India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby pentaiah » 07 May 2013 20:31

yet not a single resignation to express indignation in the Nations defence set up.

This is even more troubling

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby abhijitm » 07 May 2013 20:40

MMS and BS both must resign. These current institutions have degraded the country to such an abysmally low level that for us just to stand up will take mammoth miraculous effort.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6881
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby shyamd » 07 May 2013 20:47

Antony non-committal if India would withdraw from Chumar
"I will just say that the two sides have agreed to have status quo ante," he said when asked if the Army has agreed to withdraw troops from bunkers built in Chumar area.


Chinese troops withdraw
The Chinese troops have pulled back from Daulat Beg Oldi sector in Ladakh where they had intruded on April 15, it was confirmed on Tuesday even as India was considering a proposal from China to have more friendly contacts between the Armies of the two countries.

A day after flag meetings were held to work out the modalities and arrangements to restore the status quo ante in the sector, sources said they have got a confirmation on the arrangements being completed on Tuesday.

Sources said the Army’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles operating in Eastern Ladakh have confirmed that the Chinese platoon camping in Depsang valley has gone back to its side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Denying that any deal was struck to reach the agreement to restore status quo as it existed prior to April 15 when the Chinese troops intruded 19 km into the Indian territory, sources said India has only “taken-off” a “tin-shed” construction done in Chumar on April 18.


Meanwhile, India is considering a Chinese proposal `Border Defence Cooperation Agreement’ (BDCA) aimed at expanding friendly contacts and more communication between the troops of the two sides on the ground which will help in avoiding any misunderstanding or flare-up along the LAC, sources said.

Okay so this "tin shed" went up after the incursion by PLA?
Last edited by shyamd on 07 May 2013 20:49, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby Singha » 07 May 2013 20:48

and these creeps by appointing their own vetted candidates in places like IA are driving down standards there too...all we need is a == between INC and IA it would be curtains for the nation. that would make IA == PLA == TSPA in terms of political linkages and business dealings.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby ramana » 07 May 2013 20:52

Singha wrote:and these creeps by appointing their own vetted candidates in places like IA are driving down standards there too...all we need is a == between INC and IA it would be curtains for the nation. that would make IA == PLA == TSPA in terms of political linkages and business dealings.



It starts with UPSC exam process. The interviews ensure that only malleable minds with out nay streak of questioning only get selected. After that the promotion boards with ACRs ensure no independent minded folks ever rise to the top. The honor of paltan is supreme. Desh 's honor not needed. Thats for the politicians to handle.


Is it to get the PRC to occupy Daulat Beg Oldi area that Bikram Singh coterie manipulated the Army Chief succession plan?


where is the paltan izzat now?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 07 May 2013 23:58

ramana wrote:Please oblige. The record shows that time and again IA is suprised by others who occupy Indian land. Thrice in 1965:Rann of Kutch, J&K Infiltration, TSP Second Armored div.

But for Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh, Amritsar was to be evacuated by high command.

Kargil and many lesser events.

Second I dont have preconcieved ntotions and am willing ot let the facts speak for themselves.

Please do inform for this is a forum and not a bulletin board. We are all willing to learn and be informed.

Thanks in advance.

ramana


Rann of Kutch

ramana, I am actually surprised about your comment on the Rann of Kutch incident. Had you bothered to look up the history of the conflict, you'd realize two important aspects of the conflict -

(a) First - there was no army there which could have been 'surprised'. The border then was manned by CRPF. In fact, India did not have any troops south of Rajasthan. The center of gravity during those days was Punjab on both sides. With Pakistan salivating about Kashmir. It was Pakistan Rangers which had built tracks inside Indian territory which were discovered by CRPF. All this happened in January 1965 and IA moved into the area in April 1965.

(b) The conflict was a feint on part of PA to test Indian response and draw Indian reserves into the area. The PA was operating with better lines of communication and from an established cantonment. It also had cover of PAF operating out of Badin AFB. It had moved forces (2 x Infantry Bdes + 1 x Patton Regiment - all from 8 Infantry Division) with the objective of getting India to draw armor/forces down from Punjab. Sensibly, IA deployed 2 x Infantry Bdes (w/o much artillery or anti-tank assets) w/o withdrawing reserves from Punjab.

PA attack on the Indian posts manned by CRPF took place BEFORE the IA moved into the area. Post movement of IA, there was not fighting.

Another important point - All this happened before onset of monsoon. With onset of monsoon, there is no scope for any fighting in Kutch and had India decided for tit-for-tat action, it would have only ended by chasing mirages while leaving vital defenses in Punjab in weak position. Remember, PA had superiority in armor and artillery in 1965.

6 Armored Division

What about 6 Armored Division? It was raised as 100 Armored Bde by PA which subsequently just before the war was used as nucleus for 6 Armored Division. It was still under proper raising when war broke out. Though, it did perform more admirably than its much vaunted cousin - 1 Armored Division.

But I think you're confusing 6 Armored Division with IA 4 Mountain Division discovering PA 1 Armored Division in Kasur.

As for Harbaksh Singh - well, he did not land from Mars. He was a product of He was a product of the same system you’re lamenting against. As was General Manekshaw, Lt. General Hanut Singh, General KV Krishna Rao, General Rodrigues, General Sundarji, General Padmanabhan and others.

Kargil - It was a product of a faulty logic by wanna-be Ataturk and IA was surprised to the extent that someone would execute such a stupid plan. Units of 121 Infantry Bde at Kargil are guilty of neglect of their duty but I doubt even they could have discovered the intrusion earlier. The Kargil intrusion involved PA occupying ridges in winter - areas which cannot be patrolled in winter month.

On the current development in DBO Sector - enough has been written on the topic (including by me) including details of geography and troops levels. If you still choose to term this as surprise and some sort of indictment of IA, then I have nothing to say.

And it is surprising that you should say that BRF is a forum and not a bulletin board - the same would demand that you explain your position on the subject you write about. And not make sweeping comments.

