Debunking attempts by keyboard warriors to teach tactics to the military

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
You need to read up first on your information.

Do you know why the first strike missions were sent in unescorted? Because we had only one squadron of Mig-21s in the eastern sector when the war broke out. During the outbreak of the war, they were assigned on BARCAP duties over our own airbases.
Remember we didnt have as many resources then as we do today.
We had lots of Hawker Hunters. We could have used Hawker Hunters additionally to protect Hawker Hunters on strike mission.

Your information is wrong. Fighter-bombers which were thought to be capable of defending themselves in case of aerial combat were almost always sent in without escort. This was the precise reason why the Fighter-Bomber was developed in the first place along with the "Cab Rank" system of tactics.
Heard of the P-47 Thunderbolt? Hawker Typhoon?
Always went in unescorted because they were fighter bombers and didnt need escort.

Same goes for the ground attack variants of the Focke Wulf 190 when they were sent in for strike missions by the luftwaffe because of a lack of resources towards the end of the second world war.
Ground Attack aircraft and Fighter Bombers are different. Fighter Bombers were generally sent with escorts and not until air superiority was achieved. A fighter bomber can jettison its payload and act as fighter. For your info, P-47 thunderbolt and Hawker Typhoon were best used as fighter-bombers when German airforce declined. When P-47s were sent to escort B-17s and B-24s they were not armed with bombs.

Entire REGIMENTS of Il-2s went in unescorted during the battle of Kursk to attack german tanks. And did a good job at that.
They did not.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rcinCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=Il+2s+in+Kursk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib8MS_m-XQAhXCRI8KHbllBNIQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=Il 2s in Kursk&f=false

The IL-2 Sturmovik’s performance has also been overrated as a “tank-buster”. Lets look at some examples from Kursk again. The VVS claimed to have knocked out ~270 tanks of 3rd Panzer Division within 2 hrs. 3rd Panzer Division only had 90 tanks and the division fought against Soviet AT guns and AFVs which likely caused the majority of the divisions casualties(~49 tanks) during Kursk. IL-2s also claimed to have taken out 240 German tanks of 17th Panzer Division which had a total of 67 tanks. 17th Panzer did not record any abnormal losses coming from the air during Kursk.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

Same reason applies for why the hunter was sent in unescorted in the beginning.The hunter was designed and built as a fighter. It was deemed capable of protecting itself.
However, it suffered losses to ground fire and the tactics were adapted. Mig-21s were chosen primarily because of their speed by which they could avoid the worst of the flak. It worked and we won the war. The rest as they say is history.

Side Note : - if you can, go through Eagles Over Bangladesh by Jagan Mohan and Samir Chopra. One of the authors is my best friend's uncle. You'll get the exact specifics of the 1971 Air War in the eastern sector.

The other book on the western sector is on the way.
Indian fighter pilots conducted more than 2 attack runs when in general only 2 attack runs are done. No fighter plane can fight against a fighter while having bombs and rockets. They have to jettison them otherwise their maneuverability will reduce completely. Here was another problem, if they jettisoned their payload then main mission is not done. We had 4 squadron Hawker Hunters in Eastern Front.
 
Last edited:

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
Certain people here with no relation to the military or no record of military service themselves can think that by reading a few wiki articles and books, they can teach the job to those who are doing it on a daily basis.
At most some of them even suggest something to defense minister and Military by tweeting and tagging ...when try to explain they batting for their bullshit
 

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
At most some of them even suggest something to defense minister and Military by tweeting and tagging ...when try to explain they batting for their bullshit
If you have something then contribute. We are all almost all are keyboard warriors here, except a few.

By your logic you should not say Government should do this or that regarding Pakistan and China because you are no Government official or minister. So what is the point?
 

armyofhind

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
1,525
Likes
2,885
Country flag
We had lots of Hawker Hunters. We could have used Hawker Hunters additionally to protect Hawker Hunters on strike mission.
What makes you think we didnt? Thats standard IAF procedure.
For a flight of four hunters configured for ground attack, a pair was assigned for escort duties. Those who fly in the IAF go through far intensive training and know far more than you can by reading books.

The first flights that went in were configured for air combat. Strike missions followed later.

