CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and 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.
Post Reply
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

Army's role is to defend and fight all threats. With terrorism being our constant war, it does not make sense to keep the army away from it. There are arguments to the contrary, with warfare evolving, you need the army to evolve to meet those needs.

RR is Army by another name and is a way to isolate rest of the organisation but also provide a more fine tuned solution to CI/CT ops.

We have a million man professional army and there is enough capacity to compartmentalize certain roles if need be.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

Aditya G wrote:Army's role is to defend and fight all threats. With terrorism being our constant war, it does not make sense to keep the army away from it. There are arguments to the contrary, with warfare evolving, you need the army to evolve to meet those needs.

We have a million man professional army and there is enough capacity to compartmentalize certain roles if need be.
Yes. Every professional army adapts to fight new threats, as we are doing. The US army for e.g. has only been involved in COIN for the last 20 years (after Iraq invasion 2.0) and all their formations have adapted to it.
A point to remember is that the officers and JCOs with combat experience we have today (RR or LOC and a few from Kargil) are almost entirely
from the infantry. What an officer's mindset is - weather risk adverse or not, can only be known in combat.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

Deans wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Army's role is to defend and fight all threats. With terrorism being our constant war, it does not make sense to keep the army away from it. There are arguments to the contrary, with warfare evolving, you need the army to evolve to meet those needs.

We have a million man professional army and there is enough capacity to compartmentalize certain roles if need be.
Yes. Every professional army adapts to fight new threats, as we are doing. The US army for e.g. has only been involved in COIN for the last 20 years (after Iraq invasion 2.0) and all their formations have adapted to it.
A point to remember is that the officers and JCOs with combat experience we have today (RR or LOC and a few from Kargil) are almost entirely
from the infantry. What an officer's mindset is - weather risk adverse or not, can only be known in combat.

not true...RR has officers from all arms. Maybe the RR is commanded by infantry officers but it has a mix of officers/men from all arms. my BIL who is in signals served with RR in kupwara.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

manjgu wrote:
Deans wrote:
Yes. Every professional army adapts to fight new threats, as we are doing. The US army for e.g. has only been involved in COIN for the last 20 years (after Iraq invasion 2.0) and all their formations have adapted to it.
A point to remember is that the officers and JCOs with combat experience we have today (RR or LOC and a few from Kargil) are almost entirely
from the infantry. What an officer's mindset is - weather risk adverse or not, can only be known in combat.

not true...RR has officers from all arms. Maybe the RR is commanded by infantry officers but it has a mix of officers/men from all arms. my BIL who is in signals served with RR in kupwara.
You are correct. What I meant was that the officers and men in our army, who have combat or near combat experience, will largely be from the
infantry. It cannot be assumed that officers in the Armoured corps (for e.g) have a more aggressive mindset, because that mindset has (with a few exceptions), not been tested in combat.
Last edited by Deans on 03 Dec 2020 10:48, edited 1 time in total.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

Deans ... long deployment in CI duties makes an army risk averse as there is tendency to avoid civilian casualties and self casualties as well. any collateral damage brings -ve publicity. the need to win hearts and minds is at the cornerstone of CI ...which is a risk averse strategy. normal cycles of training ...rest get disturbed due to CI which disrupts the efficiency of fighting forces
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

manjgu wrote:Deans ... long deployment in CI duties makes an army risk averse as there is tendency to avoid civilian casualties and self casualties as well. any collateral damage brings -ve publicity. the need to win hearts and minds is at the cornerstone of CI ...which is a risk averse strategy. normal cycles of training ...rest get disturbed due to CI which disrupts the efficiency of fighting forces
Seems like being risk averse is a damn good strategy for CI/CT.

Now it's a question whether these attitudes pervade into organisational culture. for example - did it mean that we were not aggressive enough in confrontation with China? These are topics worth detailed study by a professional researcher.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Aditya G wrote:
manjgu wrote:Deans ... long deployment in CI duties makes an army risk averse as there is tendency to avoid civilian casualties and self casualties as well. any collateral damage brings -ve publicity. the need to win hearts and minds is at the cornerstone of CI ...which is a risk averse strategy. normal cycles of training ...rest get disturbed due to CI which disrupts the efficiency of fighting forces
Seems like being risk averse is a damn good strategy for CI/CT.

Now it's a question whether these attitudes pervade into organisational culture. for example - did it mean that we were not aggressive enough in confrontation with China? These are topics worth detailed study by a professional researcher.
So we are saying we all of our officers were like General Sagat Singh or Hanut Singh prior to our involvement in CI. Let's look at the history of our wars to address the issue of whether risk aversion was a part of our psyche prior to CI / CT involvement.

Risk aversion is part of our culture and the Armed Forces are a reflection of our culture. CI / CT ops may have reinforced that but to say that CI / CT has lead to a risk-averse culture is a stretch.

We are simplifying something that is not simple and suggesting a solution which will create additional problems without really analysing the root causes.

Yes CI / CT ops have taken away from our war training efforts but at the same time this relentless tempo has made our army extremely battle hardened..
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

To add to what Sachin posted:

We have traditionally been risk averse, at the strategy / top leadership level. That was not a bad thing, when we had nothing to fall back on if
the risk did not work out. Our armored division advancing into the Sakargarh bulge in both 65 & 71, was risk averse.
In CI/CT, as a result of our experience, we'd rather follow a strategy of minimizing civilian and own casualties with a chance that a terrorist will get away, than accept more casualties to improve the chance of getting the terrorist. Nothing wrong with that strategy.

CI/CT ops have taken away from every country's war training efforts. I think RR stints are a good way of keeping all arms battle tested with a
core leadership in every unit having experience of combat conditions.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Deans wrote:To add to what Sachin posted:

We have traditionally been risk averse, at the strategy / top leadership level. That was not a bad thing, when we had nothing to fall back on if
the risk did not work out. Our armored division advancing into the Sakargarh bulge in both 65 & 71, was risk averse.
In CI/CT, as a result of our experience, we'd rather follow a strategy of minimizing civilian and own casualties with a chance that a terrorist will get away, than accept more casualties to improve the chance of getting the terrorist. Nothing wrong with that strategy.

CI/CT ops have taken away from every country's war training efforts. I think RR stints are a good way of keeping all arms battle tested with a
core leadership in every unit having experience of combat conditions.
Thanks Dean's.

Guys think about it.

In a highly pyrimidal structure who is going to rise up to the top.

Of all the Chiefs we have had over the past 30 odd years who is considered the true visionary - and no it is not Gen Sundarji...The more I look at the practical side ofGen Sundarji the less I put him on a pedestal...
Avik
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Avik »

Yes CI / CT ops have taken away from our war training efforts but at the same time this relentless tempo has made our army extremely battle hardened..
i think we're conflating two different things. Battle inoculation from having operated in a livefire environment like CI/CT is always welcome. But operating in CI/CT is mostly centred around cordon & search, while the basic infantry maneuver in war is fire & move. These are two different patterns,and it takes a while to adapt from CASO to f&m.Too much of CI/CT does impact operating in total war situations
Additionally, in our environment, CI/CT ops is just infantry tactics, while a full scale war is combined arms. Strengthening the infantry muscle through continuous CI/CT atrophies combined arms capability
All that said, at the end of the day, only those soldiers are recognized that actually fight.Given our environment, officers operating in CI/CT will certainly have more advancement opportunities vis-a-vis those dune bashing in the Thar! And thats true for all armies. Check out the service profiles of all red tabbed officers in the British Army in the last 15 years--the vast majority are infantry
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

Deans wrote:To add to what Sachin posted:

We have traditionally been risk averse, at the strategy / top leadership level. That was not a bad thing, when we had nothing to fall back on if
the risk did not work out. Our armored division advancing into the Sakargarh bulge in both 65 & 71, was risk averse.
In CI/CT, as a result of our experience, we'd rather follow a strategy of minimizing civilian and own casualties with a chance that a terrorist will get away, than accept more casualties to improve the chance of getting the terrorist. Nothing wrong with that strategy.

CI/CT ops have taken away from every country's war training efforts. I think RR stints are a good way of keeping all arms battle tested with a
core leadership in every unit having experience of combat conditions.
Seeped in British Army traditions, IA is a risk averse army. It would be instructive to see the list of PVC awardees and the citations.. almost always in a defensive battle/situation. There are no Mansteins / Guderians here. ( this is the institutional culture aspect). not read much abt tank ops in 71 or 65 war but whatever I have read , the armour was employed with great timidity and in penny packets both by PA/IA. Either we were too scared or did not have visionary / imaginative generals. neutral commentators have only complimented gen efthkar malik of PA in employing armour properly and in a aggressive way. good for us he died early in the war.

nothing wrong with the concept of minimising civilain casualties as a CI strategy. but thats not the way an Army wants to fight a real battle. this fact has been acknowledged in books on kargil where re orienting troops from a CI mindset to normal war mindset took time. NO army wants to get battle hardened in CI ops... siachen, kargil , recent ladhak ops is the way army wants to get battle hardened.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

manjgu wrote: Seeped in British Army traditions, IA is a risk averse army. It would be instructive to see the list of PVC awardees and the citations.. almost always in a defensive battle/situation. There are no Mansteins / Guderians here. ( this is the institutional culture aspect). not read much abt tank ops in 71 or 65 war but whatever I have read , the armour was employed with great timidity and in penny packets both by PA/IA. Either we were too scared or did not have visionary / imaginative generals. neutral commentators have only complimented gen efthkar malik of PA in employing armour properly and in a aggressive way. good for us he died early in the war.
My view is very similar.
However, I believe exposure to CI, has changed several things in the army. Engagements are fought at section, platoon and company level, where junior leaders have a lot more freedom and initiative to act. A CO quickly knows which officers and JCO's can be relied upon in combat (which is very useful in a long service army). A CO of an infantry battalion would invariably have been a RR platoon or company commander at some time in the past, expected to make decisions without waiting for clearance to come from above. They learn at relatively low cost how to take calculated risks, either because the last chap in the unit who was reckless, got his leg blown off by a IED, or, if he was too timid, allowed militants to get away. That said, certainly a Kargil type operation is a better way to get exposure to a real war, but we don't have too many of those.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

manjgu wrote:
Deans wrote:To add to what Sachin posted:

We have traditionally been risk averse, at the strategy / top leadership level. That was not a bad thing, when we had nothing to fall back on if
the risk did not work out. Our armored division advancing into the Sakargarh bulge in both 65 & 71, was risk averse.
In CI/CT, as a result of our experience, we'd rather follow a strategy of minimizing civilian and own casualties with a chance that a terrorist will get away, than accept more casualties to improve the chance of getting the terrorist. Nothing wrong with that strategy.

CI/CT ops have taken away from every country's war training efforts. I think RR stints are a good way of keeping all arms battle tested with a
core leadership in every unit having experience of combat conditions.
Seeped in British Army traditions, IA is a risk averse army. It would be instructive to see the list of PVC awardees and the citations.. almost always in a defensive battle/situation. There are no Mansteins / Guderians here. ( this is the institutional culture aspect). not read much abt tank ops in 71 or 65 war but whatever I have read , the armour was employed with great timidity and in penny packets both by PA/IA. Either we were too scared or did not have visionary / imaginative generals. neutral commentators have only complimented gen efthkar malik of PA in employing armour properly and in a aggressive way. good for us he died early in the war.

nothing wrong with the concept of minimising civilain casualties as a CI strategy. but thats not the way an Army wants to fight a real battle. this fact has been acknowledged in books on kargil where re orienting troops from a CI mindset to normal war mindset took time. NO army wants to get battle hardened in CI ops... siachen, kargil , recent ladhak ops is the way army wants to get battle hardened.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

manjgu wrote:
Deans wrote:To add to what Sachin posted:

We have traditionally been risk averse, at the strategy / top leadership level. That was not a bad thing, when we had nothing to fall back on if
the risk did not work out. Our armored division advancing into the Sakargarh bulge in both 65 & 71, was risk averse.
In CI/CT, as a result of our experience, we'd rather follow a strategy of minimizing civilian and own casualties with a chance that a terrorist will get away, than accept more casualties to improve the chance of getting the terrorist. Nothing wrong with that strategy.

CI/CT ops have taken away from every country's war training efforts. I think RR stints are a good way of keeping all arms battle tested with a
core leadership in every unit having experience of combat conditions.
Seeped in British Army traditions, IA is a risk averse army. It would be instructive to see the list of PVC awardees and the citations.. almost always in a defensive battle/situation. There are no Mansteins / Guderians here. ( this is the institutional culture aspect). not read much abt tank ops in 71 or 65 war but whatever I have read , the armour was employed with great timidity and in penny packets both by PA/IA. Either we were too scared or did not have visionary / imaginative generals. neutral commentators have only complimented gen efthkar malik of PA in employing armour properly and in a aggressive way. good for us he died early in the war.

nothing wrong with the concept of minimising civilain casualties as a CI strategy. but thats not the way an Army wants to fight a real battle. this fact has been acknowledged in books on kargil where re orienting troops from a CI mindset to normal war mindset took time. NO army wants to get battle hardened in CI ops... siachen, kargil , recent ladhak ops is the way army wants to get battle hardened.
Again the armed forces do not work in isolation.
They are an extension of state policy and so that being the case can you please provide more commentary on your statement that Seeped in British Army traditions, IA is a risk-averse army.- Note I am not disagreeing with you but I want to understand your reasoning better. By the way, it is "Steeped" and not "Seeped".

The fact of the matter is that it is well known that once an offer goes past the rank of a colonel his or her calculus changes. They want to progress in rank and that results in a very interesting mentality and playing safe is part of that. This is a problem that plagues every army. This will happen even without any exposure to CI/CT.

The question you want to ask is whether the best officers make it to the top always?
Another question to ask is what is the definition of the best when it comes to officers till the tank of col and whether the same skill sets are what is important when you become a Corps or Army commander?

You talk of Manstien and Guderian but further to that in the Prussia of old Soldiering was a very honourable and respected profession. So you had the best of the best joining. However, even there for every Manstein and Guderian, you had mediocre generals and funnily enough none of all these stalwart generals were in Hitler's inner circle to actually have shaped the war. In India we have systematically denigrated the profession of arms so the best have other options and of this cohort who do join a lot leave in their prime. So for every cohort of promotions you will have good officers progress of these only a fraction will be those who have the blend of aggression, people management, strategic thinking etc that we would ideally want.

