@sgarg
The need of a weapon system emenates to
fufill requirements of a doctrine.
The doctrine an Army follows depends on a lot of factors and
terrain is the fundamental factor.
However,
DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY BY ATTRITION still contnues to be at the core of thinking on war fighting.
Requirement of the quantity of explosive ( they call it shit) to be put on the target / objective continues to be one of the basic requirement.
That is achived by Artillary, Air Support, Naval Gun support, Missiles and finally by infantry by capturing the objective by carrying out physical destruction and putting their foot over the objective.
There are laid down parameters for knowing or calculating how much fire power is required (number of rounds required to neutralise or partially destroy an area in a given timeframe) . When one calculates that keeping in mind the rate of fire it results in number of guns required. The number of guns available for a mission (concentration) is the function of mobility of guns, logistics and ranges of the gun besides other factors
The degree of nutralisation or partial destruction vis a vis the amount of shit put on the target is also a function of terrain and target condition. Equal numbers of shell do not give the same results on mountains and plains or desrts, on canals or bunkers.
Now, coming on to requirements of the Guns - that is the function of mobility of the gun, logistcs to support the fire unit (essentially ammunition management), range of the guns and above all the likely pattern of military operations of own and the enemy.
In defensive operations lesser number of Guns would do the job whereas for offensive operations large number of Guns would be required given equal area.
In the case of NATO, USA, UK or USSR / Russia - their operational doctrines are essentially offensive in nature. Secondly the terrain is plains and vastly stretched - meaning that the battles could be fought at many number of points simulteniously over land , sea and air or through these mediums. The warfare is swift, quick and mobile in nature wherein guarnteed firepower would be required in larger number and Artillary Guns would be less flexible to switcth targets and roles due to intensity and multiplicity of operation. That calls for larger number of guns to support the operations.
Russian belive in "mass" as fundamental factor in deciding the outcome of battle - hence massed artillary is their main Arms of battle. Therefore, to fulfill objectives of their warfighting doctrine- they have very large numbers of guns
Pakistan has only one enemy and that is India - mostly having plains and deserts on the borders where each country would like to settle the scores as mountains are difficult, trecherious, slow and demand heavy attrition. They also primarily belive in offensive operation. They have inferior guns and that takes away flexibility of fire support . The deficincies are filled in by having larger numbers of guns.
Indian docrtines so far have been defensive and outright defensive - preserve the territories . Little bit of offensive had been directed to regain defensive balance. Indian nation, goverments and Army have no plans to invade and capture Tibet, Sindh or Pakistani Punjab. They only wish to preserve territorial integrity. Hence in their calculaion, their requirement of numbers of guns is less.
However, the current thinking is to have guns with bigger caliber and larger ranges so that more shit is placed on the target by lesser number of guns.
In nutshell this is the explaination. Could be a little crude but the massive deatials of theory of warfare can not be included here.
However, the attriation theory have received very big jolts in Vietnam, Iraq Wars, in Afghanistan and many other places where tons of shit put on the areas by the comined might of USA and wetsern powers by missiles, aircrafts, artillary and tanks, rifles, bombs, naval guns etc etc could not give their final objectives.
Due to terrain, economy of efforts and likely nature of military operations on and around our border areas, Indian Army believs is predoninantly using Infantry and / or Tanks as their major Arms to hold the ground as also to capture the ground as also to ensure that the captured areas lie under the feet of the victor. No amount of air/ artillary shell placed on the target in mountains or otherwise can capture it. Shell can neutralise or may be destroy it but can not capture it. Any thing destroyed can resurface but any thing captured would not. That is why final objective of the battle is either to destroy capabilities or to capture. Capture is also essentail to achive the former.
Have taliban been destroyed by that massive amount of shit put on them ?? Can Drones capture an area?
Hence Indian military thinking is neither redundant not outdated.