Your claim that fighter cover was not provided is also false.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/history/1971war/1270-harish-masand.html

Fighter Bombers were generally sent with escorts and not until air superiority was achieved.
False again. Typhoons of the second tactical air force were conducting missions of their own long before the Luftwaffe had been defeated.

When P-47s were sent to escort B-17s and B-24s they were not armed with bombs.
P-47s were not very good at escort duties for the heavy bombers anyway. High Altitude performance of the thunderbolt left things to be desired for. When replaced by the Mustang, P-47s were free to do what they did best at medium to low altitudes and were used as fighter bombers and close air support aircraft.
Indian fighter pilots conducted more than 2 attack runs when in general only 2 attack runs are done.
Yep. Speaks in itself about their courage.
 

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
What makes you think we didnt? Thats standard IAF procedure.
For a flight of four hunters configured for ground attack, a pair was assigned for escort duties. Those who fly in the IAF go through far intensive training and know far more than you can by reading books.

The first flights that went in were configured for air combat. Strike missions followed later.

Your claim that fighter cover was not provided is also false.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/history/1971war/1270-harish-masand.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/history/1971war/1270-harish-masand.html

Official history suggests that first raids were carried out by Canberra which were ineffective and in any case, a fighter bomber is not supposed to attack deep inside enemy territory but to support army.

False again. Typhoons of the second tactical air force were conducting missions of their own long before the Luftwaffe had been defeated.
Since when? Luftwaffe was already more engaged in defeating strategic bombers and their escorts.

P-47s were not very good at escort duties for the heavy bombers anyway. High Altitude performance of the thunderbolt left things to be desired for. When replaced by the Mustang, P-47s were free to do what they did best at medium to low altitudes and were used as fighter bombers and close air support aircraft.
Again wrong. P 47 was suited for medium and high altitude. P-47 either way when they were attacking generally did not carry bombs but they did strafing runs. P-47s when ever sent to bomb were always under escort.

Yep. Speaks in itself about their courage.

I never denied courage but it was too dangerous. Like WW2 Soviet pilots, continue strafing run till ammunition is exhausted.
 

armyofhind

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
1,525
Likes
2,885
Country flag
Official history suggests that first raids were carried out by Canberra which were ineffective and in any case, a fighter bomber is not supposed to attack deep inside enemy territory but to support army.



Since when? Luftwaffe was already more engaged in defeating strategic bombers and their escorts.



Again wrong. P 47 was suited for medium and high altitude. P-47 either way when they were attacking generally did not carry bombs but they did strafing runs. P-47s when ever sent to bomb were always under escort.




I never denied courage but it was too dangerous. Like WW2 Soviet pilots, continue strafing run till ammunition is exhausted.
Canberras attacked only at night. Sabres couldn't intercept them anyway.

In the Eastern Sector, not a single hunter was lost to enemy air action.

On the first day itself the hunters shot down a Sabre.

Tezgaon had been put out of commission by the migs by 6th December.

2 Sabres were further shot down by hunters striking at Kurmitola.

The claims which you have made that Hunters were shot down by Sabres because they were laden with bombs and rockets... and that they went in without fighter cover are just plain false.

Like I've told you, for a flight of four ground attack hunters a pair was assigned for air combat. That's IAF SOP in 1971 and even 1965.

Hence your claims are false and debunked.
 

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
Canberras attacked only at night. Sabres couldn't intercept them anyway.

In the Eastern Sector, not a single hunter was lost to enemy air action.

On the first day itself the hunters shot down a Sabre.

Tezgaon had been put out of commission by the migs by 6th December.

2 Sabres were further shot down by hunters striking at Kurmitola.

The claims which you have made that Hunters were shot down by Sabres because they were laden with bombs and rockets... and that they went in without fighter cover are just plain false.

Like I've told you, for a flight of four ground attack hunters a pair was assigned for air combat. That's IAF SOP in 1971 and even 1965.

Hence your claims are false and debunked.
Your claim that not a single Hunter was lost is wrong. Canberra raids failed. Canberra is not so maneuverable aircraft.
Further we had 12 aircraft per squadron so why did we send only 4 aircraft in first raid?
 

armyofhind

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
1,525
Likes
2,885
Country flag
Your claim that not a single Hunter was lost is wrong. Canberra raids failed. Canberra is not so maneuverable aircraft.
Further we had 12 aircraft per squadron so why did we send only 4 aircraft in first raid?
Now you're just grasping at straws since your claims have been debunked.
I never said just 4 aircraft were sent. Four were sent for air combat. The rest were sent for ground attack against airfields, fuel dumps and targets of opportunity.

Canberras attacked only at night. Your entire argument of Sabres coming up to intercept incoming aircraft doesn't apply to Canberras as Sabres couldn't fly at night.

I never said Hunters were not lost. None were lost to enemy air action.
Hunters shot down a total of 4 Sabres and that includes Hunters which were configured for ground attack at Kurmitola.

Accept it that your claims were false in the first place. And quit with the fanboy rantings. You're done as far as this argument is concerned.

Like I said, you cannot teach the trade to the professionals by reading books and Wikipedia.
 

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
Now you're just grasping at straws since your claims have been debunked.
I never said just 4 aircraft were sent. Four were sent for air combat. The rest were sent for ground attack against airfields, fuel dumps and targets of opportunity.

Canberras attacked only at night. Your entire argument of Sabres coming up to intercept incoming aircraft doesn't apply to Canberras as Sabres couldn't fly at night.

I never said Hunters were not lost. None were lost to enemy air action.
Hunters shot down a total of 4 Sabres and that includes Hunters which were configured for ground attack at Kurmitola.

Accept it that your claims were false in the first place. And quit with the fanboy rantings. You're done as far as this argument is concerned.

Like I said, you cannot teach the trade to the professionals by reading books and Wikipedia.
First Hunter Raids were CAP not ground attack.

Hunters were shot down by PAF CAP Sabers.

From your own link

On the morning of 04 Dec 71, No 37 Squadron ‘the Black Panthers’ lovingly called the “Black Panties” by other IAF squadrons, launched their very first mission of the war, with four Hunters. This was the first Squadron to get the camera nose Hunter (FR Mk 10) and had already flown several recce missions in to East Pakistan since July '71.

The Hunters were configured with four 100 Gal long range tanks and only gun ammo. The mission was lead by the CO, Wg Cdr SP ‘Supi’ Kaul (later Chief of the Air staff) with Flt Lt SK ‘Billu’ Sangar as no 2 and Sqn Ldr AM Mascarenhas as no 3 and Fg Offr Harish ‘Khappe’( left handed) Masand as no 4. The mission was search and destroy targets of opportunity at Tezgaon airfield, which was at 181 NMs with a small detour for the IP- Rupsi, while the Range of Action of the Hunter at LO-LO was 167 NM in that configuration.
"
04-Dec-71 Hunter 14 Flt Lt K C Tremenhere Tejgaon SD F-86 (Sqn Ldr Dilawar) POW
04-Dec-71 Hunter 14 Sqn Ldr K D Mehra . Tejgaon SD F-86 0800 Hrs Eject "

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/h...r-losses-of-the-1971-war-unofficial-list.html
 

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
Certain people here with no relation to the military or no record of military service themselves can think that by reading a few wiki articles and books, they can teach the job to those who are doing it on a daily basis.
Let it be man. He is the same guy who suggested 6kg INSAS LMG as next "rifle" for IA. You are fighting a battle you just cannot win.
 

Mikesingh

Professional
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
7,353
Likes
30,450
Country flag
There seems to be a lot of confusion between the terms 'air superiority' and 'favorable air situation'. Fighter bombers / bombers on interdiction missions need fighter escorts if you have achieved a favorable air situation. But you may not need them if you have air superiority as enemy air power in the zone of battle would have been so degraded that they would not have the capability to interfere during the course of the mission.

In 1971 we achieved air superiority in then East Pakistan within a couple of days and were thus able to employ our air assets with impunity, without any interference during interdiction missions on their VAs/VPs as well as during close air support to advancing troops.
 
