Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army

[Signalian]

PA now has a Light Infantry Division too - the 34 Light Infantry Division (HQ at Rawalpindi). Popularly known as Special Security Division.

I guess no one really saw the videos that i posted probably considering that these vids are old and seen before. But the reason i posted them was because they hold information of all principles used by PA in mechanised warfare. had i found these videos before i would not have probably written a long post to reply to Joe Shearer instead posted videos as they mention most of the things he asked me.

The first video holds another information which is not usually seen in mechanised warfare. COS at around 2:20 of video starts a sentence and then mentions about Special Forces. This opens a new parameter of warfare in armoured and mechanised warfare, inclusion of SF in combat doctrine.

COS is not an ordinary officer, he is a future GOC in most cases. He is given a staff position at Brigadier level to absorb as much experience of coordinating and handling various formations within the Corps HQ so he gets necessary experience to command a Division in future.

SF is generally a concept of light forces which means they lack heavy weapons like tanks and artillery and mostly use guerilla warfare tactics. The inclusion of SF means that PA mechanised forces will have an added advantage of the enemy. The insertion method is not specified but it could be either by APC's itself or by heli or para drop. Holding key bridges and key strategic points ahead of advance of mechanised forces can help in rapid movement of PA without encountering resistance. SF can also be used to destroy and harass enemy supplies and supply routes along with constantly providing recon and intelligence from behind enemy lines. The lessons learnt in Afrika Campaign of WW2 by useful deployment of SAS LRDG can still be useful today.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

Very doubtful that PA would use a battle-taxi as direct combatant in the form of IFV to engage enemy. If APC(or IFV) is destroyed in direct combat with enemy, the infantry will lose armoured transport capability jeopardizing the mission plan to keep up with the MBT advance.
Dismounted infantry is used to capture and hold ground, there is no other option. To engage enemy MBT and IFV, PA will use TOW/Green Arrow equipped M113 variants. I do advocate IFV but PA's armoured doctrine supports APC's over IFV's. Hamza is wheeled and has 30mm cannon. Considering a 30mm cannon is used as anti-material weapon, it can damage some hard targets excluding MBT, but may not be able to completely take out a BMP-2. The solution to take out any IA AFV is ATGM or MBT Gun at a distance and maybe RPG variants at short range.

I disagree with highlighted part. 30mm rounds could easily pass through frontal armor of BMP-2 and from sides could kill the infantry inside. 30mm rounds would be useless against MBT from frontal. Could damage if from sides. Yes, it could damage the electronic components mounted on MBT, which would made an MBT blind hence increases chances to take out.

I guess no one really saw the videos that i posted probably considering that these vids are old and seen before. But the reason i posted them was because they hold information of all principles used by PA in mechanised warfare. had i found these videos before i would not have probably written a long post to reply to Joe Shearer instead posted videos as they mention most of the things he asked me.

The first video holds another information which is not usually seen in mechanised warfare. COS at around 2:20 of video starts a sentence and then mentions about Special Forces. This opens a new parameter of warfare in armoured and mechanised warfare, inclusion of SF in combat doctrine.

COS is not an ordinary officer, he is a future GOC in most cases. He is given a staff position at Brigadier level to absorb as much experience of coordinating and handling various formations within the Corps HQ so he gets necessary experience to command a Division in future.

SF is generally a concept of light forces which means they lack heavy weapons like tanks and artillery and mostly use guerilla warfare tactics. The inclusion of SF means that PA mechanised forces will have an added advantage of the enemy. The insertion method is not specified but it could be either by APC's itself or by heli or para drop. Holding key bridges and key strategic points ahead of advance of mechanised forces can help in rapid movement of PA without encountering resistance. SF can also be used to destroy and harass enemy supplies and supply routes along with constantly providing recon and intelligence from behind enemy lines. The lessons learnt in Afrika Campaign of WW2 by useful deployment of SAS LRDG can still be useful today.

In my opinion, role of SF in maneuvering battle would be to carry out probing patrols, combat patrols, establishing and identifying safe passages in minefields prior to an attack. Identifying and marking fortified positions or lit the targets with LTD for an air or artillery strike.

From the last backwards, that's why I find these conversations frustrating. If you persist in seeing Indian actions through the same lens with which you view the actions of the Pakistani deep state, these misconceptions will arise. There is nothing that individuals like I can do, to bridge this gap. I've found through the last eight years of conversation that this is the single biggest barrier to understanding; Pakistanis keep thinking that the Government of India is just a Hindu version of the Government of Pakistan, and is identical in its thinking and behaviour.

RAW, for instance, is composed mostly of serving policemen seconded to the organisation, who are going back to serve in their parent cadres (that means to the state where they were assigned on completing their initial 6 months of training). In those subsequent assignments, they are wholly exposed to political action. Their postings are determined by their acquiescence with the actions that the politicians wish to see taken. They do not flout political wishes during their later careers; they do not build up clandestine positions hostile to the wishes of the government of the day during their stints in intelligence. The reason why Doval has influence today is because he is carrying out the wishes and aspirations of today's government, and the reason why that influence is not translated into vigorous and effective action is because he is working with tools that he did not choose, and with an organisation that has had to stop at various red lights, and start again thereafter, if they were asked to. Not even close to the uninterrupted support and encouragement that the ISI received, and not even remotely comparable to the good professional results that can happen through uninterrupted work in covert areas in the field.

Contrast that with the ISI. It is composed, from top to bottom, of serving Army officers, who work in an insulated atmosphere within the government, sheltered from political influence by a clear demarcation of its work as being beyond the remit of the civilian government, and who return to active military service and get posted to fighting posts. There is no comparison with the Indian condition. None whatever. But you, and other well-meaning individuals of integrity and genuine good intentions, persist in thinking that the two are the same. Just a different hue of ideology, just saffron instead of green.

I can't do a thing about this, because such an attitude is built out of a lifetime of experiences that the other side, that the body of individuals I am talking to, has gone through. No amount of reason or countervailing experience can change those attitudes.

We don't, for instance, have the equivalent of General Durrani. We didn't go through the exercise that the ISI has done in more than one case. In the tape, he talks about the location of OBL being known and about the morality involved in the operations of the ISI in Afghanistan. We had nothing equivalent. And I say this with a great deal, an unusual amount of insight and information about our dealings with the Bangladeshis.



Coming to Commander Yadav, it is according to your government that we learn that he 'visited' Pakistan in 2005. What is the source of this information? Confessional statements by Yadav? The evidence of an avowedly fake passport, of the sort that government backed clandestine operations produce in a routine manner, and that can be doctored to show any amount of supposed visiting of a hostile country? If so, surely you can draw your own conclusions. If you take me into custody, and after a period of time, produce my confessions before a magistrate that I have been stealing government funds for a period of twenty five years (disclaimer: I didn't; this is just an example), how much is that worth?

The man is said to have taken premature retirement and gone into private business. That rank and age is more or less the rank and time at which officers of field grade passed over for selection resign and try to make a career for themselves in other fields of life. Suddenly now we find that he has actually been in Pakistan for eleven years.

Tell me what you make of that.

If there is no credibility of confessions during custody, then sorry to say you are questioning the credibility of all police and judicial system. Starting from Ajmal Kasab to David Headley and KSM confessions under water boarding?
What do you say?

 

[cerberus]

What I wrote about both RAW and ISI is about the upper echelons, and does not mean that these don't have permanent, non-transferable individuals at lower levels.

This the prime reason why DIA created
B Raman mentioned that in his books

 

[Joe Shearer]

I disagree with highlighted part. 30mm rounds could easily pass through frontal armor of BMP-2 and from sides could kill the infantry inside. 30mm rounds would be useless against MBT from frontal. Could damage if from sides. Yes, it could damage the electronic components mounted on MBT, which would made an MBT blind hence increases chances to take out.



In my opinion, role of SF in maneuvering battle would be to carry out probing patrols, combat patrols, establishing and identifying safe passages in minefields prior to an attack. Identifying and marking fortified positions or lit the targets with LTD for an air or artillery strike.



If there is no credibility of confessions during custody, then sorry to say you are questioning the credibility of all police and judicial system. Starting from Ajmal Kasab to David Headley and KSM confessions under water boarding?
What do you say?

I can only point out two things, one, that confessions to the police are already inadmissible evidence in Indian courts. Two, that a confession from David Headley was not extricated from him by force, but as part of a plea-bargaining bid by him, to reduce his probable sentence. What he said about Mumbai attacks, about the mechanics of the training of the squad, about the presence of military personnel, and about the command and control structure of the LeT was not dictated by Indian agencies, but appeared - unsolicited - in his voluntary testimony.

The rest needs no detailed discussion. Ajmal Kasab did not have to confess; his role was videographed thousands of times in the media. His confession was not useful in the evidence leading to his sentence, it was useful in filling out the picture about the background to the massacre.

I am against all forms of torture, and do not hold with water boarding.

Hon Sir,

In current organization, a U.S. tank company has 3 tank platoons of 4 tanks each for a total of 12 - plus 2 additional tanks in the company headquarter section. That makes 14 tanks in a tank company. There are 3 tank companies in every tank battalion for a total of 42 tanks - plus 2 additional tanks in the battalion headquarters for a total of 44 tanks.

Armoured brigade may have 2 to 3 tank battalions. An armoured division normally has 3 but could have 4 brigades which might have as many as 7 or 8 tank battalions altogether in the division. 7 armoured battalions makes 308 & 8 makes it 352. Adding 4 additional tanks for the Brigade HQ, means about 320 tanks in the US Armoured Div. with a maximum of 370.

British army regiment also has 44 tanks to the maximum of 58 tanks in the Royal Dragoon guards. There were a total of 343 tanks in the British 1st Armoured Div. during WW2.

During 1965 war Indian Army Ist Armoured Div. played a major role. To the best my info this Division consisted of 2 Royal Lancers, 4 Hodson’s Horse, 7 Light Cavalry, 16 'Black Elephant' Cavalry, 17 Cavalry [Poona Horse], 18 Cavalry and 62 Cavalry making 7 armoured battalions or a total of about 308 tanks. Russian tank division also has about 320 MBTs. German Panzer Division during WW2 also had between 300 to 350 tanks.

Pray tell me which army has 700 tanks (about 16 tanks battalions) in a single armoured division. It would be a great addition to my knowledge base.

Sir,

I am sorry that you got sucked into this side-show, that started with my typing in the wrong figures that came from an entirely different professional exercise , nothing to do with PDF but concerned with financial restructuring. Afterwards, when the mistake was pointed out to me, I was too irritated by the triumphal tone to simply correct the mistake, and some unwary soul may have written a post that caught your attention.

My apologies for the confusion caused.

As ever, you never cease to astonish us with your breadth of knowledge.

Most respectfully,

'Joe'

This the prime reason why DIA created
B Raman mentioned that in his books

You must have been laughing rolling on the floor as I did when some nincompoop printed a very poorly written internal memo about loss of morale in the Indian Army. It mentions that a study was conducted by the department of psychological operations (PSYOPS) within the Directorate of Military Intelligence. It did not route the letter properly, as an astute Pakistani reader, @MUSTAKSHAF, pointed out. But most of all, the author was apparently unaware th not to go into detail on these, although everything may have public but well spotted, all the same.

 

[Adonis]

This is very good planning by PA. But, at the same time, we need to plan for unlikely scenarios and rehearse for them, because the enemy will see the benefit of using a strategy that is least expected by us.

With all due respect, your enemy is already using the strategy that is least expected by you.

Look around you, financial crisis, internal insurgency, diplomatic backlash on world forums, acceptance by countries about your state sponsoring terrorism, nuclear proliferation charges, internal political turmoil, huge external debt, collapsed govt machinery.......How it happened and why these issues are creeping up all together? .....this is called 5th generation war, that does more damage then an all out war for few days...... Mechanised infantry or armored divisions can remain where they are...they are redundant.

My grandfather left Pakistan half a century back, but he always cherished the memories of his native country....He must really be sad seeing the current state of affairs up there

 

[Signalian]

I disagree with highlighted part. 30mm rounds could easily pass through frontal armor of BMP-2 and from sides could kill the infantry inside.

Penetration into BMP-2 frontal armor would require some range and angle. A few factors factors here:
1. Penetrating armor doesn't guarantee a kill and a handful of rounds maybe required. Firing all those rounds at same angle and distance to achieve penetration may and may not be possible.
2. Chances for kill by 30mm become greater if APSD-T rounds are used, but an IFV uses HE rounds against infantry. so why are we using an IFV here, to combat infantry or AFV?
3. To guarantee a kill, a bigger caliber is required like MBT gun (105mm or 125mm) or ATGM (150mm).
4. BMP-2 can clearly score a kill using its ATGM before its killed by 30mm.

30mm rounds would be useless against MBT from frontal. Could damage if from sides. Yes, it could damage the electronic components mounted on MBT, which would made an MBT blind hence increases chances to take out.

By the time 30mm blinds the MBT, the MBT would have toasted it with its main gun.


The point is, you use a weapon which is a sure shot kill, not just probability of damaging or penetrating.

@Penguin @Vergennes @jhungary I need your guidance on 30mm Vs IFV topic. Western Armies use 25mm and 30mm cannons. Assist please.

 

[CriticalThought]

With all due respect, your enemy is already using the strategy that is least expected by you.

Look around you, financial crisis, internal insurgency, diplomatic backlash on world forums, acceptance by countries about your state sponsoring terrorism, nuclear proliferation charges, internal political turmoil, huge external debt, collapsed govt machinery.......How it happened and why these issues are creeping up all together? .....this is called 5th generation war, that does more damage then an all out war for few days...... Mechanised infantry or armored divisions can remain where they are...they are redundant.

My grandfather left Pakistan half a century back, but he always cherished the memories of his native country....He must really be sad seeing the current state of affairs up there

The comment was in the context of actual war.

 

[jhungary]

Didn't follow the topic so maybe what I said is off topic. I don't know

Penetration into BMP-2 frontal armor would require some range and angle. A few factors factors here:
1. Penetrating armor doesn't guarantee a kill and a handful of rounds maybe required. Firing all those rounds at same angle and distance to achieve penetration may and may not be possible.
2. Chances for kill by 30mm become greater if APSD-T rounds are used, but an IFV uses HE rounds against infantry. so why are we using an IFV here, to combat infantry or AFV?
3. To guarantee a kill, a bigger caliber is required like MBT gun (105mm or 125mm) or ATGM (150mm).
4. BMP-2 can clearly score a kill using its ATGM before its killed by 30mm.

Range and Angle is important but it is not the sole consideration of the question on penetration. The type of rounds, and the Initial Velocity and also the distant play an important factor if you are talking about IFV vs IFV, it would not be any big different if you are talking about any type of Armour because it's going to be bounce off anyway.

There are an example which IFV Commander (like me) was trained with, coming from Operation Desert Storm, where a pair of M2 Bradley engage a T-72 while both expanded their TOW missile, the 25mm cannon from the M2 basically just bounce off the hull of the T-72, but since the M2 is cresting so what the M2 did were what we called a Reload Drill, One Bradley keep forward and backward and engage the T-72 drawing his attention away while the other get into turret down and reload their TOW, it's risky but it did the trick.

However, in an IFV v IFV scenario, 25mm and 30mm cannon make basically no different, beside the round use and the distant.

By the time 30mm blinds the MBT, the MBT would have toasted it with its main gun.

Explained above

The point is, you use a weapon which is a sure shot kill, not just probability of damaging or penetrating.

@Penguin @Vergennes @jhungary I need your guidance on 30mm Vs IFV topic. Western Armies use 25mm and 30mm cannons. Assist please.

Most country like 25mm because the round are smaller and you can carry more round, and the gun is about 1/3 smaller than 30mm (like Mk 44) which give the IFV a lower profile. However, some country do use 30mm chain gun instead of 25mm, CV90 (Swedish IFV being used in most Nordic Country and some Asian country uses Mk44)

Most 30mm used by the US is on aerial platform, on AH-64, AC-130 and A-10.

 

[Gryphon]

Very doubtful that PA would use a battle-taxi as direct combatant in the form of IFV to engage enemy. If APC(or IFV) is destroyed in direct combat with enemy, the infantry will lose armoured transport capability jeopardizing the mission plan to keep up with the MBT advance.
Dismounted infantry is used to capture and hold ground, there is no other option. To engage enemy MBT and IFV, PA will use TOW/Green Arrow equipped M113 variants. I do advocate IFV but PA's armoured doctrine supports APC's over IFV's. Hamza is wheeled and has 30mm cannon. Considering a 30mm cannon is used as anti-material weapon, it can damage some hard targets excluding MBT, but may not be able to completely take out a BMP-2. The solution to take out any IA AFV is ATGM or MBT Gun at a distance and maybe RPG variants at short range.

The doctrine that will lead us to defeat must change.

I don't advocate completely replacing APC's with IFV's but using both. While MBT's and IFV's lead, the APC's follow. The VN17 IFV has remote controlled cannon to engage enemy infantry and light armoured vehicles. And few ATGM's as well.

Hamza was not accepted by PA.

There are many design options, e.g. NORINCO VN17, Otokar Tulpar, FNSS Kaplan 30, Ukrainian Berserk, Polish WPB Anders, etc.

The reason I mentioned VN17 is it could prove affordable for Pakistan. The Ukrainians provide worst after sale support and expensive spare parts & oil.

 

[Inception-06]

The same thing applies to our formations on this side.

You probably know that the very carefully designed mechanisation of the PBI, formation of the RAPIDs, has been stalled or derailed by the dismal bureaucrats of Defence Ministry.

The BMP does not fit the role ?

What else could I expect from a human being like you other than badmouthing others. I am not interested in measuring anything but you definitely was & is because this is all what are you doing since you grown up.

You have stated many times about 6000 tanks but you never gave the source to me, I am still waiting for the source??

let him go, enjoy the topic ! Even if he is indian, we should all behave gently !

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The doctrine that will lead us to defeat must change.

I don't advocate completely replacing APC's with IFV's but using both. While MBT's and IFV's lead, the APC's follow. The VN17 IFV has remote controlled cannon to engage enemy infantry and light armoured vehicles. And few ATGM's as well.

Hamza was not accepted by PA.



The reason I mentioned VN17 is it could prove affordable for Pakistan. The Ukrainians provide worst after sale support and expensive spare parts & oil.

This time Pakistan has to make sure that it retains the means to fully manufacture and support. One of the advantages of the M113 has been that HIT is basically able to manufacture most of it (besides engine and some other dynamic components).

 

[Gryphon]

I guess no one really saw the videos that i posted probably considering that these vids are old and seen before. But the reason i posted them was because they hold information of all principles used by PA in mechanised warfare. had i found these videos before i would not have probably written a long post to reply to Joe Shearer instead posted videos as they mention most of the things he asked me.

The first video holds another information which is not usually seen in mechanised warfare. COS at around 2:20 of video starts a sentence and then mentions about Special Forces. This opens a new parameter of warfare in armoured and mechanised warfare, inclusion of SF in combat doctrine.

COS is not an ordinary officer, he is a future GOC in most cases. He is given a staff position at Brigadier level to absorb as much experience of coordinating and handling various formations within the Corps HQ so he gets necessary experience to command a Division in future.

SF is generally a concept of light forces which means they lack heavy weapons like tanks and artillery and mostly use guerilla warfare tactics. The inclusion of SF means that PA mechanised forces will have an added advantage of the enemy. The insertion method is not specified but it could be either by APC's itself or by heli or para drop. Holding key bridges and key strategic points ahead of advance of mechanised forces can help in rapid movement of PA without encountering resistance. SF can also be used to destroy and harass enemy supplies and supply routes along with constantly providing recon and intelligence from behind enemy lines. The lessons learnt in Afrika Campaign of WW2 by useful deployment of SAS LRDG can still be useful today.

I watched all the episodes a few months back. Watched those 3 again today.

Penetration into BMP-2 frontal armor would require some range and angle. A few factors factors here:
1. Penetrating armor doesn't guarantee a kill and a handful of rounds maybe required. Firing all those rounds at same angle and distance to achieve penetration may and may not be possible.
2. Chances for kill by 30mm become greater if APSD-T rounds are used, but an IFV uses HE rounds against infantry. so why are we using an IFV here, to combat infantry or AFV?
3. To guarantee a kill, a bigger caliber is required like MBT gun (105mm or 125mm) or ATGM (150mm).
4. BMP-2 can clearly score a kill using its ATGM before its killed by 30mm.


By the time 30mm blinds the MBT, the MBT would have toasted it with its main gun.


The point is, you use a weapon which is a sure shot kill, not just probability of damaging or penetrating.

@Penguin @Vergennes @jhungary I need your guidance on 30mm Vs IFV topic. Western Armies use 25mm and 30mm cannons. Assist please.

An IFV would prefer ATGM for neutralizing enemy IFV or MBT. Meanwhile, 25mm cannon fire can hold the dismounted troops.

 

[Inception-06]

Very doubtful that PA would use a battle-taxi as a direct combatant in the form of IFV to engage enemy. If APC(or IFV) is destroyed in direct combat with enemy, the infantry will lose armoured transport capability jeopardizing the mission plan to keep up with the MBT advance.
Dismounted infantry is used to capture and hold ground, there is no other option. To engage enemy MBT and IFV, PA will use TOW/Green Arrow equipped M113 variants. I do advocate IFV but PA's armoured doctrine supports APC's over IFV's. Hamza is wheeled and has 30mm cannon. Considering a 30mm cannon is used as anti-material weapon, it can damage some hard targets excluding MBT, but may not be able to completely take out a BMP-2. The solution to take out any IA AFV is ATGM or MBT Gun at a distance and maybe RPG variants at short range.

Pakistani light mechanized Infantry workhorse transforming into a Heavy armed assault Force​

@Gryphon

@Signalian and me and also many other respected Members have discussed many times the concept of the Pakistan Army doctrine "Battle taxi", and of course we did come to the conclusion that the M-113 does not really fit the role in an Indian war theater, what comes after dismounting the assault Infantry? Face the bulk of Indian formations (MBTs,BMPs,Infantry) with RPG-7 (short range, cant penetrate modern MBT in the first shoot),12.7mm (M-113 will not follow the infantry to the hot zone so that's also a restricted defensive weapon), 60mm Mortar which is a WW2 weapon (inaccurate). I don't think that the Pakistani Military does have the budge to replace the M-113 or will change its doctrine of "Battle taxi", but what they can do and that might be also economical and reallistic, is to modernize the mechanized Infantry Soldiers quipment. If Assault Infantry alone has to face the Indian BMPs, MBTs, and enemy Infantry, obstacles, enemy bunkers, enemy trenches. then why not transforming that light Infantry into a heavy one: that means adding to every squat like @Gryphon said new and modern weapons like the Alcotan.

The Pakistani squad/section assault Infantry level needs more and higher precise firepower, which can be given through:

- under-barrel grenade launcher, close fire support against point and area targets(every Soldiers weapon should be equipped with that)

-one-man portable, single-use anti-tank rocket launcher (which have bought, but I doubt it was meant for the mechanized Infantry Battalions)

- more and modern hand grenades

- a better and modern Infantry rifle (which adds better targeting/aiming systems)

- sophisticated night vision equipment

The Pakistani Concept at the moment looks like that, check the Infantry they seem to have very rudimentary equipment.

Compare that to the US Army mechanized Infantry equipment:

@Signalian I have seen that show from W.S Khan "We are Soldiers" during my own military service that was around 2010, but their equipment is still not update after 8 years!

 

[Gryphon]

This time Pakistan has to make sure that it retains the means to fully manufacture and support. One of the advantages of the M113 has been that HIT is basically able to manufacture most of it (besides engine and some other dynamic components).

I think Army does realize that acquiring used M-113's from other countries (like Italy) is much cheaper than manufacturing at HIT.

They should just license a flexible IFV design and build the infrastructure for manufacturing and maintenance.

 

[niaz]

PA now has a Light Infantry Division too - the 34 Light Infantry Division (HQ at Rawalpindi). Popularly known as Special Security Division.

I understood from the ‘Light Infantry’ as being the unit of soldiers having no attached tank units, IFVs, APC or artillery pieces. Therefore I consider all air transportable troops such that the Commandos, Paras as well as the Mountain Infantry as the light infantry. Hence no need for a separate light infantry brigades or divisions.

During the Falkland war of 1982, all of us read about the famous ‘Yomp ’, basically 50 mile long march with full gear by the Royal Marines. Subsequently, I came across this article while perusing New York Times on the internet some 30 years ago. Since then I have been curious about concept of Light Infantry in the modern army. .

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/25/w...the-army-is-bringing-back-light-infantry.html

As I understand it, key feature of the light infantry being the mobility and being quickly deployable. Similar to a competent guerrilla force; such units would be extremely useful for the recce as well as raids / ambush & probing attacks; thus ideal for the counter insurgency operations such as fight against Taliban, where a squad or platoon of soldiers armed with hand held weapons only can be quickly air lifted to deal with the crisis situation.

However, because such units would lack fire power to face the normal infantry supported by tanks, IFVs’ and artillery, one wonders why there is need for the large divisions size formations. Why not large number of battalion size units either operating autonomously or attached as an auxiliary to the Division / Corps HQ?

One can probably justify the requirement for Lt Inf. Div. in the US army; where an entire division, ready to fight as soon they get on the ground, can be moved to a trouble spot thousands of miles away in a fleet of C-130 /C141 aeroplanes. However, India has 15 Lt Infantry Div. in addition to the 12 Mountain Infantry Div. and now Pakistan has also created one.

In my humble opinion, concept of a quickly deployable light infantry division, say 10 to 12,000 soldiers is good, but unless you equip the light infantry soldier with man portable weapons of the capability that such a division can successfully defend a tactically important location against a division size force of the heavy/ mechanised infantry until friendly support arrives, true potential of Lt Infantry will not be realised.

Would military professional member enlighten me about advantage of a Lt Inf Div over the 101 Airborne Div of the US army?