As a senior and respected member on this forum, many consider your comments on topics/issues as borne out of deep thought and study. What you write here becomes 'THE' position on the subject. And one that is perceived to be the correct position by many members. So, please consider this as an additional responsibility that you need to discharge.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby ramana » 08 May 2013 01:06

http://www.firstpost.com/india/in-memor ... 50435.html

There’s evidence, though, that by 1965, things were back on track. Popular accounts hold that India had no intelligence on the Kutch clashes which preceded the war in Kashmir. In fact, from India’s still-classified—but helpfully online—official war history makes clear this wasn’t true. “Indian intelligence”, it records, “did provide information about the movement of Pakistani troops and armour into the Rann. However, the local commanders were not too happy with the intelligence that was provided to them. General JN Chaudhuri admitted in 1971 that he had ‘adequate information regarding the southward move towards the Sindh-Kutch border of some Pakistani military units, thought the official Pakistani story was of movement by Rangers or armed police”.



brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby brihaspati » 08 May 2013 03:20

Shouldn't there be a full-fledged cabinet rank minister of denial?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby ramana » 08 May 2013 03:23

brihaspati wrote:Shouldn't there be a full-fledged cabinet rank minister of denial?



Why the whole cabinet is there for that!

They already have a Minister for Broadcasting Mis-Information.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby brihaspati » 08 May 2013 03:27

rohitvats ji,
I am waiting for your thoughts and outlines. 2020-2040 be the time horizon. You already know which areas I wanted.

Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2959
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby Shanmukh » 08 May 2013 03:37

brihaspati wrote:Shouldn't there be a full-fledged cabinet rank minister of denial?

B-ji,
Isn't the entire cabinet already devoted to it? It is part of the functions of every minister!

Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2959
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby Shanmukh » 08 May 2013 03:37

ramana wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Shouldn't there be a full-fledged cabinet rank minister of denial?



Why the whole cabinet is there for that!

They already have a Minister for Broadcasting Mis-Information.


Ministry of Truth?

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby anjan » 08 May 2013 03:53

rohitvats wrote:It is a sad day when a senior member of BRF makes such posts.
It is sad. It's more tragic when practically no one seems to understand either the terrain in these places or the weather. Or what command entail. Or risk taking in any context. Every CO at Kargil with certainty put up the possibility of an occupation of those heights. So what? It's not a bloody game to send men to ridiculous locations when something is hypothetically possible. You assign probabilities to events and you take educated risks. So some don't pan out. Far easier to sit in the comfort of your drawing rooms and order that men be stationed on every god forsaken rock and then go back to sipiing chai tea latte and complain about the commuter traffic on the way home. This is how every organization operates. You have limited resources and you use them to the best possible way accounting for morale and time. No army in the world can ever efficiently sustain a border defense in the manner that is casually suggested in this forum. And it would be extraordinarily stupid if tried. You try and concentrate force not string it around a straight line in the fond hope that no inch of territory is lost.

The response to Kargil was flawed and the response here is flawed. The answer is to retake the initiative and open a front in another sector. That however requires political will and the willingness to escalate.

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby pentaiah » 08 May 2013 06:03

anjan wrote:
rohitvats wrote:It is a sad day when a senior member of BRF makes such posts.
It is sad. It's more tragic when practically no one seems to understand either the terrain in these places or the weather. Or what command entail. Or risk taking in any context. Every CO at Kargil with certainty put up the possibility of an occupation of those heights. So what? It's not a bloody game to send men to ridiculous locations when something is hypothetically possible. You assign probabilities to events and you take educated risks. So some don't pan out. Far easier to sit in the comfort of your drawing rooms and order that men be stationed on every god forsaken rock and then go back to sipiing chai tea latte and complain about the commuter traffic on the way home. This is how every organization operates. You have limited resources and you use them to the best possible way accounting for morale and time. No army in the world can ever efficiently sustain a border defense in the manner that is casually suggested in this forum. And it would be extraordinarily stupid if tried. You try and concentrate force not string it around a straight line in the fond hope that no inch of territory is lost.

The response to Kargil was flawed and the response here is flawed. The answer is to retake the initiative and open a front in another sector. That however requires political will and the willingness to escalate.


Response was flawed but we won at the end of the day
I used day in day castigate our chief who was playing golf or was in Austria
But we responded if operations are flawed then IA leadership is to be blamed
But we showed we had some balls unlike now
Life in Army is always tough
Suddenly my respect for US armed forced has gone up
By several notches. Inspire GOTUs stupidity young marines
Fight in unknown territories for unknown causes

At least we could have protected our land and pride

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby Pranav » 08 May 2013 06:27

anjan wrote:
rohitvats wrote:It is a sad day when a senior member of BRF makes such posts.
It is sad. It's more tragic when practically no one seems to understand either the terrain in these places or the weather. Or what command entail. Or risk taking in any context. Every CO at Kargil with certainty put up the possibility of an occupation of those heights. So what? It's not a bloody game to send men to ridiculous locations when something is hypothetically possible. You assign probabilities to events and you take educated risks. So some don't pan out. Far easier to sit in the comfort of your drawing rooms and order that men be stationed on every god forsaken rock and then go back to sipiing chai tea latte and complain about the commuter traffic on the way home. This is how every organization operates. You have limited resources and you use them to the best possible way accounting for morale and time. No army in the world can ever efficiently sustain a border defense in the manner that is casually suggested in this forum. And it would be extraordinarily stupid if tried. You try and concentrate force not string it around a straight line in the fond hope that no inch of territory is lost.

The response to Kargil was flawed and the response here is flawed. The answer is to retake the initiative and open a front in another sector. That however requires political will and the willingness to escalate.


IMHO they could have been patrolling those peaks and ridges by plane / helicopters, at least a couple of times a week. IIRC Kargil went undetected for a couple of months. Nowadays one can use UAVs. If satellite resolutions / frequency of passing are good enough then satellite could also be used.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby Philip » 08 May 2013 07:12

An outside viewpoint,and what I've often quotyed:

"All this is another example of the old saying that amateurs (and politicians) talk tactics, while professionals talk logistics."

India Prepares For Another Chinese Victory
India Prepares For Another Chinese Victory
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurp ... 30507.aspx

Next Article → WARPLANES: Why Super Tucano Is Super

May 7, 2013: The recent (April 15th) Chinese incursion inside Indian Kashmir has reminded Indian military leaders that despite over five years of brave talk and bold plans, not much has actually been accomplished to rectify the shortage of access to the Indian side of the border. It was this lack of access that played a key role in the last border war with China (in 1962) which saw better prepared and supplied Chinese forces wearing down their brave but ill-supplied Indian opponents. Indians are waking up to the fact that a repeat of their 1962 defeat is in the making.

Over the last five years India has ordered roads built so that troops can reach the Chinese border in sufficient strength to stop a Chinese invasion. The roads have, for the most part, not been built. The problem is the Indian bureaucracy and its inability to get anything done quickly or even on time. The military procurement bureaucracy is the best, or worst, example of this. The military procurement bureaucracy takes decades to develop and produce locally made gear and often never delivers. Buying foreign equipment is almost as bad, with corruption and indecisiveness delaying and sometimes halting selection and purchase of needed items.

Despite the bureaucracy, some progress has been made. Three years ago India quietly built and put into service an airfield for transports in the north (Uttarakhand), near their border with China. While the airfield can also be used to bring in urgently needed supplies for local civilians during those months when snow blocks the few roads, it is mainly there for military purposes, in case China invades again. Uttarakhand is near Kashmir and a 38,000 square kilometer chunk of land that China seized after a brief war with India in 1962. This airfield and several similar projects along the Chinese border are all about growing fears of continued Chinese claims on Indian territory. India is alarmed at increasing strident Chinese insistence that it owns northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. This has led to an increased movement of Indian military forces to that remote area.

India has discovered that a buildup in these remote areas is easier said than done. Without new roads nothing else really makes much difference. Airfields require fuel and other supplies to be more than just another place where an aircraft can land (and not take off if it needs refueling). Moreover, the Indians found that they were far behind Chinese efforts. When they took a closer look three years ago, Indian staff officers discovered that China had improved its road network along most of their 4,000 kilometer common border. Indian military planners calculated that, as a result of this network, Chinese military units could move 400 kilometers a day on hard surfaced roads, while Indian units could only move half as fast, while suffering more vehicle damage because of the many unpaved roads. Moreover, China had more roads right up to the border. Building more roads on the Indian side will take years, once the bureaucratic problems are overcome (which often takes a decade). The roads are essential to support Indian plans to build more airfields near the border and stationing modern fighters there. Military planners found, once the terrain was surveyed and calculations completed, that it would take a lot more time because of the need to build maintenance facilities, roads to move in fuel and supplies, and housing for military families.

All these border disputes have been around for centuries but became more immediate when India and China fought a short war, up in these mountains, in 1962. The Indians lost and are determined not to lose a rematch. But so far, the Indians have been falling farther behind China. This situation developed because India, decades ago, decided that one way to deal with a Chinese invasion was to make it difficult for them to move forward. Thus, for decades, the Indians built few roads on their side of the border. But that also made it more difficult for Indian forces to get into the disputed areas. This strategy suited the Indian inability to actually build roads in these sparsely inhabited areas.

The source of the current border tension goes back a century and heated up when China resumed its control over Tibet in the 1950s. From the end of the Chinese empire in 1912 up until 1949 Tibet had been independent. But when the communists took over China in 1949, they sought to reassert control over their "lost province" of Tibet. This began slowly, but once all of Tibet was under Chinese control in 1959, China once again had a border with India and there was immediately a disagreement about exactly where the border should be. That’s because, in 1914, the newly independent government of Tibet worked out a border (the McMahon line) with the British (who controlled India). China considers this border agreement illegal and wants 90,000 square kilometers back. India refused, especially since this would mean losing much of the state of Arunachal Pradesh in northeastern India and some bits elsewhere in the area.

Putting more roads into places like Arunachal Pradesh (83,000 square kilometers and only a million people) and Uttarakhand (53,566 square kilometers and ten million people) will improve the economy, as well as military capabilities. This will be true of most of the border area. For decades local civilians along these borders have been asking for more roads and economic development but were turned down because of the now discredited Indian strategy.

All the roads won't change the fact that most of the border is mountains, the highest mountains (the Himalayas) in the world. So no matter how much you prepare for war, no one is going very far, very fast, when you have to deal with these mountains. As the Indians discovered, the Chinese persevered anyway and built roads and railroads anyway and now India has to quickly respond in kind or face a repeat of their 1962 defeat.

Despite the lack of roads, India has moved several infantry divisions, several squadrons of Su-30 fighters, and six of the first eight squadrons of its new Akash air defense missile systems as close to the Chinese border as their existing road network will allow. Most of these initially went into Assam, just south of Arunachal Pradesh, until the road network is built up sufficiently to allow bases to be maintained closer to the border. It may be a decade or more before those roads are built, meaning China can seize Arunachal Pradesh anytime it wants and there’s not much India can do to stop it.

Undeterred by that the Indian Army has asked for $3.5 billion in order to create three more brigades (two infantry and one armored) to defend the Chinese border. Actually, this new force is in addition to the new mountain corps (of 80,000 troops) nearing approval (at a cost of $11.5 billion). The mountain corps is to be complete in four years. The three proposed brigades would be ready in 4-5 years. By the end of the decade India will have spent nearly five billion dollars on new roads, rail lines, and air fields near the 4,057 kilometer long Chinese border. Spending the money is not the same as actually getting the roads and railroads actually built.

All this is another example of the old saying that amateurs (and politicians) talk tactics, while professionals talk logistics. China realized this first and has built 58,000 kilometers of roads to the Indian border, along with five airbases and several rail lines. Thus, China can move thirty divisions to the border, which is three times more than India can get to its side of the frontier.
Next Article → WARPLANES: Why Super Tucano Is Super

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby SSridhar » 08 May 2013 07:49

With status quo ante having been restored, the Cabinet Committee on Security is likely to consider the Indian response to the Chinese suggestion for a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement.


No quid-pro-quo for China's withdrawal of troops - The Hindu

What is this new Border Defence Cooperation Agreement for ? We have many agreements and many meetings between Special Representatives but there is no movement at all, except for the Chinese movement into India territory and commensurate Indian movement further backwards.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby SSridhar » 08 May 2013 08:07

Neighbourhood Concerns may have Prompted China's Ladakh Withdrawal - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

China’s concerns over ongoing tensions with several of its neighbours, from Japan to the Philippines, may have prompted a rethink leading to the withdrawal of its troops from the face-off situation in Ladakh, a Chinese analyst has suggested.


Looks dubious to me. If China had such concerns, it would not have intruded in the first place. There is a method behind this madness.

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby anjan » 08 May 2013 08:20

pentaiah wrote:Life in Army is always tough
Meaningless turn of phrase used to casually throw away the lives of others.

At least we could have protected our land and pride
What's not been protected? If the standard is that no land can be lost for any length of time then it is militarily naive. No army not even the mighty Khan whom you eulogize can do that. Even static defenses like the Maginot line account and adjust for terrain.

Pranav wrote:IMHO they could have been patrolling those peaks and ridges by plane / helicopters, at least a couple of times a week. IIRC Kargil went undetected for a couple of months. Nowadays one can use UAVs. If satellite resolutions / frequency of passing are good enough then satellite could also be used.
Money, weather, cloud cover, logistics. There are half a dozen reasons. Everything you've listed exists. Frequencies matter. Satellite intel has to be parsed, interpreted. Everything takes time and money. Forward posts in places are air maintained with our lousy single engined old choppers. We haven't even replaced those. Those pilots deserve a medal for just getting in those aircraft day after day. Still, each sortie costs money. Each sortie takes a toll on the life of the airframe. Anything airborne has weather restrictions. Men have weather restrictions. Or you'll lose whole sections to avalanches.

It doesn't take a lot of time to set up 6 tents. Conversely with intrusions like Kargil, intelligence is probably far more effective way to determine buildups. The increased Pakistani activity, logistics build up should all have been visible. So intelligence messed up. Maybe they too used their sparse resources elsewhere. Who's to know.

It's still stupid to respond only in one tiny place and let the other party have the initiative. What kind of stupidity is that. We should have just stuck our tents somewhere else. They can't guard the whole place either.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2013 09:25

ramana wrote:http://www.firstpost.com/india/in-memory-of-sarabjit-singh-a-tribute-to-our-spies-750435.html

There’s evidence, though, that by 1965, things were back on track. Popular accounts hold that India had no intelligence on the Kutch clashes which preceded the war in Kashmir. In fact, from India’s still-classified—but helpfully online—official war history makes clear this wasn’t true. “Indian intelligence”, it records, “did provide information about the movement of Pakistani troops and armour into the Rann. However, the local commanders were not too happy with the intelligence that was provided to them. General JN Chaudhuri admitted in 1971 that he had ‘adequate information regarding the southward move towards the Sindh-Kutch border of some Pakistani military units, thought the official Pakistani story was of movement by Rangers or armed police”.



ramana, first you post about Indian Army being 'surprised' with respect to Rann of Kutch and then you quote a contrary piece from the PS article? Where are we going with this?

After the Runn of Kutch incident flared up in media, there was a call to take military action by a population smarting from 1962. Then COAS General Chowdhary had advised PM LBS to not give in to such demands because of the two reasons outlined earlier (a) It was a feint to draw Indian reserves (b) Monsoon would have soon set out rendering any operation in Rann as futile.

LBS paid heed to the advise and made a statement in Parliament that India reserves the right to retaliate at its point and time of choosing. IA moved 1 Armored Division to forward to general area of Jalandhar. PA responded by moving their 1 Armored Division to Changa-Manga forest area.

And while the so called hawks in Pakistan used the Rann of Kutch incident to draw conclusion that they can take on India "abandoning conservative plans in favor of all out war" as one Pakistani author puts it, they never realized that LBS's threat to open a front of our choosing could apply to PA attack on Kashmir. Rest, as they say is history.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2013 09:34

pentaiah wrote:Response was flawed but we won at the end of the day
I used day in day castigate our chief who was playing golf or was in Austria
But we responded if operations are flawed then IA leadership is to be blamed
But we showed we had some balls unlike now
Life in Army is always tough
Suddenly my respect for US armed forced has gone up
By several notches. Inspire GOTUs stupidity young marines
Fight in unknown territories for unknown causes

At least we could have protected our land and pride


Response was 'flawed' because some believe that the decision to not cross LOC placed serious handicap on the military options. And added to the causalities suffered by the Indian Army. This was a political decision and not a military decision.

Indian political leadership showed 'balls' and took the challenge by scruff of the neck...IA was then a tool in the government policy and is so now. It is the government which decides the course of action and not the other way around.

Funny that you should talk about Marines and US Armed Forces - do you think is the US Armed Forces which wake up in the morning and say, 'Hey! let us go and fight them b@stards over there'. The GOTUS decides in its stupidity to use force at its disposal to achieve its objectives. And not the other way around.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby ramana » 08 May 2013 09:37

anjan wrote:The response to Kargil was flawed and the response here is flawed. The answer is to retake the initiative and open a front in another sector. That however requires political will and the willingness to escalate.


And how do you propose the Army open a front in another sector? Especailly knowing that there is no political will.
You make sure what is ours stays ours. You dont come up with excuses of lack of political will etc.

Rohitvats, I think you are not clear about National interests. We can argue once you get the idea that I am castigating the Army.
Read Lt Gen Sarabjit Singh's book on India's war since Independence where he dissects all these operations.

I repeat there is a failure of leadership in Indian Army after Gen Thimmayya exepct for Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh, Lt Gen Arora, Lt Gen SK Sinha, Gen Kotikilpudi V Krishna Rao (my *****), Gen KS Sunderji, and gen K Padmanabhan.


Think about it.

A leader fights with what he has and doesn't come up with excuses.

BTW in this thread I am not the admin. I am just as anyother member.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2013 09:49

brihaspati wrote:rohitvats ji, I am waiting for your thoughts and outlines. 2020-2040 be the time horizon. You already know which areas I wanted.


Bji,

Sorry to say this but I don't think I am going to do that any longer. All such analysis is a wasted exercise these days as people are more interested in making quick comments then researching/reading/understanding the subject.

Putting up anything seems a futile exercise...inspite of the data/analysis being presented, denigrating armed forces seems par for the course. Posters seem to be more interested in making their pet peeves known than making an effort to understand a subject. Everyone is more patriotic and wise than the men out their in uniform. And I'm not sure I can put up with that any longer.

Doing a complete analysis of military-geography, Indian+China military capabilities and future course of action has been a long standing action point of mine. It stemmed from the developments on Siachen issue front...I wanted to highlight the inter-locked nature of geography and defenses in the area. I have done some work already on the geography part...I might still do some analysis but cannot give a word on the timeline for same.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2013 10:13

ramana wrote:Rohitvats, I think you are not clear about National interests. We can argue once you get the idea that I am castigating the Army. Read Lt Gen Sarabjit Singh's book on India's war since Independence where he dissects all these operations.

ramana - you're preaching to choir here.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and when applied to assessment of Military Operations, always throws up 'what could have been done' scenarios. It does not suffer from the 'fog of war' that the local commander has to deal with. So, while it is easy to castigate Major General Sparrow for not aggressively leading his 1 Armored Division in 1965, no one gives a thought to the fact that he controlled the only offensive formation of IA. And could not afford to be another Manstein or Guderian because any loss of tanks would weigh heavily on Indian options.

Another very important point - Armies and their war-fighting culture are not built in a day. Indian Army was raised as an Infantry dominated force and that is the mindset with which it fought all the wars (1999 not counted). It is no surprise that the handling of armor (except up to CO and Squadron Commander level) was poor as was understanding of maneuver warfare. German Army's Combined Arms Warfare was a product of a thought process which started 25-30 years before it was actually implemented on the ground.

Indian Army till 1987 was the infantry dominated force and it was Sundarji who changed that paradigm. And this change in thought process saw its actual implementation in 2002 when General Padmanabhan deployed all the three armored divisions in desert.


As for national interest and IA acting on its own initiative - when it comes to such a situation, the IA cannot act out of line with the government directive. This is a path India as a nation cannot afford to take or consequences would be too horrific.

I repeat there is a failure of leadership in Indian Army after Gen Thimmayya exepct for Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh, Lt Gen Arora, Lt Gen SK Sinha, Gen Kotikilpudi V Krishna Rao (my *****), Gen KS Sunderji, and gen K Padmanabhan.

If you think only these gentlemen added in any meaningful way to the Indian Army, then you need to read up a bit more.

For starters - please buy this book and read it if you have time: Leadership In The Indian Army : Biographies Of Twelve Soldiers

It explores the roles of these men in IA:

Field Marshal K M Cariappa, OBE: First Indian Commander-in-Chief
Lieutenant General Thakur Nathu Singh: A Fearless Nationalist
General K S Thimayya, DSO: Timmy Sahib, India`s Most Popular General
Lieutenant General S P P Thorat, KC, DSO: A Professional to the Core
Brigadier Mohd. Usman, MVC: The Epitome of Valour
Field Marshal S H F J Manekshaw, MC: The Architect of India`s Victory Over Pakistan
Lieutenant General R N Batra, PVSM, OBE: Communicator Par Excellence
Lieutenant General P S Bhagat, PVSM, VC: The Soldiers` General
Lieutenant General Sagat Singh, PVSM: India`s Finest Combat Leader
Lieutenant General Z C Bakshi, PVSM, MVC, VrC, VSM: India`s Most Decorated General
Lieutenant General S K Sinha, PVSM: The Soldier-Statesman
Lieutenant General Hanut Singh, PVSM, MVC: A Brilliant Tactician


Indian Army is not without its share of failed/timid/incompetent leaders...but that does not mean one can make sweeping statements about the organization.

BTW in this thread I am not the admin. I am just as anyother member.

You don't need to be an admin on any thread for the argument given by me earlier to hold. You have a certain stature on this forum and there are N number of people who look up to you for knowledge/opinions/inputs. And take your word as final on the subject.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby member_20317 » 08 May 2013 10:30

rohitvats ji, I do not get it.

Why does it matter to you what the other guy thinks considering you actually owe no loyalty to BRF?

You do owe a loyalty to Bharat so work on that count. Mind you not even to IA. Only to Bharat.

Though I was a bit surprised myself when you accepted the invitation for the massive task of running through the whole idea of detailed defence in the Himalayas. Vivek ji has been doing that and he needed a thread despite the fact that he was working under the presumption of India winning. The more economical way I can suggest is you highlight your points of differences and concurrence with vivek ji. Another thing I can suggest is the 60K feet view.

But on any count how do you find any reason to hand out a carte blanche all the staff generals. And ramana ji has raised a finger on only some of the guys. I hope you have a good defence of these guys ready. If China has used the Himalayas as the cap to keep the IA ginie in, unable to swing arms, the political establishment has done its bit by not allowing the IA function in a sound military manner, which obviously could not have been achieved without the compliance form certain quarters. I cannot say much on the issue since this involves some back room stuff. I much prefer the pratyaksh for this reason.


And no. No word is final on any subject. At least for me. Cannot support you on that. Sorry about that.

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby anjan » 08 May 2013 11:00

ramana wrote:And how do you propose the Army open a front in another sector? Especailly knowing that there is no political will.
You make sure what is ours stays ours. You dont come up with excuses of lack of political will etc.
A leader fights with what he has and doesn't come up with excuses.

The LOAC is 4000 odd KMs long. Are you seriously advancing the idea that we ought to somehow cover this distance in troops? Let us say a battalion has a frontage of roughly 4 kms in depth on the defensive. Which is generous for moutains. That's 1000 battalions at any given time.

Your hypothetical leader with 1/10th that manpower is leading his men to mass suicide following your suggestions. We could just have the Army shoot themselves in their current peace time locations and save the country the cost of troop movement.

This idea that instruments on national power can act independent of each other is just plain weird. The military is merely an instrument. An option for force. It must be wielded by the political executive for our form of government to have any meaning. The answer to the failure of the executive is not to ask the other arms to also forget the science of their own disciplines and embark on some mad max scheme to cover up this failure. The current political-bureaucratic-military mix has failed.. It is time to reform the system. It's not like our politicians are somehow genetically inferior to anything the Khan has. Their system just works better. We can do it too.

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby anjan » 08 May 2013 11:24

Marten wrote:The day the IA acts on its own without clear political directives is the day India turns into a Pakistan. I cannot imagine anyone saying otherwise.
No need to imagine. That's what's being directly suggested here. Edit: Actually it goes further. It's been suggested through the few threads following this issue that the Army in not doing so is incompetent, cowardly, lazy, bought off, just plain low quality manpower(as opposed to the clearly militarily superior commentators) etc.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2013 11:45

anjan wrote:
Marten wrote:The day the IA acts on its own without clear political directives is the day India turns into a Pakistan. I cannot imagine anyone saying otherwise.
No need to imagine. That's what's being directly suggested here. Edit: Actually it goes further. It's been suggested through the few threads following this issue that the Army in not doing so is incompetent, cowardly, lazy, bought off, just plain low quality manpower(as opposed to the clearly militarily superior commentators) etc.


+1.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4786
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby Yayavar » 08 May 2013 11:47

alright...deleted per Acharya's advice.
Last edited by Yayavar on 08 May 2013 11:58, edited 1 time in total.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby svinayak » 08 May 2013 11:52

This discussion should be in the GDF forum. Please discuss this internal issue in GDF

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby member_20317 » 08 May 2013 12:17

rohitvats wrote:
Marten wrote:The day the IA acts on its own without clear political directives is the day India turns into a Pakistan. I cannot imagine anyone saying otherwise.


anjan wrote: No need to imagine. That's what's being directly suggested here. Edit: Actually it goes further. It's been suggested through the few threads following this issue that the Army in not doing so is incompetent, cowardly, lazy, bought off, just plain low quality manpower(as opposed to the clearly militarily superior commentators) etc.



+1.



I have read again the line of posts. Where is the proposal that IA should work without the confidence of the political authority. At least not when properly contextualized. A liberty I guess even you guys would require.

Also I second Acharya ji, Request Mods to take the whole thread to Burkha, which I believe is possible.

But kindly do remember there was thread launched by shiv ji for the strictly military (no political) response.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2013 13:59

ravi_g wrote:rohitvats ji, I do not get it.

Bhai mere...please to drop this 'Ji' part...makes me feel older than I am. :mrgreen:

Why does it matter to you what the other guy thinks considering you actually owe no loyalty to BRF?

OK. Let me pen down my thoughts on how I view BRF and why I wrote what I wrote earlier.

You see, for me, being on BRF is part of a serious discussion on topic(s) which are not covered otherwise. The difference is that there is time lag between responses by people and one always has the option to either brush up one's knowledge before posting or doing research to counter another opinion. Through this exchange of differing opinion and inputs by various members, a dominant opinion on a subject emerges.

A prime example of this type of discussion on BRF is the OIT Thread. That single thread has more knowledge and information on the said topic than would be available anywhere. And this knowledge base was built with assiduous research by various members. It helped a rank ignorant like me to build some basic knowledge on the subject and use it to thrash some arguments.

However, if inspite of all the information and data that is presented, people stick to a certain POV because they 'feel' that way, then being part of such a discussion is a futile exercise. Whatever hard work one undertakes has no worth for people have already made their mind. A dominant theme has emerged based on 'feeling' of people and their notion of right and wrong. There is no debate or exchange of information to be had in such a case.


You do owe a loyalty to Bharat so work on that count. Mind you not even to IA. Only to Bharat.

I actually owe loyalty to Services. I think it is well known on the forum that my father was in Army. And I have stated as such that if I have to err in judgement, it would be in favor of Services. But that does not mean my faculties are closed or I have suspended my reasoning.

As for loyalty to Bharat - there is one small thing I had heard from a senior Infantry Officer when I was a boy and it has stayed with me ever since. It was:

"जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी," (Janani Janma-bhoomi-scha Swargadapi Gariyasi) - Maa aur matrabhoomi swarg se mahaan hai.

However, I don't think I need to post on BRF to prove my loyalty to motherland. As it is, there are a lot of self acclaimed patriots on this forum nowadays who know more than anyone else on what is right and wrong for this nation. I don't think lesser patriots like me will be missed.


Though I was a bit surprised myself when you accepted the invitation for the massive task of running through the whole idea of detailed defence in the Himalayas. Vivek ji has been doing that and he needed a thread despite the fact that he was working under the presumption of India winning. The more economical way I can suggest is you highlight your points of differences and concurrence with vivek ji. Another thing I can suggest is the 60K feet view.

One does not need to get into scenarios at micro-level to assess the situation at present and the one likely to emerge in future. Neither does one need to make it a 60K feet view.

What is required is good understanding of the geography of the area, its impact on the military operations, current force levels on both sides and future growth trajectory of these forces. This is the ground work you need to do before embarking on any analysis.

Except for assessment of PLA (on the scale of what I understand about PA), I have some understanding of other aspects. Things don't change at short-notice when it comes to military matters and one can make projections into the future.

The challenge is to actually pen one's thoughts down in detailed posts with proper analysis and maps. And this takes hell lot of time. As I said earlier, I have already done some work...I will put up a 5-7 part series on my blog in future. But I don't know when.


But on any count how do you find any reason to hand out a carte blanche all the staff generals. And ramana ji has raised a finger on only some of the guys. I hope you have a good defence of these guys ready.

Sir, what ramana has done is contrary to what you are saying. He has passed sweeping statement on the IA leadership barring a few which he has named. I simply added another list of 12 Generals who are considered highly within the Indian Army. And these are about whom things have been written. There are many unsung heroes in IA who have simply done their work and moved on. So, to pass sweeping comments on IA leadership especially based on the current set of events is incorrect.

I know there are bad apples in the IA. VKS saga is a prime example of same. But the system which threw up people like JJ and others also gave VKS.

Everyone who joins Services takes the UPSC examination. If all of them are dumb-fvcks as has been claimed, then god save this country. But the facts on the ground are contrary to the same. An organization which changed the very rules of war-fighting on western front post assessment of 2002 mobilization must have something going for it. And this change did not come about because of one General Padmanabhan...but a series of Chiefs post that.


If China has used the Himalayas as the cap to keep the IA ginie in, unable to swing arms, the political establishment has done its bit by not allowing the IA function in a sound military manner, which obviously could not have been achieved without the compliance form certain quarters. I cannot say much on the issue since this involves some back room stuff. I much prefer the pratyaksh for this reason.

Compliance of certain quarters? I suppose you mean some serving senior IA officer connived with political leadership instead of putting his foot down? Well, I don't know enough on this topic to comment.

And no. No word is final on any subject. At least for me. Cannot support you on that. Sorry about that.

Well, that is your stand. I had my view on what 'others' think of posts by some senior members.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby member_20317 » 08 May 2013 17:39

ok rohit, I spare you :), no ji for you. You could be younger than me.

