Talk:Indian Army

/Archive 1(2004-2006)

71.22.155.114 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Please note that the Official Indian Army Site has grave errors. It was Skandagupta not Chandragupta Maurya who was much earlier who defeated the Huns. Also A portrait of Maharaja Gulab singh has been referred to as Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

SEE: http://indianarmy.nic.in/Index.aspx?flag=LfcULYFlbeQ= Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

compromised on statement

Edited the statement on sino-indian war to reflect a neutral POV. The supply line statement is speculation. India did not mount much of a defense during the 1962 war, mainly because the prime minister of India had gutted the military, so even if China had stretched its supply lines there was no evidence that India could have mounted an attack. Nehru even publicly hinted that he had given up the Northern areas that China had taken, much to the chagrin of the people in those areas. the people who are trumpeting the supply line argument are mainly on the Indian side. More balanced statement currently with clarification in text for the reader.Mano1 06:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OOPs, user 206.69 seems to have beat me to the punch. He/she actually did in essence what i would have done but left out the statements on Nehru.Mano1 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

India does have soldiers in sudan by the way as UN Peacekeepers (indian provides the 3rd largest peace keeping force in the world).

Narasimhan

active troops number

the article says that the Indian Army has the third largest number of active troops in the world, but the list that is linked to from that statement says the Indian Army has the most active troops. I'm going to assume that the list is correct and change the article. If this is wrong, please revert.--Alhutch 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the list because the list talks about the total number of armed forces in a country and just the army. The Indian Army is the 3rd largest but the Indian Armed Forces which also includes the Indian Paramilitary is the world's largest. --Deepak|वार्ता 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You got it wrong. The Indian Army is the second largest army after the Chinese PLA. [1] Chanakyathegreat 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian army is the second largest army in asia and the third largest in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.217.107 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Second largest army in the world and third largest armed forces in the world.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A question

Should the Army's sporting forays be included. Every time in the national games or other games like Hockey etc. the Army sends its team/contingent. Even Athens Silver medallist Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was from the Army. I was wondering if that angle could be added? Idleguy 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many such things that surely need to be added like the All women Everest mountaineering team etc like the ones added in the Indian Navy section. Chanakyathegreat 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Create a new Page for the Indian Army History

I think you guys should move the History of the Indian Army since 1947 to a new page. This article is quite long as it is.

I looked at the Israeli Defense Forces article and then decided to move the History of the Pakistan Army to a new page.

Just a suggestion

)

User:Mercenary2k 22:47, 13 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

Gallantry and other awards

Should we have all the war, internal ops and other awards section ? Haphar 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindi transliteration.

Why do we have the Hindi transliteration in this article? What is its significance? Sarvagnya 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a hindi translation. It is sanskrit in devanagari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsoddy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that article is becoming too long

We should move certain sections of it to other pages.

iafguru 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Honorary Ranks (Lt, Captain etc)

My point the Hony Lt and Capt differ in no way from the regular Capt and Lt. Only issue is they are not paid. the Hony Lt and Capts dress exactly the same way as the regular capt and lt and they get exactly the same perks (access to officers mess, saluting etc).

In addition there are ocassional ranks like Honarary Colonels . Some heads of institutions of Vetenary colleages where there is an NCC unit are Hony Colonels. All Nepali Army Chief of Staffs who visit India are given the rank of Honarary General of the Indian Army. In the Air Force, JRD Tata and Singhania are Hony Air Commodores. iafguru 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that but Hony Capt and Hony Lt are regular from the perspective of they are not given to civilians or visitors. These are army regulars and in case of war would be on the front. Unlike visiting Generals. NCC is not the Indian Army neither are Vetenary colleges. The Hon Lt and Hon Capt is different from a Lt and a Captain in terms of duties. Also the title makes the difference clear. JRD as well as Singhania are not expected to fight/fly in case of war or even in peacetime. Haphar 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Rules and regulations governing honorary ranks is the same whether the JCOs or civilians from outside. Most JCOs who got the hony ranks would prefer to be called as Captain or Lt and not 'Hony Capt' etc. The Hony ranks are a 'reward' and not exactly a position of responsibility. A JCO getting a Hony rank keeps doign the same job as he was doing earlier.

That said why dont you put a note below the list of ranks or start a section on Honorary ranks. Perhaps the links for the Hony ranks can go into the Ranks of the Indian Army subpage. iafguru 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is already a nice note on Honorary ranks in the Ranks of the Indian Army page.

The difference is that there are no Hon Lt's and Captains who are civilians-and that Hon Lt's and Captains get paid for the rank unlike the higher titualar ranks. It is not a rank given to civilians they are "JCO only" titles, but given privelages of an officer. If you want to add the "civilain" and Nepali General" titles please do feel free to do so but the major difference is that the Hon Gen/ Commodores are civilians or NOT from the indian army/ air force. Also though the detailed list has all the ranks. Also for Hon Gens and Commodores there is no Pay associated with the Hon rank, wheras it is for Lt and Capt. Incidentally there is another flaw on the "rank" section- It say Rank structure and talks only of officer level ranks. So it anyway needs to be expanded. ( Do not see why only officers feature in ranks). And we should keep the list to "serving" ranks. Which does include the hon Lt's and Capt's but not the honorary Generals.Haphar 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, do we have any published information (related to the Indian Army) that lists Honorary Captain and Honorary Lt as different ranks from the existing Captain and Lt ranks - if yes, go ahead and add, with a proper reference to the source. If not, then they should go as footnotes. There always are variations to ranks - There will be a Subedar, Risaldar, or a Subedar-Clerk, but all are the same rank. While listing the hierarchy of the rank structure - it is not correct to list all seperately. Captain / Honorary Captain (for JCOs only) is acceptable. But adding them seperately gives the impression that they are seperate ranks - they are not. iafguru 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So do we have published information that lists Hon Captain and Honorary Lt as the same ranks as Captain and Lieutenant? Subedar is Subedar and Subedar-Clerk is a post not a rank. Risaldar is the "title" given to a Subedar in the Armoured, it is not a rank. The role is the same. However an Hon Capt and Lt the role / qualification/ training /selection- nothing is same as a Captain and a Lieutenant. ( Whereas it is for Subedar and Risaldar). Haphar 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well do the Army ranks and insignia of India pages have a "Hony Captain" badges of rank? Who said risaldar is a title. Subedars are known as Risaldars in Armd regts. You dont go to a Risaldar and call him a subedar. Another edit that needs to be done are that CQMH, CHM are not ranks - they are appointments. iafguru 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. It should be "external sources" else I can show that Honorary Captain as a wiki entry redirects to JCO's- and hence proves that the rank is different from that of a Captain. Please do look it up, it will show you that they is a "seperate " ranks from Captain and Lieutenant and are considered JCO level ranks and not officer level.Haphar 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia badges were provided by http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=145&sid=832 . Why havent these guys at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Ranks.html not listed Hon Capt and Hon Lt as seperate ranks. Do we also start listing [|Hon Subedar Major, Hon Subedar, Hon Nb Subedar] to the current listings?

First the Indian Army website is more reliable than Bharat Rakshak. Insignia is different from rank. An Hon captain wears the same insignia, but the rank is different and that is why they have a seperate title for it. And if you now have the source showing the rank, please do put all the ranks in- It can be Under a subheading of Honorary ranks, like we have for JCO and NCO..Haphar 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Field Marshall

The statement that a field MArshall is made only in the times of a national emergency is wrong. Cariappa was made a field marshall in 1983. Even Maneckshaw was made after his retirement. Haphar 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really - he was made field marshal 15 days before he quit as COAS. but thats not the point. Field marshals are not supposed to retire but they are on active list till they die. jaiiaf 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What I was mentioning is that a statement in the article mentioned "Field Marshals are made only in the times of national emergency". Neither was made a Field Marshall at the time of a national emergency and hence the statement is wrong. I have since removed the statement. Yes it's a rank for life and they do not "retire" from the rank till alive. Haphar 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was alluding to the "Even Maneckshaw was made after his retirement. " part. but good that you removed the statement of emergencies - that doesnot apply as well

op pawan

no mention of IPKF and op-pawan ? can we cite sources from bharat rakshak and indian army's website?

There is an article on the Indian Peace Keeping Force but it is heavily infested by LTTE Sympathisers. Needs work jaiiaf 15:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

i think citing recources from the indian army website isnt fair after all its bound to be atleast a little biased like if one were to cite resources from the iranian army website we would be lead to believe that its stronger than the united states armed forces lol so no recources from there --Pak Genius 08:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

British-Indian Army -AN OR word??

Since Original Research is not allowed in wikipedia, this word British-Indian Army should be changed and also the the wiki article of the same name.-Bharatveer 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Parachute Rgmt

The link to the Parachute Regiment in this page seems to link to the British Army Paracute Rgmt.? Also, the links to Guard, Grenadier Rgmts link to disambiguations that don't even mention the Indian Infantry Rgmts of the same name

Few tips to improve artice

1. Shorten the history section. Move the related material to History of the Indian Army.
2. References!! The article is not well citied.

--Incman|वार्ता 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

War Heroes

I suggest to remove this section entirely because of its POV title. That these people are war heroes should become apparent from their biographies, not because they are listed in this section. The mention of the words war hero is just as superfluous as the adjective evil is for Hitler. Errabee 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned this section up a little bit. I've changed the header to Recipients of the Param Vir Chakra, which is far more neutral and verifiable. I've removed those soldiers that haven't received this decoration; a listing of war heroes would be original research, as there are no clear guidelines as to who can be called a war hero and who cannot. Errabee 10:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the change in name, one can add the other medal categories too, ie MVC and VC. Haphar 08:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Procurement

The procurement section of the document seems to be copied verbatim from a report by IDC. The language is inappropriate for a wikipedia article and contains POV remarks such as the following:

• Yet the needs of the Artillery were neglected in favour of the Armoured units
• These guns saved the day in the Kargil War
• the gun has proved itself to be world class beyond doubt
• IDC wonders why these were not co-manufactured especially
• IDC learned that the first lot have done well and although they were second hand but well reconditioned
• The Indian Navy is truly excited about this missile and calls it the Russian Tomahawk

The following story should also be deleted or at least heavily edited: "The converted and refurbished aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov free but with a refit priced at $500 million, which will host a N-010 active phased array fire control and surveillance radar, a 13’ ski ramp and arrestor aircraft recovery system. The decision is far gone and chances of back tracking seem remote but Indian Defence has seen many dramas and media hypes it up. IDC adds: when a senior Air Force officer asked why the nation needs a carrier a young Naval officer said, “Sir you know where Hindon is.” He said of course. He politely asked, “Sir can it move.” and the senior IAF officer said, “don’t be stupid.” Then the junior officer asked, “Sir, do you know where INS Viraat is, and where it will be tomorrow.” The senior officer was furious so the junior said “ Sir, we need the carrier because it is the only airfield that can move and support the Navy,” and that in simple terms is the short answer."

11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Roy

Army Warrant Officers

I read somewhere that the APS (Army Postal Service) employs assistants in the initial rank of Warrant Officer. Is this rank specific to the APS or is there a wider use in the Indian Army. And in terms of hierarchy, is this rank between Havildar and Naib Subedar? --LONDON 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Working/Official Language

Can somebody who knows please add to the article (or just answer here). What is the common working language of the Indian Army? Is official army communication, rank names, unit names, etc, in Hindi or English? Jason75 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I cant site source but common working language(when it comes to paper work)is english. Orders, when verbally given are mostly given in hindi-english mix. While sending signals/telegrams or road signs/marking roman script is primarily used but the signs may include devnagri too. however I havent seen an exclusive use of devnagri as a script. In some cases the name plates on troops uniform can include both roman and devnagri script. even the motto of a regt. or corp. is most likely to be in hindi but transliterated to roman. You must have noticed that medals given have mixed bits e.g. SM, sena medal, UYSM uttam yudh seva medal,etc. In Medals though you might see exclusive use of devnagri. HTH, Armybrat 05:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

is there a need to put current GOC names ??

can anyone tell me , wats the need of adding the names of the GOC ?? i mean why we indians are so obsessed for seeing our names ! i think as indian army is an entity that comes under the parliament and hence all generals are the servants of the government of india ! so there is no valid point on putting there names , also the posts are dynamic nt static ! only the war heroes names should be posted irrespective of their ranks or the officers who have shown extra courage and bravery in peace shuld be mentioned . its totaly rediculous to put the names of GOC . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.184.143 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC). --68.83.184.143 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

can someone do anything about the vandalism on this page?? I tried, but couldn't. Cheers. Sniperz11 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanks

Source:[2]

Active Main Battle Tanks - 62 Armoured Regiments • T-90S: 5 regiments @ 62 tanks each, (310) plus a further 1330 tanks being locally assembled (not completed). • T-72M1: 35 regiments @ 55 tanks each, (1950) upgrade program in progress - moving very slowly. • T-55: 10 regiments @ 55 tanks each, (550) with L7/105mm gun + the Vijayanta standard upgrade. • Vijayanta: 11 regiments @ 72 tanks each, (800+) upgraded with FCS and night fighting equipment.

• The above list excludes the one Arjun Mk.1 armoured regiment.

Reserve/Store MBTs • T-55: 200 - To be phased out by 2008 • Vijayanta: 1000 - To be phased out by 2008

310+1950+550+800+200+1000=4810 4810+5+12 Arjuns=4827~4830

Anything missing? Chanakyathegreat 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian Army equipment [3] Chanakyathegreat 13:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

T-90 Bhishma [4] In February 2001, the Indian Army signed a contract for 310 T-90S tanks. 124 were completed in Russia and the rest are being delivered in 'knocked down / semi-knocked down' form for final assembly in India. The first of these was delivered in January 2004.

So 124 in Russia + 186 in India= First order for 310 tanks.

Jan 08, 2004 report [5]

By April 2004- 80 tanks. By April 2005- 100 tanks~106 tanks. The order for 310 tanks complete. By April 2006-??? From April 2006-April 07 100/year production.

So the current strength is 410+ T-90's in service. Chanakyathegreat 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[6]In July 2006, Defence News reported that the Ordnance Factory Board was awarded a US $2.5 billion deal to produce 1000 T-90S tanks for the Indian Army. The order is being carried out in phases, with the production of the first 300 examples having already begun in June 2006.

HVF has already handed over the first batch of 181 of these 300 ordered.[7] Chanakyathegreat 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

More T-90's. 347 T-90's.[8] 120 in one year. As per the agreement, the remaining 227 tanks will be delivered within two years in semi knocked-down condition. Chanakyathegreat 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Arjun

Report Apr 26, 2005 [9]

The HVF would deliver 15 tanks before the end of this year. Its aim is to deliver 124 tanks by 2007-08

[10]Report On Oct. 13th 2006 The first 15 tanks of the 124 have already been activated. Of the remaining 109 tanks, the Indian Army is currently putting the first five tanks from the production lines at Avadi, through accelerated build quality and reliability trials. The intent is to verify whether the Arjun production has stabilized, with the requisite quality and performance requirements. Upon successful completion, the remaining 104 tanks will be manufactured in batches. The planned production rate is currently pegged at thirty tanks per year, with the Army requesting fifty per year as the ideal. The Indian Minister of Defence reported that the Arjun was slated for full scale production soon. He also stated that five tanks had already delivered to the Indian Army and 23 were ready for delivery.

October 2006 15+5 Arjun tanks=20 tanks +23 tanks ready for delivery. October 2007 20+23+30 tanks/year=73 Arjun tanks October 2008 73+51 (50/year Army request)=124 tanks 50+/year onwards. Chanakyathegreat 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

By October 2007 20+23+15 tanks=58 Arjun tanks Chanakyathegreat 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Captain Haneefuddin

There is a vandal who has been repeatedly removing Captain Haneefuddin from the list of PVC winners. Please keep an eye. CHeers. Sniperz11 09:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

a)it's not PVC winners it's PVC recipient. b)Capt. haneef-uddin recieved a veer chakra,Please don't add that name back again. Armybrat 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

why table for only Missiles?

there are missiles of different missions from an ATGM to a ballistic missile. when everything from rifles to tanks are mentioned in seperate categories and why are all missiles mentioned in a single table? I am classifying them according to their missions or type.

Tunguska can be classified as SAM System and also as Air defence artillery. because it has both guns n sams. So its better if we have airdefence systems in a seperate section.

Thank you for your contributions. I would suggest you take is slowly, and make incremental changes to the article. allowing time for other editors to check your additions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

i have reverted it back to original page. All i have done is removing the table for missiles, because why table for IGMDP especially when we have already an article on IGMDP.

Adding a new page for weapon systems & Equipment?

IAF & IN have a dedicated page for weapon systems but its not with IA. It Should be created as the information is lengthy. And Structure of Indian Army can also be in a new page what do you guyz say?

Template:Indian Army Arms and Services

[[Category:Indian navigational boxes|{{PAGENAME}}]]

I have created this template when i found many Armies have description of their Arms & Services while IA Doesn't. Do I need to make any changes. Its becoming very hard to find info about Indian Armoured Corps except the list of Armored Regiments involved. But nothing much is availaible about Armoured Corps, They have played very important role in wars like 1965 but infomration is there. Infantry Regiments are far popular by the heroism they displayed in almost every war, So a lot of info availaible abt them, but does anyone have with Armoured Corps and their units Ajay ijn 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Creating a New Article in Equipment of Indian Army

I am copy pasting all the contents in the section "Equipment" to a new article. Later we can remove the content from IA article completely depend on what everyone will decide.

Defence Security Corps

Where does the Defence Security Corps fit in to this article? Shijaz 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Insas56.jpg

Image:Insas56.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter requirements

At the moment it reads "The Indian army has projected a requirement for a helicopter that can carry loads of up to 75 kg" surely this must be wrong.KTo288 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

blindfolded

this article clearly leans too much towards the indian side the forced accession of hyderabad is named as liberation of hyderabad and the fact that the issue was already under un scrutiny is totaly ignored pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese rewrite or delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.54.63 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonels

The rank of Lt. Col. has in no way shape or form been removed from the military heirarchy of India. Such disinformation is quite undesirable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspuar (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you have heard this before but this article is too biased

for example there is a section entitled liberation of hyderabad i would advise u look up this topic in some oxford published reliable book i mean man give me a break who would call the invasion of a sovereighn state by another countrys army liberation the formal complaint that hyderabad had launched to the UN was still to heard when indian troops stormed the state and dismantled the state machinery if the indian government was so good it should have waited for the un decision —Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniGenius (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

--Perhaps if you used sentences to communicate, people would understand what the heck you're babbling about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.50.141 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The liberation of Hyderabad couldnt have been carried out had the people of Hyderabad not supported the Indian Cause. They were fed up of the Nizam's autocratic Rule. You should learn more about the movements started by the Hyderabadi people to get more representation in the state affairs which was flatly refused by the Nizam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.99.53 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo under the section "The Kargil Operation in 1999"

There appears to be a typo under the section "The Kargil Operation in 1999". it reads, "Heavy damage was inflicted on Indian army, particularly its Northern light infantry". The Northern Light Infantry actually belongs to Pakistan Army. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.93.1 (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg

The image Image:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Pattonb.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Edited

I have edited this article today, mainly changing grammatical mistakes and reframing sentences. I have not changed any factual data here.

Triviabot (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong rank. Please correct.

Under the heading Recepients of the Param Veer Chakra, Major Shaitan Singh is wrongly mentioned as Havaldar Shaitan Singh.

Major Shaitan Singh was the CO of C Company, 13 Kumaon Regiment which fought the Chinese army at Rezangla.

Thanks,

Ajit S. Datar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.53.114 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Division Hierarchy

Now that each corps has its own article,I suggest that the divisional information of Corps be moved to the respective Corps page so that the article clutter reduces. --Vinay84 (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing brigades

I created today the military OrBat graphic of the Indian Army: commons:File:Indian Army Structure.png. The problem is that some of the independent brigades mentioned in the article are listed in the Indian Army#Corps section. In all 10 Artillery, 5 Infantry and 1 Parachute brigades and the 2 Independent Air-defence Groups are unaccounted for. On the other hand there are 2 Armoured Brigades to many in the Corps section listed. Can anyone clarify/check/help with this problem. Thanks in advance, --noclador (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Its Thalasena not Sthalasena.

In the Devanagari script it is written as Sthalasena with the same spelling in roman. Actually, in Devanagari, the S is neither there nor it is pronounced that way. Thala means land or earth in Sanskrit and Sena means force. I dont know how to change Devanagari Script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.4.24 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I second this. The spelling is Thalsena and NOT Sthalsena. And the same goes for devanagri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.19.237.34 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Man power of Indian Army

OK, I have updated the man-power of the Indian army using an existing source, but it seams editors on this article have in the past abused W-RS and edited their own fake figures. Lets hope that stops. Recon.Army (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Division raising dates

Before the post 1962 expansion, both India and Pakistan avoided common numbers: India took 1, 4, 5, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, and 27 Divisions; Pakistan took 6 (later disbanded), 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. After the 1962 War India went ahead to backfill numbers: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 36, 39, 54, 57. Pakistan responded with 6 and 11. After the 1965 War they added 16, 18 and 23. Then in 1971 they added 17 and 33, and as deception formations they raised 36 and 39.

After 1971 India added 16, 18, 31; Pakistan reraised 9, 14, 16 lost in East Pakistan, and added 19. Between 1976 and 1984 India went on to add 21, 22, 28, and 29, Pakistan added 40 and 41. By 2000 Pakistan added 2 (artillery division), India added 40 and 41 Arty Divs.

Pakistan is now supposed to have 25 and 26 Mech Divs, they are actually armd divs and have different numbers. No one I know has been able to figure out why in peacetime they would use deception numbers. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor Error

Under the head of the Siachen Conflict (1984) there is this particular line: " In 2004, Indian Army was spending an estimated US$2 million a day to support its personnel stationed in the region."

    This is a minor piece of wrong information provided. I checked the link provided along with it [citation no. 32] It is the original article which states that the figure is clearly for a month. I suggest it be edited as soon as possible.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.213.30 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Akravindran, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The picture with the title 'Indian Army soldiers arrive in Korea in September 1953 for peacekeeping along the neutral buffer zone' is not a photograph of soldiers at all. It is a photograph of toy/model soldiers. Please remove this.

Akravindran (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: You'll need some evidence that this image is fake besides you just think it does. -Atmoz (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

creation of a special forces section

there needs to be a special forces section in the article about Indian Army special forces the Para Commandos and the Ghatak Force --Honorprevails123 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of T-90s in Thar desert is rotated left.

"Indian Army T-90 tanks take part during an exercise in the Thar Desert" This image file when seen on Flickr is perfect but in wiki page its rotated left.I couldn't find how this happened but opening this picture full screen its orientation is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivsn (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Logistical problems yesterday, Logistical problems tomorrow, but never Logistical problems today

How come Logistical problems are well noted in just about every operation in the history section, but the problems they have today, such as eating expired food http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Indian_army_eating_out-of-date_food_999.html , are skipped over? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Id say go ahead and include it in the article. — Woe90i 13:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)