Indian Army: News & Discussion

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 13 May 2011 22:12

marut, your chaiwallla is unaware of the promise made after the IPKF Sri Lanka episode -- Indian military will never again get militarily involved in civil conflicts of another country without either UN sanctions or the 100% commitment of the political leadership to complete the task. Compared to Afghanistan, Sri Lanka was a very simple mission in India's backyard. India's role in Afghanistan requires subtelty, not force. The Iranians and Russians can lend plenty of brute force directly to Kabul, without needing India to jump through a hundred loops just to get there. What they will have trouble with is raising a corps of nationalistic and professional Officer Corps who can command the loyalties, respect and obedience of a very turbulent and truculent population; Indian military academies and regiments are excellent at training such officers. India is training about a dozen Afghan cadets per year (the first batch would be CPT and MAJ now), India should be training 50-60 cadets per year.

sum · Post by **sum** » 13 May 2011 22:13

marut, your chaiwallla is unaware of the promise made after the IPKF Sri Lanka episode -- Indian military will never again get militarily involved in civil conflicts of another country without either UN sanctions or the 100% commitment of the political leadership to complete the task.

What if a UN fig leaf is provided by Unkil for India to enter?

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 13 May 2011 23:22

Pargha, I'm aware of the IPKF fiasco and its aftermath. But times have changed. The defence of India begins at the Khyber. That's why you see our chaps going to Afg. We will continue to train their officers in India but we will also establish training academies in Afg and train their forces. The request is more of a regional security pact, if you will, something like we have with Bhutan though not as deep since khan is involved. The idea is to squeeze some golas and it's high time we did. Ivan and Iran aren't looked at favourably by Afg and khan respectively. Interesting times lie ahead, pakis will be very happy

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 14 May 2011 02:27

marut, are these your assertions or your chaiwalla's? The principles of war have not changed: always try to hold the high ground, and always try to control your logistical lines. You are asking Indians to foresake both to the benevolence of others. That is bull$#!+. If the defense of India begins at Khyber, the Indian road to Khyber runs through Lahore and Peshawar ~ first come up with a plan to get hold of these.

You have been caught up in DDM generated hype about Afghans' goodwill towards India; please try to meet real Afghans and decide for yourself. In my experience, yes, there is some goodwill and shared concerns vis a vis Pakistan -- but it ends there. Some of their common deprecatory references to Pakistanis are as "Hindustanis" and "Daal-Khors" (lentil eaters) -- as if these are something to be ashamed of (and Pakistanis are often ashamed of it, in their convoluted worldview). My point is, Afghans are okay, as long as it is strictly sophisticated Indian professionals dealing with them (as doctors, lawyers, engineers, military officers, etc), but a lot of cultural issues will pop up if the interaction goes deeper. The only thing that would make Paks happier than see Talibs back in power (a la 1999), is to see them come back to power on the corpses of a few thousand Indian soldiers sent there on an ill-thought out expedition.

In contrast, the Afghan Tajik and much of Afghan Pashtun are quite similar to Iranians, and despite their sectarian differences they may be able to work out something (I am not putting too much hope on the Iranians, actually). And the Russians' military prowess is always respected, if not favored (my bets are on the Russians). Between them, they can get the essential short-term work done. India is better off concentrating on the long-term work.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 14 May 2011 03:43

Army jawan killed in encounter with militants in J&K

SRINAGAR: An Army jawan was on Friday killed in a gunfight with militants in Kupwara district of north Kashmir, officials said.

Troops of 28 Rashtriya Rifles of the army assisted by police had laid an ambush in Daroosa village in Tikkipora area of Kupwara, 120 kms from here, last night, they said.

The security forces noticed some suspicious movement in the wee hours this morning and challenged the militants, they said.

The ultras opened fire at the security forces' positions in which Havaldar Mohsin Shiekh was critically injured, they said, adding Shiekh later succumbed.

Army and police have launched massive searches to nab the militants, they said.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 May 2011 09:13

IDBI Bank and Indian Army sign MoU for banking services

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 May 2011 19:48

Army Yachting Node wins the Ocean Blue Laser Coastal National Sailing Championship 2011

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 15 May 2011 16:50

India, Pakistan exchange border fire after soldier killed

The two sides exchanged small arms fire for 30 minutes early on Sunday at a border post 30 km from Jammu, the winter capital of the disputed Kashmir region in north India.

