Indian Special Forces

randombully said:
I mean were shit but.

British army Has 30k-35k soldiers in their infantry, out if which ~10k are reserve.
So 20,000-25,000 active infantry soldiers.

The royal marines in service with UK military are ~6000 soldiers.

And around ~2000 SF( teir 2, teir 1).


In comparison with India
Don't need to talk about our infantry number.


Para airborner~5000

As for SF
Para sf~5000-6000
Garud~1500-2000
Marcos~2000.
Click to expand...
MARCOS are less than 1000, somewhere 700-800 roughly speaking
Also the numbers we have, the quality they do....let's be very clear....no one managed Indian millitary men better than the British. History is evident, from medivial era to napoleonic wars to current, Brits have the best institutions for training men in uniform they just do
They always make do with less in numbers dude...always and future of warfare is anything but a headbutting context with brute and numerical superiorty, so that advantage goes out of the window
 
Last edited:
Airborne22 said:
What's pushing them to make an elite infantry unit go train for such high speed ops ? Or is this the company that's augmented to the SFSG ?
Click to expand...
no
The Royal Marines are re-organized now, they have the future commando program
The Royal Marines can be considered like an arm within an arm cause they come under Royal Navy
But the 3 Commando Brigade is special operations capable....infact many UKSF will tell you that Royal Marines Mountain Leaders Course is tougher than UKSF Selection...physically....Royal Marine specialist units like Mountain Leaders, Snipers, Littrol stirke groups (3 commando brigade) are small and elite soilders.

Think of 42 commandos like Navy SEAL cum Force Recon minus the diving capability
 
Jedi Operator said:
Brits have the best institutions for training men in uniform they just do
Click to expand...
Their institutions, training, tactic, doctrine, gear "evolved" with time and refined over and over again.

We on the other hand "stagnated" mostly

It's not about british, it's about evolution and constant improvement.

Same reason american infantry and SF are best trained in the world.

So we Don't need "british" style management.
We need the institutional mindset of constant improvement and aiming for the best
Something only the navy Marcos seems to take seriously as an institution in recent times.

Rest all branches work on "good enough" and "chalta hai" institutional mindset.


As for future of "warfare"
Numbers will Matter a lot, industry will matter a lot.

UK ain't close to our capability with 20-25k active infantry and 100+ tanks with only dozen active and few hundred other armoured( all types combined)vehicle and few hundred peices of artillary( all types combined).
Their logistic sucks, their industry sucks.
They can't even produce decent no. Of artillary shells for a war.
 
Last edited:
Baseplate said:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFPAqGD1Lz8

watch this vid , gives a very good idea about high terrain jungle warfare .

Fr just watching MACVSOG operations gives away so much knowledge
Click to expand...

MACVSOGs were truly pioneers in jungle warfare
Take a look at these excerpts from MACVSOG's Journal
The writer nicely explained, how they specifically trained just before the mission, what did they learn and what did they do it negate it the next time
Screenshot_20250421_111838_OneDrive.webpScreenshot_20250421_111620_OneDrive.webpScreenshot_20250421_111550_OneDrive.webpScreenshot_20250421_111101_OneDrive.webpScreenshot_20250421_110924_OneDrive.webp

A lot of this is common knowledge these days but I would say in the 60s this was it when combat evolved
 
Airborne22 said:
Most engagements are in the range of 150m- 200m here nowadays. In this place shown in the video, there's no restrictions on firepower so there are RL and sniper buddy pairs attached to squads operating and then there are 40mm MGL. Regardless, a fixed power optic is always great to have. I hope this made some sense ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks
 
randombully said:
Their institutions, training, tactic, doctrine, gear "evolved" with time and refined over and over again.

We on the other hand "stagnated" mostly

It's not about british, it's about evolution and constant improvement.

Same reason american infantry and SF are best trained in the world.

So we Don't need "british" style management.
We need the institutional mindset of constant improvement and aiming for the best
Something only the navy Marcos seems to take seriously as an institution in recent times.

Rest all branches work on "good enough" and "chalta hai" institutional mindset.
Click to expand...
Yes.....and it's not British style management, it's the fact that British military history leans toward practical, flexible solutions, not dogmatic textbook warfare. From Wellington in the Peninsular War to the SAS in North Africa, the Brits often prioritized fieldcraft, initiative, and survival over parade ground perfection.

The classic British colonial management style was, in fact, notorious for being rigid, classist, and overbureaucratic. But the fighting men in the field officers and NCOs often learned to ignore the management and get the job done anyway.

In battle, especially since WW2, effective British officers and NCOs were taught to take initiative when cut off, not wait for orders. That decentralized mindset is what modern militaries like the US have perfected now.
 
RDXChauhan said:
MACVSOGs were truly pioneers in jungle warfare
Take a look at these excerpts from MACVSOG's Journal
The writer nicely explained, how they specifically trained just before the mission, what did they learn and what did they do it negate it the next time
View attachment 31117View attachment 31118View attachment 31119View attachment 31120View attachment 31121

A lot of this is common knowledge these days but I would say in the 60s this was it when combat evolved
Click to expand...
MACV-SOG were the most badass operators ever fielded in modern warfare. While the British SAS had pioneered similar deep reconnaissance and unconventional warfare tactics during the Malayan Emergency and Borneo Confrontation, there’s a crucial difference: the Brits were largely preventive, aiming to control insurgency before it escalated. They played a long game hearts and minds, surgical ambushes, village sweeps.

MACV-SOG, on the other hand, was pre-emptive and ruthless. They went behind enemy lines not to contain, but to disrupt, destabilize, and destroy cutting the head off the snake before it bit. Their cross-border missions into Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam weren’t just about gathering intel. They were full-contact chess matches in the jungle, where six-man teams would willingly engage numerically superior forces, plant wiretaps on enemy communication lines, and call airstrikes on their own positions if overrun.

edit - Actually read this....very detailed and very well illustriated
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Jedi Operator said:
British military history leans toward practical, flexible solutions
Click to expand...
Limited to their "infantry and SF" Basically soldiers on ground.
Rest of their military and industry has seen a very pathetic decline.
Can't even maintain decent no. Of their mechanized infantry in active state.
Don't need to talk about other areas, it's even worse.
 
Forget UK Marines or MARSOF, I'd like to see PARA and Garuds match the fucking Taliban in modernization.
1745239910488.webp
1745239948388.webp
1745240222550.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

haldilal
Indian Observatorys
Replies
0
Views
63
haldilal
haldilal
haldilal
Indian Embassy and Consulates
Replies
0
Views
137
haldilal
haldilal
iNorthernerOn9
Indian Cuisine, Daily food habits & Everything related
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
3K
GaudaNaresh
G
Unknowncommando
Indian Army Remount Veterinary Corps
Replies
1
Views
213
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando
Indian Army Corps of Engineers
Replies
6
Views
403
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top