This defensive,arrogant and superiority attitude is what amuses me most.
Why can't you simply say that we can't replicate American Fart because we don't have money , because we have Soviet Style of constipation . that's why we can't fart(like USA)
BTW you should know that US army is Most battle hardened Modern army which is fighting wars in foreign and highly hostile lands almost from its formation.
Man look at us how we justify our shortcomings using some fancy words like "tactics" bla bla. On the other hand paki army almost copies western army so much so that even their uniform is replica of US Army. They are using everything they can find in donations and second hand market like these beasts
There seems to be a very ill-informed set of defense aficionados in our country and on this forum who practically worship US Armed Forces, without appreciation of the subtle differences in the situation of our Armies.
So here are two examples for you people of how the Indian Army is ahead of the US Army in certain tactical and operational capabilities:-
TACTICAL CAPABILITY : Carl Gustaf
The Americans use AT-4 as their standard squad-level recoil-less weapon. However recently (2014), they have found from combat experience that the Carl Gustaf is a much better weapon for that particular role. Now, these have been issued to their special forces and they are planning to make it standard issue for the infantry as well. Meanwhile in India, we already knew that and therefore we already use this weapon in the infantry. We did not need to learn that.
STRATEGIC CAPABILITY:
American (over) reliance on Air Power [And the resulting degradation of artillery capabilities]
For years the Americans have fought in wars where airspace has not been a contentious issue. Over time, they even forgot what a contested air-space is like. Go to youtube. You'll see the Americans relying on airstrikes to do the job of the artillery, in Afghanistan. You do not need to be a genius to realise the perils of this. Making the aircraft do the arty's job has two major drawbacks:-
1. Its more expensive.
2. It relies on the assumption that you will always have air-superiority no matter what.
The result of this stupidity:-
US Army has no Artillery Divisions. I find this odd. What is even more odd is the small number (421 M777A2) of artillery guns deployed. All this makes me feel that US Army relies more on airstrikes and even the artillery units rely mostly on Guided Munitions. It seems the US Army only looks at Artillery as a support arm.
I contrast this with the Indian Army. Each Strike Corps of the IA has one Artillery Division. Apart from that, all types of divisions (Armored, Infantry, Mountain or RAPID) have one artillery brigade each (true for all Holding Corps). The total stands at approximately 218 artillery regiments.
Now, the idea behind the Artillery divisions is "maneuver by fire". The Artillery is integrated into the Strike Corps so that the maneuver formations do not necessarily advance under cover of artillery support. Rather, they advance to support the Artillery strike. As and when required, the Mechanized forces can take the center-stage, with Artillery switching to supporting role. This role-switch can be performed alternately, thereby maintaining a high operational tempo.
The US Army does not have this option.
Another question, M777A2 has a 155mm X 39 mm caliber. Why is the M777ER (with 155 mm X 52 mm) not being inducted? I can understand why Marines would need an All-Ultra-light-howitzer-force, but should the US Army not have 155mm X 52mm as the standard? Even we have chosen to make 155 mm X 52 mm our standard.
Now that the Americans realise they are far behind near-peer adversaries in terms of Artillery, they are working on "new concepts" like the Long Range Precission Fire or LRPF. LRPF hinges on the ATACMS Surface-surface missile (range 300 km), which is being upgraded to allow US Army Artillery to hit targets out to 500 km.
This LRPF concept, however, does not seem new to me. Artillery Divisions of the Indian Army today have the capability to hit targets out to 300km and by 2022, will have the capability to hit targets out to 1500km (up to 600km Brahmos SSM: after minor upgrades to existing systems; 750-1500km Shaurya SSM: in production). Also, Brahmos and Shaurya are much more capable than ATACMS.
Meanwhile, China and Russia already have these capabilities.
This seems like gross neglect of the artillery arm of the US Army, and even now, LRPF concept is only addressing part of the problem. What to do about howitzers. They are very few in number, considering the size of the US Army.
All this is a result of America's over-reliance on air-power and CAS. Now that they realize that US air-superiority is not guaranteed in every conflict, they are revisiting artillery. We knew all along the importance of this arm. So did the Soviets, who gave the very concept of maneuver by fire. Somehow you think that Americans are superior to the Soviets, Russians, Chinese, Indians. If so, then how did the Americans fall behind?
So, US is not the god of war, and bullying small nations with a bare minimum of capabilities does not mean you are geared for war with a near-peer adversary.
Stop worshiping the Americans and stop chiding your own country's Armed Forces who are equally professional, on par with any Great Power's forces. Armed Forces the world over have problems. US is not so different.
Edit: Try to find out how the US Army's only mountain warfare division (10th Mountain) is not ready for mountain warfare, and how Afghanistan war revealed that fact. Meanwhile in India, we have the world's largest Mountain warfare force.
I am not trying to say that Americans are weak. They are not just as strong as you think they are.
We have nothing to learn from anyone in CI and specially the Americans because all they do is call Air Support when the shit gets real.
I second that.
_01.png){kind=spacer}
