A Vision of a New Combined Arms Philosophy & Doctrine

[Armchair]

Two points: you have misunderstood @kongn about 'light tanks' and 'IFVs'; they are good for carrying troops into battle in close coordination with armoured troops, they are not very good by themselves. That presupposes that the armour in question is not a Dinky toy.

Second, your recourse to conscripts has already been answered, and more than adequately. Take a look at the sizeable manpower available already trained as a uniformed force in the CAPFs, and available as far advanced on the training cycle as compared to conscipts. They will, by themselves, make the sponsor of a move to bring in conscripts regret their rashness.

Third, think of the consequences to Pakistan of the Indians taking to conscription, as a direct response.to any Pakistani move. Be warned that you lose credibility in Pakistani eyes, proposing any temporary band-aid solution that can be taken up by their arch-enemies with no difficulty, and with the daunting prospect of doing better than the original Pakistani initiative.



Sarcasm will be buried this afternoon at 4:30 at the Hindu cemetery, Kowkoor. A condolence meeting will be held next to the graveyard, as it may not be possible to hold a virtual meeting on PDF, as would have been the best option.

Indian BMP2s are armed for direct combat not as a battle taxi. Check out the turrets for direct fire engagements. In contrast, my "troop carrying light tanks" are using a gun mortar, allowing them to remain relatively out of direct fire engagements.

I think Pakistan is in a far better position of taking on conscription than India. Never in history has a force refused to conscript on the basis "then the other side will do the same". A smaller force has historically had a tendency to conscript. The bigger force often did without but even if they went the same route, ultimately the aim was achieved - greater equality of forces between the two.

If you are going to bring in your police forces, then one can argue that Pakistan has, in many parts entire populations armed with guns. This is a slippery slope and takes away meaningful analysis.

I'm still waiting for information on what division is posted in Bhuj. Until proven this is moot. Bhuj remains relatively unprotected.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indian BMP2s are armed for direct combat not as a battle taxi. Check out the turrets for direct fire engagements. In contrast, my "troop carrying light tanks" are using a gun mortar, allowing them to remain relatively out of direct fire engagements.

I think Pakistan is in a far better position of taking on conscription than India. Never in history has a force refused to conscript on the basis "then the other side will do the same". A smaller force has historically had a tendency to conscript. The bigger force often did without but even if they went the same route, ultimately the aim was achieved - greater equality of forces between the two.

If you are going to bring in your police forces, then one can argue that Pakistan has, in many parts entire populations armed with guns. This is a slippery slope and takes away meaningful analysis.

I'm still waiting for information on what division is posted in Bhuj. Until proven this is moot. Bhuj remains relatively unprotected.

Infantry fighting vehicles are equipped for direct combat in addition to carrying personnel; armoured personnel carriers put far more emphasis on carrying troops and are relatively less effectively armed. That does not change the situation; the IFV is not a substitute for an armoured car or a tank.

The concept of your 'troop carrying light tanks' seem to be a cross between motorised mortar carriers, generally used by a number of armies to keep their 120 mm mortars mobile, and an APC, even an IFV, that substitutes mortar carriage and indirect fire for heavy machine-guns or light automatic cannons in the 20mm to 40 mm range. Fair enough; nothing wrong with that, but it suffers from role confusion. It is far better to keep the separate; the consequences of being saddled with thousands of sub-optimal APCs, mortar carriers and light tanks that do not perform any of the roles with any effectiveness will give army commanders sleepless nights.

All the information that has appeared in the orbat prepared by @Nilgiri is all that will be available.

 

[padamchen]

Infantry fighting vehicles are equipped for direct combat in addition to carrying personnel; armoured personnel carriers put far more emphasis on carrying troops and are relatively less effectively armed. That does not change the situation; the IFV is not a substitute for an armoured car or a tank.

