What's new

Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army

Signalian said:
In the modern scenario, the use of UCAVs makes a significant difference as its an active threat to tanks and other armored vehicles. If complimented by gunships, this combination can become deadly as UCAVs to a great extent perform the role of a CAS aircraft with the armament they carry minus the cannon. While PAA may keep gunships in own airspace, UCAVs can/will cross the border in the event of a conflict. Isn't it a relief that PAF may not be required for CAS.

Then the ATGM support on the ground through TOW and BS equipped M-113s or 4x4 aided by infantry carrying M-113s. This combination of anti-tank capability and holding ground ability by infantry is crucial in capturing territory to consolidate the advance of armored forces. So far neither UCAV, nor gunship or infantry can blitz through enemy lines like a MBT. A UCAV can soften targets by tank plinking but to advance into enemy territory, tank and APCs are needed.

There is another tactic. While UCAVs take out enemy armored vehicles, PA M-113s (ATGM/12.7mm) move in to sweep the remaining area for capturing and holding or chase the enemy. Although MBTs can chase better to cut off retreat but they do need back up by APCs. Some say MBTs are obsolete. In dense AAA and SAM areas, UCAVs may not survive for back to back sorties. UCAVs are more mobile than MBTs, but MBTs can have a high survival rate. In logistics, support, maintenance, the MBTs need a complete setup in the battlefield and mobile workshops.

The factor of artillery remains. Tubed and rocket. Guided, RAPs, anti-armor - all types of ammo. Different targets, ranges, ammunition logistics, OTH fire support. Artillery lies in support, not direct contact like other arms.

We should be talking about wiped about armored regiments, 25%, 33%, 50%, 75%, massive losses, whether AK or T90s or VT4 or T72. Replacements for MBTs in PA are hopeless. Both armies can defend their territories, but its the attacking punch through the enemy lines which starts an offensive into enemy's territory. If the replacements are soggy T-59s then GHQ will throw in reserves. Crews train on T-59 but man VT-4 now, its such a downgrade to go back to T-59s. The slow speed is another bummer. No modern electronics.

I think its the first thrust for armored regiments that matters the most, after that its a strength of replacements, logistics and support to continue an offensive. If the first ones a disaster, then that regiment will be sidelined for secondary tasks. A CV-90 or M2 Bradley like vehicle for cavalry could have an addition for back up if MBTs take bad losses but that 125mm gun wouldnt be there still and thin skin in direct contact may not be the best choice.

All in all, all these arms and weapon systems go hand in hand. MBTs with APCs, SP guns, UCAVs and gunships.
Click to expand...

Just be wary is all i will say. I suspect we are in for a nasty surprise with regards to UCAVs, the main reason being, we arent facing incompetent conscripts being deployed on SAM's. All of these recent conflicts have highlighted one thing, it is not the fact that these UAVs are impenetrable, it is the fact that there was no competent adversary. While i wont go ahead and say the Indians are on the forefront of training and expertise, i would expect their men to have more knowledge and experience on their systems than the Russians or Armenians. Ironically, Russian IADS is all but "I", it is highly disjointed, with no real functional IFF, no real c&c and no proper data sharing. I think we will see far greater attrition rates of drones in our theatre, simply because we are actually fighting a reasonably competent adversary. Though, this isnt to say the psychological impact of them, or tbh, even the additional numbers they bring wont be beneficial, but what it is to say is, i wouldnt put it past Indian AD operators who are protecting these forward formations to do a decent job of protecting them. But then again, does also depend on what systems they are given, naturally, Osa etc is basically useless as it cant reach at the altitudes these drones operate at anyway.
 
arslank03 said:
Just be wary is all i will say. I suspect we are in for a nasty surprise with regards to UCAVs, the main reason being, we arent facing incompetent conscripts being deployed on SAM's. All of these recent conflicts have highlighted one thing, it is not the fact that these UAVs are impenetrable, it is the fact that there was no competent adversary. While i wont go ahead and say the Indians are on the forefront of training and expertise, i would expect their men to have more knowledge and experience on their systems than the Russians or Armenians. Ironically, Russian IADS is all but "I", it is highly disjointed, with no real functional IFF, no real c&c and no proper data sharing. I think we will see far greater attrition rates of drones in our theatre, simply because we are actually fighting a reasonably competent adversary. Though, this isnt to say the psychological impact of them, or tbh, even the additional numbers they bring wont be beneficial, but what it is to say is, i wouldnt put it past Indian AD operators who are protecting these forward formations to do a decent job of protecting them. But then again, does also depend on what systems they are given, naturally, Osa etc is basically useless as it cant reach at the altitudes these drones operate at anyway.
Click to expand...
Tanks are not obsolete, they can survive in modern battlefield against drones, which is why they havent been disbanded by Armies around the globe. Its the replacement of tanks in Pakistan Army's arsenal that is a major issue. Up-gradation of one type of tank is cost effective like AK or VT-4. While one can argue on having commonality of parts, all upgrade projects are different, even engines are different.
1.Upgrades of T-59 to T 59 II, then to AZ.
2. Upgrade of T-85 II towards III and UG.
3. Upgrade of T-80 UDs.
4. Upgrade of AK to AK-1.
5. Now there will be upgrades of VT-4.

USA Army upgrades its M1 to M1A1, then M1A2, then SEP among others and maybe to M1A3. Same with Leo2A1 to Leos2A6 and A7.

Then the talk of an IFV. With an IFV like CV-90, M2 Bradley or BMP3, even with a heavier gun like 100mm of BMP3 or 120 mm of CV-90-120T, the concept of WW2 destroyed comes to mind, big gun on a lightly armored chassis. Although, now the HE round is good against infantry and bunkers, while the ATGM can take care of tanks, while retaining troop carrying capacity. PA retains its 12.7 mm cannon (or ack ack) and a shield for gunner, no turret but an ATGM version of M-113 with other 12.7mm equipped M-113s to protect the formation from tanks. An IFV cannot really replace a MBT. IFV and APCs are amphibious though, which means destroyed bridges won't hold them back.

As for drones, the EW systems on them for protection could make them costlier but will enhance their survivability on the modern battle field. Their size has increased for weapon carrying capacity, reducing 2 x ATGMS for sake of two EW protection pods isn't a big compromise. A UCAV should return to base and go after enemy again rather than take out 8 x MBTs and get shot down. The crew is safe and the drone is cheaper than a helicopter.
 
Signalian said:
Tanks are not obsolete, they can survive in modern battlefield against drones, which is why they havent been disbanded by Armies around the globe. Its the replacement of tanks in Pakistan Army's arsenal that is a major issue. Up-gradation of one type of tank is cost effective like AK or VT-4. While one can argue on having commonality of parts, all upgrade projects are different, even engines are different.
1.Upgrades of T-59 to T 59 II, then to AZ.
2. Upgrade of T-85 II towards III and UG.
3. Upgrade of T-80 UDs.
4. Upgrade of AK to AK-1.
5. Now there will be upgrades of VT-4.

USA Army upgrades its M1 to M1A1, then M1A2, then SEP among others and maybe to M1A3. Same with Leo2A1 to Leos2A6 and A7.

Then the talk of an IFV. With an IFV like CV-90, M2 Bradley or BMP3, even with a heavier gun like 100mm of BMP3 or 120 mm of CV-90-120T, the concept of WW2 destroyed comes to mind, big gun on a lightly armored chassis. Although, now the HE round is good against infantry and bunkers, while the ATGM can take care of tanks, while retaining troop carrying capacity. PA retains its 12.7 mm cannon (or ack ack) and a shield for gunner, no turret but an ATGM version of M-113 with other 12.7mm equipped M-113s to protect the formation from tanks. An IFV cannot really replace a MBT. IFV and APCs are amphibious though, which means destroyed bridges won't hold them back.

As for drones, the EW systems on them for protection could make them costlier but will enhance their survivability on the modern battle field. Their size has increased for weapon carrying capacity, reducing 2 x ATGMS for sake of two EW protection pods isn't a big compromise. A UCAV should return to base and go after enemy again rather than take out 8 x MBTs and get shot down. The crew is safe and the drone is cheaper than a helicopter.
Click to expand...


Im not disagreeing with you, im just specifically highlighting that i dont expect drones to perform as well as expected, their performance elsewhere IMO cant really be extrapolated here
 
arslank03 said:
Im not disagreeing with you, im just specifically highlighting that i dont expect drones to perform as well as expected, their performance elsewhere IMO cant really be extrapolated here
Click to expand...
I would be inclined to agree with this statement, but only if the SAMs and other AA platforms perform as expected. Russia-Ukraine should have shown us how effective drones really were in a SAM-heavy environment where they also face aerial threats, but the Russian army so incompetent that we didn’t get to see it. So far we’ve only send the effectiveness of drones in environments where they have either completely or relatively clear skies.

That doesn’t mean drones won’t be useful, just that they’re not more useful than say a tank or a gunship, which brings us back to signalians point, every weapon on the battlefield is only as good as the one next to it. If the one next to it is used poorly, then your weapon won’t be of much use either, that’s the thing about combined arms, if everything works, then it’s a brilliant strategy, if one part fails, it all fails.
 
Today's war is going to between system of systems. Thus while one weapon system may play a dominant role it may not be completely decisive.
One system must exploit the result of another in order to succeed. We must realise that drones may not achieve similar achievements in Indo-Pak environment as they have previously in other conflicts, considering that India has one of the most modern ADS with a large airforce and EW systems to back it.

Consider a scenario in which PAF and arty is able to successfully conduct DEAD ops and suppression of airbases. Only then will the UCAVs be able to make some mark on the battlefield. Now, if we believe that the UCAVs have done their job and caused maximum attrition to enemy mechanised forces... Then what? Until now, no political objective has been achieved and nothing of strategic importance has been inflicted... This can be done only be going into enemy territory and capturing some vital areas; And for that you need something that has sufficient firepower, protection and most importantly mobility, which means simply, A Tank. Thus only by using a tank (or any other such veh) were we able to exploit the success of systems. If tanks were not used to capture territory or UCAVs weren't used to cause attrition then all previous efforts were in vain.

Also, from the above scenario can we conclude that the Indian tanks which were destroy by UCAVs, are obsolete, just because they weren't employed well? Or if Pak used UCAVs without DEAD ops and they ended up suffering attrition from enemy ADS.. will the UAVs become redundant?

All systems constitute a chain and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Thus we can not afford to spend heavily on one system and forsake the other.
 
Korkut short range air defence system may be bought by army for cheap drones neutrality
 
farooqbhai007 said:
Al-Zarrar and a pair of curious looking talha based sakbs (one has mast as well). Also the steel thingy around the apc as panzerkiel had said was being implemented fleet wide.

Click to expand...
The steel thingy is usually filled with bags who in turn are filled with sand/soil/cement etc , its a cheap n effective armor reinforcing method. Its effective protection uptill rpg
 
Last edited:
Raja Porus said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1565010639403245571

I've hoping for such a system for our mech formations.
@Signalian what do you think?
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20220901-131540.png

Yeh lovey dovey eyes ka kya matlab samjhain hum ? System in trials or maybe trials in future 👀
 

Similar threads

B
Maj Gen Syed Ali Hamid, AC - At the forward edge of battle
Replies
0
Views
2K
blain2
B
Signalian
Pakistani Guides Cavalry Vs Indian Armor Regiments in 65 War
Replies
0
Views
2K
Signalian
Signalian
Signalian
Remembering Brigadier Mohammad Ahmed, SJ
Replies
2
Views
1K
Gripen9
Gripen9
ghazi52
Lt Gen Asim Malik appointed new DG ISI
Replies
2
Views
623
ghazi52
ghazi52
N
India ramp-up LAC infra, troop presence, op logistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
NG Missile Vessels
N

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom