Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The armed forces of India whats so special?
JTR~~    6/7/2010 3:05:23 PM
Throughout these discussion boards i have found many, many references to the armed forces of India, and their apparent excellence. This may be the case but from what i am able to gather they are quite possibly the worst of today’s modern powers. i realise that i may be wrong which i why i have posted this query, my question is this, What qualities make the Indian armed forces worthy of holding the title of one of the best today? i have come across many examples where people have created top ten lists, and have ranked India above many western powers. i think that this is wrong, however this is my personal belief, which is why i am asking my question. i do not know too much about the Indian armed forces in their current state, i do however base my opinion of a few things that i do know. The most critical factor that is keeping India low in the rankings for me is this simple fact, logistics, form what i can gather the armed forces of India are quite possibly the world’s worst logistical nightmare; the huge variation in weapons that they field is unfeasible. How can such an army try and effectively field troops in such a way, prolonged engagements would be a dream that they could never achieve. i have done a little research into the various weapons fielded by the Indian forces and the mind boggles at the choice of arms, domestic weapons, Russian weapons, America weapons, British weapons, German weapons etc, the list goes on. One thing that i find quite amusing is the Indian navy; it is in the same situation as the Indian army in the fact that it has many ships, most of which have been purchased second hand from a consortium of countries after the original owners no longer need them. The Indian armed forces are using the western worlds outdated waste, it is to my understanding that the Indian navy recently purchased (or will be acquiring) the Royal navies invincible class carriers, they are effectively buying their old junk. These second hand outdated pieces of equipment are surely more of a hindrance to the Indian forces more than a help my second point, is it is simply impossible to train such large numbers of troops to a universally high standard, which means that many of the Indian troops while I’m sure they are capable, are just no up to the standard of many other nations, particularly those with lower troops numbers. There are several other points, but on these I am reluctant to comment as i feel i know to little to make any form of reasonable judgement, I realise that my opinions and points made may be unfounded and or wrong, but I’m willing to learn hence my question. Hopefully this will now help me to gain a little further insight into people opinion regarding the Indian armed forces Regards JTR~~
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5
cwDeici       7/30/2010 1:03:23 AM

After reading the above post I hearken back to my first post on this thread.  Indians have an extremely unrealistic view of their own capabilities.  Most of the "modern" weapons the poster described (i.e., the MiG-29 and the T-72) are hardly state of the art.  India has been unsuccessfully trying to develop their own main battle tank for decades, and are nowhere close to developing their own indigenous fighter.  Pretty lame for a country of nearly a billion people that love to brag about how modern and high tech they are.  India has the one of the finest military academies in the world?  Huh?  I've heard of Annapolis and West Point, and I've heard of Sandhurst, but has anyone outside of India heard anyone talk about the esteemed Indian military schools?  I didn't think so. 

 

By the way, the Indians gots their asses handed to them by the LTTE in Sri Lanka. 



Well, I'm going to stop posting.
 
I can recommend "Empires of Trust". America is essentially giving India and even its competitors and enemies the chance to advance or compete against it.
India has battle experience going for it. That's something China doesn't have.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    cwDeici   7/30/2010 2:06:56 AM
I've lost count of the many times that various people have asked you to not tailgate posts - but you repeatedly do so.
 
Can you please not tailgate your posts and make the effort to answer them in one response rather than overpopulate and tailgate threads?
 
it 'aint hard.
 
Quote    Reply

injun       7/30/2010 9:53:48 AM

 Because for a few select states in the world, the realization that their interests such as in trade and the lives of their citizens in foreign lands depend on their home government being there when the s#!t hits the fan. I guess we could put it this way, the more globalized a state is the more it needs or has come to depend upon having a force projection capability. 
 

To be as helpfully nice about this as i possibly can, minus a treaty with a more powerful foreign state, who outside of India takes their rights seriously?


 
Some people would call that "neo-imperialism".... http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" height="24" width="24" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

tigerscratch       8/1/2010 6:22:03 AM





... the world?s worst logistical nightmare; the huge variation in weapons that they field is unfeasible.




That's because they have a boner for their 'neutral alignment' 'faction'. It makes them chronically indecisive.  

The idea that using a wide variety of military hardware sourced from different nations like the US, Russia, UK and France makes for a major logistical nightmare isn't exactly dervied from a full understanding of facts.
 
The military weapons that India buys, right from Swiss artillery, French Fighters, Russian aircraft carriers  et all, isn't exactly bought 'off the shelf' as one would imagine. Each of these are variants of the original product tailor made to the specifications and requirements of their operational areas.
 
For example: The 124 Sukhois currently in service with the IAF are actually as variant called the SU-30 MKI - the MKI standing for 'Modernized Kommercial Indiski' which is significantly altered from the original to accomodate targeting, avionic and weapons systems generally in use by the IAF. 
 
The statement that the Indian navy comprises rejected and out-of-commission warships from  the western world, again, does not correctly express the full facts of the case. Firstly - a lot of Indian frigates and destroyers are actually locally built which is not surprising given India's thriving ship building industry. Secondly, every decommissioned ship that is bought off a foreign navy is extensively refitted and upgraded before it is inducted into the Indian Navy. A case in point is the Admiral Gorshkov which was sold to India in 2004 and which was extensively refitted at Sevmash shipyard in Russia - the refurbishments including entirely new engines, generators, boilers, radars and the like, besides a modification of the hull to significantly enlarge the flight deck.  On completion of the modernisation, 70 per cent of the ship and its equipment will be new and remainder will have been refurbished. When inducted into the Indian Navy in 2012, the INS Vikramaditya will be a very modern carrier fitted with the latest in weapons and equipment, and not an ageing early eighties dinosaur as one would make out from statements on this forum.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

tigerscratch       8/1/2010 6:46:19 AM
Some statistics for the Indian navy to compare the number of locally built ships with those bought and refitted from foreign navies. India has a very old and thriving civil and military ship building industry centred in its major harbours such as Bombay, Goa, Vizag, Cochin and Calcutta.
 
Under Service
8 Destroyers: 3 locally built, the older 5 sourced from Russia
13 Frigates: 10 locally built, 1 sourced from Russia
24 Corvettes: 8 locally built, rest sourced from Russia.
20 Amphibious Warfare Ships: 12 locally built, 1 American and rest Polish
28 Patrol Ships: 13 locally built, rest from Israel, South Korea
8 Minesweepers:  All Russian
15 Diesel submarines: All Russian and German
 1 Aircraft carrier: British
 
Under Construction
 4 nuclear submarines: 3 locally built, 1 Russian
4 Diesel submarines: All French
2 aircraft carriers: 1 locally built, 1 Russian
3 destroyers: All locally built
5 Frigates: 2 locally built, 3 Russian
4 Corvettes: All locally built
 2 minesweepers: All locally built
8 patrol ships: All locally built
 
Do note that not all the foreign ships are second hand. Quite a few were built from scratch on order from the Indian Navy.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    Battle experience/Britain & India new relationship?   8/17/2010 12:02:22 PM




After reading the above post I hearken back to my first post on this thread.  Indians have an extremely unrealistic view of their own capabilities.  Most of the "modern" weapons the poster described (i.e., the MiG-29 and the T-72) are hardly state of the art.  India has been unsuccessfully trying to develop their own main battle tank for decades, and are nowhere close to developing their own indigenous fighter.  Pretty lame for a country of nearly a billion people that love to brag about how modern and high tech they are.  India has the one of the finest military academies in the world?  Huh?  I've heard of Annapolis and West Point, and I've heard of Sandhurst, but has anyone outside of India heard anyone talk about the esteemed Indian military schools?  I didn't think so. 



 



By the way, the Indians gots their asses handed to them by the LTTE in Sri Lanka. 








Well, I'm going to stop posting.

 

I can recommend "Empires of Trust". America is essentially giving India and even its competitors and enemies the chance to advance or compete against it.

India has battle experience going for it. That's something China doesn't have.


however we must remember the "battle experience" as you have put it, is fairly old and by now seeing the military advances since then largely irrelevant, if what I am saying is true this would out china behind even further, so much so that personally I would doubt its ability to successfully conduct a modern war against a good 80-90% of more combat experienced western nations even with the might of China's massive forces

But then again however, the world is reliant on china for most of their trade so it would most likely not come to that, but i suppose that the west can be thankful that we are stilling making our own guns (well at least for now it seems), otherwise we would be up a certain famous creek without a paddle as it were.

 

on a totally different point, which concerns mostly my country and India, being a very proud Brit i would like to know what Indians think about our prime ministers recent visit to india to forge a so called new "special relationship"?, i would also like to know what benefits do you feel that India will gain from such a relationship, and is it worth it?

 

The benefits to the UK are very clear, increased trade and therefore wealth to our country and no doubt India as well, more contracts, a strong county with an up and coming economy as a close ally, which will hopefully (bit selfish this point) drag Britain up in the world with it.

 

The past ties between Great Britain and India are plain to see, since India's independence our nation has helped India in many ways, such as military aid in the form of arms deals, financial input etc etc

 

Personally I would like to see a special relationship bloom between our two nations, as i feel the benefits could be great for both of us, but what do my fellow Brits and our potential new close friends (Indians) feel about this?



 
Quote    Reply

tigerscratch       8/22/2010 10:40:27 AM

















 







By the way, the Indians gots their asses handed to them by the LTTE in Sri Lanka. 























Since I doubt if the poster was in Sri Lanka in 1987, I assume he's going by what he read somewhere.
 
It wasn't the difficult jungle terrain or the ruthless guerrila enemy (who blended in effortlessly with a sympathetic local population) that did the Indians in. History is clear that their nemesis were the strict rules of engagement that required them to invade and occupy hostile territory, but prohibited them from doing anything that could remotely cause any collateral damage to civilian lives and property. Even when a group of para commandos were ambushed and trapped in Jaffna by rebel forces, permission to aerially bomb the rebel positions and rescue the trapped unit was denied on the cassus that the area was heavily populated  and some of the bombs might hit civilians. Interestingly, the LTTE had no qualms about inflicting collateral damage on their own people when it came to fighting a war.
 
And added to that was an indecisive political leadership in New Delhi that wasn't clear on what exactly they expected the Army to do in Sri Lanka. One officer described it as leading an army whilst blindfolded and with your hands tied.
 
The LTTE did not hand it to the Indians. They had it handed to them by their own government. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

powertopeople       12/21/2010 11:40:01 AM
 
Quote    Reply

johnboy       1/3/2011 4:07:33 AM
I think some of the comparisons miss the point. Having traveled in India extensively, met a lot of Indian soldiers and military officers, talked with American officers who can say the same and read deeply on the subject, I look at the Indian military as being having a Western-style ethos with a Third World budget. Comparing India to Britain or the US is ridiculous in many ways, because while all three countries take the idea of being in a real war very seriously and train from the bottom up accordingly, the UK and the US are pound-for-pound much richer and therefore much better equipped.
 
India relies on imports because until recently, they have not been able to afford anything else. However, unlike most Third World military establishments, those imports are not for show or to dominate the civilian population. India's military is there to fight, period. They train like it, have the combat experience and it shows. Think about the Falklands: the Argentines lost mostly because they -- despite a near-technological equivalency with the UK in 1982 -- thought, planned and fought like Third Worlders who up until they needed it treated their military like it was an ornament. India isn't like that, and as any serious professional will tell you, that attitude makes a big difference.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics