Al-Khalid 2

[araz]

AsSalam oAlaikum,
Brothers this is a topic dedicated to AlKhalid2. I think the merits/ otherwise of the Saudi Armed forces should either be discussed elsewhere, but not at the expense of this topic.Could we please get back to the topic.
This is being requested with due respect to all brothers
WaSalam
Araz

 

[Ozzy]

1. Its to do with BATNA, in bargaining when you have a high BATNA you will be offered a better deal than when you have a low BATNA. Its the same reason when you get a good job offer you can bargain with you current employers for a pay rise. Your output hasnt changed, but your BATNA has.

Clearly you've neither worked nor lived in Saudi Arabia. Nor have you presented any hard facts or statistics to support your delusions of equality. I cannot agree with your whimsical explanation based on wage negotiation. There is no negotiation with Saudis, they always present take it or leave it scenarios.

2. And you have?

My policy: dont bring up stuff unless you've been through it or have something to back it up.

3. Kill/Death ratios are and have been susceptible to including civilians deaths.

No, Im talking military death ratios. The Americans have been religiously counting enemy KIA combatants since Vietnam. Tghrowing in civilians skews everything even more.

4. In the Anbar province specifically and Iraq generally there are many towns and villages that the Coalition forces do not even control. This resembles conventional conflict more closely than it does an Insurgency. In Southern Afghanistan fighting is escalating to something also resembling conventional fighting with hundreds of soldiers from both sides engaging in combat.

Source please.

5. And vice versa, the conflict has degenerated into a war of attrition. The U.S. has lost all ideas and is hoping it can outbleed its opponents.

Agreed.

6. Minimal?

Yes. 3000 lost in controlling a country of millions is pretty damn good. The Pak army has had trouble containing the border while losing 500+. Not to mention everytime the yanks get into a straight up firefight, the resistance loses men 5:1 at best.

Anyway if you want to cling to the notion of Saud as a utopian brother nation with the mother of all armies, go ahead... its clear Im not going to convince you otherwise. This topic has strayed far enough, and I've made my opinion and experiences known. Good day.

 

[sunlibo1986]

Al-Khalid 2 is best !!!

 

[Keysersoze]

Hmmm this is an interesting discussion. However I think a lesson should be learned from Israel's recent "adventure" in southern lebanon. Or the pictures in Iraq. Both the Abhrams and the Merkava tanks are some of the most heavily armoured tanks in the world and they were being defeated by man portable systems. And I am almost certain both the T90 and the Al-Khalid would suffer the same fate. The key is to use the assets you have to the best of your advantage.

On a side note I feel i have to agree with Ozzy and OoE. You can't buy class..........

 

[Adnan88]

you do have a point there... but u have to look at the situation a bit differently.. the abrams and merkavas were taking on gurilla fighters.. 2 armed forces will use tanks against each other during battle of tanks.. just look back at the history of chawinda...

and by the way, no one has answered my previous question... i heard someone mention that khalid to will be based on type 98... but isnt it true that type 98 is still a prototype??? how can its effectiveness be determined already??? if u ask me, type 99 would be a good tank...

 

[Keysersoze]

I have a sneaky suspicion that the AK 2 will basically be a new Turret which will incorporate modular armour which can be updated. It might "borrow" ideas from the T98. No basis for this, just personal suspicions.

Oh and to get back to my previous post.......

My point was that even the most expensive, heavily armoured tank can be defeated. Unless.......... there is a clear technological advantage to one side.(Gulf war) Which to be honest there isn't as both sides of this "potential" conflict are operating very similar systems. So it boils down to other factors...numbers(3-1 for the attacking force as is recommended), air support and other anti tank systems of the defending forces. I believe in an attacking situation both types of tank (T90 and AK) would suffer as neither of them is heavily armoured (compared to heavy tanks) unless some of the "other" factors come into play.

 

[Keysersoze]

Oh bear in mind the 3-1 ratio is subject to force multipliers so not a "hard" rule.

And "tank on tank" without clear superiority on one side, means someone screwed up as far as I am concerned!

 

[sigatoka]

1. However I think a lesson should be learned from Israel's recent "adventure" in southern lebanon. Or the pictures in Iraq. Both the Abhrams and the Merkava tanks are some of the most heavily armoured tanks in the world and they were being defeated by man portable systems. And I am almost certain both the T90 and the Al-Khalid would suffer the same fate. The key is to use the assets you have to the best of your advantage.

1. I think there is a large different in the two scenarios.

Firstly it is incorrect to say that the Israeli armoured thrust was stopped. Israel could have pushed all the way to the outskirts of Beirut with the armour and troops they had. However they didnt because the last time they did it after the full blown fighting was over they were in control of a larger area of hostile territory. Israel would have pushed further and imposed harsher conditions to end the fighting if Hezbollah hadnt inflicted such high casualities on Israel's army and its tanks.

From Pak.'s perspective if by some freak of chance (1/1,000,000) the armoured thrust totally broke through Indian lines and then had a free run to Delhi imagine such a situation. India would probably even accept Pak. demand for an vote of indepedance in Kashmir. A Pak. decisive break of Indian lines if it can be achieved will confer huge benefits to Pak. in subsequent negotiations that Israeli's breaking of Hezbollah front can never do.

Secondly the difference between Hezbollah's budget and Israel's (defence) is differnt by a factor of a hundred or thousand, Hezbolla's budget struggles to barely cover small arms and some antitanks weapons.

The situation between Indian and Pak. is totally differnt, both sides have large similar budgets (diff. by a factor of 4 or sumthin).

Introducing a bit of mathematics into it, the payoffs of Pakistan is distributed normally with the down side pegged (or stopped) at the lower end at total defeat. However keeping a force of tanks (rather than AT's) increases risk or in other words increases the spread of the possible payoffs which means that while the down side is pegged the probability of upside (that is victory) is increased.

Increasing risk from Pak. perspective increases payoff and therefore having more tanks instead of AT's increases risk.

It is for the same reason that in WW2 Japan had such a large (massive) naval (rather than having more land troops, expanding territory more slowly) force consisting of aircraft carriers against the U.S. which was a risky strategy with more airbases and airforce) because if they had pursued a less risky strategy they would have suffered a more certain defeat (even if fighting a few months more) while having a risky strategy increased their small chance of possible victory a bit more.

The reason this works is because Japan under both strategies if it did lose would have had same payoff (of total destruction) and this is the lowest possible payoff because payoff is bounded at the bottom to this level.

Remember all Japan wished to maximise was the probability of victory, riskiness increased the chance of this while not changing payoff from defeat.

 

[sparten]

If Pakistan achives a desisve breakthrough in the ravi-Chanab ir Ravi-Beas sector, the Indians would be encircled in kashmir. We came so close to that in both 1965 and 1971.

But today it would be Prithvi time.

 

[Keysersoze]

"Firstly it is incorrect to say that the Israeli armoured thrust was stopped. Israel could have pushed all the way to the outskirts of Beirut with the armour and troops they had. However they didnt because the last time they did it after the full blown fighting was over they were in control of a larger area of hostile territory. Israel would have pushed further and imposed harsher conditions to end the fighting if Hezbollah hadnt inflicted such high casualities on Israel's army and its tanks."

The point I was making was this------Light Infantry units (Hezbollah) were defeating HEAVY MBTS with man portable systems. And that it should be remembered that any advance by Al-Khalid tanks would meet heavier ordnance. While I am sure the AK2 will be a capable system lets not get carried away with what it can (possibly) do.

"From Pak.'s perspective if by some freak of chance (1/1,000,000) the armoured thrust totally broke through Indian lines and then had a free run to Delhi imagine such a situation.

Yes I wonder what would have happened if the Germans had broken through the Russian lines in 1945.... If a conflict were to break out it would be a defensive war plain and simple. Therefore the aim should be the ability to break attacks, not planning on breakthroughs to Delhi This would need several factors and a strong overall defence would require it on ALL levels (GA aircraft, helicopter gunships and other AT systems) in order to be successful (A good place to start would be the NATO planning against the Russians during the cold war)

Using the Japanese example isn't going to win me over here............they got beaten and beaten badly.Even their top general Yamamoto was against the conflict And The Japanese used extensive ground units in asia (where there were large land masses) and navy in the pacific (where there is lots of water)

In conclusion before planning counter attacks I think it is best to think about stopping the LARGE force coming straight at you.

 

[sigatoka]

1. If a conflict were to break out it would be a defensive war plain and simple. Therefore the aim should be the ability to break attacks, not planning on breakthroughs to Delhi This would need several factors and a strong overall defence would require it on ALL levels (GA aircraft, helicopter gunships and other AT systems) in order to be successful (A good place to start would be the NATO planning against the Russians during the cold war)

2. Using the Japanese example isn't going to win me over here............they got beaten and beaten badly.Even their top general Yamamoto was against the conflict And The Japanese used extensive ground units in asia (where there were large land masses) and navy in the pacific (where there is lots of water)

3. In conclusion before planning counter attacks I think it is best to think about stopping the LARGE force coming straight at you.

1. The NATO planning is a classic e.g. of the stronger side pursuing a more defensive/risk-averse strategy than the weaker one. The combined GDP of Western Europe was more than Soviet Union as was the economy of U.S. All NATO had to do was hold the Soviets long enough so that they could convert their massive economies to war production and allow U.S. to pump in more mass reinforcement. In short if the Soviets the weaker side could not deliver a decisive early blow, it would be crushed.

Indeed Pak. should take a leaf out of Soviet book and pursue a more aggressive policy in terms of pursuing a more tank heavy/more artillery and aggressivness in terms of trying to punch through Indian lines at their weakspots. This does not mean spending 40% of GDP on military like the stupid soviets, but rather reducing GDP spending to 3%. Strategy and force structure can be aggressive and risk seeking while overall spending can be contained.

2. The Japanese decision to go to war was wrong, the manner in which they fought was excellent. It was an aggressive risky strategy which maximised chances of victory against a more powerful foe.

3. Tanks are good anti-tanks weapons as well. Tying oneself to an overlly defensive strategy when its payoff is less than an aggressive risky one might reduce the chance of defeat if an eventual conflict does occur but it would also increase the chance of a conflict (because the opponent gets a higher payoff from conflict) and therefore in fact it is more dangerous. As it is the Pak. armed forces is saturated with anti-armour assets, i dont see how acquiring a few hundred more would be any more beneficial. Anti-armour is very difficult to bring to bear against an opponent's focused armoured thrust because armour is mobile and can be quickly focused and having tanks of ones own allows them to be quickly brought to bear on the opponents thrust.

 

[Keysersoze]

Ok..........here we go again.

"1. The NATO planning is a classic e.g. of the stronger side pursuing a more defensive/risk-averse strategy than the weaker one. The combined GDP of Western Europe was more than Soviet Union as was the economy of U.S. All NATO had to do was hold the Soviets long enough so that they could convert their massive economies to war production and allow U.S. to pump in more mass reinforcement. In short if the Soviets the weaker side could not deliver a decisive early blow, it would be crushed."

Ok time for you hit the books I think. Nato strategy wasn't based on the idea that they were stronger force (They didn't have the experience of the the second gulf war). Essentially it was based on stopping the Soviet Elchon system of attacks. With the various categories (A,B,C and D) overlapping and providing a continuous attack. It was theorised that they would only be able to survive the onslaught for two weeks. It was a strategy based upon the idea that Soviet top line equipment had some sort of parity with Western equipment. It was not a strategy formulated on what you postulate. I suggest some reading in the area.

