Thursday, November 1, 2018

Writing for a living


Writing for a living
By
Major V K Singh

            It was the twenty-sixth of the month. We were having tea on the verandah. "The ayah wants five rupees. She is having a Satyanarayan ki katha in her house" said my wife.

            "Hmm"

            "What Hmm"?

            "I only said Hmm".

            "What is that supposed to mean?".

"OK. Give her five rupees"

"But I don't have any money".

"Now look, I gave you a tenner only this morning".

"You are drinking it now. The tea had finished, so I sent the boot-boy to get some from the canteen. And also some sugar. Now I've got only two rupees and some paise left".

"OK, take it from my purse".

She came out after a minute.

"There is only an eight anna bit left in your purse".

"That solves the problem. No fiver".

 "Very simple".

"Elementary".

"You're not funny".

"I wasn't trying to be".

"Oh God. I don't know why I married an Army officer. Now I'll have to borrow again from Pinky's piggy bank".

"She'll scalp you".
"I know. The poor thing was hysterical when she found it empty last time. Honestly, I just don't know what to do. And I wanted to see that picture in Dreamland tomorrow".

There was silence for a full minute. That chap who said it was like gold was talking sense, I'll say.

"Listen, didn't you get twenty rupees last month from the Signalman?".
"Yes".
She went inside, and returned with a pen and a pad.
“Write".
 "Write?"
"Yes, write".
"Write what?".
"Write anything. Just write. And from now on, you're going to write every month".
"But the Signalman comes out only once in three months".
"Never mind. We'll make those twenty rupees go for three months. In any case, we run short of just six or seven rupees every month".
"But what am I going to write?”
"Write anything. They're so bored up for contributions, they'll publish anything".
"But you can't write just anything. I need time to think".
"Listen, mister, today is the twenty-sixth. And you are supposed to send in contributions a month in advance. That leaves just few days for the deadline for the next issue, and there's no time to think. Get it?”
"Yes. Now beat it".
And that is how you came about reading this. I hope some other people get the idea too, and start writing. At least, I hope the gentlemen in the Third Pay Commission get the idea.

(Published in The Signalman, Apr 1973)

Victory Into Defeat


Victory Into Defeat
By
Lt Col VK Singh
The history of warfare is the history of man. No sooner there were two of them - Cain and Abel - they fought, and killed. Over the years, the art of war has flowered, and it has now crossed the dividing line, and become a science. Along with this transformation, warfare has become a complicated and sophisticated subject, making use of the latest developments in science and technology, and gobbling up almost a quarter of the resources, in terms of time and money, of the human race.
Though the science of warfare has made rapid progress, in no other sphere has this been as rapid as in communications. The developments in military communications during the last half century have revolutionised warfare. A modern army depends on communications for its very survival, and no Commander in his right mind would take the field today, without guaranteed communications. Understandably, communications is widely regarded as one of the most important battle winning factors today.
This, unfortunately, is far from the truth; good communications may have improved the passage of information and orders, but whether it also helps in winning battles, is doubtful, as we shall soon see. History is replete with instances of victories which were made possible only because of lack of communications between the field commander and his superiors, and defeats, which were the result of good communications.
During the early part of the last century, Gulab Singh, the ruler of Jammu, despatched one of his Generals, Zorawar Singh to subdue hill tribes on the Frontier. Zorawar Singh went on to conquer Ladakh, Skardu, Gilgit, Hunza, and later Tibet. Gulab Singh came to know of these victories only from the treasure and •tribute which Zorawar Singh sent back to Jammu, after each conquest. If communications had existed between the two, it is inconceivable that Gulab Singh would have permitted Zorawar Singh to undertake the apparently foolhardy campaign in Tibet, in which he later lost his life.
Robert Clive is regarded by historians as the founder of British rule in India. However, there, are no two views that Clive was an extremely audacious adventurer, who succeeded, by intrigue and deceit, in creating dissensions among Indian rulers, thereby consolidating his own position. His victory in the Battle of Plassey laid the foundation of British dominance in the subcontinent. However, it is rarely that one wins a battle in which he is outnumbered 17 to 1, as Clive was, and his decision to take on a vastly superior enemy was definitely foolhardy. It is doubtful if the Hon'ble East India Company's Directors, in London, would have lent their countenance to Clive for this venture, had it been possible for the latter to obtain their concurrence on telephone. And perhaps, the British Empire in India would never have existed, but for the lack of communications between Clive and his superiors.
We have seen how important victories have been gained only due to lack of communications. Let us now consider the other side of the coin, and see the effect of good communications.
In May 1940, Hitler decided to put into effect an audacious and brilliant plan, suggested by Von Manstein for conquering Western Europe. As part of this offensive, German Panzers crashed through the Ardennes forest in Belgium and raced for the English Channel. Guderian, spearheading the advance, was almost within sight of Dunkirk, when he was ordered to halt, by an inexplicable order from Hitler, conveyed on the radio. This enabled the beleaguered British Expeditionary Force to cross the Channel at Dunkirk, and escape to England. If Guderian had not been halted, it is quite likely that over a million Allied soldiers would have been captured, and the Second World War brought to an end, with German suzerainty over Europe established. The history of the world may have been altered, had not Guderian's communications with Von Rundstedt been as good as they were.
On 24th April, 1980, American Commandos landed in Iran. Their task was to rescue 56 hostages, imprisoned in the US Embassy in Teheran. However, out of eight helicopters that took off from the aircraft carrier NIMITZ, only five landed at the rendezvous, the remainder having broken down, due to mechanical trouble. The force Commander, Col Charles Beckewith, relayed this information to the Pentagon, and this in turn was conveyed to President Carter, who gave orders to cancel the mission. Apart from resulting in loss of face, this incident was also instrumental in Carter losing the election for the US Presidency, later during the year. A hundred years ago, when communications were not as good as today, it is inconceivable that Colonel Beckewith would have cancelled the mission on his own. He still had five helicopters, he had not lost a. single man; and he had achieved complete surprise. It is ten to one that had he gone ahead with the mission, it would have succeeded, resulting in a well earned decoration for himself, as well as considerable increase in prestige for his country. However, this was not to be, and the reason is only one - good communications.
It follows, therefore, that while good communications may be an important factor for fighting battles, it is not necessarily so for winning them. Communications have deprived the field Commander of his precious prerogative - tactical decisions. In future wars, it is quite conceivable that even minor tactical decisions, will be taken at a political level. Military commanders will no longer be commanders - they will become messengers, just like the ambassadors of today, who no longer enjoy plenipotentiary powers, thanks to communications. This dilution of authority to take tactical decisions will severely curb the initiative of field commanders, who will have to look back over their shoulders for orders, before taking any step which involves the slightest amount of risk. It may well happen, as it did in the case of Heinz, Guderian and Charles Beckewith, that good communications turn out to be not a blessing, but a bane, and turn victory into defeat.
(Author's Note            :-Budding Sparrows are advised to take the article with a pinch of salt and not try too hard to ensure failure of communications. However, it is hoped that the instances quoted above will improve the health of some of our conscientious colleagues, who take their job too seriously, and get a stroke every time the line goes out, or a radio net is not through.
 A perusal of the above article, every Monday morning before breakfast, is guaranteed to prevent heart attacks, ulcers, and grey hair, which is taking a heavy tall of our Commanding Officers).
(Published in The Signalman, Sep 1985)

THE SIGNALS PLAN - A NEW CONCEPT


THE SIGNALS PLAN - A NEW CONCEPT
Col VK Singh
INTRODUCTION
In modern warfare, communications have proved to be an important battle winning factor. The accent on mobile warfare, involving quick changing battle situations, has enhanced this importance. The rapid growth of electronics, and its application  in almost every field, including 'gunnery, navigation, target acquisition, electronic surveillance, RADAR, communications and electronic warfare, makes it imperative for commanders at all levels to consider its implications and effect on their operational plans. It is, therefore, incumbent on commanders to actively involve themselves in formulation of the communications plan and its implementation at each stage, instead of leaving it to the Signals adviser. Communications planning, like fire planning, is a command responsibility and commanders who ignore or neglect it are likely to pay a heavy price.
AIM
The aim of this paper is to discuss the importance of communications in the Army and the methodology involved in formulation of the Signals Plan.
COMMUNICATIONS IN THE ARMY
Present Communications Set Up
In the Army, the Corps of Signals is responsible for providing all types of communications, down to the level of abattalion/regiment.            Communications below battalion/regiment are manned by regimental signallers, from within the unit. The means of communications employed by Signals include line, radio, radio relay, troposcatter and despatch riders. In addition, the Corps of Signalsis also responsible for electronic warfare against all electronic emission used by theenemy,   including non- communication electronics.
The present concept of communications in the Army is linear, and follows the chain of command. This implies that each level of command, or headquarters, is connected to the one above and the one below it. Except in rare cases, there is no lateral communication, and neither does it exist to levels other than the ones immediately above or below. The basic Signals unit is a signal regiment, one of which is provided for every headquarters at the level of a division or above. Thus, there are divisional, corps, command and Army Headquarters signal regiments. In addition, there are composite signal regiments which are not affiliated to anyheadquarters, but provide communications rearward of the corps zone, on line, radio or radio relay. There are other types of signals units, for specialized communications for air support, for carrying out monitoring of own radiolinks, for interception of enemy links, and for electronic warfare. At eachheadquarters, down to the brigade, aSignals officer is available as adviser tothe formation commander.

Importance of Communications in Battle
The      Army comprises Arms and Services. There are five Arms, vizArmoured Corps, Artillery,Engineers, Signals and Infantry, of which the first and last are also called the "teeth" Arms, the others being "supporting" Arms. The rest,like AOC, EME, ASC, AMC, Postal, Provost etc., are called Services. While every Arm or Service has its own special role, and each is vital, in its own way, for success in battle, there is one feature which distinguishes Arms from Services, and that is their role, and the effect of their failure or success in fulfilling it. While the role of Services is vital to the overall war effort, it does not affect the immediate battle, where success or failure depends on the ability of the Arms to fulfil their assigned tasks. For instance, consider the case of a division or brigade going into attack. The immediate result of the battle will not be affected if the Supply Point is closed down, or the Ordnance Depot catches fire, or the Field Hospital fails to fetch up, or if the EME Workshop is shelled out. On the other hand, consider the effect of the failure of any of the Arms. The Armoured Corps and Infantry, who Physicallyassault and capture the objective, are obviously beyond discussion. But can the attack go in, and succeed, without covering fire from theArtillery, or before the Engineers have breached the mine fields and made the bridges or if the radio communicationsfail? The answer is No. And this is thesubtle difference, between Arms andServices, which has to be understoodbefore the role of any of them, and theiremployment, is considered.
Organisation and Employment of Signals
Considering the Arms, there are Marked similarities, and differences, between their roles. However, there are some peculiar characteristics in the organisation and employment of Signals, Which are interesting to note. Some of these are asunder :-
(a)    Artillery, Engineers and Signals are called "Supporting Arms". However, While other Arms are affiliated withformations, the Signals element is integral, at each level of command. For instance, there is no Army Headquarters Artillery Regiment, Command Engineer Regiment, or Corps Armoured Regiment, but there are signal regiments at these headquarters. Even at divisional, and brigade and battalion level, all the artillery and engineer resources are not integral, but allotted for a specific operation whereas the signal resources are integral to the formation or unit. In fact, when a brigade moves, the signal company moves alongwith it, but not the affiliated field regiment or field company.

(b)   The resources and equipment authorised to Artillery, Engineers and Signals are      based on their role, and employment. However, it is interesting to note that only Signals has been authorised reserve equipment at every level, down to the battalion. For instance, there are no reserve guns in an artillery battery, or reserve minelayers, trawls or bridges in an engineer regiment, but there are reserve radio sets in every divisional signal regiment, brigade signal company, and battalion/regiment signal section. Why? In an Army, where economy is the byword, and there are restrictions on everything, how have Signals got away with such a lavish allocation of resources? The reason will be explained a little later.


(c)    Before any operational plan is made, it is necessary to carry out an appreciation of the situation. One of the factors considered is Relative Strength and Assessment of Troops to Task. However, it is an interesting fact that while all other Arms, like Armour, Artillery and Engineers are considered, alongwith supporting weapons like MMG, rcl guns, as well as air support, there is no mention of Signals. Why? Is it because Signals have no role in battle, and can be ignored? Again, the answer will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

(d)   Every commander, before finalising his tactical plan, ensures that the engineer plan and the arty plan have been dovetailed into it. To do this, he relies on a plethora of planning data which is available in pamphlets and hand books; such as the Staff Officers Hand Book, issued by the Defence Services Staff College, and the Commanders Hand Book, issued by the College of Combat. It is interesting to note that while these hand books contain fairly exhaustive planning data for Engineers and Artillery, there is little or no planning data for Signals. Thus, while every commander knows the bridging and mine laying capabilities of a field company, or the time take by a field battery to deploy, and the ranges of its guns, as well as the rates of fire, effective area of neutralisation, safety distances, and so on, hardly anyone knows the time taken to establish a radio relay link, or to lay a kilometre of cable, or the maximum ranges obtained by different types of radio sets. Needless to say, this data is important in planning a tactical operation. In fact more often than not, certain important operations such as siting and move of headquarters or rate of advance of break out force, has to be dependent            entirely on      the communications, and restrictions imposed by ranges of radio sets or cable.
The reason for making Signals integral at each level and for the lavish allocation of resources is only one. Over the years, commanders, both vanquished and victorious, have learned that in order to ensure that they are always in touch with the battle situation, and that their orders can be passed quickly to their command, they must have good communications. And to make sure that each commander has his own communications, which he does not have to share with anyone else, the signal resources have been given to him as an integral part of his command, instead of being affiliated, like otherArms. And the reason for the lavish allotment of resources is that no commander is willing to risk a break in communications, even for a moment. Accordingly, reserve radio sets, cable, telephones and generators have been catered for at every level. Communications is one field where frugality is suicidal, and it is prudent to cater for reserves, even though it is an expensive proposition.
Coming to the Assessment of Troops to Task, the reason for not considering Signals is the lavish allocation of resources, as discussed above. Every commander knows that adequate signal resources have been catered for every possible contingency, and he does not have to allocate them separately for a particular operation of war. In a defensive battle, the radio sets may not be used at all. Similarly, in mobile offensive operations, telephones and cable Will hardly be used. But these resources are there, and that is what matters. Hence, the reason for not considering Signals is not that they are least important, but rather that they are most important - in fact, so important that there is no scope for discussion. This is an important point, which commanders and their staff be over the years, failed to grasp, often With disastrous consequences.



THE SIGNALS PLAN

Present Concept
It is an anomalous fact that even though the importance of communications has been underlined, hardly any time thought is devoted to this subject by commanders while formulating their plans. Fairly exhaustive guidelines and treatises exist on the methodology involved in making out a tacticalPlan, a fire plan, and an obstacle plan, but there is no general staff publication Whichexplains the procedure of evolving a communication plan. In fact, this vital aspect is neglected even in the training institutions, such as the DSSC and the College of Combat, and communication planning is left to Signals, who treat it as an "in house" affair. In all operational orders and instructions, the subject is brushed off with a line "Signal Instructions will be issued by Chief Signal Officer (or Officer Commanding Signal Regiment)." Of course, Signals have fairly detailed and exhaustive formats for their signal instructions or operational orders, containing a vast amount of technical data. But the important thing is that the Signals plan is not dovetailed into the tactical plan, as a fire plan or an obstacle plan is. This is because the Signals Plan is made by the Signals adviser in isolation, based on the tactical plan, and there is no involvement of the commander or his staff. This is a serious draw back, andresults in loss of flexibility andsubsequent           disruption in communications when the situation changes abruptly, for which communications have not been catered for. This is because at present, the Signals adviser goes by his own intuition and anticipation, in allocating reserves and catering for alternative circuits. In case he has been able to read his commander's mind, all goes well. If not, communications break down at a crucial moment, with disastrous results. This situation can be avoided only if the commander himself approves the Signals plan, and it is put into effect only once it has been thoroughly screened by him and his staff, so that suitable modifications can be incorporated to cater for all possible contingencies.
The other serious drawback is that the Present system is wasteful, and does not contribute to optimum utilisation of resources. In a division, all brigades are rarely committed at the same time, andeven when they are, there is considerable difference in their commitments. However, the signal resources of each brigade are identical, and cannot be used by others. For instance, if one brigade is in a holding role, and the other two are being used for an attack, the requirement of radio communications for the latterwillbe more than that of, the former. However, with the present set up, which has no flexibility, the Signals adviser cannot, on his own, reallot signal resources, as can be done by the Artillery or Engineer adviser, to ensure that optimum utilisation is made of all equipment and manpower.
The following steps are suggested in formulation of the Signals plan :-
(a)        The commander, after carrying out his appreciation, makes out a tactical plan in out line.
(b)        The Commander gives out his communications requirements to the Signals adviser. This is done in terms of type of communications, ie. speech and/ or telegraph (and not means of communication ie., line or radio), for each phase of the operation, including contingencies.
(c)        The Signals adviser makes out an outline Signals plan, to cater for the commander's communication requirements, making use of all available resources. He also decides the means of communication for each unit or formation, such as radio, radio relay, line, or a suitable combination of these.
(d)       The Signals adviser puts up the Signals plan to the commander for his approval, alongwith suggested modifications in the tactical plan, wherever it is not possible to meet the communication requirements within the existing resources.
(e)        The commander suitably modifies the tactical plan, if required, or arranges for additional resources. The Signals plan is then approved by him, after suitable modifications.
(f)        The Signals adviser affects the Signals plan by issuing a Signals Operational Order, or Signal Instructions.
The suggested concept would involve certain changes in the command and control set up, and the functioning ofsignal units. Some of these are asunder :-
(a)        The commanding officer of a divisional signal regiment will have the authority to move and deploy signal resources within the division. This may involve certain changes in the concept of integration of signal elements with their parentformation. A signal company will not have to be allotted to each brigade on a permanent basis. However, signal companies will be affiliated to brigades,like field companies or artillery regiments.
(b)        Allotment of signal resources to brigades would be done in accordance with the Signals plan. Thus, the composition of signal companies, in terms of manpower and equipment, will vary, depending on the task in hand. This would be done by attaching or detaching detachments of radio, line or radio relay. It may be mentioned that  the smallest functional entity in Signals is a detachment and this term includes thepersonnel, vehicles, and equipment carried by them.
(c)        The lowest level at which signal communications will be planned will be a division. Communication plans will be coordinated at corps field army by the respective Chief Signal Officers.
(d)       To ensure reliability and flexibility, reserves will be catered for in the form of reserve detachments.Reserve detachments may be allotted to signal companies, based on the nature and likely duration of the operation, terrain, weather conditions, and distance from the Regimental HQ. In addition, some reserve equipment may be kept centrally with the Quartermaster in the Regimental HQ.
(e)        For communication tasks in the corps or communication zone, specialist signal bricks, held by composite signal regiments, may be attached or detached under orders of the Chief Signal Officers at corps or command HQ. These bricks will be in the form of sections, comprising a number of detachments, as at present.
For the successful conduct of a battle in an environment saturated with electronic activity, it is essential that commanders exercise utmost discretion and caution in formulating their communications plans. Failure to do this would leave their communications, weapon systems and other electronic devices susceptible to enemy electronic counter measures, and this may well be the hinge on which the eventual outcome of battle rests. It must be realised that communication planning is a command responsibility. The Signals plan must beinitiated by the commander, and approved by him before it is implemented by Signals, who are responsible for its execution, and not its evolution.
(Published in The Signalman, July 1992)