CI / CT has stunted our war capability in the sense that there is no enough time to think of doctrinal issues and even if these are being thought through there is not enough time to train to operationalise these doctrines. However the answer is not to create a dedicated cadre of offers and men for CI/CT duties but providing the required to our para-mil forces to lead in this area with the Army providing support as and when required.

Getting battle hardned also means different things so if you could kindly explain how Siachen and LAdakh makes us battle hardned?
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

1) thank you for the correction. .steeped. the reasoning as explained to me by someone long ago is that British army was reluctant to take casualties and material losses being a smaller nation( low population) / horrendous casualties during WW1 and previous wars and other societal reasons and was therefore v slow and deliberate in their action. RAF choose night bombing vs USAF which did day light raids is another example. individual flair which put lives at risk was frowned upon and looked upon as breach of military discipline. in WW2 the US Army was more willing to take casualties and risk. all neutral commentators have consistently rated the wehrmacht as the best fighting force of ww2. That the german army achieved so much inspite of hitler / and being low in material is a testimony to their generalship ( elan and dash). and soldiering. 2) indian society is naturally risk averse ( where we always look behind our shoulders for guidance/instructions..our mental block of young not knowing anything etc ). this is one of the societal reasons which impacts army. a natural aversion to killing/violence is another societal reason. 3) officers who show dash/elan are considered troublesome and these officers may get medals/decoration but never high appointments as they are considered troublesome/ unconventional. though i agree medal/decorations are not prerequisites for higher appointments 4) a risk averse political leadership is another reason for fostering a culture of caution/timidity, hopefully thats changing now. 4) its not without reason that Siachen is called 'the highest battleground' ... being deployed/fighting enemy & weather / learning different skills/ maintaining logistics/ surviving is not getting an army battle hardened then i dont know whats your definition of battle hardened. Pl educate us.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

manjgu wrote:1) thank you for the correction. .steeped. the reasoning as explained to me by someone long ago is that British army was reluctant to take casualties and material losses being a smaller nation( low population) / horrendous casualties during WW1 and previous wars and other societal reasons and was therefore v slow and deliberate in their action. RAF choose night bombing vs USAF which did day light raids is another example. individual flair which put lives at risk was frowned upon and looked upon as breach of military discipline. in WW2 the US Army was more willing to take casualties and risk. all neutral commentators have consistently rated the wehrmacht as the best fighting force of ww2. That the german army achieved so much inspite of hitler / and being low in material is a testimony to their generalship ( elan and dash). and soldiering. 2) indian society is naturally risk averse ( where we always look behind our shoulders for guidance/instructions..our mental block of young not knowing anything etc ). this is one of the societal reasons which impacts army. a natural aversion to killing/violence is another societal reason. 3) officers who show dash/elan are considered troublesome and these officers may get medals/decoration but never high appointments as they are considered troublesome/ unconventional. though i agree medal/decorations are not prerequisites for higher appointments 4) a risk averse political leadership is another reason for fostering a culture of caution/timidity, hopefully thats changing now.
I'd like to comment on the British vs. German risk taking ability that you refer to.
The British won their battles (WW2) by being slow and deliberate - ensuring conditions for victory were right, because they had numerical superiority. In the deserts of North Africa, Wavell and Auchinleck tried to take risks and lost. Wavell won against the Italians by being deliberate, and ignoring Churchill's calls for faster action. Montgomery won (defeating the risk taking Rommel). The only battle in which Monty displayed out of the box thinking and risk taking, was operation Market Garden, which he lost.

The Germans did relatively better with their soldiers, not because their officers had dash and risk taking ability, but because they produced superb General staff officers - they were the first to take professional staff colleges seriously, who planned better than their adversary (until the allies caught up). Their doctrine also emphasized decisions being taken by commanders on the field and initiative being exercised by junior officers and sergeants. By 1944, Soviet generals were probably better than their German counterparts.
Risk taking implies that the law of averages will sooner or later catch up. German risk taking, during the short blitzkrieg in France 1940 worked. The same strategy failed after 6 months in Russia. Guderian's risk taking worked in France 1940, but on the Eastern Front in 1941 he would have single-handedly lost the war in 1941 had he followed his instincts and not been reined in by his superiors (that was the problem with Rommel).