The concept of your 'troop carrying light tanks' seem to be a cross between motorised mortar carriers, generally used by a number of armies to keep their 120 mm mortars mobile, and an APC, even an IFV, that substitutes mortar carriage and indirect fire for heavy machine-guns or light automatic cannons in the 20mm to 40 mm range. Fair enough; nothing wrong with that, but it suffers from role confusion. It is far better to keep the separate; the consequences of being saddled with thousands of sub-optimal APCs, mortar carriers and light tanks that do not perform any of the roles with any effectiveness will give army commanders sleepless nights.

All the information that has appeared in the orbat prepared by @Nilgiri is all that will be available.

Joe, many young Pakistanis see you and your type as the deadly intellectual ideologues behind the crazed Indian masses.

What are your comments?

 

[Armchair]

Infantry fighting vehicles are equipped for direct combat in addition to carrying personnel; armoured personnel carriers put far more emphasis on carrying troops and are relatively less effectively armed. That does not change the situation; the IFV is not a substitute for an armoured car or a tank.

The concept of your 'troop carrying light tanks' seem to be a cross between motorised mortar carriers, generally used by a number of armies to keep their 120 mm mortars mobile, and an APC, even an IFV, that substitutes mortar carriage and indirect fire for heavy machine-guns or light automatic cannons in the 20mm to 40 mm range. Fair enough; nothing wrong with that, but it suffers from role confusion. It is far better to keep the separate; the consequences of being saddled with thousands of sub-optimal APCs, mortar carriers and light tanks that do not perform any of the roles with any effectiveness will give army commanders sleepless nights.

All the information that has appeared in the orbat prepared by @Nilgiri is all that will be available.

Guess now we are down to semantics and opinion but good talk. I tried looking through @Nilgiri 's maps and didn't find anything posted in Bhuj but guess @Nilgiri can explain better. Also, I think some of his maps have broken links.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indian BMP2s are armed for direct combat not as a battle taxi. Check out the turrets for direct fire engagements. In contrast, my "troop carrying light tanks" are using a gun mortar, allowing them to remain relatively out of direct fire engagements.

I think Pakistan is in a far better position of taking on conscription than India. Never in history has a force refused to conscript on the basis "then the other side will do the same". A smaller force has historically had a tendency to conscript. The bigger force often did without but even if they went the same route, ultimately the aim was achieved - greater equality of forces between the two.

If you are going to bring in your police forces, then one can argue that Pakistan has, in many parts entire populations armed with guns. This is a slippery slope and takes away meaningful analysis.

I'm still waiting for information on what division is posted in Bhuj. Until proven this is moot. Bhuj remains relatively unprotected.

This point of view seems to think that all the bad decisions will be taken by the Indian side, and all the decisions taken by Pakistani decision-makers will be good decisions. I hope you will correct your narrative.

The question of conscription leads to a face-palm reaction. The Pakistani phrase covering this situation is "Mera kutta, kutta; tera kutta, Tommy". An entire population armed with guns was tapped in 47-48; the results were not happy. Even today, the BSF, CRPF and several others in this alphabet soup are trained far above constable levels; upgrading them to properly defined para-military personnel is a considerably shorter learning curve than that for a purely civilian group. However, if you insist.....

It remains a very bad idea.

 

[Signalian]

This point of view seems to think that all the bad decisions will be taken by the Indian side, and all the decisions taken by Pakistani decision-makers will be good decisions. I hope you will correct your narrative.

The question of conscription leads to a face-palm reaction. The Pakistani phrase covering this situation is "Mera kutta, kutta; tera kutta, Tommy". An entire population armed with guns was tapped in 47-48; the results were not happy. Even today, the BSF, CRPF and several others in this alphabet soup are trained far above constable levels; upgrading them to properly defined para-military personnel is a considerably shorter learning curve than that for a purely civilian group. However, if you insist.....

It remains a very bad idea.

What if the decision taken by Pakistan Military is to penetrate not more than 15-25 km into India from various sectors, distance depending upon certain sectors and hold them or consolidate on them if possible, till the end of war ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, many young Pakistanis see you and your type as the deadly intellectual ideologues behind the crazed Indian masses.

What are your comments?

I think you know better than half-baked drive-by Internet shootists what I stand for, and my feelings for the crazed Indian masses.

