No military in the world can match up to Pakistan Army: Gen Raheel

[Maj.Osmani]

Thx for reply, the point is are this AA guns enough mobile to drive behind or near the mechanized forces and are the AA Guns trained to be deployed very quickly, I have seen such scenes in this Video here: The AA Gun-Truck were drive behind the Tanks and were deployed during air attack !

check that:


View attachment 307388

Yes thats what i said can be mobile / towed but are not self propelled.

There are some examples Russian put them on the chasis of tanks. Lot of option avalible even ISIS mounted some AA guns on trucks and use them as anti material roles.

 

[Inception-06]

I am not aware of that what exactly Tag works. Anyways thanks.


Chinese may be using them because they upgrded it. technically most of the AA guns can be mobile but 37 mm have no self propelled engine but still yes they can be mobile.

Are this AA guns only deployed static or will they drive with the mechanized troops and deployed during hostile situation ?
Any AA gun can be deployed static and in hostile situation (Pakistan point of view) yes we deployed in strategic areas according to situation. Since they have wheel yes according to situation of threat prospective can be deployed with mechanized troops. But their main purpose is to deploy quickly on static basis on important locations.

By the way I think today it might be better to install the 37mm AA Guns on the Trucks itself like the militias in Syria and Iraq are doing it, it gives the AA-gun Team a higher mobility and saves deployment time, which mean fast reaction time against enemy air threat or any threat:

Yes thats what i said can be mobile / towed but are not self propelled.

There are some examples Russian put them on the chasis of tanks. Lot of option avalible even ISIS mounted some AA guns on trucks and use them as anti material roles.

You are totally right, but with our low budge it might be more realistic to install the antic 37mm guns on Trucks than Tanks. Thx for the discussion, I have enjoyed it.

regards !

 

[Syed_Adeel]

Bro,

Pakistani military used a large number of assets at its disposal to kill/rout militants including Tanks, Armored Vehicles, Artillery, Helicopter Gunships, Drones and Jet Fighters. This was never an easy fight.

There were some setbacks initially but Pakistani military learned from its experiences. There were reversals even during Operation Zarb-e-Azab. However, Pakistani troops fought bravely and did well.

Dear still if you compare the technology and firepower US used then its relatively much lesser. thats the whole point. and after all regardless of the comparison. Pakistan cleared its ares while US failed to do so.

Every week, every month, some fresh egg comes on board and immediately starts teaching everybody else basic strategy and basic analysis of former military campaigns, and the best part is that we are supposed to sit and listen to these idiots patiently. Don't they stop to think that there are very experienced people from Pakistan who have gone through military situations themselves and have engaged in discussions on these same subjects? Don't they ever feel the need to look up old discussions on the subject?

Siachen was not captured by bluff, but by pre-emptive action: the Indian Army got to the commanding heights first. Where was the bluff?

In Kargil, there were no insurgents, it was, by the Pakistan Army's own admission (months after the events) the Northern Light Infantry; the gallant among them were awarded the highest military honours of Pakistan, on one occasion on the report of the Indian Army regarding the gallantry (at one time, years ago, I had done a count: the Indian Army informed the Pakistan Army around a dozen times about the gallantry of a soldier, sailor or airman, and the act of gallantry was rewarded; I am not aware that this was ever reciprocated).

The soldiers in their bunkers were 'lightly' armed (what they should have put in their bunkers according to this latest military expert is not very clear) by their own choice; they were part of a team which included heavy artillery which shelled the key connecting road between Srinagar and Leh. Hardly lightly armed.

The posts were captured one by one, by infantry action. The Bofors howitzers played an interdicting role; this word can be found easily in any dictionary. The air force was used but was effective only after the supply of guided (smart) bombs, the gunships were not useful and were stood down.

Next time, please do some reading before rushing to post.



I did.

It's called reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.

Excuse me, first of all being new in this forum doesnt mean that i am a new to these issues. calling some idiot show your mental attitude towards listening to other.
The whole point made about the kargil wa that even the PA NLI was involved the firepower used was of no match as PAF and artillery was not at the back. while IA bofors were widely used and at the end they called IAF as they were unable to recover the area. for your "superior" knowledge the highest peak is still under PA control and it was India who asked USA to stop the war and its was the fault of our politicians who surrendered in front of USA. it wasnt IA'a superior forces show captured the area. make your records correct before giving your extra ordinary Analytical reviews.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I disagree.

1. Finland resisted a major invasion effort of USSR for 6 months during the era of WW2. The performance of Finland convinced Hitler that USSR had a poor military force and would be easily tackled. You know what happened afterwards.

2. Britain was the only European nation to give Germans a second-thought about invading its mainland by defeating it in the air-to-air engagements.

3. Israel defeated a coalition of six Arab nations during 1967 war in a span of 6 days. Israel faced similar odds in 1973 as well.

I am sure that there would be more examples, if I include ancient history.


Iraq was a worthy foe during 1991 with the 4th largest military force in the world (and the strongest in the Middle East) back then.

Completely disagree. Finland part I partially agree with. Britain had to face Germany. Germany is not 8 times bigger than the uk and they were both pretty much comparable in terms of size, economy, science and technology. Don't buy into zionist/western propaganda bs. Israel has/had abundant access to all the world's most advanced weapons systems for free and had the full backing, support and logistical support of the west. If they didn't they would have lost to the Arabs many times over who have had some of the world's worst armies since the 20th century. israeli military is only good for murdering innocent Palestinian babies and children. Don't know if you consider that a military achievement or not. I'm yet to see an example of any nation in the history of mankind that has had to face virtually impossible military odds that Pakistan does every second since our creation yet has managed to survive for nearly 70 years. Our nation is a miracle. We can never forget that.

PS in 1991 the Iraqi military was a disaster that got a beating and small invasion from the Iranians in 1988. They were in economic and military meltdown. How on earth could they fight the americans/west when they were virtually defeated by a weak Iran? The american military has NEVER been tested against a competent foe since 1945. They're only good for murdering innocent starving 3rd worlders. That's a fact and reality no one can deny no matter how much you try to sugar coat it.

 

[Inception-06]

Completely disagree. Finland part I partially agree with. Britain had to face Germany. Germany is not 8 times bigger than the uk and they were both pretty much comparable in terms of size, economy, science and technology. Don't buy into zionist/western propaganda bs. Israel has/had abundant access to all the world's most advanced weapons systems for free and had the full backing, support and logistical support of the west. If they didn't they would have lost to the Arabs many times over who have had some of the world's worst armies since the 20th century. israeli military is only good for murdering innocent Palestinian babies and children. Don't know if you consider that a military achievement or not. I'm yet to see an example of any nation in the history of mankind that has had to face virtually impossible military odds that Pakistan does every second since our creation yet has managed to survive for nearly 70 years. Our nation is a miracle. We can never forget that.

PS in 1991 the Iraqi military was a disaster that got a beating and small invasion from the Iranians in 1988. They were in economic and military meltdown. How on earth could they fight the americans/west when they were virtually defeated by a weak Iran? The american military has NEVER been tested against a competent foe since 1945. They're only good for murdering innocent starving 3rd worlders. That's a fact and reality no one can deny no matter how much you try to sugar coat it.

US lost the Vietnam war, which was only the peak of the chinese Ice cream, when it come to a full war !

 

[LeGenD]

Calling jets not necessary AA and SAMs enough, we know the flying path, from where they took off and the target area you just need 2 to three batteries of AA and SAMs and shoot down orders from the high command. I myself served in Air defense and i know how it works.

Good to have a conversation with a professional. You should be identified as a professional in this forum. Respect where due.

Now coming towards the point; YES, you can shoot down a drone through AA guns and SAM systems. However, success would depend upon what kind of drone you are facing.

For example, MQ-9 Reaper can operate at altitudes beyond the reach of AA guns and is armed with missiles with range of up to 8 km. The best method to intercept it is through Jet Fighters and/or long-range SAM systems.

Spada 2000 and HQ-7 (FM-90) SAM systems can shoot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone, if fielded near the Afghan border. However, I believe that these SAM systems are used for the defense of strategic areas and/or military bases of Pakistan. Correct me, if I am wrong about this.

The other options are:-

1. Crotale SAM = ~30,000 feet altitude ceiling (maximum)
2. S-60 57mm = ~20000 feet altitude ceiling or range (with radar-based guidance)
3. Anza MK-3 = ~16000 feet altitude ceiling or range
4. Oerlikon GDF = ~13000 feet altitude ceiling or range

The aforementioned 4 cannot touch an MQ-9 Reaper drone.

 

[Maj.Osmani]

Good to have a conversation with a professional. You should be identified as a professional in this forum. Respect where due.

Now coming towards the point; YES, you can shoot down a drone through AA guns and SAM systems. However, success would depend upon what kind of drone you are facing.

For example, MQ-9 Reaper can operate at altitudes beyond the reach of AA guns and is armed with missiles with range of up to 8 km. The best method to intercept it is through Jet Fighters and/or long-range SAM systems.

Spada 2000 and HQ-7 (FM-90) SAM systems can shoot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone, if fielded near the Afghan border. However, I believe that these SAM systems are used for the defense of strategic areas and/or military bases of Pakistan. Correct me, if I am wrong about this.

The other options are:-

1. Crotale SAM = ~30,000 feet altitude ceiling (maximum)
2. S-60 57mm = ~20000 feet altitude ceiling or range (with radar-based guidance)
3. Anza MK-3 = ~16000 feet altitude ceiling or range
4. Oerlikon GDF = ~13000 feet altitude ceiling or range

The aforementioned 4 cannot touch an MQ-9 Reaper drone.

Only MQ-9 shoot down with SAM costlier but if we take down one or two bet me they will never cross the border but again it will not serve any good for our national interests.

What consequences we can face if not military.

Economic sanctions

Embargo on arms export

Embargo on spare parts

Lost west support in the name of our anti terrorist efforts

They may bring in public our partial or fully mutually understanding of past attacks

In short we can but on wider national interests we can’t.
I am glad to have discussion with you.
Regards

 

[Penguin]

With 150000+ soldier initially which reduced earlier ?

I don't think your perception is correct.

 

[Penguin]

Yes thats what i said can be mobile / towed but are not self propelled.

There are some examples Russian put them on the chasis of tanks. Lot of option avalible even ISIS mounted some AA guns on trucks and use them as anti material roles.

Finnish ItPsv 90 SPAAG, constructed from Polish T-55AM tank hull with British Marksman Turret: only in service with Finland

Ural-4320 gun truck carrying a 57mm AZP S-60 AA gun

Renault Kerax 330 carrying a 57mm AZP S-60 AA gun

Hyundai Migthy light truck with 37mm

Zu-23-2 on light truck

Toyota Land Cruiser technical w/ ZU-23-2

Source https://milinme.wordpress.com/category/syria/

 

[Penguin]

Marksman trialled on M60

Marksman trialled on Vickers mk 3 a.k.a. Vijayanta

Marksman trialled on Chieftain

Marksman being installed on Challenger

Marksman on Leopard 1

Marksman on Leopard 2
(When they acquired Leo2's, the Fins transferred their Marksman turrets from T-55 [rear] to Leo 2 [front])

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman_anti-aircraft_system

 

[.]

I don't think we have to shoot down drones,Because what follows is to be kept in mind as pointed out by others.
It doesn't even matter if you killed a Taliban Negotiator or a taliban bomb squad,We better F*** every last one of em.We forgot the days when as Just civilians my brother used to go around the whole GHQ cycling in the 90s Just for having fun with his friends,we need to get those days back that will only come if we forget a afghanistan ,The freaking taliban.
I feel very ashamed today when sometimes on TV people talk about Afghanistan like its some sort of very functional democracy with peace stability and good people,like Afghanistan has something to be talked about,Afghanis are Shyt ,They live in Pakistan with Mansions and daughters wearing Jeans forget paying taxes,they have even lost their cultural values ,I have seen that with my own eyes,We Pakistanis took these A'holes and welcomed them and the number of refugees we took remains the biggest till date 7 million if I am not mistaken.We get what for that? on the Internet these A'holes hate Pakistan and say very stupid stuff they blame Pakistan for Afghanistani Terrorism.
We need to screw every last one of these terrorist bastards ,by drone or by PA ,and need a big berlin wall on our western front.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

What about US Armed Forces?
Forget about others .Saddam boasted the same thing and in fact he was right .His Army was really good.But all it takes a few sorties of B series bombers .
You can be strong only if you have technology .Genghis khan ruled most of the world because of new tech at that time.

Saddam didn't have the capability to air burst a nuke ontop of the CVGN, or reach diego garcia, or intercept B2s.

 

[LeGenD]

Finland part I partially agree with.

Partially?

Disparity between the military capability of USSR and Finland was much greater than disparity between the military capability of Pakistan and India at any time in history.

Britain had to face Germany. Germany is not 8 times bigger than the uk and they were both pretty much comparable in terms of size, economy, science and technology. Don't buy into zionist/western propaganda bs.

Geography does not makes much difference; population size and nationalism are important factors.

At the onset of WW2, German population crossed 8 crore mark and British population approached 5 crore mark. However, Germany was able to field relatively larger and more competent military force (i.e. The Wehrmacht) during WW2. The British had advantage in the naval front but German U-Boats and Bismarck warship gave them migraines. Moreover, the Germans conquered France and drove the British army out of European mainland.

For the time being, the Germans seemed unstoppable. Then Battle of Britain occurred.

The British escaped the fate of France due to following reasons:

1. Geography
2. German armed forces were fighting a war on multiple fronts
3. American support (Lend-Lease program: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease)
4. Battle of Britain

One should not discredit the courage shown by British during Battle of Britain. The outcome of this single battle convinced Hitler to postpone invasion of UK for indefinite period. This was the first time the Germans had tasted defeat in a battle during WW2. Credit where due.