THE CHAIN OF COMMAND


THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
BY
Major V K Singh
After reading Major Gokarn's excellent feature "Eclipsing the Communications Gap" in the January 1976 issue, I came to a startling conclusion - we don't really use the chain of command! Being essentially communicators, we probably do not pay attention to what can appropriately be called the bedrock on which the complex structure of the Army rests. Break it, and the edifice will come tumbling down. Lest that unfortunate day dawn on us, it would be worth our while to have a closer look at this facet of the Service.
In the few units that I have had the occasion to serve, I have found that the chain of command is taken to mean exactly what Major Gokarn has depicted - the CO, Adjutant, Subedar Major, Company SJCO, CHM, Section NCO, and the Jawan. It would not be entirely incorrect to assume that a similar concept of the term exists throughout our Corps! A little reflection on the issue, with its implications, will bring to mind the gravity of the situation. We are not only breaking, or not following the chain of command - we simply do not know what it means!
It is a well known rule of social, political and military science that authority cannot be divorced from responsibility. The man who makes the decisions is also the one who is answerable for failure or success-which are the sequel to these. Why, then do we adopt this parallel chain, for day to day administration, and sometimes even for operational tasks? There is only one chain of command- the CO, the Company Commander, the Section Commander and the Jawan. There can be no duplication in this, just as responsibility can never be divided. If a company or section fails to carry out its assigned tasks, its commanders are answerable, not the SJCO, or the CHM, or section NCO. Yet, it is a common practice to use this chain. Why?
Let us consider the case when an NCO is to be sent to the MCTE to collect the Corps diaries for the unit or to the Ordnance Depot to collect some equipment. The Adjutant passes the orders down the 'chain of command’, i.e., to the Subedar Major, who in turn passes it to the RHM or one of the company SJCOs. Hav XYZ is detailed, and despatched the same evening. The CO, next morning, orders No 1 comp-any commander to send out a radio detachment. The company commander suddenly finds that his detachment commander, Hay XYZ, is half way to Mhow. There are last minute changes, tempers go up, fur flies, and the job is not completed in time. Who is to blame? The company commander, by nature of his appointment, or the Adjutant, for using an incorrect channel for passing orders? Such instances occur every day, and we are all only too familiar with their effect on esprit-de- corps and harmony in an unit.
The Subedar Major occupies an unique position in an unit. He is the eyes and ears of the CO. So far so good. The trouble begins when he is used as the mouthpiece, a privilege which should be confined to the 2IC or Adjutant. The 'chain of command’ as we understand it, should be more correctly called an 'administrative chain' or a channel of information. It can, of course, be used for passing routine instructions, such as where the morning parade is to fall-in, what games are to be played that evening, and how many men are to go in a particular working party. Even in the matter of information, the chain of command should be followed if possible. Take for example, the case of a soldier running amok, or an affray in the barracks at night. The present system, in most units is that the CHM reports the matter to the RHM or the SJCO, who in turn reports it to the Subedar Major. In most cases, the company and section commander come to know only the next morning! At times, the CO comes to know of such cases earlier, and one (as a company or section commander) has perforce to give a blank look when questioned on the subject by the Old Man! Such a state of affairs is clearly not desirable.  It is perhaps a legacy of colonial India, when due to the difficulties posed by language, officers had to resort to this method to exercise command. The situation today is entirely different. The officer and the men speak a common tongue, and there is a close rapport between them. The need for interpreters is no longer there, and hence should be discouraged. I am not, for one moment, contemplating that we do away with JCOs and NCOs. They are an essential link in the chain of command, but only when they function as platoon or section commanders. They should not be used as 'staff officers', who disseminate the orders of their commander.
Returning to Major Gokarn's article, if one adopts PLAN AREN, and 'breaks' this chain, as suggested, the orders should reach the Jawan exactly as the CO wants!
Adopt AREN, but retain the chain of command! (With luck, the two might fall in love and result in a happy marriage!)
(Published in the Signalman, October 1976)