What's new

Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army

.
Another question is about the effectiveness of the recon role for light armored vehicles in the age of much cheaper, faster and expendable UAVs?

If recon roles can be delegated to UAVs, the focus can shift to adding "tip of the spear" IFVs and AFVs to do the ugly work.

@SQ8
I think it all depends on the theatre - has the airspace been sanitized enough to allow UAVs to operate or is sending them up an invitation to have them knocked down - or has the enemy concealed itself enough from the air that it is getting difficult to determine strength.. the maybe ground based recon is needed.

So there will always be need for ground based recon as there will be for IFVs and AFVs to lead a recon in force to take out screening elements of an enemy attack force. Or if a screening element has MANPADs then work incombo where the ground element takes out the manpad and then the UAV comes in to start mopping up enemy IFVs while the ground element takes cover to avoid return fire…

Are you sure?

I thought it only had 600-750mm of RHA pen (depending on the source/site)
Supposedly it has been upgraded based on latest Red Arrow specs - but we don’t know for sure
 
.
Disclaimer: that doesn’t mean all stocks of Bakhtar Shikan would be upgraded or similar
 
.
These "buckets" need to be replaced.
APC Vs IFV debate

Another question is about the effectiveness of the recon role for light armored vehicles in the age of much cheaper, faster and expendable UAVs?
Factors being terrain, availability, Enemy AD, firepower of recon asset, etc.

Recon and patrolling is itself a subject
 
.
APC Vs IFV debate
The difference is only the turret there are countless upgrades by Turkey which makes these tin cans into a proper fighting vehicle alongside the usual taxi role but NO ONE HAS ANY INTEREST
 

Attachments

  • 1624672692_m113-a4-zma.jpg
    1624672692_m113-a4-zma.jpg
    132.3 KB · Views: 43
.
The difference is only the turret there are countless upgrades by Turkey which makes these tin cans into a proper fighting vehicle alongside the usual taxi role but NO ONE HAS ANY INTEREST

Add another wheel, put in a bigger engine since IFV needs to keep up with MBTs in case of direct contact and maneuver fire, IFV carries ammo for different calibers so weight gets added, plus needs more protection than APC, etc.
 
.
Add another wheel, put in a bigger engine since IFV needs to keep up with MBTs in case of direct contact and maneuver fire, IFV carries ammo for different calibers so weight gets added, plus needs more protection than APC, etc.
Your right but since we are always complaining about money the picture should suffice.
 
. .
Pakistan should make something similar with old T-59 or T-69 hull and add NLOS atgms on it like HJ-10 and maybe a 30 mm cannon. It would be cheap stop gap solution till proper IFV come into service.
Brother thats a wet dream nothing is changing till 2030 expect the same BS unfortunately.
 
.
Another question is about the effectiveness of the recon role for light armored vehicles in the age of much cheaper, faster and expendable UAVs?

If recon roles can be delegated to UAVs, the focus can shift to adding "tip of the spear" IFVs and AFVs to do the ugly work.

@SQ8
UAV combined with UGV would be good for recon roles. A lightly armed, small and fast UGV supported by UAV.

Brother thats a wet dream nothing is changing till 2030 expect the same BS unfortunately.
India taking lessons from recent wars while idk what Pakistan is doing. We need better atgms and IFV or something similar desperately.
 
. .
Pakistan should make something similar with old T-59 or T-69 hull and add NLOS atgms on it like HJ-10 and maybe a 30 mm cannon. It would be cheap stop gap solution till proper IFV come into service.
If Pakistan can get new MBT like VT-4 can it not get new IFV ? Do the MBTs come for free and are they cheaper than IFV ?

PA's MIB's Infantry gets dismounted for combat, there is one section in every APC and APCs are "parked" much behind MBTs when combat starts. IFV takes part in direct combat, it holds less than a section and then there is lots more. Its a long debate which has been debated many times.
 
.
If Pakistan can get new MBT like VT-4 can it not get new IFV ? Do the MBTs come for free and are they cheaper than IFV ?

PA's MIB's Infantry gets dismounted for combat, there is one section in every APC and APCs are "parked" much behind MBTs when combat starts. IFV takes part in direct combat, it holds less than a section and then there is lots more. Its a long debate which has been debated many times.
Pre-built defensive structures and lines just need a taxi vs needing to break through those lines while keeping troops alive needs a little more?

After all, the Bradley(whose story now had a mockumentary movie) came much later and as such Europe was still with APCs facing off against soviet IFVS - but in general that 79 Brezhnev conflict was all NATO on the defensive for the most part.
 
.
APC Vs IFV debate


Factors being terrain, availability, Enemy AD, firepower of recon asset, etc.

Recon and patrolling is itself a subject

Simple problem here is that M113 will not survive the modern munitions. I won't specify it here, but its survivability is beyond questionable.

My thought is that Pakistan needs to develop a family of tracked vehicles based on mature AK chassis. These new types of vehicles shall slowly and gradually phase out M113s which can be re-fitted to serve support roles and or to equip territorial forces.

Another family of vehicles should be developed based on the Dragoon ASV. Look into the Canadian TAPV. The wheeled 4x4 vehicles to serve various roles including COIN ops etc.

The Chinese DF Mengshi vehicles are also a highly modular option. They already are being produced in almost 10 different configurations.

If Pakistan can get new MBT like VT-4 can it not get new IFV ? Do the MBTs come for free and are they cheaper than IFV ?

PA's MIB's Infantry gets dismounted for combat, there is one section in every APC and APCs are "parked" much behind MBTs when combat starts. IFV takes part in direct combat, it holds less than a section and then there is lots more. Its a long debate which has been debated many times.

I think its not a debate at all. Its been settled during 1973 Arab Israeli War.

Israel has since developed heavily armored APCs typically armed with an HMG (now being equipped with a remote turret). As well as with heavy class of IFVs based on the Merkava IV chassis.

Egypt inducted M2 Bradley vehicles and also BMPs.

The reason i quote 73 War as a use case here is because it bears a number of similarities to our scenario with India.
 
Last edited:
.
If Pakistan can get new MBT like VT-4 can it not get new IFV ? Do the MBTs come for free and are they cheaper than IFV ?
Better questions. Can PA get everything on its wish list? If it goes for something that offers more benefits, at what cost does PA opt for it? Can PA get best of everything simultaneously?
PA's MIB's Infantry gets dismounted for combat, there is one section in every APC and APCs are "parked" much behind MBTs when combat starts. IFV takes part in direct combat, it holds less than a section and then there is lots more. Its a long debate which has been debated many times.
My suggestion was more based on what india came up with. It would complement our existing APC and tanks. While Tanks go in with infantry these could also go in or keep a distance and use their long range NLOS atgm to engage enemy targets clearing the way for our tanks and troops. I said this can be a stop gap till IFV’s become a reality in PA because currently we have many old tanks that we can use and adding good atgms on them would help modernize our atgm inventory in general since Indians already have pretty advanced atgms. Once IFV becomes a reality there would be much need for such role but even if we have money to buy IFV’s and the willingness, it won’t happen right away. Until then these can be an effective and cheap stop gap solution.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom