Why has Pak lost against India every time?

[Contrarian]

India is prepared to move back as long as the present territories under Indian control are recognised by Pakistan as Indian and demarkated.

Thats what the entire country wants man. If pakistan accepts those positions then India would move back in a jiffy. For if there are any future incursions, India can use its full might in the region, as they are accepted Indian by Pakistan. And will stand any international scrutiny. I hope the political class doesnt screw up, elections comming closer, they decide to play the 'our party got peace' card and vacate in a hurry.:wall:

 

[blain2]

Thats what the entire country wants man. If pakistan accepts those positions then India would move back in a jiffy. For if there are any future incursions, India can use its full might in the region, as they are accepted Indian by Pakistan. And will stand any international scrutiny. I hope the political class doesnt screw up, elections comming closer, they decide to play the 'our party got peace' card and vacate in a hurry.:wall:

Malay,

Sometimes you get quite carried away with your colorful descriptions...

India can use its full might in the region, as they are accepted Indian by Pakistan.

I am sure Pakistan is really scared of India using its full might get off your high horse friend (the Almighty does not look upon the arrogant with favor)....your Army is worried that once they leave, the Pakistanis will take over and then no amount of firepower or military action can move them out of there....this is the reality of the glacier...both sides realize it and know that although they sit static...the glacier in itself is of no inherent benefit to either. Such is the dilemma of the Siachen glacier.

The rest of the stuff is all BS and armchair pride talking. If India sits on it, so will Pakistan indefinetly.

 

[Contrarian]

stupid compuetr, wiped off everything i typed.

well all im saying is that the party does not vacate without marking the troops as that would be an invite to pakistan to take that area. If they do mark and pakistan takes that area , then internationally that is indian land. So it gives an excuse to mount a full scale attack there. and i dont think jingoism aside that pakistan will be able to keep the glacier agains thte full mmight of the indian armed forces. They just cannot, IA will surely suffer hell, but we can get it back. If the positions are not marked and pak takes it, then it becomes a disputed territory and we cannot wage a proper war there.

 

[vnomad]

stupid compuetr, wiped off everything i typed.

well all im saying is that the party does not vacate without marking the troops as that would be an invite to pakistan to take that area. If they do mark and pakistan takes that area , then internationally that is indian land. So it gives an excuse to mount a full scale attack there. and i dont think jingoism aside that pakistan will be able to keep the glacier agains thte full mmight of the indian armed forces. They just cannot, IA will surely suffer hell, but we can get it back. If the positions are not marked and pak takes it, then it becomes a disputed territory and we cannot wage a proper war there.

A direct attack on positions by the IA will probably not succeed and even if it does it will come at a massive cost. But, since any Pakistani incursion into those areas presently with India will be construed as an aggressive act India will be justified in encircling Siachen from the Pakistani side cutting of supply lines to troops on the glacier. An attack will have be made on Pakistani land but then India will have the excuse - "they started it".

 

[Contrarian]

A direct attack on positions by the IA will probably not succeed and even if it does it will come at a massive cost. But, since any Pakistani incursion into those areas presently with India will be construed as an aggressive act India will be justified in encircling Siachen from the Pakistani side cutting of supply lines to troops on the glacier. An attack will have be made on Pakistani land but then India will have the excuse - "they started it".

YEP!

But in considering the scenario of IA taking back Siachen. The genrals have learnt their lessons. They will use the IAF so extensively on the entire region, i know that is high, but the IAF actually trained its fighters after Kargil for such scenarios, for bombings, etc. That the actual push by the army will be relatively simple. Also the IA has also learnt its lessons in Kargil. Any actual movement by troops will be preceeded by f***ing huge artillary bombings in the region. Read any anlysis report of the IA, all say that the the army elarnt its lessons in kargil itself and nearing the end, they used MASSIVE artilary shellings before each assault,and that worked wonders.

