Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

India/Pakistan 2009

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • India/Pakistan 2009

    All right! We were shocked when we didnít see it in 2000-2001. We still see it as a likely war, and we all want to know how it goes!
    So Command Seargant-Major Cicero orders all of you armchair commanders to write up the war report for India and Pakistan!

    Here is your scenario and conditions.
    You must explain the early war strategies of both parties. What preparations had been made for war? What induced the start of hostilities? What weapons are used and how are they employed? What wild cards are there? Does China enter; if so, to what degree and under what conditions? Who wins, and by what means did that side win? What did the winner gain from the war? Nukes are on the table and must be addressed why or why not are they used in your war scenario!

    I'm preparing my first war draft and I hope to post it by the end of today.
    Last edited by Cicero; 29 Mar 09, 06:57.

  • #2
    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp


    After India and Pakistan held nuclear tests in 1998, experts have debated whether their nuclear weapons contribute to stability in South Asia. Experts who argue that the nuclear standoff promotes stability have pointed to the U.S.-Soviet Union Cold War as an example of how deterrence ensures military restraint.

    NRDC disagrees. There are major differences between the Cold War and the current South Asian crisis. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet experience, these two countries have a deep-seated hatred of one another and have fought three wars since both countries became independent. At least part of the current crisis may be seen as Hindu nationalism versus Muslim fundamentalism.

    A second difference is India and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals are much smaller than those of the United States and Russia. The U.S. and Russian arsenals truly represent the capability to destroy each other's society beyond recovery. While the two South Asia scenarios we have described produce unimaginable loss of life and destruction, they do not reach the level of "mutual assured destruction" that stood as the ultimate deterrent during the Cold War.

    The two South Asian scenarios assume nuclear attacks against cities. During the early Cold War period this was the deterrent strategy of the United States and the Soviet Union. But as both countries introduced technological improvements into their arsenals, they pursued other strategies, targeting each other's nuclear forces, conventional military forces, industry and leadership. India and Pakistan may include these types of targets in their current military planning. For example, attacking large dams with nuclear weapons could result in massive disruption, economic consequences and casualties. Concentrations of military forces and facilities may provide tempting targets as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      And let's not forget that one side is full of suicidal psychotic religious zealots.

      Comment


      • #4
        Pakistan is basically the loser of this conflict. The Indian navy could establish a blockade of Karachi or conduct a naval strike and shot down Pakistan's only deep water port. Without outside fuel, it is only a matter of weeks until Pakistan starves.

        In the air, PAF is hopelessly outclass. It's only saving grace are the 80's vintage F-16, but these are WVR fighters. In the BVR, they are outclass. The JF-17 are not in sufficient numbers to be the impact. The bulk of the PAF comprises of the Chinese improved J-7, which is a derivative of the Mig 21. IAF will gain air superiorty in 1 or 2 weeks.

        The only aspect Pakistan can match India is in the ground war. Not that it matters cause either one of the above mentioned is a cause for Pakistan to lauched its nukes.

        As both sides lack credible second strike capability or accurate delivery systems, the main target are major population centers. In this exchange, India with its larger population is more likely to survive. Pakistan, on the other hand, is again on the weaker side of a nuclear exchange as most of its wealth is concentrated in a handful of cities. (Karachi, Islamabad, etc) Though India is in the same boat, it has more large cities than Pakistan has nukes. See my linked in post 2 for more info.

        Political fall out lies on who lauched nukes first, as the country attacked would be justified in retaliation. India has stated that, due to its conventional weapons superiority, it will not use its nukes first. That leaves Pakistan. I found it hard to believe that the CURRENT international community will allow a country, which used nukes first, to continue to politically exist.

        China will not do anything. Its relationship with Pakistan is purely geo-political and does not carry the same amount of history and stability as say US-Israeli or US-British relationship.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
          Pakistan is basically the loser of this conflict. The Indian navy could establish a blockade of Karachi or conduct a naval strike and shot down Pakistan's only deep water port. Without outside fuel, it is only a matter of weeks until Pakistan starves.

          In the air, PAF is hopelessly outclass. It's only saving grace are the 80's vintage F-16, but these are WVR fighters. In the BVR, they are outclass. The JF-17 are not in sufficient numbers to be the impact. The bulk of the PAF comprises of the Chinese improved J-7, which is a derivative of the Mig 21. IAF will gain air superiorty in 1 or 2 weeks.

          The only aspect Pakistan can match India is in the ground war. Not that it matters cause either one of the above mentioned is a cause for Pakistan to lauched its nukes.

          As both sides lack credible second strike capability or accurate delivery systems, the main target are major population centers. In this exchange, India with its larger population is more likely to survive. Pakistan, on the other hand, is again on the weaker side of a nuclear exchange as most of its wealth is concentrated in a handful of cities. (Karachi, Islamabad, etc) Though India is in the same boat, it has more large cities than Pakistan has nukes. See my linked in post 2 for more info.

          Political fall out lies on who lauched nukes first, as the country attacked would be justified in retaliation. India has stated that, due to its conventional weapons superiority, it will not use its nukes first. That leaves Pakistan. I found it hard to believe that the CURRENT international community will allow a country, which used nukes first, to continue to politically exist.

          China will not do anything. Its relationship with Pakistan is purely geo-political and does not carry the same amount of history and stability as say US-Israeli or US-British relationship.


          Your Analysis is quite accurate when you talk about the Naval and Air warhowever I will have to differ when you say THAT PAKISTAN CAN MATCH INDIA IN AGROUND WAR. Pakistani army will give a good account of itself if India chooses to go on a full scale offensive however, eventually Pakistani army will be defeated even if in ahypothetical scenario both the airforces and navy choose not to participate. Indian army has lot of shortcomings in artillery and tanks however it is superbly trained, is much larger, and has undertaken numerous division and corps level exercises to validate its ever evolving doctrine. I never hear of Pakistani army indulging in exercises on the scale that India does. Indian army inspite of all its weaknesses will completely defeat the Paki Army in approx 40 days but will take significant casulties..

          Suppose pakitani army decides to go on a large scale offensive its army will be decimated much faster.

          As far as nuclear war, It is not my area of interest or expertise so I will not comment.

          Comment


          • #6
            With regards to the Indian army's size and equipment, you need to remember that it has a huge border to defend and while it is fighting Pakistan on one side, it has to be able to dissuade Pakistan's close partner and regional Goliath, China, on the other side. India faces the real possibility of a two-front engagement if things spiral out of hand. Remember, if Pakistan loses big (regime change with India pulling all the strings) then China loses. India has to maintain a credible deterrent force to prevent Chinese intervention, and the level of deterrence has to rise as India's offensive objectives rise.
            Of course, if China's end goals are high enough, then the commanders are raising the viable use of nuclear weapons on the sub-continent. To prevent this, I think we may end up seeing a much more limited offensive similar to that of Egypt in 1973 where the army is sent in to advance a set distance and stop, achieving only limited territorial gains, but able to claim victory none the less while avoiding the potential use of nukes and the risk of China entering the war on Pakistan's side. As for the blockade of Pakistan, I think that trade in Pakistani goods can be realigned to move along land routes to middle eastern ports where the goods can enter the world market on the ships of other nations.
            Last edited by Cicero; 31 Mar 09, 18:52.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cicero View Post
              As for the blockade of Pakistan, I think that trade in Pakistani goods can be realigned to move along land routes to middle eastern ports where the goods can enter the world market on the ships of other nations.
              Ship bulk carriers can carry much more than land trade. Plus Karachi is where Pakistan gets all of its OIL shipped from the middle east. There is currently no pipelines connecting Pakistan to oil producing gulf states. If there are, they would be the first thing that is attacked.

              China get's nothing by getting involved with India. Why would it? Other than pure geo-politics, they have no attachment. A war between India and Pakistan results in a stronger China, vis a vis India.

              Comment


              • #8
                That's good info to bring regarding the oil pipelines. I disagree when you say that china gains nothing from entering the war. If the circumstances are right, and Pakistan is so badly defeated that India dictates the peace, then China looses a valuable client state. And remember, India has to work the balance with china on its back. If all the entire weight of the Indian military is thrown into Pakistan, then china has little to lose. To make an analogy, it could be as simple as Hitler walking into the Rhineland. India has to maintain a defense capability along its border to deter china from inventing a reason to intervene and keep China's client state Pakistan solvent.
                I said Hitler walking into the Rhineland, but how about Israel marching into Gaza or the West Bank? If nobody is there to stop them, then the chinese troops seize the land at will, and occupying the land is half the battle. Once Sadam occupied Kuwait, it took a massive six-month coalition build-up before decisive action to dislodge him could be taken. For similar results, India would have to achieve the same level of buildup, but unlike the 6-month coalition buildup in Saudi Arabia, India would have to move all these troops from the Pakistani battlefields and occupation to the Chinese theater, and presumably have to do so under constant Chinese harassment. Unlike the Coalition buildup where the commencement of hostilities only began after the peaceful coalition build up was complete.
                Last edited by Cicero; 31 Mar 09, 18:55.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cicero View Post
                  That's good info to bring regarding the oil pipelines. I disagree when you say that china gains nothing from entering the war. If the circumstances are right, and Pakistan is so badly defeated that India dictates the peace, then China looses a valuable client state. And remember, India has to work the balance with china on its back. If all the entire weight of the Indian military is thrown into Pakistan, then china has little to lose. To make an analogy, it could be as simple as Hitler walking into the Rhineland. India has to maintain a defense capability along its border to deter china from inventing a reason to intervene and keep China's client state Pakistan solvent.
                  I said Hitler walking into the Rhineland, but how about Israel marching into Gaza or the West Bank? If nobody is there to stop them, then the chinese troops seize the land at will, and occupying the land is half the battle. Once Sadam occupied Kuwait, it took a massive six-month coalition build-up before decisive action to dislodge him could be taken. For similar results, India would have to achieve the same level of buildup, but unlike the 6-month coalition buildup in Saudi Arabia, India would have to move all these troops from the Pakistani battlefields and occupation to the Chinese theater, and presumably have to do so under constant Chinese harassment. Unlike the Coalition buildup where the commencement of hostilities only began after the peaceful coalition build up was complete.


                  India would never have to vacate its Pak border in order to defend against the chinese.

                  Inidan border with Pakistan is mostly plains and desert and her forces for that border are tailored for that terrain. They consist of 3 armored div, 5 Infantry div with an integral armored Bde, and 15 infantry div with integral armored battalion along with 7 independent armored bdes and 2 mech inf bde. As you observed Indian forces facing pakistan are substantially mechanized.

                  On the other hand Indian forces facing China have to deal with very mountainous terrain and consit of 9 Mountain div with no armor or mech Inf and 4 Mountain strike div with just one light tank battalion ( 3 are still being raised.) A few armored battalions and mech Inf battalions are attached to corps.

                  As you can see in case of a war with China India does not need to move troops deployed against pak to reinforce those deployed against China because for the most part both boders require different specialization. In a worst case scenario it may at most move an infantry div or two, and given its substantial air lift and logistical capability it will not be an issue.
                  Last edited by Slim; 31 Mar 09, 19:51.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For Fighting both of them, India could blitz into Pakistan, take out the Pak divisions in the hills and plains, then recoil it's armored forces to the Chinese border, as they wouldn't be as necessary in the mountains.

                    India gains valuable land from pakistan, leaves the pak in the mountains with a shadow of their army, and can throw her full weight against the chinese, all in a matter of a couple weeks.
                    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                      For Fighting both of them, India could blitz into Pakistan, take out the Pak divisions in the hills and plains, then recoil it's armored forces to the Chinese border, as they wouldn't be as necessary in the mountains.

                      India gains valuable land from pakistan, leaves the pak in the mountains with a shadow of their army, and can throw her full weight against the chinese, all in a matter of a couple weeks.



                      Hi Tac Covert4,

                      The point I am trying to make is that Indian border with China is unsuitable for armored or mechanized forces because it spans the steep Himalayas, therefore the armor heavy Indian forces aginst Pakistan are of little or no value against China.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, assuming China MAY enter the conflict, in a non-nuclear war, how would India fail versus China, if they (unlike Germany) could defeat Pakistan quick enough to turn their armor around and head for the Chinese border? Or what's the possibility of China blitzing into India before she can beat Pakistan? How would India fight in a two front war, as guerillas will give Indian troops a lot of trouble in Pakistan.

                        Also...would Russia come in against China on India's side? I don't think so.

                        Edit: Yay 100th post
                        It's not that I should win, but that others should loose.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Legosim View Post
                          Well, assuming China MAY enter the conflict, in a non-nuclear war, how would India fail versus China, if they (unlike Germany) could defeat Pakistan quick enough to turn their armor around and head for the Chinese border? Or what's the possibility of China blitzing into India before she can beat Pakistan? How would India fight in a two front war, as guerillas will give Indian troops a lot of trouble in Pakistan.

                          Also...would Russia come in against China on India's side? I don't think so.

                          Edit: Yay 100th post


                          The possibility you mention is not feasible because the border between India and China consits of the worlds, highest mountain and worlds highest cold desert plateau, neither India or China can deploy any meaningful mechanized forces for any blitzing type operations. In mountainous terrain defender has lot of advantages, offensive helicopter are very difficult and vulnerable in the himalayas. The vast majority of opoerayions will be conducted by light infantry forces and artillery. Evenif Chinese forces managed to defeat india in a border war and drive them out of the himalayas they will have a logistical nightmare of insurmountable proportions if they plan to bring huge armored forces into the plains of India over the worlds highest mountains and blitz acroos India.
                          Last edited by Slim; 01 Apr 09, 06:19.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The only way China can defeat India is a massive ssm strike that completely blankets India and which China is capable of.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Maybe if Chinese forces do manage to clear the Indians out of the Himalayas and manage to bring their forces into the Indian plains then Indian armor could come in very handy, but that would be suicidal for china and it would never attempt it.

                              Yes China may capture some portions of the Himalayas at a terrible cost and then stay put. But blitzing across India no sane Chinese leader would attempt.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X