Pak to start production of high tech Al-Khalid 2 tank

[randomradio]

I am not. I would like to know what these tanks are for? It can't be India because on the conventional battlefield India already has the ability to "mulch" Pak forces simply through overwhelming numbers. The only thing holding India back from teaching Pakistan a lesson is the nuclear shield and the very real danger of India/Pak war going nuclear.

Given this fact this money on "toys" is waste. A criminal waste of resources.

You need a sizable conventional force to keep any hostilities under the nuclear threshold. Any future conventional war will be a short war.

But if you roll back your entire military and keep only nukes, then even minor hostilities could escalate to nuclear levels very quickly and then turn into a long war. So what would have been a short war would turn into a war of annihilation, like WW2, Vietnam etc.

 

[Awan68]

You need a sizable conventional force to keep any hostilities under the nuclear threshold. Any future conventional war will be a short war.

But if you roll back your entire military and keep only nukes, then even minor hostilities could escalate to nuclear levels very quickly and then turn into a long war. So what would have been a short war would turn into a war of annihilation, like WW2, Vietnam etc.

He is a troll, dont bother wasting logic on him.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You need a sizable conventional force to keep any hostilities under the nuclear threshold.

That is subjective. I would say no more than 500 tanks.

Any future conventional war will be a short war.

Agreed. Which is why I have said in other threads Pak does not need a large navy. A small coastel force and few ships is enough to perform maritime security tasks.

What Pakistan needs doing is -

• Have a small "strike force" in the army ~ max 500 tanks. This should provide sufficient nuclear threshold. Too high and it increases the possibility of war as both countries might feel they can accomplish or "play" within the threshold. A more tighter and lower threshold will force governments on both sides to behave themselves and stay within the very tight "red lines". This would reduce room for adventure and war. Whatever threshold Pakistan goes for India will be able to destroy as India simply has far greater population resources by a factor of 6.5 times and can deploy a vastly greater conventional force.
  
• 
  
• Therefore go for a low threshold that does not strain Pakistan's resources that might lead to something similiar as what happened to Soviet Union and implode under the strain.
  
• 
  
• Thus have a lean military with clear and unambiogious declared nuclear use policy as deterance. India must know that as soon as the small Pak Army "strike force" is destroyed Pakistan will place the finger on the trigger. Leaving no doubts in New Delhi what the consequences will be of continued progression in hostilities.
• 
  
• Maintain a robust defence posture layered as follows on a escalating progressive scale. 1 - Conventional strike force. 2 - Tactical nuclear force. 3. Strategic nuclear force.
• 
  
• Understand that with nuclear forces in place there is nominal threat to Pakistan from any exogenous states including India or even USA. Thus focus on nuclear forces making sure they keep a robust and effective nuclear profile and that is conspicious by it's deployment.
• 
  
• Understand that at present the greatest threat to the Pakistani state is from internal schisms and radical groups. Followed by economic collapse that would feed into the schisms and radical groups agenda. Therefore money saved from the reduced "India centric " forces is invested in huge internal security force similar to Turkish Jandarma numbering at least 400,000 that has air, MRAPs, all other specialist equipent to go and secure the internal stability of the country by taking on all radical and anti-state groups head on.

Increase money on primary education nuturing a new generation that can help leverage the massive potential of the CPEC project and trade with China.

 

[randomradio]

That is subjective. I would say no more than 500 tanks.

Agreed. Which is why I have said in other threads Pak does not need a large navy. A small coastel force and few ships is enough to perform maritime security tasks.

What Pakistan needs doing is -

• Have a small "strike force" in the army ~ max 500 tanks. This should provide sufficient nuclear threshold. Too high and it increases the possibility of war as both countries might feel they can accomplish or "play" within the threshold. A more tighter and lower threshold will force governments on both sides to behave themselves and stay within the very tight "red lines". This would reduce room for adventure and war. Whatever threshold Pakistan goes for India will be able to destroy as India simply has far greater population resources by a factor of 6.5 times and can deploy a vastly greater conventional force.
  
• 
  
• Therefore go for a low threshold that does not strain Pakistan's resources that might lead to something similiar as what happened to Soviet Union and implode under the strain.
  
