Avik Sir: Look, like sherlok Homes once said "its elementary Watson." Lets be specific to kargil. Precision bombing was not working. If we had smart bombes etc, would it make difference, I don't know. Else, the planes would have bombed the and then all would be well again. Kargil was a different war. WLR had very less to do with it. It needed people to get in an do kushti and thats how it was done. To get people in there, a lot of methods were.CJ Sir: War is ultimately between people. This doesnt mean you send people to do kushti. If people have more effective tools, then they are more effective at combat. Otherwise, what is the point of having sights, UBGLs etc.; after all, as per your logic, it is a fight between individuals with rifles?
Tools that aid combat are necessary, whether they are WLRs for artillery or dozers for engineers.
If our troops had certain tools like WLR, casualties would have been minimised through counter-bombardment. The Bofors Guns had greater range than the Paki 105s and 130mms. But, we could not focus the counter-bombardment beacuse of lack of specific aiding tools like WLRs. Hence, we had to fire many more salvos to counter Paki bombardment than was necessary, if we had WLRs. These extra salvoes also, hence reduced, the fire support available for suppressing enemy positions; hence, our infantry had to take on more casualties to take over enemy position.
So, there is a direct co-relation between lack of WLRs and IA casualties, whether due to PA arty fire or due to longevity of Pak Infantry positions.
Like you said, there was no counter bombardment. Army was not allowed too. its hypothetical. We knew the positions and could do nothing about it. Just don't ask for endless proofs.
what you say is hypothetical and it did not happen there.
Le me repeat, we were not allowed to counter bombard. To quoteAgain , Sir ji, weapons are of two kinds. The first one like MBRLs, that IA introduced into South Asia were to prosecute a certain war aim. While others like WLR are to counter certain measures taken by the opposition, namely, PA had WLRs and was using them quite effectively.
About your point that the IA was not keen on the WLR- well, at any point, there are a number of hardware requirements and until the lack of WLR was felt with its full impact at Kargil, IA was ok to let other hardware needs be front-loaded, but given the devsatation of PA Arty fire in Kargil, WLR requirement was made acute. Had it been availalble, it would have been very effective.
BTW, all through the 90's, especially mid 90's onwards, during the daily arty exchange across LoC, PA units were often aided by their WLRs, especially the atry support for PA in Pallanwalla. So, IA had the requirement even then and had asked for WLRs even then , but as I mentioned earlier, other hardware was considered more critical.
[urlhttp://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2010/06/pakistan-air-force-and-kargilsiachen.html]Another[/url]The Army Chief impressed upon the PM the imperatives of wresting the initiative and opening another front against Pakistan across the IB and obtained his clearance for the same. This was when Pakistan enjoyed superiority in armour (qualitatively and quantitatively) and our edge in infantry and artillery over Pakistan was marginal. Weigh this against the meeting on 18 May 1999, where the service chiefs meekly accepted orders from the PS to the PM (not the PM) without a whimper, detailing the defence forces not to use air power and permitting ‘hot-pursuit’ of the enemy, only in the area of the ingress!
Photo-recce (by M2K)of Pakistani artillery gun positions also made them vulnerable to Indian artillery.
WLR could not have made any difference.
ROFL. who told you this? KIA happened because we simply marched our soldiers to die. No spotters. We were not aware what is there. Forget WLR, initially Army was not even admitting that there was a big problem. They simply sent units and they were dead. I will give you a escape in spotter claim. its a ridiculous claim that something stopped us from deploying spotters and then WLR could have saved soldiers lives etc etc. its foolish, downright.Sir: We did not have spotters in the initial days, simply because the Pakis occupied the heights. Hence, any spotter venturing up was shot down. Pls look up the KIA list in the initial days of the war. there are a large number of 2'nd Lts and Lts, many of whom were in the spotter role and were killed by Paki fire simply beacuse the Pakis were on top. So, we did not have the spotters, while Pakis did. Hence, WLRs would have helped.
Aircraft Recce: You do remember the Stinger in the AN-32/ Canberra that went up, dont you?
Intelligence: The less said the better. But even if we had this, it would have been general , like your initial post, about it coming from 10 Kms due west. That is not enough!
Hence, WLRs would have definitely helped. So, again, dear sir, let us not belabour the point about the utility of WLRs.
Why don't you understand my broad thrust. let me repeat it. "Why on earth Army did not initiate a WLR program proactively when its a general use Item?" Why do you nitpick on something leaving aside the main question?The broad thrust of your agreement is, that it is the Chowkidaar who should be blamed for the theft in the house and not the house-owner, mohalla thulla or the Resident Welfare Assoc. Chief.
Well, I do recall a certain saying by a certain notable who knew a few things about war
"War is too important to be left to Generals alone"
Army leadership is pathetic. This is my opinion and the only thing that can change is good army leadership.
I have no intention doing this nonsense. I just wanted you to have a taste of your own medicine. But, I will not waste your time on this anymore and I have absolutely no intention to drag this.