"Indeed Pak. should take a leaf out of Soviet book and pursue a more aggressive policy in terms of pursuing a more tank heavy/more artillery and aggressivness in terms of trying to punch through Indian lines at their weakspots. This does not mean spending 40% of GDP on military like the stupid soviets, but rather reducing GDP spending to 3%. Strategy and force structure can be aggressive and risk seeking while overall spending can be contained."

Oh dear god.........
Ever heard of the elite panzer divisions????? Some of the best formations with the best equipment and men of their time. They could barely get to the D-day landings because they were constantly being attacked by allied aircraft. Oh and where is this money gonna come from, to gain at least some kinda parity?
For every tank Pakistan gets to allow this i am sure India will buy three or four. they have a much larger economy. and your theory depends on one thing.....India doing nothing (I am sure they are gonna do that...(note this is sarcasm here))

Ah onto the whole risk thing (Which i note you have posted in another thread as well)
Hmmmmmm lets go onto that one.....

2. The Japanese decision to go to war was wrong, the manner in which they fought was excellent. It was an aggressive risky strategy which maximised chances of victory against a more powerful foe.

Well the strike on Pearl harbour was essentially a failure because of admiral Nagumo's failure to send a second strike into Pearl harbour. It was a failure because it didn't get the carriers. after Coral sea (A draw btw)the Japanese navy won very few of the battles. Oh and I forgot something....they lost and they lost big..............they received the only nuclear weapons fired in anger.

Want another aggressive "risky" strategy? Operation Barberossa. Not gonna explain that one I suggest you look it up.

If you wanna convince people about "risky strategies" I suggest you don't use ones where the protagonists get utterly destroyed.

3. Tanks are good anti-tanks weapons as well. Tying oneself to an overlly defensive strategy when its payoff is less than an aggressive risky one might reduce the chance of defeat if an eventual conflict does occur but it would also increase the chance of a conflict (because the opponent gets a higher payoff from conflict) and therefore in fact it is more dangerous. As it is the Pak. armed forces is saturated with anti-armour assets, i dont see how acquiring a few hundred more would be any more beneficial. Anti-armour is very difficult to bring to bear against an opponent's focused armoured thrust because armour is mobile and can be quickly focused and having tanks of ones own allows them to be quickly brought to bear on the opponents thrust.

Yes Tanks are good weapons when they have good Air,Infantry and artillery support. Otherwise they are just chunks of metal. (This is the point i was making originally) And as for the claim the the Army is "saturated" I would disagree. I am not sure of the ability of some of those assets to defeat modern armour systems.

Ok time for a bit more study for you I think!

 

[sigatoka]

1. Nato strategy wasn't based on the idea that they were stronger force (They didn't have the experience of the the second gulf war). Essentially it was based on stopping the Soviet Elchon system of attacks. With the various categories (A,B,C and D) overlapping and providing a continuous attack. It was theorised that they would only be able to survive the onslaught for two weeks. It was a strategy based upon the idea that Soviet top line equipment had some sort of parity with Western equipment. It was not a strategy formulated on what you postulate. I suggest some reading in the area.


2. Ever heard of the elite panzer divisions????? Some of the best formations with the best equipment and men of their time. They could barely get to the D-day landings because they were constantly being attacked by allied aircraft.

3. Oh and where is this money gonna come from, to gain at least some kinda parity?

4. For every tank Pakistan gets to allow this i am sure India will buy three or four. they have a much larger economy. and your theory depends on one thing India doing nothing (I am sure they are gonna do that...(note this is sarcasm here))

5. Well the strike on Pearl harbour was essentially a failure because of admiral Nagumo's failure to send a second strike into Pearl harbour.

6. It was a failure because it didn't get the carriers. after Coral sea (A draw btw)

7. Oh and I forgot something....they lost and they lost big..............they received the only nuclear weapons fired in anger.

