The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[Kompromat]

@Icarus @Argus Panoptes

Does non intervention ensure the same by the other party?

History begs to differ, no?

 

[Icarus]

@Icarus @Argus Panoptes

Does non intervention ensure the same by the other party?

History begs to differ, no?

Exactly why I said that the age of Proxy War is over for Pakistan, and not for the region.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

@Icarus @Argus Panoptes

Does non intervention ensure the same by the other party?

History begs to differ, no?

Exactly why I said that the age of Proxy War is over for Pakistan, and not for the region.

Like Sir @Icarus says, our time for playing proxy wars is over, but the reverse is not true because our own home is falling apart with an environment ripe for others to play their proxy wars. All our attention and resources should be directed towards securing our home and not anywhere else.

 

[third eye]

I cannot actually figure out whether you were being sarcastic but I see too many Pakistanis emphasising the supposed economic benefits for India if India were to accommodate Pakistan over Kashmir. I'm not sure whether this opinion comes from hope or from a lifetime drilling in of the Hindu Bania being only interested in a profit. The simple truth is that India cannot be bought out on Kashmir. The only solution acceptable there is soft borders, greater autonomy etc. If that is acceptable to you, no further carrots are necessary, if that is not, then it must be also realised that there are no carrots whatsoever that can bring about a solution. Deterrence works both ways and as a status quo power, should theoretically benefit India. Pakistan use of proxies is after all a dangerous ploy. Leave alone the internal consequences of such an action, it only works even partially if India eschews a similar tactic. If not, with greater resources available with India & no shortage of pressure points, Pakistan can easily be hoisted on its own petard.

May I suggest that the only solution possible is conversion of the LC into an IB.

Excellent points made, however, one must keep in mind that:

1) It will be difficult to provide material support to the Naxals, seeing as they occupy states that do not share a common border with us.

2) The Naxals are not really a separatist movement, they are more of a political rebellion.

3) We lack the resources to sustain an Insurgency in India.

4) Whatever, we sow will come back to haunt us. Case in point, present situation.

I can safely say that the age of proxy wars is over for Pakistan, I don't think Pakistan will be investing in another proxy for the foreseeable future.

Well said and succinctly put.

We need to reconcile to our geography & move on.

 

[MilSpec]

@Icarus : What is the objective of the offensive of Indian military against pakistan?

It is often argued, Mumbai like attacks can escalate the situation between the two countries, the question I would ask is how can conventional/nuclear showdown with Pak military be the answer to nullify the asymmetric capabilities of Pak/ISI?

If CSD/son of CSD is meant for punitive actions on Pak military, why isit being veiled as a response to state sponsored terror, especially when State sponsored terror is at an all time low?

Is it possible, that CSD is a hoax, for pakistani planners to visualize it's worst demons?

Is there any understanding of composition, structure of IBG's?

Is pakistan chasing a unicorn?

 

[Icarus]

@Icarus : What is the objective of the offensive of Indian military against pakistan?

It is often argued, Mumbai like attacks can escalate the situation between the two countries, the question I would ask is how can conventional/nuclear showdown with Pak military be the answer to nullify the asymmetric capabilities of Pak/ISI?

If CSD/son of CSD is meant for punitive actions on Pak military, why isit being veiled as a response to state sponsored terror, especially when State sponsored terror is at an all time low?

Is it possible, that CSD is a hoax, for pakistani planners to visualize it's worst demons?

Is there any understanding of composition, structure of IBG's?

Is pakistan chasing a unicorn?

The CSD is a reality, and very much so. The Indians would not position the cream of their Armour and Airforce based on requirements of the CSD if it were a spoof. That would be taking posturing too far.
However, CSD is not the great miraculous doctrine that will finally subdue Pakistan as it is often thought of by Indian and Pakistani members on this forum. It is rather, a doctrine of necessity over choice. If you take the technical mumbo-jumbo away, what you basically have in the CSD is the realization that it takes India 72 hours to mobilize troops from the Centre, South and East to co-ordinate a full power counter offensive against any Pakistani offensive. The CSD mobilizes troops in such a way so as to open the front within a time frame of 12 to 24 hours and then hold out until the reinforcements can get to the western border. What that basically means is that for 72 hours, India loses it's numerical advantage, arguably it's greatest advantage and it is playing with Pakistan on equal terms. Which allows us to engage Indian troops and maximizing our gains before the full force of the Indian war machine can swoop down on us.

 

[RazPaK]

So we have a window of 72 hours where we can cause max damage to the Indians. Interesting.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

My friend, my point was, which you have proved in your above post is the number of Corps facing Pakistan, is what I had mentioned.

Dear i gave you complete structure and peace time deployment of Indian Army. Just answer me few questions

1. How many divisions Indians can actually deploy against Pakistan out of its 37? Definitely you will have to retain forces in North East and against China as well.
2. Main strike element of India lies with its 3 strike Corps. Can you tell me what tanks and IFVs these strike corps have? How many T-90s and Arjun and how many T-72s?
3. What was the deployment time of IA in battle ready formations during 2001 hostilities? How much you have improved since then?
4. Have you ever study about Soviet Union Cold war doctrine? Composition of their Motorized Infantry Divisions? What US opinion was about them after National Training Exercises at Fort Irwin California? Because i believe Indian concept of IBGs is based on cold war era Soviet doctrine.

 

[MilSpec]

The CSD is a reality, and very much so. The Indians would not position the cream of their Armour and Airforce based on requirements of the CSD if it were a spoof. That would be taking posturing too far.
However, CSD is not the great miraculous doctrine that will finally subdue Pakistan as it is often thought of by Indian and Pakistani members on this forum. It is rather, a doctrine of necessity over choice. If you take the technical mumbo-jumbo away, what you basically have in the CSD is the realization that it takes India 72 hours to mobilize troops from the Centre, South and East to co-ordinate a full power counter offensive against any Pakistani offensive. The CSD mobilizes troops in such a way so as to open the front within a time frame of 12 to 24 hours and then hold out until the reinforcements can get to the western border. What that basically means is that for 72 hours, India loses it's numerical advantage, arguably it's greatest advantage and it is playing with Pakistan on equal terms. Which allows us to engage Indian troops and maximizing our gains before the full force of the Indian war machine can swoop down on us.

The question still remains about the objective of CSD? Is it gaining territory?
How many hours will the Air interdiction precede the actual movement of IBG's in in you opinion?
Indian advantage lies in the disparity between the two air forces and Navy, Why not use it to maximum advantage?

If CSD does exist, the advantage lies in air interdiction to provide maximum damage to pakistani war machinery. And engage PA on the borders in multiple locations, but not holding pakistani territory. The objective is inflict damage and not hold pakistani territory.

 

[Icarus]

The question still remains about the objective of CSD? Is it gaining territory?
How many hours will the Air interdiction precede the actual movement of IBG's in in you opinion?
Indian advantage lies in the disparity between the two air forces and Navy, Why not use it to maximum advantage?

If CSD does exist, the advantage lies in air interdiction to provide maximum damage to pakistani war machinery. And engage PA on the borders in multiple locations, but not holding pakistani territory. The objective is inflict damage and not hold pakistani territory.

The objective of CSD is to use Armour Formations with Air Support to drive wedges into Pakistani territory, cut off major highways and occupy major cities, in that particular order. The resulting strategic gains are quite easy to understand.

 

[DARKY]

The objective of CSD is to use Armour Formations with Air Support to drive wedges into Pakistani territory, cut off major highways and occupy major cities, in that particular order. The resulting strategic gains are quite easy to understand.

You got that all wrong.

The main objective of CSD is destroying the equipment of Pak Military.... so that It spends more and more Budget on Military equipment while the Indian Military power grows to the day It can dictate terms.

Holding Pak Territory would only be a Bonus... even then the main gains could be made in the Kashmir and Siachen sector rather than other parts... It would be more like Hit and Run.

 

[MilSpec]

Dear i gave you complete structure and peace time deployment of Indian Army. Just answer me few questions

No, what you posted was the IA structure from Wiki, not the actual deployment doctrine

1. How many divisions Indians can actually deploy against Pakistan out of its 37? Definitely you will have to retain forces in North East and against China as well.

That is based on the structure and compositions of IBG's, I read your previous post where you claimed India cannot deploy 8 IBG's, and 24 is farfetched. Does anyone know the IBG structure on the deployment level, there are atleast 63 armored regiments in IA, if even half of them are deployed you have 31.5 structures to contend, depending on the structure, if these armored regiments are cut into half on deployment levels, you have more than 60 IBG's to contend with, if initial assault is conducted by half of these and the next wave is in support role, you are contending with almost 30+ points of engagement on the LC.

2. Main strike element of India lies with its 3 strike Corps. Can you tell me what tanks and IFVs these strike corps have? How many T-90s and Arjun and how many T-72s?

That is classified data, It is useless to bring into a discussion a rhetoric that is built on data that is not available. It's equivalent to asking what are the locations of anti-armour brigades of PA along the LC.

3. What was the deployment time of IA in battle ready formations during 2001 hostilities? How much you have improved since then?

2001 was 12 year ago, If you choose to believe that Indian deployment rate is the same as it was in 2001, then it will be a big mistake.

4. Have you ever study about Soviet Union Cold war doctrine? Composition of their Motorized Infantry Divisions? What US opinion was about them after National Training Exercises at Fort Irwin California? Because i believe Indian concept of IBGs is based on cold war era Soviet doctrine.

Please tell us the similarities you draw from "soviet doctrine", CSD is actually very similar to US invasion of Iraq, Heavy Air Interdiction, and SEAD, followed by Ground offensive under the umbrella of active CAS.

 

[Xeric]

The objective of CSD is to use Armour Formations with Air Support to drive wedges into Pakistani territory, cut off major highways and occupy major cities, in that particular order. The resulting strategic gains are quite easy to understand.

It is interesting to watch the developments and exchange of knowledge on this thread.

Anywaz, occupation/threat of occupation to major cities may cause a rapid climb over the nuke ladder, hence not complacent to CSD.


Edit:

BTW, the aim of CSD was to destroy Pakistan Armed Forces, cause them insult, malign them for 'sleeping over it' while india bit into our eastern borders thereby turning the Nation against their own forces/reduced moral and material support and thus reducing Pakistan to a puppet state.

 

[MilSpec]

The objective of CSD is to use Armour Formations with Air Support to drive wedges into Pakistani territory, cut off major highways and occupy major cities, in that particular order. The resulting strategic gains are quite easy to understand.

Sir,
Lets agree to disagree here, I see no advantage in holding any pakistani cities in case of hostilities, the objective I believe is to inflict heaviest possible damage on pakistani war machinery before trigger finger itches or the west intervenes.

Air interdiction holds the key to damage the pakistani air installations, ground radar networks, fuel and supply depots, regimental head quarters and SAM locations, engaging PA in Pak airspace will be the biggest challenge and IAF has to gear up to take heavy losses, Same goes for NVAL blockade, PN will devise everything it has to break IN stanglehold, and IN will have to be able to sustain damage. Ground offensive is the last leg, and the time needed to mobilization will be covered by the Air interdiction and sead missions,

 

[Xeric]

That is based on the structure and compositions of IBG's, I read your previous post where you claimed India cannot deploy 8 IBG's, and 24 is farfetched. Does anyone know the IBG structure on the deployment level, there are atleast 63 armored regiments in IA, if even half of them are deployed you have 31.5 structures to contend, depending on the structure, if these armored regiments are cut into half on deployment levels, you have more than 60 IBG's to contend with, if initial assault is conducted by half of these and the next wave is in support role, you are contending with almost 30+ points of engagement on the LC.

Interesting, but...