What if the decision taken by Pakistan Military is to penetrate not more than 15-25 km into India from various sectors, distance depending upon certain sectors and hold them or consolidate on them possible, till the end of war ?

In what material way does this differ from the late lamented Cold Start Doctrine? It can happen, it will, in fact, probably happen; both the Haji Pir Pass and a section of land in the Shakargarh bulge bear testimony to the loyalty of the two armies to this concept.

 

[Armchair]

This point of view seems to think that all the bad decisions will be taken by the Indian side, and all the decisions taken by Pakistani decision-makers will be good decisions. I hope you will correct your narrative.

The question of conscription leads to a face-palm reaction. The Pakistani phrase covering this situation is "Mera kutta, kutta; tera kutta, Tommy". An entire population armed with guns was tapped in 47-48; the results were not happy. Even today, the BSF, CRPF and several others in this alphabet soup are trained far above constable levels; upgrading them to properly defined para-military personnel is a considerably shorter learning curve than that for a purely civilian group. However, if you insist.....

It remains a very bad idea.

I think you have this wrong upgrading BSF would not make it a conscript force. Conscription is a different ball game and I'm engaging in it because Pakistan does not have the financial ability to expand its armed forces with an all professional army. So we are trying to create a hybrid.

You don't have the same problem, if you follow us into conscription we'd just laugh it off as a dumb "me too" decision.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think you have this wrong upgrading BSF would not make it a conscript force. Conscription is a different ball game and I'm engaging in it because Pakistan does not have the financial ability to expand its armed forces with an all professional army. So we are trying to create a hybrid.

You don't have the same problem, if you follow us into conscription we'd just laugh it off as a dumb "me too" decision.

Two points, again.

It is weird to read someone advocating conscription to expand the forces at their disposal, and assuming that the other side can do nothing to counter that, or to use that. Where is the logic in that assumption?

The other thing is that I am quite aware that a certain class of seriously challenged mentality looks down upon SDREs - Small, Dark Rice-Eaters (I belong ethnically to that category). It is mirthful to find this concept creeping into war-gaming assumptions.

 

[padamchen]

Two points, again.

It is weird to read someone advocating conscription to expand the forces at their disposal, and assuming that the other side can do nothing to counter that, or to use that. Where is the logic in that assumption?

The other thing is that I am quite aware that a certain class of seriously challenged mentality looks down upon SDREs - Small, Dark Rice-Eaters (I belong ethnically to that category). It is mirthful to find this concept creeping into war-gaming assumptions.

BWREs also agree.

 

[Armchair]

Two points, again.

It is weird to read someone advocating conscription to expand the forces at their disposal, and assuming that the other side can do nothing to counter that, or to use that. Where is the logic in that assumption?

The other thing is that I am quite aware that a certain class of seriously challenged mentality looks down upon SDREs - Small, Dark Rice-Eaters (I belong ethnically to that category). It is mirthful to find this concept creeping into war-gaming assumptions.

I'm not making fun of your race by any means. I eat rice I'm Bengali remember? Race means nothing to me. I've re-read what I wrote and could not find how you thought this was implied.

The logic is that PA is lagging behind and making up for it. IA can expand if they so wish but given force ratios, if both forces expand linearly, the ratio becomes more favorable to PA.

In simple terms "we are trying to catch up to the force disparity, you can try to increase that disparity that is your prerogative. We are looking to reduce that force disparity within a small budget".

 

[kongn]

Hi @kogn welcome to the forum and glad to see your participation. Please do continue to post and if you wish give us your take on the "real" situation.


I'm aware of the long canals on both sides and road and rail network (which I learned from @PanzerKiel 8 years ago) but choose to ignore them as they don't make for an interesting category of warfare. Reminds me more about WWI rather than even WWII. Canals can be bridged, trucks can replace rail logistics.


Yet surprisingly Turkish drones with puny engines have / are ripping apart unseemly numbers of tanks, apcs, artillery, etc. How do we make sense of that? Perhaps it is not the type of engine that matters, what matters are:

1. flight profile
2. standoff range attack ability
3. Being able to fly nap of the earth.

An aircraft with a piston engine is not magically inferior. Particularly not when armed with modern standoff weapons delivery capabilities. In fact, technically speaking, there is little performance difference between a piston and a turboprop below 8000 feet. The real benefits of a turboprop start at about 100 FL.

Do not the Turkish drone operators know what you are saying? They must be pretty dumb to throw their drones at Igla armed, Buk armed, and a whole host of other Russian system armed forces right? Yes, including the 0.5 cal and 23mm. Good luck to them shooting down aircraft armed with modern ranged munition.


Yet your own forces have a very large number of BMP2s. Pak has no equivalent. I think you should preach to the Indian Army why they are using BMP2s since they are just going to get blown away by light infantry. What we see in the battlefield in Syria is that T-55s and BMP2s play an effective and meaningful role, despite them being "light". In real war scenarios, their role appears to be marginally inferior to T-90s. Perhaps a more indepth discussion can explain why.

PA's own experience with T-59s / T-69s in KPK has shown that they are of amazing utility. How can we negate that with the fantasy that an IA Karl Gustav is going to take them out at range?

How do we negate the South African experience with the Rooikat which faced Karl Gustavs and an endless litany of Soviet weaponry and still proved incredibly valuable to the South Africans?

Regarding the rest of your posts, I'm just a civilian, I don't pretend to know the actual placement of IA forces. I've just painted a hypothetical scenario. I've also assumed you won't have all your forces pressed against Pakistan as China would be moving forces on your borders which will tie up a good number of your forces.

I've left aside IABGs on both sides to paint a clearer picture and ignored paramilitary units (from both sides) for the same purpose. In the greater scheme of things they will fill in the gaps and play more minor roles.

You've ignored my conscript units completely from your equation. Yes they will need logistics like all military units do. How does that stop them from being effective? They are fielding artillery, tanks, apcs, etc just like other units are. Why do they "not work" just because they are conscripted? It makes no sense either given military history or the experience of past and present conscript forces. Here is a litany of such:
1. Switzerland
2. Israel
3. Singapore
4. Taiwan
5. Warsaw Pact during the Cold War
6. Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria
....

Its hard to answer your war gaming as you haven't clarified what you expect on both sides and magically placed your own units on my hypothetical map. Why don't you instead place your own war game in your own map and then we can all understand more clearly what you are playing.

PS: There doesn't seem to be any division of the IA in Bhuj. Could you tell what which unit that would happen to be?

@Joe Shearer you have ignored completely my conscript forces placed with a red x. Mekran Coast and Karachi are both covered. As is Quetta and Peshawar. Conscript forces are shown on the map placed all along the "canal and rail" line going north to south.

If you have ignored the canals then you are off to a start on the wrong foot.The canal can be breached to flood the area and bog down armour movement.Canals act as anti tank ditches lined with bunkers which you will have to clear first with artillery,then emplace bridges which would vulnerable to enemy artillery and air attack,then create a bridgehead exposed to counterattack by enemy reserves and then aim to expand that bridgehead.It is time consuming and much more difficult.Trucks replacing rail would incur an enormous economic cost in fuel and motor capacity but possible.

Turkish drones - 1.Caught the syrians by surprise first 3 days ,as syrians lacked enough mobile AA during their advance and all their main defenses were geared towards israel.
2.Practiced electronic jamming of syrian assets most of which are obsolete or defective(like pantsir which was rejected by IA twice),putin watched and let erdogan vent his frustration after killing dozens of turkish soldiers.When he judged turks had had their pound of flesh erdogan was told to stop and he went hat in hand to moscow to make whatever deal was presented to him.The drone attacks proved ultimately not enough as they lost seraqib and the highway anyway.After the initial onslaught the syrians brought whatever SAMs they had and drones started getting shot down.And no syrian army didn't have too many MANPADs as they never needed anti air during the civil war and were largely defenceless at squad/platoon level in this area.
3.To compare IA with obsolete and exhausted SAA is fallacy.
4.The comment was towards ww2 style piston engine CAS that was being proposed which yes,can be shot down by 12.7mm HMG,AAA guns,not to mention one shotted by any MANPAD.Not even getting into more sophisticated systems such as sams and helicopter aam.Standoff PGMs used enmasse are contrary to your very argument as that would shoot up the costs enormously.