The debate about night vs. day bombing in WW2 wasn't just about risk taking. The US view was that the RAF couldn't identify targets at night, let alone hit them, so it was better to take higher casualties but complete the job rather than have to do it again. The debate was unresolved because better navigation and bomb sights improved RAF accuracy, while better escort fighters reduced USAF losses.
The RAF actually had high losses of bomber aircrew (46%) which I believe were higher than the USAAF.
Last edited by Deans on 04 Dec 2020 11:45, edited 2 times in total.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

manjgu wrote:1) thank you for the correction. .steeped. the reasoning as explained to me by someone long ago is that British army was reluctant to take casualties and material losses being a smaller nation( low population) / horrendous casualties during WW1 and previous wars and other societal reasons and was therefore v slow and deliberate in their action. RAF choose night bombing vs USAF which did day light raids is another example. individual flair which put lives at risk was frowned upon and looked upon as breach of military discipline. in WW2 the US Army was more willing to take casualties and risk. all neutral commentators have consistently rated the wehrmacht as the best fighting force of ww2. That the german army achieved so much inspite of hitler / and being low in material is a testimony to their generalship ( elan and dash). and soldiering. 2) indian society is naturally risk averse ( where we always look behind our shoulders for guidance/instructions..our mental block of young not knowing anything etc ). this is one of the societal reasons which impacts army. a natural aversion to killing/violence is another societal reason. 3) officers who show dash/elan are considered troublesome and these officers may get medals/decoration but never high appointments as they are considered troublesome/ unconventional. though i agree medal/decorations are not prerequisites for higher appointments 4) a risk averse political leadership is another reason for fostering a culture of caution/timidity, hopefully thats changing now. 4) its not without reason that Siachen is called 'the highest battleground' ... being deployed/fighting enemy & weather / learning different skills/ maintaining logistics/ surviving is not getting an army battle hardened then i dont know whats your definition of battle hardened. Pl educate us.
We don't fundamentally disagree then and can agree that there are more factors that CI/CT ops that make our officers risk averse. Deans has more eloquently talked about the British and what decisions they took.

Regarding the Wehrmacht, I agree about the dash and elan but if you look deeper the warfighting concepts were pioneered by a few generals we talk about even to this day. Which is to my point that the pyramidal structure in the armed forces and human nature means that not always the best of the lot rise to the top. Hence for every dashing figure like GEn Sagat or Guderian, you will have a lot of "average good" officers.

Now with regards to Siachen and Ladakh ---
being deployed (I will put it to you that CI / CT deployment is more mentally taxing)
learning new skills -you actually go back to the basics of soldiering and only in CI / CT do you have to be creative and learn new ways to survive.
Logistics - sure large scale logistics but as CI / CT has its own peculiarities WRT logistics and the IA has great experience either way. Sri Lanka then Siachen and lot of other peacetime experiences have made us good that that.
Surviving - Same applies in CI / CT.

So we may agree that CT / CI or Siachen / Ladakh are the same in terms of making the men hardy and undertake a relentless tempo of ops. Infact CI / CT provides more of a test of decision making under fire. As far as I can tell not a shot has been fired in Ladakh.

So we could perhaps agree that CI / CT perhaps has exacerbated an already existent "risk-averse" culture and not created one in the senior officers.

CI / CT has meant that we are battle hardened but where we miss out is that the men and offers don't have enough time to focus on basic infantry training and over a period of time these impact on battle craft in non-CI / CT arenas.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

A couple of thoughts about risk averseness when it comes to CI:

The loss of a IA soldier impacts the unit a lot more than the death of a militant (true of all professional armies). That is a factor when the cost vs benefit of an operation are evaluated. In the Red army of WW2, the loss of a soldier (or 2) mattered less than the death of an enemy soldier.
The British were affected by operations where their own men died in large numbers (Somme 1916), but not when their native soldiers died.

The border fence may have contributed to our seemingly defensive / risk averse mindset. While the fence keeps the enemy out, it has the psychological effect of keeping you in. I think the surgical strikes and freedom of action we have in recent times has contributed to building a more aggressive and risk taking mindset than we had in the decade following 2003 when the fence was completed and we had a LOC `ceasefire'.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

Deans wrote:
manjgu wrote:1) thank you for the correction. .steeped. the reasoning as explained to me by someone long ago is that British army was reluctant to take casualties and material losses being a smaller nation( low population) / horrendous casualties during WW1 and previous wars and other societal reasons and was therefore v slow and deliberate in their action. RAF choose night bombing vs USAF which did day light raids is another example. individual flair which put lives at risk was frowned upon and looked upon as breach of military discipline. in WW2 the US Army was more willing to take casualties and risk. all neutral commentators have consistently rated the wehrmacht as the best fighting force of ww2. That the german army achieved so much inspite of hitler / and being low in material is a testimony to their generalship ( elan and dash). and soldiering. 2) indian society is naturally risk averse ( where we always look behind our shoulders for guidance/instructions..our mental block of young not knowing anything etc ). this is one of the societal reasons which impacts army. a natural aversion to killing/violence is another societal reason. 3) officers who show dash/elan are considered troublesome and these officers may get medals/decoration but never high appointments as they are considered troublesome/ unconventional. though i agree medal/decorations are not prerequisites for higher appointments 4) a risk averse political leadership is another reason for fostering a culture of caution/timidity, hopefully thats changing now.
I'd like to comment on the British vs. German risk taking ability that you refer to.
The British won their battles (WW2) by being slow and deliberate - ensuring conditions for victory were right, because they had numerical superiority. In the deserts of North Africa, Wavell and Auchinleck tried to take risks and lost. Wavell won against the Italians by being deliberate, and ignoring Churchill's calls for faster action. Montgomery won (defeating the risk taking Rommel). The only battle in which Monty displayed out of the box thinking and risk taking, was operation Market Garden, which he lost.

