First lets define the term limits of The definition of the Conventionality of War needs.
Second the argument for Conventional Arms in our discussion was restricted to Infantry not other arms. Every Military Service needs to arm itself for its own purpose and contigency. The Navy also trains extensively in Disaster relief and its most recent operation was the rescue of thousands of civilians from war torn Yemen which was denied space. THAT was unconventional.
That being said circling back to Infantry - Know that if we are fighting Pakistan - we will be coming up against irregular warfare . If we fight against China THEY will be coming up against Irregular war fare.
Dont under stand the comment on a terrorist attack on Mumbai or the Parliament. That is the very basis of Irregular warfare.
You are asking too much from me. But let me give it a shot.
Conventional war is an open military confrontation between the conventional forces of two or more States. Unlike asymetrical or sub-conventional or hybrid warfare, international laws of warfare laid by Geneva conventions are to be abided, i.e. the distinction between the lawful combatants, non-combatants and POWs are to be observed. Unlawful combatants are not mentioned in Geneva conventions.
Definition of unlawful combatant.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/U/UnlawfulCombatant.aspx
You are making up your own definition of unconventional warfare based on god knows what. It is very difficult to carry a conversation if you present your own opinions as axioms and it goes down the drain pretty fast.
Indian Army when fighting PLA will carry visibily identifiable markers like uniforms, patches etc. If you have a source that says otherwise, I am all ears. (Just sticking to infantry here).
Now lets address Navy. I made that naval buildup point because you stated this.
Nobody is lining up across borders to pick a fight.
You don't build destroyers for HADR missions. You don't build a submarine fleet to fight unconventional wars.
You build your navy as a fighting force to fight conventional wars.
Nope. Your point was India is not going to fight a conventional war.
In 71 we patrolled all the way to Dhaka. Over Mountains we will HAVE to patrol over mountain territory to take the fight to the enemy. Same happened with the British Marines and Paras in their war with Argentina.
No we did not "patrol" our way to Dhaka. We scouted, marched and fought our way to Dhaka. None of these things are same.
Royal Marines yomped and British Army tabbed their way to victory. Again, that is not what patrolling is.
An offensive military action will be mobile (both mechanized and otherwise).
Yes.
Bunkers, Trenchs, Minefields are for our Holding Corps and Border Defences not for our Strike Corps.
I did not specify either of the units. Unit incharge of the AOR is responsible for the static defences.
RR is an organizational Wrapper to the Indian Army.
Technically yes. Key word being technically because it is important. I will explain the reasons below.
. it is a conventional military unit reoriented to COIN operations.
No. These are units raised from the ground up for CI operations. Nothing more nothing less. Which means they have their own training schools and batallions of RR & AR lose their support elements.
Secondly at which point did i say that the Army was giving up its primary mandate. Its primary mandate is the protection of the sovereignty of the nation. hence being proficient across the entire spectrum of warfare IS its mandate.
Oh bhai, "entire spectrum of warfare" is neither army's mandate nor its responsibility. You need to look up what "spectrum" in warfare is.
I will repeat myself once again. IA as an "
organisation" is a conventional fighting force. It is not a sub-conventional, asymetrical or hybrid force but may contain elements of either or all.
What is the difference between RR/AR Vs The British Paras, US Ranger Regiment, SOCOM, French Foriegn Legion, British Gurkhas? These are all Light Infantry units tasked with small unit operations outside Large Conventional Formations. What makes RR/AR so different?
Okay. Let me take a stab at this too. Each of the forces you mentioned belong are
regular forces. That is, they belong to the regular armed forces of the their respective countries.
RR & AR are paramilitaries raised specifically for CI. They report to MHA. Which means that they unlike the aforementioned units do not participate in any form of conventional warfare and are not allowed to use the support elements that a
regular light infantry. Unlike these units RR/AR do not in fight combined arms operations. That is army's job.
Not at all understanding Your correlation to nomenclature and saying their small arms experience holds no value
Because their experience stems from fighting unconventional warfare but with access to support elements like combat air-power, artillery, armour or mechanized elements of the regular forces. They are fighting in distant lands, AR/RR are not.
RR/AR on the other hand is forbidden to use these since they are fighting Indian citizens and/or cannot differntiate between them enough to warrant this. The last time India used combat air-power in CI in India was 1966 in Mizoram.
I hope I am clear about the differences between regular light infantry forces and dedicated CI forces. Their counterparts work for Indian MOD not MHA.
