India Rejects Pak Proposal to relocate Heavy Artillery away from LoC

[Bhairava]

Anyway good move by India. Did I not say ?

Gen V.K. Singh is the wrong person for such small talk.

 

[Yeti]

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

Timing is key also why Pakistan making this proposal now? it needs them on the western front perhaps?

 

[acetophenol]

Good move. Peace can be made in several other diplomatic ways.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Once the insurgents/soldiers took the heights, recapturing was always going to be time consuming.

If you mean to suggest that the reason India took such heavy casualties was because it kept launching infantry assaults to recapture the heights before proper artillery support was brought in, then that points to poor military leadership on the Indian side, that chose to act in haste and send soldiers to certain death while trying to retake heights guarded by entrenched forces.

The Indian military leadership should have waited till artillery deployments to provide covering fire were completed.

 

[Bhairava]

if they are doing it you may feel heat like in 90s .pakistan was the one purpose ceasefire on LOC and pakistan is now sitting and watching otherwise let me remember you guys failed hundreds time to fence LOC before ceasefire . and cannot make 10metter fence till ceasefire .

Actually no. They can't.

Because unlike the 90's the patrolling along the LoC has improved by bounds with thermal imagers all along the LoC and a vast spy network maintained by the Rastriya Rifles in Kashmir. People are also tired of the violence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

In which case (shelling into PAK) would invite retaliatory artillery barrages from the Pakistani side on Indian positions.

Insurgent movement and detection typically takes place at the time of their crossing the LoC, at which point they are typically engaged with small arms fire, not artillery.

 

[foxbat]

Once the insurgents/soldiers took the heights, recapturing was always going to be time consuming.

If you mean to suggest that the reason India took such heavy casualties was because it kept launching infantry assaults to recapture the heights before proper artillery support was brought in, then that points to poor military leadership on the Indian side, that chose to act in haste and send soldiers to certain death while trying to retake heights guarded by entrenched forces.

The Indian military leadership should have waited till artillery deployments to provide covering fire were completed.

You are absolutely right about the planning part.. The bigger error even prior to that was not having the right equipment there in the first place.. Hence the rejection of the current proposal to ensure the same is not repeated..

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------

In which case (shelling into PAK) would invite retaliatory artillery barrages from the Pakistani side on Indian positions.

Insurgent movement and detection typically takes place at the time of their crossing the LoC, at which point they are typically engaged with small arms fire, not artillery.

Arty though is used for punitive hits ... Didnt we read something about the Neelam valley sometime back...

 

[Yeti]

New blood for Indian artillery regiments - Brahmand.com


From a Indian point of view the artillary used in the Kargil conflict served us very well

The 155 mm Bofors FH-77B, in the direct firing role, destroyed all visible enemy sangars and forced the enemy to abandon several positions. The guns therefore played a crucial role in facilitating that victory.


Kargil: The Impregnable Conquered By Lt Gen Ym Bammi if one read's this book they can understand the importance of artillary in the Kargil conflict.



The book indicates in-depth research by the author, for it has information on Operation Vijay that has never been revealed earlier. Like the Artillery fired 293600 shells to dislodge the Pakistanis from their entrenched positions.

 

[ILLUMINATO]

This whole idea of removing big guns was flawed from it's very inception,if India would have taken this bait then it would have been blunder on the part of India. RAW and IA too would have played role in concluding this decision since they are more aware about ground realities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

India has the heights in Siachen, which in fact gives it an advantage even when it comes to small arms fire. Pakistani positions may be 'relatively lower', but the logistical challenges are still pretty significant. Neither side can redeploy artillery to Siachen quickly.

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.

Artillery does not really address the issue of infiltration from the Indian side, as pointed out several times now.

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.

The IA has enough of a heavy lift capability to redeploy them rather easily - more so than Pakistan in fact.

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.

Given Siachen and East Pakistan, the same argument of 'not being able to trust India' exists on the Pakistani side.

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.

The above in fact justifies the Pakistan Army's 'India Centric Policy', which many Western and Indian commentators love to deride and call paranoia.

 

[Bhairava]

Once the insurgents/soldiers took the heights, recapturing was always going to be time consuming.

But not the same time with artillery equipment.

If you mean to suggest that the reason India took such heavy casualties was because it kept launching infantry assaults to recapture the heights before proper artillery support was brought in, then that points to poor military leadership on the Indian side, that chose to act in haste and send soldiers to certain death while trying to retake heights guarded by entrenched forces.

The Indian military leadership should have waited till artillery deployments to provide covering fire were completed.

Actually time (response) was of the essence. While it started, the Mujaheddin were completely not settled and it was a poor choice giving more time for them to settle. Moreover public pressure in a democracy, especially this being the first war being fought live with the advent of media, the Govt was under tremendous pressure to act decisively and act quickly. Moreover even with the artillery, the positions were taken by infantry assault only. Only the supporting cover would have reduced significant casualties. You may now start arguing on how it was bad leadership etc..but that is not relevant..What happened from then on was relevant and certainly undoing years of hard work - painstakingly building up the positions - and that too believing Pakistan, is not a sign of good leadership either.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are absolutely right about the planning part.. The bigger error even prior to that was not having the right equipment there in the first place.. Hence the rejection of the current proposal to ensure the same is not repeated..

Technically the error was the occupation of Siachen by India.

After that the error was the abandonment of the region/heights.

Arty though is used for punitive hits ... Didnt we read something about the Neelam valley sometime back...

And how many times does that happen, and will it not also result in a response from the PA, causing escalation and casualties on both sides?

 

[mautkimaut]

this is pure wrong on India's part.

India should have accepted this offer as this would have helped the civilian government in Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But not the same time with artillery equipment.

And not at all if India maintained forces on those heights ....

Actually time (response) was of the essence. While it started, the Mujaheddin were completely not settled and it was a poor choice giving more time for them to settle. Moreover public pressure in a democracy, especially this being the first war being fought live with the advent of media, the Govt was under tremendous pressure to act decisively and act quickly. Moreover even with the artillery, the positions were taken by infantry assault only. Only the supporting cover would have reduced significant casualties. You may now start arguing on how it was bad leadership etc..but that is not relevant..What happened from then on was relevant and certainly undoing years of hard work - painstakingly building up the positions - and that too believing Pakistan, is not a sign of good leadership either.

The IA leadership gave in to populist demands and made poor military decisions - you can spin it anyway you like, but the enormous Indian casualties were a result of the IA leadership acting in haste.

---------- Post added at 11:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ----------

The guns therefore played a crucial role in facilitating that victory.

And there is nothing in the proposal that would prevent them from being deployed again if needed.

 

[Bl[i]tZ]

In which case (shelling into PAK) would invite retaliatory artillery barrages from the Pakistani side on Indian positions.

Isn't this what happens on LoC whenever we hear on news. They engage each other for very long hours (6 or even 10).

Insurgent movement and detection typically takes place at the time of their crossing the LoC, at which point they are typically engaged with small arms fire, not artillery.

This is hypothetical since I"m trying to justify the move of IA but let me try.

Militants try to infiltrate along LoC, Rashtriya Rifles tries to foil the bid by engaging the insurgents, PA shells to support infiltration, IA shells PA then both IA and PA both shell each other.

NIRVANA!