• 
  
• Thus have a lean military with clear and unambiogious declared nuclear use policy as deterance. India must know that as soon as the small Pak Army "strike force" is destroyed Pakistan will place the finger on the trigger. Leaving no doubts in New Delhi what the consequences will be of continued progression in hostilities.
• 
  
• Maintain a robust defence posture layered as follows on a escalating progressive scale. 1 - Conventional strike force. 2 - Tactical nuclear force. 3. Strategic nuclear force.
• 
  
• Understand that with nuclear forces in place there is nominal threat to Pakistan from any exogenous states including India or even USA. Thus focus on nuclear forces making sure they keep a robust and effective nuclear profile and that is conspicious by it's deployment.
• 
  
• Understand that at present the greatest threat to the Pakistani state is from internal schisms and radical groups. Followed by economic collapse that would feed into the schisms and radical groups agenda. Therefore money saved from the reduced "India centric " forces is invested in huge internal security force similar to Turkish Jandarma numbering at least 400,000 that has air, MRAPs, all other specialist equipent to go and secure the internal stability of the country by taking on all radical and anti-state groups head on.

Increase money on primary education nuturing a new generation that can help leverage the massive potential of the CPEC project and trade with China.

You need at least a 1:3 ratio in numbers of equivalent capability compared to Indian tanks if you want to stop the initial thrust. Or else many of the IBGs will be holding more territory than expected before the main invasion begins.

As for low threshold, the lower the threshold, the greater is the pressure on Pakistan from the international community to mend its ways.

There's also another drawback. If you lower the threshold, then so will India. Then Pakistan will be forced to contend with an Indian first strike instead of preparing for a counterforce attack. And this may be as expensive and more risky than just having a larger conventional force. Basically, no matter how low your threshold is, you can predict a counterforce strike, but you can't predict a first strike.

Your internal security cannot be solved with money.

 

[Awan68]

Any pictures of AlKhalid-1 since its been in production since 2016....

 

[Gryphon]

Any pictures of AlKhalid-1 since its been in production since 2016....

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

1.4 Tanks per year will be the catch

 

[HRK]

I am not. I would like to know what these tanks are for? It can't be India because on the conventional battlefield India already has the ability to "mulch" Pak forces simply through overwhelming numbers. The only thing holding India back from teaching Pakistan a lesson is the nuclear shield and the very real danger of India/Pak war going nuclear.

Given this fact this money on "toys" is waste. A criminal waste of resources.

plz read about STABILITY-INSTABILITY theory to understand this point ...

In past I shared a paper written by Vipin Narang you can start from here, this paper specifically address the India-Pakistan scenario....
-------=-=-=---------------=-=-=----------------------=-=-=-------------=-=-=------------
@Kaptaan , @Mrc don't get engage in online quarrel ...

Mrc. your initial reply was not suitable .... plz keep in mind all tittle holders have their experiences in their related fields, defence related matters are not the only criteria for TT tag (people from defence forces/industry are given Professional tag). Kaaptan is knowledgeable in IVC ....

 

[war&peace]

I am not. I would like to know what these tanks are for? It can't be India because on the conventional battlefield India already has the ability to "mulch" Pak forces simply through overwhelming numbers. The only thing holding India back from teaching Pakistan a lesson is the nuclear shield and the very real danger of India/Pak war going nuclear.

Given this fact this money on "toys" is waste. A criminal waste of resources.

I enjoy your posts about the geography and history but apparently, with your degree in law, military knowledge is not your forte not even your cup of tea, I may put a bit bluntly and honestly, otherwise your analysis would have been much better...India was far from mulching Pakistan in 1965 or even in 71 despite enjoying similar or even better ratio and without Pakistan possessing a nuclear weapon. So it is not simply the number's game.

 

[Mrc]

plz read about STABILITY-INSTABILITY theory to understand this point ...

In past I shared a paper written by Vipin Narang you can start from here, this paper specifically address the India-Pakistan scenario....
-------=-=-=---------------=-=-=----------------------=-=-=-------------=-=-=------------
@Kaptaan , @Mrc don't get engage in online quarrel ...

Mrc. your initial reply was not suitable .... plz keep in mind all tittle holders have their experiences in their related fields, defence related matters are not the only criteria for TT tag (people from defence forces/industry are given Professional tag). Kaaptan is knowledgeable in IVC ....

shory (meaning sorry)

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The upside is that the probability of strategic nuclear exchange should fall as both accept mutual vulnerability at that level, thereby providing high-order stability to the Subcontinent. The downside is that it becomes rational for conventional conflicts to be initiated by one or both sides, which can escalate all the way to limited nuclear use as a war-termination strategy. The most likely scenario for this would be Pakistani limited nuclear use against an Indian armored offensive operating on Pakistani soil in retaliation to some real or perceived provocation, which would terminate the conflict at that level, with either a tit-for-tat limited nuclear response or simply war termination since a full Indian strategic retaliatory response ought to be deterred by Pakistan’s survivable second-strike capabilities. Therefore, as argued earlier, the achievement of strategic stability at the nuclear level ought to immunize South Asia’s cities from nuclear use, but at the price of an increased risk of serious conventional conflict and limited nuclear use on military targets.

Thank you HRK. THe link you provided merely reinforced my "lay observation" and you are correct. I have limited knowledge about military affairs.

But the article you posted does place "meat" on my thoughts. In summary it says India/Pak now have strategic stability. However at the lower level there is instability and possibility of limited war. For instance India might venture to go for a armoured attack to "teach Pakistan" a lesson. However the article you posted makes it clear that Pakistan would then use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the Indian armoured attack. The conflict would then come to end as India would not want to turn this into a all out nuclear war. The article states clearly that tactical nuclear forces would be war terminating as they would destroy any armoured attack.

terminate the conflict at that level, with either a tit-for-tat limited nuclear response or simply war termination

Thus my point in the post that @Mrc took issue with. Pak needs to reduce and consolidate it's conventional forces and focus more on strategic/tactical nuclear forces which are the real determinants of stabiltity from external threats. Then resources so spared are invested in endogenous threats which are real and dangerous to the state.

I enjoy your posts about the geography and history but apparently, with your degree in law, military knowledge is not your forte not even your cup of tea, I may put a bit bluntly and honestly, otherwise your analysis would have been much better...India was far from mulching Pakistan in 1965 or even in 71 despite enjoying similar or even better ratio and without Pakistan possessing a nuclear weapon. So it is not simply the number's game.

The disparity between India/Pak in conventional forces has increased in last few decades. It was not such a issue in 1960s or even 1970s. We are all aware of the massive US defence aid to Pakistan. You know the huge numbers of Sabres, Starfighters, Pattons, M113 APC which are still in service. These could only be afforded because of generous US aid which dried up toward end of 1960s.

Today without nuclear forces Pakistan would e extremely exposed to a Indian attack but such a possibility is blunted. India canm buy as many T-90s, or even thousand Armata tanks given India has larger resources but all that would be turned into radioctive metal scrap in the Thar Desert by a strike of nuclear tipped Nasr missiles. That was my point. And that is what keeps India at bay despite all the posturing. Indians as a people are not a aggressive race. Their history shows it. They only attack when they enjoy such advantages as to make success a certainty. In absence of that their default position is keeping a defensive and timid posture.

 

[BetterPakistan]

No order for engines was placed, MoU was signed which includes purchase of 200 engines in the future (probably the 6TD-3 for AK-2).

That was a deal worth $600 million for 200 engines along with transfer of technology and overhaul of Pakistan army armour. Those 200 engines are for Al Khalid 1 not 2

 

[HRK]

shory (meaning sorry)

oh come no need to we all have bad days some time ....

 

[war&peace]

You know the huge numbers of Sabres, Starfighters, Pattons, M113 APC which are still in service

Nice joke buddy ... please wake up it is end of 2017

Today without nuclear forces Pakistan would e extremely exposed to a Indian attack but such a possibility is blunted. India canm buy as many T-90s, or even thousand Armata tanks given India has larger resources but all that would be turned into radioctive metal scrap in the Thar Desert by a strike of nuclear tipped Nasr missiles. That was my point. And that is what keeps India at bay despite all the posturing. Indians as a people are not a aggressive race. Their history shows it. They only attack when they enjoy such advantages as to make success a certainty. In absence of that their default position is keeping a defensive and timid posture.

I agree to this part but I must add a few things that only nuclear capability is not sufficient. Pakistan has to have sufficient conventional punch to not only freeze the enemy in its tracks but also launch an offence and nuclear threshold should be higher..the better conventional arsenal we have, the higher will be the nuclear threshold.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Nice joke buddy ... please wake up it is end of 2017

• 
  Pakistan: 1,600 M113 APCs in Service of the Pakistan Army.[73]

Ps. Talha is based on on the M113.


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/complete-list-of-mraps-apcs-ifvs-used-by-pakistan-military.352559/