Last edited:

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,661
Likes
22,504
Country flag
Certain people here with no relation to the military or no record of military service themselves can think that by reading a few wiki articles and books, they can teach the job to those who are doing it on a daily basis.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::yo:
 

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
Let it be man. He is the same guy who suggested 6kg INSAS LMG as next "rifle" for IA. You are fighting a battle you just cannot win.
Please provide some logic as to how 6 kg INSAS 1B was accepted as rifle but INSAS LMG with superior structure and weighing same cant be so with same weight. Compared to Excalibur and others, INSAS LMG is heavier but compared to original INSAs 1B, INSAS LMG is superior.

Edit : INSAS LMG has a stand, removing it and reducing it's long barrel from 21 inch to 16 inch and in same time giving INSAS 1B a 30 round magazine will almost result in same weight, albeit INSAS LMG as a better weapon.
 
Last edited:

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,327
Country flag
Just like a bolt action Lee Enfield was inducted by British Indian Army in the early 20th century. Just like SLR was inducted in 1960s. Just like Centurion tanks were inducted post WW2. Just like Mig-21s were inducted in the early 1960s.


Are you really that dense that you cannot co-relate weaponry and era and conditions of its induction? What you are essentially suggesting is the equivalent of induction of upgraded T-72s for the FMBT/FRCV program. What next, shall we cancel FGFA and induct new Mig-29s?

So of all the major armies in world let's make Indian Army the only one which uses a 6kg rifle that fires a 5.56 round. An army which conducts long patrols in the Himalayas.

What part of the "new assault rifle" is too difficult for you to comprehend ?

Do me a favour, don't quote me further
 

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
What I said about tanks and aircrafts? :frusty: Check my other posts, I only said COMPARED TO INSAS 1B not compared to Excalibur, Kalantak or Amogh. Do you even comprehend?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Please provide some logic as to how 6 kg INSAS 1B was accepted as rifle but INSAS LMG with superior structure and weighing same cant be so with same weight. Compared to Excalibur and others, INSAS LMG is heavier but compared to original INSAs 1B, INSAS LMG is superior.

Edit : INSAS LMG has a stand, removing it and reducing it's long barrel from 21 inch to 16 inch and in same time giving INSAS 1B a 30 round magazine will almost result in same weight, albeit INSAS LMG as a better weapon.
INSAS AR: 4.15 kg
INSAS LMG: 6.23 kg
Both, without magazine, and both with fixed butt.

INSAS LMG has:
  1. Longer barrel for accuracy.
  2. Heavier barrel to delay overheating due to full auto fire.
A 16" INSAS AR barrel would still be lighter than a 16" INSAS LMG barrel.
 

India22

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
629
Likes
322
You are right, I said INSAS LMG's bipod to be removed, barrel shortened to 16 inch, plus INSAS LMG also uses 30 round, a such modified INSAS LMG and a INSAS rifle with 30 round mag, I am curious.
 

Johny_Baba

अज्ञानी
Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2016
Messages
3,754
Likes
19,204
Country flag
You are right, I said INSAS LMG's bipod to be removed, barrel shortened to 16 inch, plus INSAS LMG also uses 30 round, a such modified IN1243142, member: 22265"] INSAS LMG's bipod to be removed, bad to 16 inch,INSAS LMG also uses 30 round, a such modified INSAS LMG and a INSAS rifle with 30 round mag, I am curious.
ok to achieve that put an LMG-quality heavy barrel on Excalibur mk.1c and you'll get even better weapon than your initial idea.
 

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
4,988
Likes
9,931
The points I found out after talking to couple of army personal regarding issue of LMG, GPMG or SAW
  • IA does not prefers (likes) automatic fire. Soldiers are trained mainly on single shot or burst fire mode for the following reasons :
    • Poor accuracy in automatic mode resulting resulting lot of ammunition wastage
    • Increases logistic and resupplying
    • In some case recoil from automatic fire may even injure the shooter
    • Increased barrel wear
  • IA is mainly engaged in COIN operations (on own territory) where their are no need for automatic fire as automatic fire will cause more collateral damage.
  • Their is a better probability to kill enemy combatant with single shot or burst fire than automatic fire
  • Weight on automatic weapons and their ammunition is undesirable on long patrols.
  • The last comment was automatic fire is only good in video games and not in practical real life
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top