Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XIII
Posted: 22 Sep 2014 11:31
Great Vivek is Back in Action. Good to see you posting again.
But do take care of your health issues.


Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Typically, the forward air controllers on the ground are the ones who coordinate air strikes whilst deployed with frontline troops. The standard army units do not maintain any direct contacts with the air units. Mostly to avoid confusion, chaos and errors. If the group controller screws up (say, provides the incorrect grid references, incorrect target ID or markers), then the pilots overhead have the authority to override and abort strikes. The main communication is between these two groups of personnel. The other units could, possibly, listen in on the comms, but otherwise are not authorized to jump in unless say, friendly positions are about to be hit accidentally.Is there no communication between forward troops/armor and overhead CAS aircraft?
There is. If you look up the previous posts, units under the code-tag "Bushfire" are the designated arty for "Rhino". Composed of Pinaka and Prahaar missile units. Also the Corps level Brahmos unit (Bushfire-zulu). That said, the speed of advance of fast moving armor columns means that arty is not as effective as say, against fixed bunkers, enemy arty batteries and command centers. Especially, firing arty against fast closing armor columns is very inefficient. Plus risky, considering how close the friendly and enemy armor columns can get in a short while. So in this scenario, Bushfire stays back and supports by taking out enemy command centers, arty batteries and other targets of opportunity.Isnt there an artillery element following up, maybe 20Km or even 30Km behind the armor thrust?
Yes, they should. And they are. Thats all I will say for now on that front.Should not helicopters be available to support the armor?
Not always. The mechanized columns can carry them alongside packets of assigned armor. But a purely armor column will not carry these. The time it takes to deploy the missiles from a carrier, the weak armor and generally less mobility compared to standard armor means that these are more defensive weapons than they are offensive ones. They can be used to ambush incoming enemy armor from hidden locations where they can offset their weak armor. Also, they can deploy missiles when stationary (or at best slowly moving on flat terrain) and are restricted by line-of-sight problems. So they are not useful for close-in armor engagements that happen fast and over very uneven terrain.Do NAG carriers travel with armor?
It only seems that way. The technology allowed inside a tank like the Arjun allows that level of freedom and autonomy that most other units cannot afford. They may not be directly ahead of other units, but the increased range of all projectile weapons and increased network-centric environment (Arjun ABAMS, for example) allow much much higher distances between supporting elements of a battle group. This is something completely unlike previous wars.Armor seems naked. In the 21st century we should not fight as in WWII.
Vivek sahib,vivek_ahuja wrote:I guess the following questions have been asked me several times in different formats, so perhaps I should clarify:
Typically, the forward air controllers on the ground are the ones who coordinate air strikes whilst deployed with frontline troops. The standard army units do not maintain any direct contacts with the air units. Mostly to avoid confusion, chaos and errors. If the group controller screws up (say, provides the incorrect grid references, incorrect target ID or markers), then the pilots overhead have the authority to override and abort strikes. The main communication is between these two groups of personnel. The other units could, possibly, listen in on the comms, but otherwise are not authorized to jump in unless say, friendly positions are about to be hit accidentally.Is there no communication between forward troops/armor and overhead CAS aircraft?
There is. If you look up the previous posts, units under the code-tag "Bushfire" are the designated arty for "Rhino". Composed of Pinaka and Prahaar missile units. Also the Corps level Brahmos unit (Bushfire-zulu). That said, the speed of advance of fast moving armor columns means that arty is not as effective as say, against fixed bunkers, enemy arty batteries and command centers. Especially, firing arty against fast closing armor columns is very inefficient. Plus risky, considering how close the friendly and enemy armor columns can get in a short while. So in this scenario, Bushfire stays back and supports by taking out enemy command centers, arty batteries and other targets of opportunity.Isnt there an artillery element following up, maybe 20Km or even 30Km behind the armor thrust?
Yes, they should. And they are. Thats all I will say for now on that front.Should not helicopters be available to support the armor?![]()
Not always. The mechanized columns can carry them alongside packets of assigned armor. But a purely armor column will not carry these. The time it takes to deploy the missiles from a carrier, the weak armor and generally less mobility compared to standard armor means that these are more defensive weapons than they are offensive ones. They can be used to ambush incoming enemy armor from hidden locations where they can offset their weak armor. Also, they can deploy missiles when stationary (or at best slowly moving on flat terrain) and are restricted by line-of-sight problems. So they are not useful for close-in armor engagements that happen fast and over very uneven terrain.Do NAG carriers travel with armor?
It only seems that way. The technology allowed inside a tank like the Arjun allows that level of freedom and autonomy that most other units cannot afford. They may not be directly ahead of other units, but the increased range of all projectile weapons and increased network-centric environment (Arjun ABAMS, for example) allow much much higher distances between supporting elements of a battle group. This is something completely unlike previous wars.Armor seems naked. In the 21st century we should not fight as in WWII.
As a mental exercise, see for yourself how the typical gap between engaging elements of two sides has been increasing in every consecutive war since the first world war. Also consider what the trend is for the distance between supporting elements in each such war.
If we ever buy any, it will.VKumar wrote:Dear Vivek sahib,
Should an IBG not have turret mounted artillery to move along with armor?
Correct. The idea is to keep things realistic with logical and accepted extrapolations. Weapon systems that are deployed now or are planned to be deployed in the next few years are included. And even then in quantities and capacities as reflected by their deployment timelines.nachiket wrote:If we ever buy any, it will.VKumar wrote:Dear Vivek sahib,
Should an IBG not have turret mounted artillery to move along with armor?
I guess Vivek is assuming the artillery situation in the IA, in the time-frame of his scenario, to be similar to what it is now, except for the induction of additional rocket artillery systems and Prahaar and Brahmos missile regiments.
That's a damn good answer, that dialogue is a keeper. Kudos Vivekji.vivek_ahuja wrote:Pathanya hefted his rifle closer to this chest before facing the Captain:
“The enemy didn’t ask the citizens of Mumbai what they wanted. They just nuked them. So spare me your sensibilities about the enemy’s civilians. I find that I just don’t give a damn.”
Would have to take a different view on that.sattili wrote:That's a damn good answer, that dialogue is a keeper. Kudos Vivekji.vivek_ahuja wrote:Pathanya hefted his rifle closer to this chest before facing the Captain:
“The enemy didn’t ask the citizens of Mumbai what they wanted. They just nuked them. So spare me your sensibilities about the enemy’s civilians. I find that I just don’t give a damn.”
Will do. Thanks.sattili wrote:@Misraji - please watch a documentary "Dirty Wars" produced by a war journalist on how ugly the war on terror campaign has become. Rules of engagement didn't exist for US JSOC - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/
IN my opinion the analogy is not correct for the following reasons:sattili wrote:
@Misraji - please watch a documentary "Dirty Wars" produced by a war journalist on how ugly the war on terror campaign has become. Rules of engagement didn't exist for US JSOC - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/
Will do. Thanks.