Hardly, The history of Indian army post WW2 and that of the Political leadership proves otherwise. From a lack of operational capability, to a horrendous training regimen to an utter lack of stomach for losses, we have rarely demonstrated the resolve required to fight a savage engagement
Divisions of the Indian army in 1965, including the vaunted 1 armored went into headlong retreat after suffering 200 odd casualties in day long moderate engagements- thats <2% loss rates. Contrast that to WW2 engagements- 12th SS held out despite suffering nearly 40% losses outside Caen. Our generals have repeatedly lost their nerve whenever faced with bloody engagements. Commanders have ordered unorganized retreats from perfectly defensible positions when faced with what would be considered light losses.
Even in 1999 entire battallions were rendered combat ineffective after suffering <5% casualties and replaced with new units - how on earth do you expect such an organization to hold and fight a war where entire brigades and divisions are decimated in a day?
Nothing about the Indian army is designed to fight heavy engagements. We are an officer led force that depends criminally on officers to lead men into war - and we are understaffed even there. Lose the first few officers and entire companies and battallions are now rendered less than combat ready and unable to take initiative.
This is objectively false.
In 1965 only ONE divisional commander did a shameful act- Major General Nirajan Pradsad, and he was sacked. The greatest victories of 1965 came after the reorganization of the troops. The reason the troops went into retreat was:
1. The surprise attack of Pakistans 1 armored division
2. Pakistans airforce while the IAF was nowhere to be seen.
The entire Kasur front failed because of this but then again they avanged it in Asal Uttar. This had nothing to do with perceived height casualties but everything to do with the fact that the Pakistanis hid an entire armored division that IA planners had nothing to know about.
Your example of 1st armored actually proves your point to be completely wrong, for 53 brigade (6 JAK LI and 6 maratha LI) actually fought till the
Also 1st armored did not retreat at all. They held on to most of their territory by the end of the 1965 war and even almost captured chawinda (they captured the railway station but pak aritilelry and tank fire broke up the assault).
One can look at hundreds upon hundreds of engagements in the Indian army, from 1947 to Kargil; where battalions suffered. 30-40-50% casualties and still fought on. I can list the following examples:
1. Battle of Badgam. 4 Kumaon held on to the post despite 50% casualties.
2. Ambush at Uri by 600 Mahsud tribesmen, 21 November 1947, in which the hills surrounding the convoy were held by two platoons of 1 Para Kumaon who repelled repeated attacks despite 75% casualties
3. Battle of OP hill 1965
4. Battle of Bhatgiran- 1 Sikhs failed assault when they make repeated charges despite 50% casualty rate
5. Battle of Bhaduria- 17 Kumaon suffered 40-50% casualties and still takes the town
6. 8 Gaurds assault on Hilli
7. Battle of Walong (every battalion held out suffering close to 60% casualties)
8. 18 grenadiers entire performance in Kargil, from taking a beating in tololing to capturing Tiger Hill.
9. 8 Sikhs performance
10. 8 JAK LIs 2 failed attempts (before the successful one) under Bana Singh.
Also gonna need a source for battalions being rendered “combat ineffective” during kargil as almost all the battalions who took losses early on ended up fighting till July of ‘99.
This is a laughable low IQ post with hardly any evidence to substantiate it. Highly reccomend the mods delete it.