Well, if you typify the indian soldier, then I can see why the Australian army soldier is light years ahead of their indian counterpart.
Both in doctrine and tactics. We actually teach our soldiers to think. To stay alert, to have situational awareness.
To know what to do when to do it and not hesitate. This is why fieldcraft and training for specified activitites is done over and over until it is routine.
Unfortunately india does not have the money for training regimes like Australia does let alone the US, so you have had to improvise. or make do with what you have and claim it to be the best.
Lack of training is why you let a bunch of terrorist take over the mountains in kargil. Kinda sleeping at the wheel as we say it. You only regained it after massive losses, almost the same amount as the defenders.
Perhaps you are part of the old gaurds where modernisation had not reach you yet. I was reading a article where your defense minister was alarmed at the modernisation of china, and that india must catch up. So I assume that india is still requiring alot of modernisation and that china had surpass you. You can tell alot about his confidence or lack there of.
The problem is its easy to teach these modern tactics, but difficult to build a culture of this particularly in the indian army. The way you retook the mountain in kargil really left alot to be desired. Not really modern tactics at all and the casualties wouldn't be tolerated in the western world or in Oz for that matter.
Now, that is all the Australian Army is all about. Be good enough to compare that with the Indian Army.
I would be surprised if the Australian Defence Forces are light years ahead. In fact, given the size and commitments, a dispassionate observer would feel that they are light years behind. To be fair, maybe the ADF is just a few years ahead of the Noah's Ark.
As far as doctrines and tactics are concerned, Australia has any of its own? Which war has the fought on their own to have their own doctrines and tactics? Appendages only follow the leader, and in the case of Australia, it is the US which is the leader.
It is indeed amusing that you attribute 'thinking' as the sole prerogative of the Australians and the western armies. But one can overlook that coming from you since wars has not been the cup of tea for Australia for quite some time, even as an appendage. In war, if you do not think, you are dead meat because wars are no longer fought in phalanx formations that were rigid that were rectangular mass military formations. Or does Australia still adhere to those practically antediluvian modes?
Situational Awareness? 'Situational Awareness' is a buzz word for those who have not experienced a battlefield. You would not have mentioned it so cavalierly had you seen bullets flying in what the American's quaintly term as 'harm's way'! When the chips are down, it is situational awareness that keeps you alive, be you a high tech soldier or a rag tag guerrilla or a terrorist.
Whatever you have celebrated in your post as ADF's 'out of the box' stuff is but routine to those out in the Indian Army since warfare is no stranger to us and counter insurgency has visited us for long.
Unfortunately india does not have the money for training regimes like Australia does let alone the US, so you have had to improvise. or make do with what you have and claim it to be the best.
That is where you go wrong. India has the money but that does not mean that one is not to improvise or innovate to fight a war or a counter insurgency. Improvisation and innovations are but the answer to being aware of the situation and adapting it to the demands of the conflict.
Since you quote the US so frequently and I presume that Australia has nothing to contribute and so a silence on Australian modes, why do you think the Strykers came about? The US had a perfectly capable vehicle M2 Bradley, but it was not easily deployable. Hence, the Stryker, as easily deployed, but lightly armed and protected vehicle. A fallout of plan 'Objective Force' that was to address US concerns post the Cold War. By your logic, the US should have stuck to Cold War doctrines, tactics and weapon system and not improvise and innovate.
You quote the US since that is your idol, well, here is an article that may update your knowledge that it is not only the Indians who improvise, but also the US, the most high technologically backed army
U.S. troops buy own gear for safety, style in battle
U.S. troops buy own gear for safety, style in battle - CSMonitor.com
Lack of training is why you let a bunch of terrorist take over the mountains in kargil. Kinda sleeping at the wheel as we say it. You only regained it after massive losses, almost the same amount as the defenders.
This part adds to your deficiency that you exhibit in understanding warfare beyond the stereotype and rhetoric.
1. It was not terrorists. It was the Northern Light Infantry, which is a part of the Pakistani Army.
2. It was not mountains, it was the High Altitude, and heights that the Australians have ever seen! Therefore, the cannot understand warfighting at those heights, devoid of oxygen, trees, stark landscape and devoid of water at those height and where the atmospherics prove ballistic theories crazy!
Have you checked the casualties of the Australians in fighting in the plains in Afghanistan and Iraq from the miniscule that they have contributed?
The fact that you state –
You only regained it after massive losses, almost the same amount as the defenders. proves that you do not understand warfare and you claim that the Australian Army is made to 'think'. Poor thinking and even knowledge I would say.
An attacker is out in the open (more so in the stark High Altitude where there are no trees or cover). The defender is in fortifications and hence safe from direct firing weapons. Indirect weapons which are more lethal like artillery are not effective in the mountains and more so in the High Altitude. Where the atmospherics play havoc with the range tables. The defended post is on a pinnacle, a small knoll so to say. There are 'shorts' and 'overs' and very little on target. So, there you go!
In the plains, a 3:I combat ration is applied by the attacker, and in the High Altitude it is 12:1. So, if there will not be more casualties for the attacker in High Altitude and in this case Kargil, then where will it be?
Bone up on the military beyond the placid Australia and you will see the flakes falling off your eyes!
The problem is its easy to teach these modern tactics, but difficult to build a culture of this particularly in the indian army. The way you retook the mountain in kargil really left alot to be desired. Not really modern tactics at all and the casualties wouldn't be tolerated in the western world or in Oz for that matter.
As a peace time, Australia can hardly be building any military culture. Copycatting the American military is hardly building any indigenous culture.
Indeed, the Australians would not tolerate casualties. It is not because of not adhering to 'modern tactics', but copycatting the American fear of 'bodybags'.
In India, whereas we too don't want people to die, but then valour is an important input in our culture. And to die in defence of the Motherland, is our badge of courage and badge of honour. One must also understand that when one joins the Indian Armed Forces, he goes with all this 'thinking power' on and he knows that if it comes to the supreme sacrifice, he will have to stand up and be counted as a MAN!
Dulce et Decorum est, pro Patria Mori.
