What's new

Armoured Thrusts, Pivotal Support Elements for Better Results

niaz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 18, 2006
5,076
209
10,973
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Historically speaking uses of cavalry as the “Decisive” factor on the battlefield is relatively modern. Ancient armies consisted primarily of foot soldiers. Chariots did make an appearance quite early but charioteers were really mobile foot soldiers. Early Greek, as well as Macedonian military machine, consisted of foot soldiers (Alexander’s ‘Phalanx’). Roman legion was also an infantry force with cavalry used as ‘auxiliary’.

Asiatic nomads from the Steppes were, however, horse people and fast-moving Hun horse archers of Attila were kings of the battlefield until defeated by mainly the heavy infantry commanded Flavius Aetius at the Battle of Chalons in 451 AD.

It was not until the arrival of the lightly armed but highly mobile mounted Mongol hordes that cavalry ruled the battlefield in the East. In Western Europe however, despite the heroic stories of the Knight (Horse soldier), soldiers fighting on foot were the deciding factor as late as the battle of Agincourt (1415 AD). Historian William Dalrymple in his recent book “ The Anarchy “ describes that 7,000 Sepoys with a few hundred Britishers commanded by Hector Monroe mowed down 40,000 Indian troops including 5,000 veteran Afghan cavalrymen commanded by Shah Alam II, Mir Qasim & Shujjad-doula at Buxar (1764) by ‘volley-fire’ of the infantry achieving a most decisive victory.

Tank based cavalry only came to prominence with the ‘Blitzkrieg’, a German innovative tactic employed ever so successfully during WW2. Germany eventually lost because the Russians and the Western European Allies had also mastered the use of the tank in battle and could exploit their numerical superiority to maximum advantage.

I would, therefore, say that even though cavalry was an important element of the war machine, it was the Infantry that had been the Queen of the battlefield until WW1.

Now my second point. Since the most effective use of the tank on the battlefield is as a 'battering ram' to punch a hole into the enemy’s defense lines and the out-flanking maneuvers using the mobility of the tank force; an ideal tank should have the optimum combination of speed & firepower.

In my view, most modern tanks weighing more than 60 tons are far too heavy thus cumbersome. A lighter tank, (about 28 to 32 tons) but with high acceleration & high speed (say about 50 mph) armed with a heavy puncher but of medium caliber (105 mm) gun is the way forward. There have been sufficient advances in the materials science that ample armor protection is now achievable within the 30-ton weight limit.

Would appreciate comments from military professionals
 
Last edited:

Blacklight

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 9, 2017
2,556
10
8,293
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
- Zoji La pass, is just one route through which you can reach Kargil. It is not the only route. Multiple route exist for the same purpose. This chicken neck effect is at some other location.

- Do visit a map again. Like you refer to Gen Musharaf, he mentions the route of Jammu - Akhnoor. Zoji La pass doesnt fall on this route.

-Once i say Strike Corps cant go far, i mean into enemy territory. They wont be facing any resistance from Multan to Fort Abbas. They are supposed to fight into enemy territory, not between Multan and Haroonabad.

-As i said, 6:1 is for clearing pivots and strongpoints, not normal defences.

-One you concentrate artillery for such a task, do please keep in mind that you are pulling it at the cost of some other sector.

-Do please share reason of your fixation for offensive in the Creeks area. There are several other lucrative avenues of attack already identified by our army. Of course you cant say that what Army has planned ( the real ones) are wrong or not decisive since alot of planning and hardwork (of years have gone). You can always disagree, but then have some very strong logic, in tangible terms, not in terms of statements only.
Dearest Brother,

Just like this forum has OSINT staff, so does the enemy. When posting please consider, reconsider, and then again reconsider this.

My brother, cousins are all currently serving, sometimes I get info, and then I have to self impose a ban. Nothing is more sacred than ones motherland.

Hope you dont take offense, of my unwarranted suggestion, it is only because of my deepest love and respect for those serving, or have served.

Sincerely,
Blacklight
 

PanzerKiel

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Dec 5, 2006
2,889
160
17,515
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Now my second point. Since the most effective use of the tank on the battlefield is as a 'battering ram' to punch a hole into the enemy’s defense lines and the out-flanking maneuvers using the mobility of the tank force; an ideal tank should have the optimum combination of speed & firepower.

In my view, most modern tanks weighing more than 60 tons are far too heavy thus cumbersome. A lighter tank, (about 28 to 32 tons) but with high acceleration & high speed (say about 50 mph) armed with a heavy puncher but of medium caliber (105 mm) gun is the way forward. There have been sufficient advances in the materials science that ample armor protection is now achievable within the 30-ton weight limit.

Would appreciate comments from military professionals
The best prescribed use of tanks is not as a battering ram, but to exploit once a hole has been punched into the defences, normally by inf. Tanks as battering ram is less preferred since in this case, they will be pitted against well entrenched infantry with ATGMs. Imagine what would happen to tanks once they are engaged at 3500 onwards.

Tanks construction is always an interplay between weight (size of gun, amount of armor protection and no of tank rounds inside), firepower (main gun, its calibre and secondary weapons) and mobility (engine, its size, power). Every country, following its doctrine (whether you want speed, protection for crew or firepower) adjusts these three basic aspects in order to get the best result in the form of a tank which can operate as per doctrine.

Dearest Brother,

Just like this forum has OSINT staff, so does the enemy. When posting please consider, reconsider, and then again reconsider this.

My brother, cousins are all currently serving, sometimes I get info, and then I have to self impose a ban. Nothing is more sacred than ones motherland.

Hope you dont take offense, of my unwarranted suggestion, it is only because of my deepest love and respect for those serving, or have served.

Sincerely,
Blacklight
Bhai dont worry. I appreciate your concern. Being a serving member myself, i always take care of this aspect.
 

Blacklight

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 9, 2017
2,556
10
8,293
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Historically speaking uses of cavalry as the “Decisive” factor on the battlefield is relatively modern. Ancient armies consisted primarily of foot soldiers. Chariots did make an appearance quite early but charioteers were really mobile foot soldiers. Early Greek, as well as Macedonian military machine, consisted of foot soldiers (Alexander’s ‘Phalanx’). Roman legion was also an infantry force with cavalry used as ‘auxiliary’.

Asiatic nomads from the Steppes were, however, horse people and fast-moving Hun horse archers of Attila were kings of the battlefield until defeated by mainly the heavy infantry commanded Flavius Aetius at the Battle of Chalons in 451 AD.

It was not until the arrival of the lightly armed but highly mobile mounted Mongol hordes that cavalry ruled the battlefield in the East. In Western Europe however, despite the heroic stories of the Knight (Horse soldier), soldiers fighting on foot were the deciding factor as late as the battle of Agincourt (1415 AD). Historian William Dalrymple in his recent book “ The Anarchy “ describes that 7,000 Sepoys with a few hundred Britishers commanded by Hector Monroe mowed down 40,000 Indian troops including 5,000 veteran Afghan cavalrymen commanded by Shah Alam II, Mir Qasim & Shujjad-doula at Buxar (1764) by ‘volley-fire’ of the infantry achieving a most decisive victory.

Tank based cavalry only came to prominence with the ‘Blitzkrieg’, a German innovative tactic employed ever so successfully during WW2. Germany eventually lost because the Russians and the Western European Allies had also mastered the use of the tank in battle and could exploit their numerical superiority to maximum advantage.

I would, therefore, say that even though cavalry was an important element of the war machine, it was the Infantry that had been the Queen of the battlefield until WW1.

Now my second point. Since the most effective use of the tank on the battlefield is as a 'battering ram' to punch a hole into the enemy’s defense lines and the out-flanking maneuvers using the mobility of the tank force; an ideal tank should have the optimum combination of speed & firepower.

In my view, most modern tanks weighing more than 60 tons are far too heavy thus cumbersome. A lighter tank, (about 28 to 32 tons) but with high acceleration & high speed (say about 50 mph) armed with a heavy puncher but of medium caliber (105 mm) gun is the way forward. There have been sufficient advances in the materials science that ample armor protection is now achievable within the 30-ton weight limit.

Would appreciate comments from military professionals
Sir, the following, might be of interest to you:

Germany, France to Launch Architectural Study on Future European Tank Project
February 24, 2020
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/2...ectural_Study_on_Future_European_Tank_Project

Rheinmetall advances Next Generation 130 mm tank gun

Jane's International Defence Review
12 December 2019
https://www.janes.com/article/93163/rheinmetall-advances-next-generation-130-mm-tank-gun

The Main Battle Tank Project: A Bearer of Interoperability for a Coherent European Defence
23 January 2020

Manufacturers from both countries have been involved in designing the production of a pan-European tank, the European Main Battle Tank (EMBT), by integrating the chassis of Germany’s Leopard 2A7 tank in a combined shape with the turret of the French Leclerc.