“Pakistani soldiers opened unprovoked firing on our Umra Wali post,” said a spokesman for the paramilitary Indian Border Security Force. “We responded to their fire effectively.”

Hariprasad · Post by **Hariprasad** » 15 May 2011 20:31

VinodTK wrote:India, Pakistan exchange border fire after soldier killed
The two sides exchanged small arms fire for 30 minutes early on Sunday at a border post 30 km from Jammu, the winter capital of the disputed Kashmir region in north India.

“Pakistani soldiers opened unprovoked firing on our Umra Wali post,” said a spokesman for the paramilitary Indian Border Security Force. “We responded to their fire effectively.”

Only 30 mins from Jammu and killed a jawan? Why don't we escalate

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 16 May 2011 05:39

Army mobilisation time: 48 hours

Bringing down its mobilisation time drastically, the Indian Army can now move forces in just 48 hours, as against the almost-month-long time required by it earlier.

The swift mobilisation is a result of the just concluded strike corps exercise, ‘Vijayee Bhava’, in Rajasthan’s Thar desert.After terror attack on parliament in December 2001, the government had asked the army to mobilise, ‘Op Parakram’, and it took 27 days to do so. However, by that time international diplomatic pressure built up sufficiently to pre-empt any possibility of a military strike against Pakistan.

Since then, the army has been working hard to bring down its mobilisation time to the minimum possible.

Sources said better road management, better offloading, better rail links, equipment and man management, have reduced the mobilisation time. Every strike corps has been working at reducing its own mobilisation period.

Sources said timings may differ for armoured units and artillery units and also what matters is the place and terrain from where they move, like the Dehradun-based 14 Division is a hilly terrain and the Patiala-based 1 Division is farthest when compared to the deserts, where ‘Vijayee Bhava’ was carried out.

Movement is carried out in four phases which are command elements, reconnaissance, main body and balance.

Command elements comprising the formation commanders earlier used to take eight hours which was now been brought down to two hrs.

Reconnaissance comprising two officers, the second in command of the Brigade and the mobile operations, used to take 12 hours which has been brought down to six hours.

The main body of the formation comprises all the three units in the Brigade and their administration and logistics, which used to take 18 hours earlier, has now been brought down to 12 hours.

The remaining of the troops were given 30 hours, as opposed to their 36 hours.

The mission was successful, with all the units of the 60 Brigade meeting at the destined point in 45 hours, and another couple of hours for a final check. The distance covered was around 450 kilometers, and approximately 3500 personnel moved on road, on transportation that was either hired or were army trucks.

A Division has three Brigades in it, and for a complete Division to mobilise, another 10 hours could be added to this, said a source, but for a fighting unit formation, Vijayee Bhava has proved that the target of 48 hours can be achieved.

Support elements, like engineers, logistics, doctors, medical care, artillery, and other administrative items also move along, all of which take time to fall in place. ‘Vijayee Bhava’ also tested the advanced version of the indigenous Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH), with a glass cockpit.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 May 2011 10:50

^^^Now now now, this is a very interesting piece of news. Partly explains the khakhi-shivering in the Pindi GHQ. Will post a small analysis as per my understanding. Cold Start Doctrine just assumed a ominous meaning for me.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 May 2011 11:11

Is the 48 hrs applicable for the entire army or only for select formations such as the RAPIDS and the Strike Corps?

I ask as the same is not clear form the report.

PS: any thing that makes the Pakis yellow their pants is welcome news.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 May 2011 11:34

Pratyush,

This is the beauty and implication of this news. If the Strike Corps elements, sitting relatively far off (like 1 Armored Division in Patiala, 14 RAPID in Dehradun) can mobilize their strike elements in 48hours, what does this mean for Pivot Corps, whose formations are situated that much closer to the border?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2011 02:08

Pivot Corps will engage right away.

What this quick reaction of strike corps does is reduce the TSP hope of International mobilization against Indian retaliation.

Future such coercion will be with global missile strike postures. And this brings out the kraken.

---
Now need to work on Software Billionaires and make them understand where their interests are.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 17 May 2011 17:07

ramana wrote:Pivot Corps will engage right away. What this quick reaction of strike corps does is reduce the TSP hope of International mobilization against Indian retaliation. Future such coercion will be with global missile strike postures. And this brings out the kraken.

Don't bet on it, sir. The Chinese just need to permanently move half their SRBM brigades (with HE warheads only) from the Straits of Taiwan to the Tibetan Plateau.

IMHO India's best bet is to dissolve the Holding/Pivot Corps and the Strike Corps, and come up with its promised IBGs that can opportunistically and proactively deal with Pakistan (ex. the 50th Army in Georgia). -- JMTC, etc, etc, etc.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 17 May 2011 19:33

ParGha,
You are confusing levels of command and control. IBGs are brigade plus sized formations and while they can in some cases supplement divisional sized formations, you can't do away with Corps level without a breakdown in C&C.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 17 May 2011 20:08

Rupak,

The IBGs are still in conception, but by most accounts it is a Di-Division Plus formation. As per some proponents like Brig Kanwal, its artillery component itself will be 36 guns more than a standard artilley brigade (64 guns under full strength) -- so it cannot be a simple composite brigade (BCTs in US terms).

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 17 May 2011 21:15

ParGha
Yes I do recall seeing Gurmeet's writing about Division plus supporting arms (armd bde), but I am not convinced that these do away for Corps level. I agree that the distinction between pivot and strike corps may be blurred and the nomenclature will have to be reconsidered, but you will still need a Corps level structure to coordinate and manage.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 17 May 2011 21:27

Rupak wrote:ParGha
Yes I do recall seeing Gurmeet's writing about Division plus supporting arms (armd bde), but I am not convinced that these do away for Corps level. I agree that the distinction between pivot and strike corps may be blurred and the nomenclature will have to be reconsidered, but you will still need a Corps level structure to coordinate and manage.

If the IBGs are about the size of an Eastern-Bloc "Army", the concept of the "Corps" may be replaced with "Front" and/or "Army Group" type command structures (more than a Corps, but requiring more smaller Commands like the SW one). We think of bde/div/corps/army, but if a bde is not a bde and a div is not a div... what's the point in sticking to the corps?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 May 2011 21:55

negi wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:lots of military folks come "to work" at 6am or earlier, therefore absconding at 3pm for golf is perfectly reasonable!
That is simply not true. For most part of a year they follow normal hours i.e. 8-5 unless you are referring to the routine followed by the cadets in the academy or watch-keeping duty .

Most golf addicts play early in the mornings and weekends.

A majority cannot make it in the evenings.

It does not cut into anyone's office routine as most are clear of the course by 0700 or so at the latest.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 17 May 2011 23:55

ParGha
A rose by any other name is still a rose! We may yet evolve new nomenclature but I don't think we are there yet, nor is it necessary. The definition of what constitutes a division or brigade can be quite flexible. Gurmeet doesn't suggest anything more radical than "IBGs based on combinations of infantry divisions and armored brigades". My reading of Gurmeet is that the IBGs being proposed are similar to the US Cavalry Divisions in composition.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 18 May 2011 03:46

Rupak,

You are correct -- going back I see that he does strictly talk about the IBGs as divisional-sized combined arms formations:

... Cold Start doctrine conceptualises a number of “integrated battle groups” (IBGs; divisional-size forces) launching limited offensive operations to a shallow depth... http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IndiasC ... wal_010610

My mistake, I have his idea confusedwith someone else's. A di-division-plus sized combined arms formation, as I had mistaken it to be, would have been truly something.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 May 2011 04:19

Rupak and PArGha what happens if the IBGs operate on a very broad front (using new communications technology) without too much concentration of numbers? Will they still be rich targets for TSP jewels?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 18 May 2011 04:43

ramana wrote:Rupak and PArGha what happens if the IBGs operate on a very broad front (using new communications technology) without too much concentration of numbers? Will they still be rich targets for TSP jewels?

Dispersion will make them less vulnerable to the special weapons (and also A-100s and SRBMs with HE), but it also makes them less able to achieve their objectives against conventional opposition because they wont be able to mass their forces.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 May 2011 06:29

Well then TSP has to use more of their nukes on their own territory.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 18 May 2011 06:52

ParGha wrote:
ramana wrote:Rupak and PArGha what happens if the IBGs operate on a very broad front (using new communications technology) without too much concentration of numbers? Will they still be rich targets for TSP jewels?
Dispersion will make them less vulnerable to the special weapons (and also A-100s and SRBMs with HE), but it also makes them less able to achieve their objectives against conventional opposition because they wont be able to mass their forces.

But wouldn't the conventional opposition have to disperse it's resources too or risk getting flanked and cutoff from mainland by the smaller but more mobile offensive forces ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 May 2011 09:39

Rupak wrote:ParGha
A rose by any other name is still a rose! We may yet evolve new nomenclature but I don't think we are there yet, nor is it necessary. The definition of what constitutes a division or brigade can be quite flexible. Gurmeet doesn't suggest anything more radical than "IBGs based on combinations of infantry divisions and armored brigades". My reading of Gurmeet is that the IBGs being proposed are similar to the US Cavalry Divisions in composition.

You're correct in your assertion that IBG will be Division sized formations with some additional elements to boost the firepower.A RAPID paired with (I) Armored Brigade+additional artillery assets (like more tube and especially, rocket artillery)+integral airpower (attack heptr.+IAF assets) is one such candidate for IBG.

However, there are two problems with this - (a) it will require the Pivot Corps to pit their only strike assets and will leave them without any assets to counter PA counter-offensive. (b) RAPIDs are still disbalanced wrt mechanization - which might or might not be a problem depending on the objectives of IA.

IMO, the gilt-edged IBG would consist of Mechanized Division paired with (I) Armored Brigade with rocket artillery and air assets. Also, the holding power of Pivot Corps need to be boosted to higher level to contain the spill over from any Indian offensive.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 18 May 2011 13:00

Rohit
You anticipated my next post. I agree about the need for mechanization and see the US Calavry Division as the gold standard for what we are trying to achieve.

Ramana
I agree with Rohit that we simply don't yet have the assets to build these IBG. There is shortage of artillery, helicopters and inadequate mechanization. Perhaps large scale induction of Dhruv and use of MPV type or wheeled APC vehicles, which can be cheaply built, provide fillip to mechanization. But the requisite numbers of SP artillery is nowhere in sight. If we were able to achieve these numbers, then even with greater dispersal of forces, we could potentially a significantly superior force to the enemy. Note the handicap below in terms of air power and mechanization for us.

Just for comparison -

1st Cavalry Division US Army
1 x HQ battalion
4 x Brigade Combat Teams (208 M-1, 224 M2/M3, 48 Recce AFV, 64 M109)
1 x Combat Aviation Brigade (Heavy) - (24 x AH-64, 38 x UH-60, 12 x CH-47 Chinook and 12 x HH-60M = 86 helicopters)

Indian RAPID
1 x HQ Battalion
2 x Infantry Bde (non-mechanized)
1 x Armd Bde (110 T-72, 90 BMP-2)
1 x Division Artillery Bde (no SP)

Indian Indp Armd Bde
3 x tank regiments (165 T-72/55)
1 x BMP battalion (45 BMP-2)
1 x artillery regiment (no SP)
1 x reconnaissance squadron

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 13:27

Rupak wrote: 1st Cavalry Division US Army
4 x Brigade Combat Teams (208 M-1, 224 M2/M3, 48 Recce AFV, 64 M109)
1 x Combat Aviation Brigade (Heavy) - (24 x AH-64, 38 x UH-60, 12 x CH-47 Chinook and 12 x HH-60M = 86 helicopters)

No wonder Khan can do Shak in aw!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 May 2011 15:25

Indian IBG with RAPID+(I) Armored Bde will also be equipped with 225 tanks(5*45) and 156 APCs (3*52) and 90 tube arty guns (5*18). The difference between the US Army Cavalry Division and IBG is in no of APC+caliber of arty (all 155mm versus maybe 1 regiment@155mm) and of course, the extremely powerful air component. Add to it the phenomenal level of Recce & Support, engineer support and C4SIR infra plus additional firepower from Corps Arty Bde (US Corps can have upto 3 Corps Arty Bdes) and you've a formidable force.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2011 17:01

the airpower comp is truly scary...we do not have 24 heavy gunships in entire IA at present unless we scrape together the Mi35 deputed to UN missions.