The Germans did relatively better with their soldiers, not because their officers had dash and risk taking ability, but because they produced superb General staff officers - they were the first to take professional staff colleges seriously, who planned better than their adversary (until the allies caught up). Their doctrine also emphasized decisions being taken by commanders on the field and initiative being exercised by junior officers and sergeants. By 1944, Soviet generals were probably better than their German counterparts.
Risk taking implies that the law of averages will sooner or later catch up. German risk taking, during the short blitzkrieg in France 1940 worked. The same strategy failed after 6 months in Russia. Guderian's risk taking worked in France 1940, but on the Eastern Front in 1941 he would have single-handedly lost the war in 1941 had he followed his instincts and not been reined in by his superiors (that was the problem with Rommel).

The debate about night vs. day bombing in WW2 wasn't just about risk taking. The US view was that the RAF couldn't identify targets at night, let alone hit them, so it was better to take higher casualties but complete the job rather than have to do it again. The debate was unresolved because better navigation and bomb sights improved RAF accuracy, while better escort fighters reduced USAF losses.
The RAF actually had high losses of bomber aircrew (46%) which I believe were higher than the USAAF.
Deans..its true what u write about German Staff offr. but plans only go so far and evaporate with the first contact with enemy. Anyway, the plans have to be executed in the field by senior commanders who were also well trained and adapted well to changing situation. the germans fought on till the end with no air cover, not much material, untrained soldiers etc. You have correctly identified that german doctrine emphasized decision being taken by commanders/initiative by junior officers ( this is precisely the point about risk taking and not looking back for instructions. which i believe is the bane of sub continent armies. my BIL used to opine that in the IA , one needs permission to even get an erection !! ) The point i was making that appetite for losses with British army was less than german/US army. Its also true what u write about RAF / USAF night/day bombing but the appetite for losses was also a factor. The essence of my piece was that there were genuine reasons why british were risk averse as compared to german/USA forces.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

IIRC , initially RAF went for daylight raids with horrendous losses ...the ops were stalled and night ops started. accuracy was sacrificed for safety , the argument being RAF will do area bombing so accuracy is not important
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

manjgu wrote:
Deans..its true what u write about German Staff offr. but plans only go so far and evaporate with the first contact with enemy. Anyway, the plans have to be executed in the field by senior commanders who were also well trained and adapted well to changing situation. the germans fought on till the end with no air cover, not much material, untrained soldiers etc. You have correctly identified that german doctrine emphasized decision being taken by commanders/initiative by junior officers ( this is precisely the point about risk taking and not looking back for instructions. which i believe is the bane of sub continent armies. my BIL used to opine that in the IA , one needs permission to even get an erection !! ) The point i was making that appetite for losses with British army was less than german/US army. Its also true what u write about RAF / USAF night/day bombing but the appetite for losses was also a factor. The essence of my piece was that there were genuine reasons why british were risk averse as compared to german/USA forces.
I think the British risk aversion (which I believe we inherited at the time of independence) came not from appetite for losses, but the structure
of their officer corps. Birth determined if you became an officer. School and family ties enabled you to advance and protected you from any screw up - as long as you went by the book and did not rock the boat. Native armies (and their officers once the Brits started recruiting them) were not encouraged to deviate from the book. By contrast in Hitler's Germany, the Prussian aristocracy was sidelined and senior officers came from the ranks of the middle class non military families (e.g. Rommel). They wanted to prove themselves by bolder initiatives in battle.
Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Y I Patel »

Indian Army officers inherited an imperial mindset when it came to strategic thinking. By this I mean the following: land had no intrinsic value for a British officer fighting far away from home. It was something that could be traded for strategic gain. This does not translate well when carried over to an Indian officer defending Indian territory - for someone with a non-imperial mindset, every inch of territory is holy regardless of its value in military strategy.

Same thinking applied to how the British officer and his Indian student thought about native soldiers - their lives were expendable.

Best examples IMHO of this thinking in Indian Army were in 1962 NEFA.
Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Y I Patel »

Let me add that this inherited mindset disappeared progressively with each war fought by the army of Independent India
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

Y I Patel wrote:Let me add that this inherited mindset disappeared progressively with each war fought by the army of Independent India
Yes. You put it better than I would have in describing the Imperial mindset and its change over time.
IA pre independence, was sheltered from the civilian population and encouraged not to mix. Officers were selected based on loyalty to Britain, not love for India. (Which is why the INA did not much sympathy among the Indian officers at the time of independence).
I think there was significant change from the 90s. That was when Hindi replaced English (from my limited experience) as the main language in the
officers mess. A significant proportion of officers came from rural and less affluent backgrounds. In other words - more representative of India and more keen to prove themselves. That was done without diluting quality. I would argue it improved quality because the recruiting pool significantly widened - it was no longer confined to a handful of schools in the bigger cities which were English medium.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Deans wrote:
Y I Patel wrote:Let me add that this inherited mindset disappeared progressively with each war fought by the army of Independent India
Yes. You put it better than I would have in describing the Imperial mindset and its change over time.
IA pre independence, was sheltered from the civilian population and encouraged not to mix. Officers were selected based on loyalty to Britain, not love for India. (Which is why the INA did not much sympathy among the Indian officers at the time of independence).
I think there was significant change from the 90s. That was when Hindi replaced English (from my limited experience) as the main language in the
officers mess. A significant proportion of officers came from rural and less affluent backgrounds. In other words - more representative of India and more keen to prove themselves. That was done without diluting quality. I would argue it improved quality because the recruiting pool significantly widened - it was no longer confined to a handful of schools in the bigger cities which were English medium.
The quality of our YOs has never been in question. It is the senior officers who have let the institution down. - I quote a serving Lt General.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Yagnasri »

Bit of OT, but second world war can not be an example for us. Rimmel lost because of lack of logistical support. Market Garden in fact is not aggressive action but a stupid action.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

Deans wrote:
Y I Patel wrote:Let me add that this inherited mindset disappeared progressively with each war fought by the army of Independent India
Yes. You put it better than I would have in describing the Imperial mindset and its change over time.
IA pre independence, was sheltered from the civilian population and encouraged not to mix. Officers were selected based on loyalty to Britain, not love for India. (Which is why the INA did not much sympathy among the Indian officers at the time of independence).
I think there was significant change from the 90s. That was when Hindi replaced English (from my limited experience) as the main language in the
officers mess. A significant proportion of officers came from rural and less affluent backgrounds. In other words - more representative of India and more keen to prove themselves. That was done without diluting quality. I would argue it improved quality because the recruiting pool significantly widened - it was no longer confined to a handful of schools in the bigger cities which were English medium.

one other significant change that has happened is reduced consumption of alcohol .. not many % officers today drink as compared to past. my cousin joined IAF in 1980's and he told me that were only 2 or 3 guys in his squadron who did not drink and now its almost reversed. another sign of people coming from rural/less affluent backgrounds.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »


one other significant change that has happened is reduced consumption of alcohol .. not many % officers today drink as compared to past. my cousin joined IAF in 1980's and he told me that were only 2 or 3 guys in his squadron who did not drink and now its almost reversed. another sign of people coming from rural/less affluent backgrounds.
So rural / Less affluent are less likely to drink?

Sirji the answer is more that offers are a hell of a lot more career minded and want to climb up the ladder and hence....this also makes them "safer" senior offers...This from my conversations with some DS's at the College of Combat.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by manjgu »

my reading is people coming from rural/smaller towns tend to have more conservative values/ more sanskari !!! anyway a matter of debate.
krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 917
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by krishna_krishna »

Terror plot busted by int agencies in Delhi :
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 614755.cms

Now connect the dots

Nagrota encounter,

Terrorists smuggled narcotics and themselves through the tunnel

Khalistan revival

Farmers support in punjab

Terrorists nabbed

Plan to assassinate top BJP leader

IF this is not war then not sure what it is, why are we not hitting back.Needs to be high-level operations on other side like the scientist in Iran and land grab on loc rest is all Maya. We will keep bleeding.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Deans »

manjgu wrote:my reading is people coming from rural/smaller towns tend to have more conservative values/ more sanskari !!! anyway a matter of debate.
I see a difference, but its not to do with liquor.
I know YO's whose fathers were JCO's and in some cases they are the only person in their village to have become an officer. It is a matter of great pride for their local community and for the YO there is no greater honor than being a IA officer.

With several of those from middle/upper middle class backgrounds, (this is a broad generalization, I know many exceptions), the reference point is different. When they were cadets, their peers went abroad to study, or went to the top colleges which allowed you to enjoy your youth and eased the path to a cushy private sector job. There is sometimes a feeling of `my kids must have the lifestyle I missed'. That leads to a search for post retirement positions, kids admission to big name schools/ colleges etc - which means engineering a transfer to a major city.

On the subject of alcohol, I think what can hurt the reputation of the services among the civilian population is the subsidised liquor from canteens for veterans - a lot of which is resold. This is not something that veterans settled in villages or small towns have access to. For a lot of serving people drinking has little to do with their values. You often drink because you are sitting in a bunker, alone and in freezing weather. Plus, at high altitude, food taste's lousy.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by ParGha »

Y I Patel wrote:Indian Army officers inherited an imperial mindset when it came to strategic thinking. By this I mean the following: land had no intrinsic value for a British officer fighting far away from home. It was something that could be traded for strategic gain.
Not true. While the British may not have had much emotional attachments to the Indian land, they were acutely aware of their own training, command, control and morale issues... and they preferred relatively static battles because of those reasons. They were obsessive in their pursuit of “scientific frontiers” (that is militarily defendable borders) on land. If you want to see the British maneuver, see their naval battles.

The cultural explanations are subjective. The objective question is, have the training, command, control and R&S capabilities improved relative to the threats? The answer is mixed.

While conventional capabilities have improved relatively in certain periods, the sub-conventional capabilities have degraded significantly. The spread of the Kalashnikov Culture, ubiquitous smartphones, cheap computers and Social Media has degraded the training, command, control and other advantages traditionally enjoyed by the armed forces. Without an honest assessment of these objective questions, one subjective opinion is as good as any other opinion.
Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Y I Patel »

IMHO “scientific frontiers” can only be the contrivance of someone who lacks an emotional connection to the land. What scientific reason would a true Indian need to consider the Kailash range as part of India?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/Mave_Intel/status/1 ... 86112?s=20 ---> Smart Fencing at LOC and constant Monitoring by Indian Army
(Link above has video of the same photos below...)

https://twitter.com/neeraj_rajput/statu ... 24992?s=20 ---> Inside surveillance-room of Indian Army in a forward location post along LoC keeping an eye on Nikyal & Kotli areas of Pakistan, considered as one of the most notorious area for LeT terror camps.

Image

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

^^ This is straight out of the Vietcong handbook.

They might be thinking: "if the Vietcong can overcome a superpower like the USA by attrition, guerilla warfare of this type, we can do the same with the Indian Govt".

The perps, handlers, urban naxals & funders of this kind of guerilla warfare must be ruthlessly crushed. Just because there is a lull in Maoism doesn't mean we have won. Heck, we thought we won the war against the Khalistanis, but see where Delhi is. We have a tendency to take the foot off the pedal, while what's needed is a Chanakyan approach of annihilating the enemy to its roots.
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by sajaym »

The buffoons in our security & intelligence establishment seem to have their heads in their a**es regarding the maoist problem.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/c ... 2021-04-04

Quite clearly, an LTTE-like force seems to be rising in Chatisgarh and the longer it is ignored the more sophisticated & deadly it seems to be becoming. How long before these same Maoists branch out of their current area of operations and set up splinter cells in the rest of the villages in India & start carrying out attacks against targets of opportunity?!

22 sons of the soil turned to dust while some sanctimonious idiots argue that "...we cannot use helicopters and jets against our own people". 22 soldiers dead in defense of a country which is the world's leading importer of billions of dollars worth of defence equipment. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

^^^Calm down. INC is once again in charge of Chattisgarh and have once again created a political situation to make this mess. Only a political situation is the way out in CH. Criminals must be arrested and promptly hanged.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Political situation aside (its key no doubt), there seems to be several things that went horribly wrong:

1) This was an ambush planned by the CRPF+Police, based on intel. It was to pre-empt the Maoist March-May offensive that they do each year. Instead the hunter became the hunted, notwithstanding the fact that the Maoists lost a similar number of cadres

2) Our troop ratio was also larger: 1000 vs 400 of the Maoists. Looks like the CRPF guys walked into a well-prepared ambush. Maybe the intel was a trap

3) Even if the state doesn't want to use offensive air-power, the fact that such a large company of CRPF set out on an ambush/dominance mission with no advance UAV/Helicopter patrolling is ridiculous. Its criminal negligence if either UAVs weren't employed or weren't available. The fact that UAVs *were* employed when the rescue party of 500 troops went in search of their fallen brothers 24 hours later, shows that UAV availability might not have been an issue

Of what use is our MIC/public/private industry & our hajaar imports, if we cannot even do round-the-clock air-surveillance of own troops & the enemy! We seem to have known their approx location, troop strength etc and still walked into an ambush :evil:

Gen Bakshi is raising these same points
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: CT & COIN Operations in India: News, Images and Discussion

Post by sankum »

Deploy Helicopter gunships. None of the 400 maoist should have gone out alive after 4 hour ambush.

Political will is required. Its war. Some collateral damage will be there. The will of maoist to fight must be broken with ruthless firepower.

Babaji saying limited use of airpower expected to be allowed
.
APR

@drapr007
·
22h
#BREAKING : An important meeting is scheduled today evening about Naxal problem. Highest level of political leadership, Intelligence bureau chiefs and senior officers of security forces will participate.

Expecting atleast ok for limited use of air power against these naxals.
Post Reply