Signalian
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,608
- Reaction score
- 305
- Country
- Location
You must realize something,
1) The offensive armour is always at a disadvantage, simply because it is exposed.
2) Armour does not necessarily need armour to defeat it. Anti-tank rockets / missiles can be sufficient to a very great extent.
My point is replacing war time losses in armour units.
3 squadrons in an armour regiment, 45 tanks. Say in a war the strength reduced to 35 after two days. To bring it to full strength again, quantity is required to replace losses. This armour regiment may be used as offensive , defensive, deception or flanking force, it cannot function fully without compromise unless its full strength.
PA already has smaller contingent of armour forces in its armoured divisions, 5 regiments. 4 of the armour regiments are in 2 brigades, the 5th regt is directly under div control or can be assigned to a brigade. In order to bolster the division strength, an independent armoured brigade group is attached with the armoured division in war time, but the best utilization of an independent armoured brigade group is to use it separately from armoured division ops so the enemy can keep guessing where it might show up on the battlefield.
IA armoured div has 7 regiments atleast in an armoured div plus other independent armoured brigades of the Corps.
To continue the tempo of an armoured thrust, tank replacements of same type become important too, if T-80 losses are replaced by Type-59 II then ammunition of 105mm and spare parts will become logistics burden. The other reserves are M48A5.
Last edited: