Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/General.jpg)
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
India is smart this time by just buying the product instead of asking for useless TOT.
It's all in the quantity...... simply not logical here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
India is smart this time by just buying the product instead of asking for useless TOT.
Every option is a bit much, don't you think, what next? Keep a destroyer ready.....just in case they do a naval attack & bring in both their ships & the sea over the Himalayas...?![]()
Every option is a bit much, don't you think, what next? Keep a destroyer ready.....just in case they do a naval attack & bring in both their ships & the sea over the Himalayas...?![]()
It's all in the quantity...... simply not logical here.
What did the LUSH add?
India is smart this time by just buying the product instead of asking for useless TOT.
That's what the Egyptian thought when they deem the desert of Sinai was too harsh for Israeli tanks, yet the Israeli found a way![]()
Umm.....I am talking about dedicated air assault unit not airborne unit, the two are VERY different.......
Yes I know, our own "Airborne" division was used for Air Assault but the 2 concept is very different. the 101 keep their airborne tab for namesake only, not because of anything else......
Well, depending on the scale, running tank alone no doubt will be a suicide but what if you are facing a combine force??
Problem with tanks are they are vulnerable if they are alone, in fact any independent unit are vulnerable if they were left alone, that's what Yom Kippur taught us. Hence we are forming Joint Brigade in the US instead of forming a Unison division
I think the IA uses its airborne battallions (the non SF ones) as quick reaction forces, not really as an instrument to sieze sizeable territory. They are parachuted into critical positions at critical times. For example, they were parachuted into east Pakistan in 1971 in the famous tangail airdrop to capture a key bridge, to prevent the pak army from retreating back to Dhaka and defending it. However, we don't have divison sized airborne units like the US army does. The biggest airborne unit is the 50 (independent) parachute brigade.
From what I know, the proposed strike corps being raised intends to do just what you said - it will have a very large (for Asian standards) heli-lift capability. That is the only way that a corps sized formation can maneuver into China from India, given the pathetic lack of road and rail infra, and the mountainous terrain. Also, two of its divisions will be dual tasked, ie, able to move lock, stock and barrel from one front to the other in quick time.
Anyway, which is cheaper to maintain and operate, air assault units or airborne units? Which of them give more "bang for the buck"? And which of them is more effective, assuming a similar number of troops in each? Taking into consideration the costs of training, equipment, and so on?
I get what you're saying definitely sir. I think the IA planners are of the same mind going by what they have been saying recently and going by the IA's and IAF's shopping lists.
Do not compare the Himalayan terrain to the Sinai. There is very litle tank country in the Himalayas; some high plateaus and some constricted passes. The Sinai that I've seen is very different.
Man this is not golan heights we are talking about.this is the himalayas...the greatest mountain range in the world.
In the underlined part; you are absolutely right. There is indeed a great difference between Airborne and Air Assault Forces. Which is why the Indian Army has re-directed its doctrine towards Air Assault from Airborne.
Regarding the use of Armor; the IA's doctrine fromthe beginning depended on Infantry moving in tandem with Armor. Which is a must. Armor moves fast, then Infantry occupies the ground that Armor has moved into. Infantry also helps secure the flanks of Armor when the thrust becomes statinary or gets stalled. In 1965; the PA's tactics used independent Armor movement and thrusts unsupported by Infantry. Which happened to be based on US Army thinking since all the tanks in use and their training of that time was based on the US. That caused them a great deal of grief. After 1971, the IA evolved their ideas further and created Mechanised Infantry. Later they acquired the BMP, BRDM and BTR families of ICVs and APCs from the SU and other WP countries. That happened in the 80s and that is when the truly Mech Inf Bns in the IA were created. They are an integral part of the Strike Corps that the IA fields in the Western Theater. Now the idea of the Air Assault Forces is being refined to take that a notch up further. Probably the days of the "classical airborne" division is running out.
Im surprised that it took that long. Considering that hypothetically.. there are some 8000 tanks that they have to face..along with countless bunkers and IFVs; that the order was just for 22.
Great Job. But typical indian mindset Few numbers first and then Bulk order ! Wish we can get 100+ AP ,200 LCH 150+ Rudra . Its Total Pakage with Jags ,Tejas and Mirrage ! KUDOS IA
jhungary Sir I always had a doubts. Number wins the war or Tatics with small Groups ? .I belive Numbers always win with Tatics .
What is the Number of Tanks Compared between India China and PAK ? I ment the MBT s alone
Your Discussion was fruit full _/\_
Great Job. But typical indian mindset Few numbers first and then Bulk order ! Wish we can get 100+ AP ,200 LCH 150+ Rudra . Its Total Pakage with Jags ,Tejas and Mirrage ! KUDOS IA
jhungary Sir I always had a doubts. Number wins the war or Tatics with small Groups ? .I belive Numbers always win with Tatics .
What is the Number of Tanks Compared between India China and PAK ? I ment the MBT s alone
Your Discussion was fruit full _/\_