Type 59/69 with armour of 200 mm against carl gustavs with 400 mm penetration(500 mm if tandem warhead used) at 400-500 metres is fantasy?RPG-7 effective range is just 100 -150metres against tanks due to accuracy despite similar or slightly higher penetration.Ofcourse gustav is much more costlier.

BMP-2s in indian service are never a 'breakthrough' weapon in themselves.The tanks and artillery provide breakthrough,the IFV carries the infantry to support the attack,and then provides fire support from the back.Sending IFVs charging into teeth of enemy defences is suicide.Soldiers disembark as close as possible without IFV coming in range of AT weaponry,then they assault on foot in spread out formation with tank and arty support.IFV provides fire cover from back,picks up infantry when assault is done and allows it to keep up with the advancing armour.T-55s were lost in thousands in syria,whereas the number of T-90 lost is counted by the fingers of a single hand,being able to frontally shrug off any ATGM and only destroyed if poorly trained crew panicked and abandoned the tank or tank was ambushed from rear in urban areas.Also the syrian army never faced enemy tanks(except few captured) in which t-55 being' marginally' inferior to t-90 is a delusion.T-90 was the single most successful tank in ukraine where light vehicles were a failure.This is also the reason the US army has designated survivability as the topmost priority(out of total 7 parameters) for its future IFV to replace the bradley in its new tender to design companies.Its also why the new israeli namer IFV and the russian kurganets have tank level arrmour protection.Its not world war 2 where all infantry had to fight tanks were cumbersome anti tank guns,mines and obsolete AT rifles or armour of their own.(except from 1944 - bazookas and panzerfaust/shreck which destroyed thousands of tanks in last 2 years of the war)

The south african armoured car 'experience' is meaningless in this context.Those were largely used for reconaissance and infantry support against a ragtag african militia in savanna bushes .And no they didn't face carl gustavs,had to stay away from RPGs and were outgunned by T-55s unless ambushing them.What you are proposing is using a reconaissance vehicle as a frontal offensive breakthrough weapon against T-90 tanks and regular professional infantry with ATGMs and recoiless rifles,backed by artillery in one of the most fortified borders of the world.Its difficult to take the idea seriously.A single T-90 tank regiment in defensive position would shatter an entire divisions worth of such vehicles with negligible losses.If you were proposing this vehicle as a mobile light defensive flanking/ambush weapon in support of infantry and friendly heavy armour that would be a much more logical approach.

I'm playing nothing.I merely wanted to point out the flight of fantasy this thread was.To put it in simple terms the primary dilemma of the PA is it lacks sufficient armour reserves to counter a simultaneous attack by all 3 strike corps of IA in the central sector(provided they can be mobilized quickly enough which CSD and now IBG intends to do).That is why PA has to use terrain judiciously,as employ its 2 armoured divisions deftly for parrying and ripostes and keep tactical nukes as a last resort.For PA to undertake any major offensive in gujarat or rajasthan area is very difficult which is what your scenario is based on.

If you wish to add conscripts then add 1 million active indian paramilitary and 2 million reservists and territorial army as well.
Bhuj is defended by BSF at the border and forward elements of ahmedabad based infantry division.The area is marshy and swampy with few good roads and not suited for heavy armour combat.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm not making fun of your race by any means. I eat rice I'm Bengali remember? Race means nothing to me. I've re-read what I wrote and could not find how you thought this was implied.

The logic is that PA is lagging behind and making up for it. IA can expand if they so wish but given force ratios, if both forces expand linearly, the ratio becomes more favorable to PA.

In simple terms "we are trying to catch up to the force disparity, you can try to increase that disparity that is your prerogative. We are looking to reduce that force disparity within a small budget".

LOL.

The boot's on the other foot. I was making fun of our common low status in the eyes of the lords of the universe for whose army you are making up these plans. However, there is a clear assumption in your plans that one side has the edge in terms of commitment, motivation and fighting spirit, and that brings us spiralling back to those solemn assertions before 1965 about the number of Indian soldiers who equal one Pakistani soldier.

There is also the difficulty that we are asked to assume that the common population of one country is intrinsically more martial than the common population of the other. I seem to have heard that one before, somewhere.

Once you assume that it is only your clients who need to produce more bang for the buck, you might start (slowly) realising the feelings of Indians who face the daunting prospect of figuring out how to deal with the PLA, the PLAAF and the PLAN.

However, in general terms, your conscription idea is really a terrible idea.

If you have ignored the canals then you are off to a start on the wrong foot.The canal can be breached to flood the area and bog down armour movement.Canals act as anti tank ditches lined with bunkers which you will have to clear first with artillery,then emplace bridges which would vulnerable to enemy artillery and air attack,then create a bridgehead exposed to counterattack by enemy reserves and then aim to expand that bridgehead.It is time consuming and much more difficult.Trucks replacing rail would incur an enormous economic cost in fuel and motor capacity but possible.

Turkish drones - 1.Caught the syrians by surprise first 3 days ,as syrians lacked enough mobile AA during their advance and all their main defenses were geared towards israel.
2.Practiced electronic jamming of syrian assets most of which are obsolete or defective(like pantsir which was rejected by IA twice),putin watched and let erdogan vent his frustration after killing dozens of turkish soldiers.When he judged turks had had their pound of flesh erdogan was told to stop and he went hat in hand to moscow to make whatever deal was presented to him.The drone attacks proved ultimately not enough as they lost seraqib and the highway anyway.After the initial onslaught the syrians brought whatever SAMs they had and drones started getting shot down.And no syrian army didn't have too many MANPADs as they never needed anti air during the civil war and were largely defenceless at squad/platoon level in this area.
3.To compare IA with obsolete and exhausted SAA is fallacy.
4.The comment was towards ww2 style piston engine CAS that was being proposed which yes,can be shot down by 12.7mm HMG,AAA guns,not to mention one shotted by any MANPAD.Not even getting into more sophisticated systems such as sams and helicopter aam.Standoff PGMs used enmasse are contrary to your very argument as that would shoot up the costs enormously.

Type 59/69 with armour of 200 mm against carl gustavs with 400 mm penetration(500 mm if tandem warhead used) at 400-500 metres is fantasy?RPG-7 effective range is just 100 -150metres against tanks due to accuracy despite similar or slightly higher penetration.Ofcourse gustav is much more costlier.

BMP-2s in indian service are never a 'breakthrough' weapon in themselves.The tanks and artillery provide breakthrough,the IFV carries the infantry to support the attack,and then provides fire support from the back.Sending IFVs charging into teeth of enemy defences is suicide.Soldiers disembark as close as possible without IFV coming in range of AT weaponry,then they assault on foot in spread out formation with tank and arty support.IFV provides fire cover from back,picks up infantry when assault is done and allows it to keep up with the advancing armour.T-55s were lost in thousands in syria,whereas the number of T-90 lost is counted by the fingers of a single hand,being able to frontally shrug off any ATGM and only destroyed if poorly trained crew panicked and abandoned the tank or tank was ambushed from rear in urban areas.Also the syrian army never faced enemy tanks(except few captured) in which t-55 being' marginally' inferior to t-90 is a delusion.T-90 was the single most successful tank in ukraine where light vehicles were a failure.This is also the reason the US army has designated survivability as the topmost priority(out of total 7 parameters) for its future IFV to replace the bradley in its new tender to design companies.Its also why the new israeli namer IFV and the russian kurganets have tank level arrmour protection.Its not world war 2 where all infantry had to fight tanks were cumbersome anti tank guns,mines and obsolete AT rifles or armour of their own.(except from 1944 - bazookas and panzerfaust/shreck which destroyed thousands of tanks in last 2 years of the war)

The south african armoured car 'experience' is meaningless in this context.Those were largely used for reconaissance and infantry support against a ragtag african militia in savanna bushes .And no they didn't face carl gustavs,had to stay away from RPGs and were outgunned by T-55s unless ambushing them.What you are proposing is using a reconaissance vehicle as a frontal offensive breakthrough weapon against T-90 tanks and regular professional infantry with ATGMs and recoiless rifles,backed by artillery in one of the most fortified borders of the world.Its difficult to take the idea seriously.A single T-90 tank regiment in defensive position would shatter an entire divisions worth of such vehicles with negligible losses.If you were proposing this vehicle as a mobile light defensive flanking/ambush weapon in support of infantry and friendly heavy armour that would be a much more logical approach.

I'm playing nothing.I merely wanted to point out the flight of fantasy this thread was.To put it in simple terms the primary dilemma of the PA is it lacks sufficient armour reserves to counter a simultaneous attack by all 3 strike corps of IA in the central sector(provided they can be mobilized quickly enough which CSD and now IBG intends to do).That is why PA has to use terrain judiciously,as employ its 2 armoured divisions deftly for parrying and ripostes and keep tactical nukes as a last resort.For PA to undertake any major offensive in gujarat or rajasthan area is very difficult which is what your scenario is based on.

If you wish to add conscripts then add 1 million active indian paramilitary and 2 million reservists and territorial army as well.
Bhuj is defended by BSF at the border and forward elements of ahmedabad based infantry division.The area is marshy and swampy with few good roads and not suited for heavy armour combat.

Yet another excellent post. Most appreciated.

BWREs also agree.

At this point, you need a refresher - look up the Patty Hearst Syndrome.

 

[Armchair]

Turkish drones - 1.Caught the syrians by surprise first 3 days ,as syrians lacked enough mobile AA during their advance and all their main defenses were geared towards israel.

Turkish drones continued, despite losses to impose an incredible cost to SAA, more damage than rebels hand done in 5 years or more. This despite having Buk and Pantsir, and an airforce. They are continuing to extract an amazing offensive in Libya, against a list of SAM systems including Israeli gear.

At least you have to admit that IA will take casualties and the CAS aircraft and drones proposed will be effective, specially in the open desert. Yes, we will take some loss too obviously. If PA has 1000 drones and 200 CAS aircraft that will extract a serious level of losses from the IA. Even if a whole lot of them are shot down.

Trucks replacing rail would incur an enormous economic cost in fuel and motor capacity but possible.

Thank you.

Type 59/69 with armour of 200 mm against carl gustavs with 400 mm penetration(500 mm if tandem warhead used) at 400-500 metres is fantasy?RPG-7 effective range is just 100 -150metres against tanks due to accuracy despite similar or slightly higher penetration.Ofcourse gustav is much more costlier.

Yet in real combat PA has found them to be very survivable (with some mods, like slated armour, ERA, etc). Type 59s upgraded to Zarrar will do just fine against Indian T-72s. PA thinks so.

BMP-2s in indian service are never a 'breakthrough' weapon in themselves.The tanks and artillery provide breakthrough,the IFV carries the infantry to support the attack,and then provides fire support from the back.Sending IFVs charging into teeth of enemy defences is suicide.Soldiers disembark as close as possible without IFV coming in range of AT weaponry,then they assault on foot in spread out formation with tank and arty support.IFV provides fire cover from back,picks up infantry when assault is done and allows it to keep up with the advancing armour.T-55s were lost in thousands in syria,whereas the number of T-90 lost is counted by the fingers of a single hand,being able to frontally shrug off any ATGM and only destroyed if poorly trained crew panicked and abandoned the tank or tank was ambushed from rear in urban areas.Also the syrian army never faced enemy tanks(except few captured) in which t-55 being' marginally' inferior to t-90 is a delusion.T-90 was the single most successful tank in ukraine where light vehicles were a failure.This is also the reason the US army has designated survivability as the topmost priority(out of total 7 parameters) for its future IFV to replace the bradley in its new tender to design companies.Its also why the new israeli namer IFV and the russian kurganets have tank level arrmour protection.Its not world war 2 where all infantry had to fight tanks were cumbersome anti tank guns,mines and obsolete AT rifles or armour of their own.(except from 1944 - bazookas and panzerfaust/shreck which destroyed thousands of tanks in last 2 years of the war)

T90s in Syria are few and kept with elite units while T-55s were everywhere and used by everyone. T-55s showed their value in combat. Losses happen. People die. Its war.

I think you may have misunderstood. My idea of a "light tank" does not mean I'll use them as front line tanks, and definitely not "frontal offensive breakthrough weapons". I'm basically bringing back the WWII idea of an infantry support tank. It will support infantry that themselves are being supported by other elements like MBTs, artillery, CAS. Non line of sight support is possible as the main armament is the BMP3 style gun-mortar (a hybrid of a tank gun and a mortar).

The south african armoured car 'experience' is meaningless in this context.Those were largely used for reconaissance and infantry support against a ragtag african militia in savanna bushes .And no they didn't face carl gustavs,had to stay away from RPGs and were outgunned by T-55s unless ambushing them.What you are proposing is using a reconaissance vehicle as a frontal offensive breakthrough weapon against T-90 tanks and regular professional infantry with ATGMs and recoiless rifles,backed by artillery in one of the most fortified borders of the world.Its difficult to take the idea seriously.A single T-90 tank regiment in defensive position would shatter an entire divisions worth of such vehicles with negligible losses.If you were proposing this vehicle as a mobile light defensive flanking/ambush weapon in support of infantry and friendly heavy armour that would be a much more logical approach.

They were often fighting Soviet armed and trained troops including Cuban forces. They had Rooikats going against T-55s and winning. Tell me how that is irrelevant again.

What the US and Israel are doing is taking protection to the nth level. Not relevant for third world militaries. Check the military budget of the US / Israel and tell me how that level of force protection is relevant to the Pakistan army, which has half a million soldiers but only about 2000 tanks to support that army?

There is an idiom - Any port in a storm.

To put it in simple terms the primary dilemma of the PA is it lacks sufficient armour reserves to counter a simultaneous attack by all 3 strike corps of IA in the central sector(provided they can be mobilized quickly enough which CSD and now IBG intends to do).That is why PA has to use terrain judiciously,as employ its 2 armoured divisions deftly for parrying and ripostes and keep tactical nukes as a last resort.For PA to undertake any major offensive in gujarat or rajasthan area is very difficult which is what your scenario is based on.

I understand that you are looking at the cold hard reality of where PA is right now. I'm doing something else - showing where it could be when the military is enlarged.

In the simplest possible way - if we add thousands of MBTs / "light tanks" / APCs, hundreds of CAS aircraft, thousands of other support vehicles, drones, artillery, and say 200,000 conscripts, we will reach a different scenario than the one that is the reality now.

If you wish to add conscripts then add 1 million active indian paramilitary and 2 million reservists and territorial army as well.

I don't wish to as my analysis is leaving paramilitary and police forces of both sides outside of it. But as I said, please do feel free to paint your own scenario (which I understand you don't want to).

Bhuj is defended by BSF at the border and forward elements of ahmedabad based infantry division.The area is marshy and swampy with few good roads and not suited for heavy armour combat.

In other words, there are no forces positioned at Bhuj but in Ahmedabad which is already part of the scenario I've painted. Also, if you re-read my analysis, there are no major heavy armoured moves toward Bhuj. I've actually been to areas near there with similar bogs and planted mangroves there I know that they aren't tankable.

The idea here is to use light forces that strike quickly from multiple vectors and supported by CAS and artillery from Karunjhar mountains.

This is just a war game don't get upset, we haven't taken Bhuj... yet.

 

[ali_raza]

Couldn't agree more about Sistan-Baluchestan and Afghanistan. Between why hasn't any government yet fixed the Wakhan Corridor problem? Its Pak's route to Central Asia, a relic of the original "cold war" or "Great Game" between the British Empire and Russia. This corridor needs to be handed over to Pakistan.

no need bro
when u can have the whole cake why waste ur reputation by just settling for breadcrumb
loy shoi will have a field day if we went that way.
we need to be calm and inshallah will have much mich more then wakhan