Indian aggression at LOC

[Guynextdoor2]

Nope - the military and political dynamics on the Pakistani side (as I elaborated upon in a previous post) indicate little to no incentive on the part of the Pakistani Army or government to escalate the issue - this appears to pretty much be an Indian provocation.

Yeah right, and that's why as it kept building up your own people were accusing us of 'cowardice' at not responding. Even Pakistanis don't believe this.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yeah right, and that's why as it kept building up your own people were accusing us of 'cowardice' at not responding. Even Pakistanis don't believe this.

I have no idea what you were trying to say there ...

 

[Bratva]

So it was Pakistan that started all this mess ....... shame on them for killing civilians .

So stories changes from infiltration to this non-sense, As we all believe, this was inevitable, indians cooking stories to justify their side shooting first

 

[danger007]

So stories changes from infiltration to this non-sense, As we all believe, this was inevitable, indians cooking stories to justify their side shooting first

Pakistan has history sending militants by distracting IA. . these firings may be a plot to repeat kargil mistake ..

 

[ares]

Doesn't matter whether the BSF outnumbers the Rangers in this particular form of conflict - this is not a ground war with troops attempting to take and hold territory,and the border posts/bunkers have limited space in terms of holding men and material. The attacks from both sides incorporate the use of artillery and small arms fire so the deciding factor is going to be the kinetic impact of the projectiles being used. If anything, if the Indians cram 20 guys in a bunker/post vs 5 on the Pakistani side, and both sides destroy each other's bunkers, the casualties on the Indian side will be higher given the higher concentration of men deployed at a single location.

NO it is a simple equation, more troops means , more weapons , more mortars and more guns.
Once the gloves are off and BSF deploys all its forces ,BSF can concentrate higher amount of fire power than what rangers can return..that is why casualties will be higher on Pakistani side..add to that Indian enjoys the height advantage along the Pakistani punjab and Indian Kashmir border.

..A senior government official told HT on condition of anonymity that border agencies, mainly the BSF and the army, had received instructions to not just match mortar for mortar but “outnumber the number of mortars in retaliation”.

“There is no hesitation to our response now. If Pakistan fires five mortars, we can retaliate with 10,” he said...

...Civilians on the Pakistani side stand to suffer more if the standoff continues. For, unlike in India's case, constructions on the Pakistani side stretch right up to the IB and are, hence, within striking reach of BSF guns that blazed ceaselessly from Monday evening to Tuesday evening...

Pakistan continues to violate ceasefire, kills 5 civilians - Hindustan Times

Pakistan targets BSF posts, villages; India hits back with heavy fire - The Times of India

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So stories changes from infiltration to this non-sense, As we all believe, this was inevitable, indians cooking stories to justify their side shooting first

First it was an infiltration ..
Then it was an IED detonation ...
Then it was multiple IED detonations ...
Then it was the death of an Indian soldier in firing by "unknown sources", presumably over brush fires ...
And this does not take into account the other ramblings about "Sharif wanting to distract domestic attention from the dharnas" or "The GoP/PA wanting to raise the issue internationally" and who knows what else will come out as justification before all this ends ...

 

[bitter_boy]

Now pakistan has come up with this logic..-
its the people who are firing into bsf posts and indian civilians not the rangers..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

NO it is a simple equation, more troops means , more weapons , more mortars and more guns.

No, it is a simple question of the concentration of deployed troops and weapons. You can't pile artillery on top of itself just because you may have more. While the overall numerical strength of the BSF might be greater, and would certainly play a part in a ground offensive involving the taking and holding ground, I have yet to see a breakdown of this numerical advantage in terms of DEPLOYABLE/DEPLOYED assets in the context of the current conflict involving small arms and artillery exchanges.

Once the gloves are off and BSF deploys all its forces ,BSF can concentrate higher amount of fire power than what rangers can return..that is why casualties will be higher on Pakistani side..add to that Indian enjoys the height advantage along the Pakistani punjab and Indian Kashmir border.

If needed, the PA will move (and has moved) assets to match any buildup on the part of the BSF, negating any numerical advantage from the deployment of materials by the BSF, so even this particular point is moot. In addition, Indian forces do not enjoy a significant "height advantage" along the entire stretch of the LoC/IB, so that argument is only valid in some locations.

 

[karan.1970]

Now pakistan has come up with this logic..-
its the people who are firing into bsf posts and indian civilians not the rangers..

Then India killing those attackers (civilians or not) is fully justified .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@ares
BTW, a quick wiki search puts the Pakistan Ranger's strength at 100,000 and the BSF strength at 240,000+.

However, the BSF is also divided between the Eastern and Western Front's, so if the above numbers are accurate, what is the breakdown of the numbers of BSF units deployed in the East vs West?

In Pakistan's case, border security on the Western Front is handled primarily by the Frontier Corps (FC-Balochistan and FC-NWFP), which reduces the burden on the Rangers.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I have no idea what you were trying to say there ...

That even people in Pak don't believe the BS you are saying.

No, it is a simple question of the concentration of deployed troops and weapons. You can't pile artillery on top of itself just because you may have more. While the overall numerical strength of the BSF might be greater, and would certainly play a part in a ground offensive involving the taking and holding ground, I have yet to see a breakdown of this numerical advantage in terms of DEPLOYABLE/DEPLOYED assets in the context of the current conflict involving small arms and artillery exchanges.

If needed, the PA will move (and has moved) assets to match any buildup on the part of the BSF, negating any numerical advantage from the deployment of materials by the BSF, so even this particular point is moot. In addition, Indian forces do not enjoy a significant "height advantage" along the entire stretch of the LoC/IB, so that argument is only valid in some locations.

BSF will not spend too much time in the conflict. Their job is protection and security. IA will move in wherever the situation escalates. IA's job is attack and defend.

 

[-1o1-]

There is no magic..BSF outnumbers rangers 3 to 1 on IB or what pakistan likes to call the working boundary.

Keep the numbers aside you guys always bragged about quality than quantity.

 

[Imran Khan]

 

[ares]

No, it is a simple question of the concentration of deployed troops and weapons. You can't pile artillery on top of itself just because you may have more. While the overall numerical strength of the BSF might be greater, and would certainly play a part in a ground offensive involving the taking and holding ground, I have yet to see a breakdown of this numerical advantage in terms of DEPLOYABLE/DEPLOYED assets in the context of the current conflict involving small arms and artillery exchanges.

No you can't pile artillery on artillery..but these number of BSF troops were already deployed on border when the confrontation started(no additional troops were called in), that means their was room(posts) for these many troops and their weapons.
Maybe Pakistani positions undermanned or are fewer in number compared to BSF.

If needed, the PA will move (and has moved) assets to match any buildup on the part of the BSF, negating any numerical advantage from the deployment of materials by the BSF, so even this particular point is moot. In addition, Indian forces do not enjoy a significant "height advantage" along the entire stretch of the LoC/IB, so that argument is only valid in some locations.

Yes Rangers have already asked from assistance Pakistani army and even started using mobile mortar systems mounted on vehicles(with higher range from 4 Km to 7 Km) , and cover more ground..but it too soon to say..as India has already moved most of the civilians out and even pushed them further 2 kms this morning.

 

[bitter_boy]

Then India killing those attackers (civilians or not) is fully justified .

absolutely..