Analysis of Indo-Pakistan border forces

[Ray]

As far as Pakistani being able to interdict NH1A, there are over 5 places that they can do so.

Pt 5353 is just one of them.

As far as directing Arty fire is concerned, the arty officer when in an attack is called the FOO and when in defence and static is called OP (Observation Post) officer.

All Arty officers are trained to do so and so too Infantry and Armoured Corps officers, just in case the arty officer gets killed!

 

[Armand2REP]

Does anyone have the orbat for the forces in occupied territory?

 

[macintosh]

Originally posted by Planeman

Google Earth has revolutionised Open-Source intelligence, but it does have certain weaknesses. Primarily in this case is that GE satellite imagery of the border varies greatly in terms of when it was taken, so the maps of sites I provide is not a single point in time picture. Some imagery dates from 2001, others from 2009. Earlier imagery, ie closer to the 1999 conflict, naturally would be expected to show more active sites. Also, inactive legacy sites remain visible for years in the Kargil region (Zone A), whereas they are quickly farmed over in Zones B & C of my analysis.

Sir your observations from Google Earth are superb to say the least. I can understand the painstaking work done by you.

However, the layout of sites is a good question which I can opine on. In general, Pakistani towed artillery sites tend to be more dispersed and/or irregular positioning. By linear, I really mean a straight line, or more commonly, an arc (yeah not 'linear' in the real sense). Linear sites make it easier to align all the guns to hit the same target. It also makes it more practical for direct and low-elevation firing to the front as no guns are firing over the top of overs. I'd not enjoy crewing a gun with another 20m behind firing over my head anyways. So for quick deployment of current in-service towed pieces a linear or arcing deployment is easier to employ. Modern technology is increasing the extent to which artillery pieces can be dispersed, now in theory using latest western artillery computers guns can be dispersed with several Km between guns which greatly increases survivability though having costs of engagement zone and logistics/control. That type of technology seems easier to apply to self-propelled guns and is in part Pakistan's SH-1's advantage.

But there must be some strong reason for IA to allow PA widen the gap in SFG. I mean funds shortage is not an issue. Moreover the linear sites under attack will be more vulnerable to high casualties. As for your quick deployment reason, does this means that PA's artillery remains deployed 24x7 ???

Pakistan is concentrating on SPGs which are most useful further south in Zones C & D. India lacks this capability except for MBRLs. Maintaining gun positions in Zones C & D is relatively expensive for little gain as there are no hills to hide behind so static sites would easily be picked off in the first hours of any conflict. India's towed pieces and even SPGs are better kept in garrisons awaiting deployment only at times of heightened tensions. I'd guess from the deployment pattern that except in Kargil, Pakistan expects India to surprise invade more-so than India expects Pakistan to invade. Pakistan therefore deploys some batteries in static positions still to cover the border.

In zone C & D both IA and PA would rely mostly on Tank battles as also suggested. So SPG's deployment there may yield little advantage. Also can it be such that the towed artillery offers some advantage as compared to SPG's from India's Point of view ???

The Pakistani OP on Point 5353 is so strategic because it allows Pakistani FOOs to call down fire on the highway near Dras.

But if it is such a strategic point then why was it not captured back in 99' ???. Politics ??

Not sure if my ramblings have really shed much light on your question, but good context I hope.

Sir you have successfully enlightened my knowledge and I hope to listen more from you.

 

[Parashuram1]

I thought recently a lot of noise was made in your armed establishments that Pakistan and China both are rapidly modernizing their forces while Indians are going extremely slow with them. Pakistan infact has a very decent rate of modernization in all the three branches of military. Their army is receiving tanks and artillery units from China, their navy recently got the F-22P warships from the Chinese again and also their JF-17 for air force has already started coming in. Now compare this to India, which is yet to execute a single artillery deal barring the recent US deal of 145 howitzers and the 4.5 billion dollar artillery project with ST and other firms competing to supply. Recently your fighter Tejas has seen some positive reviews and is on track, however your contest MRCA is still going on since a total 5 years and still no fighter has managed to come in--this shows the corruption in the defense department which you Indians as citizens should question your government on.

Your Navy while faring average on surface warships, is having a terrible time in the submersible department where you have only a fraction of the submarines that Chinese have which is seriously alarming.

Don't you guys want to question your government or what? I mean the ordinary Indian has to know how his money is spent by his government.

 

[Agantrope]

Hi Planeman,
If possible can you throw some idea on the India and China position near the Arunachal and Ladakh areas, in similar fashion like this

 

[planeman]

Thanks for the kind words.


macintosh,
Both sides deploy artillery 24x7 in static sites in peace time, and likely to a lesser extent in open conflict. In such a position towed pieces are cheaper to maintain. In 1999 India found that it had inadequate artillery pieces in the area, and that they had to move to hit targets plus avoid counter-battery fire.

SPGs are overall more capable, but towed pieces have advantages in some respects, such as in such high mountains where the roads cannot take the wide and heavy SPGs. also, towed pieces are cheaper to purchase and maintain, and some like the Light Gun and on-order M-777 can be air-lifted into position by helicopter. So not hands down SPGs are better to purchase, but 1:1 an SPG is usually better than the same gun in a towed form.


Point 5353 wasn't retaken because it was too difficult I think, and hard to defend from the peaks on the Pakistani side. It's simply not an easy position to take from the Indian side, I think they tried.



Parashuram1, I won't call the F-22P as much of a capability leap.

 

[ppgj]

great to see youe amazing analysis and look forward to more analysis from you. btw a hearty welcome.

 

[SATISH]

Sir dosent the SPG provide more flexibility for the advancing infantry in case of invading corps? Artillery barrages constituted by the SPG can easily help the advancing army. And I would also like to ask if the MBRLs along with the SPGs can be more effective during an offensive action. The IA right now seems to concentrate more on MBRLs instead of using the SPGs as they are more accurate and the rockets carry more fire power. The M-777 is an already proven platform as it is based on the FH777 already made by the bofors before the BAe systems took over it. It has already won the trials held during 2007 and as the current congress government is a bit paranoic about the mention of the company the whole deal was cancelled. So where would you think the M-777 will be deployed? Will it be deployed in the eastern or the western front? The Pegasus and the Caeser are also in fray for the SPG deal..Can you compare those two guns for me please.

And I would also like to know more why the IA is tilting towards the MBRL support for its advancing forces instead of moving towards artillery other than the reasons ccited by me. Can you please explain these reasons to me?

 

[bengalraider]

@ Planeman, was reading through your blog (again) and i came across this line

Point 5353 was also occupied by Pakistan in 1999 and is controversial since it was previously under Indian control

.

Are you aure about that cos then the Kargil war may not have been such an unequivocal success as some here may think(i personally think it brought out many of our flaws rather than our strengths, whatever the final outcome)

 

[ppgj]

@ Planeman, was reading through your blog (again) and i came across this line
.

Are you aure about that cos then the Kargil war may not have been such an unequivocal success as some here may think(i personally think it brought out many of our flaws rather than our strengths, whatever the final outcome)

BR. he is right. we could not retrieve that. i have posted a link on the 'kargill war' thread. here the link -

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/near-tiger-hill-point-5353-still-pakoccupi/488505/

 

[planeman]

Satish, sounds like you have a good appreciation of Artillery. it seems, from an outside perspective, that Indian defence procurement delays in SPGs are more political than out of a full military appreciation. I'm surprised India never purchased the many SPGs that USSR/Russia has to offer. In the early nineties you can imagine a bargain basement pricing for 2S19 Msta 152mm SPGs for example.

Caesar compares, generally, to Pakistan's Chinese made SH-1 guns.

