Warfare at High Altitudes

[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.