The French-German project is called KNDS (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann +Nexter Defense Systems), including both manufacturer`s names, underlying the joint character of the plan. The core aim of the practical application of the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) is the replacement of the Leclerc and Leopard-2 tanks by 2035. The contemporary predictions for the EMBT view the attempt as the most powerful tank in the combat tank state of art, having a significant evolving ability since its growth potential is close to 6 tones. The inclusion of the specific tank project in European land forces can be considered as the guiding line of the MGCS as it will be a decisive contribution to the idea of a military team of vehicles that will work together. This team might include manned and unmanned ground and air vehicles and the EMBT can work as the structural spine of land forces in such “team” operations. The logic behind the operational design is linked to the effectiveness of the combined forces whilst targeting further personnel protection.

More details:
https://finabel.org/the-main-battle...perability-for-a-coherent-european-defence-2/
 

Blacklight

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 9, 2017
2,556
10
8,293
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,

You forgot to mention The Most Important figure---Chengiz Khan---. The ultimate user of cavalry---.

Sir, this might be of interest to you:

Mongolian Bow VS English Longbow – Advantages and Drawbacks
Because of the geometry of the bow, and the materials from which it is made, the Mongolian bow is more efficient that the Longbow. What does this mean?


A Mongolian bow with a hundred (100) pound draw weight can shoot the same arrow as an English Longbow of the same draw weight farther and faster.

The limbs of the Mongolian bow store and release energy more efficiently.

They travel faster, and spring back to position quicker when the archer releases the string as compared to the longbow.

More Details:

https://archeryhistorian.com/mongolian-bow-vs-english-longbow-advantages-and-drawbacks/
 

niaz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 18, 2006
5,076
209
10,973
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Sir, the following, might be of interest to you:

Germany, France to Launch Architectural Study on Future European Tank Project
February 24, 2020
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/2...ectural_Study_on_Future_European_Tank_Project

Rheinmetall advances Next Generation 130 mm tank gun

Jane's International Defence Review
12 December 2019
https://www.janes.com/article/93163/rheinmetall-advances-next-generation-130-mm-tank-gun

The Main Battle Tank Project: A Bearer of Interoperability for a Coherent European Defence
23 January 2020

Manufacturers from both countries have been involved in designing the production of a pan-European tank, the European Main Battle Tank (EMBT), by integrating the chassis of Germany’s Leopard 2A7 tank in a combined shape with the turret of the French Leclerc.

The French-German project is called KNDS (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann +Nexter Defense Systems), including both manufacturer`s names, underlying the joint character of the plan. The core aim of the practical application of the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) is the replacement of the Leclerc and Leopard-2 tanks by 2035. The contemporary predictions for the EMBT view the attempt as the most powerful tank in the combat tank state of art, having a significant evolving ability since its growth potential is close to 6 tones. The inclusion of the specific tank project in European land forces can be considered as the guiding line of the MGCS as it will be a decisive contribution to the idea of a military team of vehicles that will work together. This team might include manned and unmanned ground and air vehicles and the EMBT can work as the structural spine of land forces in such “team” operations. The logic behind the operational design is linked to the effectiveness of the combined forces whilst targeting further personnel protection.

More details:
https://finabel.org/the-main-battle...perability-for-a-coherent-european-defence-2/
Thank you.

My idea of a light tank ( 28-32 tons) was based on the fact that a light enough tank would work equally well on the desert as well as on the soft soils of Punjab and probably also on the muddy soils of heavy monsoon regions. Additionally, super heavy lifters such as Russian An-225 & C-5 Galaxy may be able to airlift such a tank, enabling quick deployment of armor in any theatre of the world. Also Leopard-1's 105 mm Rhinemetal rifled gun carried a very heavy punch and with an advanced high kinetic energy round could easily compete with larger caliber guns.

Maybe it is a stupid idea else a country like the USA would have built it by now.
 

Blacklight

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 9, 2017
2,556
10
8,293
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thank you.

My idea of a light tank ( 28-32 tons) was based on the fact that a light enough tank would work equally well on the desert as well as on the soft soils of Punjab and probably also on the muddy soils of heavy monsoon regions. Additionally, super heavy lifters such as Russian An-225 & C-5 Galaxy may be able to airlift such a tank, enabling quick deployment of armor in any theatre of the world. Also Leopard-1's 105 mm Rhinemetal rifled gun carried a very heavy punch and with an advanced high kinetic energy round could easily compete with larger caliber guns.

Maybe it is a stupid idea else a country like the USA would have built it by now.
Actually I discussed the same with @Signalian a few days back i.e. an 8X8 with a 120mm gun. So your logic is very sound.

@PanzerKiel & @Signalian Can better explain what PA thinks about light tanks, some examples are listed below:

Patria_AMV_8x8.JPG
Patria AMV 8x8 showcased with 120mm Leonardo turret


Centauro_II.jpg

Centauro 2 II MGS 120/105 8x8 anti-tank wheeled armoured vehicle

ZTL-11_8x8_.jpg

Chinese ZTL-11 8x8 amphibious 105mm

Japan Type 16.jpg

Japan Type 16

Note: for details of above eqpt, kindly click on their names.
 
Last edited:

KaiserX

FULL MEMBER
Apr 6, 2019
1,566
-2
2,668
Country
United States
Location
United States
Light calvary is the way to go. Especially in the regions of punjab and deserts of rajasthan. Armored thrust are only effective as the supporting infantry so the ability to carry troops would be great.

x1000 of these babies and we got hind
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,852
160
54,462
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Actually I discussed the same with @Signalian a few days back i.e. an 8X8 with a 120mm gun. So your logic is very sound.

@PanzerKiel & @Signalian Can better explain what PA thinks about light tanks, some examples are listed below:

View attachment 623664
Patria AMV 8x8 showcased with 120mm Leonardo turret

View attachment 623665
Centauro 2 II MGS 120/105 8x8 anti-tank wheeled armoured vehicle

View attachment 623666
Chinese ZTL-11 8x8 amphibious 105mm

View attachment 623667
Japan Type 16

Note: for details of above eqpt, kindly click on their names.
Hi,

South african 8 x8 used to be very potent machine---. But the thing is---a military needs to have a total package---you need smart weapons and heavy strike aircraft and SA missiles to cover your movement and a capable tank.
 

Armchair

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 4, 2014
3,330
8
5,414
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Turkey
If i have time i would like to debate on three major strike options PA can exercise .First is the Akhnor-Jammu axis,Second is the Longewala-Jaiselmer axis and the last one my favourite is Rann of Kuch-Bhuj axis(once did an article on it, got merged with an unknown thread).
You may like this thread my friend

Thank you.

My idea of a light tank ( 28-32 tons) was based on the fact that a light enough tank would work equally well on the desert as well as on the soft soils of Punjab and probably also on the muddy soils of heavy monsoon regions. Additionally, super heavy lifters such as Russian An-225 & C-5 Galaxy may be able to airlift such a tank, enabling quick deployment of armor in any theatre of the world. Also Leopard-1's 105 mm Rhinemetal rifled gun carried a very heavy punch and with an advanced high kinetic energy round could easily compete with larger caliber guns.

Maybe it is a stupid idea else a country like the USA would have built it by now.
Brother your thoughts are very similar to mine! Here is the tank I think one should go for in mass production terms:

1. About 30 tons
2. engine is forward, in the middle is a remote turret and the rear has the driver, gunner, commander and space for 4x soldiers
3. 120mm gun-mortar a hybrid device. Check out the gun on the BMP3

This essentially allows you keep the light tank a non line of sight fighter when the going gets tough for them. NLOS (non line of sight) is achieved via the hybrid gun-mortar.

If one didn't want to go with an all new design and wanted to go low cost, one could buy old BMP2s being sold a dime a dozen and put new turret on it with the gun-mortar of the BMP3. Put slat and ERA armour and perhaps even cage armor, and viola, you have a new light tank.

Combine large numbers of this with a new conscript army, and you have supplemented the PA by about 50% of its strength.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,852
160
54,462
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Hi,

At one time---I considered that as a weapon of choice for a quick moving force---.

I'll leave you with some thoughts. Take the example of our battle rifle. We never went for 5.56, since 7.62 is lethal, even though heavy. May not be easy to carry but where it gets applied, it matters. Same with our tanks.
Hi,

Americans also found out the same thing in afg---.

The 5.56 was a weak round---the ranges in afg were longer to shoot at the enemy than in vietnam---.

Our war is not in jungles---but either on plains of punjab and sindh or in mountains / rough territory---.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom