Nope, as long as BAF has 1-2 squadrons of modern fighters soon, BD will have complete superiority in Arakan. Arakan is an infrantry engagement and the far better trained BD infantry will easily rout the sandal-wearing Barman army.
Once BD has captured Northern Arakan, a lot of Barman weaponry like tanks will be useless for a counterattack in the forests and mountains of the area.
Air force has its limitations.
The main problem with that is that the auto loader is mounted vertically, by design... Chinese tanks still have similar auto loaders afaik.
I am not sure if bd army has a war doctrine in the first place, maybe the govt is scared to make the military to powerful!? Anyways but I do agree with you that bd do need to formulate an offensive doctrine as well.
BD was and is a poor country. It did not face any real military threats. That is why they didn't invest much in the military. An offensive doctrine takes, investment, time and the right temperament from the civil society. We were never united and in one voice when it came to national security issues. That is how the Indians and now the Burmese are taking advantage of the situation.
I believe we didn’t have 3:1 advantage in terms of military weapons or training in 1971!?
Had it not been for India's blockade of Karachi seaport, the Mukti Bahini would have been finished.
I’m talking about the basic chassis design, technically even a t90 is a different design with longer chassis and better machinery but essentially it was based off of t72, unlike armata which is a complete new design.
The T-series have good offensive capabilities. Though, I think unmanned turret on the T-14 is unrealistic. So many things can go wrong.
An army without an offensive doctrine is no army at all. Their whole purpose is to be offensive. If you plan to fight only when the enemy has intruded upon your nation then you will lose. Situation needs to be monitored and you create killing ground on enemy territory and you reinforce your line in your own ground.
BD had strategy before now its military is an overfead pooch.
We need to be prepared to take action. Our inaction is creating a problem. BD has been attacked directly and we have done nothing.
If BD crosses the naff no one will assist the bandors. No one will assist us either. We need to face the facts our forces are not good enough to face a rag tag bunch of savages. Pointless....
As to BD being a small country.... we are nothing of the sort... please see a geographically accurate map rather than the classical representation of the world map.... BD is a big country...
Size matters actually. Both India and Burma are much larger than us. A bigger country means more resources. More resources means more money. More money means more sustainability when it comes to running a war. And the one that can put out a war longer is the winner. It is quite simple.
If we look at history, you'd notice that smaller countries can never put a fight against a larger opponent. Even the better equipped Finnish had to make peace and give up a part of their territory with the disorganized Soviets. Note that this was after Stalin's purge of the Red Army members out of which many talented officers were lost.
Look at Israel's occupation of Lebanon. Israel's dream of being the policeman of the middle east was completely shattered. And this happened in a country with a non-existent military. Though, if you ask me, they followed very poor tactics and made the same mistakes in the 2006 war. All that remains now are hard feelings against Israel. And we don't want that. It showed that a small country cannot truly determine regional politics.
Small countries around large countries always stand in the shadow. Just like Mexico is to the US. Why do you think the Israelis are struggling for the high ground all these decades? The Golan Heights, American politics, big business, Donald Trump! Oh my...
Now coming back to Bangladesh. Even if Pilkhana had not happened, the situation would have been the same. How do you know that the army had a doctrine? An offensive doctrine on paper is meaningless without the people, training and equipment to back it. Back then, we didn't have some of the 'modern equipment' we have now.
Do I think Bangladesh can be secured? Yes. A strong military, along with well protected borders and perhaps even an opaque and undeclared nuclear program will suffice. An educated population also matters. At least, any idiot who is too primitive to do anything good would think twice. Do I think it is too late for those? Yes and no. It is never too late to start.
It is absolutely correct that the a civilian is the CnC of our forces but she would listen to military advise. As much as I detest her politics I have faith that she would follow military advice. I simply do not think BD military is capable enough to carry out what is needed. She has been advised as such thus the embarrassing response.
[/QUOTE]
The civil leadership doesn't care.
You want proof? Here are some:
Just look at what that Indian general said about our country. How dare he? And yet, they said nothing.
We laid a red carpet welcome for the Vietnamese president, a country that did not support us in the UN when it came to Rakhine.
Our PM went to Cambodia partly to gather support for the Rakhine issue only to end up not getting the support from them at the UN.
Why are we seeking support from such pathetic little countries?
As long as the leadership remains in power for life along with security for them and their families and carry out vengeance against whom they perceive, they don't care. See when people are so attached to home, they fall apart easily in the face of war.
