Indian Special Forces (archived)

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Big enough to give total supremacy on western border.
Tanks do come in Use after years but they stay in service for years too just see how much we utilized T-72 tanks they are still serving on indo-china border.

The debate of how big i want my dick is useless when the balls are no bigger than peanuts.

Balls as in other arms.

 

[ArgonPrime]

The debate of how big i want my dick is useless when the balls are no bigger than peanuts.

Balls as in other arms.

Nice analogy there.

 

[samsaptaka]

Sorry sir but please bear me..

Everything you said is right but like i brought out this initially and many members have supported my thinking that why so many tanks?

What for do we need so many tanks?

Pakis have a decent Armoured corp i agree but will they have the money to fuel their machines like spare parts,missiles etc..i know they can get oil by bending on their back.

China cannot sustain a long tank battle in a two front war.

So why dont we use that money to fund our troops.


i am seriously thinking of running a campaign and asking for donations from common indian to help us equip our SF.

I am helpless but we indians can do it.If we get a approval from the govt and the donations help with tax rebates we can fund them in an year to world class standards.

Go ahead man ! Do it.
If anything, in case the crowdfunding campaign becomes very popular it might wake up the MoD and they might , just might start looking into it. Its kind of a Gandhigiri thing what ?

 

[samsaptaka]

India have 1700-1900 T-72 tanks and they will not work for a eternity bro.
We should replace these junks with at least 500 Arjun mk1a and tanks remain as tip of sphere in war like situations.

I'm sorry bro, but in modern warfare the tip of the spear IS the SF, not your tanks ! How many years have passed since the last tank battle ?

 

[Assassin 2.0]

I'm sorry bro, but in modern warfare the tip of the spear IS the SF, not your tanks ! How many years have passed since the last tank battle ?

Can we rule out the possibility of conventional warfare? If the judgement day comes then it will be tanks mechanized forces + infantry which will move ahead to rapidly capture more and more area of the enemy. A SF soldier cannot replace tank likewise a tank cannot replace SF soldier.
All i think is we should maintain perfect balance. If we cannot arm all of the troops in SF then we should trim the numbers in SF and arm them with world class equipments.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

Babe is here ( cannot find SSS defence thread can mods shift this post there)

 

[samsaptaka]

Can we rule out the possibility of conventional warfare? If the judgement day comes then it will be tanks mechanized forces + infantry which will move ahead to rapidly capture more and more area of the enemy. A SF soldier cannot replace tank likewise a tank cannot replace SF soldier.
All i think is we should maintain perfect balance. If we cannot arm all of the troops in SF then we should trim the numbers in SF and arm them with world class equipments.

Exactly. I am not saying to do away with armoured divisions . Just reduce the number of NEW tank orders (imported ones only) and allocate that money to SF modernization . Right now the balance is skewed away too much from SF and the tip of the spear is blunt.

 

[samsaptaka]

Babe is here ( cannot find SSS defence thread can mods shift this post there)

Nice ! Are these trials being conducted in Bhaarath or previous ones in USA ? If Bhaarath is it in an IA range ? Any idea

 

[Gautam Sarkar]

Nice ! Are these trials being conducted in Bhaarath or previous ones in USA ? If Bhaarath is it in an IA range ? Any idea

You can hear them speak in Hindi and also the double handed shooting stance is pretty distinct. This is most probably in India. Trails being done by PARAs most probably.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Can we rule out the possibility of conventional warfare? If the judgement day comes then it will be tanks mechanized forces + infantry which will move ahead to rapidly capture more and more area of the enemy. A SF soldier cannot replace tank likewise a tank cannot replace SF soldier.
All i think is we should maintain perfect balance. If we cannot arm all of the troops in SF then we should trim the numbers in SF and arm them with world class equipments.

I don't think to reduce the size of the armored force down by a mere two hundred odd units would make that big of a difference but that's just me.

 

[samsaptaka]

You can hear them speak in Hindi and also the double handed shooting stance is pretty distinct. This is most probably in India. Trails being done by PARAs most probably.

Yup, you are right. I watched again with my headphones on and I heard hindi. Also the scenery does look like ours as well as the cawing of birds in the distance is distinctly ours.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

You can hear them speak in Hindi and also the double handed shooting stance is pretty distinct. This is most probably in India. Trails being done by PARAs most probably.

I have confirmed it with Vivek Krishnan, CEO of SSS Defence that those trials were user trials.
He didn't dveleve into much details.

 

[samsaptaka]

I have confirmed it with Vivek Krishnan, CEO of SSS Defence that those trials were user trials.
He didn't dveleve into much details.

Excellent ! Like I told before , I hope the army takes a long sighted stand, and works together with SSS to iron out problems and adopt the weapon, instead of just rejecting it after some failed criteria.

 

[rkhanna]

What for do we need so many tanks?

From my understanding talking to stake holders in the armoured corps, Strike Corps and the IBGs. if you actually see the ORBAT and Tank deployments on the western border you will see that the Pakistanis have near parity to us in a Tank Vs Tank Battle. While to a lay person our border seems long there are actually countable flash point battles along the border and border towns/bases. Our tanks (like theirs) will be smash mouth battles along with Close Support Artillery in funnels. And as we also showed in 71 it is easy to open up multple fronts and our tanks (like the pakis) will get stretched.

Secondly the IBG has a added directive of Holding Ground after shallow (few miles) ingress into Pakiland. You cannot hold ground or take Small towns without Armour.

but yes evolving a battle strategy WITHOUT integrated SOF mission profiles is almost as useless as having armour go to war without CAS and Artillery and Dismounted Infantry. IMO in full scale battle each is individually important and each requires nuanced niche policy making and deep conviction in each one of those roles - only then will money/training/prioritzation follow

Our Conventional leadership sees SF as a "force multiplier" - but their definition is to use them ad hoc whererever the local commander sees fit. there is little or zero national policy directive. We miss the forest for the trees.

 

[Unknowncommando 2]

Colt M4 SOPMOD with Aimpoint CompM4 Sight
Head mounted AN PVS 14 Monocular Night Vision Sight

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

From my understanding talking to stake holders in the armoured corps, Strike Corps and the IBGs. if you actually see the ORBAT and Tank deployments on the western border you will see that the Pakistanis have near parity to us in a Tank Vs Tank Battle. While to a lay person our border seems long there are actually countable flash point battles along the border and border towns/bases. Our tanks (like theirs) will be smash mouth battles along with Close Support Artillery in funnels. And as we also showed in 71 it is easy to open up multple fronts and our tanks (like the pakis) will get stretched.

Secondly the IBG has a added directive of Holding Ground after shallow (few miles) ingress into Pakiland. You cannot hold ground or take Small towns without Armour.

but yes evolving a battle strategy WITHOUT integrated SOF mission profiles is almost as useless as having armour go to war without CAS and Artillery and Dismounted Infantry. IMO in full scale battle each is individually important and each requires nuanced niche policy making and deep conviction in each one of those roles - only then will money/training/prioritzation follow

Our Conventional leadership sees SF as a "force multiplier" - but their definition is to use them ad hoc whererever the local commander sees fit. there is little or zero national policy directive. We miss the forest for the trees.

Very well put.

Even if we are obsessed with armour we need to focus on the CAS part.We have very less CAS acs.There is no planning in that and attack helis are divided between army and af.

I think if we did a realistic threat assesment and started equipping as per our threats we should have focused on our Infantry,SF and Arty first.(also surveillance)

I am not saying dont invest in armour but have the priorities right.


With the number of tanks we have many will be surprised to know here that we just use 1 tank for 30 mins a week average.

And we have soldiers dying on loc or kashmir almost everyday.

 

[ArgonPrime]

From my understanding talking to stake holders in the armoured corps, Strike Corps and the IBGs. if you actually see the ORBAT and Tank deployments on the western border you will see that the Pakistanis have near parity to us in a Tank Vs Tank Battle.

In terms of the sheer number perhaps but as far as the quality of their armored forces is concerned, they are nowhere near. I mean the only competitive models in their inventory are those 320 or so odd T-80UD MBTs and to a lesser extent, ~350 AK variants which are roughly equivalent to our T-72 CIAs but the bulk of their forces are still made up of derelict early cold war era tanks like Type 59 and Type 85s albeit modernized and given their current state of economics, the situation is unlikely to change in the near future. And not to mention, they can never even hope to bring their entire armored forces to bear on the IA.

While to a lay person our border seems long there are actually countable flash point battles along the border and border towns/bases. Our tanks (like theirs) will be smash mouth battles along with Close Support Artillery in funnels. And as we also showed in 71 it is easy to open up multple fronts and our tanks (like the pakis) will get stretched.

Those were different times my friend. The equilibrium has changed so much since then that a parallel can not be drawn anymore without getting to rather erroneous conclusions.
I mean for example, in 65, the Pakistani artillery and armored forces had the IA counterparts outmatched by in terms of both number and quality and even in 71, there was near parity in the western front. But that is no longer the case. So the result of those battles has become somewhat irrelevant in the modern setting as far as today's Indian and Pakistani Armies are concerned.

Secondly the IBG has a added directive of Holding Ground after shallow (few miles) ingress into Pakiland. You cannot hold ground or take Small towns without Armour.

The point @COLDHEARTED AVIATOR has been trying to raise is quite simple. As it stands, the IA Armored Corps is authorized to maintain a fleet of ~4500 tanks of various types. Now his understanding is that merely reducing that number by just 200 odd units, which wouldn't even be like 5% of the entire fleet, shouldn't affect the overall combat effectiveness of the Army as a whole all that much, that's it.
Just think about it this way - what you can not achieve with 4300 tanks, you can most certainly not by throwing 200 extra units at it either!!
But by reducing your order by 200 units, you can save at least a billion USD (assuming the price for the individual units to be 5 mil USD but we all know it's likely to be substantially higher than that) on the flyaway cost alone leaving aside all the expenses you would save on their life cycle cost. Now just imagine what you can achieve with that 1 billion USD!!

 

[Bhadra]

Very well put.

Even if we are obsessed with armour we need to focus on the CAS part.We have very less CAS acs.

We are not obsessed with armour except for the areas where armour operations are a necessity and possibility and armour can deliver the main punch. However, sometimes, there is a lack of understanding and consensus amongst our Army leadership in understanding / deciding about the areas of vital decision or areas that may decide on attaining War objectives. That is also there due to lack of clear political directives. One commander thinks that the main area of decision would be POK but the other commander feels, it would be Shakargarh but the third thinks it would be severing Pakistan into parts by projecting forces at the junction of Punjab, Balochistan and Sindh. The Chiefs thought IA should be prepared for all.
hence a judicious mix is the answer.

There is no planning in that and attack helis are divided between army and af.

CAS requires a clear space between two forces. In our case there would be series of contact battles from the world go. The first obstacle lines can be as close as one km including on LC.

CAS and deep fires are closely linked concepts. Where are the resorces for deep fires and deep battles ?

The IAF is trying to beat their own independent track and considers air battles separate from Army as decisive in determining war outcomes. They have their own requirements of helicopters. Thus unless a synthesis is achieved, things will remain as it is.

I think if we did a realistic threat assesment and started equipping as per our threats we should have focused on our Infantry,SF and Arty first.(also surveillance) I am not saying dont invest in armour but have the priorities right.

Due to nature of our terrain, we have very big requirement of Infantry and same is catered for. Priorities are right.

With the number of tanks we have many will be surprised to know here that we just use 1 tank for 30 mins a week average.

That is the function of "economy" and it does not diminish importance of armour.

And we have soldiers dying on loc or kashmir almost everyday.

Those are peacetime requirements to manage state sponsored terrorism along LC and its hinterland. Answer to that lies with others rather than the soldiers. IA has been mandated to manage voilance by terrorism and not terrorism itself.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

In terms of the sheer number perhaps but as far as the quality of their armored forces is concerned, they are nowhere near. I mean the only competitive models in their inventory are those 320 or so odd T-80UD MBTs and to a lesser extent, ~350 AK variants which are roughly equivalent to our T-72 CIAs but the bulk of their forces are still made up of derelict early cold war era tanks like Type 59 and Type 85s albeit modernized and given their current state of economics, the situation is unlikely to change in the near future. And not to mention, they can never even hope to bring their entire armored forces to bear on the IA.


Those were different times my friend. The equilibrium has changed so much since then that a parallel can not be drawn anymore without getting to rather erroneous conclusions.
I mean for example, in 65, the Pakistani artillery and armored forces had the IA counterparts outmatched by in terms of both number and quality and even in 71, there was near parity in the western front. But that is no longer the case. So the result of those battles has become somewhat irrelevant in the modern setting as far as today's Indian and Pakistani Armies are concerned.



The point @COLDHEARTED AVIATOR has been trying to raise is quite simple. As it stands, the IA Armored Corps is authorized to maintain a fleet of ~4500 tanks of various types. Now his understanding is that merely reducing that number by just 200 odd units, which wouldn't even be like 5% of the entire fleet, shouldn't affect the overall combat effectiveness of the Army as a whole all that much, that's it.
Just think about it this way - what you can not achieve with 4300 tanks, you can most certainly not by throwing 200 extra units at it either!!
But by reducing your order by 200 units, you can save at least a billion USD (assuming the price for the individual units to be 5 mil USD but we all know it's likely to be substantially higher than that) on the flyaway cost alone leaving aside all the expenses you would save on their life cycle cost. Now just imagine what you can achieve with that 1 billion USD!!

You explained my point very well.Thanks.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Some posts moved. I specifically created a thread for post related to reforms in the Indian Army. Please use that. Infractions will follow after violations https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/improving-effectiveness-of-the-indian-army.82038/