As a background, I too have relatives in IA and besides my work keeps me ‘informed’ of certain cognate practices in the civilian sector and more. A lot of work goes in perfecting the practice, this being in addition to the advantage of representing the top dogs. Hence my reluctance at going into the ‘back room stuff’. I could do that but I would need resources and backers. It is in this light that a presumption of people not being compromised at the top is untenable and so is the presumption that the opponent is not well resourced.

Also if you notice what ramana ji has said, it constitutes a criticism of the suspected absence of pro-activeness esp. in intel, something that can only be directed from the top. Intel investments are not known clearly and can only reasonably be judged by the successes/failures. I gather, from my interactions, that IA ranks do manage to get their acts together if they are mandated and resourced. The confidence in this regard is palpable. But that is not where the battlefield gets shaped. Most of what ramana ji has alluded to are things that are outside the perview of Col. level officers which basically forms the final point of divergence between those who continue in IA and who may end up in decision making apparatus and those who leave it for civilian life. Below that you get a good officer cadre but because of the bleed at/before Col. the percentage of compromised guys creeps up and then by the COAS we should count ourselves lucky if we get a good guy. It no longer remains a matter of our right. Rather it becomes a function of how the earlier establishment planned for things to be. Basically, I would like to understand as to why you feel confident of ~1450 officers at and above Brig. level. Pls do consider this has been criticized in the context of staffing practices, by Admiral Arun Prakash as a top heavy structure, which I am ready to accept will have implications in quality too.

Rohit like hindsight, foresight is also 20/20. And its been a bad year for most desh-bhakt. People are angry. So do cut some slack too.

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby pentaiah » 08 May 2013 20:17

The terrain is same for PRC and IA.
They came they saw they squat

what do we do ? Argue with excuses not fire a shot, but talk and vacate

we have never run out of excuses

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby vivek_ahuja » 08 May 2013 20:54

Rohitvats,

I think you are always caught on the mode of why-things-are when the discussion on a certain issue is on what-they-should-be with regard to Indian Army matters.

In that role you act as the anchor to prevent the discussion drifting too far off course. So need not underestimate your role here.

That said, if you end up being solidly of the view that IA-can-do-no-wrong and everything-is-political-will, then it reduces the strength of your arguments as things stand today regarding IA's high moral standing. I know you back your claims with solid analysis and thoughts, and I have no reason to doubt them. And especially because of this confidence in your analysis I feel that if the day to day operations of the IA have indeed everything to do with "lack of political will and courage" etc, then the IA ceases to be any more effective than the ITBP as far as proactive defense of our borders is concerned. And that we will ALWAYS be caught on the back-foot and by surprise.

And what I mean by proactive defense is illustrated perhaps by the following example from the recent DBO saga:

Once the Chinese were discovered deep inside our side of the LAC and had set up camp, the IA deployed UAVs to keep constant track of what was going on there, where and how the PLA truck convoys were coming from and supplying the troops opposite our guys and even verified after the Chinese had withdrawn that they had done so all the way back to their own territory.

All well and good and a good example of how new surveillance technology was used effectively to gather real-time intelligence on the enemy's actions.

But the question then comes to mind is why was this technology only brought into play when the ITBP had discovered the enemy intrusion. Clearly it should have been in play much earlier to detect the incoming PLA platoon and perhaps interdict them well before they set up camp and sent a welcoming party to the ITBP post (all the way to the airstrip at DBO!!!)?

After this point, the initiative was clearly with the PLA and the matter had become a political one rather than a border intrusion that should have been prevented from happening in the first place. In other words, if the IA had plans and capability to detect an enemy intrusion as the enemy attempted to do it, then they could prevent these events from happening by putting a blocking force in front of the intruders before they did damage and before it became a political issue. And even the ITBP forces could be the blocking force if they had the surveillance info beforehand.

Now there are numerous reasons why UAVs cannot provide 24/7 real-time surveillance of the borders in Ladakh:
a) Bad weather and cloudy days means that only low-altitude and short range UAVs can be used. These reduce the area they can scan, have shorter range and endurance, have difficulty being recovered and need many more units to cover the entire border.
b) Not enough UAVs to go around in the IA for full monitoring of the border
c) Large cost of doing 24/7 operations that the IA cannot sustain on a continuous basis.

Fair enough. But that is why there are other low cost technologies out there such as reconnaissance radars and other means developed by DRDO and in use by the army in the J&K valley where they have proven most effective against intruding Jihadis.

The point is that why is the IA almost always caught on the flat foot and by surprise along with the rest of the nation and almost always in reaction mode rather than proactive mode?

If the answer to all this is political-will, then to me the IA ceases to be effective other than when the shit has really hit the fan and needs a large dirty cleanup.

Anyway, just my thoughts and probably laced with more emotion than intended. I am sure the IA knows best.

-Vivek

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby rohitvats » 08 May 2013 21:40

ravi_g wrote:<SNIP> It is in this light that a presumption of people not being compromised at the top is untenable and so is the presumption that the opponent is not well resourced.

It is one thing to consider things as not being black or white and quite another to pass blanket statements. Can you point out how the top IA leadership in this incident compromised Indian interest to warrant passing of denigrating comments as one sees in last couple of posts?

Also if you notice what ramana ji has said, it constitutes a criticism of the suspected absence of pro-activeness esp. in intel, something that can only be directed from the top. Intel investments are not known clearly and can only reasonably be judged by the successes/failures.

Sorry, but ramana's arguments were flawed to begin with. I have already provided a rebuttal for the same. You're welcome to air your examples of "repeated" intelligence failures by IA. And how this was/is a chronic failure on part of IA. Another thing - the mandate of Military Intelligence is limited to border areas only. Anything beyond a few kilometers from IB/LOC/LAC is the purview of the IB and RAW.

I gather, from my interactions, that IA ranks do manage to get their acts together if they are mandated and resourced. The confidence in this regard is palpable. But that is not where the battlefield gets shaped. Most of what ramana ji has alluded to are things that are outside the perview of Col. level officers which basically forms the final point of divergence between those who continue in IA and who may end up in decision making apparatus and those who leave it for civilian life. Below that you get a good officer cadre but because of the bleed at/before Col. the percentage of compromised guys creeps up and then by the COAS we should count ourselves lucky if we get a good guy. It no longer remains a matter of our right. Rather it becomes a function of how the earlier establishment planned for things to be.


You first need to firm up your argument.

The arguments have gone from blanket statements about UPSC system producing brain-dead officers to the above about higher concentration of compromised officers beyond Colonel level. Can you tell me what is relation between the two lines of arguments here?

As for officers leaving for civilian life - that is function of promotion opportunities in the IA as well as the lure of civilian life. Not only officers who don't go beyond Colonel level choose to move out but also those who don't want to continue in IA inspite of good promotion prospects. Just as an anecdote - the applications for premature retirement from IA dropped drastically in 2009-2011 period when there was economic uncertainty and fewer jobs.


The aspect about higher %age of officers beyond Colonel level being of 'compromised' type - that is typical for any organization. And IA is not immune from it. However, this conjecture cannot be used to make sweeping statement. If you feel that because of this aspect the entire IA senior leadership is of a variety which would compromise Indian interests, then there is nothing to even debate about. Such a situation would place IA in same league as our state police forces where corruption is given. And senior leadership exists but to do bidding of political masters and protect its own interests.

The reality is that this is not the case. And the onus is on you to prove that IA leadership has compromised Indian interests for parochial gains. It is easy say things like Bikram Singh was elevated to COAS so that MMS can barter away DBO - after all, talk is easy. And cheap. I dare anyone to even draw up a proper sequence of events or come up with circumstantial evidence to prove this point. I know no one can and would not even attempt to do this. Because that would require some bit of logic and reasoning which is missing in most of such statements.


Basically, I would like to understand as to why you feel confident of ~1450 officers at and above Brig. level. Pls do consider this has been criticized in the context of staffing practices, by Admiral Arun Prakash as a top heavy structure, which I am ready to accept will have implications in quality too.

You can use the conjecture about %ages articulated earlier to cast aspersions on the conduct of senior leadership and I will use the actual actions on the ground to make up my opinion. And as far as I am concerned, I have not seen any such case in relation to present incident on the border. I know the actual condition on the ground and constraints under which the IA operates.

I have not read what Arun Prakash has written about 'top heavy' structure but would like to do the same. However, unless there are major instances where the rank of officer holding a particular post has been elevated to higher ones, there would be direct linkage between command and staff openings and size of Indian Army.


Rohit like hindsight, foresight is also 20/20. And its been a bad year for most desh-bhakt. People are angry. So do cut some slack too.

If venting frustration means denigrating the Services, than I would not want to be part of any such discussion or forum.


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

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby Singha » 08 May 2013 21:51

Now there are numerous reasons why UAVs cannot provide 24/7 real-time surveillance of the borders in Ladakh:
a) Bad weather and cloudy days means that only low-altitude and short range UAVs can be used. These reduce the area they can scan, have shorter range and endurance, have difficulty being recovered and need many more units to cover the entire border.
b) Not enough UAVs to go around in the IA for full monitoring of the border
c) Large cost of doing 24/7 operations that the IA cannot sustain on a continuous basis.


this where a HALE UAV equipped with SAR/ISAR payloads could be doing a sweep a day for automated comparison with previous day image and weeding out any changes. same concept has even been used to detect signs of IED digging beside roads in iraq it is claimed so surely will work for houses and vehicles.

Rustom HALE is years behind schedule no great things have been reported after the sub-scale model crashed into a coconut tree. I am not sure what are the peculiar challenges in the airframe but sure seems to be taking a really long time here when every country out there is fielding atleast medium UAVs.

I am afraid there is only two games in town in that dept - <that-which-cannot-be-named> and IAI Eitan. germany, france, uk and spain are interested probably because of the prohibitive cost of the even bigger <that-which-cannot-be-named>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Eitan

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby brihaspati » 08 May 2013 22:04

rohitvats wrote:
brihaspati wrote:rohitvats ji, I am waiting for your thoughts and outlines. 2020-2040 be the time horizon. You already know which areas I wanted.


Bji,

Sorry to say this but I don't think I am going to do that any longer. All such analysis is a wasted exercise these days as people are more interested in making quick comments then researching/reading/understanding the subject.

Putting up anything seems a futile exercise...inspite of the data/analysis being presented, denigrating armed forces seems par for the course. Posters seem to be more interested in making their pet peeves known than making an effort to understand a subject. Everyone is more patriotic and wise than the men out their in uniform. And I'm not sure I can put up with that any longer.

Doing a complete analysis of military-geography, Indian+China military capabilities and future course of action has been a long standing action point of mine. It stemmed from the developments on Siachen issue front...I wanted to highlight the inter-locked nature of geography and defenses in the area. I have done some work already on the geography part...I might still do some analysis but cannot give a word on the timeline for same.



There are ways and means of getting things done. The political side of things can be worked out. You will have to trust me on that. But it will help immensely, if I can come down to the nitty gritty of an actionable military plan. It will take time to get things in place. Hence the time horizon I gave. Other calculations have gone into focusing on that time range.

Think of the military objectives tied to geostrategic objectives of getting Tibet out of Chinese control, and establishment of a corridor towards the western outskirts of Mongolia. At the least - sovereignty over the Pindi neck upto Swat border. Core I. This has strategic importance for the rest of the game.

Core 2: NA. and AP sector.

Core 3. The problem of the middle portion of the Himalayan arc of Tibet. We have to push out in two "horns" so to speak. Can be turned into an advantage if planned. Otherwise a disaster.

I know I am suggesting things in reverse. That is deliberate. Lets put it straight - if these are the objectives, what do you need to have from the military side? We will get the political side to match up to that and there is a different game that goes into it. If there is a promise of matching up politically, can we have an understanding that the arms will deliver? I hope you understand what I am asking.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Postby RamaY » 08 May 2013 22:27

As part of Govt of India Indian Armed forces are open to criticism as any other section of the GoI. There is not question of patriotism or call for coup. Like any arm of the government, IA also has some freedom of maneuverability in its operational aspects. When someone questions IA, they are questioning effectiveness of IA in these areas.

It is in the best interests of IA to educate fellow citizens on some the questions people have raised. I asked few questions in the newbie thread and really appreciate if anyone can answer them.

[Self Edited]
Last edited by RamaY on 08 May 2013 23:01, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests