T-90 Bhishma / T-72 Ajeya of Indian Army : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
We will if we're going for GB as well and intend to establish a land connection with Afghanistan while cutting Pakistani land access to china...as for PoK (excluding GB) alone can be flattened with artillery prior to moving in mechanized columns. But I wonder how will the tanks and BMPs navigate thru the jungle terrain of kashmir with no clear path along the LoC
Air cavalry. You basically need Chinooks , Apaches & LCH in the dozens to seize air ports , establish bases for supplies & landing of troops before spreading out to establish control over road based communication.
@Hellfire is of the opinion we can do it in a week . Our experience of the Battle of Skardu says otherwise . But that was in 1948 .
What's your take on it ? @Jaymax
And 100 Thousand casualties
Who will convince the people of India , that POK is worth 100 Thousand lives of our Soldiers
It won't take that many. PA can't fight us to that level.
Anyway, all that can come after we are done.
There is no way india going a war with pak, i fear our leadership is accepted the present day j&k structure.
I don't mean what aerial support will be required but how will armored columns navigate thru mountains and jungles when there is no clear path and is all blocked with trees and rough terrain
Russia used regular roads and highways in Ukraine which are non-existent along LoC to enter into PoK
Secondly, providing aerial support will be extremely hard in Kashmir's terrain
It's because of the terrain you use air cavalry to seize points of strategic importance before securing lines of communication to get your tanks across whatever roads does permit it's usage.
Both Heptrs & CAS will be vital & optmised to the extent these platforms can. There's no other option.
The general public doesn't has one. It's Okay losing hundreds in a bombing or a Terrorist act, but if a SF mission is carried out, and say 5 men were lost, the Prime Minister will be forced to resign.
We don't have a stomach for it yet.
We only need free electricity.
based on what metrics ? we have not fought a full scale war for decades and there will be as many holes in our military that we are not aware of . These are pure theoretical thoughts with no data to back up. If we consider pakistan a push over that would be our serious mistake. This is the same mistake pakistan has been committing over the last 5 decades.
Given the mountainous terrain we will be stuck fighting a radicalized population for years to come.
More than stomach I think POK is a total non-entity from a politician's perspective other than during elections. It was this reason that kashmir was neglected for years to together, as long as it does not affect the main stream it never made any sense for them to fix . Occasional bomb blasts & loss of lives would wake them up momentarily then it would get onto back burner again.
But we have to agree on the fact that gaining POK immediately at the risk of huge loss of lives & finances is not going to change any thing for the country. Given that there are more pressing problems to solve , we are better off playing the long term attrition game. Only problem is we should not lose focus & need continuity across the govts to weaken pakistan.
We have the firepower to achieve this. Whatever holes we have, Pakistan will most definitely have bigger holes. Having a largely high altiude border from Kashmir to AP has given us certain skills that other countries cannot match, including Pakistan.
In any case, even if we can't do it today, the army will modernise over the next 10 years. So there's that. As long as we give it time, the holes will only get smaller.
Yes, this is a problem. But it can be contained over time. Insurgencies only work with state backing or if there's a border we are not willing to go across. India has the former problem, the US had the latter problem when dealing with the Taliban.
You are just talking too much
Do you really feel we will loose only 5 men in an operation
Even the Surgical strikes of 2016 were shallow and they were to come back by day light
Occupying a piece of land is easy , but holding it for a while is impossible
All that the Pakistanis will do is go back a few km and start Artillery shelling and wipe out our troops
And if we go deep in POK , say 10 Km , and occupy some territory how will you supply food and water to our troops
Talking about POK is easy. Doing it will require huge loss of lives
If we really want to hurt Pakistan , then destroy all their
Fighter planes , Ships and Submarines , All airbases
Large number of Tanks and Artillery guns -- Make them Defenceless
But Dont occupy land
But Also be prepared for Chinese intervention
In terms of protection and electronics, the T-72 CIA is as good as the B3. The firepower is lacking in comparison, although it's good enough against Pak tanks. The B3's firepower is similar to what's on NATO tanks, ours is 30 years behind, but matches our T-90. The Russians have introduced a new gun, and we do not use that.
I know losses will be big. My anology was an SF operation with less than 50 men. I think I made that clear.
This is absolutely not the way we will lose numbers though. No one fights like this.
This kind of argument is given at PDF. People like us with limited understanding of military tactics are not sure how to respond to such claims.
Responding is not important. But their are some good documentaries are wars post WW2. They give a good perspective on planning and strategies involved.
Egyptian defence formation across the suez was actually really impressive in my opinion. End results don't say everything.
We can always watch those, and try to think from the viewpoint of the planners.
Gulf wars, Israel Palestine Conflict, wars in Balkans are well documented. I would recommend them to everyone.