Pegasus is a lightweight equivalent of the Panter Pakistan operates, and generally just a line replacement for the Bofors FH-77B. - is India trialling the version with APU? The FH-77B is a great gun and India's apparent inability to refurbish it or buy spares is probably expensive.

 

[Armand2REP]

I'm surprised India never purchased the many SPGs that USSR/Russia has to offer. In the early nineties you can imagine a bargain basement pricing for 2S19 Msta 152mm SPGs for example.

If you hand't noticed, Russia's main SP artillery is still the 2S3 Acacia. They weren't about to sell the 2S19 much less the 2S3 when they still have a thousand outdated 2S1s in the inventory.

 

[SATISH]

Satish, sounds like you have a good appreciation of Artillery. it seems, from an outside perspective, that Indian defence procurement delays in SPGs are more political than out of a full military appreciation. I'm surprised India never purchased the many SPGs that USSR/Russia has to offer. In the early nineties you can imagine a bargain basement pricing for 2S19 Msta 152mm SPGs for example.

Caesar compares, generally, to Pakistan's Chinese made SH-1 guns.

Pegasus is a lightweight equivalent of the Panter Pakistan operates, and generally just a line replacement for the Bofors FH-77B. - is India trialling the version with APU? The FH-77B is a great gun and India's apparent inability to refurbish it or buy spares is probably expensive.

Sir,
In an all out war the mobility and adaptability of the Artillery is the most important thing that I seem to observe I might be right or wrong in it. The artillery lethality is based on the numbers that the country can deploy against its enemy...It can be used to give cover for the advancing forces. The Bofors were successful in the high altitude Kargil peaks because of its onboard computer that accurately calculates the Wind direction and speed and thus helping it's commanders to accurately pinpoint the artillery fire. None of the other aritillery had this facility and the small onboard engine helped it to quickly maneuvre into position thus making it difficult to accurately track it. So the bofors FH-77 is a far better artillery system compared to the Soltam. This can also be achieved by the MBRL this I know.

And can you tell me how effective is a Mortar barrage coupled with artillery fire? As the American soldiers in Afghanistan preferred coupling both of them together in the mountainous terrain for quicker devastating effects. How was the mortars placed and how were they coupled with the artillery?..were the Mortars used to flank the incoming terrorists or were they used to make them stay inside the caves till the ISAF entered it and shot them? As we will be fighting a war most probably in the mountain terrain how will it help the Indians?

 

[notinlove]

Sir,
And can you tell me how effective is a Mortar barrage coupled with artillery fire? As the American soldiers in Afghanistan preferred coupling both of them together in the mountainous terrain for quicker devastating effects. How was the mortars placed and how were they coupled with the artillery?..were the Mortars used to flank the incoming terrorists or were they used to make them stay inside the caves till the ISAF entered it and shot them? As we will be fighting a war most probably in the mountain terrain how will it help the Indians?

I Believe artillery fire was done from a long range , to suppress the insurgents and keep them inside their caves and not allowing them to come out and attack the advancing ISAF soldiers. as soon as the soldiers come near the point being shelled the artillery fire has to be stopped or made sporadic so as not to hit friendlies , that is where mortars come in , as mortar fire is in the hands of the advancing soldiers and they can use it to their comfort , moreover as mortars are fired from short ranges they have the advantage of decreased reaction time and higher accuracy.

the following story might give a little clarity on the use of mortar.

http://warchronicle.com/afghanistan/soldierstories/butler_mortars.htm

 

[notinlove]

Pegasus is a lightweight equivalent of the Panter Pakistan operates, and generally just a line replacement for the Bofors FH-77B. - is India trialling the version with APU? The FH-77B is a great gun and India's apparent inability to refurbish it or buy spares is probably expensive.

India is holding trials for 1580 towed howitzers , the main competitors are STK's Ifh 2000 and FH 77B05L52 , so i don't think money is a concern in upgrading the old ones, but the answer to why they aren't doing it remains a mystery.

Yes The version on trial comes with an APU.

I have a question,

Can the pakistani artillery positiions have something to do with attacking a longer lenght of indian highways?

In section A The Pakistani Arty positions seem to be positioned linearly or in an arc (whichever term you prefer), and the indian arty seems to be concentrated at certain points .

Whereas in zone B the roles have reversed , the indian artillery seems to be linear and covering a larger area whereas the pakistani artillery seems to concentrated at a few points.are there any major pakistani supply routes in the range of indian arty in zone B?

 

[SATISH]

I Believe artillery fire was done from a long range , to suppress the insurgents and keep them inside their caves and not allowing them to come out and attack the advancing ISAF soldiers. as soon as the soldiers come near the point being shelled the artillery fire has to be stopped or made sporadic so as not to hit friendlies , that is where mortars come in , as mortar fire is in the hands of the advancing soldiers and they can use it to their comfort , moreover as mortars are fired from short ranges they have the advantage of decreased reaction time and higher accuracy.

the following story might give a little clarity on the use of mortar.

http://warchronicle.com/afghanistan/soldierstories/butler_mortars.htm

Thanks for your post Notinlove, And I also want to know about how can we effectively use this kind of tactics the way our artillery is deployed in high altitude.

 

[notinlove]

Thanks for your post Notinlove, And I also want to know about how can we effectively use this kind of tactics the way our artillery is deployed in high altitude.

Well in current scenario i don't see too much of a use for mortars barring minor skirmishes between checkpost's located extremely close to each other across the border , but in case of a war, keeping india's cold war doctrine in mind mortars might be extremely useful if indians manage to cross the barren deserts and reach pakistani towns, as there is no room in towns for tanks and SPG's to maneuver whereas mortars are extremely mobile and can provide decent firepower. Also i am pretty sure the army must be using mortar's in places like siachen where it is almost impossible to take any other kind of artillery. also mortars might be helpful in a kargil like situation , which bears a striking resemblance to what the ISAF soldiers are facing in Afghanistan.

 

[planeman]

Thanks for all the info.

Can the pakistani artillery positiions have something to do with attacking a longer lenght of indian highways?

That's very plausible but not something that can be answered very easily.

In section A The Pakistani Arty positions seem to be positioned linearly or in an arc (whichever term you prefer), and the indian arty seems to be concentrated at certain points .

Whereas in zone B the roles have reversed , the indian artillery seems to be linear and covering a larger area whereas the pakistani artillery seems to concentrated at a few points.are there any major pakistani supply routes in the range of indian arty in zone B?

When I say linear positions I mean the layout of a single position. Ie the 6 guns are placed in a line. Whereas dispersed means that they are laid out in an irregular pattern.

The overall layout of the multiple positions in relation to each other is a factor of many things, but including I think:
a) The shape of the Line of Control ie guns placed in 'headlands' can cover more enemy territory
b) The natural line of the mountains. For defensive attributes artillery sites are best placed on the reverse slope of a mountain (ie in a valley with one side of the valley between you and the enemy), but not behind too high a mountain.
c) Road accessibility and proximity to habitation
d) The whim or orders of the local commander
e) Weather and comfort
f) the location of primary targets/defensive zones

 

[bengalraider]

With regards to artillery one of the greatest mistakes made in recent times has been the cancellation (or is it shelving )of the indo-SA BHIM SPG. this massive gun if revived and suitably modernized could provide the IA with a a comparatively cheap solution for a world class arty system not to mention an indigenous one as well.we could even go for the T-72 mounted version of the Bhim given that we have so many T-72 chassis available.

 

[Bornubus]

Found some Indian MBTs in Google Earth at Nirbana in Rajasthan near border (Zone-D). Just chanced upon them, was looking for other stuff. Not sure of which type but guess T-72 (haven't research which units are based there). I count 44 tanks with a margin of error of about +-10%.

T 72 if not T 90 the rest of the Armoured Regt consist of 3 - 4 T 55 with Mine plow for De mining operations.