India Rejects Pak Proposal to relocate Heavy Artillery away from LoC

[StormShadow]

pull back the artillery means trust and sleep tight ? guns can be bring on at 30 minutes notice dude . its not trust but good gesture and peace making effort which you guys reject like you are GODs .since 64 years when we ask for remove guns ? we have no issue to keep them there more 164 years .we start making our own guns now . we are making each and every projectiles at WAH .i think you need to learn .

I even gave you a link which I was referring to. Rest is upto you.

 

[Kesang]

if we finally realize that it is the Indians who are the war-mongers and 'obsessed with Pakistan' ...

Toh batah hi do. Akir india nay kitna war start kiya?

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

Good to keep PAkistan machines and artillery occupied while they fight another battle on the other side of their country against terrorists.

Good move India.

 

[Bl[i]tZ]

What are the 'IA's valid concerns' that have not been addressed on this thread, for example?

They retained their option to retain fire in kind when their shelling from across the border, which unfortunately happens.

 

[StormShadow]

And what is stopping the Indians from responding with their own assault rifles?

Ofcourse Indian army responds to pakistani fire.There have been several reports of troops getting injured/killed on either sides!!

You do realize that the range of those things means engagement distances of a few hundred meters tops, so what is the point of artillery there?

As far as my knowledge goes, approx range of ak 47 is 400-500 yards which is enough. Dunno about other guns ranges though. And sometimes machine guns will also be used according to reports.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not if Indian artillery enjoys an advantage, over all or in critical areas of the LOC. In that case we would have no reason to give that up and expose our soldiers to unnecessary attrition at the hands of non state actors that are cheap and expendible.

How does artillery provide the IA an advantage over insurgents?

India cannot conduct (or at least claims not to, since it would be a violation of the ceasefire) preemptive artillery barrages into PAK - that means that the only time artillery technically engages (or can engage) insurgents is when they are in Indian territory or are spotted in the 'buffer zone'. In both those cases the proximity of Indian and Pakistani troops to the insurgents means that:
a. Insurgents can be engaged with weaponry other than heavy artillery
b. High risk of casualties on either side through the use of artillery since shells can and do initially land away from the target.

I really have not seen a single argument highlighting the advantage the IA has (against insurgents) from heavy artillery - in fact, don't Indians often talk about how the IA does not use airstrikes and artillery in its campaign against insurgents?

---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

They retained their option to retain fire in kind when their shelling from across the border, which unfortunately happens.

You are going in circles - since the redeployment would be on both sides, the PA won't have anything to 'shell across the LoC' with that the IA would need to respond to ...

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

Ofcourse Indian army responds to pakistani fire.There have been several reports of troops getting injured/killed on either sides!!

As far as my knowledge goes, approx range of ak 47 is 400-500 yards which is enough. Dunno about other guns ranges though. And sometimes machine guns will also be used according to reports.

And so what is the advantage of heavy artillery ...

What is the drawback if both sides redeploy it?

 

[Imran Khan]

Good to keep PAkistan machines and artillery occupied while they fight another battle on the other side of their country against terrorists.

Good move India.

lolz PAKISTAN HAS SOME 1929 Self perpaired and Towed artillery guns without MLRSs unknown

and india has total 1472 guns including MLRSs

and you keep occupy us

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Toh batah hi do. Akir india nay kitna war start kiya?

1. Junagadh
2. East Pakistan 1971
3. Siachen


For detailed discussion on the above, see sticky threads in the history section, especially the Indian Myths one.

Any more posts on this on this thread will be deleted.

 

[Yeti]

What are the 'IA's valid concerns' that have not been addressed on this thread, for example?

Artillary was used extensively by both sides during the Kargil war, now if God forbid another border conflict breaks out (small chance) but nothing is impossible it could jeopardize our troops stationed there.


