Obsessed with NASR

[Signalian]

Any guess as to why multiple missiles would be needed?
The answer is simple, lack in accuracy is compensated by firing several missiles in succession.
So there you go!
This was the reason why i asked CEP of NASR.

Wrong.
Its evident that you have never seen an armoured force on the move neither have you seen a Multiple Launcher type system firing. An armoured brigade sized force can cover a lot of area, multiple launchers are to create havoc in this area as much as possible. Target maybe be mobile or stationary but its isnt a 1 missile vs 1 tank scenario. Traversing horizontally can also change azimuths while firing, just an option. Stopping 4-6 tanks spread apart in a certain area isnt useful by a single missile(depending upon separation of tanks) but 4 missiles can be used to take out atleast 20+ tanks so to render 50% fighting strength of the armoured regiment useless. Bring 2-3 NASR Multiple launchers (8-12 missiles) and the whole armoured brigade can be targeted, roughly 80 tanks and 50 IFV/APC.
Shoot and scoot systems need to create maximum damage in one go and get out quick. 4 ready to fire missiles are better Vs reloading on single launcher takes time.

 

[Hellfire]

Wrong.
Its evident that you have never seen an armoured force on the move neither have you seen a Multiple Launcher type system firing. An armoured brigade sized force can cover a lot of area, multiple launchers are to create havoc in this area as much as possible. Target maybe be mobile or stationary but its isnt a 1 missile vs 1 tank scenario. Traversing horizontally can also change azimuths while firing, just an option. Stopping 4-6 tanks spread apart in a certain area isnt useful by a single missile(depending upon separation of tanks) but 4 missiles can be used to take out atleast 20+ tanks so to render 50% fighting strength of the armoured regiment useless. Bring 2-3 NASR Multiple launchers (8-12 missiles) and the whole armoured brigade can be targeted, roughly 80 tanks and 50 IFV/APC.
Shoot and scoot systems need to create maximum damage in one go and get out quick. 4 ready to fire missiles are better Vs reloading on single launcher takes time.

May I point out that this post may also be directed at your countryman Tipu7 who needs to be told a spread of armoured unit in conventional battle and that in non-conventional?

He simply gets into the physics of things without understanding the number of warheads a NASR regiment will require to neutralise an Armoured Brigade!!!!

 

[Signalian]

May I point out that this post may also be directed at your countryman Tipu7 who needs to be told a spread of armoured unit in conventional battle and that in non-conventional?

He simply gets into the physics of things without understanding the number of warheads a NASR regiment will require to neutralise an Armoured Brigade!!!!

i have not read Tipu's posts, so dont know what he was on about.

In any case, its better to be prepared for the worst case.
I have earlier posted about a spread out formation which requires multiple launching, but the indian formation can also be advancing in close promixity thus offering more targets with less missiles fired. This can happen due to any of following reasons:
Mine fields restrict spread out movement.
fuel supply restricts movement along a certain way points
By-passing pakistani entrenched positions or flanking from behind restricts spreading out
quick sand type terrain
avoiding pakistani rangers patrols
concentration of indian armoured forces in a certain area before an assault

Still, an indian armoured thrust, its strength and its direction can be predicted upto 80% by PA, however, usage of NASR remains a mystery upto a certain extent. Secondly, there is a probability that PA gunships will be involved in stopping indian armor as they can be switched easily within minutes from one battlefield to another. and there will be many limitations and factors for both sides.

 

[Levina]

Wrong.
Its evident that you have never seen an armoured force on the move neither have you seen a Multiple Launcher type system firing. An armoured brigade sized force can cover a lot of area, multiple launchers are to create havoc in this area as much as possible. Target maybe be mobile or stationary but its isnt a 1 missile vs 1 tank scenario. Traversing horizontally can also change azimuths while firing, just an option. Stopping 4-6 tanks spread apart in a certain area isnt useful by a single missile(depending upon separation of tanks) but 4 missiles can be used to take out atleast 20+ tanks so to render 50% fighting strength of the armoured regiment useless. Bring 2-3 NASR Multiple launchers (8-12 missiles) and the whole armoured brigade can be targeted, roughly 80 tanks and 50 IFV/APC.
Shoot and scoot systems need to create maximum damage in one go and get out quick. 4 ready to fire missiles are better Vs reloading on single launcher takes time.

