Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Indian general praises Pakistani Troops

Discussion in 'Army & Security Forces' started by The Watcher, May 6, 2003.

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Watcher

    The Watcher New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    :pak

    Indian general praises Pakistani valour at Kargil

    From Khalid Hasan

    WASHINGTON: A retired Indian general expressed high praise here last week for the valour of Pakistani fighters in Kargil, singling out for special mention Capt Karnail Sher and Capt Hanifuddin, both of whom fell fighting and posthumously honoured.

    Addressing a meeting at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Lt General M Y Bammi, who retired from the Indian army in 1995 and has just published a book on the Kargil conflict – Kargil: the impregnable conquest – said the Pakistani troops had fought bravely. It was a brilliant action militarily, which had taken India by surprise. However, diplomatically and politically it turned out to be disastrous. India, contrary to Pakistani expectations, retaliated with full force and though it suffered heavy casualties, the Indian army took back every single feature captured by Pakistani troops. He said initially Pakistan had pretended that those fighting in Kargil were “mujahideen” but it later admitted that they were regular Pakistani troops, though they had a smattering of others. In any case, all doubts as to the identity of those fighting in Kargil were set at rest when Pakistan announced 92 gallantry awards at the end of the conflict, many of them posthumous.

    General Bammi, who was commissioned in a Gurkha regiment, said that while bodies found at Kargil by Indian troops at recaptured positions were almost without exception those of “other ranks” or non-officers, it was ironic that quite a few of the 92 gallantry awards had gone to officers. He put the number of Pakistani dead at Kargil between 597 and 1,000. Eight were taken POWs. However, those figures were estimated ones, he added, as Pakistan had provided no official count so far. India, he said, lost 481 men, while 1,151 of its personnel suffered combat-related wounds. Two men were to this day unaccounted for.

    The Indian general said Pakistani artillery fire was effective and inflicted heavy casualties on the Indians. He said there were several explanations of why Pakistan launched the Kargil operation. Did the planners assume that India would not respond? Was it an attempt to internationalise Kashmir? Or was it to gain area? He said incendiary statements of the kind that emanate from former Pakistani generals such as Aslam Beg and Hamid Gul “make us pause and think.” Meanwhile, the insurgency continues and Hindus keep getting targeted. India also worries if Pakistani nuclear assets are fully secure and in safe hands. How good is the control and command structure, it wonders?

    General Bammi said there were several conflicting signals from Pakistan, such as a statement by Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan to the effect that the Line of Control should be accepted as the permanent dividing line or the statement by federal information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed saying that the Kashmir issue would be resolved in three years. He emphasised that at no time during the conflict in Kargil did the two countries reach a “nuclear flashpoint.” He said the attack on the Indian parliament was a much graver provocation than Kargil. It was clear now that Pakistan had learnt a lesson from Kargil as the international community had come out against the Pakistani incursion. Pakistan had also realised that there could be no more Kargils, he added.

    In answer to a question, Gen Bammi said Kargil was an Indian intelligence failure. Indian intelligence failed to read the signs or identify the activities that were going on since 1997. Indian planners were also misled by the Lahore visit of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. He said the Kargil Plan of the Pakistan army was a very good one, but it was not new. It dated back to 1987. He added that former Pakistan army chief Gen Jehangir Karamat on a visit to New Delhi had told him that it was not his plan, nor had he ever discussed it with Benazir Bhutto.

    Asked if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been “taken for a ride” by the army, Gen. Bammi referred to a statement made by Gen Pervez Musharraf in September 1999 claiming that “everyone was on board” on Kargil. He said Sharif might have been informed but not given “the complete picture.”
     
  2. DefConGuru

    DefConGuru New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Indeed if Pakistan had a viable diplomatic and political front those key hights would still be in their hands, I've read about the extent of India's surprise and slow counter attack to gain the heights back, as well as Pakistan's inability to reinforce those positions or call in air support (which usually is the back breaker for Pak). Clearly shows you how Pak's force is meant to be highly mobile and aggressive while India relies on slow paced mass mobilization and a calculated Defensive-Offense reminscient of Soviet Union.
     
  3. funtz

    funtz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chamoli
    Well the families of the several people dead on both sides will sure understand the importance of high ground.

    That conflict was when i was in the final year of my school, wondering if my family members in the Army will make it through.

    And often i wondered what will happen if the conflict got out of hand, i mean a Indian AF team carrying out strike missions faces the PAF, one thing leads to another and suddenly it becomes a shooting war.

    As they say there are no atheists in foxholes or something like that, for all the patriotism and what not, i never quite understood the risks involved.

    Thankfully the whole thing finished up and nothing of the sorts happened, as this has come up once again with your post, all i can say is this.

    "the conflict happened in probably the only way it could have happened, and that is that."
     
  4. DefConGuru

    DefConGuru New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Definitely not lending to any future mish mashing on here Funtz, just analyzing the facts of something that happened almost a decade ago, which has no chance of happening again, so in a sense it's the last struggle (I think) between the two nations conceived out of war, and we are here to discuss war.
     
  5. funtz

    funtz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chamoli
    Was trying to show the emotions that are around here on the topics and why these things turn into flame wars, sadly though.

    Ok, for as long as we can lets talk about it before people start flaming each other.

    Well as i said the conflict happened in the only way it could have:

    - had Pakistan Air force entered the conflict the result could have included IAF becoming more active in the war, with that slowly but surely the conflict would have spread to other borders, and well with that the risk of the Big-N would have come into the picture.

    - The conflict would have gone on for as long as the people on the top of the mountains remained there, apparently the positions were too important for the Indian Military and no amount of sacrifice would have stopped them, so at this point again for the people on the top of the peaks to remain up on them peaks, they would have wished for more fire power.


    The military strategy and tactics used during the conflict has been studied in great details already hence no point reflecting on them, we can discuss individual studies done by people on the conflict (easily available online). So to that point here is just one of the many analysis on the conflict:

    http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/Acosta03.pdf

    There are a whole lot of others too.
     
  6. Vindex

    Vindex New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well as far as I remember the Pakistani had light artillery support but with firefinder radars. With better artillery in regards to precision, firepower and mobility they should have been able to inflict a terrible toll on the Indian artillery - and vice versa. The Indian army had the better guns but no counter-battery radar.

    It also shows just how difficult it is to supply a recently conquered mountain top or range and how much effort in general the logistics require...
     
  7. funtz

    funtz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chamoli
    Man that high up, everything should have been a problem.

    I guess if there were some direct/indirect sources which stated the loss that the Indian artillery positions from Pakistani artillery it would have been easier to second guess the effect of the firefinder radars.

    I could guess that they must have made some difference. However in a situation as complex as mountain warfare the position of the Indian artillery must have been very important.

    The intense fire of the artillery was directed at the peaks, not necessarily at the artillery positions supported by firefinding radars for counter fire.

    I think there should be people here who can better discuss the nature of the artillery matters.

    Information attributing a high percentage of Indian military casualties to indirect fire while on the approach are available.
     
  8. Vindex

    Vindex New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kargil

    Well as far as I remember the Indians were forced due to their questionable ability to coordinate the indirect fire of the wide-spread artillery batteries in a timely and effective fashion to concentrate them in relative small space for direct fire. Now if you keep the specific topographic nature in mind and the lack of selfpropelled, highly mobile artillery plus the difficulty to supply the huge amounts of ammunition it must have been lined up pretty close up to the only major road.

    An enemy with a good and mobile 155/52 and good scouts on the mountain tops with the ability to range the clearly visible targets with the available, easily portable hardware would have had a field day against the concentrated Indian artillery.

    Overview: arg the URL limit :eek:

    So the Indians tried to force with huge raw power and great courage what poor intelligence, embarrassing recce, slow reaction and poor command could not.

    IIRC the light infantry holding the slopes had properly prepared their firing tables of their mortars on the reverse slope - the Indian infantry charging uphill was of course an easy target even if the massed artillery hammered the pakestani positions with a huge volume of fire. Actually had the defender had higher marksman skills the cost would have been much higher. The mountains are a sharpshooters paradise...
     
  9. funtz

    funtz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chamoli
    I would guess the supply factor hits all. Kind of low casualties at 400-500, (still very unfortunate), and the artillery force massed up there could come back with out any significant loss worth reporting.

    They fired something like 250,000 rounds, and 9000 of them supporting a single mission, its not the easiest thing to manage that much accuracy on the first go that high up, even the snipers wont find it all that easy, will have to be very good.

    As they say concentrated fire for the loss in accuracy is a nice way to do things, until one is made of money like the Americans, that and some daring maneuvers.

    Direct fire is a better option when available as a safe option like in this case, very devastating on forward slopes.

    Must have been a very long line of trucks indeed.

    "self propelled, highly mobile artillery"

    Moving around on them mountains, are we, firing positions will be difficult to find then, so might as well hold on to what you got, for more moderate movements you dont need much once the guns are already there, with the bofors the 8 km/h self-propelled speed was there.

    The guns should be replaced now about bloody time, reports in the papers suggest the money in practically waiting, the bofors syndrome seems to have a nice grip still.

    At what range and risk? accuracy and other problems go two ways. Thankfully the artillery could keep on firing with out that to worry about.
    yup that was what caused the whole conflict, poor intelligence gathering, the whole thing would not have occurred otherwise and many lives could have been saved. the command was caught with their pants down, however that recovered by the time it needed to, reaction could only occur if some one knew what was happening and that was the problem in the first place.

    For the link, just break it up and post it,
    www. yahoo. com
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2008
  10. mysterious

    mysterious New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont see any point in dragging discussion in this old, old thread. So far its been treading in murky waters, havent seen pure technical aspects of the war being discussed, could easily turn political. It has all the elements of turning in to another war of words. My two cents: thread should be closed.
     
  11. Vindex

    Vindex New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well the Indians could pile up such huge amounts of guns and ammunition because there was no "official" support from the Pakestani army. So they could bring truckload after truckload to the battlefield. On could argue that with more daring of "freedom fighters" and with more support for them they could have severed the two vital links to Kargil, the Kashmir road and the Leh road.

    I think all the operation shows just how important the quality of man and material and the overall planning is. The rule is very simple: the harder the going and the higher the mountain the more the single soldier and his skills and technology count.
    Actually I thinkt that fast self-propelled guns with high tactical mobility are very important in the mountains because the movement and the field of fire are so restrained. Thus they must be able to shift far more quickly between distant locations than in the plain.

    Precision guided ammunitions and long range are a must. Combine that with portable laser range finders with the capability to measure angle, bearing and everything needed to map down the target in relation to the own, known position and things can become very nasty for a visible enemy.
     
  12. MG 3

    MG 3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats why we have a bigger mechanized force with alot of effort going in to further mechanizing most of our infantary divs.

    Our Arty was lacking at places. Hence the army is now completely moving to M198 and in 4years time to the M777 which are both 155mm.
     
  13. funtz

    funtz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chamoli
    Whats up, poster child for propoganda.
    Freedom fighters, mercenaries, terrorists, NLI, what ever, doesnot seem to make any difference to me.

    If one wishes to move around heavy objects in that terrain, one should may be check the area again, as for cutting road links, check the NH1A maps and this: http://www.reachladakh.com/how_to_reach.htm

    May be this thing never affected you the same way it affected me, this conflict was in serious danger of flowing out of the high altitudes, thank fully some people never let it become another worthless exercise of destruction, at least not anymore than it already was.

    As for the precision guided ammunition and subcontinental budgets, they are kind of restricting, however as one off measures to take of critical targets these options will be practiced from now on i guess. As for laser/satellite guided surveying equipment, ya right on could not agree more.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.