What's new

Why is Indian army training for ANA was so bad?

Thanks for the luck.

And again, I am happy with an army which is "average" and "lack independent thinking tactics and battle experince ranging from very instensive and heavy combat in combined arms to small unit level combat constantly for last 10 years" but still able to hold a territory that is claimed by a powerful military in all sense of the word.


we are happy too.

We dont want you to change.
So the whole population got up in arms only after the 90s? I'm trying to think why.


same reason in Nagaland, Assam etc.. you guys suck to live with it.
 
We gave you an assessment of Indian military based on what independent military journals like Janes or IISS thinks.

the reason you think it is funny that bcos you have studied history, being an indian i know your education sucks and limited to repeating information. No application no analysis ....


In WW2 elite Panzer divisions used to have an incredible kill ratio of 10:1 ... yet they still lost.
Now you are targeting the Indian education system just because I'm asking logical questions based on the 'analysis' made in the OP? Something that no one able to answer? How is that fair?

Did all those assessments in the fancy military journals explain how an ineffective military has been successfully against a supposedly powerful military?
 
I'm asking logical questions based on the 'analysis' made in the OP? Something that no one able to answer? How is that fair?


military concepts are complex, if you do not have back ground understanding of it you would not be able to understand.

You asked question i gave you the answers. These are answers based on hard facts.

You clearly dont like the answers or dont understand them so you do what your government does... go in circles.

in the end you only confuse your self.
 
we are happy too.

We dont want you to change.
Why would we change when the facts are available for all to see?

same reason in Nagaland, Assam etc.. you guys suck to live with it.
Back to square one, Indian Army did a good job to keep those regions within Indian union. I'm not even arguing if you are right or wrong.
military concepts are complex, if you do not have back ground understanding of it you would not be able to understand.

You asked question i gave you the answers. These are answers based on hard facts.

You clearly dont like the answers or dont understand them so you do what your government does... go in circles.

in the end you only confuse your self.
May be you are right. I dont have military background so you may have a better knowledge here.

I'm only questioning the analysis made in the OP. If Indian military is weak, it shouldn't be hard for Pakistan (supposedly a strong military) to get Kashmir. No military background is required to understand this.
 
Did all those assessments in the fancy military journals explain how an ineffective military has been successfully against a supposedly powerful military?

You really have IQ issues or cant read properly

Ineffective military?.. read carefully "an average military"... i hope you know the difference.


but ok let me explain

On paper 26 Feb 2019, IAF should have cleaned PAF's clocks as it's combat power was many times PAF. Instead what happened PAF cleaned IAF clocks..

Likewise ANA v Taliban, on paper combat power of ANA was many times taliban. Yet it lost so badly.


Tactics, training, and tenacity makes up for the difference.
Back to square one, Indian Army did a good job to keep those regions within Indian union. I'm not even arguing if you are right or wrong.

by murdering rapiing and oppressing the population... sure Stalin did the same.
If Indian military is weak,

you are really india educated.

You guys made me laugh in interviews, poor listening skills and repeating some memorised answer...

question is being stated is one thing and the answer is out of the world.
 
Ineffective military?.. read carefully "an average military"... i hope you know the difference.
That's not what the OP said. I'm only talking about the OP when I mention 'ineffective'

On paper 26 Feb 2019, IAF should have cleaned PAF's clocks as it's combat power was many times PAF. Instead what happened PAF cleaned IAF clocks..
Sure, so do you control whole of Kashmir now?

Likewise ANA v Taliban, on paper combat power of ANA was many times taliban. Yet it lost so badly
So the "quantitative advantage" that you mentioned earlier doesnt work either. Because ANA did have that advantage. But Kashmir still remains with India. How is that possible?

So it isn't training, it isnt quantity, then what is it exactly? What is stopping Pakistan from taking Kashmir from India?

by murdering rapiing and oppressing the population... sure Stalin did the same.
If you want to believe it, who am I to stop you.
Also, on a side note, may be there have been some rapes and killings, I will condemn that too. Not going to defend something that is wrong.

you are really india educated.

You guys made me laugh in interviews, poor listening skills and repeating some memorised answer...

question is being stated is one thing and the answer is out of the world.
We both are doing fine without personal attacks and I wish to keep it that way.
 
So India has quantitative advantage and hence - despite having ineffective training or having weak soldiers - is able to hold Kashmir?

If this is true, then why question the 'training' in the first place? Because it has become irrelevant here, hasn't it?

Is that all you have for all the points I raised? Okay.
You were having the same argument with me yesterday until you were humiliated and ran away with you tail between your mangy legs. Hold Kashmir? India holds only about 45% of Kashmir. Rest is held by Pakistan and Kashmir. India lost another 1200 square km in Ladakh recently. Your PM denied it so I will not be surprised if the likes of you will also deny everything.
 
They invented suicide bombing!
Yes and crashed suicide planes in to buildings, used suicide boats to crash into passenger ships, suicide bus bombings, suicide train bombings, suicide assassinations many orther types of terror
They also had an entire suicide division for these things
They also had launched the largest number of suicide bombers and killed most people when they were finally eliminated
They did all this way before Islamic militants did these things in the middle east
 
military concepts are complex, if you do not have back ground understanding of it you would not be able to understand.

You asked question i gave you the answers. These are answers based on hard facts.

You clearly dont like the answers or dont understand them so you do what your government does... go in circles.

in the end you only confuse your self.

Typical Indian mindset. They think they have some sort of superior brain and the smartest people in the world. The reality is they are the most enslaved people in world with a thousand year of foreign domination. Signs of deep rooted inferiority complex which is now built into their DNA. This guy imagines he is some sort of strategic and tactical genius days after his country’s geo and military strategist establishment it still licking its a$$es after its latest strategic failure. They just like coming to a Pakistani forum to be humiliated.
 
Last edited:
You were having the same argument with me yesterday until you were humiliated and ran away with you tail between your mangy legs. Hold Kashmir? India holds only about 45% of Kashmir. Rest is held by Pakistan and Kashmir. India lost another 1200 square km in Ladakh recently. Your PM denied it so I will not be surprised if the likes of you will also deny everything.
Yeah I had to stop replying because you couldn't keep civil. You can keep this reply of mine as a souvenir.
 
Yes and crashed suicide planes in to buildings, used suicide boats to crash into passenger ships, suicide bus bombings, suicide train bombings, suicide assassinations many orther types of terror
They also had an entire suicide division for these things
They also had launched the largest number of suicide bombers and killed most people when they were finally eliminated
They did all this way before Islamic militants did these things in the middle east
Yes the Tamil Hindus were the first ones to use suicide bombing. A fact is a fact. I am simply giving the credit where it is due.
Yeah I had to stop replying because you couldn't keep civil. You can keep this reply of mine as a souvenir.
Who wants to be civil with the likes of you. I bet you live a miserable life, most probably you look like a toad and writing your stupid stuff on this forum is the only thing which gives you some self worth.
 
Last edited:
Indian Army training the Sri Lankans or ANA was pathetic, at least that's what the thread is about.

Does this not mean that the way IA trains is weak and ineffective? Or do you mean that IA training is good but those who were trained (ANA or Sri Lankans) were good for nothing?

The indian army is a well trained and a well equiped fighting force. Pakistan army does not take the indian military lightly in no manner...it is a serious threat to Pakistan and 1971 is proof of that.

Both armies have the same heritage and same training. The only difference is the size and equipment each has and the tactical and strategic benefits they get as a result which is amply clear to both armies. So, in short, Indian army trains well and fights well.

The ANA (I dont know why you bundled the poor Sri Lankans in to the discussion, it is out of context) was also well trained and well equiped but they lacked will. No army can fight no matter how much training, equipment, firepower you give it...if there is no will to fight. It is all useless.

Now you keep asking why Pakistan Army does not take back Kashmir from India. Let me put forward the same question to you. Why does the Indian Army not take back Azad Kashmir from Pakistan? There is political will in India thanks Modi and his BJP followers and the media is always blood thirsty for Pakistan's blood. The armed forces are far bigger and better equipped. They have experience from 1971 and are not afraid of Pakistan. Pakistan keeps annoying and making all these threats. So, what is stopping India in taking back Azad Kashmir?
Everyone and every country seems to turn the story in a way that benefits them

Nah mate, not trying to turn it in our favour. We are proud to be part of the solution. You guys were doing the heavy lifting and we provided a helping hand. Really proud of our Sri Lankan friends, some of the best people on the planet!
 
Last edited:
The indian army is a well trained and a well equiped fighting force. Pakistan army does not take the indian military lightly in no manner...it is a serious threat to Pakistan and 1971 is proof of that.

Both armies have the same heritage and same training. The only difference is the size and equipment each has and the tactical and strategic benefits they get as a result which is amply clear to both armies. So, in short, Indian army trains well and fights well.

The ANA (I dont know why you bundled the poor Sri Lankans in to the discussion, it is out of context) was also well trained and well equiped but they lacked will. No army can fight no matter how much training, equipment, firepower you give it...if there is no will to fight. It is all useless.
Okay this makes sense. Thanks for a sane reply.
Now you keep asking why Pakistan Army does not take back Kashmir from India. Let me put forward the same question to you. Why does the Indian Army not take back Azad Kashmir from Pakistan? There is political will in India thanks Modi and his BJP followers and the media is always blood thirsty for Pakistan's blood. The armed forces are far bigger and better equipped. They have experience from 1971 and are not afraid of Pakistan. Pakistan keeps annoying and making all these threats. So, what is stopping India in taking back Azad Kashmir?
The answer is same. Pakistan Army is a good force. You cant walk over them. Let's give credit where it's due (just like you did). There have been instances where the IA itself has praised the combat prowess of PA.

See I didnt make a thread calling Pakistan Army ineffective. Since the thread was made about IA, hence I kept on asking that question.

Again, thanks for the sane reply. Good day!
 
Why does the Indian Army not take back Azad Kashmir from Pakistan? There is political will in India thanks Modi and his BJP followers and the media is always blood thirsty for Pakistan's blood.
Because it will lead to a war, a small scale skirmish is what IN and PK can afford, anything more than that is going to be a headache.
 
Back
Top Bottom