I think that LATs should be requipped with 4×4 trucks with atgms/MGs instead of APCs. What's the difference between LATs and HATs except for the atgm the use. If that is not possible then the designation of LAT should be dissolved as it is the carrier and not the atgm that is the difference(like heavy and light cavalry, historically). Lats have a different operational role then HATs. With APCs LATs will provide a greater target at a greater range for the enemy's tank/helis will also attract artillery. Larger detection range and heavier weight means that they will not be able to perform the role they are usually expected to perform i.e screening,hit and run,shoot and scoot and most importantly will not be able to set up ambushes as quickly as they will be if equipped with 4x4s. If they require much time to build/find firing positions then the whole concept of LATs is flawed. If we see 65/71 we see that the sudden fast paced strikes of LATs have often been instrumental in protecting strategically/tactically important position/areas because of thy require less time e.g 13FF at Sialkot (if I'm not wrong). Also our APCs do not provide much protection except for artillery shrapnels and small arms fire, moreover, unlike MIBs, APCs of LATs would have to get in direct contact with enemy forces.
For HATs I propose that we move to AFT-10 which will be true "heavy" AT.
@PanzerKiel @Signalian
@JPMM @Inception-06
@HRK
View attachment 717029