What's new

How accurate do you think Global Fire Power is?

You mean the person I look upon as my master? He was not a general, he was a cantankerous, sharp-edged, opinionated Major, cordially disliked by most of his own service, and treated with suspicion by Indians - in public. A sort of cross between Liddell Hart and Fuller, with the most uncomfortable characteristics of each, but a brilliant, analytical mind. I have reason to believe that he is avidly read, by both sides, in secret; references to his work are far too common. Very amusing.

If I name him after such an introduction, he will kill me.

I am sorry I dont know that many Pak army people, you mean to say he is here on this site?


Sir please, these lame excuses wont work as Operation Parakram exposed the deficiencies in IA. You cannot hide IA's incompetence by using the political excuse. The order was given out to prepare for war and IA was asked to mobilize in full force, the orders were quite simply but IA failed to execute those orders in the allotted time due to their weak logistics.


Quite early on in boarding school, I made the discovery that all schoolboys make - bullies tend to be cowards. The BJP and its allies are bullies; their actions during Parakram and their words were orthogonal to each other. Yes, there was intense anger in India; we all shared the revulsion at this crime against our country and the obvious involvement of the deep state of Pakistan. But the politicians talked war, they never thought war. It is very unusual for any Indian leadership to seek war, and to my knowledge, it has happened only twice in 65 years, once due to steely determination to relieve ourselves of an intolerable burden, once due to a nauseating hegemonistic attitude which had nothing to do with the Indian political ethos.

I stand by my opinion.

Gotta give it to you, you have a very deep knowledge of IA.

It was known all along to higher brass that there was going to be no attack in 2001 or 02, the people who did not know it were the Pakistanis and their reaction to the deployment was as expected.

It is absolutely correct that IA was made to make a superhuman effort and had to pay its cost too. but the goal in mind was not military, it was political, and it achieved exactly what it was intended to do.

Those who are not able to understand the cause and effect of that deployment tend to term it as a failure, and its not their fault I believe, Musharraf too realized it only too late how he had been played.
 
At this point, I must seek leave of absence, to attend to some work. I shall anaswer the remainder of the observations, or at least respond to them in about six to eight hours time.
 
At this point, I must seek leave of absence, to attend to some work. I shall anaswer the remainder of the observations, or at least respond to them in about six to eight hours time.

Joe Shearer,

Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.

do u have any info on this?
 
Joe Shearer,

Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.

do u have any info on this?


I would like to recount one incident and leave it at that; it is NOT a good idea to narrate disparaging stories about the PA. In fifteen minutes.
 
Joe Shearer,

Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.

do u have any info on this?

A point. Longewala went into history due to the failed military offensive of the PA. But the same night they lost Islamgarh fort to just a batallion of Indian Infantry with just one injured on Indian side and overall 272 sq km of area was brought under control. Had Longewala not taken place you would have been seeing the capture of Islamgarh as it was the biggest victory for India ever in any war.
 
Joe Shearer,

Pakistan's military has always been, i am told, bold in strategic planning but poor in operational planning and execution, ie at the lower levels. This helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, longewala of course being the glaring example. An ex pak major said this is due to favoritism in the PA.

do u have any info on this?

Here is the story of that mystifying episode, narrated by T-Faz

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...94-maj-general-akhtar-malik-1965-debacle.html
 
Except ignoring the nuclear capability, there is an other important shortcoming at "global fire power" assessment. The site only counts & listing is a "numbers game". In this assessment it is not important to how extend weapons are up to date.
 
Except ignoring the nuclear capability, there is an other important shortcoming at "global fire power" assessment. The site only counts & listing is a "numbers game". In this assessment it is not important to how extend weapons are up to date.

Rightly said. Iran should be far behind if this was the case, don't you agree?
 
Egypt has a very large and modern stash of equipment procured from various sources, it'd be surprising if Egypt is not touted as one of the top 10 or so conventional military powers. Some drawbacks are: lack of 'strong political allies', issues with the economy and lack of indigenous fighter aircrafts, MBTs and other major weapons systems in its armed forces yet. That's why Egypt should be considered amongst the 10 'strongest' militaries, in conventional terms, at the moment, I reckon.
 
Except ignoring the nuclear capability, there is an other important shortcoming at "global fire power" assessment. The site only counts & listing is a "numbers game". In this assessment it is not important to how extend weapons are up to date.

That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.

The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.
 
I think GFP is amazingly accurate. Looking through the top 10, I can't really identify any nations that appear significantly out of place.
 
That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.

The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.

in electronic warfare, i believe that China is surpassing Russia as we speak. That is because China now has access to huge amounts of resources from our successful ventures in semiconductor, optical communications and signal processing for telecom applications.
 
That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.

The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.

Your assumptions are wrong.

The reason why Russia is put above China is obviously because of Russia's huge size and huge land forces. Other than that, nothing that site says that it's taking into account would have put Russia above China.
 
Back
Top Bottom