8. Want another aggressive "risky" strategy? Operation Barberossa. Not gonna explain that one I suggest you look it up.


9. Yes Tanks are good weapons when they have good Air,Infantry and artillery support. Otherwise they are just chunks of metal. (This is the point i was making originally)

1. The combined economy of NATO was larger than the Soviet economy by a multiple of three. The economies of Western Germany, France and Britian were massive. Even if Western Germany crumbled and France fell, Britian and U.S. would have enough time to convert their economies to a war footing by which time the Soviets would have been on borrowed time. Also, France wouldnt have just tipped over like a dying horse.

2. If the German army wasnt split in facing the rumbling Red Army on its East the D-day landing would have been a total catastrophe.

3. From the exisiting military budget.

4. Your thinking is wrong, if it was in India's interests to have so many tanks why wouldnt it have purchased them already? In Pak. case it was constrained by weak economy in the past (due to sanctions) and now this purchase of compromised F-16's.

5. What exactly would this second strike have done? The damage was done, sending in more strikes would have just increased attrition of Japanese aircraft and pilots which would be needed against upcoming battle of the carriers.

6. All the Carriers along with all the other ships just sitting there to be sunk would be a bit of a tall ask dont you say?

7. They took a gamble, you are just looking at the loss and not the potential gain. It was a mistake for them to go to war, but when the decision to go to war was made their AC's ensured they had a good as possible chance at victory.

8. Risky for the party that is on the back foot or weaker position, a situation where both seek ever riskier strategies cant be an equilibria. Germany wasnt on the backfoot then, it didnt have to invade Russia, it could have played it safe, hung on to the gains in France parried with Britian, swept across Nothern Africa prepared for assualt like Normany, a million things other than invading Russia they could have done from their then relative position of strength.


9. Yep, those falling apart Mig-21's are real tank busters.

 

[Keysersoze]

Ok you managed to answer all of my points with irrellevant answers.

1. I am talking about Military strategy not economies and it's similarity to the current situ in south asia. Economies and strong militaries are not the same thing.

2.The fact that the German army was split is irrelevant. I am talking about the inability of the panzer divisions to move forward and engage the enemy properly.

3.Well what about c3? or modern attack aircraft?
or the shortage of helicopters?
or air defence systems? a basic lesson here if you don't have the money you can't spend it!

4.Ok you are right there......they only have 1400 more so maybe they haven't got more than pakistan.

5.Rather than spout these "gems" read a bit about it. What was missed was the re-fueling depots. The ship repair facilities, the submarine pens.

6. Well it seems that those two carriers did well at Coral sea huh? If you are gonna "take risks" at least try to complete the remit of the mission.


7. I am looking at the ACTUALITY they got DESTROYED

8.AAAhhhhhh I see risk is only right if you don't have something to lose ahhhhh now your WHOLE POINT makes sense

9.good answer

I am done answering your inane points. I can understand why OoE got annoyed. Carry on "taking risks" and leave wars to men who would not want their lives wasted on "potential" gains.

 

[sigatoka]

1. I am looking at the ACTUALITY they got DESTROYED

2.AAAhhhhhh I see risk is only right if you don't have something to lose ahhhhh now your WHOLE POINT makes sense

1. And thats your problem, ever situation of interaction/conflict whether its a war or a game of football entails a probability of defeat and victory for the competitors. Just before a football game you can not say that one side is certain of victory of defeat, then how can you say after the game that the winner was always destined to victory? In a similar vein just before hostilities commenced between Japan and U.S. there were probabilities in victory and defeat, it was always more probable that U.S. would be victorious and the Japanese high command always knew this, they were however willing to take the given gamble.


2. No, its not that simple. Victory occurs for the entity when its skill + luck/chance is greater than the skill + luck/chance of the opponent.

Therefore the side with the lower skill will try to increase their luck/chance, this can be done by using a more risky strategy which if you look at the post on risk you will hopefully understand.