Cabinet clears ‘AGNIPATH’ scheme for recruitment of youth in the Armed Forces

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
3,796
3,658
Bangalore
Our doctrine and posture is one of
Dissuasive Deterrence

That is let the enemy start a conflict, but he will pay much more in terms of men and material
And now with LAC becoming another financial burden because of all year deployment , we need more resources

So if this scheme saves money ,well and good

But there are many loose ends still left to be tied

The first question is that will there be any takers amongst the youth

We shall soon see the answer in recruitment rallies
Dissuasive deterrence is just words. There's a reason why we didn't cross IB in 1999. Without modern gear our armed forces is all but a burden. Unable to hold out against an even enemy.

I again urge you to go and read about the resources US needed to get to take care of Iraq. And mind it Iraq without an Airforce and a Navy.

And compare 1990 US led coalition vs 2020 IA and 1990 Iraqi force vs Pak Army.

Forget about China that's another level.

Just compare.

As for people wanting to join Army, 25% will still get permanent commision. 75% will still get preference in CAPFs, State Police Forces, and Railways.

The only person who will be dissatisfied is one who just wants a government job.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
3,796
3,658
Bangalore
We will still have a huge 6 lakh regular force and approx 6 lakh ToD guys.

We can then invest hugely on the regular force.

350 tanks + 150 SPH + 50 Rocket Artillery + Modern Engineering solutions + Mobile SAM + 500 IFV/APCs+50 attack/scout helicopters (approx 10,000 manpower)

Vs 1,00,000 dismounted Infantry with towed artillery, a generation old tank force, etc.

You know who will win? 100 out of 100 times the 10,000 manpower. With a loss rate of less than 1%.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,462
4,579
Dissuasive deterrence is just words. There's a reason why we didn't cross IB in 1999. Without modern gear our armed forces is all but a burden. Unable to hold out against an even enemy.

I again urge you to go and read about the resources US needed to get to take care of Iraq. And mind it Iraq without an Airforce and a Navy.

And compare 1990 US led coalition vs 2020 IA and 1990 Iraqi force vs Pak Army.

Forget about China that's another level.

Just compare.

As for people wanting to join Army, 25% will still get permanent commision. 75% will still get preference in CAPFs, State Police Forces, and Railways.

The only person who will be dissatisfied is one who just wants a government job.

Modern wars are very expensive

Artillery shells , MBRLs , UAVs, Attack helicopters ,MANPADS -- all these make a critical difference and we need more of them

And everything requires money

Add to it the proliferation of stand
Off Bombs like SAAW which are being acquired by both Pakistan and China in large numbers

Whole Infantry and Armoured Regiments will be wiped out before they can even cross 10 KM inside the enemy border

So we need to invest more in Airpower and MBRLs in addition to SSM regiments
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,525
10,769
India
We will still have a huge 6 lakh regular force and approx 6 lakh ToD guys.

We can then invest hugely on the regular force.

350 tanks + 150 SPH + 50 Rocket Artillery + Modern Engineering solutions + Mobile SAM + 500 IFV/APCs+50 attack/scout helicopters (approx 10,000 manpower)

Vs 1,00,000 dismounted Infantry with towed artillery, a generation old tank force, etc.

You know who will win? 100 out of 100 times the 10,000 manpower. With a loss rate of less than 1%.

That's the logic behind it. Vehicles need very few personnel. Savings in personnel means faster mechanisation. And not all personnel need to be experienced. Basic training and a year in duty will teach the majority of the jawans the skills necessary. This is how most of the major militaries operate.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
3,796
3,658
Bangalore
That's the logic behind it. Vehicles need very few personnel. Savings in personnel means faster mechanisation. And not all personnel need to be experienced. Basic training and a year in duty will teach the majority of the jawans the skills necessary. This is how most of the major militaries operate.
I know their are serious concerns over how it can be mishandled. I do. But this if executed properly by heeding to timely feedback is correct direction in my opinion. We are in a tight position and need to make some difficult decisions.
 

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
12,734
6,046
Totally failed policies
1) Demonetization




Not everything you see, what you hear from government is true reason. There are layers of misinformation, misdirection like tools employed by government to make public believe in you, not matter how much ludicurous it might be, even if it harms them in short term.

And it wasn't North Korea which was stealing the funds, and it wasn't noticed during NDA regime as well, just saying...
 

jetray

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
1,949
1,153
India
We will still have a huge 6 lakh regular force and approx 6 lakh ToD guys.

We can then invest hugely on the regular force.

350 tanks + 150 SPH + 50 Rocket Artillery + Modern Engineering solutions + Mobile SAM + 500 IFV/APCs+50 attack/scout helicopters (approx 10,000 manpower)

Vs 1,00,000 dismounted Infantry with towed artillery, a generation old tank force, etc.

You know who will win? 100 out of 100 times the 10,000 manpower. With a loss rate of less than 1%.

That's the logic behind it. Vehicles need very few personnel. Savings in personnel means faster mechanisation. And not all personnel need to be experienced. Basic training and a year in duty will teach the majority of the jawans the skills necessary. This is how most of the major militaries operate.
I dont think there is a straight forward answer. Type of military , manpower vs mechanized will mostly depend on the kind of war we will get into.

Most of the western countries no longer put boots on the ground other than special forces or short peace keeping. So they prefer hi-tech weapons which can deter states & entities which have some thing to lose. The wars they fight is quick & short, intimidate the enemy by indulging in blitzkrieg of attacks from a distance. (west also uses terrorists & mercenaries to weaken states before they fight head on). As such west simply maintains an expeditionary force which will be hard to maintain if it is too large without any war.

But most of our wars will be fought with neighbors, where we need to defend our land or need to take land from enemy. That will require lot of boots on the ground. Israel has hi tech military they intimidate , grab land but it is very tough for them hold onto the lands gained.
More over the wars fought with neighbors will be long ones , there will be no decisive win. It will be a war of attrition , we can replace material immediately but not men, they require a lot of training. Current ukraine war has once again proved that its not hitech missiles but boots on the ground that will play a major role in a long driven war. Russia's idea that ukraine will fall apart after missile strikes certainly dint happen. Now they have to fight street to street and deploy more men.

Above all, even if we reduce the numbers, the enemy ( immediate neighbors) wont. They will throw more numbers at us and as the war drags on they will be able to hold out for longer or even make a dent.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,525
10,769
India
I know their are serious concerns over how it can be mishandled. I do. But this if executed properly by heeding to timely feedback is correct direction in my opinion. We are in a tight position and need to make some difficult decisions.

It's a question of who's gonna guard the guards. No matter how many checks and balances are in place, in a country as young and illiterate as India, it's gonna be very difficult to implement any scheme where accountability is paramount. India is a country where even judges are corrupt.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,525
10,769
India
I dont think there is a straight forward answer. Type of military , manpower vs mechanized will mostly depend on the kind of war we will get into.

Most of the western countries no longer put boots on the ground other than special forces or short peace keeping. So they prefer hi-tech weapons which can deter states & entities which have some thing to lose. The wars they fight is quick & short, intimidate the enemy by indulging in blitzkrieg of attacks from a distance. (west also uses terrorists & mercenaries to weaken states before they fight head on). As such west simply maintains an expeditionary force which will be hard to maintain if it is too large without any war.

But most of our wars will be fought with neighbors, where we need to defend our land or need to take land from enemy. That will require lot of boots on the ground. Israel has hi tech military they intimidate , grab land but it is very tough for them hold onto the lands gained.
More over the wars fought with neighbors will be long ones , there will be no decisive win. It will be a war of attrition , we can replace material immediately but not men, they require a lot of training. Current ukraine war has once again proved that its not hitech missiles but boots on the ground that will play a major role in a long driven war. Russia's idea that ukraine will fall apart after missile strikes certainly dint happen. Now they have to fight street to street and deploy more men.

Above all, even if we reduce the numbers, the enemy ( immediate neighbors) wont. They will throw more numbers at us and as the war drags on they will be able to hold out for longer or even make a dent.

Boots on the ground is for occupation. But to take the ground you need heavy weapons.
 

jetray

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
1,949
1,153
India
Boots on the ground is for occupation. But to take the ground you need heavy weapons.
heavy weapons are going to be costly in a long war. There is a good reason why Indo-pak border fight mostly takes place with artillery shells they are more economical. Another thing is the effectiveness of heavy weapons is going to be pretty less after the few initial strikes, enemy would have either lost their big weapons or will get enuf time to camouflage and make it harder to hit.

Heavy weapons can give a break through in a stalemate but wont be the staple of your battle. There will be certainly less number of casualties on your side and more their side but that wont win you the war. They will come back with more men and the cycle will continue. Over a period of time they will get adapted to your tactics and casualties on their side will decrease as well. At the most we can brag that we killed so many of them but there will be no change in end result.
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,772
1,222
switzerland
We will still have a huge 6 lakh regular force and approx 6 lakh ToD guys.

And India is paying for the income of all these 12 lakh soldiers of Indian armed forces , same time losing 60 sq km to China in Ladakh. Better to put that amount on our bank accounts. It's going waste.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
3,796
3,658
Bangalore
I dont think there is a straight forward answer. Type of military , manpower vs mechanized will mostly depend on the kind of war we will get into.

Most of the western countries no longer put boots on the ground other than special forces or short peace keeping. So they prefer hi-tech weapons which can deter states & entities which have some thing to lose. The wars they fight is quick & short, intimidate the enemy by indulging in blitzkrieg of attacks from a distance. (west also uses terrorists & mercenaries to weaken states before they fight head on). As such west simply maintains an expeditionary force which will be hard to maintain if it is too large without any war.

But most of our wars will be fought with neighbors, where we need to defend our land or need to take land from enemy. That will require lot of boots on the ground. Israel has hi tech military they intimidate , grab land but it is very tough for them hold onto the lands gained.
More over the wars fought with neighbors will be long ones , there will be no decisive win. It will be a war of attrition , we can replace material immediately but not men, they require a lot of training. Current ukraine war has once again proved that its not hitech missiles but boots on the ground that will play a major role in a long driven war. Russia's idea that ukraine will fall apart after missile strikes certainly dint happen. Now they have to fight street to street and deploy more men.

Above all, even if we reduce the numbers, the enemy ( immediate neighbors) wont. They will throw more numbers at us and as the war drags on they will be able to hold out for longer or even make a dent.
Again, Iraq war is a perfect case study. Superior combined arms always. Always triumphs numbers.

And Israel didn't gave up the lands because it couldn't hold them, it gave up for political reasons.

As for trained men. We will still have 6-7 lakh regulars , 5-6 lakh additional ToD, a larger reserve to call upon and a more huge paramilitary.

Numbers won't be a problem ever.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
3,796
3,658
Bangalore
It's a question of who's gonna guard the guards. No matter how many checks and balances are in place, in a country as young and illiterate as India, it's gonna be very difficult to implement any scheme where accountability is paramount. India is a country where even judges are corrupt.
Agreed.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
3,796
3,658
Bangalore
And India is paying for the income of all these 12 lakh soldiers of Indian armed forces , same time losing 60 sq km to China in Ladakh. Better to put that amount on our bank accounts. It's going waste.
That's to do with the political will of government which in turn has to do with the appetite of general public towards losses.

It's kinda funny that Indians don't really care about hundreds of lives lost due to accidents , but huh. Leave it.
 

jetray

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
1,949
1,153
India
Again, Iraq war is a perfect case study. Superior combined arms always. Always triumphs numbers.
saddam hussein who represented iraq was defeated and removed from power. But as a state it was not subdued or conquered. Numerous groups which rose from iraqi military including ISIS still persist today. Even now we can hammer pakistan as a state but taking land back will still require lot of boots on the ground. If our aim is to take back ( or hold ground) land then complete victory is not achieved until all the resisting enemy is destroyed.

Same is the case with russia, they can pulverize ukraine as a state destroy its institutions, factories, infra etc but holding/taking land requires more men. As such a military force will be more defined by its goal it sets out to achieve. In our case taking back lost lands.
And Israel didn't gave up the lands because it couldn't hold them, it gave up for political reasons.
Practically Israel cannot defend every thing they will be end up spread too thin & wide. Sporadic attacks here & there will wear them down. Lack of numbers is their weakness. Instead they bank on their strength which is technology, they consolidate and defend using technology.
 

jetray

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
1,949
1,153
India
As for trained men. We will still have 6-7 lakh regulars , 5-6 lakh additional ToD, a larger reserve to call upon and a more huge paramilitary.

Numbers won't be a problem ever.
Men need to be rotated, fighting on enemy lands means much higher ratio say 1:5. Even an untrained enemy using small arms fire can bog down a incoming enemy.

When germany invaded russia in world 2 they were 3 million in size, soon they met a bigger military , russia mobilized nearly 10 million. When you want to take land from existing military they will mobilize even a bigger force. Then you will have to grind your way through or get pushed back.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,525
10,769
India
heavy weapons are going to be costly in a long war.

It's not a choice.

There is a good reason why Indo-pak border fight mostly takes place with artillery shells they are more economical. Another thing is the effectiveness of heavy weapons is going to be pretty less after the few initial strikes, enemy would have either lost their big weapons or will get enuf time to camouflage and make it harder to hit.

Heavy weapons can give a break through in a stalemate but wont be the staple of your battle. There will be certainly less number of casualties on your side and more their side but that wont win you the war. They will come back with more men and the cycle will continue. Over a period of time they will get adapted to your tactics and casualties on their side will decrease as well. At the most we can brag that we killed so many of them but there will be no change in end result.

Warfare is entirely about heavy weapons.

Heavy weapons = armour, artillery, air defence... all vehicle based. Then there's man-portable weapons; rifles, MANPADS, ATGMs etc.