voice-recognition capability to the SMSS so it can obey voice commands.


If this MULE can be effictively developed as the SMSS it can have further uses which are not mentioned in the article. We can use it to bring back wounded soldiers thereby eliminating the need to deploy 4 other troops to get the injured GI/Jawan out. It can also carry ammunitions to them to Forward operating Bases (FOB) while reliving other Jawans to continue to focus on their enemy and not worry about supply lines. What still remains to be seen is how well would this robot respond to different terrains and weather. Being that it is a 6 wheeled vehicle, it might be ideal for a desert terrain, or in AP area however when using this in Mountainous regions like Kargil I think the Mules (ANIMALS) would be a better choice. :D

RayC sir your comments/thoughts on wheter India should develop something on this like. The design aspect of this so called "robot" looks like one of our good ole Lorry used by the sabjiwala minus the 2 additional wheels as ours are usually 4 and very skinny. So it's not that our chaps are incapable of developing a robot based on this design specs, however what remains to be a challenge is the integration of autonomy with resepect to terrain mapping, and other hardware/software integration.

Gerard Sir - Would you mind changing my username to Harsh005??
Last edited by Gerard on 09 Oct 2009 18:06, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: username changed to conform with forum guidelines


Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 13 Oct 2009 18:27

US WANTS BUNKER BUSTERS FAST

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_big_bomb

The 15-ton behemoth — called the "massive ordnance penetrator," or MOP — will be the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and will carry 5,300 pounds of explosives. The bomb is about 10 times more powerful than the weapon it is designed to replace.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gerard » 15 Oct 2009 03:03


Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 15 Oct 2009 03:51


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Oct 2009 06:39

those lattice fins are copycat from R77.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby negi » 15 Oct 2009 06:47

And those guys call R-77 Amraamski .
And there were self appointed experts who claimed how lattice fins indicated lack of RU expertise in designing compact yet powerful servo motors for conventional fins . :roll:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Oct 2009 07:19

Here is a nice interesting recently released book "The Dead Hand" , with the elegant and graceful SS-18 on its cover.

Interview with the Author: David Hoffman

Image

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 16 Oct 2009 03:29

US ARMY AWARDS $2B TO BUILD A SOLAR FARM IN MOJAVE DESERT
Image
Maybe the Indian Army can build something along this line in our good old THAR desert out in Rajasthan. I believe some land was allocated for this, but things never fructified. Hopefully it does, as it will benefit both villagers and our defense personnel. (Gau ki chori with TV and all :rotfl: )

Ravishankar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 30 Aug 2008 16:32

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Ravishankar » 16 Oct 2009 13:06

Shaw-based F-16s crash over Atlantic, one missing

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11324477

2 Shaw F-16s collide off S. Carolina coast

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3871.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Oct 2009 14:32

Nice video of Kh-25 in action
Su-24 launching Kh-25

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 Oct 2009 21:11

Livefist has put up pix of Indo-US Stryker eval exercise.

nitinr
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 17:35

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby nitinr » 18 Oct 2009 13:46

Don't know if this is the right. Pls move if its not..

"Obama loosens missile technology controls to China"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/inside-the-ring-2059116/

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 18 Oct 2009 17:51

From LIVEFIST COMMENTS SECTION
SO MUCH for the BONHOMIE.. LET'S HAVE IT ALL OUT IN THE OPEN.. MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOURS mentality!!

The Blackhorse regiment of the American Cavalry was during the Cold War the best mechanized unit in the world, bar none. Please Indians, try to keep your eyes on the exercise and learn instead of the sturdy, menacing figures of the broadshouldered Americans. And don't ask for a rupee to clean the vision block of the Strykers.

4:30 PM
Blogger Truth for India said...

^^^Anonymous 4:30 PM,


Thats why you ass been kicked by the Taliban in Afghanistan. You come here to learn and we also learn from you. Its not one sided.

You have to learn how to fight a eal combat and we have to lean how to use latest systems. Thats it.

Don't be so smart. We have seen what can your special forces do in previous years at Ladakh, CIJWS etc etc. You took 1 hour to climb a rock that have been done by an Indian soldier in five minutes. As well as other capabilities like jungle warfare and special tactics.

So don't try to be over smart Indians are not beggars lime Pakistanis. Your army understood this and you will also.

9:23 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh-oh, here comes the local Army propaganda officer to furious type out a response on his unbranded keyboard to refute observations that Indian troops look under-equipped and third world, which they do.

If you say, Mr Truth, that Americans are arsekicked in Afghanistan what do you call the performance of the Indians in Kashmir?

Population of Kashmir (7 million) Afghanistan (28 million)
Physical size of Kashmir (1/10 that of Afghanistan)
Losses of Indian troops in last 10 years (at least 5 times that of Americans, who have lost less than a thousand soldiers in 9 years of fighting).
Distance to home country (0 km and 8000 km, at the end of a very long supply line)

There you go, unrefutable facts. You're so silly.

Will it kill you, rank and file soldiers of India, to admit what a backward army you are, and how far behind you are to the West? The Chinese have no fear admitting it, and they are ahead of you in some areas.

These exercises are not to learn from you. What's there to learn from you, swing your rifle like a club when it jams again? The nicety is just to hide the fact that we Americans are TRAINING you to hopefully give you a dose of modern reality.

All you can hurl at me now are urban myths. Woah, Indians skimmied up a mountain in 5 minutes while it took Americans one hour. Seriously? No exaggeration there then? Were the Americans wounded from Iraq? Was it a mountain of wet rice and soggy curry vegetables wrapped in bundle of old newspaper, without a fork in sight, such that only the (South Indian) soldiers knew how to make their way around with their hands? And afterward smoked a cheroot, laid back and read the wrapping for last week's news?

Part of the difference could be counting the fact that the exercise was in your backyard and you know the terrain? It's just like Cope India isn't it, stack the odds in your favor until it is impossible to lose and then crow victory to a bemused world.

If you were more rational (or actually truthful), you can say there are mobility differences between Indian and American troops. For sure. But short forward rushes are not so important today, since it is primarily used to overcome an enemy who is hugging you (in battle terms) and preventing clearing strikes. But today, with everything precision based, it is far more important to have ballistics protection in urban fighting (in rural fighting, enemy gets wiped out in half an hour). Spoken from Army commando experience.

It was very brave rushing and dashing up Tiger Hill but for what? A trail of dead Indian soldiers leading all the way to the top, because your artillery had inadequate shells and your Russian-based air force keep bombing the wrong mountain. So brave and so useless. The Americans would have flattened every bunker in sight through long range attacks and survelliance and then planted troops through helis to mop up the fleeing jihadis.

Even last week, a few special forces advisors and a company of Afghan troops choppered in wiped out a Haqqani nest in Konar. 50 enemy killed and 20 captured. The allied casualties? One Afghan soldier was shot through his hand. These are not even American soldiers performing so well but American trained. Now imagine the Indian commandos doing that. Half the mountain would be on fire, there would corpses from both sides everywhere, and the Air Force would still be bombing Kargil for some reason.

Look at the pictures above. It's like the Raj again, little skinny Indians (Marathas) dashing about with minimum protection. Take your breast armor plate. The reason it has some curvature at the neck line is so that it doesn't abut your chin when you take a knee to fire accurately at the enemy. Seriously, man, equip your troops, so that they don't have to run around the Line of Control looking like the deadbeats they fight and extracting casualties through WW2 improvised stretches bound together with rope and chewing gum.

You're not beggars, but you're arrogant unteachable fools, just like the Pakis. Must be a subcontinent mother thing.

2:50 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah and how much of that 28 million country do you actually patrol, much less control?

The great american force in Af'stan moves aroundin heavily armoured convoys seeking to control the more urbanized aqreas ( which is just 10 per cent of Afghanistan) and simply makes a yearly visitation to some places.

whenever american forces go in deep they diesw in the tens.

Stop kidding yourself. The Taliban are now launchging massed attacks against yoyr outposts and the casualty figure only shows the scant number of troops you employ and are willing to commit to actual combat in a given sector.

On the other hand,

The Indian Army physically dominates almost all of Kashmir. They turn in every frasking village every now and then.

There is simply no comparison, only western squirmishness at the thought of a world which wis increasingly beginning to "kick" their ass despite the appearances.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinash Rav, souravB and 67 guests