A Vision of a New Combined Arms Philosophy & Doctrine

[Armchair]

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.

Then go ahead and conscript if you must get "more bang for the buck" against China and trying to get conscripts to deal with the mountain terrain you are facing them on. You will see how I avoided using conscripts except defensively when the terrain gets mountainous.

In any case, I have nothing against you using conscription against the Chinese, who incidentally are masters of that concept.

 

[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.

I believe there is a little mis-reading here. If you look at my post, there were two separate issues that were not connected.

One was that to cover any difference in head-count due to the conscription policy, it would be adequate to re-train the armed police, who are already more than half-way there, and have considerable counter-insurgency experience in any case. There are more than enough of these cadres to fill any gaps.

The second was to remind you and other optimists that an Indian decision to conscript would swamp your army, in fact, would swamp any army whatsoever. Saying that it is a dumb 'me too' decision doesn't really explain why it would work in the case of Pakistan, but would be dumb in the case of India, unless some intangible reasons are at play. And that is where the obsessive need to establish as a real factor what the British military leadership thought up as an excuse to shift the base of recruiting away from those who had won them their wars against Indian princes and the French alike, due to the Indian Mutiny. That is why my references to what Major Amin has spent some time on ripping apart in his books and articles - the myth of the martial races.

Then go ahead and conscript if you must get "more bang for the buck" against China and trying to get conscripts to deal with the mountain terrain you are facing them on. You will see how I avoided using conscripts except defensively when the terrain gets mountainous.

What else do you think any sane person would do fighting the Chinese in the mountains, other than follow a hedgehog strategy?

In any case, I have nothing against you using conscription against the Chinese, who incidentally are masters of that concept.

You do realise the different fallacies that you have been shooting out like a beleaguered fighter shooting out flares?

The Pakistanis will succeed in conscription because of the martial character of their people. The Chinese will succeed in spite of not being noticeably martial, because they are 'masters of that concept'.

Try to think this through, because it is the gravest weakness in your arguments; you always project the utmost optimism about 'your' own prospects, and the gravest pessimism about 'our' prospects. If you ask anyone who has done any degree of forecasting, that is exactly back to front.

Do please work on these fundamentals before launching these obiter dicta.

 

[Armchair]

I believe there is a little mis-reading here. If you look at my post, there were two separate issues that were not connected.

One was that to cover any difference in head-count due to the conscription policy, it would be adequate to re-train the armed police, who are already more than half-way there, and have considerable counter-insurgency experience in any case. There are more than enough of these cadres to fill any gaps.

The second was to remind you and other optimists that an Indian decision to conscript would swamp your army, in fact, would swamp any army whatsoever. Saying that it is a dumb 'me too' decision doesn't really explain why it would work in the case of Pakistan, but would be dumb in the case of India, unless some intangible reasons are at play. And that is where the obsessive need to establish as a real factor what the British military leadership thought up as an excuse to shift the base of recruiting away from those who had won them their wars against Indian princes and the French alike, due to the Indian Mutiny. That is why my references to what Major Amin has spent some time on ripping apart in his books and articles - the myth of the martial races.

There is a reason why military historians use logistics as a means of verifying historical claims of the size of armies. You have to clothe and feed them and supply them with food, ammunition.

Then you have to deal with the level of unity and patriotism of the populace. How will that work for Muslims in India given recent pogroms against them? How many South Indians will be enthusiastic about joining up? Are you going to conscript Kashmiris? Will help Pak gain ready made 5th column units right behind enemy lines.

Once you figure that out then try to figure out where you will base them. How places like Rajesthan, Haryana and Bhuj will be effected if say, 1 million soldiers show up and need to feed from the local population of each province.

Conscription is not an endless supply of able bodied men. It is a matter of knowing what kind of logistics you have and how useful it will be in offensive or defensive operations. If you notice I have used my conscripts almost completely defensively. There are good reasons why this is so. But I wouldn't want to teach you all the tricks of the trade that has taken me many years to learn as a civilian

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is a reason why military historians use logistics as a means of verifying historical claims of the size of armies. You have to clothe and feed them and supply them with food, ammunition.

Then you have to deal with the level of unity and patriotism of the populace. How will that work for Muslims in India given recent pogroms against them? How many South Indians will be enthusiastic about joining up? Are you going to conscript Kashmiris? Will help Pak gain ready made 5th column units right behind enemy lines.

Once you figure that out then try to figure out where you will base them. How places like Rajesthan, Haryana and Bhuj will be effected if say, 1 million soldiers show up and need to feed from the local population of each province.

Conscription is not an endless supply of able bodied men. It is a matter of knowing what kind of logistics you have and how useful it will be in offensive or defensive operations. If you notice I have used my conscripts almost completely defensively. There are good reasons why this is so. But I wouldn't want to teach you all the tricks of the trade that has taken me many years to learn as a civilian

And you think nobody else has thought these issues through, or arrived at solutions? Truly amazing.

 

[Mumm-Ra]

Commendable effort by the OP @Armchair This thread is actually quite fun and don't focus on the naysayers. In these bleak times, we do need some sorta fun on the forum. Though I would suggest focus on each sector first instead of the over arching big picture and lay some ground rules. How would each formation fare against the other. Just to keep things simple say an armoured division against and infantry div would result in the former achieving its objective. But if it's an amroured vs armoured then it would be a stalemate. Establish similar rules for each formation. If you want to go even further, establish rules for brigade level formation. You pretty much know the number and names of the Divs/bde in IA and PA. After establishing these rules, let's see how how you employ them in say your preferred southern sector. Leave the fantasy aside and focus on what PA and IA have at the moment. Take a google maps and see the rail and road system. where can you employ which formation. That would make for a far more grounded approach and you would see problems and opportunities. Let's see how you do it.

 

[Armchair]

And you think nobody else has thought these issues through, or arrived at solutions? Truly amazing.

They have. And these solutions and strategies are littered through history. The overwhelming evidence is that a smaller country facing a bigger country often engages in conscription.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Commendable effort by the OP @Armchair This thread is actually quite fun and don't focus on the naysayers. In these bleak times, we do need some sorta fun on the forum. Though I would suggest focus on each sector first instead of the over arching big picture and lay some ground rules. How would each formation fare against the other. Just to keep things simple say an armoured division against and infantry div would result in the former achieving its objective. But if it's an amroured vs armoured then it would be a stalemate. Establish similar rules for each formation. If you want to go even further, establish rules for brigade level formation. You pretty much know the number and names of the Divs/bde in IA and PA. After establishing these rules, let's see how how you employ them in say your preferred southern sector. Leave the fantasy aside and focus on what PA and IA have at the moment. Take a google maps and see the rail and road system. where can you employ which formation. That would make for a far more grounded approach and you would see problems and opportunities. Let's see how you do it.

True enough, but it is sometimes difficult to swallow these airy assumptions of much expertise painfully garnered over the years, and guarded jealously now to avoid a dissipation of this valued knowledge among the undeserving. It would come well from a seasoned professional in the business of managing the military, or one who has been in the business of managing the production of goods and services exclusively for the military.

Let us focus on the fun content, by all means. Let us, however, stop pulling rabbits out of a variety of hats and replacing reality with wishful thinking.

 

[Armchair]

Here is a 2S31 Vena. It's an amazingly ingenious creation. The 120mm gun is halfway between a mortar and a traditional tank gun and can be used in both roles. It can fire directly and indirectly, and the gun can be inclined up to 80 degrees. Max range is a whopping 18 km.

It weighs at 20 tons.

Do you call this a tank or a self propelled mortar or a self propelled artillery? Here is how military rethinking happens.

 

[Joe Shearer]

They have. And these solutions and strategies are littered through history. The overwhelming evidence is that a smaller country facing a bigger country often engages in conscription.

The overwhelming evidence is that a country used to deploying a very large number of personnel is quite capable of handling an even larger number of personnel, compared to a country that has mustered a bare one-third of that original larger number. Size counts.

 

[Armchair]

The overwhelming evidence is that a country used to deploying a very large number of personnel is quite capable of handling an even larger number of personnel, compared to a country that has mustered a bare one-third of that original larger number. Size counts.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Why I think Pak is better suited at conscription than India:

1. India is a large, diverse federal state with democracy. Conscription is ill suited to this
2. Geographical dislocation. India will have to put their conscript far from home, while Pak doesn't face this problem
3. India has made a large portion of its population unfriendly to its cause.
4. Locations bordering Pakistan are unsuitable for conscript basing, specially from other parts of India
5. Conscription leads towards a defensive stalemate. Something Pak would be happy with.

Sun Tzu's art of war outlines why bringing troops from far flung areas for protracted periods of times can be most harmful for morale, and this is particularly true to conscripts.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Here is a 2S31 Vena. It's an amazingly ingenious creation. The 120mm gun is halfway between a mortar and a traditional tank gun and can be used in both roles. It can fire directly and indirectly, and the gun can be inclined up to 80 degrees. Max range is a whopping 18 km.

It weighs at 20 tons.

Do you call this a tank or a self propelled mortar or a self propelled artillery? Here is how military rethinking happens. View attachment 624361

Since you have an amazing amount of expert knowledge, you definitely know the difference between a tank's kill ranges, and the kill range of artillery. Just for reference, and without invoking the medium artillery, a 105 mm field gun has a range of a not-whopping 17 kms. That's just a light field gun.

In case you are wondering, there are a large number of such hybrids floating around YouTube; they fire indirect fire, like mortars over short ranges, like howitzers over longer ranges, and they fire direct like field artillery or armour. What re-thinking is involved here? How will this device perform in battle? What will be its role, or does it just go out and start spraying shells in all directions?

 

[Mumm-Ra]

True enough, but it is sometimes difficult to swallow these airy assumptions of much expertise painfully garnered over the years, and guarded jealously now to avoid a dissipation of this valued knowledge among the undeserving. It would come well from a seasoned professional in the business of managing the military, or one who has been in the business of managing the production of goods and services exclusively for the military.

Let us focus on the fun content, by all means. Let us, however, stop pulling rabbits out of a variety of hats and replacing reality with wishful thinking.

I doubt those old professionals would ever divulge more than tidbits on an open forum. Whatever they would say has already been said in the public domain. They might guide you in certain direction from time to time. Though it can't be said if its a right way or a diversion to make you look the other way from something.

So its good to have fun from time to time.

 

[Old School]

In any military strategy, the logistics must be put in the center. Can your logistical capabilities sustain your overall strategy — this is the question should be asked in every steps of formulating a strategy.
Now, if you ask about logistics , you will usually end up with two different answers from a company commander and a brigade commander.

 

[Mumm-Ra]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Why I think Pak is better suited at conscription than India:

1. India is a large, diverse federal state with democracy. Conscription is ill suited to this
2. Geographical dislocation. India will have to put their conscript far from home, while Pak doesn't face this problem
3. India has made a large portion of its population unfriendly to its cause.
4. Locations bordering Pakistan are unsuitable for conscript basing, specially from other parts of India
5. Conscription leads towards a defensive stalemate. Something Pak would be happy with.

Sun Tzu's art of war outlines why bringing troops from far flung areas for protracted periods of times can be most harmful for morale, and this is particularly true to conscripts.

Both times will conscript if the need arises. And if we have reached that phases then it would be better to talk on the table than actually fight with poorly armed conscript armies.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Why I think Pak is better suited at conscription than India:

1. India is a large, diverse federal state with democracy. Conscription is ill suited to this

LOL. Check in Europe about conscription practices.

2. Geographical dislocation. India will have to put their conscript far from home, while Pak doesn't face this problem

No, she doesn't.

3. India has made a large portion of its population unfriendly to its cause.

As I mentioned before, wishful thinking is not a useful foundation for war-gaming, or for projections, or for forecasting.

4. Locations bordering Pakistan are unsuitable for conscript basing, specially from other parts of India

Please think calmly. Your imagery of a rabble of bearded enthusiasts following a rag, tag and bobtail collection of vehicles owes far too much to war movies featuring guerrillas in 'technicals'. The more you outline your plans, the more that seems to have been the fountainhead of inspiration.

In the hypothetical case of conscription, India will use trained uniformed people for war-fighting, she will use others for other purposes. There are military roads to be built in forward areas (already being done by BRO), there are airstrips, air fields and air bases to be built to keep the adversary guessing, there are railroad extensions and road extensions needed for troop and materiel movement, there are military bases, artillery parks, ammunition dumps, and vehicle parks to be built, there are barracks, firing ranges and training centres to be built. We have plenty of these, but can never have too much.

At a more technical level, there are the issues of communications, of logistics (in operation, not in building infrastructure, but in operating rolling stock and flying inventory) and of health care.

We can cope with whatever expansion our friends achieve through conscription simply by re-modelling our very large uniformed services to serve as true para-military forces (they are already seriously engaged in counter-insurgency operations, for which some congratulate themselves on possessing a military that is honed and battle-ready; India has many times more than that trained in similar warfare).

5. Conscription leads towards a defensive stalemate. Something Pak would be happy with.

Who said? Napoleon's armies were conscript armies; since when do we think of him as a defensive stalemate expert?

Sun Tzu's art of war outlines why bringing troops from far flung areas for protracted periods of times can be most harmful for morale, and this is particularly true to conscripts.

Your continuing assumption that India will take only stupid decisions is breath-taking in its - shall we say, optimism?

Both times will conscript if the need arises. And if we have reached that phases then it would be better to talk on the table than actually fight with poorly armed conscript armies.

Good luck.

My long 35-year experience in man-management informs me that you will need more than soothing words. You will need strong medication.

I doubt those old professionals would ever divulge more than tidbits on an open forum. Whatever they would say has already been said in the public domain. They might guide you in certain direction from time to time. Though it can't be said if its a right way or a diversion to make you look the other way from something.

So its good to have fun from time to time.

Certainly, by all means, let us have fun.

But not stupidly crafted fun.