POST WAR assessment of recent conflict.

[j_hungary]

Defense in depth has huge advantages. It was proven well even in this skirmish. Many PAF bases with critical infrastructure was successfully and precisely struck by India. What of they were at farther ranges? Weapons for such precise strikes at larger ranges are very few and would also give the adversary more time to react and intercept them.

Most PAF bases are within 100-150 kms from Indian border. This is geographical limitation and Paksiatn can’t do much about it. One way of mitigation is construction of many more of them and distribution of assets all over them, increasing the decision dilemma for an adversary. But that would come with additional cost and may not be the best solution in current Pak economy.

Size of a country is what it is. It can’t be changed radically to create this physical depth.
What are the non-physical means of creating a pseudo depth?
- Robust and layered Air Defence - This was a weak area as shown by multiple strikes at many critical targets in Paksiatn.
- Hardened shelters for all critical elements. E.g. - The mobile command and control centre can’t be parked in open like it was at Nur Khan air base.
- Robust Electronic warfare capability - Pak proved to have done well on that front. India needs to up its game on that front.
- Network centricity - Pakistan has created a robust network and was the main reason for shooting down of IAF aircraft. IAF has to do some radical work on that front.

There must be many other ways to increase the depth by creating asymmetry. A depth that should deter an adversary from attempting a strike.

You need to remember 1 thing.

You need to put your force within reach of your enemy, that's because you need to reach them too. As you said, a nation boundary is a nation boundary. You can't change that. But you can increase your strategic depth without increase or extending your national border.

Take EWACS (Early Warning and Control System) as an example, the capability of catching the strategic profile before a strike was launch (from massing to resource transfer) would increase your response time, and thus increase your defensive capability, you don't wait until your enemy strike group come in from the edge of your detection range, by then there aren't much you could do.

Conventionally, you need to be able to penetrate, or cut thru a corridor to attack any center of gravity, otherwise you are going to do what the Russian is doing in Ukraine now, which is simply to attack everywhere, that's the most ineffective way to fight a war, that's just what it is. If you increase your effectiveness, you increase your strategic depth without expanding anything.

 

[wangdefa]

Agree! Pakistan took a long time to finally get a long-range AA system. Now Pakistan should buy some more systems as soon as possible and not worry about expenses. From Turkey? From China? From both? But fast. This will boost the nation's morale even more and reduce the Indians' confidence.

I totally agree with you. The future threat of Pakistan is an India with 1.5 billion people. But the Pakistanis also have the whole Muslim world. This is your advantage. The Pakistani people need to reach an internal consensus. Your enemy is not internal. You should stick together.

 

[Great Mal]

Where is the money? That is our plan to push pakistan deeper into debt spiral.
- No water
- No money

Pakistan is not failing as long as Pakistan has its overseas support in terms of remittances.

Pakistan is also now investing into its natural resources starting off with reko diq the army is involved with its civil engineering unit.


Pakistan is yet to see its full potential the rough phase in Pakistan is only a recent thing maybe 2 decades.

It will improve time is essence.

 

[Great Mal]

You need to remember 1 thing.

You need to put your force within reach of your enemy, that's because you need to reach them too. As you said, a nation boundary is a nation boundary. You can't change that. But you can increase your strategic depth without increase or extending your national border.

Take EWACS (Early Warning and Control System) as an example, the capability of catching the strategic profile before a strike was launch (from massing to resource transfer) would increase your response time, and thus increase your defensive capability, you don't wait until your enemy strike group come in from the edge of your detection range, by then there aren't much you could do.

Conventionally, you need to be able to penetrate, or cut thru a corridor to attack any center of gravity, otherwise you are going to do what the Russian is doing in Ukraine now, which is simply to attack everywhere, that's the most ineffective way to fight a war, that's just what it is. If you increase your effectiveness, you increase your strategic depth without expanding anything.

You have to understand that India & Pakistan are on parity when it comes to army & air force.

The only edge India has is in its naval forces, so it’s virtually impossible for india to cut through Pakistan.

If India wants to cut through Pakistan then Pakistan needs to be militarily on the same level as vietnam

 

[j_hungary]

You have to understand that India & Pakistan are on parity when it comes to army & air force.

The only edge India has is in its naval forces, so it’s virtually impossible for india to cut through Pakistan.

If India wants to cut through Pakistan then Pakistan needs to be militarily on the same level as vietnam

I can tell you this, after studying for war over 20 years, and been to a few myself, I don't believe in the word "impossible" anymore. That's just me.

But as a normal person, when you have to plan, you don't stop planning on something because it is "impossible" even if you are so strongly believe you can fend off any attacks, you still need to plan the "what if" and it's that planning that save me a couple of time, so I can talk to you here.

 

[MH.Yang]

Honestly, then what is the point?

You are talking about a war, not taking your order from McDonald Drive Thru. It's pointless to say "I don't care about this, but I will do this" I mean I would care WHEN you do that, not what you say when.

I know what you mean. You are trying to say that even with the loss of a few fighters India still accomplished their strategic objective by striking targets in Pakistan and Pakistan was powerless to stop the Indian attacks and did not retaliate in kind. So you are arguing that Pakistan lost strategically even though they gained a tactical victory in the air war. If Pakistan is unable to change its strategic disadvantage, India is bound to launch strikes again and again. Just shooting down a few fighters will not stop India. And my point is that China will not allow India to violate Pakistan's territorial sovereignty, and the conflict between Pakistan and India will only be limited to a few aspects such as shelling each other, launching missiles and aerial warfare. Such a war will not give India a chance to gain the fruits of strategic victory and it will eventually opt for a truce.

 

[Great Mal]

I can tell you this, after studying for war over 20 years, and been to a few myself, I don't believe in the word "impossible" anymore. That's just me.

But as a normal person, when you have to plan, you don't stop planning on something because it is "impossible" even if you are so strongly believe you can fend off any attacks, you still need to plan the "what if" and it's that planning that save me a couple of time, so I can talk to you here.

If you have been studying war for 20 years you should know that Pakistan & India are on parity when it comes to ground & airforce.

India can only cut through Pakistan when its conventional might exceeds Pakistan.

 

[j_hungary]

I know what you mean. You are trying to say that even with the loss of a few fighters India still accomplished their strategic objective by striking targets in Pakistan and Pakistan was powerless to stop the Indian attacks and did not retaliate in kind. So you are arguing that Pakistan lost strategically even though they gained a tactical victory in the air war. If Pakistan is unable to change its strategic disadvantage, India is bound to launch strikes again and again. Just shooting down a few fighters will not stop India. And my point is that China will not allow India to violate Pakistan's territorial sovereignty, and the conflict between Pakistan and India will only be limited to a few aspects such as shelling each other, launching missiles and aerial warfare. Such a war will not give India a chance to gain the fruits of strategic victory and it will eventually opt for a truce.

That's not what my point is, AT ALL.

My point is, in a military science sense, if Pakistan engage in an indefinite war with India, Pakistan is going to lose, that's the same as if Taiwan engage in China in an indefinite war, Taiwan is going to lose, same as Ukraine and Russia and any smaller country against a bigger country, that's just the "mathematical equation" dictate by miltiary science because a bigger country have more resource, people, they can take a bigger hit over time.

What I said here was, this previous conflict is when India break their status quo and attack the way they did, it doesn't matter who win or who lose in that conflict in May, that's not the point, the point is, they attacked, and they don't care about whether or not China have troop in Akai Chin or Pakistan had nuke, what China think and what Pakistan think is irreverent because they attacked. You can say "China don't care if India and Pakistan lob missile at each other" that's independent to what India do when we are talking about escalation.

 

[j_hungary]

If you have been studying war for 20 years you should know that Pakistan & India are on parity when it comes to ground & airforce.

India can only cut through Pakistan when its conventional might exceeds Pakistan.

I have no issue with that. But that does not affect what I said.

I mean Pakistan and India are at parity, does that mean they won't attack?

 

[j_hungary]

I am shocked that you are capable of saying so little by saying so much, it's usually the other way around. I just read a load of tripe. I becoming annoying now.

Why the heck are you answering your won assumptions, that's just ridiculously childish. Can you not follow a line of discussion? How difficult is that?
You are creating your own assumptions about what's on my mind, and you're constantly continuing to answer your own assumptions, I'm sorry but that's just idiotic and disrespectful.

You don't have any manners, please make an effort to learn some.
The essential part of a discussion is you follow the trajectory of a conversation. You follow on from the previous comment of the said other party. If you want to take the discussion towards a particular direction then let that party have their say before providing an arrogance filled reply, that's basic courtesy.

I have been reading this forum for nearly 20 years, on a very regular basis, commenting for around 5. I have read and come across stubborn arrogant individuals filled with hubris, you certainly take the cake. If you were not a senior member, I would understand, but this is beyond ridiculous.

This is the second time you have written tripe based on nothing I have said or claimed. I gave you my opinion based on your initial statement, but you really are something special.

I have no more desire to communicate with you. Please do not reply. If in future I ever reply to you by mistake, I humbly and profusely apologise for that right now.
But if you talk rubbish about my country, without basis, I reserve my rights to respond.
Good riddance.

again, none of these have any points to the assumption (Not mine by the way, as I said, this is the USAWC assumption) Which mean I type all that for a giant ZERO. which is as I said, I have expected

If you still wonder why I don't want to talk to you, I mean........If you have a point say it, not talking about how wrong I am, or how arrogant I am. come at my point, not me. If you are engaging in this forum for over 20 years, then honestly, you didn't learn much.

And I honestly don't care about whether or not you respond, if all those are rubbish you had already said anyway.

 

[Great Mal]

I have no issue with that. But that does not affect what I said.

I mean Pakistan and India are at parity, does that mean they won't attack?

If India attacks it should expect an equal retribution.

This time the response wont be artillery rockets & few cheap Turkish loitering munitions

 

[j_hungary]

If India attacks it should expect an equal retribution.

This time the response wont be artillery rockets & few cheap Turkish loitering munitions

Again, what you are saying is what we called "escalating" that's the entire point of my post. I am not talking about whether or not India or Pakistan will win, I am talking about you are looking at indefinite escalation.

 

[peagle]

again, none of these have any points to the assumption (Not mine by the way, as I said, this is the USAWC assumption) Which mean I type all that for a giant ZERO. which is as I said, I have expected

If you still wonder why I don't want to talk to you, I mean........If you have a point say it, not talking about how wrong I am, or how arrogant I am. come at my point, not me. If you are engaging in this forum for over 20 years, then honestly, you didn't learn much.

And I honestly don't care about whether or not you respond, if all those are rubbish you had already said anyway.

Every place has a baldrick, glad I met one here at last.
Anyone can read the line of our discussion and conclude who answered based on others statement or their own assumptions.

Now, go make me some tea, please no sugar.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vkdindian1]

I know what you mean. You are trying to say that even with the loss of a few fighters India still accomplished their strategic objective by striking targets in Pakistan and Pakistan was powerless to stop the Indian attacks and did not retaliate in kind. So you are arguing that Pakistan lost strategically even though they gained a tactical victory in the air war. If Pakistan is unable to change its strategic disadvantage, India is bound to launch strikes again and again. Just shooting down a few fighters will not stop India. And my point is that China will not allow India to violate Pakistan's territorial sovereignty, and the conflict between Pakistan and India will only be limited to a few aspects such as shelling each other, launching missiles and aerial warfare. Such a war will not give India a chance to gain the fruits of strategic victory and it will eventually opt for a truce.

Your insight on strategic vs tactical perspective is an interesting one.
Very few members have dared to touch that issue.
Any more comment on that issue is likely to draw sharp response from many people on the forum.

Few aspects that have remained in the shadows :-
-what were the aims of the conflict for both. They would be different for the side starting it as well as the side reacting.
- Were they achieved
- What were the strategic and tactical outcomes and their future impact on similar skirmish in the future and that could happen any day.

Most people have been focusing on analysing tactical aspects and have chosen to ignore the bigger bull which is strategic outcome.

 

[CombatCorner]

Pakistani as usual happy with tactical win and strategic failure.

India objective of hitting 9 terror sites in Pakistan was successful. As India saying this is the new normal.
Loss of 2-3 aircrafts means nothing.

Similarly on May10, India struck 11 Pakistani bases.
Sat images are giving proof of it
Pakistan retaliation was pretty luck worm, no evidence of it hit anything substantial.

PS: India is 6 times bigger than Pakistan.
Anybody with common sense would know when 3 feet person mess with 18feet person.

I guess BS just isn't confined to Indian Rafales.
India as usual attacked like a coward in the middle of night targeting civilian infrastructure, the decimation at the hands of PAF virtually grounded the IAF, thus the Indians sent in dozens of drones hoping Pakistan would turn on its radars and AD but Pakistan knew the game and it destroyed Indian drones in an even cheaper manner than PLA killed Indian soldiers , IAF grounded and as always failing to deliver, desperate Bakhtoras were left with no other options but their missiles, while one or two managed to hit some storage sheds, Indians cannot fathom why several BrahMos ended up in Afghanistan. !!
Came Pakistani response in the shape of long distance rockets and Artillery, Pakistan rained more Ordinance on India in 4 hours than in entire 17 days of 1965 war. Pakistan didn't even need to utilise its own missiles before India ran to US for ceasefire.
Did Indian attack stopped Pakistan from giving a befitting reply ...No
The 18 feet was brought to its knees alas
The bigger they are, the harder they fall .