Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The modern Pakistani military

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The modern Pakistani military
    Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 20:10
Well, IMO modern infantry AT weapons have in turn made tanks obsolete in the same way as machine guns vs cavalry, we just need (and hopefully won't get) another WW1 type scenario to prove it.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 20:48
Originally posted by Zagros

Well, IMO modern infantry AT weapons have in turn made tanks obsolete in the same way as machine guns vs cavalry, we just need (and hopefully won't get) another WW1 type scenario to prove it.
 
To quote a poster from another forum... "Lots of things can kill an infantrymen, yet they are not becoming obsolete".   The same is true with tanks.   Tank armour, hitting power and speed has kept up with mdoern ATGMS
 
Pikeshot,  Yes air supereority is the best tank killer, but Pakistan won't have air supereority over India.  Thats why Pakistan needs heavy tanks
 
Nobody has stopped a well trained, modern heavy armoured Brigade operating with air parity with only anti tank weapons and air support.   (When I say a Brigade, I mean a complete Armoured Brigade backed up by proportional modern artillery, MRLS systems, air support and air defense etc)
 
Once a Complete Armoured Brigade starts rolling in tank friendly terrain, the opponent had better have.....
    - Total Air Dominance  or
    - An equally well trained, equipped and supported heavy tank force or
    - The English ChannelWink
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 19-Feb-2007 at 20:52
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 23:53
Originally posted by aghart

Why are Pakistan and other developing countries wasting their valuable assets producing their own major Weapons Systems like MBT's.  There is no way they will be able to export enough to make money out of it.  They would be able to purchase superior western or Russian vehicles at a much lower price.
 
As usual I suspect it is down to "pride". Look at us we are one of the "big boys" we can build our own tanks!.  Fine except I suspect the millions of Pakistani's living in poverty without the basic needs that we in the west take for granted are not exactly smiling as they go to bed at night knowing that they can have pride in their tank production facilities.
 
When I was a Tank Commander the UK had a tank fleet of over 600. Now it has about 300 Challanger II vehicles. I have no doubt that the next MBT for the UK will be joint effort with probably Germany and possibly Belgian, Dutch and maybe Spanish involvement. It is simply not financially viable to produce MBT's in small numbers simply for your own armed forces.
 
France of course will be an exception, like Pakistan and other countries, "pride" will overcome commonsense and financial logic.
 
1) Well we may not be Europe, but we ain't Africa either. We can afford it.
 
2) Unlike you in the UK we have the liklyhood of actually fighting a very large war on our borders. Now the border (sans the LOC in kashmir) runs for something like 2000 KMs across terrain as varied as rolling plains, desert, marshland and coastal areas. To defend it we have about 22 divs and a dozen idp brigades. Its not like we are playing for a Red army size force.
 
3) Finiacially viable or not dependeance on foreign resouces is VERY dangerous as we found out the hard way back in 1965 when supplies were cut off during the war. Sure the AK may not a Modern King Tiger, but at least the commanders know that come war, they would easily be able to get spares and replacements.
 
 
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 04:42
Originally posted by aghart

Why are Pakistan and other developing countries wasting their valuable assets producing their own major Weapons Systems like MBT's.  There is no way they will be able to export enough to make money out of it.  They would be able to purchase superior western or Russian vehicles at a much lower price.


Russian maybe, but western? Superior as well as cheaper? I would want to see figures and specs before I believe that.

Originally posted by aghart


As usual I suspect it is down to "pride". Look at us we are one of the "big boys" we can build our own tanks!.  Fine except I suspect the millions of Pakistani's living in poverty without the basic needs that we in the west take for granted are not exactly smiling as they go to bed at night knowing that they can have pride in their tank production facilities.


It may not be pride, it may be pride and economics as well as common sense. Look at it this way. Lets say a similar tank would cost $400,000 on the international arms market. Lets assume that pakistan makes it for around $500,000 just for the sake of argument. Now if the paki govt purchases a tank for $400,000 then all $400,000 of that money(which probably came from profits on cotton products produced by workaholic laborors in farms and factories) will go into the bank account of a foreign arms company. It will go STRAIGHT there.

If the paki govt builds the tank for $500,000[judged by an accountant] then that $500,000 is going to go to a paki arms factory. For each tank I would say about $100,000 possibly might go into the pockets of mechanics, engineers and scientists as well as other employees. $100,000 may go towards financing all the real estate and construction that keeps the factory where it is, functioning. $200,000 would go to subcontracters that make the armor plates, turret bore, wheel chain whatever thingies. $100,000 might go into the pockets of the electronics subcontractor that makes the navigation and GPS system. Now each one of the sub contracters will also farm out some work to others.

So the choice is "save" paki cotton pickers $100,000 in cash and at the same time throw away $400,000 worth of high tech, high paying jobs overseas. Or cost paki cotton pickers an extra $100,000 or 25% more and at the same time create high tech, well paying jobs in a country plagued with poverty.

Now, pakistan is a low income country...the creation of a few thousand high tech high income jobs is a bonus. Another thing to consider is the tank probably costs $300,000 to build because people work dirt cheap in pakistan compared to russia, france or germany. So even if its more expensive it makes sense to manufacture locally--just in terms of economics. In reality its probably cheaper to make it thanks to cheap labor--yes even engineer and scientist labor. So then it would actually be completely insane for the paki govt to consider NOT constructing the tank locally.


Originally posted by aghart


When I was a Tank Commander the UK had a tank fleet of over 600. Now it has about 300 Challanger II vehicles. I have no doubt that the next MBT for the UK will be joint effort with probably Germany and possibly Belgian, Dutch and maybe Spanish involvement. It is simply not financially viable to produce MBT's in small numbers simply for your own armed forces.


Well isnt the pakistani MBT a Sino-Pak project? I believe it was built upon a chinese model if I am not mistaken...so its not built from scratch and the actual costs might be quite reasonable considering the chinese assistance. China probably benefits from feedback by paki engineers..its possible too I don't know how the relationship works but this tank could be something like the Joint F-7 Sino-Pak fighter jet project, who knows..

Also the UK is a high income country, there are already lots of high tech and high paying jobs in the economy so the trickle down effect of making your own tanks would not be as beneficial to the UK economy as it would to a third world country. What makes sense for a rich country does not make sense for a poor country.


Originally posted by aghart


France of course will be an exception, like Pakistan and other countries, "pride" will overcome commonsense and financial logic.


France has its own aircraft companies too and makes quite a bit of money exporting some I believe. They also made money exporting a few subs as well as the technology to manufacture subs to pakistan. I don't think its only pride motivating the french. Then you have the swedes who insist on making their own airplanes and subs. Do they pay that much more? No. And they stimulate domestic industry also. There is a trickle down effect into the local economy from projects such as these.
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 05:06
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

I would argue that Pakistan is wasting money developing an MBT that could be purchased.  MBTs are primarily offensive weapons systems.  Also, they can only be relied upon as an offensive weapons system if air superiority can be achieved. 


I would think that if you had a reasonable SAM system built up in your company with BVR tracking as well as sophisticated early warning systems then the MBT might not be quite as vulnerable to air attack from planes at least. Missiles, maybe but planes can also be taken out much more easily from the ground than in WW1.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600


Pakistan can only hope to oppose India defensively.  Anti-armor weapons systems and countermeasures are its best hope in any confrontation with India, its only conceivable conventional adversary.  Who else would Pakistan deploy MBTs against?


Iran, or much more likely Afghanistan. It is possible that at some point if Afghanistan becomes even more unstable that certain militias on the pak-afghan border, armed with AK-47s, rockets, SAMs and armored vehicles might attack paki border posts and start to just gradually capture territory mile by square mile. Now these militias would have no planes or choppers to speak of and if they did they would be taken out quite easily by PAF. Besides that its quite expensive and also somewhat risky[as the soviets learned the hard way in the late 80s] to operate entirely through the air in a guerrilla war. In such a scenario the Khalid tank would be invaluable as well as close to invincible. Air cover and air superiority would be guaranteed unless NATO was involved [which it would probably not be in this scenario].

Also, if the US/NATO leaves and tensions get very high between pakistan and afghanistan then the Khalid would be indispensible for a conventional army invasion of Afghanistan towards Kabul or Kandahar. In fact the more I think about it the more it seems that the Khalid is built for Afghan warfare.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 09:56
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Zagros

Well, IMO modern infantry AT weapons have in turn made tanks obsolete in the same way as machine guns vs cavalry, we just need (and hopefully won't get) another WW1 type scenario to prove it.


To quote a posterfrom another forum... "Lots of things can kill an infantrymen, yet they are not becoming obsolete". The same is true with tanks. Tank armour, hitting power and speed has kept up with mdoern ATGMS


Pikeshot, Yes air supereority is the best tank killer, but Pakistan won't have air supereority over India. Thats why Pakistan needs heavy tanks


Nobodyhas stopped a well trained, modern heavy armoured Brigade operating with air parity with only anti tank weapons and air support. (When I say a Brigade, I mean a complete ArmouredBrigade backed up by proportional modern artillery, MRLS systems, air support and air defense etc)


Once a Complete Armoured Brigade starts rolling in tank friendly terrain, the opponent had better have.....

    - Total Air Dominance or

    - An equally well trained, equipped and supportedheavy tankforce or

    - The English ChannelWink







No offence, but that is a null comparison. Infantry perform a completely different role to tanks, whereas cavalry perform a very similar one, (i.e.) to punch a hole through enemy lines.

I am getting tired of usig this example myself, but I feel that it is a very relevant one to this discussion: IDF's Merkava Tanks during the Hez. - IDF war over the summer were the source of the vast majority of Israel's fatal casualties - they were impotent against the modern ATGMs of Hezbollah and could not punch through the Hezbollah lines. Israel had complete air superiority too.

I am also sure, after examining M1 wrecks from Iraq, that RPGs are more effective than we are led to believe.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 10:52
Originally posted by Zagros


I am getting tired of usig this example myself, but I feel that it is a very relevant one to this discussion: IDF's Merkava Tanks during the Hez. - IDF war over the summer were the source of the vast majority of Israel's fatal casualties - they were impotent against the modern ATGMs of Hezbollah and could not punch through the Hezbollah lines. Israel had complete air superiority too.

I am also sure, after examining M1 wrecks from Iraq, that RPGs are more effective than we are led to believe.
Dont rule out the tank yet.  According to Stategy Page, the Israeli losses have been greatly exagerrated.  Also, the tanks suffered a few set backs, they were not impotent.  They were not stopped and after a few days, they were on the Litani River.
 
In regards to M-1s,  for everyone M-1 penetrated by an RPG, there have been many, many more that have withstood multiple RPG hits in quick succession.  And for every tank penetrated and burned out by an RPG, there have been many more M-1 tanks with only minor penetrations that were quickly repaired.  
 
In short....  Anti Tank weapons can and will knockout individual tanks, but they are not going to stop a Brigade.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 11:35
What about a whole brigade in rugged terrain? Iraq is as flat as paper, Lebanon and Iran are not.

I don't think the Israeli losses have been exaggerated at all, in fact Israel has done its best (and quite successfully) to withhold footage and pictures of its combat losses. The losses were intercepted from IDf comms and broadcast then later confirmed by the IDF, so who exaggerated them?

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkwPKPD0Zf0









Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 14:17
Originally posted by Zagros

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkwPKPD0Zf0 
 
Are those tanks Merkava-3?
 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 14:31
No idea, too far away - but they are Israeli tanks non-the-less. (I think maybe an APC too).

I think the first picture in my post *might* be the ones from the footage.
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 14:36
Zagros, that video clip is an interesting find.
 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 17:31

 



Edited by Cryptic - 20-Feb-2007 at 17:51
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 17:50
Here is the article from Strategy Page.   Note:  Hezbollah ATGMS only knocked out six  tanks.   There was no mass defeat of Israeli tanks and the Lebanon campaign does not prove that tanks are obsolete.
 
Even in rough terrain, ATGMS are not going to stop an armoured Brigade.  They can slow it down though. 
 
Originally posted by Cryptic

 

January 15, 2007: During the Summer of 2006, Israeli tanks saw their first heavy combat in 24 years. It was also the first combat for the new Merkava 4. Actually, it was the first heavy combat for the Merkava 2 (introduced in 1983) and Merkava 3 (1989). In 1982, 180 Merkava 1s saw action during the war with Lebanon. Since then, the Merkavas have only been used in peacekeeping and counter-terror operations with the Palestinians. 

The Israelis, as they have in all past wars, collected detailed information on each tank that was hit by enemy fire. Israel won't, for obvious reasons, release all this information. But they have provided some data. There were "several hundred" Merkavas sent into southern Lebanon in 2006. Of those, ten percent were hit by enemy fire (including mines and roadside bombs). Merkava faced modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) for the first time in 2006. Only 18 tanks were seriously damaged, and only a third of those were from several hundred ATGMs fired by Hizbollah. Only two of the 18 heavily damaged tanks were destroyed, and both of those were damaged by roadside bombs. In those two cases, the tank was over the bomb when it was detonated. 

The experience in Lebanon again proves that ATGMs tend to be overrated. Israel first encountered ATGMs during the 1973 war, and quickly adapted. ATGMs were much less effective in the 1982 war, and didn't do all that well in 2006 either. Hizbollah quickly learned that the Merkava frontal armor was impervious to their Russian Kornet ATGMs. Getting side and rear shots was more difficult, and not a lot more successful. While the ATGM warhead often penetrated, the Merkava was designed to take these kind of hits and survive, and survive it did. In addition to fire extinguisher systems, the ammo and fuel are stored in such a way that secondary explosions are rare. Thus the crew normally survives these hits, as does the tank. 

About half the Merkavas were the older models, with the 105mm gun. These were able to fire the APAM (anti-personnel/Anti-Material) rounds and the "shotgun shell" round that carried 5,000 tiny metal darts. The shotgun shell was fitted with a 120mm collar to enable it to be fired from the 120mm gun of Merkava 3 and 4. The APAM was most useful in taking care of Hizbollah fighters fighting from buildings or bunkers. The U.S. has had the same experience in Iraq, where the the M-1 tank uses the M1028 "shotgun shell" for its 120mm gun. The M1028 shell holds 1100 10mm tungsten balls that are propelled out of the gun barrel and begin to disperse. The tungsten projectiles are lethal at up to 700 meters. The official requirement of the XM1028 is to kill or disable more than 50 percent of a 10 man squad with one shot and do the same to a 30 man platoon with two shots.

The U.S. Army is using hundreds of APAM like M830A1 120mm tank gun shells in Iraq each month. This shell  is a multi-purpose HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) weapon, that is designed to destroy tanks, as well as soft targets (trucks, bunkers or buildings.) The fuze on the M830A1 can be set for different types of targets, including tanks. The shell also has a proximity fuze, for use against helicopters. A proximity fuze is a miniature radar set, which will detonate the shell when it comes close to something (like a slow moving helicopter.) The M830A1 is the most commonly used shell in Iraq, where it has proved very effective in urban combat. Most M830A1 rounds have been modified (with a concrete penetrating cap), to become M908 shells. This makes the shell more lethal against bunkers and buildings. American and Israeli tank and ammo designers keep a close watch on each others work.

One of the biggest problems with Israeli tanks in Lebanon had to do with the crews. Because of the heavy use of Israeli troops in counter-terror operations since 2000, most tank crews have spent a lot of time without their tanks, serving a security troops (light infantry). The lack of training in their tanks reduced the effectiveness of the Merkavas in Lebanon. This was not a critical factor, but it annoyed the tank crews quite a lot. 

The tankers were also peeved at the lack of protective devices, like smoke grenades on some tanks, or active defense systems, like the Trophy. This was because so much money was diverted to counter-terror operations. While only six tanks were destroyed in Lebanon, over a hundred tank crewmen were killed or wounded by ATGMs. Hizbollah would often use a missile just to get the vehicle commander, who often was standing up, with his head and chest out of the turret hatch (to get a better look at what's going on.) Tank commanders would like to see some money spent on sensor systems (cameras) that enable the tank commander to get a good look around the tank, from inside the tank. Thus the Lebanon operation was a wakeup call for the Israeli government, to stop shortchanging efforts to improve their tanks.



Edited by Cryptic - 20-Feb-2007 at 17:51
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 18:22
Originally posted by Cryptic

Hezbollah ATGMS only knocked out six tanks. 
 
Are you sure?
 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 19:36
There is a more credible and neutral source claiming otherwise with all sources cited, see my "Hezbollah's defeat of ISrael uncovered" thread. What is the source for only 6 Merkava destroyed?

I am sure I can find pics of more than 6 wrecks from Lebanon.

Edited by Zagros - 20-Feb-2007 at 19:53
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 20:07
can the differnce be the actual defination of knocked out, destroyed and so on?
 
 
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 20:21
'Knocked out' means 'decommissioned' which does not mean 'destroyed' because they're often retrieved & repaired.
 
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 20:35
Originally posted by Leonidas

can the differnce be the actual defination of knocked out, destroyed and so on?
 
 
 
 
quite possible as varying forces, use varying qualifiers, in maintenance recovery efforts and or salvagibility and repairs of armored vehicles based on their version of BDA.
 
Severe damage, for example, to a vehicle's suspension system, for example, is based, in the American Armored force, on much more then a blown track, damaged track or road and return wheels. Repair projections on turrets are more complex and of course would include damage done to varying components within and the necessity of 'pulling the turret' itself which is depot level mn and not done usually in the field, at the point of 'loss-recovery inspection'. At that point, the vehicle  usualy becomes fodder for canabalization
 
interesting discussion and reference Cryptic's last post above, much of my source, which i am not at liberty to discuss, at both, Aberdeen PG, Ft. Knox and Ft. Hood support his remarks. Not entirely, but signficantly enough to substantiate his post imo.....other opinions obviously would disagree. As to actual numbers destroyed; varies with source and interpretation of the same.
 
best
CV
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 21:52
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

...which i am not at liberty to discuss...
 
Ok there, 007. LOL
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 23:48
Well for a tank unless it has suffered a turret popping explosion then in almost all situations in theory it has only been "knocked out" rather than destroyed.
 
However to further CV's excellent post (and I am sure Travis can help us further)
 
Depending on the situation the tank may have been knocked out too close to the enemy for a recovery vehical tp rethrive it. In that case it becomes a total loss.
 
Also in a battle the commanders might perfer for it to be sent to a depot and be cannibalised for spares. However if that is not necessary it could be repaired there or if the damage is even more extensive be sent to a repair facility. The last thing takes about 2 months to do in the US Army.
 
So Cryptics link is being disingenous.  The 50 or so Israeli tanks ehich Hizb knocked out too no further part in the campaign. The fact that most of them were later retrived and repaired 6 months later is sort of irrelevent. If this was a battle against a real army rather than a militia those tanks would have been history.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.