we'd need 100s of Dhruvs and 100s of Mi17/EC725 class helis to match anywhere near US air support.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 18 May 2011 18:03

The IA plans to procure over a 100 LCH. Let us hope this number increases to strengthen the air component. This in itself will be a good improvement over the puny number of attack helis that we currently have.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 May 2011 18:40

the numbers of our attack helis must be proportional to the enemy armour to be faced, i.e. puke armoured divisions - and a balance obtained between cost, numbers, and artillery. we may not need an entire unkil sized 'air cavalry' component - but what we have must be fit for purpose. i like the concept of a core of heavy choppers (Mi35 or Apache) surrounded by larger fleets of smaller lighter birds, LCH, weaponised ALH, etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 May 2011 20:03

IS there any concept of an Indian heavy division?

Rohit/Rupak, What about augmenting the AT capability of Pivot formations with missiles and form their armoured assets into mini-strike formations.

One has to rearrange and rethink to take on the challenge. cant wait for US level of force build up. It will be like "waiting for Godot!"

Also if thats a US Cavalry division what is an Armoured division?

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 18 May 2011 20:20

+1 To that. I know that NAMICA platforms are for R&S battalions. But can they also substitute tanks in Pivot Corps for AT defense while freeing up the tanks for offensive/ counter offensive arm like Ramana suggests?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2011 20:40

> Also if thats a US Cavalry division what is an Armoured division?

maybe the armour div is heavily loaded with tanks and bradleys only and doesnt field so much air cavalry or M113s. but then who knows, they seem to attach a very heavy comp of helicopters, MLRS, tubed artillery and engineers to any formation.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 May 2011 20:41

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R0mw9aaJjYk/T ... -death.jpg

Captain sweats to death playing army's Thar wargames.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 18 May 2011 22:01

Ramana
I agree that we need to be creative regarding our own IBGs. What is required however, is greater mobility. The problem with the RAPID is that different elements move a different speeds, and indeed this is also the problems with the corps at large. While we will probably not need the as many helicopters but will certain need integral air support both offensive and logistical and SP artillery with greater standardization on gun caliber. Missile based AT could be one solution, but how are you going to move them around - again this goes to the issue of mechanization. One solution would be to reconfigure divisions and ultimately corps formations to achieve a higher level of consistency.

A US Armoured Division has more tanks- Note that the Cavalry Division is a 'heavy' Mech Div.

US 1st Armd Div
1 X Stryker Brigade Combat Team (140 Strykers, 27 105mm SP Guns, 24 155mm towed guns)
2 X Heavy Brigade Combat Team (232 M-1, 120 M2/3, 28 120mm mortar carriers, 32 M109)
1 x Infantry Brigade Combat Team (58 M-1, 124 M2/3, 16 M119 105mm guns)
1 x Combat Aviation Brigade (as above)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 May 2011 22:09

Rohitvats,
Can you compare Indian formations to the above?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 May 2011 03:31

US army has the following types of divisions

Code: Select all

> armoured div (1 only)
		>> 2 X heavy bde cmbt teams (HBCT)
		>> 1 x stryker bde cmbt teams (SBCT)
		>> 1 X inf bde cmbt teams (IBCT)
		>> 1 X cmbt aviation bde (CAB)

	> cavalry div (1 only)
		>> 4 X HBCT
		>> 1 X CAB

	> mountain div (1 only)
		>> 4 X inf bde 
		>> 1 X cmbt av bde

	> infantry div (X 5)
	  more than one type of organisation.  

		Type I (X 1)
		>> 2 X HBCT
		>> 2 X IBCT
		>> 1 X CAB

		Type II (X 1)
		>> 1 X HBCT
		>> 3 X SBCT
		>> 1 X CAB
		
		Type III (X 2)
		>> 3 X HBCT
		>> 1 X IBCT
		>> 1 X CAB

		Type IV (X 1)
		>> 1 X IBCT
		>> 2 X SBCT
		>> 1 X IBCT (airborne)

	> airborne div (X 2)
		>> 4 X (airborne) inf bde
		>> 1 or 2 cmbt avia bde

P.S. in all cases, the div HQ also commands certain HQ units like SF etc which are similar for all divisions. point to be noted is that assets that are held at division level in IA, like 'heavy' arty, is distributed among the bde's. more on this in footnote 4

http://www.tacopshq.com/HQ/files/FKSM-71-8.pdf has very detailed TOE of the various bde combat teams.

Note 1 : we can clearly see that some of the inf divisions are quite armour heavy and would be called armoured divisions in other armies. the nomenclature is more due to tradition than anything else. the single armoured division for example can easily be considered as one of the variants of the inf division. indeed, 2 of the inf divisions (Type III) are more armour heavy than the lone armoured division.

Note 2 : the single cavalry division is the most armour heavy of all US army divisions.

Note 3 : the structure of infantry bde's mention integral squadrons of cavalry regiments. I am not sure if these are armoured i.e tank squadrons or lighter vehicle based units for recon etc. the later, I think. it might be mentioned that in IA, most inf divisions have an integral armoured regiment.

Note 4 : Basically US army has no fixed definition of division.

while this might sound like a joke, it is a reflection of the fact that they have reorganised the army around the brigade as its basic combined arms unit, not the division. incidentally, PLA has also done something similar, although last I heard they were having problems getting the relatively inexperienced (in commanding combined arms formations, not necessarily young) bde commanders to perform adequately.
I don't think this is a good idea for us, US has compulsions of deploying all around the world and they needed smaller stand alone units that could do so. we have no such need and moreover, assets distributed all over might risk being ineffective when deployed in small groups. for a relatively 'light' army like ours, this would be even more problematic.
_____________________________
coming to the organisation of our army, the 3 armoured divisions are of course the heaviest formations.
orbat.com gives the orbats of armd div, RAPIDS and also that of inf battalion, mech inf btn etc.
http://orbat.com/site/cimh/miscel/India ... 20TOEs.htm
http://orbat.com/site/toe/toe/india/rapids.html
http://orbat.com/site/toe/toe/india/armoredtoe.html

the basic structure of our armd div is

Code: Select all

	IA armd div
		
		Various HQ troops like signals, MP etc.	
		2 X armd bde (2 X armd rgt + 1 X mech inf btn)
		1 X armd bde (2 X armd rgt + 2 X mech inf btn) 
		1 X arty bde
		1 X ADA bde

		1 X attack chopper sqdn

the RAPIDS are much 'lighter' than the armd div. they are primarily composed of

Code: Select all

IA RAPID
		Various HQ troops 
		1 X armd bde (2 X armd rgt + 2 X mech inf btn) 
		2 X inf bde
		1 X arty bde

before we get confused, IA has 3 different composition of armd bdes.

Code: Select all

	IA armd bde's
		
		Indep armd bdes 
			3 X amrd rgt 	
			1 X mech inf btn
		(usually true, however 14(I) armd bde has 4 and 2 in stead of 3 and 1)
	
		Armd bde's in RAPIDs
			2 X armd rgt
			2 X mech inf btn

		Armd bde in armd div	+ the type used in armd bde's of RAPIDS
			2 X armd rgt
			1 X mech inf btn

rohit tells us we have raised 2 (?) more RAPIDs but which div in particular escapes my memory.

I think it is a bit unrealistic to expect the IBG's to look like the US cav div anytime soon, sure, we can pool the armoured units of RAPIDs, and indep armd bde or mech bde but that would strip the parent corps naked of all offensive assets.

what I would like to see is an IBG that is somewhat less mechanised than armoured div but much more mechanised than the RAPIDs. in fact, it should not have any non mechanised infantry unit. something like this seems probable speculation IMO

Code: Select all

	IA IBG (speculative)
		
		2 X mech inf bde
			2 X mech inf btn
			1 X amrd rgt 	
	
		1 X armd bde
			2 X armd rgt
			2 X mech inf btn
	
		1 X arty bde
			1 X MBRL rgt
			2 X 155 mm rgt (SP- wheeled, when it comes. towed arty for now) 
			
		1 X SP ADA bde

		1 X helo bde (each sqdn ~ 10 aircraft)
			1 X LOH sqdn
			1 X LCH sqdn
			1 X WSI dhruv sqdn 
			1 X medevac flight