I disagree. I specifically mentioned riverine for that reason. France is plains with a good transportation system. Poland qualifies, I guess. The conditions are similar. what was it? 150 miles a week. Very neat.
I digress. I don't agree about there being an anglo-saxon school for the first. The british except for monty were not into overwhelming force all over the place. The US I'd argue was far more into that doctrine of sheer numbers.
In the east FM Slim could concentrate forces when and where required. He didn't exactly have a glut of forces or equipment to qualify as brute force.
All that is also somewhat of a diversion. All said does the Indian army work and expect to win on the basis of brute strength? The answer is quite obviously no. We don't really have overwhelming number on Pakistan. I would argue that absolute numbers are meaningless. The total density(??) achievable is about the same on both sides. In that event using brute strength is impossible and meaningless.
And finally let me say what I define as brute strength. I mean an absolute superiority in numbers that you can use to overwhelm defenders everywhere as opposed to local concentration of forces. The latter being what I'm arguing the Indian Army has truly been doing.
And delta, nice to see you here too. I'm 'chankya' at the other place. :Laie_79: