I think a very simple explanation is in order. Our winning a 2 front war as of now would comprise holding our own against both adversaries. As usual, you had to complicate it posing innumerable scenarios which both you, me & everyone else here realises is futile.
Not at all. We are not playing the defensive game in a 2 front war. Our objective is to decimate the PA and then move our forces towards China. Once we have our forces moved towards China, whether we play defence or go on the offensive is up to the situation at hand.
We can take on Pakistan & us dictating terms to Pakistan as in 1971 are 2 different issues. FYI - we were fighting a defensive war against west Pakistan in 1971.
Read the above. Our plan was to take out East Pak, and then go on the offensive against the West.
Funnily even Ravi says this, but you seem to have dismissed it.
Read About dive bombing tactics.
The minute you said that you failed to understand the topic.
I thought we were discussing moving targets.Suddenly you subtly change it to stand off munitions. This is precisely how you keep arguing your points shifting goal posts every time you realise in retrospect you've goofed up.
The very topic was about killing enemies from beyond their ability to react. That's where precision weapons come into the picture.
The way you have taken it to mean, air forces had the capability to hit moving targets since WW1. No precision weapons involved here. Just spray and pray with a machine gun.
Today it's about taking out enemies long before their defences come into play. Take the Rafale for example. It comes with the Hammer, it has the ability to kill a moving target long before ground defences can even pick up the Rafale. Your example of dive bombing is no different from what could be done with a helicopter during the Vietnam War, and obviously not my point, since it was a very normal capability. The fighter jets during the Battle of Longewala also hit moving targets using 2nd generation technology. So it's obvious I'm not talking about this.
You do dive bombing today, right over your enemy, then you won't stop diving.
You have this tendency to conflate facts & conjectures , keep shifting goal posts & indulge in one upmanship. That's the reason why not many people engage you for the entire discussion goes into circular arguments & becomes a drag.
Not at all. Don't confuse your ignorance by pretending I'm making things up.
This is exactly what I said:
Today A2G weapons and even artillery can hit moving targets.
Any reasonable person would have understood I am referring to modern precision weapons with standoff capability. And anyone who's had a history of reading my posts with me parrotting my points constantly knows I am referring to precision weapons, since I have never stopped discussing precision weapons every chance I get. So it's you who's incorrectly assuming things on your own. Don't pin this on me.
Competing on the LoC & us retaking PoK are 2 different scenarios especially in a 2 front war where whether we can do so in a single front scenario is itself doubtful. While I'm of the opinion we can, I just happen to disagree with the kind of timeframe being mentioned here by Falcon. I believe he said less than 2 weeks.
What he said is what the army believes, so does the air force. You are free to disagree with the army and air force.
Have you even read his book? What exactly are you referring to?
I am referring to how Ravi believes the numbers are necessary since he believes the air force is not going to do its part.
As for his unrealistic timeframe, read his twitter post you posted again and then read what you think Falcon posted.
The other nations aren't facing a 2 front war with 2 N armed neighbors both of whom are existential threats & one of which has successfully tied us down in an LIC.
Yeah...... I doubt you have the ability to relate what you said here with what I've said.
Already have.He's of the same opinion with minor differences of opinion. All of which he's posted here
It that so? Really? Ask again.
Ravi thinks we need months to defeat Pak, while Falcon says we need a week or two. So that's a minor difference of opinion, eh?
So, we are expected to lay greater stock on a random upstart in a blog as opposed to a veteran commentator with credentials to boot, well respected by armed forces personnel both serving & retired on the matter. I can see why're you chickening out from confronting him.
What's there to confront about? He himself says he's not paid too much attention to logistics.
And he's also suggested he's not considered the air force to be of significant use either. He's basically even dismissed the air force's role in CAS, by saying the air force won't support the army's offensive in any major way. He literally made only 1 minor attempt to create an orbat for CAS and then said the IAF won't do it anyway, so he won't bother with it.
He basically puts up China-Pak orbat in numbers, and then puts up a massive 72-division requirement for the IA to defeat both forces. His work is indeed impressive, but it's not a real world analysis, probably why it was even allowed to be published. IIRC he claims we need 40-50 divisions against Pakistan and 20+ divisions against China. And the way he did it is by calculating the length of the front and then putting up a division for every 40Km or so for the Pakistan front. And then creating a massive reserve force to follow up on the work of the frontline forces.
His entire premise is the IA has to fight alone, hence it needs such numbers. Who on earth can agree to such an analysis? The entire army is of the opinion that their entire division to brigade reorganisation will fail without air force support. Completely in antithesis to what Ravi claims.
I didn't see any such claim in his book. Which book are you referring to?
This is a technical military analysis warning that India cannot fight a 2-front war against Pakistan and China. Its strategy of defeating...
www.goodreads.com
There's no real mention of logistics anywhere in the book. In fact, I read his book to understand what his views were on logistics. But it was literally a zero there. All he talks about is by giving some examples of roads and rail and some general numbers. Not even worth a paragraph. Hence no analysis of logistics at all.
I highly doubt whatever their PoV, they'd be candid about it in public. That's why we have informed commentators analyse it as opposed random upstarts with half baked knowledge & twice the" I know it all" attitude.
LOL!!! The existing orbat of the army versus a civilian analyst who himself claims readers should take his book with a pinch of salt.
His entire book is based on the assumption that the army is wrong and he is right. Hence why he himself doesn't agree with the army's assessment. So...
