Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army

[Basel]

Very doubtful that PA would use a battle-taxi as direct combatant in the form of IFV to engage enemy. If APC(or IFV) is destroyed in direct combat with enemy, the infantry will lose armoured transport capability jeopardizing the mission plan to keep up with the MBT advance.
Dismounted infantry is used to capture and hold ground, there is no other option. To engage enemy MBT and IFV, PA will use TOW/Green Arrow equipped M113 variants. I do advocate IFV but PA's armoured doctrine supports APC's over IFV's. Hamza is wheeled and has 30mm cannon. Considering a 30mm cannon is used as anti-material weapon, it can damage some hard targets excluding MBT, but may not be able to completely take out a BMP-2. The solution to take out any IA AFV is ATGM or MBT Gun at a distance and maybe RPG variants at short range.

With DU rounds 30mm can be deadly against armour units, for example US use 30mm DU rounds in A-10 to take out enemy armour.

Pakistani light mechanized Infantry workhorse transforming into a Heavy armed assault Force​

@Gryphon

@Signalian and me and also many other respected Members have discussed many times the concept of the Pakistan Army doctrine "Battle taxi", and of course we did come to the conclusion that the M-113 does not really fit the role in an Indian war theater, what comes after dismounting the assault Infantry? Face the bulk of Indian formations (MBTs,BMPs,Infantry) with RPG-7 (short range, cant penetrate modern MBT in the first shoot),12.7mm (M-113 will not follow the infantry to the hot zone so that's also a restricted defensive weapon), 60mm Mortar which is a WW2 weapon (inaccurate). I don't think that the Pakistani Military does have the budge to replace the M-113 or will change its doctrine of "Battle taxi", but what they can do and that might be also economical and reallistic, is to modernize the mechanized Infantry Soldiers quipment. If Assault Infantry alone has to face the Indian BMPs, MBTs, and enemy Infantry, obstacles, enemy bunkers, enemy trenches. then why not transforming that light Infantry into a heavy one: that means adding to every squat like @Gryphon said new and modern weapons like the Alcotan.

The Pakistani squad/section assault Infantry level needs more and higher precise firepower, which can be given through:

- under-barrel grenade launcher, close fire support against point and area targets(every Soldiers weapon should be equipped with that)

-one-man portable, single-use anti-tank rocket launcher (which have bought, but I doubt it was meant for the mechanized Infantry Battalions)

- more and modern hand grenades

- a better and modern Infantry rifle (which adds better targeting/aiming systems)

- sophisticated night vision equipment

The Pakistani Concept at the moment looks like that, check the Infantry they seem to have very rudimentary equipment.

View attachment 438573 View attachment 438574


Compare that to the US Army mechanized Infantry equipment:



View attachment 438575


@Signalian I have seen that show from W.S Khan "We are Soldiers" during my own military service that was around 2010, but their equipment is still not update after 8 years!

PA also need something like HJ-12 ATGM for infantry, it will add lethal punch.

 

[BetterPakistan]

Okay.

@niaz gave you a number in an earlier post.

I will just add for a ballpark figure:


Officially 62 Armoured Units in Indian Army. That is 62 x 59 1st line held. So, 3658 tanks in 1st line.

Add to it a figure of 1100 held as stocks as mentioned earlier. That is 3rd line. So, 4758 so far

Interesting, the 2nd Line? Assume 1/10th is reserve for all 1st line. That gives 365 tanks more. So 5123.

Now we have forgotten Operational T-55s (Combat Engineers use them for eg) and additional numbers of same held as mothballed have not been catered to in the figure.

So, you might find about 500 odd more over and above the figure listed earlier; to be a closer approximation. That makes it 5623. Of course I shall not include a few Centurions held either.

@Joe Shearer

And that is a conservative rough estimate from my side.

There is a reason why PA went in for HAT-LAT concept. Try looking at that. You will understand that 6000 figure is not at all off.

PS: I may have my figures of approximation wrong by virtue of underestimating. Apologies for same.

WOW

Now do you have any source to prove it?

Why do you think that those T-55 would be operational as of today?

Niaz told 4000 tanks and 300-400 on order and this is what it could be at MAX. No more than this.

IA have T-72, T-90 and Arjun left. T-55s can't be operational as of today. And that junk doesn't matter at all.

Great Write Me Down I Will Give To Senior Director CGDA Mod

He already knows this so you don't need to bother about it

 

[randomradio]

IA have T-72, T-90 and Arjun left. T-55s can't be operational as of today. And that junk doesn't matter at all.

There are hundreds of T-55s still operational.

In any case, you should stop worrying about how many tanks India has and start looking at your own inventory of tanks and wonder how many can actually fight the Indian T-55s, let alone the 72s and 90s.

 

[Hellfire]

WOW

Now do you have any source to prove it?

Heard of Combat Engineers?

I don't think, I know.

There is a difference in speculation and in giving a ballpark figure.

Lets ignore T-55 for you, okay?

62 Armored Regiments is an open source. No new raisings being counted.

Just do a mathematical calculation @ 59 tanks per regiment. They are first line. That is 3658.

Then use the 1100 figure in storage of older variety .. and I did give you a conservative 10% of overall 1st line being reserve for 1st line that of 2nd line for your understanding. Lets ignore the 2nd line here.

They exceed your 4 k ... by a figure of 758 best case scenario for you

And not even counting those on orders.

Ofcourse you can ask your professionals here about my ball park calculation (and ask my background at the time too)

Cheers.

There are hundreds of T-55s still operational.

In any case, you should stop worrying about how many tanks India has and start looking at your own inventory of tanks and wonder how many can actually fight the Indian T-55s, let alone the 72s and 90s.

They had Vijayants pounding them in DF role in post Uri scenario ... and that is the so called old stock

 

[Signalian]

12.7mm is too heavy for a soldier to carry. Neither do HMG equipped M-113 APC's fight in the hot zone as @Ulla mentioned above.

i meant 12.7mm compared to 25mm or 30mm on an AFV.

Maaz ATGM Carrier

12.7mm is not visible (at least with this example)

The new VN-17 infantry-fighting vehicle (IFV) uses a heavily modified version of the 33-ton VT-5 light tank's chassis. It has an unmanned (read: remotely controlled) turret with two large, multi-lens electro-optical and infrared sensors (one each for the gunner and commander). Those sensors come in handy when the system needs to use its 35mm cannon, 7.62mm machine gun, or medium-range HJ-12 anti-tank missiles. The VN-17 is also well protected, with reactive armor on the lower front hull, and significant side-skirt armor alongside its tracks. All this, plus its capacity to carry seven infantry, makes it likely in the 30-35 ton weight class.

It shares some similarity with the People's Liberation Army's mysterious new infantry-fighting vehicle, which will reportedly have an unmanned turret, augmented displays for crew helmets, and a hybrid-electrical engine for fuel efficiency and stealth. In terms of armament, protection, and sensors, both the VN-17 and the unnamed PLA IFV compare quite favorably to the U.S. Army's M2A3 Bradley IFV. But unlike the 35-year-old Bradley, China's brand new battle taxis have plenty of margin to grow into future upgrades like more advanced armor, better weapons, APS, sensors, and deploying unmanned partners.

https://www.popsci.com/china-has-fleet-new-armor-vehicles



Cannon can fire HE fragmentation rounds which are excellent weapon for dealing with infantry troops.



IA has Light Infantry regiments. Their battalions perform normal infantry role & are distributed among all Corps.

There is no Light Inf. Div. in IA.

The talha/M-113 can be modified in different ways. Maaz with Green Arrow and 12.7mm.

The three main aspects of an AFV. Fire power, mobility and protection. In this case, transport also which both IFV and APC are capable of.

IFV's are usually less armoured than an MBT, except a few like IDF APC/IFV Namer. This makes them vulnerable in direct combat. This is where the difference between direct confrontation and just a battle taxi role comes into play. The weight of an AFV increases as more armor, weapons, ammo, electronic gadgets are put onto it for protection and modernisation. The T-55 MBT started at around 35-56 Ton. The modernised variants are over 40 T. Namer IFV is 60 T. Acharzit APC is based on T-55 and is 44T.
This gives an idea that PA is confident bringing in 36+ Ton AFV like T-59, T-69 etc into direct combat. The other MBt's are 40+ T.

VN-17 is based on light tank VT-5. This light tank has been made out of necessity to operate in regions where heavier MBT's find difficult to operate. Still the Chinese brought it up to 33+ T weight category taking it to 36 T with armor upgrade package which makes it equal to T-59 in weight. VN-17 is 30 T in weight with 1000 HP engine so adding more weight (armor) and bringing it upto 35-36 T should not affect its mobility to a great extent.

VN-17 has a reactive armor, what kind? ERA or NERA. It shouldnt be ERA which is harmful to infantry.

Coming to fire power, VN-17's ATGM capability is good against armored targets and its 35mm auto cannon can be a good AAA weapon to combat UAV's or light helicopters just like AD Bofors guns. Against ground targets it could take out light vehicles and provide fire power at a good range. The 7.62mm can be used to engage infantry.

The major issue still stays.

If the IFV is lost in direct combat, how will the soldiers be transported to keep pace with the advance. Although this can still apply to M-113 also which can be lost in combat to mines and indirect fire but the probability of M-113 survival remains more because it might not be used in direct combat. The Maaz series don't carry troops so losing an ATGM carrier is still a loss but wont affect operational capability to a massive extent.

The cost and price factor will always be there.
Firstly because VN-17 carries lesser troops than M-113 so a VN-17 mechanised battalion would require more vehicles than an M-113 mechanised battalion.
Secondly, the cost price of a VN-17 is more than that of M-113. PA can probably raise 3-4 M-113 battalions instead of 1-2 VN-17 battalions. Conversely, PA can raise another MBT regiment instead of raising 1-2 VN-17 battalions. And this another factor to be considered, at nearly the same cost, PA can modernise more T-59 to AZ standard than inducting new VN-17's. Inducting an MBt will increase PA's offensive capability than inducting an IFV.

Another point is that the need of the hour is an MRAP, not exactly an IFV.

How would you place a mix of APC/IFV in a mechanised brigade or mechanised division considering operational capabilities?

I see the capture of Islamgarh fort by a single unit of aindian Army in 1971 was taken too seriously perhaps? The company commander responsible for the defence of the fort should be shot IMO. He surrendered to a single infantry battalion which was spread in a frontage of 3 kms, mistaking the spread as the advance of a Brigade sized attacking force

The discussions which i have had with you in the past and the intelligent calibre that you possess, i expected a better reply from you

With DU rounds 30mm can be deadly against armour units, for example US use 30mm DU rounds in A-10 to take out enemy armour.

A-10 uses gattling cannon which is different. Also A-10 angle of attack is from top aiming for turret top where armor is thinnest.

 

[HRK]

PA can modernise more T-59 to AZ standard than inducting new VN-17's.

I think its better to convert remaining T-59/69 for heavy APC/AFV roles same as VN-11 or BMP-55, currently as we have seen Type-85II are undergoing modernization upto Al Zarar standards which mean after the modernization of all of Type-85II our fleet of AZ tanks will be around ~800-1000

The cost and price factor will always be there.

Conversion of Type-59/69 into APC/AFV might the cheapest option available to us

 

[Mumm-Ra]

I think its better to convert remaining T-59/69 for heavy APC/AFV roles same as VN-11 or BMP-55, currently as we have seen Type-85II are undergoing modernization upto Al Zarar standards which mean after the modernization of all of Type-85II our fleet of AZ tanks will be around ~800-1000

Wasn't the AZ an upgrade for Type-59 only? By my knowledge the Type-85II already had significant upgrades over the Type-59/69 with regards to main gun and other subsystems. But I guess, upgrading the Type-85II makes more sense as they can in service for more time than the old tanks regardless of whatever upgrades they may get. Can you mention what types of up-gradation will the Type 85-II get to bring it to AZ standard as on paper they look quite similar..

Heard of Combat Engineers?

I don't think, I know.

There is a difference in speculation and in giving a ballpark figure.

Lets ignore T-55 for you, okay?

62 Armored Regiments is an open source. No new raisings being counted.

Just do a mathematical calculation @ 59 tanks per regiment. They are first line. That is 3658.

Then use the 1100 figure in storage of older variety .. and I did give you a conservative 10% of overall 1st line being reserve for 1st line that of 2nd line for your understanding. Lets ignore the 2nd line here.

They exceed your 4 k ... by a figure of 758 best case scenario for you

And not even counting those on orders.

Ofcourse you can ask your professionals here about my ball park calculation (and ask my background at the time too)

Cheers.

Getting embroiled in petty discussion over numbers is needless in my view. To each his own number of tanks, I say. We would all like to hear what is your take on how the IA plans to deal with PA mechanised forces and use of IA owns mech. forces. @Joe Shearer ..your comments would be appreciated as well..

 

[Hellfire]

i meant 12.7mm compared to 25mm or 30mm on an AFV.



The talha/M-113 can be modified in different ways. Maaz with Green Arrow and 12.7mm.

View attachment 439335

The three main aspects of an AFV. Fire power, mobility and protection. In this case, transport also which both IFV and APC are capable of.

IFV's are usually less armoured than an MBT, except a few like IDF APC/IFV Namer. This makes them vulnerable in direct combat. This is where the difference between direct confrontation and just a battle taxi role comes into play. The weight of an AFV increases as more armor, weapons, ammo, electronic gadgets are put onto it for protection and modernisation. The T-55 MBT started at around 35-56 Ton. The modernised variants are over 40 T. Namer IFV is 60 T. Acharzit APC is based on T-55 and is 44T.
This gives an idea that PA is confident bringing in 36+ Ton AFV like T-59, T-69 etc into direct combat. The other MBt's are 40+ T.

VN-17 is based on light tank VT-5. This light tank has been made out of necessity to operate in regions where heavier MBT's find difficult to operate. Still the Chinese brought it up to 33+ T weight category taking it to 36 T with armor upgrade package which makes it equal to T-59 in weight. VN-17 is 30 T in weight with 1000 HP engine so adding more weight (armor) and bringing it upto 35-36 T should not affect its mobility to a great extent.

VN-17 has a reactive armor, what kind? ERA or NERA. It shouldnt be ERA which is harmful to infantry.

Coming to fire power, VN-17's ATGM capability is good against armored targets and its 35mm auto cannon can be a good AAA weapon to combat UAV's or light helicopters just like AD Bofors guns. Against ground targets it could take out light vehicles and provide fire power at a good range. The 7.62mm can be used to engage infantry.

The major issue still stays.

If the IFV is lost in direct combat, how will the soldiers be transported to keep pace with the advance. Although this can still apply to M-113 also which can be lost in combat to mines and indirect fire but the probability of M-113 survival remains more because it might not be used in direct combat. The Maaz series don't carry troops so losing an ATGM carrier is still a loss but wont affect operational capability to a massive extent.

The cost and price factor will always be there.
Firstly because VN-17 carries lesser troops than M-113 so a VN-17 mechanised battalion would require more vehicles than an M-113 mechanised battalion.
Secondly, the cost price of a VN-17 is more than that of M-113. PA can probably raise 3-4 M-113 battalions instead of 1-2 VN-17 battalions. Conversely, PA can raise another MBT regiment instead of raising 1-2 VN-17 battalions. And this another factor to be considered, at nearly the same cost, PA can modernise more T-59 to AZ standard than inducting new VN-17's. Inducting an MBt will increase PA's offensive capability than inducting an IFV.

Another point is that the need of the hour is an MRAP, not exactly an IFV.

How would you place a mix of APC/IFV in a mechanised brigade or mechanised division considering operational capabilities?


The discussions which i have had with you in the past and the intelligent calibre that you possess, i expected a better reply from you



A-10 uses gattling cannon which is different. Also A-10 angle of attack is from top aiming for turret top where armor is thinnest.

@Signalian

Ha, I expected YOU to understand what has NOT been said. Its boring to try and explain A, B, C when message needs to be only read by select few who can understand the entire composition.

Think hard on that one, you will get the point that is NOT said.

 

[HRK]

Wasn't the AZ an upgrade for Type-59 only? By my knowledge the Type-85II already had significant upgrades over the Type-59/69 with regards to main gun and other subsystems. But I guess, upgrading the Type-85II makes more sense as they can in service for more time than the old tanks regardless of whatever upgrades they may get. Can you mention what types of up-gradation will the Type 85-II get to bring it to AZ standard as on paper they look quite similar..

No detail is reveled officially so we can only make a guess related to Optronics, BMS FCS ets ....

 

[alimobin memon]

Type 85 are underestimated tanks IMHO but they are still good against any tanks.

I think its better to convert remaining T-59/69 for heavy APC/AFV roles same as VN-11 or BMP-55, currently as we have seen Type-85II are undergoing modernization upto Al Zarar standards which mean after the modernization of all of Type-85II our fleet of AZ tanks will be around ~800-1000

Conversion of Type-59/69 into APC/AFV might the cheapest option available to us

Terminator style conversion is possible

 

[Sheraz Patriot]

Comparing the fire power indian army has thousands of ifvs and we do not have ifvs to support our infantry. Talha or m113 is only an apc and cannot be considered as ifvs after installing an mg3 on it. This one serious shortage never looked at.
Thanks

 

[Gryphon]

i meant 12.7mm compared to 25mm or 30mm on an AFV.

Cannon can fire HE fragmentation as well as armour piercing tungsten rounds. That is much more firepower than a 12.7mm.

The talha/M-113 can be modified in different ways. Maaz with Green Arrow and 12.7mm.

View attachment 439335

As per my understanding, ATGM mounted M113 (or derivatives) are meant to target enemy tanks while employing some camouflage methods (bushes or natural obstacles). The pic I posted is of an in service Maaz, not an illustration.

The three main aspects of an AFV. Fire power, mobility and protection. In this case, transport also which both IFV and APC are capable of.

IFV's are usually less armoured than an MBT, except a few like IDF APC/IFV Namer. This makes them vulnerable in direct combat. This is where the difference between direct confrontation and just a battle taxi role comes into play. The weight of an AFV increases as more armor, weapons, ammo, electronic gadgets are put onto it for protection and modernisation. The T-55 MBT started at around 35-56 Ton. The modernised variants are over 40 T. Namer IFV is 60 T. Acharzit APC is based on T-55 and is 44T.
This gives an idea that PA is confident bringing in 36+ Ton AFV like T-59, T-69 etc into direct combat. The other MBt's are 40+ T.

VN-17 is based on light tank VT-5. This light tank has been made out of necessity to operate in regions where heavier MBT's find difficult to operate. Still the Chinese brought it up to 33+ T weight category taking it to 36 T with armor upgrade package which makes it equal to T-59 in weight. VN-17 is 30 T in weight with 1000 HP engine so adding more weight (armor) and bringing it upto 35-36 T should not affect its mobility to a great extent.

VN-17 has a reactive armor, what kind? ERA or NERA. It shouldnt be ERA which is harmful to infantry.

Coming to fire power, VN-17's ATGM capability is good against armored targets and its 35mm auto cannon can be a good AAA weapon to combat UAV's or light helicopters just like AD Bofors guns. Against ground targets it could take out light vehicles and provide fire power at a good range. The 7.62mm can be used to engage infantry.

The major issue still stays.

If the IFV is lost in direct combat, how will the soldiers be transported to keep pace with the advance. Although this can still apply to M-113 also which can be lost in combat to mines and indirect fire but the probability of M-113 survival remains more because it might not be used in direct combat. The Maaz series don't carry troops so losing an ATGM carrier is still a loss but wont affect operational capability to a massive extent.

The cost and price factor will always be there.
Firstly because VN-17 carries lesser troops than M-113 so a VN-17 mechanised battalion would require more vehicles than an M-113 mechanised battalion.
Secondly, the cost price of a VN-17 is more than that of M-113. PA can probably raise 3-4 M-113 battalions instead of 1-2 VN-17 battalions. Conversely, PA can raise another MBT regiment instead of raising 1-2 VN-17 battalions. And this another factor to be considered, at nearly the same cost, PA can modernise more T-59 to AZ standard than inducting new VN-17's. Inducting an MBt will increase PA's offensive capability than inducting an IFV.

Another point is that the need of the hour is an MRAP, not exactly an IFV.

How would you place a mix of APC/IFV in a mechanised brigade or mechanised division considering operational capabilities?

How many tank regiments does PA have??

Considering that PA wants to induct heavier tanks (say Oplot with 1500 hp engine), the M113's will not catch up with Oplot's speed in the desert. I feel a new IFV platform is inevitable. VN-17 is just a suggestion from my side. It's power to weight ratio is good enough.

If you look at Indian RAPIDs, there are 2x tank regiments (100 MBT) + 2x IFV regiments (100 BMP). It is possible that PA will mirror a similar arrangement with independent armoured brigade groups - as the initial MBT order is to be for 100+ tanks. IFV (with 7 troops) packs more firepower than an APC (with 11 troops).

Regarding the loss of transport to infantry, I have the opinion that in any contact with enemy, troops will be lost as well besides armoured assets.

Conversion of Type-59/69 into APC/AFV might the cheapest option available to us

As per MoDP Yearbooks 2008-10, 132 Type 69 tanks, i.e., 3 regiments were fitted with 100mm gun and handed over to FC.

The total number of Type 69 tanks in PA was at least 290. So, nearly half the inventory is replaced.

Type 85 are underestimated tanks IMHO but they are still good against any tanks.

Yes, those are good enough to serve another 10-15 years.

 

[HRK]

Regarding the loss of transport to infantry, I have the opinion that in any contact with enemy, troops will be lost as well besides armoured assets.

its understandable but question is to keep the losses to sustainable level for the duration of war ... specially in the light of cold start doctrine which have the objective to hold the captured Pakistani territory for the period suitable to Indian political objectives

 

[alimobin memon]

Cannon can fire HE fragmentation as well as armour piercing tungsten rounds. That is much more firepower than a 12.7mm.



As per my understanding, ATGM mounted M113 (or derivatives) are meant to target enemy tanks while employing some camouflage methods (bushes or natural obstacles). The pic I posted is of an in service Maaz, not an illustration.



How many tank regiments does PA have??

Considering that PA wants to induct heavier tanks (say Oplot with 1500 hp engine), the M113's will not catch up with Oplot's speed in the desert. I feel a new IFV platform is inevitable. VN-17 is just a suggestion from my side. It's power to weight ratio is good enough.

If you look at Indian RAPIDs, there are 2x tank regiments (100 MBT) + 2x IFV regiments (100 BMP). It is possible that PA will mirror a similar arrangement with independent armoured brigade groups - as the initial MBT order is to be for 100+ tanks. IFV (with 7 troops) packs more firepower than an APC (with 11 troops).

Regarding the loss of transport to infantry, I have the opinion that in any contact with enemy, troops will be lost as well besides armoured assets.



As per MoDP Yearbooks 2008-10, 132 Type 69 tanks, i.e., 3 regiments were fitted with 100mm gun and handed over to FC.

The total number of Type 69 tanks in PA was at least 290. So, nearly half the inventory is replaced.



Yes, those are good enough to serve another 10-15 years.

If updated yes. Better be a good upgrade then alzarrar. Although I have heard Al Zarrar Should now be considered 3rd generation tanks instead of 2nd for their war capabilities.

 

[BetterPakistan]

Heard of Combat Engineers?

I don't think, I know.

There is a difference in speculation and in giving a ballpark figure.

Lets ignore T-55 for you, okay?

62 Armored Regiments is an open source. No new raisings being counted.

Just do a mathematical calculation @ 59 tanks per regiment. They are first line. That is 3658.

Then use the 1100 figure in storage of older variety .. and I did give you a conservative 10% of overall 1st line being reserve for 1st line that of 2nd line for your understanding. Lets ignore the 2nd line here.

They exceed your 4 k ... by a figure of 758 best case scenario for you

And not even counting those on orders.

Ofcourse you can ask your professionals here about my ball park calculation (and ask my background at the time too)

Cheers.

Not good enough.


Niaz presented a good figure up and I myself believe that figure. I couldn't find anywhere that IA have 6000 tanks in total