Israel has/had abundant access to all the world's most advanced weapons systems for free and had the full backing, support and logistical support of the west. If they didn't they would have lost to the Arabs many times over who have had some of the world's worst armies since the 20th century.

No matter how much aid you receive, you win a war through better tactics and planning in the end.

Israel gained the upper-hand over its enemies in 1967 through a brilliantly executed (surprise) preemptive strike. A coalition of Arabs formed and was making preparations for invading Israel from several fronts. Israel decided to strike first; the Israeli Airforce struck Egypt first and expanded its operations to other members of the coalition such as Jordan, Syria and Iraq, destroying much of the air-power of the coalition in a single day on the ground. You can learn more from here: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/six-day-war-ends

In the nutshell, Arab states were not lacking in firepower as a coalition. Difference is that Israel struck first and dictated the terms of engagement onward. The preemptive strike was the key to success.

israeli military is only good for murdering innocent Palestinian babies and children. Don't know if you consider that a military achievement or not.

I am not sure if you are being serious.

I'm yet to see an example of any nation in the history of mankind that has had to face virtually impossible military odds that Pakistan does every second since our creation yet has managed to survive for nearly 70 years. Our nation is a miracle. We can never forget that.

I am not sure what kind of impossible odds we faced?

Did we face a force of The Wehrmacht 3 million strong (150 divisions) with unparalleled firepower like the USSR during WW2 (Operation Barbarossa)?

Did we face the largest maritime invasion effort in history from the mighty Americans (D-Day)?

Bro, it is not wise to make big claims without studying history. We are lucky in the sense that we never had to face a threat like The Wehrmacht or D-Day.

Indians did outnumber us in various battles but they seldom had the technological superiority or firepower to achieve a breakthrough in a battle.

PS in 1991 the Iraqi military was a disaster that got a beating and small invasion from the Iranians in 1988. They were in economic and military meltdown. How on earth could they fight the americans/west when they were virtually defeated by a weak Iran? The american military has NEVER been tested against a competent foe since 1945. They're only good for murdering innocent starving 3rd worlders. That's a fact and reality no one can deny no matter how much you try to sugar coat it.

Iraqi military strength in 1980:-

Troops = 180,000
Tanks = 2700
Aircraft = 332
Helicopters = 40
Artillery = 2300

Iraqi military strength in 1990:-

Troops = 900,000+
Tanks = 6700
Aircraft = 750
Helicopters = 490
Artillery = 4000+

Iraq was much stronger and battle-hardened at the time of Persian Gulf War 1991. Major factor was significant amount of aid that Iraq received from the International Community during the era of Iran-Iraq war.

I wouldn't go as far as to claim that Iraq wasn't a competent foe during 1990s. US have fought wars of much greater scale and scope (and against greater foes) then Pakistan ever have.

 

[SrNair]

Saddam didn't have the capability to air burst a nuke ontop of the CVGN, or reach diego garcia, or intercept B2s.

And Pakistan has all this equipments ,even to intercept B2s ?Right?
Ok good luck with that

 

[Joe Shearer]

What we needed was to stand on our own feet. end of the story.

Oh, I almost forgot, I tend to avoid self-righteous people like you.
And by looking at your rubbish posts on a week-day (Friday) one can easily guess how serious you are on the week days.
And frankly, fatty, I don't care what an old fart like you think.

At the end of the day, all you did was tell the whole world that you are feeling jumpy.

Dear still if you compare the technology and firepower US used then its relatively much lesser. thats the whole point. and after all regardless of the comparison. Pakistan cleared its ares while US failed to do so.





Excuse me, first of all being new in this forum doesnt mean that i am a new to these issues. calling some idiot show your mental attitude towards listening to other.
The whole point made about the kargil wa that even the PA NLI was involved the firepower used was of no match as PAF and artillery was not at the back. while IA bofors were widely used and at the end they called IAF as they were unable to recover the area. for your "superior" knowledge the highest peak is still under PA control and it was India who asked USA to stop the war and its was the fault of our politicians who surrendered in front of USA. it wasnt IA'a superior forces show captured the area. make your records correct before giving your extra ordinary Analytical reviews.

My mental attitude towards listening to others depends entirely on the quality of what those others have to say. You have only yourself to thank.

In case you didn't know, the PA artillery was extensively used against the communications network on the Indian side. The PAF couldn't be used, not wasn't used, because they were short of spares and had never been informed about the impending operation. Read Kaisar Tufail.

India never approached the US, so how you come to the conclusion that India asked the US to intervene is a mystery. You can read the Americans on the subject, and find out for yourself what a climbdown the political leadership made in front of the American president, when they found that their military was facing a major defeat.