Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
In WW2, during the Wehrmacht's French campaign, Rommel was commanding 7 Panzer Div. In order to cross a certain river, some bridging equipment was sent to and meant for a sister Panzer Division, the 5th Panzer Division. Rommel got hold of that equipment, used it for 7th panzer Division for crossing the river. I am not pointing out success of Rommel's Ghost Division. One division's resources are used by another Division to achieve success, which is good, since they are both on the same side, but keep reading.
In 1971, GOC of 23rd Infantry Division, Major General Iftikhar Janjua who had at his disposal his own Division plus 2 x Infantry brigades, 1 x armored Brigade and 2 x artillery Brigades. His troops were able to capture area of Chhamb near Tawi River, North west of Jammu. So from where did the extra troops come from? Obviously an Infantry Division was diluted and its troops were sent to join 23rd Infantry Division, which means that on its own 23rd ID could not have been successful. Start getting an idea how replacements will be found in war.
In 1965, 1st Armd Div had lost 97 Tanks in Indian territory and then retreated, later whatever was left of 1st Armd Div was sent over to Sialkot to reinforce 6th Armd Duv (ex 100th Indp Armd Grp) . What if 1st Armd Div retreated, then was given replacement of lost tanks and was sent to another sector, not Sialkot ? IA had just 1 x Armd Div, PA had 2 x Armd Divs. Pakistan could have opened a new front in 1965, but there were no tank replacements. Lt Col. Nisar's 25th Cav was not even subordinate to 6th Armd Division, in fact, by the time 6th Armd Div started pouring in regiment by regiment, Lt Col. Nisar's regiment had caused such a shock and awe to Indian Army's 1st Armd Div from which the Indians never recovered. Would 1st Armd Div be sent to Sialkot after 6th Armd Div, if 6th Armd Div had replacements of its own for losses it could incur ? I dont think so.
On the Eastern side, PA had 5 x Infantry Divisions in 1971. There were 2 x AD Hoc Divs, with one Division having strength of a brigade only. The rest of the Divisions were never of full strength. The Command diluted units from different formations, then made new commands as Ad Hoc formations. Result remained the same. There was no question of replacements or reinforcements. Just adding more HQs attained nothing, except that more administrative staff and officers were now thrown in for handling more HQs.
In 1971, Now Brig from Lt Col, Brig Nisar formed Changez force composed of 2 x Armd Regts and 1 x MIB to delay an advance of an IA Infantry Division. he succeeded in doing so and his force suffered some tank losses, there were no replacements. Changez force completed its task and was sent back. Had the tank replacements been there, could Brig Nisar go on an offensive to annihilate the retreating IA Infantry Div ?
Yes, i know that im giving examples of 65 and 71 and this is 2020, even the name of the Armor School has been changed and new tactics have been introduced, new strategies have been formed, new tanks have been inducted, but are there replacements for losses ?
Tipu7 said that how about giving more Armored Regiments/tanks to Infantry formations. This is a good idea, even i advocated that Infantry Div should have an Armd Bde instead of a lone Armd Regiment. But when war erupts, as soon as the 6th Armd Division faces tank losses and there will be no replacements, the Corps HQ will allot the Armd Regts of Infantry formations to 6th Armd Div if the Ops need to be continued. This will lower the offensive capability of the infantry Division as it gets diluted.
The good thing is that in 1965 and 1971, M4 shermans and even M-47 Pattons had a habit of bogging down in terrain or having other mechanical failures, so if a formation started off with 15 tanks, by the end of journey it would have 8-10 operational tanks as it wouldn't wait to recover bogged down or broken down tanks. Today the MBTs are more reliable mechanically. The Armd Divs have full compliment of armor and infantry and supporting artillery and AD. If someone reads PA history, they would find that PA formations were mentioned as an example as 4 Punjab minus 1 x Company captured xyz hill. So one wonders if an Infantry battalion is 4 x Coys, it means 3 x Coys of 4 Punjab were able to secure the area so where is the 4th Company? More often than not, its not held as reserve, yes sometimes its held as reserve but its usually found out that this company was deployed elsewhere or was used to reinforce another infantry battalion for an attack on enemy positions. This habit of diluting formations in PA should be put to an end. All formations should be equipped to the teeth to be able to complete the task with their subordinate forces. Corps HQ should be able to reinforce them using units from its own pool, not from another fighting formation rendering that formation to half strength and thus useless in more than one sense.
If VT-4 start taking losses, Higher Command could start taking VT-4 from other Regts as replacements thus reducing those regiments in strength (again you will hear 22 Cavalry minus 1 x Squadron) or detaching those regiments completely from their parent formations and allotting them to Armd Divs. It was in best interest to keep the AK production going and build extra tanks every year, throw them in storage and use them as replacements during war. Anyways PA would have sorted out this issue of replacing tank losses in war some how.
