shiv wrote:Trikaal wrote:
LCH is for high altitude warfare, kargil like situations. It does have a lot of versatility and can be used in low altitudes too, but for cas for armed columns, u need behemoths like Apache and black shark to rain down hell. I am not dissing LCH here, it is a very promising machine and outperforms everyone in its niche role, but it is not designed to carry nearly as much armaments as these others.
Why is a big heavy helo needed for armour when Syria shows that men with RPGs can take out tanks? Even Apache is not going to loiter around a tank column shouting "mine is bigger". It will shoot from a safe distance. So will LCH.
I dont want to weigh in on LCH vs Apache, but Syria was a special case of war, where an urban redoubt had to be reduced. Reducing urban redoubts is not the best use of tanks. Almost always, tanks take pretty bad casualties when pitched into urban combat. The best use of tanks is to punch enmasse through a strongly defended line, such as in Punjab, or maneuver around enemy armies (such as in Rajasthan) to reach the undefended rear areas and wreak havoc.
You can put 100 'RPG teams', but when they have an armored brigade moving at them at high speed, on a narrow frontage, under conditions of local air superiority, in the time it takes them to pop off a few rockets, the tanks will be far past them and roaring on to some soft target like a rear airfield, or some factories or a politically important objective to force a surrender. Tanks, if properly deployed, will turn up in numbers you dont expect, in an area you dont expect, and be able to move towards an objective at speeds you dont expect.
Given the speed, the numbers and the surprise with which armor can move, and the length of the Indian borders, perhaps the best way to counter a large tank army focused on an unexpected point in your defense line then is not more tanks, but a fast reaction force that can interdict a tank army in the enemy areas, destroy its supply convoy, and in general, take the battle to them. Say, you hear of an armored thrust 100 kms from your reserves. Itll take the better part of a day for you to move your reserves to a point where you can counter them! meanwhile, the enemy is moving cross country at 30-40kms an hour! The terrain may not cooperate and provide you a point where you can force that enemy thrust to offer battle. For instance, if your reserves is just infantry and you deploy them at a road junction, the enemy may simply choose to bypass this strong point with his tracked vehicles and continue on towards, say, a rear airfield, factory, political institution etc.
An attack helicopter or similar airborne firepower is the best counter for such an armored breakthrough. In offence, it can also guard the flanks of a move by our own soft(er) vehicles as they move towards some objective. It can move much faster than the enemy can and therefore preempt flanking moves. It also solves the problem of real time intelligence on enemy movements. It can orient itself w.r.t enemy forces in the air and fix the enemy location. In other words, an armored helicopter force is a newer form of cavalry.
Coming to the LCH vs Apache debate, I would love to know the advantages Apache brings to the table. There is the longbow, the armor, electronic networking, battle proven, interoperability and the ability to tap into NATO supply lines.. But is it worth the price? I dont know..
