What's new

Mountain Strike Corps: A Strategic Audit

kurup

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
-2
Country
India
Location
India

.

For India to emerge as a regional power and a global player, there is need for an attitudinal change. India has the wherewithal to protect its interests and assert its rights and claims. With political will, the country will forge ahead without encumbrances. The stakes are high and time is running out. India cannot remain static marking time expending energy wastefully while others zoom ahead consolidating and enhancing comprehensive national power. The location of uncommitted reserves up to Corps level and the Strategic Reserve/Mountain Strike Corps opens avenues that need courageous leadership and the will to be exploited to protect and enhance the country’s interests.

“We should implement the military strategy of active defence for the new period, and enhance military strategic guidance as the times so require. We should attach great importance to maritime, space and cyber security. We should make active planning for use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age.”

—Report of Hu Jintao to the 18th CPC National Congress, March 2013


Building Up A Case

The Indian Army had, for some time, been war-gaming the need for dedicated uncommitted force(s) for its Northern Borders. The Kargil War exposed the weakness of the existing set up in Ladakh in the tactical and operational realms. The Division headquarters located at Leh had been unable to generate adequate reserves and sufficient firepower to meet the threat by Pakistan or to dislodge the intruding elements from Indian territory. Nor was it structured to take under command additional forces and firepower resources that were inducted into Ladakh as also control two fronts. Its responsibilities in Eastern Ladakh dictated the requirement of maintaining adequate force presence and dominate that sector to counter any collusive venture by China.

Along the rest of the International Boundary/Line of Actual Control (IB/LAC), the political terms of reference – ‘not an inch of territory to be lost’ necessitated the defensive deployment of forces. The terrain in the mountains literally ‘eats up troops’. This twin compulsion has resulted in holding ‘every inch of the boundary’ leaving no uncommitted reserves. The recently raised Divisions in the Eastern Sector have got absorbed in a defensive role. Therefore, the requirement of a strategic reserve dedicated for the Northern Borders is an imperative in dealing with the existing military weakness and the prosaic doctrine for defence propounded.

On July 17, 2013, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), approved the creation of a “Mountain Strike Corps” leading to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) issuing the “Government Sanction Letter” (GSL) on November 19, 2013. This has paved the way for the Army to begin the process of inducting manpower required for the new raisings, initially by side-stepping, subsequently through normal induction as they become available under the recruitment process. The GSL authorises these new formation headquarters and units to commence the process of demanding the weapons, equipment and to requisition funds as entitled. Ipso facto, in theory this “Corps” should be operationally effective on the ground in the next seven to eight years. As some strategic analysts and China watchers claim that there is the window of opportunity available up to 2020 for India to bridge the gap between India’s Armed Forces and the PLA. This operationalisation will be co-terminus with such a window, if it exists and will enable the Armed Forces to project a degree of credible ‘dissuasion’. Delay in operationalisation will increase the gap between the capabilities of the forces of the two countries.

Battlefield Milieu

In his report to the 18th CPC National Congress, Hu Jintao also stated that – “We should closely follow the new global military revolution that is gathering pace, advance reform of our national defence forces in a both active and prudent way, and deepen military transformation with Chinese characteristics. With innovative military theories taking lead, we should enhance our capacity for innovation in defence-oriented research and industries, modernise the military organisational structure, and build a system of modern military forces with Chinese characteristics.” It will be imperative that these statements are analysed and future developments factored into our own planning process.

A force the size of a Corps held as a ‘strategic reserve’ will be committed for operations based on the reading of the battle as it unfolds and the location and the possible commitment of the reserves held by the PLA. The PLA doctrine of “Limited War Under Hi-Tech Conditions and Informationalisation” would be executed as a “War Zone Campaign”. That, war could be initiated by offensive operations which are likely, to be restricted to “non-contact” type of operations.

The “non-contact’ phase could include an onslaught of offensive cyber operations and electronic warfare disrupting India’s military and civilian communication network, radar surveillance grid and cause collapse of all essential services – banking, stock exchange functions, rail, airline reservation and the electricity grid. China could also target Indian satellites. It could declare the air space over Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Air Defence Identification Zone’ and the Tawang area may be covered under effective ‘Area Denial/Anti Access’ stratagem. When such measures are adopted against India, even if the origins of such cyber or anti-satellite attacks cannot be pin-pointed and attributed to any country, the Government will be faced with the challenge of response. It is a moot point whether such acts should be constituted as ‘act of war’ even though no exchange of fire has taken place on ground, sea or air between the two forces. Strategic pre-emption or a pro-active response is presently not the policy option that India believes in. India will need to factor in the changing forms of conventional threat and consider a declaratory policy of military assertion if the threat disrupts the fundamental functions of governance. However, in such a contingency issuing a mere diplomatic demarche will be an act of extreme passivity.

In the past, India has responded to threats to its security on the borders through diplomacy and refrained from the use of its military option ab initio. Consequently, there is a predominant measure of ‘restraint’ as the underlying sinew of the national security strategy. Therefore, the response to the scenario illustrated above will entail a reactive posture at all levels of operations. Reactive operations have a constraint of operational imperatives. Firstly, since the initiative is with the attacker, the resources for a defensive battle are allocated such that there is a semblance of strength all along the defensive deployment. Secondly, the attacker will concentrate his strength and effort at the point of attack, which, inevitably will lead to penetrating the defences. Thirdly, as a consequence there will be loss of territory. Fourthly, reserves will invariably be sucked into the battle to restore the situation. Fifthly, the situation may be so badly degraded that it may not be feasible to launch the strategic reserves to wrest the initiative by operations elsewhere. Sixthly, the attacker can dictate the timing and manipulate international pressures for the termination of the war with a favourable end state for him.

Committing Strategic Reserves

In a conventional reactive war in the mountains, the potential of strategic reserves can be brought to bear contingent on the operational situation. The tactical battle will be fought to stem the enemy assault. In the process the local reserves, up to the Corps (holding the defences) level will inevitably be drawn in to restore an adverse situation. It could be also possible that due to lack of bold military and political leadership the strategic reserves too, get sucked into the same sector or theatre of operations in a graduated response. The severe constraints of the terrain obtaining along the Northern Boundary, to a lesser extent in Ladakh, impose immense time penalty and restricts deployment of forces to exploit the considerable combat potential available.

If however, a portion of this reserve is located well forwarded, on the first indication of conflict, a riposte can buttress the defensive battle. Additional forces of the strategic reserves can then exploit the success of the riposte. Alternately, Brigade group or Division minus size force can be launched in a quid pro quo manoeuvre through an altogether different sector. This effort will require to be reinforced before its culmination. Successes by this force will compel the enemy to recoil thus achieving a favourable end state. In another scenario, when the enemy offensive has been blunted after he has committed his reserves, a strong counter offensive can be launched into the enemy’s vulnerable sector without or with minimum assistance from India’s strategic reserve.

True to its name the ‘Strike Corps’ can the wreak havoc deep in the enemy territory targeting its strategic centre of gravity, bringing about the termination of the war with an end-state favourable to India. The sine qua non for such operations will be deep surveillance, strategic and tactical mobility, commensurate infrastructure, logistic war fighting stamina and bold leadership.

Theoretically, full combat potential of the ‘Strike Corps’ would have resulted in exponential dividends had the terrain constraints been eliminated. The reality presents a formidable unassailable operational mosaic. The classic politico-military objective and centre of gravity seems desultory. The avenues astride axes available are few and predictable. The capacity of these axes is limited and resultant build-up time consuming and vulnerable to interdiction and attrition. Outflanking or bypassing is restricted to the tactical level forces employed self-contained for up to 96 hours. The arc of the manoeuvre and depth of the tactical operation is proportional to the range and quantum of the fire support assets available.

In the India-China context, the battle areas astride the IB/LAC in the Himalayas are along the watershed at altitudes ranging from 13,000 to 17,000 feet Above Mean Sea Level. The geographical reality of the width of the Himalayan Range necessitates forward deployment of even the long range heavier calibre artillery assets including rocket artillery and their equally heavy ammunition supply chain. The infrastructure will require considerable upgradation to make this possible. The rarefied air at high altitudes along the watershed imposes additional restrictions. Acclimatisation of troops is a medical necessity which if curtailed will entail heavy non-battle casualties. Weapons and equipment performance is also affected at these altitudes.

The effective range of weapons increase, blast effect radius is reduced, battery life of surveillance devices and electronic equipment is degraded and recharging is difficult as generating equipment cannot be located forward due to the haulage problems and noise which is a tactical taboo. Rotary wing aircraft performance is drastically affected. Payload capacity is reduced significantly, armed and attack helicopters are unable to operate at these altitudes. Moving forward or side-stepping of reserves is a mighty challenge.

The depth of the enemy’s tactical battle zone presents limited targets for Special Forces Operations, those that will impact the course of the defensive battle or that which can be exploited by the riposte/quid pro quo effort. While these forces can be inducted by a drop from a fixed wing aircraft their extrication is left to their own ingenuity. As a result, they are available for single missions only. Considering these imperatives, successful launching of the ‘Strike Corps’ will be determined by effectively factoring in these multifarious challenges. China too will face the heavy degradation of her potential due to terrain friction on the conduct of operations South of the watershed. Effect of altitude on men and equipment and peculiar logistics requirement are major constraints on China’s offensive designs. Any ill-considered misadventure will extract a price she cannot afford to pay.


Western Kameng

The Theatres of War

To comprehend the enormity of the Himalayan battlefield, a basic understanding of the IB/LAC would be in order. India’s IB with China begins at the tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Afghanistan-China at the Wakhan peninsula of Afghanistan. It does not include the 106 km of boundary common with only Afghanistan. It extends up to a point West of the Karakoram Pass thence traverses South as the LAC up to Gaya Peak South of Chumar in Ladakh. It again runs as the IB in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand till the Western tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Nepal-Tibet. The IB in Sikkim begins from the Eastern tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Nepal-Tibet to the Western tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Bhutan-Tibet. In Arunachal Pradesh, the LAC begins from the Eastern tri-junction of the boundary of Bhutan and the McMahon Line running along the Himalayan watershed to the tri-junction with the boundaries of India-Myanmar-Tibet. In all, a gargantuan length of 4,056 km.

The India-China boundary dispute relates mainly to Eastern Ladakh, some pockets in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand and the some areas in Arunachal Pradesh along the McMahon Line where the interpretation differs, besides the Chinese claim of 90,000 sq. kms. of territory in Arunachal Pradesh.

The PLA does not have the capability of posing a viable threat in all these locations simultaneously. It cannot ascribe a war aim as “teach a lesson”– because it is more likely that China may be taught a lesson or two in the bargain. The rise of China has been seen as a threat by most of her neighbours. However, expectedly, China has often refuted this and has stated that its rise is peaceful and not a threat to any country.

China is compelled to maintain her credibility as a responsible power, and take cognisance of the pressure of international diplomatic repercussions that will inevitably be generated in the event of a war. As a result, China is likely to activate the IB/LAC in the Ladakh sector, where she is defending her surreptitious gains and Arunachal Pradesh sector, where she stakes a large unsubstantiated territorial claim. This leaves China with limited options of suitable military objectives to achieve her possible political aims.

In Ladakh, the PLA could launch a pre-emptive to deny launch pads for any offensive by India, thereby curtail the latter’s options. Whereas in Arunachal, China will try to capture maximum territory since her claims are central to the conflict. Capturing Tawang will be the decisive geographical area that will allow her to achieve her political aim to change the status quo substantively.

On the other hand, the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) has its ‘Centres of Gravity’ very deep in TAR. Opening up areas of conflict beyond these sectors and crossing the IB at any place would be counter-intuitive to India’s non-violent pacifist image and her world-view from the political and diplomatic high moral ground. Re-constituting Tibet as a buffer between India and China is beyond India’s capability. Consequently, this new Corps as a strategic reserve will automatically be drawn into “fire-fighting” missions of limited nature, more so in the reactive scenario.

However, collateral fallout, obviously not unintentional, of the availability of the “Mountain Strike Corps” is its ability to countervail against any collusive support by China in the event of an India-Pakistan conflict. In addition, elements of this force can be detached to bolster the offensive capability of the Army across the Line of Control (LC) into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir anywhere between Chenab and Shyok Rivers. There are opinions that suggest use of such a force being employed for Out of Area Contingencies. It is unlikely that the Indian Government will resort to employing this force as such.

It is a non-sequitur considering India’s strongly held political belief of non-interference in the internal affairs of any country and adherence to non-alignment as being the cornerstone of the country’s foreign policy. Considering these realities, it is a moot point to consider raising additional forces to be pre-positioned, as reserves. This will make available uncommitted units with Brigades deployed in defences; similarly an uncommitted Brigade at Division level and independent Brigade group at the Corps level. Additional forces being side-stepped can be held as strategic reserves under the newly raised Corps. Commensurate combat support and logistic support would need to be provided by new raisings/induction.

Operationalising the Strategic Reserve

Chinese government reaction to the new ‘Strike Corps’ has been measured and somewhat detached, with their officials reiterating that they were “willing to join hands” with India to maintain peace and stability in the border areas. However, the PLA would be deliberating on the operational level implications of this development and in due course will, in all probability, modify PLA’s modernisation to evolve a doctrinal and organisational counter. As may be deduced from Hu Jinato’s report to the National Congress in March 2013, where he emphasised that – “We should strengthen the development of new and high-technology weapons and equipment, speed-up the complete development of modern logistics, train new type of high calibre military personnel in large numbers, intensively carry out military training under computerised, conditions and enhance integrated combat capability based on extensive IT application.”

Consequently, any relocating, regrouping or reorientation of its Rapid Reaction Forces and Group Armies in its Military Area Commands will need to be closely watched to appreciate the likely pattern of operations that PLA will undertake. PLA’s operations will be suitably disguised behind the cover of strategic deception and political subterfuge. On the other hand, deception in the Indian context is viewed as superfluous and treated in a perfunctory and often cursory manner both by the Armed Forces and the Government. Borne by conventional training, the Army relies on set-piece operations coupled with heavy attrition.

Asymmetric warfare, skirmish order attacks, small team operations and hybrid wars by the 4th Generation Warfare warriors are issues yet limited to officer-level discussions. Incorporating it into the Army’s plans and preparing forces to implement these as future war-fighting methodology are still a long way off. As it is because of the quantum difference in the educational standards of the officer and the soldier there is a yawning gap in the quality of planning and its subsequent execution. Planning is officer-centric while, per force, execution is decentralised to the command level of the Junior Commissioned Officers (JCO) and the Non Commissioned Officers (NCO), where there is a command weakness in independently conducting operations without detailed orders and supervision. It is certain that a similar situation, probably more acute, exists in the PLA. In the Army, per se, authority and responsibility needs to be institutionalised at the level of JCOs and NCOs particularly in the Infantry.

It is not the case here to list out any specifics of weapon systems and equipment that will be suitable for this formation in carrying out its varied and wide range of tasks that can be assigned to it. Suffice it to say that state-of-the-art weapon systems and war-waging equipment need to be authorised. These will not come cheap, nor can these be picked off a Walmart shelf. No country is willing to part with cutting-edge technology and even systems a rung or two lower in technological terms, will come at enormous cost to the exchequer. Moreover, tactics are designed around weapons, systems and equipment available. Organisations are then built around these. On consolidation, a war-fighting doctrine is drawn up. Therefore, last minute acquisitions and induction of weapon systems and equipment fail to exploit the true technological potential of the systems; they become mere replacements of existing weapon systems or equipment.

The pivotal role of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSU) cannot be over-emphasised. These organisations have to be geared for progressive Research and Development (R&D) and creating assembly lines for new systems for production to meet the requirement of the Armed Forces. The DRDO needs to continue research for product development and innovative technology. Presently, it is funded only on receipt of specific orders from the Armed Forces, which, ipso facto, places the onus of R&D of weapons, systems and equipment on the user rather than the scientists – an amusingly quaint situation.

Further, setting up of an assembly-line can begin only after the final prototype has been successful. Manufacture of hi-tech weapon systems and equipment require equally hi-tech machines for their manufacture. Designing and manufacturing these machines itself involve immense effort in R&D and expenses. Thus, setting up the assembly line would take anything between three to four years. Unfortunately, their orientation is more towards wasteful brick and mortar asset additions. The reality is that the DRDO-DPSU combine is not in a position to deliver.

A well developed infrastructure is the sine qua non for the effective launch of such an equipment heavy force. The slow pace of progress in the construction of projects is due to multiple set of obstacles encountered. These range from self-inflicted overstretch by the Border Roads Organisation to unsavoury squabbling by the civilian hierarchy of this General Reserve Engineer Force seeking to control turf. In the process, induction of modern road construction equipment has been stalled or inordinately delayed. The prolonged delays in obtaining environment and forest clearance have added to the woes. India’s unaccountable bureaucratic monolith continues to hinder in newer ways as if the onus of India’s security rests solely with the Armed Forces.

A future war of any scale cannot be fought by individual Services seeking independent objectives for a common political aim. Strategically, it appears ludicrous. The ‘Cold Start Doctrine’ was one such unilateral hypothesis. Any Service claiming to win a major war sans the other two Services is operating in some bygone era. There were protests by analysts of wasted expenditure in raising an Infantry dominated ‘Strike Corps’ for the mountains. Their arguments favoured a substantial development of the Navy as its strategic dividends of a ‘force in being’ were more credible.

Hi-tech precision munitions and domination of air space and sea lanes can only coerce an enemy to submission when exploited by ‘boots on ground’. The need is to synergise the potential of the three Services and the Para Military Forces guarding the IB/LAC as also those earmarked for the rear areas so that the combat power generated is a multiplication of the individual potential and not just their sum.

China’s diplomatic pronouncements on policies of ‘peaceful development’, ‘harmonious world’ and its stance of ‘non-interference and non-intervention’ in the internal affairs of other nations have been negated by the developments in East and South China Seas. There is a school of thought amongst the strategic analysts that the by creating this new strategic reserve India’s military strategy against China is graduating from the current ‘dissuasion’ to ‘deterrence’. In the accepted context, dissuasion is related to a superior force taking a string of measures to ensure that a potential adversary does not develop as a future challenge or begins an arms race. It does not fit the India-China dyad. Militarily, a strong deployment in those sensitive border areas may preclude localised action by the adversary. However, it may not overall result in dissuasion at the strategic level. As regards deterrence, it would be more relevant to see it at the political level. Since the decision to go to war is a political one, deterrence is affected between governments more than military to military. Here, then all elements of national power need to be synergised to defeat the enemy.

For India to emerge as a regional power and a global player, there is need for an attitudinal change. India has the wherewithal to protect its interests and assert its rights and claims. With political will, the country will forge ahead without encumbrances. The stakes are high and time is running out. India cannot remain static marking time expending energy wastefully while others zoom ahead consolidating and enhancing comprehensive national power. The location of uncommitted reserves up to Corps level and the Strategic Reserve/Mountain Strike Corps opens avenues that need courageous leadership and the will to be exploited to protect and enhance the country’s interests.

Mountain Strike Corps: A Strategic Audit » Indian Defence Review
 

.

For India to emerge as a regional power and a global player, there is need for an attitudinal change. India has the wherewithal to protect its interests and assert its rights and claims. With political will, the country will forge ahead without encumbrances. The stakes are high and time is running out. India cannot remain static marking time expending energy wastefully while others zoom ahead consolidating and enhancing comprehensive national power. The location of uncommitted reserves up to Corps level and the Strategic Reserve/Mountain Strike Corps opens avenues that need courageous leadership and the will to be exploited to protect and enhance the country’s interests.

“We should implement the military strategy of active defence for the new period, and enhance military strategic guidance as the times so require. We should attach great importance to maritime, space and cyber security. We should make active planning for use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age.”

—Report of Hu Jintao to the 18th CPC National Congress, March 2013


Building Up A Case

The Indian Army had, for some time, been war-gaming the need for dedicated uncommitted force(s) for its Northern Borders. The Kargil War exposed the weakness of the existing set up in Ladakh in the tactical and operational realms. The Division headquarters located at Leh had been unable to generate adequate reserves and sufficient firepower to meet the threat by Pakistan or to dislodge the intruding elements from Indian territory. Nor was it structured to take under command additional forces and firepower resources that were inducted into Ladakh as also control two fronts. Its responsibilities in Eastern Ladakh dictated the requirement of maintaining adequate force presence and dominate that sector to counter any collusive venture by China.

Along the rest of the International Boundary/Line of Actual Control (IB/LAC), the political terms of reference – ‘not an inch of territory to be lost’ necessitated the defensive deployment of forces. The terrain in the mountains literally ‘eats up troops’. This twin compulsion has resulted in holding ‘every inch of the boundary’ leaving no uncommitted reserves. The recently raised Divisions in the Eastern Sector have got absorbed in a defensive role. Therefore, the requirement of a strategic reserve dedicated for the Northern Borders is an imperative in dealing with the existing military weakness and the prosaic doctrine for defence propounded.

On July 17, 2013, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), approved the creation of a “Mountain Strike Corps” leading to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) issuing the “Government Sanction Letter” (GSL) on November 19, 2013. This has paved the way for the Army to begin the process of inducting manpower required for the new raisings, initially by side-stepping, subsequently through normal induction as they become available under the recruitment process. The GSL authorises these new formation headquarters and units to commence the process of demanding the weapons, equipment and to requisition funds as entitled. Ipso facto, in theory this “Corps” should be operationally effective on the ground in the next seven to eight years. As some strategic analysts and China watchers claim that there is the window of opportunity available up to 2020 for India to bridge the gap between India’s Armed Forces and the PLA. This operationalisation will be co-terminus with such a window, if it exists and will enable the Armed Forces to project a degree of credible ‘dissuasion’. Delay in operationalisation will increase the gap between the capabilities of the forces of the two countries.

Battlefield Milieu

In his report to the 18th CPC National Congress, Hu Jintao also stated that – “We should closely follow the new global military revolution that is gathering pace, advance reform of our national defence forces in a both active and prudent way, and deepen military transformation with Chinese characteristics. With innovative military theories taking lead, we should enhance our capacity for innovation in defence-oriented research and industries, modernise the military organisational structure, and build a system of modern military forces with Chinese characteristics.” It will be imperative that these statements are analysed and future developments factored into our own planning process.

A force the size of a Corps held as a ‘strategic reserve’ will be committed for operations based on the reading of the battle as it unfolds and the location and the possible commitment of the reserves held by the PLA. The PLA doctrine of “Limited War Under Hi-Tech Conditions and Informationalisation” would be executed as a “War Zone Campaign”. That, war could be initiated by offensive operations which are likely, to be restricted to “non-contact” type of operations.

The “non-contact’ phase could include an onslaught of offensive cyber operations and electronic warfare disrupting India’s military and civilian communication network, radar surveillance grid and cause collapse of all essential services – banking, stock exchange functions, rail, airline reservation and the electricity grid. China could also target Indian satellites. It could declare the air space over Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Air Defence Identification Zone’ and the Tawang area may be covered under effective ‘Area Denial/Anti Access’ stratagem. When such measures are adopted against India, even if the origins of such cyber or anti-satellite attacks cannot be pin-pointed and attributed to any country, the Government will be faced with the challenge of response. It is a moot point whether such acts should be constituted as ‘act of war’ even though no exchange of fire has taken place on ground, sea or air between the two forces. Strategic pre-emption or a pro-active response is presently not the policy option that India believes in. India will need to factor in the changing forms of conventional threat and consider a declaratory policy of military assertion if the threat disrupts the fundamental functions of governance. However, in such a contingency issuing a mere diplomatic demarche will be an act of extreme passivity.

In the past, India has responded to threats to its security on the borders through diplomacy and refrained from the use of its military option ab initio. Consequently, there is a predominant measure of ‘restraint’ as the underlying sinew of the national security strategy. Therefore, the response to the scenario illustrated above will entail a reactive posture at all levels of operations. Reactive operations have a constraint of operational imperatives. Firstly, since the initiative is with the attacker, the resources for a defensive battle are allocated such that there is a semblance of strength all along the defensive deployment. Secondly, the attacker will concentrate his strength and effort at the point of attack, which, inevitably will lead to penetrating the defences. Thirdly, as a consequence there will be loss of territory. Fourthly, reserves will invariably be sucked into the battle to restore the situation. Fifthly, the situation may be so badly degraded that it may not be feasible to launch the strategic reserves to wrest the initiative by operations elsewhere. Sixthly, the attacker can dictate the timing and manipulate international pressures for the termination of the war with a favourable end state for him.

Committing Strategic Reserves

In a conventional reactive war in the mountains, the potential of strategic reserves can be brought to bear contingent on the operational situation. The tactical battle will be fought to stem the enemy assault. In the process the local reserves, up to the Corps (holding the defences) level will inevitably be drawn in to restore an adverse situation. It could be also possible that due to lack of bold military and political leadership the strategic reserves too, get sucked into the same sector or theatre of operations in a graduated response. The severe constraints of the terrain obtaining along the Northern Boundary, to a lesser extent in Ladakh, impose immense time penalty and restricts deployment of forces to exploit the considerable combat potential available.

If however, a portion of this reserve is located well forwarded, on the first indication of conflict, a riposte can buttress the defensive battle. Additional forces of the strategic reserves can then exploit the success of the riposte. Alternately, Brigade group or Division minus size force can be launched in a quid pro quo manoeuvre through an altogether different sector. This effort will require to be reinforced before its culmination. Successes by this force will compel the enemy to recoil thus achieving a favourable end state. In another scenario, when the enemy offensive has been blunted after he has committed his reserves, a strong counter offensive can be launched into the enemy’s vulnerable sector without or with minimum assistance from India’s strategic reserve.

True to its name the ‘Strike Corps’ can the wreak havoc deep in the enemy territory targeting its strategic centre of gravity, bringing about the termination of the war with an end-state favourable to India. The sine qua non for such operations will be deep surveillance, strategic and tactical mobility, commensurate infrastructure, logistic war fighting stamina and bold leadership.

Theoretically, full combat potential of the ‘Strike Corps’ would have resulted in exponential dividends had the terrain constraints been eliminated. The reality presents a formidable unassailable operational mosaic. The classic politico-military objective and centre of gravity seems desultory. The avenues astride axes available are few and predictable. The capacity of these axes is limited and resultant build-up time consuming and vulnerable to interdiction and attrition. Outflanking or bypassing is restricted to the tactical level forces employed self-contained for up to 96 hours. The arc of the manoeuvre and depth of the tactical operation is proportional to the range and quantum of the fire support assets available.

In the India-China context, the battle areas astride the IB/LAC in the Himalayas are along the watershed at altitudes ranging from 13,000 to 17,000 feet Above Mean Sea Level. The geographical reality of the width of the Himalayan Range necessitates forward deployment of even the long range heavier calibre artillery assets including rocket artillery and their equally heavy ammunition supply chain. The infrastructure will require considerable upgradation to make this possible. The rarefied air at high altitudes along the watershed imposes additional restrictions. Acclimatisation of troops is a medical necessity which if curtailed will entail heavy non-battle casualties. Weapons and equipment performance is also affected at these altitudes.

The effective range of weapons increase, blast effect radius is reduced, battery life of surveillance devices and electronic equipment is degraded and recharging is difficult as generating equipment cannot be located forward due to the haulage problems and noise which is a tactical taboo. Rotary wing aircraft performance is drastically affected. Payload capacity is reduced significantly, armed and attack helicopters are unable to operate at these altitudes. Moving forward or side-stepping of reserves is a mighty challenge.

The depth of the enemy’s tactical battle zone presents limited targets for Special Forces Operations, those that will impact the course of the defensive battle or that which can be exploited by the riposte/quid pro quo effort. While these forces can be inducted by a drop from a fixed wing aircraft their extrication is left to their own ingenuity. As a result, they are available for single missions only. Considering these imperatives, successful launching of the ‘Strike Corps’ will be determined by effectively factoring in these multifarious challenges. China too will face the heavy degradation of her potential due to terrain friction on the conduct of operations South of the watershed. Effect of altitude on men and equipment and peculiar logistics requirement are major constraints on China’s offensive designs. Any ill-considered misadventure will extract a price she cannot afford to pay.


Western Kameng

The Theatres of War

To comprehend the enormity of the Himalayan battlefield, a basic understanding of the IB/LAC would be in order. India’s IB with China begins at the tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Afghanistan-China at the Wakhan peninsula of Afghanistan. It does not include the 106 km of boundary common with only Afghanistan. It extends up to a point West of the Karakoram Pass thence traverses South as the LAC up to Gaya Peak South of Chumar in Ladakh. It again runs as the IB in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand till the Western tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Nepal-Tibet. The IB in Sikkim begins from the Eastern tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Nepal-Tibet to the Western tri-junction of the boundaries of India-Bhutan-Tibet. In Arunachal Pradesh, the LAC begins from the Eastern tri-junction of the boundary of Bhutan and the McMahon Line running along the Himalayan watershed to the tri-junction with the boundaries of India-Myanmar-Tibet. In all, a gargantuan length of 4,056 km.

The India-China boundary dispute relates mainly to Eastern Ladakh, some pockets in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand and the some areas in Arunachal Pradesh along the McMahon Line where the interpretation differs, besides the Chinese claim of 90,000 sq. kms. of territory in Arunachal Pradesh.

The PLA does not have the capability of posing a viable threat in all these locations simultaneously. It cannot ascribe a war aim as “teach a lesson”– because it is more likely that China may be taught a lesson or two in the bargain. The rise of China has been seen as a threat by most of her neighbours. However, expectedly, China has often refuted this and has stated that its rise is peaceful and not a threat to any country.

China is compelled to maintain her credibility as a responsible power, and take cognisance of the pressure of international diplomatic repercussions that will inevitably be generated in the event of a war. As a result, China is likely to activate the IB/LAC in the Ladakh sector, where she is defending her surreptitious gains and Arunachal Pradesh sector, where she stakes a large unsubstantiated territorial claim. This leaves China with limited options of suitable military objectives to achieve her possible political aims.

In Ladakh, the PLA could launch a pre-emptive to deny launch pads for any offensive by India, thereby curtail the latter’s options. Whereas in Arunachal, China will try to capture maximum territory since her claims are central to the conflict. Capturing Tawang will be the decisive geographical area that will allow her to achieve her political aim to change the status quo substantively.

On the other hand, the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) has its ‘Centres of Gravity’ very deep in TAR. Opening up areas of conflict beyond these sectors and crossing the IB at any place would be counter-intuitive to India’s non-violent pacifist image and her world-view from the political and diplomatic high moral ground. Re-constituting Tibet as a buffer between India and China is beyond India’s capability. Consequently, this new Corps as a strategic reserve will automatically be drawn into “fire-fighting” missions of limited nature, more so in the reactive scenario.

However, collateral fallout, obviously not unintentional, of the availability of the “Mountain Strike Corps” is its ability to countervail against any collusive support by China in the event of an India-Pakistan conflict. In addition, elements of this force can be detached to bolster the offensive capability of the Army across the Line of Control (LC) into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir anywhere between Chenab and Shyok Rivers. There are opinions that suggest use of such a force being employed for Out of Area Contingencies. It is unlikely that the Indian Government will resort to employing this force as such.

It is a non-sequitur considering India’s strongly held political belief of non-interference in the internal affairs of any country and adherence to non-alignment as being the cornerstone of the country’s foreign policy. Considering these realities, it is a moot point to consider raising additional forces to be pre-positioned, as reserves. This will make available uncommitted units with Brigades deployed in defences; similarly an uncommitted Brigade at Division level and independent Brigade group at the Corps level. Additional forces being side-stepped can be held as strategic reserves under the newly raised Corps. Commensurate combat support and logistic support would need to be provided by new raisings/induction.

Operationalising the Strategic Reserve

Chinese government reaction to the new ‘Strike Corps’ has been measured and somewhat detached, with their officials reiterating that they were “willing to join hands” with India to maintain peace and stability in the border areas. However, the PLA would be deliberating on the operational level implications of this development and in due course will, in all probability, modify PLA’s modernisation to evolve a doctrinal and organisational counter. As may be deduced from Hu Jinato’s report to the National Congress in March 2013, where he emphasised that – “We should strengthen the development of new and high-technology weapons and equipment, speed-up the complete development of modern logistics, train new type of high calibre military personnel in large numbers, intensively carry out military training under computerised, conditions and enhance integrated combat capability based on extensive IT application.”

Consequently, any relocating, regrouping or reorientation of its Rapid Reaction Forces and Group Armies in its Military Area Commands will need to be closely watched to appreciate the likely pattern of operations that PLA will undertake. PLA’s operations will be suitably disguised behind the cover of strategic deception and political subterfuge. On the other hand, deception in the Indian context is viewed as superfluous and treated in a perfunctory and often cursory manner both by the Armed Forces and the Government. Borne by conventional training, the Army relies on set-piece operations coupled with heavy attrition.

Asymmetric warfare, skirmish order attacks, small team operations and hybrid wars by the 4th Generation Warfare warriors are issues yet limited to officer-level discussions. Incorporating it into the Army’s plans and preparing forces to implement these as future war-fighting methodology are still a long way off. As it is because of the quantum difference in the educational standards of the officer and the soldier there is a yawning gap in the quality of planning and its subsequent execution. Planning is officer-centric while, per force, execution is decentralised to the command level of the Junior Commissioned Officers (JCO) and the Non Commissioned Officers (NCO), where there is a command weakness in independently conducting operations without detailed orders and supervision. It is certain that a similar situation, probably more acute, exists in the PLA. In the Army, per se, authority and responsibility needs to be institutionalised at the level of JCOs and NCOs particularly in the Infantry.

It is not the case here to list out any specifics of weapon systems and equipment that will be suitable for this formation in carrying out its varied and wide range of tasks that can be assigned to it. Suffice it to say that state-of-the-art weapon systems and war-waging equipment need to be authorised. These will not come cheap, nor can these be picked off a Walmart shelf. No country is willing to part with cutting-edge technology and even systems a rung or two lower in technological terms, will come at enormous cost to the exchequer. Moreover, tactics are designed around weapons, systems and equipment available. Organisations are then built around these. On consolidation, a war-fighting doctrine is drawn up. Therefore, last minute acquisitions and induction of weapon systems and equipment fail to exploit the true technological potential of the systems; they become mere replacements of existing weapon systems or equipment.

The pivotal role of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSU) cannot be over-emphasised. These organisations have to be geared for progressive Research and Development (R&D) and creating assembly lines for new systems for production to meet the requirement of the Armed Forces. The DRDO needs to continue research for product development and innovative technology. Presently, it is funded only on receipt of specific orders from the Armed Forces, which, ipso facto, places the onus of R&D of weapons, systems and equipment on the user rather than the scientists – an amusingly quaint situation.

Further, setting up of an assembly-line can begin only after the final prototype has been successful. Manufacture of hi-tech weapon systems and equipment require equally hi-tech machines for their manufacture. Designing and manufacturing these machines itself involve immense effort in R&D and expenses. Thus, setting up the assembly line would take anything between three to four years. Unfortunately, their orientation is more towards wasteful brick and mortar asset additions. The reality is that the DRDO-DPSU combine is not in a position to deliver.

A well developed infrastructure is the sine qua non for the effective launch of such an equipment heavy force. The slow pace of progress in the construction of projects is due to multiple set of obstacles encountered. These range from self-inflicted overstretch by the Border Roads Organisation to unsavoury squabbling by the civilian hierarchy of this General Reserve Engineer Force seeking to control turf. In the process, induction of modern road construction equipment has been stalled or inordinately delayed. The prolonged delays in obtaining environment and forest clearance have added to the woes. India’s unaccountable bureaucratic monolith continues to hinder in newer ways as if the onus of India’s security rests solely with the Armed Forces.

A future war of any scale cannot be fought by individual Services seeking independent objectives for a common political aim. Strategically, it appears ludicrous. The ‘Cold Start Doctrine’ was one such unilateral hypothesis. Any Service claiming to win a major war sans the other two Services is operating in some bygone era. There were protests by analysts of wasted expenditure in raising an Infantry dominated ‘Strike Corps’ for the mountains. Their arguments favoured a substantial development of the Navy as its strategic dividends of a ‘force in being’ were more credible.

Hi-tech precision munitions and domination of air space and sea lanes can only coerce an enemy to submission when exploited by ‘boots on ground’. The need is to synergise the potential of the three Services and the Para Military Forces guarding the IB/LAC as also those earmarked for the rear areas so that the combat power generated is a multiplication of the individual potential and not just their sum.

China’s diplomatic pronouncements on policies of ‘peaceful development’, ‘harmonious world’ and its stance of ‘non-interference and non-intervention’ in the internal affairs of other nations have been negated by the developments in East and South China Seas. There is a school of thought amongst the strategic analysts that the by creating this new strategic reserve India’s military strategy against China is graduating from the current ‘dissuasion’ to ‘deterrence’. In the accepted context, dissuasion is related to a superior force taking a string of measures to ensure that a potential adversary does not develop as a future challenge or begins an arms race. It does not fit the India-China dyad. Militarily, a strong deployment in those sensitive border areas may preclude localised action by the adversary. However, it may not overall result in dissuasion at the strategic level. As regards deterrence, it would be more relevant to see it at the political level. Since the decision to go to war is a political one, deterrence is affected between governments more than military to military. Here, then all elements of national power need to be synergised to defeat the enemy.

For India to emerge as a regional power and a global player, there is need for an attitudinal change. India has the wherewithal to protect its interests and assert its rights and claims. With political will, the country will forge ahead without encumbrances. The stakes are high and time is running out. India cannot remain static marking time expending energy wastefully while others zoom ahead consolidating and enhancing comprehensive national power. The location of uncommitted reserves up to Corps level and the Strategic Reserve/Mountain Strike Corps opens avenues that need courageous leadership and the will to be exploited to protect and enhance the country’s interests.

Mountain Strike Corps: A Strategic Audit » Indian Defence Review

I do not agree with following article completely but some points are worth taking note ...presenting here to put forth other side of debate .


New strike corps for China border a fiscal minefield | Business Standard


On the New Year, a flag-hoisting ceremony in Ranchi marked the raising of 17 Corps, India’s fourteenth army corps. This is the army’s first mountain strike corps (MSC), manned by more than 80,000 soldiers, who will launch offensives into enemy territory while the existing formations defend Indian soil.

Triumphal media commentary has lauded this as a caution to China after last year’s incident at Daulat Beg Oldi, when a Chinese patrol intruded into the northern tip of India in April/May and set up camp on the Indian-held Depsang Plain. India has already raised two new mountain divisions in the last five years, boosting the defence of Arunachal Pradesh by some 40,000 troops. Now, another 80,000 hope to deter Chinese adventurism.

Yet, a Business Standard analysis of defence spending suggests that the MSC will financially damage India’s military more than it could military damage China’s, by dealing a crippling blow to military modernisation. (MANAGING DEFENCE FINANCES)

Already half the defence budget goes to the army, which spends just 18 per cent of that allocation on new equipment (see chart). More than four rupees of five go on revenue expenditure — the cost of salaries, transportation, training, housing, etc — just to keep the army running. Of that, two-thirds goes on pay and allowances for 1.2 million soldiers. Adding 80,000 more will bloat the payroll unsustainably, with a further blow coming when the 7th Pay Commission raises salaries. That will drive down capital expenditure.

While the army, more than the navy and air force, is a manpower intensive force, its challenges on the mountainous northern border relate more to equipment shortages — like 155-millimetre ultra-light howitzers and towed guns, and air support — than to any dearth of manpower. The large numbers already deployed are also rendered ineffective by a poor road network that ties them down to one spot. Analysts note that this lack of roads will also prevent the strike corps from moving quickly, depriving it of the crucial element of surprise.

“The mountain strike corps will be yet another immobile, inadequately equipped formation,” predicts a top army planner.

MoD planners have glossed over the issue of funding for the MSC. Its estimated price tag of Rs 64,000 crore over the next five-eight years requires Rs 8,000 crore to be spent annually, for eight consecutive years, as units are raised and equipment procured. However, an examination of capital spending makes clear that major new expenditure cannot be absorbed. The reason — almost the entire capital budget is pre-committed to instalments for procurements made in earlier years.

In major defence purchases, payment is normally spread over five-10 years, as the vendor meets delivery-linked milestones. The army, navy and air force, like careless credit-card users, have run up so many bills that the capital allocation now largely pays for earlier buys, leaving almost nothing for new procurement.

This slide has been visible for years, especially in the reports of the 15th Lok Sabha’s Standing Committee on Defence (see chart). In 2007-08, 60 per cent of the capital budget of Rs 27,903 crore was disbursed on “committed liabilities”, ie, tranches on procurements of previous years. Just 40 per cent, ie Rs 10,997 crore was available for new buys. By 2011-12, a mere 22 per cent of the Rs 42,462 capital allocation was available for new buys. This year, the money for new buys is just Rs 2,955 crore, a minuscule four per cent of the Rs 73,444 capital allocation to the three services. Next year will be even grimmer unless the defence budget rises sharply.

MoD sources tell Business Standard that Indian negotiators are stonewalling purchases like the Rafale fighter because there is no money for the 15 per cent advance. Nor can the “committed liabilities” be raised any further.

In the circumstances, raising a MSC would require a sizable hike in the defence budget, or a major diversion of funds from the navy and air force. Given the government’s fiscal situation, the former is unlikely; bureaucrats point out that defence spending has risen fourfold since the turn of the century — from Rs 49,622 crore in 2000-01 to Rs 2,03,672 this year.

The navy and air force, which manage their revenue expenditure much more prudently than the army, have been equally profligate with capital expenditure. Their on-going liabilities prevent any significant diversion of funds to the army.

The MoD has not responded to questions about how the MSC will be financed. Military sources confirm that no internal tri-service audit was carried out of the alternatives to an MSC, such as increased land-based firepower, air power, road building or the nuclear deterrent.

Says Brigadier (Retired) Gurmeet Kanwal, who earlier headed the army’s official think tank, the Centre for Land Warfare Studies: “Since operational plans are being increasingly made jointly, a fully integrated tri-service budget is essential to synergise the utilisation of scarce financial resources.”
 
I do not agree with following article completely but some points are worth taking note ...presenting here to put forth other side of debate .


New strike corps for China border a fiscal minefield | Business Standard


On the New Year, a flag-hoisting ceremony in Ranchi marked the raising of 17 Corps, India’s fourteenth army corps. This is the army’s first mountain strike corps (MSC), manned by more than 80,000 soldiers, who will launch offensives into enemy territory while the existing formations defend Indian soil.

Triumphal media commentary has lauded this as a caution to China after last year’s incident at Daulat Beg Oldi, when a Chinese patrol intruded into the northern tip of India in April/May and set up camp on the Indian-held Depsang Plain. India has already raised two new mountain divisions in the last five years, boosting the defence of Arunachal Pradesh by some 40,000 troops. Now, another 80,000 hope to deter Chinese adventurism.

Yet, a Business Standard analysis of defence spending suggests that the MSC will financially damage India’s military more than it could military damage China’s, by dealing a crippling blow to military modernisation. (MANAGING DEFENCE FINANCES)

Already half the defence budget goes to the army, which spends just 18 per cent of that allocation on new equipment (see chart). More than four rupees of five go on revenue expenditure — the cost of salaries, transportation, training, housing, etc — just to keep the army running. Of that, two-thirds goes on pay and allowances for 1.2 million soldiers. Adding 80,000 more will bloat the payroll unsustainably, with a further blow coming when the 7th Pay Commission raises salaries. That will drive down capital expenditure.

While the army, more than the navy and air force, is a manpower intensive force, its challenges on the mountainous northern border relate more to equipment shortages — like 155-millimetre ultra-light howitzers and towed guns, and air support — than to any dearth of manpower. The large numbers already deployed are also rendered ineffective by a poor road network that ties them down to one spot. Analysts note that this lack of roads will also prevent the strike corps from moving quickly, depriving it of the crucial element of surprise.

“The mountain strike corps will be yet another immobile, inadequately equipped formation,” predicts a top army planner.

MoD planners have glossed over the issue of funding for the MSC. Its estimated price tag of Rs 64,000 crore over the next five-eight years requires Rs 8,000 crore to be spent annually, for eight consecutive years, as units are raised and equipment procured. However, an examination of capital spending makes clear that major new expenditure cannot be absorbed. The reason — almost the entire capital budget is pre-committed to instalments for procurements made in earlier years.

In major defence purchases, payment is normally spread over five-10 years, as the vendor meets delivery-linked milestones. The army, navy and air force, like careless credit-card users, have run up so many bills that the capital allocation now largely pays for earlier buys, leaving almost nothing for new procurement.

This slide has been visible for years, especially in the reports of the 15th Lok Sabha’s Standing Committee on Defence (see chart). In 2007-08, 60 per cent of the capital budget of Rs 27,903 crore was disbursed on “committed liabilities”, ie, tranches on procurements of previous years. Just 40 per cent, ie Rs 10,997 crore was available for new buys. By 2011-12, a mere 22 per cent of the Rs 42,462 capital allocation was available for new buys. This year, the money for new buys is just Rs 2,955 crore, a minuscule four per cent of the Rs 73,444 capital allocation to the three services. Next year will be even grimmer unless the defence budget rises sharply.

MoD sources tell Business Standard that Indian negotiators are stonewalling purchases like the Rafale fighter because there is no money for the 15 per cent advance. Nor can the “committed liabilities” be raised any further.

In the circumstances, raising a MSC would require a sizable hike in the defence budget, or a major diversion of funds from the navy and air force. Given the government’s fiscal situation, the former is unlikely; bureaucrats point out that defence spending has risen fourfold since the turn of the century — from Rs 49,622 crore in 2000-01 to Rs 2,03,672 this year.

The navy and air force, which manage their revenue expenditure much more prudently than the army, have been equally profligate with capital expenditure. Their on-going liabilities prevent any significant diversion of funds to the army.

The MoD has not responded to questions about how the MSC will be financed. Military sources confirm that no internal tri-service audit was carried out of the alternatives to an MSC, such as increased land-based firepower, air power, road building or the nuclear deterrent.

Says Brigadier (Retired) Gurmeet Kanwal, who earlier headed the army’s official think tank, the Centre for Land Warfare Studies: “Since operational plans are being increasingly made jointly, a fully integrated tri-service budget is essential to synergise the utilisation of scarce financial resources.”

All of which becomes moot since we do not have a tri-services command or chief. But the MSC is necessary, learning from 62 has resulted in its demand (on and off across decades actually) since back then we denuded our forces trying to hold a peak here and a pass there while the Chinese forces opted to fight a mobile campaign and out-flanked and out-maneuvered us. The point here is to make vertical envelopment of AP impossible, which the MSC can and will do.
 
Last edited:
All of which becomes moot since we do not have a tri-services command or chief. But the MSC is necessary, leaning from 62 has resulted in its demand (on and off across decades actually) since back then we denuded our forces trying to hold a peak here and a pass there while the Chinese forces opted to fight a mobile campaign and out-flanked and out-maneuvered us. The point here is to make vertical envelopment of AP impossible, which the MSC can and will do.

what is the logic to base MSC at Panagarh , West Bengal ?

The Pak specific Strike corps are also located deep in interior of India ...

Does that serve the purpose ?
 
what is the logic to base MSC at Panagarh , West Bengal ?

The Pak specific Strike corps are also located deep in interior of India ...

Does that serve the purpose ?
Can you imagine a preemptive strike to destroy MSC or any strength? If near to border ofcourse that is easy. It could just be a disaster. Imagine a navy having its aircraft carrier sunk during War.

Can you imagine a preemptive strike to destroy MSC or any strength? If near to border ofcourse that is easy. It could just be a disaster. Imagine a navy having its aircraft carrier sunk during War.
To add to that. It is a very strategic location. IMO if MSC is based in NE, say like Assam. If china cut off that by coming through Siliguri Corridor or Bhutan, it would be a desperate situation. There is also no Infrastrucutre in NE. Location in West Bengal gives the leverage on Siliguri Corridor and NE
 
Last edited:
Can you imagine a preemptive strike to destroy MSC or any strength? If near to border ofcourse that is easy. It could just be a disaster. Imagine a navy having its aircraft carrier sunk during War.

Is that the only reason ?

and what insurance we have that such pre emptive attack won't take place on the very MSC headquarter ? our Air defence system ?

The Operation Parakram did show the flaw of keeping claws too deep ? Isn't it ?

I agree they need not be on the border per se ?

But then how near is too near ...and how far is too far ?

what about the operational readiness of MSC ....if the mountain readiness is the key towards realizing its goal ?

MSC based at Panagarh ...will it be mountain worthy ...in the sense will it have necessary conditioning and acclimatization required to sustain high altitude warfare ?

To add to that. It is a very strategic location. IMO if MSC is based in NE, say like Assam. If china cut off that by coming through Siliguri Corridor or Bhutan, it would be a desperate situation. There is also no Infrastrucutre in NE. Location in West Bengal gives the leverage on Siliguri Corridor and NE


such an operational doctrine is absolutely pessimistic and fatalistic !

It is like trying to say that we are writing off whole of north east even before war has begun !

If there is no infrastructure in NE we should develop one ...rather than fooling with such self defeating doctrines ....

what message do we give to enemy and our own people in North east by such stance of ours ?
 
Last edited:
Is that the only reason ?

and what insurance we have that such pre emptive attack won't take place on the very MSC headquarter ? our Air defence system ?

The Operation Parakram did show the flaw of keeping claws too deep ? Isn't it ?

I agree they need not be on the border per se ?

But then how near is too near ...and how far is too far ?

what about the operational readiness of MSC ....if the mountain readiness is the key towards realizing its goal ?

MSC based at Panagarh ...will it be mountain worthy ...in the sense will it have necessary conditioning and acclimatization required to sustain high altitude warfare ?
Why would you want an Offensive corps at border? We have defensive corps there to hold. Offensive corps are based in deep to counterattack and ofcourse they are the strength

Operation Parakaram highlighted problems with mobility. That needs to be improved. MSC is planned to be very mobile from start. IA can take the risk of putting 1/2 strike corp near to Pakistan Border but can it do in case of China? It can't
 
Why would you want an Offensive corp at border? We have defensive corps there to hold. Offensive corps are based in deep to counterattack and ofcourse they are the strength

Operation Parakaram highlighted problems with mobility. That needs to be improved. MSC is planned to be very mobile from start. IA can take the risk of putting 1/2 strike corp near to Pakistan Border but can it do in case of China? It can't

I agree with that part ...
But what about my second question ?

what about the operational readiness of MSC ....if the mountain readiness is the key towards realizing its goal ?
MSC based at Panagarh ...will it be mountain worthy ...in the sense will it have necessary conditioning and acclimatization required to sustain high altitude warfare ?
 
I agree with that part ...
But what about my second question ?

what about the operational readiness of MSC ....if the mountain readiness is the key towards realizing its goal ?
MSC based at Panagarh ...will it be mountain worthy ...in the sense will it have necessary conditioning and acclimatization required to sustain high altitude warfare ?

I saw several people checking this thread, was expecting someone would respond to you.

what I know is, Infantry of all strike corps is routinely posted in forward areas. Artillery, Armored do training/exercise. They would also be posted with/without their equipment for acclimatization. Their doctrine as Unit would be validated during exercises.

I agree with that part ...
But what about my second question ?

what about the operational readiness of MSC ....if the mountain readiness is the key towards realizing its goal ?
MSC based at Panagarh ...will it be mountain worthy ...in the sense will it have necessary conditioning and acclimatization required to sustain high altitude warfare ?
BTW, one important thing. Corps has its headquarter in WB but that does not really mean every god damn thing of it would be based there. Some Infantry, Artillery, Armored divisions and other constituents of the corps can be permanently based at different place. Panagarh will have top hierarchy and things like ammunition dump, training place, barracks
 
Last edited:
I saw several people checking this thread, was expecting someone would respond to you.

what I know is, Infantry of all strike corps is routinely posted in forward areas. Artillery, Armored do training/exercise. They would also be posted with/without their equipment for acclimatization. Their doctrine as Unit would be validated during exercises.


BTW, one important thing. Corps has its headquarter in WB but that does not really mean every god damn thing of it would be based there. Some Infantry, Artillery, Armored divisions and other constituents of the corps can be permanently based at different place. Panagarh will have top hierarchy and things like ammunition dump, training place, barracks

I understand what you are trying to stay ...but I do not understand how exactly it can be achieved practically ...It looks easy on paper ...

Even in plains it took us almost a month to deploy our strike corps on International border during Operation Parakram ... after which Sundarji Doctrine on whoch the Strike Corps concept is based was criticized ...and so called Cold start doctrine was adopted .

Imagine what will happen if we have to deploy MSC to mountainous areas ?

what is the purpose of MSC ? Counter-offensive invasion of enemy territory ...It will have to be swift and fast to achieve stated objective of taking enemy by surprise ...

Now how that will be possible with regards to china ...

I can understand that for practical purpose the headquarter will be based in deep interior ...but are you sure that the troops will be based or border ?

I do not understand the logic of placing troops at one place and its auxillary units somewhere else .
Placing troops in forward areas without its equipment makes no sense .

The troops have to remain stationed in mountain area if they have to remain acclimatized ....

Acclimatization is not a permanent process ....moment they are removed from high altitude the deconditioning begins and is complete within few weeks ...

So I understand this issue has to be taken into consideration ...

and if that is the case then saying that MSC is based at Panagarh is looks like sort of downplaying and twisting of the actual truth ...
 
Last edited:
Why would you want an Offensive corps at border? We have defensive corps there to hold. Offensive corps are based in deep to counterattack and ofcourse they are the strength

The reason one should have offensive corps near border is to achieve swift ingress in enemy territory in even of war ...
Time being the essence ...to achieve first lead in war .

Your point regarding of pre-emptive strike does not make sense because war will not take place along whole border simultaneously ...and neither strike corps should be concentrated at single point along the border ...

so I do not envisage that Enemy will or can have so many pre emptive attacks all along the international border ...

E.g. If war breaks out in ladakh sector ...our strike corps based along NE border can rapidly invade Tibet ...to take enemy by surprise .

Imagine how much time will take to mobilise full strength MSC - men as well as machine if atleast some of its parts are located at panagarh ...

Dividing and spreading your assets along the border makes sense ...because one single concentrated asset is easy to take out and difficult to mobilise ...

I also do not understand why we do not wish to base Mountain strike corps in NE states ...where the invasion is likely to take place ?

If chicken's neck is our concern then all the more need to develop infrastructure in NE and make it defendable ...!

I can't accept the doctrine that is based on hypothetical situation whereby India want to base its Strike corps in west Bengal so that even if whole of North east has been swallowed by China it's Strike Corps will remain intact....It's absolutely fatalistic ...
 
@nik22

Hope you will find following article interesting ...it answers some of my questions ,,,but not all !


Mountain Strike Corps, Pros and Cons of Mountain Strike Corps, India's new preparedness in mountains, Mountain warfare preparation by India, Analysis of Mountain Strike Corps

The Mountain Strike Corps – An oxymoron in search of innovation

India is experiencing increasingly complex challenges in and around itself. Besides adapting to the economic, social, political, geo-political and ecological changes, we need to create new responses to our challenges that have emerged or are just round the corner. The rising, more assertive China calls for an Indian need to create a structured, informed, comprehensive and unambiguous response – immediately. The response has to be an integrated ensemble of doctrine, organization, technology and strategy. I call this response DOTS – short for Doctrine, Organization structure, Technology and Strategy. The immediate key challenges are
  • Responding to a comprehensive, controlled and integrated Chinese assertiveness backed by a unilateral posturing and meddling in multiple dimensions – economic, geopolitical, military, and foreign relations.
  • Creating a credible, conventional, rapidly executable response against Chinese Military that is feasible and effective under the threat of nuclear war constraints
  • Understanding, developing and creating – infrastructure, capability and response to the disruptive nature of information war
  • Maritime capability and response for the high seas in a rising China and declining US world
India has embarked on responding to these in a piecemeal manner. Therein lays the challenge of creating a holistic response. We focus below the high media circulated and discussed Mountain Strike Corps and its DOTS
What will the Mountain Strike Corps Do and How?
With the announcement of creation of a Mountain Strike Corps India is in the process of creating a new organization structure. The employment and operationalizing this new structure requires a comprehensive thinking to identify key problems, challenges and opportunities to be addressed. What are the key functions, objectives and capabilities that the Mountain Strike corps should have?
What should be the organization structure of the Mountain Strike Corps? Should it be based on light armour and motorized infantry? Should it be based on light infantry? Should it utilize heavy artillery? Should it have an integrated air-assault component? Will the UCAV/UAV based capabilities change the organization structure? Should it be a completely new organization structure with new operational concepts, new systems and new technology? India need to answer these questions looking at the specific needs. The objective is to define key needs for the mountain strike corps based on its functions, doctrine, strategy and organizational structure. This should lead to development of key technologies, systems, combat systems, combat support systems, and identification of key challenges that should be met.
India faces two hostile foes in Pakistan and China. The military problem is that the borders with both these countries are very different. For example, against Pakistan the armour based operations are possible although the line of sight in plains of Punjab may be less than 1000m, yet tanks have fairly open space to make deep inroads. Desert with more than 3000m line of sight and large open space is definitely a tank warfare arena. It is really against China, India faces a very different terrain. The tank operations in mountains are extremely difficult and in fact likely to be useless as tanks may become sitting ducks when their mobility is either not possible or at best reduced considerably. The infantry becomes the key force for the army. The next dimension of warfare – that is the air is available to create a possible synergy for developing military capability and operations that are more potent and efficient. The nature of war against Pak and against China will be different – hence what will be an armor based war with Pak, will have to be infantry/mountain plus air war against China. Do we have a doctrine for Air-Mountain Battle doctrine? The Air-land battle doctrine – the conceptual constructs of that doctrine – employed in Iraq by US/Allies was developed in 1980s. Where are conceptual constructs of India’s Air-Mountain battle doctrine? It is time to debate and create the conceptual constructs of such a uniquely Indian doctrine which our peculiar border terrain and a cunning and powerful adversary demands? The current acquisition of C130s and C17s indicates some thoughts on Air mobility and theater switching of brigade size forces. Following Sun Tzu – why we should fight the Chinese war, instead we should create the scenarios and reactions where we should be taking initiatives against China and Pakistan, not reacting to their strategic surprises.In summary, we need to create an integrated Air-Mountain Warfare doctrine. This then should also integrate Space dimension, Cyber dimension and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) dimensions for the border against China.

(Image Credit: REUTERS/Utpal Baruah)
The Mountain Strike – An Oxymoron
The dedicated strike formations are tasked to create options for going deep inside the enemy territory and destroy, degrade or disrupt enemy follow on forces, occupy enemy territory, in general, win the war for the host by separating and demolishing enemy’s war making capability. The follow-on-forces attack (FOFA) attack was the doctrine NATO forces created in 1980s against the Warsaw pact forces in heavily interlocked European theatre on both sides of the iron curtain.
The Indian Army of 2014 will need to understand that new capability today is not created or enhanced just by adding more hands and legs. That is the scaling-up method of the mass-manufacturing past of the industrial world and will lead to an unstable structures. Innovation is the need at all levels. One organizational response Indian Army created in the past which can arguably be termed “innovative” is what General Sunderji did late in 1980s – leading to mechanization of infantry and creation of potential combined arms in the form of Reorganized Army Plains Infantry Divisions (RAPIDS) and Reorganized Army Mountains Infantry Divisions (RAMIDS). The subsequent organization and mechanization of infantry, although, was diluted. In fact, RAMIDs remained at a concept level only. In 1990s Indian Army created Artillery Divisions – for focusing firepower. In 2000s, Army’s new doctrine of organizing its strike corps into 8 Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs) called Cold Start Doctrine (CSD) against Pakistan resulted ostensibly in Pakistan developing tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in the form of NASR – a modification of traditional multi barrel rocket launchers.
Against China, we have a new concept of a mountain strike corps. However, going by the RAMIDs order of battle (orbat) and the fate of RAMIDs which remained more or less a conceptual construct rather than an actual change at ground level, the Mountain Strike Corps (MSC) requires a leap of faith that has been unprecedented in the history of Indian Army’s doctrine creation so far. May be, we will see a disruptive innovation from Indian Army, this time.
The key message, however, is in stark contrast to the possibility of innovation. In the nomenclature, the syntax and semantics of Indian Army, naming the new formation as Mountain Strike Corps indicates to an existing connotation of the concept of strike corps. Indian army’s existing three strike corps, all deployed and to be used against Pakistan are based on traditional armored/Tank warfare. Each strike corps has an armored division (although the tanks are old T-72s and new T-90s) and mechanized infantry (Russian BMP IIs) to be used as a mobile high momentum firepower going deeper in the open spaces of plains of Punjab and desert of Rajasthan sectors. If the word “strike” map to tank/armored warfare in the Indian Army mind, as is evident, the mountain strike corps will map to mountain tank warfare. Tanks in cluttered mountainous terrain reduce almost to the level of heavy artillery; although with less firepower than the heavy artillery of say 155mm caliber guns. The key capability of the Tanks – their mobility is nullified in the mountain terrain. The war in mountains is excruciatingly slow, compared to war in say desert. The rule of thumb – a heuristic used by armies based on historical data, is to have 3:1 ratio of attackers to defenders for a victory in plains and deserts. This ratio increases to 6:1 in mountains, giving 2 times an advantage to defenders with prepared positions in mountains compared to same in plains. The heavy armor in mountains is actually a silly option – whether tracked or wheeled. The key combat value of tanks – the mobility is considerably reduced. However, the tanks slow down the infantry troops that potentially can move relatively faster in the valleys, passes, tunnels and narrow ridges and unannounced protrusions that one encounters in the mountainous terrains. The key traditional doctrinal construct is to use light infantry and occupy the hill tops – the higher you are, the better you are against enemy. The strike through the mountains using armor doesn’t make sense. In that sense, mountain strike corps based on tanks is an oxymoron. Hopefully, it is just the nomenclature and Indian Army has thought about an organization or orbat for its new MSC which is not predominantly based on raising new armored divisions or even armored brigades.
The Mountain Strike – has to be air-mobile if not air assault
Since “strike” as a function requires rapid mobility of forces deep inside the enemy territory, one need to consider different means to accomplish the “strike”. The mobility of firepower deep inside enemy territory, need to be accomplished with comprehensive protection. The Tank/armor gave such a capability to move deep inside enemy territory. The artillery was not accurate to stop tanks and infantry didn’t have sufficient firepower to penetrate 700 mm of heavy steel layers of a main battle tank. The anti-tank missiles and guns have comprehensively increased in their capability to stop tanks, yet a brigade of tanks (about 3 x regiments of 45 tanks each ~ 135 Tanks) is a very difficult proposition to stop by sheer infantry and indirect firepower of artillery.
In the mountains, however, the protected mobility of comprehensive firepower has to be accomplished by taking the aerial route. The air route changes the game comprehensively for defenders who might have taken prepared positions on the hilltops. Suddenly they can become easy targets in the absence of their airpower. The Kargil war, in 1999, showed the value of airpower, although Indian Air Force (IAF) realized after the loss of its Mig 27 and helicopters that the solution lays in using precise standoff weapons. The Mirage 2000 of IAF, when they were modified to release laser guided bombs (LGBs) at safe distance from the enemy shoulder fired SAMs, were able to destroy the enemy positions on hill tops with relative ease. The skills required and learned on the job to release LGBs at higher distance by the IAF, needs to be appreciated. However, the Kargil war was a peculiar conflict. The enemy had occupied Indian side of the hills. There was no Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Had they intruded inside Indian Territory, the war would have spiraled into a full scale war, with Indian forces given free hand to strike deep inside Pakistan.
So, the mountain strike corps essentially has to create its “strike” component using air assets or air-borne or air-droppable assets. Predominantly it has to accomplish the protected movement of firepower deep inside enemy through the air route, bypassing the prepared hill top positions of the enemy troops. This requires a comprehensive air-mobile capability. The USA can operate air assault divisions with a comprehensive set of equipment and aircraft dedicated for achieving protected mobility of firepower which unleashes deep inside enemy the destructive power.
Indian mountain strike corps per-se need to have strong hopping capability – the helicopter definitely is one option. However, it requires local air superiority to be achieved and an ability to escape enemy’s SAMs and anti-air artillery. Given the constraints and the need, the Mountain strike corps is predominantly infantry, 80,000 new troops indicate anyway to the thinking. These troops need to be backed up by heavy helicopter support, attack helicopters, alternative mountain mobility options, supported by unmanned aerial vehicles and potentially unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UAV/UCAV). The para-commandoes and dedicated aircraft for para dropping need to be included in the orbat of the MSC.
With the induction of C-17 globemaster strategic airlift aircraft and C-130 transport aircraft, IAF will have a capability to lift a brigade equivalent across theaters and potentially para-drop inside enemy territory. Combining with dedicated Bramhos 290 km missile regiment, MSC should be able carry considerable firepower.
I propose two key areas of immediate innovation that should be considered for the Mountain Strike Corps – one is to create a new orbat at Mountain Strike Corps Platoons and create an integrated logistics support system (ILSS) for the MSC.
Ground level orbat of a mountain strike corps platoon
I have been proposing a relook at our infantry at the company or platoon level since 1998. The proposal below was proposed in a conference held at DRDO named Battle Scene in 2020. The proposed platoon level change (a platoon is part of a company and has 30+ troops – composed of 3 sections of 10 soldiers each- typically a homogeneous orbat). The section of 10 soldiers is the basic fighting unit of infantry. The proposal was to change the orbat of platoons into three heterogeneous sections. The rationale behind it is given below.
The small, independent, information warfare capable units should be linked together through a series of multi-purpose, redundant, reliable, fault tolerant and intelligent communications links, Command and control (C2) nodes, logistics support links and Space and Electronic Warfare (SEW) links. These links should be secured and should pervade over whole battle space, where the battle space is defined as the whole extent of enemy forces including theater combat forces, strategic links, logistics dumps and command centers. Therefore the capabilities needed for are not only to observe our own space and terrain, but also the space and terrain of the potential enemies with an aim to rapidly move a large number of our highly mobile units capable of information combat and physical destruction of the enemy. These units will be called PICK (Platoons Information Combat and Killer) platoons. The PICK will be organized into three sections – Arms Section, Information Warfare section and C4ISR section. The organization of proposed PICKs is given below.

Integrated Logistics Support System (ILSS)
Any organization that continues to operate with a logistics system designed for one environment, but operating in another, is bound to incur economic inefficiencies and operational ineffectiveness. Most of today’s military organizations face just such a situation. The Future warfare will have two fundamental impacts upon logistics system. Firstly, mobility of field forces has been a keystone. But mobility is greatly limited to the extent that the logistics system constrains it, particularly with the requirement of co-location. Mobile forces require flexible logistics systems. Secondly, the monetary value of field equipment, resulting from the introduction of electronics and advanced weaponry has risen rapidly. Overstocking rifles and ammunition may not have been relatively expensive, but overstocking electronic direction finding equipment is. Hence, two prime requisites of future logistics support are that it must enhance rather than detract from mobility and it must be accurate in its knowledge of what material is where.
The complexity of modern day support suggests that the needs of the user will be best served by an integration of the functional specialists within a single support organization that has direct access to the most vital logistic information. This indicates that the creation of an ILSS could provide visibility of assets including: quantity, condition, authorized stock levels, location and items in transit. An ILSS specialist, provided with a single command structure, should be able, upon direction, to redistribute assets anywhere within his command on a priority basis within a very short time frame.
Conclusions
The doctrinal shift of Indian Army – forced or designed – to create a Mountain Strike Corps is a welcome shift. The connotation of strike corps in Indian Army psyche is based on armored based force – Tanks are the key icon of the army’s morale and their choice of the strike deep inside enemy. In the mountains however, tanks are not only ineffective but they create constraints for the infantry as well. The strike in mountains requires a rethink. The rethink needs innovation at the doctrine, organization, technology and strategy (DOTS) level.
The better proposition would be an integration of multiple capabilities to achieve the function and mission. Here whatever the mountain strike corps needs to accomplish should be thought through synergistic structure based on information, combat and integration of logistics. A true integrated C5ISR system is needed. We have proposed two key organizational shifts – a concept of a platoon – termed PICK (platoon Information combat and killer) and creating a dedicated integrated logistics support system (ILSS).
Needless to say, the mountain strike based on current strike corps of Indian army is an oxymoron. Innovation in the DOTS will make the Mountain Strike Corps a truly valuable construct that increases the deterrence value of Indian Army to any future Chinese adventure – planned or unplanned.



@levina , @thesolar65 , @proud_indian , @Kloitra , @Skull and Bones , @griffin ,
@sandy_3126 , @hinduguy ,@Abingdonboy ,@Koovie , @kbd-raaf , @kaykay ,@IndoUS

@jarves , @Lil Mathew ,@kurup , @INDIC , @Screambowl ,@pursuit of happiness , @gslv mk3

@gslv , @danish_vij , @Bhai Zakir ,@Daedalus ,@Bhasad Singh Mundi , @Ayush

@VeeraBahadur , @HariPrasad , @KRAIT , @Hermione , @DRAY , @GR!FF!N
 
Last edited:
One sort of off topic question. Why is it when seemingly well written articles are posted on Indian defense.. they sound more and more like self-fellatio preceding any actual development. Sort of like a " We will kick ***.. we will do this.. ...yada yada yada."
With the final single paragraph at the end " to carry out the above kicking *** and India win.. we need to create an artificial black hole"..

Well structured paragraph and good vocabulary do not always compensate for hollow reading where one is inclined to roll their eyes.
 
One sort of off topic question. Why is it when seemingly well written articles are posted on Indian defense.. they sound more and more like self-fellatio preceding any actual development. Sort of like a " We will kick ***.. we will do this.. ...yada yada yada."
With the final single paragraph at the end " to carry out the above kicking *** and India win.. we need to create an artificial black hole"..

Well structured paragraph and good vocabulary do not always compensate for hollow reading where one is inclined to roll their eyes.

Mountain strike Corps have been sanctioned after almost 4 decades ..of 1962 debacle ...
So I guess the need to discuss the threadbare of its pros and cons and debate it ... especially given the fiscal situation that MOD faces for now...

I do not understand what exactly you have objection with ...
I find this article an attempt to analyze various aspects ...It does not seem jingoistic in any sense to me...
 
Mountain strike Corps have been sanctioned after almost 4 decades ..of 1962 debacle ...
So I guess the need to discuss the threadbare of its pros and cons and debate it ... especially given the fiscal situation that MOD faces for now...

I do not understand what exactly you have objection with ...
I find this article an attempt to analyze various aspects ...It does not seem jingoistic in any sense to me...

The first article has a very leaning tone towards it. Its not the debate I question.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom