Warfare at High Altitudes

[ajay_ijn]

How do soldiers manage to fight at Tall Mountains of thousands of feet high.
War becomes extremely difficult to fight in those heights.
Many Techs,Tactics and Strategy does not work in those heights.
Common Problems Faced by any Military at altitudes of 15000 feet or greater.

1.Logistical Nightmare:It is very difficut to transport any kind of equipment into mountains.
2.Soldiers Health: It is becoz of the bad climate more casualities occur rather than the actual fighting.
3.Airpower cannot be used upto its potential: Fighters,Helicopters do not work upto their potential.Weapons do not perform upto their potential
Accuracy of weapons Systems decreases.

4.Limited Fire Support Assets:The most decisive thing in any war would be armored vehicles. Even Jeeps cannot go in this moutains forget MBT's.
Limited amount of Artillery and Airpower can be used.

There are many other Tactical Limitations when fighting in this Moutaineous region.

What is the technology solution to improve soldiers health in these tall mountains??

What would be the ideal Solutions to these problems???

I think Highly trained special forces who are completely used to such tall mountains and Asssult Helicopter which can operate effectively at these heights would be one of the solutions.

[Aussie Digger]

Ajay, altitude is not the reason airpower is not used in "mountainous warfare". The highest mountain in the world is only about 25,000 feet high, most military fighters have a ceiling of around 50,000 feet... What is more likely is a lack of accurate targetting data, given the low levels of visibility in such terrain. Satellite guided munitions might improve this a bit, but very few air forces employ such weapons at present.

Very few helicopters are able to operate close to Mountains at extreme altitudes. Gremlin can probably discuss this more indepth, but as I understand, most helicopters have very low maximum altitudes, and are badly affected by the winds found near the mountains at high altitude.

Mountain (and even arctic) warfare is as you guessed, primarily light infantry based warfare. Some light tracked "snow mobile" type vehicles are employed to help carry ammunition, crew served weapons (HMG's, light cannons, mortars, ATGW's, MANPADS etc) and other supplies, but the bulk of the fighting is normally done on foot. Some places might allow you to operate light armoured vehicles such as the German "Weisel", but that's about it...

[Gremlin29]

Mountain flying is very very dangerous for any aircraft. There are peculiar weather/wind phenomena associated with mountains. AD is quite right in regards to operational ceilings for helo's. Generally, that's around 15,000 ft MSL. Of course the service ceiling of any aircraft is determined by one simple factor, vertical velocity. Universally it's accepted that a vertical climb of 500 feet per minute is the minimum acceptable level of performance for ANY aircraft. Once you can no longer meet or exceed that level of performance you have hit your service ceiling but I digress. At those altitudes controlability becomes a serious issue at low airspeeds which is of course how helicopters terminate flight. Sloppy controls with marginal control authority and very very limited power raises the old pucker factor right to the top of the scale, been there done that.

I think modern warfare being what it is, there's not much need for extreme altitude warfare fighting capabilities. What important objectives could be defended or required in such mountains anyway?

In WWII the Germans had what is in my estimation the best of the best elite troops in their Gebirgsjager formations. Those are Heer Gebirgs, not the scummy SS Gebirgs who were famous for murdering civilians and were Gebirgs in name only. Within the Gebirgsjager Divisions were the Alpine specialists known as the Hochsgebirgsjager. These men were in my estimation the most elite troops of WWII. They were expert mountaineer's in every sense and carried out fantastic operations that are almost impossible to believe. I know the modern German army still has Gebirgsjager formations and I'd imagine they are a pretty tough bunch. But their mission is very speciallized and not often needed so I suspect that little is known in mainstream military discussions.

[Aussie Digger]

From what I understand the Austrians, Swiss and Italian forces also maintain very capable Alpine troops. The Australian Army also operates a Mountain/Arctic Warfare School, though it's usually only specwarries who attend the course. The chances of Australian's fighting in the snow at altitude are about as likely as it snowing in Australia at the moment... (It's the middle of Summer here guys...)

[Pathfinder-X]

I know a former combat engineer from the Austrian Pioneer troops. Maybe I'll get him to explain it from a solider's point of view on this topic. It's getting real late here in Canada so I'll post the rest of my comment tomorrow.

[ajay_ijn]

Actually I wanted to discuss this topic becoz the Indian Military faces Major Problems in the tallest mountains (Himalayas) over 15000 feet.
Infact They fight in the worlds Tallest Battlefield the Siachen Glacier.

It can be called as One of the worlds most inhospitable Battlefield Conditions,much worse than what Germans had to face in Russia 1940.

1.Soldiers have climb to peaks as tall as 17000 feet for patrolling where they have to carry Oxygen cylinders becoz of less Oxygen.They face many other health disorders.
2.In Such Places tempearture reduces at as much as -60 degree celcius in Winter.
3.At the Height of 10,000 feet,Any vehicle's engine compltely stops working becoz of insufficient oxygen,Even if it works,it will need more 75% more fuel and that too at 25% less efficiency.
4. The Soldiers Completely cut off with outside world during winter.All Supplies are stored in summer.
5. Food Becomes Rock hard,Difficult to consume.

And in the Airforce too Planes and Helicopters Face problems

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Articles/Article39.html
The severe degradation of aircraft and weapon performance is difficult to completely appreciate. No aircraft has yet been designed to operate in a Kargil-like environment. At high altitudes, a crucial factor in aircraft performance is the reserve of power available, which, for the MiG and Mirage fleets, was a strong point in their favor. In comparison, the Fairchild A-10, widely quoted as being the ideal platform, would have been a misfit. It is widely (and incorrectly) stated that using Mach 2 aircraft would not produce results; however, a Mach 2 capability does not necessarily imply an inability to operate at lower speeds; further, all air-to-ground attack speeds are approximately the same (750-950 km/h) for fixed-wing aircraft.

Due to the very different attributes of the atmosphere at that altitude, even weapons do not perform as per sea-level specifications. Variations in air temperature and density, altering drag indices and a host of other factors (which have never been calculated by any manufacturer for this type of altitude) cause weapons to go off their mark; for the same reasons, normally reliable computerised weapon aiming devices give inaccurate results.

In the plains, a 1000-pounder bomb landing 25 yards away from the target would still severely disable, if not flatten, it. In the mountains, however, a miss of a few yards would be as good as the proverbial mile, due to the undulating terrain and masking effects. In addition, due to the variation in elevation the "miss" would be greatly magnified in the linear dimension, further exaggerating the "inaccuracy" of the weapon/delivery. While this would lead to apparent inaccuracies in weapon delivery, there is, paradoxically, a need for pinpoint accuracy in conditions where that very attribute is severely degraded by the factors mentioned above.

[Gremlin29]

I guess the point of my earlier post was that it's been pretty well established a long time ago that:

1. The best mountain troops are indiginous to mountainous terrain. They have a physiology that allow's them to work at much higher altitudes than a person from the lowlands.
2. Soldiers that are indiginous to mountainous area's are not only physically adapted to working in extreme environments, they are familiar with weather patterns, and the difficulties of doing even the most basic tasks in such extreme conditions.
3. Because of the extreme nature of the mountains themselves, they don't make particular decissive points of interest in the modern environment.

I guess if India has routinely had troops fighting at such high altitudes, they probably have as good a handle on the difficulties of operating in the high mountains as they could have.

[VICTORA1]

Gentlemen,

Please be realistic here. Second world war is long gone----as much as they want to show, the swiss alpine troops, the US rangers or marine, the austrians or the australians-----they may train for high altitude climbing but none train for high altitude combat per say.

Is it prejudice that I see over here or what----none of our esteemed writers mentioned anything about the indian pakistani troops who have been having a go at it for the last 15 plus years at siachin glacier---15000 feet plus warfare ------if that doesnot bring high altitude expertise in warfare, [Mod edit:Red aRRow: Refrain from racializing the discussion or you will get booted.]

Their training wasn't worth a diddley when it came to tracking the enemy in the karakorum ranges.

Ajay---indeed the best troops for high altitude warfare are indeed indian and pakistani troops. With a first hand experience of defying death at 20000 feet altitude day in and day out for close to 15 years, the men from both the sides proved their metal a thousand times over. Nobody, nobody comes close. At least not these boys----the chinese do.

[Aussie Digger]

Well, Victoria, the Australian SASR "White boys" (and NZSAS) comprehensively out-fought soldiers and fighters well used to the conditions found in Mountainous regions in Afganistan in 2001-2003. I also didn't refer to high altitude climbing in my earlier post.

I specifically referred to "combat training". Australian specwarries of course do train in high-altitude climbing, they also train at the Australian Army mountain warfare training school. This is specific "combat training" in surviving and fighting in mountainous and arctic conditions. The SASR operators in Afganistan proved their superiority in this environment over people supposedly more "used" to this environment...

[ajay_ijn]

3. Because of the extreme nature of the mountains themselves, they don't make particular decissive points of interest in the modern environment.


But they are decisive in case of India.


Well, Victoria, the Australian SASR "White boys" (and NZSAS) comprehensively out-fought soldiers and fighters well used to the conditions found in Mountainous regions in Afganistan in 2001-2003. I also didn't refer to high altitude climbing in my earlier post.


But what about in very high altitudes of atleast 15000 feet where temp falls much below than zero deg.
Soldiers even are forced to have oxygen Cylinders.
No Good Communication,No Mobility,No Fire Support.
Its Exactly like fighting a War In Antarctica.



1. The best mountain troops are indiginous to mountainous terrain. They have a physiology that allow's them to work at much higher altitudes than a person from the lowlands.
2. Soldiers that are indiginous to mountainous area's are not only physically adapted to working in extreme environments, they are familiar with weather patterns, and the difficulties of doing even the most basic tasks in such extreme conditions.

I agree with u,But No body lives at Such a High Altitudes where these soldiers go out and Fight.
Soldier Alone can not go their.
They need Supplies,Fire Support which they never get adequately.

[Awang se]

if u look back through history, mountain areas always were use as a base for anti-government guerillas. we can see this in afghanistan, checnya, south america and everywhere else on the world.

anyone remember dien bien phu? that is one of the logistic miracle of 20th century. the NVA were moving and positioning their artilleries and supports equipment what was considered to be a no go terrain for such a system. like the french dien bien phu defenders always said "it is not how many artillery pieces they have that surprised us, it is where they firing it from".

[Pathfinder-X]

if u look back through history, mountain areas always were use as a base for anti-government guerillas. we can see this in afghanistan, checnya, south america and everywhere else on the world.

anyone remember dien bien phu? that is one of the logistic miracle of 20th century. the NVA were moving and positioning their artilleries and supports equipment what was considered to be a no go terrain for such a system. like the french dien bien phu defenders always said "it is not how many artillery pieces they have that surprised us, it is where they firing it from".

The reason mountainous regions are popular location for guerillas is due to the fact that the government troops will have a hard time conducting search and destroy operations. The mountains also makes it ideal for hide-and-seek style skirmishes. In the cases you mentioned, pure military force will not accomplish the job rooting out guerillas. You must win the hearts and minds of locals first in order to eliminate the breeding ground for guerilla recruits.

[Aussie Digger]

The reason mountainous regions are popular location for guerillas is due to the fact that the government troops will have a hard time conducting search and destroy operations. The mountains also makes it ideal for hide-and-seek style skirmishes. In the cases you mentioned, pure military force will not accomplish the job rooting out guerillas. You must win the hearts and minds of locals first in order to eliminate the breeding ground for guerilla recruits.

This high ground is still a tactically useful place to be too... :)

[kashifshahzad]

:coffee As far as i know is that the highest altitude that now two countries are fighting is between Paksiatan and India.There is a glacier situated between these two countries,where the soldies form both the countries remain there to defend for their countries.I is nearly impossible to send artillery,ammunition and food supply to these soldiers.
As far as i know the food and all these kinds of items which they need reach a base camp which is mainly situated at the base of the mountain at a safe place so first supply reach there whrough helicopters and jeeps if possible.
I saw a TV Play in which a soldier was fighting at that altitude after killing all the invaders.The rescue team reached him very late so when he opened his eyes in the hospital he could not move his legs and arms caz they were cut down after the exposure to intence temprature.So his whole life he went on his wooden legs.
I think the news about the highest fighting ground is true caz between Pakistan and India there are highest mountain ranges like Himalayas,Karakuram md Hindukush and also mountains like godwinaustin(k-2) are situated in these ranges.
If i am wrong any one can correct me:coffee

[limaj]

Martin Sugarman, an American journalist visited the Pakistani part of Siachen Sector in 1995/96 and wrote a book 'War Above the Clouds'. The book gives a good insight into the way operations are conducted at high altitudes and the problems of high altitude warfare. I believe it is out of print. Maybe someone can locate a copy somewhere. It is complete with lots of stunning photographs. It has a chapter or a section called the 'Hand of God', which makes a fascinating reading. It shows how soldiers operating at limits of endurance come to believe in miracles and actually narrate witnessing one.

[Pendekar]

It shows how soldiers operating at limits of endurance come to believe in miracles and actually narrate witnessing one.

maybe they halucinating because of the extreme tempreture. or maybe they never realize their true potential until then.

[limaj]

maybe they halucinating because of the extreme tempreture. or maybe they never realize their true potential until then.

I would not call it halucinating, as this particular incident was witnessed by a number of persons and all of them could not be hallucinating about the same thing. My comments related to persons functioning at the limits of their endurance. Just surviving at high altitudes takes a person to the limit of his/her endurance. Imagine the strength that a person requires in addition for conducting military operation like attack, where you are weighed down further with weapon, ammunition and equipment. The strength that person comes up with in such situations is nothing short of miracle. Similarly at times a natural phenomnon may also look like a miracle.

[agent-0011]

i assume india is quite an expert in moutain warfare since it fought a war with china in the himalayas back in 62

[Pendekar]

and india was soundly defeated by China. but it was back then, when India faced an army with vast experiance from WW2 and korean war. today, with missiles and such, it might be different.

i would really like to know the level of readiness for Indian army during the Sino-Indian border war. were india prepared for it? or were india being caught with their pants down.

[limaj]

i assume india is quite an expert in moutain warfare since it fought a war with china in the himalayas back in 62

India has extensive experience of warfare at high altitudes as it is maintaining a sizeable militray presence in Siachen since 1983.

[ThunderBolt]

Pakistan and India are the only 2 countries fighting at such altitudes. The Siachin Glacier. Pakistani army faces numuros problems regarding the trasport of its personals and supplies. As far as i know, there is a base camp at the foot of the glacier and then a second post, situated somewhere on the mountain side that is reachable by Lama helicopters. Lama helicopters is very light and is used near mountains. From the base camp a Lama would transport personals and supplies to the second post on the mountain from where the army personals have to make there way up the mountain to the forward outposts on FOOT. Many of them die during the patrols from one outpost to another in incidents like avalanches, are very unpredictable. And its the same for India.

The most widely used rifles are (on the pakistani side) AK-47, and G3. Others just don't work/Pakistani army don't have much choice btw guns. Although indians use IN SAS it is just a modified version of AK. So its pretty much the same.

[ajay_ijn]

I big doubt i had about Indian Army,
Even though Army has fought in kashmir or in such high altitudes from about 50 years,Why didn't Army has ideal solution to Fighting in High Altitudes in 1999 kargil ,I mean they had so much of experience but stil they are facing problems at kargil.
Same is with the Airforce.

I guess the answer would be Indian Army was not prepared for a Large Scale Fighting (in lakhs of soldiers) in that kind of fighting.
They might have thought that small patrols are enough for Defending the border.

[ThunderBolt]

True enough, small patrols always (well not always) work, and when under enemy fire, they can just call more support from close by + both armies use medium arterly, and they can simply call close support.


Snipers would be of great use at such places.

[gf0012-aust]

True enough, small patrols always (well not always) work, and when under enemy fire, they can just call more support from close by + both armies use medium arterly, and they can simply call close support.


Snipers would be of great use at such places.

From external reports I've read the issue of small teams is the "deployment de rigeur" due to:

efficiency levels
logistics
competency/training of small cohorts
resources

support can be maintained at lower altitudes. you don't need to maintain numerically large units at altitude. it is significantly harder to keep large groups of men "sharp" in adverse conditions. It's much easier to lose co-ordination of assets and to maintain cohesiveness.

[ajay_ijn]

From external reports I've read the issue of small teams is the "deployment de rigeur" due to:

efficiency levels
logistics
competency/training of small cohorts
resources

support can be maintained at lower altitudes. you don't need to maintain numerically large units at altitude. it is significantly harder to keep large groups of men "sharp" in adverse conditions. It's much easier to lose co-ordination of assets and to maintain cohesiveness.
But gf in case India-pakistan Scenario it is necessary to maintain large numbers of soldiers including artillery,aircraft etc.
Kargil is the best example for that.

[gf0012-aust]

But gf in case India-pakistan Scenario it is necessary to maintain large numbers of soldiers including artillery,aircraft etc.
Kargil is the best example for that.

No, Kargil is a classic example of how to fight a war based on mass and not finesse. It was relevant then - it's less relevant now.

Massed armies suit countries like India, Pakistan, China and in the past Russia as there was no shortage of manpower. The very reason why countries have revised the way they fight is because everyone watched what technology did to large formations in GW1. Why do you think China's own military writers starting from 1999 proposed going to high tech warfare as massed formations were deemed obsolete?

Why do you think India developed the Cold Start doctrine?

[corsair7772]

I agree with gf. If Pakistan ever had to put up an attack across siachen it would end up attacking with only a dozen or half a dozen men because they would all have to be top class mountaineers. I dont think the situation would be any different in Kargil.

And as the point of manpower based armies continues, id hate to point out the fact that india has an entire mountain division (9th Mountain division?) covering up the only place where pakistan could make a back door entry to the valley of kashmir. In siachen India is losing 150~200 men a year average. The Pakistanis are losing fewer men because they are camped at lower altitudes. Do a little math and add up casualties in kargil, insurgency and else where and youll understand why india is a manpower based army and masses up men for war even at high killer altitudes.

There are many military writers who predict the use of the Chinook or the UH-1 by Pakistan is the only way it can attack and have a good chance of success in capturing territory. Similarly it was the $1.5 million a peice bofors artillery (which was the best in those late 1980s days) which saved india in kargil put together with the PGMs and LGBs it hurriedly bought from israel and whatever.Which is in opposition to the massed fire and manpower belief. Technology triumphs here as well.

I believe the poet Dante wrote a poem about something like this in which he described hell as a frozen lake in stark contrast to the then previaling fiery catacomb. He could very well have been talking about siachen and kargil and all those other god forsaken battlegrounds.

[Berserk Fury]

Typically, attacking one mountain isn't very useful.
Why not just wait at the bottom until the enemy starves or freezes to death?
Plus, infantry wouldn't be used very much in mountainous regions.
Mostly, the target area is bombarded and then infantry clears out and captures the territory.

[ThunderBolt]

I would love to see Pakistan have a division of soldiers (around 500-800) specificaly trained for combat in mountainous areas such as Siachin glacier. And have small teams (10-15) operating at a time not like 50-100 (thats too many men at a place and an artillery shell placed nicely could easily wipe them out, or even an avalaunch). It would also be a good idea to provide these guys with advanced equipment. See this way they would only have to worry about around 15 soldiers, and the losses would be lesser.

[Berserk Fury]

I would love to see Pakistan have a division of soldiers (around 500-800) specificaly trained for combat in mountainous areas such as Siachin glacier. And have small teams (10-15) operating at a time not like 50-100 (thats too many men at a place and an artillery shell placed nicely could easily wipe them out, or even an avalaunch). It would also be a good idea to provide these guys with advanced equipment. See this way they would only have to worry about around 15 soldiers, and the losses would be lesser.

That would be nice though their training would be more spec. ops related than regular training. Such training routines would be hard to create from scratch while asking for help, for example, from the US, would be much easier.

[ThunderBolt]

That would be nice though their training would be more spec. ops related than regular training. Such training routines would be hard to create from scratch while asking for help, for example, from the US, would be much easier.


I don't know, i am pretty sure pakistan special services group (SSG) could help make a good start, but no doubt for sure, they are going to need some help from other countries and perhaps US. But it won't be a start from the scrath.

[Berserk Fury]

US already has a SEAL team that specializes in high altitude warfare... so... if they could persuade the US for training.... well, you get the idea.

[amit21mech]

India is also having good mountain warfare force. After debacle of 1962 India raised some mountain divisons which are considered among best in world. Even US teams are training with Indian troops for hi-Alt and Jungle warfare.
Even othrewise Indian and Pakistani troops are the only ones fighting on highest altitude so we are the best.

[corsair7772]

I would love to see Pakistan have a division of soldiers (around 500-800) specificaly trained for combat in mountainous areas such as Siachin glacier. And have small teams (10-15) operating at a time not like 50-100 (thats too many men at a place and an artillery shell placed nicely could easily wipe them out, or even an avalaunch). It would also be a good idea to provide these guys with advanced equipment. See this way they would only have to worry about around 15 soldiers, and the losses would be lesser.

Pakistan doesnt need mountain divisions for this sort of stuff. Usually an infantry division is stationed at skardu for defensive purposes. If things get dicey they just call in the SSG. I dont think Pakistan has any need for Mountain divisions.

Mountain divisions are very lightly armed and not necessarily with sophisticated arms. In mountain terrain you can counter an incoming force on 5 to 1 odds provided the technological level varies moderatley. The indians used mountain divisions in bangladesh in 71 because they were lightly armed, fast and with greater operational flexibilty allowing them to bypass Pakistani held urban centres.

Besides ur 500-800 man "division" isnt even equal to a battallion which generally numbers 900 men according European standards. I think your trying to refer to a mountain battallion. 3 of those make up a brigade and 3 brigades make up a division. This is according to Indo-Pak war gaming scenarios.

As for your teams, you dont actually scatter all your men in penny packets.
You concentrate them at low altitude bases from where the spread out to make a chain of interlocking fire bases supplied by helicopter. These dominate lardge areas and normal chains used in the subcontinent if placed in wartime conditions can cover 12,000 square kilometers. A single salvo from a 155mm battery using improved anti personnel shells can wipe out an entire infantry company. In siachen where the paks have no artillery, men operate in small 5 man detachments which have only small arms.

When i said Pakistan doesnt really need mountain divisions, its because there mostly just paramilitary in the subcontinent context. The sophisticated arms you talk about go to the Spec ops like the SSG and indias naval commandoes. Usually its the aircraft with PGMs that take out outposts like the M-2000s did in kargil because the F-16s did not enter the war till it was almost over.

Now Pakistan also has LACMs with TARCOM perhaps? You can use those against posts and bases.

[amit21mech]

Actualy it shud be the combination of both..i mean small teams at forward positions and large concentration ( example battalion HQ) at rear ( enroute to likely way of advance of offensive forces). Alos you need to have a good transport system. It should range from ponnies to heavy birds.

PM of India in 1962 ordered Indian Troops to defend every inch of Indian soil. Result was fanning out of Indian troops all along the length of Indio-China border with no forces left in rear for supply or concentrated defense. This multiplied with "no-use-of-airforce" policy of India and technological imbalance proved fatal for India.

These small teams act as ears for rear and can also hold a offensive ( ration of 10:1) for time enough to get timely enforcement from rear.

So we need to have both. In 1987 when China tried a misadventure in Arunachal Pardesh and was surprised to saw Indian response. India used its land-air force combination to mobilize 3 divisions in a short span of time.

Therefore small teams can give you only some early info and valuable time to gather resources but can not win a war for you. SSG or MARCOS are good for for these kind of operations but you need to have have large groups like battalion, brigade, divisions to win the war. Moreover SSG and MARCOS have lots of other things to do.;)

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/natarajan.html

[corsair7772]

I think you should take two factors into account before concluding.

Firstly, in 1962 the indians faced a PLA which was born and bred as a guirella force emphasizing speed and maneuvre whereas the Indians were trained to fight "in line" rather than fluid conditions. So its no surprise that the indians brigade boxes were encircled though if you ask me, if theyd simply stayed where they were instead of withdrawing as they did in 1962, the chinese would have rolled back anyway for supplies before the winter came. The indian brigade boxes were located in advantageous terrain and not easily attacked. Also it would be interesting to note that the Chinese individual does not stand cold as well as the Indian individual does. As for the airforce etc, they were not used simply because india lacked political will. Its army and air force operated from well established complexes whereas the chinese depended on mule tracks and bases all the way back in tibet from where their F-6s and Il-28s ,with their limited range, could not fly all the way to the battle area, let alone indian airfields. So it was a simple failure of political will. India should not have accepted the ceasefire and instead declared that it would fight till every inch of its territory was liberated. The chines would have rolled back anyway and india could have claimed victory and the world would have applauded.

As for 1987, India planned to attack a chinese post at Sumdrong Chou with 3000 men not 3 divisions. Such a large scale deployment was instead carried out during Operation Trident in 1987 in which india planned to recover Skardu. Back to Sumdrong, the episode was triggered of when a four man indian intelligence patrol strolled around the post for a while which worried the chinese. In anycase, again the political will was absent the indians kept delaying the operation until it was finally called off.

[funtz]

I not trying to get India into the argument again, however the following link has a very informative thesis.

http://www.nps.edu/academics/sigs/nsa/publicationsandresearch/studenttheses/theses/Acosta03.pdf

Most of the esteemed members of this forum must have already gone through this report.

The most important thing about high altitude warfare is who you are fighting and where, let us shift the Kargil question and place the defending force towards mountains further inland let us say for the sake of discussion- towards the high altitude mountains of the Indian state of Uttara Khand somewhere from where the international border is still a decent distance away,

You will discover something interesting

there is no need of fighting the defending force entrenched in deep bunkers as you can simply cut of there supply routes use artillery shelling and force them to abandon there plans.

If a mordern western force (NATO, USA) faces similar high altitude warfare in Afghanistan, they would have:
a) The advantage of air dominance (no threat of SAM's).
b) An unmatched supply of guided ammunition (air and artillery) and anti bunker ammunition (air),
c) Access to all routes (to cut off supply).

They would be able to lay more accurate and intense fire from all fronts (ground and air), cut off the supply resulting in

1. A surrender of defending armed elements.
2. Troops who had time to acclimatize themselves to the high altitude during the initial phase, facing an enemy low on supply and morale.

This would effectively neutralise the point of using such high mountain ranges for defense.

Hence my argument-

The place where such a high mountain conflict occurs and the forces involved in such an engagement are more important than the “high altitude” itself.

[XaNDeR]

Country's often have units specialized only for high altitude combat , United States army has a division specialized for high altitude combat.Those specialized units proove to be far more effective as if they are not specialized for it and prepared and you need to improvise.
A very important factor is Physical strenght , as you need to often climb and sometimes the cold or snow can be very harsh and the soldiers must wear layers of clothes for the cold.
High altitude terrain can be your ally or your worse enemy.
Sometimes there is also hard to bring supply's depending on weather or other factors.

[Waylander]

I hope you don't mean the 10th mountain division.
This division is not specialized in mountain warfare they do some of their training at home in some difficult terrain due to the place were their homebase is located.
But they remain a relatively plain normal light infantry division which is not comparable to the specialized mountain units of other countries.

[funtz]

Country's often have units specialized only for high altitude combat , United States army has a division specialized for high altitude combat.Those specialized units prove to be far more effective as if they are not specialized for it and prepared and you need to improvise.
A very important factor is Physical strength , as you need to often climb and sometimes the cold or snow can be very harsh and the soldiers must wear layers of clothes for the cold.
High altitude terrain can be your ally or your worse enemy.
Sometimes there is also hard to bring supply's depending on weather or other factors.

if you kindly would go through the following link

http://www.nps.edu/academics/sigs/nsa/publicationsandresearch/studenttheses/theses/Acosta03.pdf

specifically go through acclimatization program given in table 1 on page 51, through this Rajputana rifles was able to get used to the high altitude and preform well throughout the operation, and i doubt if tha RAJ RIF had any significant advantage in terms of physical strength when compared with the other elements of the indian army.

however for rope fixing which is used in very daring maneuvers required trained men from the high altitude warfare school.

During the operation anaconda which took place at an altitude of 12,500 feet the primary allied forces were elements of United States 10th Mountain Division, 101st Airborne Division, the US special forces groups, British Royal Marines, Canada's 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Afghan National Army, the German KSK, and elements of the Australian Special Air Service Regiment and of the New Zealand Special Air Service.

All of these Forces must have gone through similar acclimatization programs to get used to the altitude, irrespective of there previous experience.

[XaNDeR]

I hope you don't mean the 10th mountain division.
This division is not specialized in mountain warfare they do some of their training at home in some difficult terrain due to the place were their homebase is located.
But they remain a relatively plain normal light infantry division which is not comparable to the specialized mountain units of other countries.

I don't know , I heard that they have a division that is trained on mountain warfare , I guess thats it , tnx for some info.

[kato]

Germany has the 23rd Mountain Inf Bde within 10th Armor Division.

23rd Mountain Bde commonly fights in a zone between 1000 and 3000 meters, and is specialized for that. Or at least they hold their exercises at this kind of altitude - example: the last shots of their artillery bat used positions and observers at about 2000m alt, with 200m altitude difference between firing positions and observers.

For Germany, that's high altitude. The more mountaineous areas of Germany usually top out between 1000 and 1500m, with the exception of the Allgäu, which tops out at 2900m. 23rd Mountain Bde is trained and capable of fighting in all these areas, unlike "normal" infantry, and would presumably be able to fight specifically throughout the Alpine mountains.

[eckherl]

I don't know , I heard that they have a division that is trained on mountain warfare , I guess thats it , tnx for some info.

Waylander hit it right, we do not have any specialized divisions for high altitude mountain warfare, which is a bummer.:(

[kams]

Waylander hit it right, we do not have any specialized divisions for high altitude mountain warfare, which is a bummer.:(

Some of your guys train at our HAWS in Kashmir. Infact another such exercise is scheduled in November. This years exercise will include some air-borne elements. High altitude anti-insurgency tactics seems to be the core area of this years exercise.

[eckherl]

Some of your guys train at our HAWS in Kashmir. Infact another such exercise is scheduled in November. This years exercise will include some air-borne elements. High altitude anti-insurgency tactics seems to be the core area of this years exercise.

At what elevations are they training at, yes some of the specialized units do recieve mountain training but they are not just dedicated to that type of warfare. Maybe this will change with the style of fighting in Afhganistan that U.S units along with NATO forces are dealing with. I would like to see at least one U.S division dedicated to just this type of fighting.

[Waylander]

Sending some soldiers for training to special mountain/arctic warfare schools is, as Eckherl pointed out right, not the same like having a dedicated mountain warfare force.

And special forces of all kind tend to get the training they need including high altitue/mountain warfare.

A-stan might not change it. Much of the heavy fighting in the south happens in relatively flat terrain. Because of that the good use of Canadian tanks can be explained.The much more mountaineous part in the north is relatively quiet and the mountaineous border regions to pakistan are IMHO the home of ISAF/OEF special forces rather than regular troops.

[kams]

At what elevations are they training at, yes some of the specialized units do recieve mountain training but they are not just dedicated to that type of warfare. Maybe this will change with the style of fighting in Afhganistan that U.S units along with NATO forces are dealing with. I would like to see at least one U.S division dedicated to just this type of fighting.

HAWS is located at Gulmarg in J&K at a height of around 6500 ft. I have no idea as to height at which the exercise is planned.

India has another training school specializing in High Altitude, this one is High ALtitude Commando school or Parvat Ghatak, located at Tawang at a height of 15,000 ft.:D .

Waylander, Eckherl,

I do agree that training some units in HAW is no substitute for having dedicated mountain warfare division. However it'd no easy job developing/maintaining a devision size unit dedicated to High altitude fighting. India/Pakistan/China do it because of they have internation borders at this height.

Do you guys believe there is scope for employing these units (NATO and/or US/ and/or European) in any potential conflicts?

[Waylander]

It doesn't has to be a real Division, a (maybe overstrength) brigade could be enough.

At least in case of defense of their own soil the european countries bordering the alps need such a force.
They could IMHO also be used for actions in A-stan. As long as I know our mountain troops also counducted mountain patrols during the early days of the Kosovo campaign to close the gaps there.

[Rasmussin]

The answer is Turkish Mountain Commandos
Commando Brigades [3 Commando & 1 Artillery Btn per]
* 1ST Commando Brigade
* 2nd Commando Brigade (Also known as "Bolu Second Commando Brigade")
* 3rd Commando Brigade
Possible other unit names are:
* Mountain Commando Brigade
* Hakkari Commando Mountain Brigade

The 1st Commando Brigade is based out of Kayseri, Turkey. They have recently been deployed to various areas in the Southeast Anatolia region to battle against separatist terrorists. During these battles this brigade earned itself the "Distinguished Courage Medal of the Turkish Armed Forces", the second time it has done so since 1974.

The 2nd Commando Brigade is based out of Bolu, Turkey. They also were deployed to the South Eastern Anatolia region to fight terrorism. In addition to the 1st Brigade, they were awarded the "Distinguished Courage Medal of the Turkish Armed Forces" as well for their efforts. Members of the Bolu BRigade were also deployed into Iraq in early 1999 during raids the Turkish military claimed were conducted against members of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

"2256 PKK terrorists killed by these brigades in two years on the Iraq mountains over 3000 m altitude( between 1993-1995)

[nero]

.
u still need high-altitude helicopters for transport.

which modern transport helicopter has the highest service-ceiling ???

plz update if possible.

.

[eckherl]

HAWS is located at Gulmarg in J&K at a height of around 6500 ft. I have no idea as to height at which the exercise is planned.

India has another training school specializing in High Altitude, this one is High ALtitude Commando school or Parvat Ghatak, located at Tawang at a height of 15,000 ft.:D .

Waylander, Eckherl,

I do agree that training some units in HAW is no substitute for having dedicated mountain warfare division. However it'd no easy job developing/maintaining a devision size unit dedicated to High altitude fighting. India/Pakistan/China do it because of they have internation borders at this height.

Do you guys believe there is scope for employing these units (NATO and/or US/ and/or European) in any potential conflicts?


I second what Waylander stated, I would be content with a specialized dedicated unit in the size of a brigade.

[riksavage]

UK Royal Marines who have recently returned from Afghanistan are now cross-training at the high-altitude Mountain school in India at company level. i understand they are working with the Indian Para's.

Thsi follows on from recent RAF / IAF exchanges, so looking forward it's good to see NATO and Indian forces sharing their respective experiences.

[riksavage]

Following on from the above comment, the cross-training between the UK-RM and Indian Para's has upset the Pakistani's.


Pakistan upset over India-UK war game in Kashmir
Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:52am BST

Email This Article |Print This Article | RSS
[-] Text [+] ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - High-altitude military exercises by India and Britain in mountains in the disputed Kashmir region are not legal, Pakistan said on Monday.
British and Indian forces are carrying out a three-week exercise in the Ladakh area of the Himalayan region of Kashmir, at the heart of decades of hostility and the cause of two of the three wars the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought.

Pakistan had lodged a protest with both India and Britain over the exercises, which were not a "legal activity", Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

"Ladakh is part of Jammu and Kashmir, (which) is an internationally recognised disputed territory and more than anybody else, Britain should be aware of it," Aslam told a weekly news conference.

Last week, Pakistan lodged a protest with India over a plan to open the Siachen Glacier, also in the Kashmir region, to tourist trekkers. The two sides have faced off across the glacier, known as the word's highest battlefield, since 1984.

The South Asian neighbours began a peace process in early 2004 after going to the brink of their fourth war in 2002.

The talks have led to an improvement in sporting, transport and diplomatic links, but there has been no substantial progress on Muslim-majority Kashmir.

[funtz]

Do not read too much into it, in the sub-continent statements by respective ministry of external affairs (of Bhutan,Bangladesh,India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sril Lanka) are a major source of passing time, other pass-some-time activities include Cricket, football and drinking tea.

[XaNDeR]

.
u still need high-altitude helicopters for transport.

which modern transport helicopter has the highest service-ceiling ???

plz update if possible.

.

Most modern helicopters have service celling of more than 4km or 5km so most of the heli's are capable of transporting troops in very high mountains or hills.

Id say Eurocopter Super Puma has the biggest or 1 of the biggest service celling which is over 7km , almost as high as the highest mountain in the world which is Mount Everest at 8.8km.

[kams]

A report on Indo-UK joint exercise in the Himalaya, answers the question we had earlier on the altitude at which the exercise was carried out..

PUSHING THE LIMITS (http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133464&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133158&contentPK=18758824&folderPk=78031&pNodeId=133174)

Two city Royal Marines were hospitalised for five days with altitude sickness during the first British land forces exercises to be held in northern India for 60 years.The marines from Bickleigh-based 42 Commando were treated and later flown back to the UK after coughing up blood and experiencing extreme shortness of breath during the hazardous mountain and cold-weather exercises in the Himalayas. Training at a height of up to 18,300ft, the marines of 42 Cdo's M Company have since made a full recovery.

A report into the exercises states that all 112 members of the party experienced symptoms such as shortness of breath on exertion, headaches, difficulty sleeping, reduced appetite and dehydration.

It also states that altitude sickness - including high-altitude pulmonary oedema, which put the two men in hospital, and acute mountain sickness - had been expected.



"In summary, only four men were unable to participate in the final exercise," the report states.

"This is considered to be an excellent result reflecting careful acclimatisation and expeditious treatment of cases of mountain sickness.

"The exercise proved an excellent learning experience for medical and non-medical staff in the prevention and management of altitude related illnesses."

Exercise Himalayan Warrior was the first opportunity for M Company to work together as a formation since returning from operations in Afghanistan.

Trekking and climbing across the snow-covered picturesque Himalayan mountains, the marines made history by becoming the first British land forces to train in Northern India since 1947.

Working alongside the Indian Army, the marines carried out various mountain and cold- weather exercises including high-altitude training, ice drills and cliff-top assaults.

The culmination of the exercise saw 'M' Company and the Indian Paratroopers combine to attack two mock enemy positions, with the main assault combining a cliff assault and a conventional attack.

Major Martin Collin, in charge of M Company, said: "As soon as we landed and departed the aircraft I began to feel light-headed and dizzy, which progressed to a strong headache later in the day.

"I've conducted mountain training around the world, never at this altitude, but nothing can prepare you for the feeling you get here.

"Thankfully, all my symptoms stopped as we moved through the acclimatisation package, although I still suffered from shortness of breath and being exhausted during physical exertion: no change there, then!"

Maj Collin said the exercises were an invaluable opportunity for 42 Commando to enhance its knowledge and experience of operating at high altitude.

Major Sandeep of the Indian Paratroopers also described the training as being hugely successful.

"The lessons learned by all parties were exceptional and I can only hope that this is the start of a lasting relationship between the Royal Marines and our paratroopers," he added.

On its return from India, M Company will continue to prepare for deployment to Norway in the early part of next year.

[riksavage]

Photos included in the attached article. I understand the RM will now host the Indian Paras on an exercise in the UK.

http://www.royalmarines.mod.uk/units-and-deployments/3-commando-brigade/42-commando-royal-marines/news/news-article.php?article_id=94#gallery

[eckherl]

Kams and Riksavage - thanks for sharing the article and photos, I wonder if the RM wil take the Indian Paras to Scotland to climb old Ben.

[riksavage]

More like Norway for the winter deployment. The Paras will then get to work with both the RM and Dutch in extreme conditions.

[Waylander]

Kams and Riksavage - thanks for sharing the article and photos, I wonder if the RM wil take the Indian Paras to Scotland to climb old Ben.

Which Ben?
For the Indians the Scottish mountains would look like nice hills. :D

[FutureTank]

.
u still need high-altitude helicopters for transport.

which modern transport helicopter has the highest service-ceiling ???

plz update if possible.

.

Altitude : 12 442 m

Date of flight: 21/06/1972
Pilot: Jean BOULET (France)
Course/place: Aérodrome d'Istres (France)

Rotorcraft:
SA 315 Lama (1 Turboméca Artouste III B, 735 kW)

Source: Fédération Aéronautique Internationale

However, although this helo can accommodate 4 passengers, it is unlikely that it can lift them to much higher then 4,000ft, if that.

The UH-1Ds in Vietnam had to cut the number of passengers in half to fly over 4,000ft mountains.

The ubiquitous Mi-8 can only manage 4,500 m (14,760 ft) service ceiling, but not with its standard load, which is 24 passengers. Of course this is more then double the number the UH-1H could lift, but if it has to lift to ceiling, it is unlikely to to lift more then 4-6 combat troops, which is what Soviet SpetzNaz did in Afghanistan.

The service ceiling attempts to capture the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft. Specifically, it is the density altitude at which flying in a clean configuration, at the best rate of climb airspeed for that altitude and with all engines operating and producing maximum continuous power, will produce a 100 feet per minute climb. Margin to stall at service ceiling is 1.5g. (Wiki)

Absolute ceiling for a Mi-8 is far greater of course at 6000m.

[eckherl]

Which Ben?
For the Indians the Scottish mountains would look like nice hills. :D

Yep - they may be a little disappointed.:)

[FutureTank]

Yep - they may be a little disappointed.:)

Is that why lots of people used to go to India in the 70s? To get high? :rolleyes:

[eckherl]

Is that why lots of people used to go to India in the 70s? To get high? :rolleyes:

Na - most people get kinda lazy and have the munchies after a few bowls of hashish. :D

[FutureTank]

Na - most people get kinda lazy and have the munchies after a few bowls of hashish. :D

I wouldn't know :)
However to stay on the thread, I do believe that Soviets used to lift BMPs to fairly high levels (considering) and used them as a kind of armoured OP. This was mostly because the troops could use engines to keep themselves warm, and felt more safe once dug in under the IFV. I'm not sure high high they were lifted though.
The troops also smoked a lot of hashish as I read.

[eckherl]

I wouldn't know :)
However to stay on the thread, I do believe that Soviets used to lift BMPs to fairly high levels (considering) and used them as a kind of armoured OP. This was mostly because the troops could use engines to keep themselves warm, and felt more safe once dug in under the IFV. I'm not sure high high they were lifted though.
The troops also smoked a lot of hashish as I read.

I wouldn`t know either, I assume that you are referring to Afghanistan. Are you sure that they were BMPs or were they BMDs. I would be a little freaked out during the night time hours.:)

[FutureTank]

I wouldn`t know either, I assume that you are referring to Afghanistan. Are you sure that they were BMPs or were they BMDs. I would be a little freaked out during the night time hours.:)

Maybe BMDs also, but I read about a BMP on a Russian site, and this was confirmed by another contributor there in a different place but from same unit. It may have been restricted to that unit though. Essentially this is akin to what was done in Vietnam, except that there the OP was usually either temporary, or permanent and complex, including USAF equipment installation.

However, I'm not sure why this can't be done now by NATO?
It may be that NATO could rediscover the value of fortified high ground as was used for centuries in Europe. Several armoured boxes lifted onto dominant heights could easily dominate a large area, particularly if provided with long range turreted weapon. It seems to me that even old M-60 turrets would do since a 105mm HE round wouldn't need to be fired with the same precision as an anti-tank sabot round for example.
I'm curious no one has thought of this until now. These positional area defense sectors could dominate large areas using only an equivalent of a tank company.

[FutureTank]

I wouldn`t know either, I assume that you are referring to Afghanistan. Are you sure that they were BMPs or were they BMDs. I would be a little freaked out during the night time hours.:)

I'd be a lot freaked out, but it would not be much different to doing night security duty.

Actually on second thought it would have to be a crew of at least three shift in such a height domination fortified point.

[eckherl]

Maybe BMDs also, but I read about a BMP on a Russian site, and this was confirmed by another contributor there in a different place but from same unit. It may have been restricted to that unit though. Essentially this is akin to what was done in Vietnam, except that there the OP was usually either temporary, or permanent and complex, including USAF equipment installation.

However, I'm not sure why this can't be done now by NATO?
It may be that NATO could rediscover the value of fortified high ground as was used for centuries in Europe. Several armoured boxes lifted onto dominant heights could easily dominate a large area, particularly if provided with long range turreted weapon. It seems to me that even old M-60 turrets would do since a 105mm HE round wouldn't need to be fired with the same precision as an anti-tank sabot round for example.
I'm curious no one has thought of this until now. These positional area defense sectors could dominate large areas using only an equivalent of a tank company.

Or you could do what Russia did on the Sino border, this is a very interesting array of old tank systems that were used. I kinda prefer a more fluid defensive system, this keeps you opponent guessing on your next move and doesn`t give him a whole lot of time to plan something nasty for you.

[eckherl]

I'd be a lot freaked out, but it would not be much different to doing night security duty.

Actually on second thought it would have to be a crew of at least three shift in such a height domination fortified point.

Don`t forget your listening posts and rear security personnel either.

[FutureTank]

Don`t forget your listening posts and rear security personnel either.

I didn't. There is no need for them.

[eckherl]

I didn't. There is no need for them.

In mountain terrian, do you think that electronic devices are that good.

[Waylander]

Or you could do what Russia did on the Sino border, this is a very interesting array of old tank systems that were used. I kinda prefer a more fluid defensive system, this keeps you opponent guessing on your next move and doesn`t give him a whole lot of time to plan something nasty for you.

I don't think the russians expect this line of defense to hold in face of an attack.
But it could slow down an enemy attack and makes good observation points.
Time which is much needed to get your mobile units time to maneuver into position.

And with air cover and support by prepositioned artillery in hardened positions such a line of defense is going to kill a fair amount of enemies before being overhelmed (For which I have no doubt will happen if the Chinese do a serious border crossing).

[eckherl]

I don't think the russians expect this line of defense to hold in face of an attack.
But it could slow down an enemy attack and makes good observation points.
Time which is much needed to get your mobile units time to maneuver into position.

And with air cover and support by prepositioned artillery in hardened positions such a line of defense is going to kill a fair amount of enemies before being overhelmed (For which I have no doubt will happen if the Chinese do a serious border crossing).

Alot of these positions are no longer even manned and they are rather primative with the latest array of battlefield management devices that are currently in use with Russia. I don`t think that China would even be able to mass troops and material for a attack without the Russians even knowing about it. It is still kind neat though to see some of these old relics still sitting in these positions rusting away, China most likely had the majority of them pre plotted with artillery. :)

[Waylander]

I expect them to throw the reservists and conscripts from this area into these positions as soon as the Chinese start to build up forces on the other side of the border.
Better than to sacrifice ready trained standing units in an attempt to slow down the enemy while you mobilize and and maneuver into position.

For sure they are dead meat but in the end I don't think Stavka has a problem with sacrifizing them...

[FutureTank]

A lot of these positions are no longer even manned and they are rather primitive with the latest array of battlefield management devices that are currently in use with Russia. I don`t think that China would even be able to mass troops and material for a attack without the Russians even knowing about it. It is still kind neat though to see some of these old relics still sitting in these positions rusting away, China most likely had the majority of them pre plotted with artillery. :)

The photos you sent are of emplacements that date from the 60s. Since then the Fortified Regions have changed in organisation and employment. They have a surveillance battalion that includes GSR sub-units, and the tanks are no longer dug-in but operate in a sort of fortified prepared position These are still restricted in access to general public, and I have not seen any images of them.
Removing old positions is quite expensive, and in any case, they provide excellent OPs for border guards because Chinese used to snipe at them, and now the Chinese illegally crossing the border do.

[Vindex]

As far as I have seen the equipment of the Indian mountain units seems to be a bit outdated. And they had troubles with the various techniques required to navigate over difficult glaciers. But it might have been just a lowland unit doing some basic mountain training...

[FutureTank]

As far as I have seen the equipment of the Indian mountain units seems to be a bit outdated. And they had troubles with the various techniques required to navigate over difficult glaciers. But it might have been just a lowland unit doing some basic mountain training...

Having most up to date equipment in this terrain is not essential to tactics.
Navigation at high altitudes is always a bit tricky I hear. Consider the recent cases of Chilean, Argentinian, NZ and and other troops having mishaps. There is the famous Swiss invasion of Lichtenstein, and numerous cases of Soviet and now NATO troops having navigation problems in Afghanistan. Probably many we never hear about.

[funtz]

As far as I have seen the equipment of the Indian mountain units seems to be a bit outdated. And they had troubles with the various techniques required to navigate over difficult glaciers. But it might have been just a lowland unit doing some basic mountain training...

What out dated equipment?

What incident of having trouble navigating the glaciers are you talking about?
Talking about the 80s or the 90s?
Which Glacier?

Lowland unit doing basic mountain training in Glaciers? Thats a call for good old harakiri.(might as well pick up your rifle and take a shot to the head)

[Vindex]

Well given that the practically all suitable equipment for mountain warfare has made huge steps in the last ten years or so it is little wonder that the Inidan units are lagging seriously behind. Even western forces like the Alpini and the Gebirgsjaeger have trouble to keep the pace...

From what I have seen the still have rather heavy ropes - an old Kernmantel - but still rather heavy. The crampoons too seemed worn out and old, like their Ice Axes. Thinking a bit more about their stuff it I will be able to come up with more.

Well I saw the training personally and discussed it also with some soldiers because I was trekking by. It was some ten km east of Gaumukh, close to the Shivling. Note that they seemed rather fit and carried a good deal of equipment, even an Anti-tank weapon. Everybody with experience knows just how heavy every cage (kg) is when one has to carry it up and down steep hills at high altitude. They referred to themselves as elite.

They clearly were not very well versed - I have a good deal of experience - but perhaps they got shifted to medium altitude (4000m) just recently and it was one of their first training sessions of their new shift. :p:

Anyway which anti-tank weapons do the India forces use? It was definatly a soviet RPG version. What I missed where optical sights on their weapons. Given the often huge distances longrange shooting is more than a distinct possibility...

[funtz]

Nice, never saw that last post until now, that is my area, well almost, i am from Niti-mana valley area. The army has a lot of records in that neck of the woods.

The High-Altitude Warfare School (HAWS) was not set up for the sake of the name.

The bharat rakshak site has got a whole page on AT infantry weapons


Milan-II, 9K11 Malyutka, 9K11 Fagot, 9K113 Konkurs

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Anti-Tank.html