HAIDER: UNDERSTANDING PAKISTAN’S NEXT-GENERATION TANK

[Zarvan]

I doubt Pakistan army is serious adopting new tank near future. Nothing fits in PA demands at this moment. Non country is building any light and agile tank per Pakistani terrain requirement.

No Army is looking for a Tank and they plan to get it fast. Even in Al Khalid the Tank we got from China wsy back in 2001 wasn't good enough for us so we made several changes in it including new Engine from Ukraine

 

[HAIDER]

No Army is looking for a Tank and they plan to get it fast. Even in Al Khalid the Tank we got from China wsy back in 2001 wasn't good enough for us so we made several changes in it including new Engine from Ukraine

But, PA is still not happy with overall performance. It s all stopgap measure ...

Imagine it Turkey most latest Leopard A2 in Syria . Nothing is safe from the wrath of ATGM

 

[Zarvan]

But, PA is still not happy with overall performance. It s all stopgap measure ...

Imagine it Turkey most latest Leopard A2 in Syria . Nothing is safe from the wrath of ATGM

Army is satisfied and now going for upgraded version AL KHALID 1. As for Anti Tank weapons still need for Tanks is there and as strong as ever. For AL HAIDER project I think final showdown will be between T-90 MS and OPLOT M

 

[IblinI]

The horror of ATGM . On one end few thousands dollar ATGM and on the other end million dollar machine. What you choose ? ... Do you think latest tank in market ballistic protection will stop the latest ATGM and survive multiple hit.
Turkey lost multiple Leopard A2 in Albab, Syria. The most latest one.

It is never ATGM VS Tanks, or else mean you need to increase your situation awareness.
PS: Leopard A4 is not the latest, they are 80s model.

 

[LeGenD]

But, PA is still not happy with overall performance. It s all stopgap measure ...

Imagine it Turkey most latest Leopard A2 in Syria . Nothing is safe from the wrath of ATGM

Turkey is using Leopard 2A4 whereas the latest variant is Leopard 2A7.

In a war, losses can be expected in clashes from time-to-time but Leopard 2A4 almost failed in Syria; this show that every thing that glitters is not gold. Some products are really good on paper including Russian T-14 Armata but anti-tank battlefield will show how good they really are in terms of survivability.

Nevertheless, I shall caution that operators are known to destroy their own vehicles in order to prevent them from falling into the hands of enemies when they get stuck in a hostile situation, therefore one needs to distinguish propaganda from facts as well. Americans have a history of this kind of practice in particular.

British Challenger series and American Abrams series have fared very well in diverse environments across the world - I am ignoring export variants of these because they are not at par. There are stories of Challenger 1 and M1A1 Abrams taking hell of a punishment, and their crews lived to tell the tale. Latest variants are Challenger 2 and M1A2 SEPV3 respectively - both are cutting edge and equipped with finest armor out there.

Among the Western platforms, British and American have proven designs in their hands! Others not so much due to limited employability. Israeli Merkava 4 is worth checking out nevertheless.

 

[HAIDER]

Turkey is using Leopard 2A4 whereas the latest variant is Leopard 2A7.

In a war, losses can be expected in clashes from time-to-time but Leopard 2A4 almost failed in Syria; this show that every thing that glitters is not gold. Some products are really good on paper including Russian T-14 Armata but anti-tank battlefield will show how good they really are in terms of survivability.

Nevertheless, I shall caution that operators are known to destroy their own vehicles in order to prevent them from falling into the hands of enemies when they get stuck in a hostile situation, therefore one needs to distinguish propaganda from facts as well. Americans have a history of this kind of practice in particular.

British Challenger series and American Abrams series have fared very well in diverse environments across the world - I am ignoring export variants of these because they are not at par. There are stories of Challenger 1 and M1A1 Abrams taking hell of a punishment, and their crews lived to tell the tale. Latest variants are Challenger 2 and M1A2 SEPV3 respectively - both are cutting edge and equipped with finest armor out there.

Among the Western platforms, British and American have proven designs in their hands! Others not so much due to limited employability. Israeli Merkava 4 is worth checking out nevertheless.

Merkava didn t even survive old Russian wire guided during Lebanon war.

Turkey is using Leopard 2A4 whereas the latest variant is Leopard 2A7.

In a war, losses can be expected in clashes from time-to-time but Leopard 2A4 almost failed in Syria; this show that every thing that glitters is not gold. Some products are really good on paper including Russian T-14 Armata but anti-tank battlefield will show how good they really are in terms of survivability.

Nevertheless, I shall caution that operators are known to destroy their own vehicles in order to prevent them from falling into the hands of enemies when they get stuck in a hostile situation, therefore one needs to distinguish propaganda from facts as well. Americans have a history of this kind of practice in particular.

British Challenger series and American Abrams series have fared very well in diverse environments across the world - I am ignoring export variants of these because they are not at par. There are stories of Challenger 1 and M1A1 Abrams taking hell of a punishment, and their crews lived to tell the tale. Latest variants are Challenger 2 and M1A2 SEPV3 respectively - both are cutting edge and equipped with finest armor out there.

Among the Western platforms, British and American have proven designs in their hands! Others not so much due to limited employability. Israeli Merkava 4 is worth checking out nevertheless.

Unfortunately, ATGM are so advance there is nothing call finest ballistic protection. May be Russian Shorta give some life. But, close combat or urban warfare its living hell for tank commander.

 

[LeGenD]

Merkava didn t even survive old Russian wire guided during Lebanon war.

Merkava Mark IV (65 tons) fared well against ATGMs in the war with Hezbollah in 2006; ATGMs struck 18 of these in total and killed only 1. Another loss was to an IED*.

*IED is also one of the major hazards to consider: an incident was caught on camera somewhere in Iraq but the American M1A1 Abrams absorbed the brunt of the impact.

A relatively less protected MBT would not be so unfortunate. The latest M1A2 SEPv3 feature counter-IED armor protection in its bottom.

Unfortunately, ATGM are so advance there is nothing call finest ballistic protection. May be Russian Shorta give some life. But, close combat or urban warfare its living hell for tank commander.

Depleted uranium mesh in armor can significantly enhance survivability against a diverse range of external threats but only American Abrams MBT series feature it; not for export. However, British Chobham armor is also very good.

I like the approach of Australia; they chose M1A1 and uplifted its capabilities with M1A2 class components and Urban Survivability Kits. End-product was an M1A1 customized for Australian needs (M1A1 AIM). General Dynamics also offers diesel engine as an alternative to gas turbine engine to engine-conscious customers. At present, Australia is seeking 'depleted uranium mesh' to uplift armor of its M1A1 fleet.

Pakistan is on shaky terms with the US but we can do business with UK and Turkey. We should take a look at British Challenger 2 because it is an excellent MBT in many respects including armor protection. We should join Turkish Altay MBT project at minimum because we will acquire valuable insight from it.

We are stuck with Russian/Chinese derivatives otherwise (no pun intended to fellow Russians and Chinese). Syrian armed forces have lost over 2000 Russian-made MBT in the ongoing civil war since 2011. Here is the footage of a Syrian rebel taking out a Russian T-90 with an American TOW ATGM: https://en.censor.net.ua/video_news...yed_in_syria_with_american_tow2_missile_video

We should consider a counter for Indian heavy Arjun MK II, IED and ATGM in our calculations. Al-Haider should be developed with these parameters in mind. Otherwise, we are banking on same old same old with some improvements here and there.

 

[Army research]

I've been reading this thread for some time,
Tanks have weaknesses and strengths , similarly they have terrain in which they are strong and terrain in which they are weak.
Imagine a tank in a valley , infantry on the slopes could even penetrate the weaker topside armour with rpg 7 (Soviet Afghan war).
A tank in a city, same but even constricted, lower mobility and vision, more cover for enemy.
Conventional armour is not designed to fight in such terrains, the only truly urban warfare tank is the merkava at this point now back to the Pakistan army.
These tanks will be used in frontal assault along with supporting infantry, ie no launchers from the side , in turkeys case the supporting infantry was less trained irregular Arab infantry .
Secondly these tanks will fight mostly in the desert , where there is almost unlimited visibility and again supporting infantry mortar artillery heli.
Atgms can easily be avoided in such scenarios.

 

[Signalian]

I've been reading this thread for some time,
Tanks have weaknesses and strengths , similarly they have terrain in which they are strong and terrain in which they are weak.
Imagine a tank in a valley , infantry on the slopes could even penetrate the weaker topside armour with rpg 7 (Soviet Afghan war).
A tank in a city, same but even constricted, lower mobility and vision, more cover for enemy.
Conventional armour is not designed to fight in such terrains, the only truly urban warfare tank is the merkava at this point now back to the Pakistan army.
These tanks will be used in frontal assault along with supporting infantry, ie no launchers from the side , in turkeys case the supporting infantry was less trained irregular Arab infantry .
Secondly these tanks will fight mostly in the desert , where there is almost unlimited visibility and again supporting infantry mortar artillery heli.
Atgms can easily be avoided in such scenarios.

Different arms compliment each other, infantry compliments armor and vice versa.

 

[CriticalThought]

I've been reading this thread for some time,
Tanks have weaknesses and strengths , similarly they have terrain in which they are strong and terrain in which they are weak.
Imagine a tank in a valley , infantry on the slopes could even penetrate the weaker topside armour with rpg 7 (Soviet Afghan war).
A tank in a city, same but even constricted, lower mobility and vision, more cover for enemy.
Conventional armour is not designed to fight in such terrains, the only truly urban warfare tank is the merkava at this point now back to the Pakistan army.
These tanks will be used in frontal assault along with supporting infantry, ie no launchers from the side , in turkeys case the supporting infantry was less trained irregular Arab infantry .
Secondly these tanks will fight mostly in the desert , where there is almost unlimited visibility and again supporting infantry mortar artillery heli.
Atgms can easily be avoided in such scenarios.

ATGMs are not only carried by infantry. And our tanks will also be facing MLRS, attack helis and armed drones, in addition to any CAS provided by IAF. And lets not forget Brahmos. No amount of armor will be enough armor. The side which is more agile, nimble, able to take out the electronic advantage, and deliver more firepower with more accuracy will be the winning side. We need to change our mindset to take into account the realities of the modern battlefield.

 

[Army research]

Different arms compliment each other, infantry compliments armor and vice versa.

That's what I tried explaining to those above

ATGMs are not only carried by infantry. And our tanks will also be facing MLRS, attack helis and armed drones, in addition to any CAS provided by IAF. And lets not forget Brahmos. No amount of armor will be enough armor. The side which is more agile, nimble, able to take out the electronic advantage, and deliver more firepower with more accuracy will be the winning side. We need to change our mindset to take into account the realities of the modern battlefield.

Sir I know all of this I was replying to those above my reply, they were debating

ATGMs are not only carried by infantry. And our tanks will also be facing MLRS, attack helis and armed drones, in addition to any CAS provided by IAF. And lets not forget Brahmos. No amount of armor will be enough armor. The side which is more agile, nimble, able to take out the electronic advantage, and deliver more firepower with more accuracy will be the winning side. We need to change our mindset to take into account the realities of the modern battlefield.

Sir I'm aware of that and I fully support you, my reply was only a reply to above commentators who by using poor examples from Syrian war etc insinuating that the Atgm alone has made modern battletanks redundant , I was saying that in a modern war between near peer forces in desert terrains they would be less of a factor,

I agree with what you say and I know for a fact that without a strong paf PA and PN are toast, nothing could save them from hell storms of cruise missiles , CAS sorties and those upcoming apaches , a strong PAF is needed before we buy new tanks that's my own opinion

 

[CriticalThought]

That's what I tried explaining to those above


Sir I know all of this I was replying to those above my reply, they were debating

Sir I'm aware of that and I fully support you, my reply was only a reply to above commentators who by using poor examples from Syrian war etc insinuating that the Atgm alone has made modern battletanks redundant , I was saying that in a modern war between near peer forces in desert terrains they would be less of a factor,

I agree with what you say and I know for a fact that without a strong paf PA and PN are toast, nothing could save them from hell storms of cruise missiles , CAS sorties and those upcoming apaches , a strong PAF is needed before we buy new tanks that's my own opinion

I think the army should invest highly in mobile, multi-layered air defence. Next is electronic and signals warfare. And then think laterally and try to utilize cutting edge technology. Things like autonomous machines, exo-skeletons, fire and forget ammunition, these will define battle.

 

[Army research]

I think the army should invest highly in mobile, multi-layered air defence. Next is electronic and signals warfare. And then think laterally and try to utilize cutting edge technology. Things like autonomous machines, exo-skeletons, fire and forget ammunition, these will define battle.

But firstly the IAF is too strong right now , the paf needs multi layered Sams and a fifth gen asap

 

[Armchair-General]

Haider should be nuke.

You are the nuke my son.

 

[CriticalThought]

But firstly the IAF is too strong right now , the paf needs multi layered Sams and a fifth gen asap

What we need is threat assessment, threat prioritization, and threat management. The final solution one reaches as a result is sometimes mind-bogglingly different to what seems obvious.