And we have all read, about how the next tiem, the IA and IAF will co-ordinate better, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Spring Onion]

you mean nerxt time Indian Army will resort to massive Art shelling .

 

[Contrarian]

well...i read in some papers that the IA was not succeeding initially in kargil. Then they started heavy arty shelling before they moved in. That made it hell of a lot easier.

That is the reason that the IA is buying many arty and other systems by the tons.
They bought Smerch!, its an absolutel beast!!

then there are trials going on for 155mm , .52 caliber, self propelled guns.
Israeli Soltam and Swedish Bofors gun are in competition. And that is the reason that IA is going ga-ga over net centric and hi-tech for its infantry soldier. Its making serious use of its lessons learnt in Kargil. And that is why the govt is spending MASSIVE money over IA's modernisation drive. the F-INSAS and all such things are going to be implemented.

Here is a brief overview of the soltam guns:

ATHOS 2025 Autonomous, Towed Howitzer 155mm

Soltam Defense Systems

The ATHOS 2025 gun represents the new generation of autonomous, towed artillery. Using the long range 155mm 52 cal. barrel ATHOS 2052 can achieve a maximum range of 41 km using standard NATO ammunition including ERFB/BB projectiles with charge 11 or modular charge. the gun is equipped with an autonomous navigation and positioning capability, ballistic computer and communications equipment enabling advanced target acquisition and accurate fire support. The gun can receive digital radio target data directly from the forward observer or from remote target acquisition systems and prepare itself for firing. Hydraulic actuators are used for gun elevation and traverse and these can be slaved to the mission computer, for automatic gun laying. It has an integral diesel engine and hydraulic driven wheels to assist in self maneuvering the gun to its assigned position. Combined with the on-board positioning equipment it enables automatic laying mode.

The ATHOS 2052 is mounted on a towed carriage, which enables towing the gun to the battlefield. Once in the battlefield, the ATHOS 2052 can maneuver itself using its own diesel engine and special hydraulic driven wheels. The hydraulic system enables easy deployment of the gun, using hydraulic jacks and auxiliary wheels. It needs a crew of 4 to 6 to fully manage this gun which is equipped with ammunition loader assist. Within minutes, the ATHOS 2052 can autonomously move out of one position and deploy itself in an alternative position a few hundred meters away.

ATHOS 2052 155mm /52 cal system, completed a series of desert and mountain trials in India in 2003 - 2003

 

[MIG_ACE]

Acc to what I read the Bofors is leading the race.They supposedly met 99% of all criteria in Summer trials.Winter trials were going on in Ladakh.

 

[Contrarian]

yeah they did. But you know its :BOFORS", so they are going for 5th round of trials which is ridiculus. Anyways, i think SOLTAM gives more to us than BOFORS, we should go for soltam.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Why do u think that?? The IA needs the best gun available.So if Bofors continually beats the Soltam gun in trials why shud we go for Soltam??

 

[Contrarian]

cuz soltam is offering us a better technology. Though bofors satisfies what we need now perfectly, and i emphasize PERFECTLY. We should also look for the future. The Israeli Soltam guns are more advanced. And the fact that they have still survived in the ompetition mean that they are as good as the Bofors.

 

[blain2]

A direct attack on positions by the IA will probably not succeed and even if it does it will come at a massive cost. But, since any Pakistani incursion into those areas presently with India will be construed as an aggressive act India will be justified in encircling Siachen from the Pakistani side cutting of supply lines to troops on the glacier. An attack will have be made on Pakistani land but then India will have the excuse - "they started it".

Lets introduce a little bit of reality into these scenarios....do you really think that India has the capability to encircle the entire Siachen glacier and that too from the Pakistani side??? Are you aware of what the terrain is like? You do not have enough acclimatized troops to maintain anything beyond the existing brigades and here you think that IA would be able to go across the LoC in the mountainous train and take over the Glacier???

Once Pakistan sits on the glacier, just like it sat on positions in Kargil, it would have to be a unilateral withdrawl....no amount of Indian action can get it back. Pakistan first of all would never allow IA to come across to encircle the glacier...you can't shove Tanks and Artillery all over that terrain...the only thing you can bring to bear is air support but that too goes only so far......Gen VP Malik was asked if IA can go into Azad Kashmir and take it over (essentially meaning the same route that IA would need to take to get to the Glacier from the Pakistani side) and he emphatically stated NO! So lets not get too carried away with what the IA can do...Indian re-occupation of Kargil was only made possible because Pakistani forces were told to vacate the heights....its was not Indian Military pressure, rather diplomatic pressure...there is only so much that you can achieve with military force.

 

[Adux]

Lets introduce a little bit of reality into these scenarios....do you really think that India has the capability to encircle the entire Siachen glacier and that too from the Pakistani side??? Are you aware of what the terrain is like? You do not have enough acclimatized troops to maintain anything beyond the existing brigades and here you think that IA would be able to go across the LoC in the mountainous train and take over the Glacier???

Once Pakistan sits on the glacier, just like it sat on positions in Kargil, it would have to be a unilateral withdrawl....no amount of Indian action can get it back. Pakistan first of all would never allow IA to come across to encircle the glacier...you can't shove Tanks and Artillery all over that terrain...the only thing you can bring to bear is air support but that too goes only so far......Gen VP Malik was asked if IA can go into Azad Kashmir and take it over (essentially meaning the same route that IA would need to take to get to the Glacier from the Pakistani side) and he emphatically stated NO! So lets not get too carried away with what the IA can do...Indian re-occupation of Kargil was only made possible because Pakistani forces were told to vacate the heights....its was not Indian Military pressure, rather diplomatic pressure...there is only so much that you can achieve with military force.

hiya there blain2,

I could agree to some of your viewpoints, but if it is a no holds barred war, that is not like kargil, I would be very much inclined to say IA could take it down, Pakistani Forces would be too scattered.The military gap between the two forces have never been this wide. That is my view point and patriotism comin to play to some extent.

And I agree with you, that arty and tank support siachin context can only do so much, but it can be effective lower heights(arty) if it all there is an encirclement plan. Without Utter failure from pakistani side, takin down siachin from pakistani hands by no means would be easy task,

IA wont allow the GOI to vacate heights, this year there has been no casualities in Siachen especially since the clothing, equipment and infrastructure has vastly improved.

Anyways, Can you give me link where Gen VP Malik said those words and in what context

Cheers

Adu

 

[Contrarian]

You are right in some points blain, but not all.
If India declared an proper war, taking back siachen would not be easy, but consiering IA's massive resources not too difficult either. They learnt their lessons in Kargil and that is why the modernization plan, the net centric, the F-INSAS, the arty guns, the smerch and other such $h!t. IA is really going in for the long haul.

Now let me tell you why IA was told in no uncertain terms not to cross the LoC and circle kargil. It is because we wanted to show the world that we are a responsible country. It was a diplomatic manouvre. It is by no means because we could not enter, it because the govt didnt want to look as they wanted to invade another country. This point has been discussed to death in India, in the parliament, in some generals and officials books, in their discussions with the administration.

And again, please dont get patriotic, but Pakistan lost in kargil, the troops were badly defeated, they did not vacate because they were told to, they vacated becaues they lost, and heavily at that. This fact has been accepted the world over including Pakistan. Please dont start this again.

 

[niaz]

Here I disagree with my Indian friends. Pak Army ( Northern Light Infantry) was fighting with their hands tied behind their backs. Ostensibly there was supposed to be no PA on the heights; it was supposed to be Mujahideen only. Therefore while India had the full might of the I55 mm BOFORS Artillery and IA Mirage2000, PA could not openly support the jawans of NLI. This was a defeat yes, but due to poltical factors. Nevertheless since war is an extension of politics; Kargil was a defeat and thats all that really matters. As Von Clauswitz says, best wars are the ones that are won without firing a shot.