The Burning South - Live Simulation Thread

[PanzerKiel]

Think of it this way - it was a learning process in terms of not just running a wargame but how to convey operational plans - mission planning and so on.

@PanzerKiel , for context: what is the learning timeframe for someone doing in the profession?

Platoon level operations is 3 years, Battalion level operations further 7 years, brigade and division level further 10 to 15 years.

 

[Raja Porus]

brigade and division level further 10 to 15 years.

Why do they take so much time when they can join PDF.

 

[meghdut]

Btw joe, are you CDS, COAS or GOC-in-C?

All rolled in to one?? Add ACM and CNS in that too

 

[Joe Shearer]

Btw joe, are you CDS, COAS or GOC-in-C?

All three, in normal circumstances; @meghdut is Chief of Air Staff, and acting Chief of Naval Staff; nobody is in charge of integrated Air Defence, or of integrated (not yet implemented, but would have been proposed for 2026 time-frame) Logistics, Communications and Medical Services.

Drawing the attention of the COAirS/actg. CONS to significant developments, opportunities, threats, in a live operations context is a CDS job.

Planning for the actions of ground forces is the COAS job, but it is very unlikely to be an active one in the first 72 hours. At most, there is responsibility for the reconstruction of formations to incorporate obvious areas of strength - mechanisation of infantry, integration of armour and artillery into combined battle teams, integration of helicopters, logistics - and for re-grouping them in geographical points of concentration.

A GOC-in-C role may emerge in the absence of others to take on those roles. Ideally, at least at Army (=multiple Corps) levels, and even at Corps levels, there should be individual roles, but there are no interested people.

C'est la guerre.

Platoon level operations is 3 years, Battalion level operations further 7 years, brigade and division level further 10 to 15 years.

That gives us an idea of how much experience in actual training is needed, for those organisations not involved in actual warfare.

One of the lessons learnt in the current Russo-Ukrainian conflict is this, the amount of practice and training needed. An integrated force is totally useless unless it has trained in an integrated manner, intensively, for protracted periods.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why do they take so much time when they can join PDF.

I must commend you for your use of MLRS

Ferocious. Terrible effect.

Thanks a lot to you for making the time for doing it. I can imagine you supplementing loads of miscellaneous systems to account for those not available in the sim. It is a hard work indeed.

Btw joe, are you CDS, COAS or GOC-in-C?

After careful consideration, I will allow you to address me as Admiral General Joe.

 

[SQ8]

So, a correction on losses.

India has lost 6 subs so far.

the INS Shalki, Shankul, Shishumar, Shankush, SIndhuraj and Sindhudwaj!

All have clear logs to how and what killed them except the Shankush... A mystery for the seas.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Haven't cleared this with Meghdut, but a journalistic account of events so far, from an Indian perspective, would look like this:

1. Initial strikes on Pakistani bases were selective, but were in line with older practice, not what has been in evidence in recent encounters elsewhere in the world.
2. Manned aircraft were used in these strikes, against a defence fully armed and ready, and the result was that the first wave of attacks was very expensive in terms of aircraft. Details were mentioned at the time, can be reproduced once one or the other of us has time (I have rather difficult medical engagements, and am not actually involved in day to day operations).
3. Subsequently, there has been a shift in focus to using missiles and UAVs. Here, too, the shift was a reaction; the use of missiles has escalated rapidly, and even dual-use strategic or HE missiles have been used. The missiles ranged in the 200 kms range have done the most damage.
4. In Air Defence, the Chinese S-300 derivatives have been very effective, and while their use caused heavy damage to the manned aircraft, and to UAVs used, they also encouraged the Indian commanders to use long-range missiles with conventional war-heads. The air war has been favourable to India, as is inevitable in any war of attrition.
5. On the naval front, due to an error, a flotilla of vessels was moored in a vulnerable location, and was severely damaged by shore-based anti-shipping missiles. The remainder of that formation was pulled back to a safer, more distant location.
6. Several submarines have also been lost, and the reasons for their loss is not yet clear.
7. On the land forces side, there is yet nothing to report.
8. Only 12 hours have passed. Nothing significant can be concluded so early. However, Some preliminary conclusions are emerging:
   1. In the air, the emphasis is on cruise missiles, UAVs and stand-off missiles, as delivery vehicles; manned aircraft should not be deployed at an early stage.
   2. The emphasis of targetting remains Air Defence and Electronic Warfare locations, followed by Airfields and Aircraft.
   3. Submarine patrols have achieved disappointing results. It is not clear why they have not scored.

More on there being more to write about.


Utterly amazing deep insights! How can such an analytical approach come anything lower than second place?

1. 6 submarines have been lost. In effect, the entire task force patrolling off Karachi is crippled. There is something very wrong in our deployment of naval resources.
2. A P8i has also been lost.
3. Surface vessels (Brahmaputra class frigate) has also been lost due to shore-based missile attack. Other vessels in that squadron have been pulled back to more strongly defended locations.

 

[Raja Porus]

Admiral General Joe

 

[Joe Shearer]

View attachment 862223

After seeing the status of the Navy's operations off Kathiawar, I've changed my mind.

I will be known as General Admiral Joe.

 

[Prince of the Moon]

Jung khatam?

 

[Raja Porus]

@Joe Shearer how's it going?

 

[khail007]

I will be known as General Admiral Joe.

Aha ... how r u? Doing well?
Sir G, I will suggest a better position for you - Rear Admiral 'Joe'

 

[Joe Shearer]

Aha ... how r u? Doing well?
Sir G, I will suggest a better position for you - Rear Admiral 'Joe'

LOL.

Your subtle modification is to be held up for appreciation.

Glad to see that the gentle art of insult is not entirely lost.

 

[AlKardai]

Anyone got a link to the simulation website? I’d love to see it

 

[Raja Porus]

Good times