Indian artillery inflicted maximum damage to Pak during Kargil - Zee News please google if you can as the link seems to be down

Yes this is from Indian media so some may take what is said in the article with a pinch of salt

 

[Bl[i]tZ]

Artillary was used extensively by both sides during the Kargil war, now if God forbid another border conflict breaks out (small chance) but nothing is impossible it could jeopardize our troops stationed there.

No, its not removal, its just a 30 km withdrawal - meaning their removal from active participation into frequent cross-fire.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Artillary was used extensively by both sides during the Kargil war, now if God forbid another border conflict breaks out (small chance) but nothing is impossible it could jeopardize our troops stationed there.

Kargil occurred because Indian troops vacated the heights and area during winter - the presence, or lack of, artillery would not have made a difference.

In addition, neither side would have artillery deployed within close range of the other, so the inability to target the other side applies to both.

 

[Bhairava]

The territory does not magically improve along the Pakistani side - the terrain offers similar challenges along both sides of the border, along Kargil and Siachen for example. The logistical challenge will not be limited to India alone.

Nope. If you see Siachen glacier for example the Indian side is far more tortuous than the Pakistani side which resembles a plateau.

Moreover the considerations for India and Pak are entirely different. Pakistan does not have the fear of cover Indian militants infiltrating them while India has to live with it it ala Kargil.

Also I have very clearly said that many artillery positions on the Indian LoC are entrenched in areas with no road access and have built up over the years and re-deploying them is not easy.

What does that have to do with the redeployment, or lack of, imposing an unsustainable cost on Pakistan?

Just that it is logistically very difficult undoing years of diligent work and no General in his right mind will agree to it..especially when no one could judge what the Generals in Pindi are going to do tomorrow.

They are certainly 'one piece', but in terms of 'imposing extraordinary costs on Pakistan', their redeployment (or lack of) does not impose significant costs on Pakistan.

The more exorbitant military costs that Pakistan is facing today, and will increasingly face going forward, are those incurred by Air Force and Navy in acquiring newer assets. Take a look at the sticky by Xeric in the land forces section that outlines some of the statistics related to PakMil businesses, budgets and expenses, and you will see that the Army budget is decreasing as a proportion of the total military budget.

Redeployment of heavy artillery is not going to make the Pakistani Military suddenly start trusting India and stop investing in upgrading its capabilities, so even if your argument is that 'India should keep tensions high in order to keep Pakistan investing in its military', the artillery proposal will have no impact on Pakistani policy in that regards - only a resolution of the Kashmir dispute will.

Good, then a pragmatic Indian policy should be to keep Kashmir on the boil - in a contained way, like now - so that the generals always believe that India is an existential threat to them and Pakistan is never really allowed to get out of this arms race. You may cite past as an indicator of how faced it..but slowly , yet surely this arms race is gonna bleed Pakistan.

 

[foxbat]

Kargil occurred because Indian troops vacated the heights and area during winter - the presence, or lack of, artillery would not have made a difference.

In addition, neither side would have artillery deployed within close range of the other, so the inability to target the other side applies to both.

However Artillery was a big factor that enabled India to kick out the invaders from those posts along with Mirage 2000 and some aggressive diplomacy in the West.. The bofors that you find around the peaks in J&K are an aftermath of that.. It may not be a preventive, but certainly a corrective measure for another Kargil like incident

 

[Bhairava]

Kargil occurred because Indian troops vacated the heights and area during winter - the presence, or lack of, artillery would not have made a difference.

In addition, neither side would have artillery deployed within close range of the other, so the inability to target the other side applies to both.

Wrong, wrong.

Kargil may have happened due to the soldiers no present there. But re-capturing would not have been that time consuming or we would not have had that many troop casulaties had artillery been there in place.

Also it does not apply to both as there is no infiltration from Indian side to Pakistan. It's an one way traffic.

 

[Bl[i]tZ]

I think my only conclusion is

IA shells small arms fire by insurgents (happy AM? ) or PA (allegedly providing cover).

I don't see any other point.