Not as if I don't understand that it's not 1 missile Vs 1 tank.
But my point was, NASR lacks accuracy, one reason why CEP was not released to public.
Many claim it to be a very dangerous missile- I accept. A tac nuke fired can start a nuke war in region- dangerous. But not because of NASR's "capabilities".

 

[Hellfire]

@Levina

The diameter of NASR is 30 cms (?) so it shall be a sub-kiloton in all probability. The likeliness to US M31 MLRS system is quote striking if you want an analogy.

 

[Levina]

NASR is 30 cms (?)

Thin, yes.

sub-kiloton in all probability

Yes.

The likeliness to US M31 MLRS system is quote striking if you want an analogy.

Range and diameter wise, yes.
Here are few things that i wanted to bring to other's notice, specially the Pakistanis.

The truth is, a lightweight nuclear weapons use more fissionable materials than their big brothers. So that must be the reason National academies press says this about NASR

http://www.nap.edu/read/10471/chapter/6#74

 

[Signalian]

Not as if I don't understand that it's not 1 missile Vs 1 tank.
But my point was, NASR lacks accuracy, one reason why CEP was not released to public.
Many claim it to be a very dangerous missile- I accept. A tac nuke fired can start a nuke war in region- dangerous. But not because of NASR's "capabilities".

Your assumption lacks substance based on reason CEP not released to public. Since a nuke war could be started, thats enough reason for India to lay off CSD, NASR has done its job.

 

[LaaL]

Wrong.
Its evident that you have never seen an armoured force on the move neither have you seen a Multiple Launcher type system firing. An armoured brigade sized force can cover a lot of area, multiple launchers are to create havoc in this area as much as possible. Target maybe be mobile or stationary but its isnt a 1 missile vs 1 tank scenario. Traversing horizontally can also change azimuths while firing, just an option. Stopping 4-6 tanks spread apart in a certain area isnt useful by a single missile(depending upon separation of tanks) but 4 missiles can be used to take out atleast 20+ tanks so to render 50% fighting strength of the armoured regiment useless. Bring 2-3 NASR Multiple launchers (8-12 missiles) and the whole armoured brigade can be targeted, roughly 80 tanks and 50 IFV/APC.
Shoot and scoot systems need to create maximum damage in one go and get out quick. 4 ready to fire missiles are better Vs reloading on single launcher takes time.

Wrong Sir Nasr was designed to fry bull brigade of armored corps by fielding sub KT to 1.5 KT warheads of neutron war heads which means single unit of Nasr missile can destroy up to 100 or more tanks stretching 5 miles square area.

Check the accuracy of Nasr @Levina @Sarge

 

[Signalian]

Wrong Sir Nasr was designed to fry bull brigade of armored corps by fielding sub KT to 1.5 KT warheads of neutron war heads which means single unit of Nasr missile can destroy up to 100 or more tanks stretching 5 miles square area.

NASR can destroy a 1000 tanks in a 5 mile square area, but will IA armoured brigade put 80+ tanks in a 5 mile square area over a desert terrain? NO.

Do you know the area of responsibility given to a brigade? if you dont, then dont embarrass yourself please.

Check the accuracy of Nasr @Levina @Sarge

I hold no issues regarding accuracy of NASR.

 

[LaaL]

NASR can destroy a 1000 tanks in a 5 mile square area, but will IA armoured brigade put 80+ tanks in a 5 mile square area over a desert terrain? NO.

Do you know the area of responsibility given to a brigade? if you dont, then dont embarrass yourself please.


I hold no issues regarding accuracy of NASR.

Just read Chawinda battle they always went crazy with their nonsense military plans which end up in a shameful humiliating defeat.
And the person your are addressing put condition on me that he will guide me that how to create new thread if i agrees with him on Kashmir issue ....how silly he is.

 

[Signalian]

Just read Chawinda battle they always went crazy with their nonsense military plans which end up in a shameful humiliating defeat.
And the person your are addressing put condition on me that he will guide me that how to create new thread if i agrees with him on Kashmir issue ....how silly he is.

Battle of Chawinda is long gone. formations, weapons, doctrines, strategies have changed alot. Chawinda was bravery of 25 cavalry of 100th Indp Armoured Brigade, later joined by two more regiments and then remnants of PA 1st armoured Division.

Moderators, sorry for going off topic a bit here.

After studying battles in 48,65,71,99, none seemed impressive. I couldnt find anything close to Field Masrshal Erwin Rommel or Field Marshal Zhukov. I took just two names because these two commanders were 80% of the time under strength, had inferior weapons, had lesser supplies and ammunition but succeeded to a greater extent under unfavourable conditions. If you look at armies of Pakistan and India, they also face such issues but donot gather huge victories nor produce such generals.
The Americans and British Generals like Patton or Montgomery usually enjoyed numerical superiority or excellent air cover and impressive amount of supplies and ammunition. I give credit only to Dwight D Eisenhower, who kept allied nations together and harmonious during drive into Europe.

Coming back to subcontinent, the IA drive into East Pakistan in 1971 was a 7 month preparation, compare that to Rommel, he landed and with a handful of units straightaway went onto offensive and twice drove the British thousands of km back towards Egypt. IA enjoyed numerical superiority in men, tanks, artillery, aircrafts, naval vessels, ammunition and supplies, whereas, Rommel was always under-strength,under-equipped and under-supplied.

If Rommel was the commander in Chawinda Battle, he would have driven the IA 1st armoured division and 6th mountain division back into India instead of staying on defensive and repulsing attacks only.
Come in modern times, if Rommel was the commander of PA 5-Corps or 31-Corps in desert , maybe you wouldnt even see the use of NASR in his sector. With his guile, ways of deceiving enemy, usage of weapons and constant offensive plan, he could take on any enemy superior in strength with whatever amount of forces available to him.

Major General Iftikhar Janjua was one of the best that PA produced and had some similarities with Rommel. Both were infantry officers but commanded armoured forces at some stages in their career and both conducted successful operations under their belts even though out-numbered. As a brigade commander in 1965, he threw the IA out of Rann of Kutch and in 1971,commanding 23rd infantry division, he reached his objective, Chhamb and pressed on into Indian held Kashmir until his martyrdom due to heli crash.

 

[LaaL]

Battle of Chawinda is long gone. formations, weapons, doctrines, strategies have changed alot. Chawinda was bravery of 25 cavalry of 100th Indp Armoured Brigade, later joined by two more regiments and then remnants of PA 1st armoured Division.

Moderators, sorry for going off topic a bit here.

After studying battles in 48,65,71,99, none seemed impressive. I couldnt find anything close to Field Masrshal Erwin Rommel or Field Marshal Zhukov. I took just two names because these two commanders were 80% of the time under strength, had inferior weapons, had lesser supplies and ammunition but succeeded to a greater extent under unfavourable conditions. If you look at armies of Pakistan and India, they also face such issues but donot gather huge victories nor produce such generals.
The Americans and British Generals like Patton or Montgomery usually enjoyed numerical superiority or excellent air cover and impressive amount of supplies and ammunition. I give credit only to Dwight D Eisenhower, who kept allied nations together and harmonious during drive into Europe.

Coming back to subcontinent, the IA drive into East Pakistan in 1971 was a 7 month preparation, compare that to Rommel, he landed and with a handful of units straightaway went onto offensive and twice drove the British thousands of km back towards Egypt. IA enjoyed numerical superiority in men, tanks, artillery, aircrafts, naval vessels, ammunition and supplies, whereas, Rommel was always under-strength,under-equipped and under-supplied.

If Rommel was the commander in Chawinda Battle, he would have driven the IA 1st armoured division and 6th mountain division back into India instead of staying on defensive and repulsing attacks only.
Come in modern times, if Rommel was the commander of PA 5-Corps or 31-Corps in desert , maybe you wouldnt even see the use of NASR in his sector. With his guile, ways of deceiving enemy, usage of weapons and constant offensive plan, he could take on any enemy superior in strength with whatever amount of forces available to him.

Major General Iftikhar Janjua was one of the best that PA produced and had some similarities with Rommel. Both were infantry officers but commanded armoured forces at some stages in their career and both conducted successful operations under their belts even though out-numbered. As a brigade commander in 1965, he threw the IA out of Rann of Kutch and in 1971,commanding 23rd infantry division, he reached his objective, Chhamb and pressed on into Indian held Kashmir until his martyrdom due to heli crash.

What about the mentality my brother...Which evolves around the misconception of at their end that they can win because they are superior in numerical terms ? may Indian member gives 1971 reference but they must understand the circumstances otherwise they loose every war against Pakistan and China and In 1971 they succeeded because
1. No land line contact between east and west Pakistan and we have to reach them and vis by covering 1500 Kms of sea link infested by Indians.
2. Bangladeshis believe in ethnicity more than religion or two nation theory.
3. What they (Indian) achieve they liberate us from the fear of losing loose items (A term which we use about Bangladesh). They give us freedom to bring out from this fear.
I served very short in PA but have knowledge about all such stuff and thanks to India for relieving us from the mess called Bangladesh.

 

[Levina]

Your assumption lacks substance based on reason CEP not released to public. Since a nuke war could be started, thats enough reason for India to lay off CSD, NASR has done its job.

Do you really believe that it is NASR that dissuades India from retaliating in a militarily significant way?
Let me tell you, we follow the policy of NFU (no first use).
India is a major technological power in the region, ergo no one doubts India's capability to come up with its own tac nukes but its our massive retaliation policy which give us an edge. India can treat all nuclear threats equally, and this should deter Pakistani first use even if it is against Indian troops on Pakistani territory.
A country unlike a human can not produce more countries to take revenge in future, ergo when faced with existential threat no country would risk escalating a nuclear war.
Nasr ,Raad and Babur might give you full spectrum deterrence delivery options, but i really doubt Pak's capabilities in command and control that permit their use in counterforce roles.
https://www.princeton.edu/sgs/faculty-staff/zia-mian/Limited-Military-Utility-of-Pakistans.pdf

Deterence as they say is a mind game, since Pakistanis tend to think of tac nukes in military terms, so if its use failed to deter India, Pakistan would definitely worry that its deterrent had been eroded.
As Henry Kissinger once said “A deterrent which one is afraid to implement when it is challenged ceases to be a deterrent.”

@hellfire

 

[Signalian]

Do you really believe that it is NASR that dissuades India from retaliating in a militarily significant way?

Ofcourse it does. No commander sends his troops to get burnt and bruised to a certain death. It also limits India options where to strike and advance inside Pakistan.

Let me tell you, we follow the policy of NFU (no first use).
India is a major technological power in the region, ergo no one doubts India's capability to come up with its own tac nukes but its our massive retaliation policy which give us an edge. India can treat all nuclear threats equally, and this should deter Pakistani first use even if it is against Indian troops on Pakistani territory.

In reality, India doesnt deter Pakistan for first use against Indian Troops inside Pakistani territory and thus we have NASR. Rest of mumbo jumbo that you wrote thus becomes null and void automatically.

A country unlike a human can not produce more countries to take revenge in future, ergo when faced with existential threat no country would risk escalating a nuclear war.

Thats good, India CSD has become useless as it risks a nuclear war.

Nasr ,Raad and Babur might give you full spectrum deterrence delivery options, but i really doubt Pak's capabilities in command and control that permit their use in counterforce roles.
https://www.princeton.edu/sgs/faculty-staff/zia-mian/Limited-Military-Utility-of-Pakistans.pdf

I dont doubt Pakistan's abilities in command and control in any way.

Deterence as they say is a mind game, since Pakistanis tend to think of tac nukes in military terms, so if its use failed to deter India, Pakistan would definitely worry that its deterrent had been eroded.
As Henry Kissinger once said “A deterrent which one is afraid to implement when it is challenged ceases to be a deterrent.”

@hellfire

Nukes have deterred India in the past and will continue to do so in future.

 

[foxbat]

The NASR doctrine is foolishly naive. If at all, there is a push into Pakistan as a part of CSD, it will most probably be in the Punjab sector, which is also the most fertile part of Pakistan is the food bowl of the country. Will Pakistan be foolish enough to irradiate its most fertile lands to kill a few thousand Indian troops and in bargain, sentence millions of Pakistanis to death. Its ok on a defence forum to thump chests and say YES to the above question, but reality is very different. On top of that, most corrupt Pakistani politicians and generals have their land banks in this region. and they are the key decision makers on whether to use nuclear weapons on the Pakistani soil to deter indian incursion. Any guesses on which direction they will go. ?