What's new

Light weight tanks for Pakistan Army

White Lion

FULL MEMBER
Apr 24, 2021
267
0
274
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
What capabilities these will bring agiant tanks ?? 3rd generation tank are not joke at all specially considering war senario
launch a suicide drone against a 3rd generation tank while protected against a nuclear blast. Next time please see the videos before commenting.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,888
73
22,971
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Why are we (Pakistan) thinking of getting conventional options i.e Light tank against Light tank. @Zarvan earlier quoted that the topography is different along the borders. If Light tanks are needed for India than they are of limited use against what India would field i.e medium tanks.

Pakistan has mostly relied on asymmetrical doctrine. Cold Start doctrine of India was countered by Tactical Nuclear Missile. PAF fielding Light category aircraft JF-17 against Heavy / Medium i.e SU30 MKI / Rafales.

In light of these examples Pakistan should be considering some sort of tactical weapon / platform which could counter various threats.

IMO something like These should be the best option in various configurations.

IMO ... vehicles as light (and likely unarmoured) as those would be better off as UGVs. Deploy to remote areas with minimal support (no operators to feed) for weeks or months at a time, and use them as ATGM carriers, 105 mm guns, or even MANPAD and SHORAD carriers.
 

CrazyZ

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 3, 2019
3,761
2
4,925
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
IMO ... vehicles as light (and likely unarmoured) as those would be better off as UGVs. Deploy to remote areas with minimal support (no operators to feed) for weeks or months at a time, and use them as ATGM carriers, 105 mm guns, or even MANPAD and SHORAD carriers.
Or they need to engage at long range (greater than 5km). That's why a low profile missile based tank destroyer makes more sense then a light tank. Tank guns have effective range of less than 4km...around 5km if they are firing laser guided missiles. HJ10 has a range over 8km. A light vehicle and shoot and scoot with out risking being hit...especially in the open desert. Superior engagement range is why the M1 Abrams decimated Iraqi T-72's in the gulf wars.

UGV also make great sense for PA to narrow the manpower gap...especially if they are eventually fully controlled by AI. This is still years away.
 

White Lion

FULL MEMBER
Apr 24, 2021
267
0
274
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
I am re sharing the video where the CEO is stating that this is a platform that can be converted into various multi mission platform as the design is modular hence in reality they can be a part a command and control platform.

Further more the Matis is 7 ton hence it can be easily converted to fire ATGM as well as laser guided missiles. The Israeli defence forces need for developing this is based of one concept that is protection if their troops in all climates including desert. Hence it is going to be a next generation troop carrier along with other derivatives including one with radars to track missile and aircraft. Most likely this version would be based on a 6 wheeled chassis.

These are some of the features
The Mantis's shielding, he added, was better than that of similarly-sized, serially-produced vehicles and is considered resistant to both land mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
These features were achieved, the CEO expounded, using a proprietary "floating floor" that prevents distortion when the vehicle encounters a blast and collapsible chairs that better protect the soldiers driving the car.
Speaking of the Mantis's occupants, the passenger cabin is completely sealed and equipped with an air purification system, capable of meeting biological or chemical attacks.
The vehicle's driver is seated in the center with the engine located to the back, a configuration that is highly advantageous in many respects. The driver, for one, is afforded outstanding visibility in all directions thanks to the absence of a long engine cover—a familiar Achilles' heel in armored vehicles.

https://defense-update.com/20180604_mantis.html

IMO ... vehicles as light (and likely unarmoured) as those would be better off as UGVs. Deploy to remote areas with minimal support (no operators to feed) for weeks or months at a time, and use them as ATGM carriers, 105 mm guns, or even MANPAD and SHORAD carriers.
Or they need to engage at long range (greater than 5km). That's why a low profile missile based tank destroyer makes more sense then a light tank. Tank guns have effective range of less than 4km...around 5km if they are firing laser guided missiles. HJ10 has a range over 8km. A light vehicle and shoot and scoot with out risking being hit...especially in the open desert. Superior engagement range is why the M1 Abrams decimated Iraqi T-72's in the gulf wars.

UGV also make great sense for PA to narrow the manpower gap...especially if they are eventually fully controlled by AI. This is still years away.
 

CrazyZ

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 3, 2019
3,761
2
4,925
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I am re sharing the video where the CEO is stating that this is a platform that can be converted into various multi mission platform as the design is modular hence in reality they can be a part a command and control platform.

Further more the Matis is 7 ton hence it can be easily converted to fire ATGM as well as laser guided missiles. The Israeli defence forces need for developing this is based of one concept that is protection if their troops in all climates including desert. Hence it is going to be a next generation troop carrier along with other derivatives including one with radars to track missile and aircraft. Most likely this version would be based on a 6 wheeled chassis.

These are some of the features
The Mantis's shielding, he added, was better than that of similarly-sized, serially-produced vehicles and is considered resistant to both land mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
These features were achieved, the CEO expounded, using a proprietary "floating floor" that prevents distortion when the vehicle encounters a blast and collapsible chairs that better protect the soldiers driving the car.
Speaking of the Mantis's occupants, the passenger cabin is completely sealed and equipped with an air purification system, capable of meeting biological or chemical attacks.
The vehicle's driver is seated in the center with the engine located to the back, a configuration that is highly advantageous in many respects. The driver, for one, is afforded outstanding visibility in all directions thanks to the absence of a long engine cover—a familiar Achilles' heel in armored vehicles.

https://defense-update.com/20180604_mantis.html
Does IDF use this vehicle? Or do they prefer the Merkava?

Either way....its not an option for Pakistan. HJ10 or a Turkish missile system are excellent options.
 

White Lion

FULL MEMBER
Apr 24, 2021
267
0
274
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
Does IDF use this vehicle? Or do they prefer the Merkava?

Either way....its not an option for Pakistan. HJ10 or a Turkish missile system are excellent options.
This was officially shown in public in 2018 Paris and is supposed to be the next best thing. Merkawa are not considered for areas like Lebanon. Many were lost in the last war with Hezbollah.

Pakistan would not purchase this particular vehicle but the concept that is shown is a light vehicle with nuclear and biological attack protection which is able to do all sorts of operations with a range of 700 km with internal fuel tanks at speeds of over 120 km/hr. Perhaps by 2025 we would see what these things can do in reality till then we can only wait.

IMO these are the ARMATA of the west.
 

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
6,762
6
5,274
Tank vs tank is rare and definitely light tanks are much easier to destroy for ATGM but this is also why they need active protection like GL-5. GL-5 is not used by PLA itself because for typical large scale ground war it doesn't fit into PLA model which include artillery and air or digital war so they don't bother putting expensive active protection on frontline position tanks because it's almost always useless unless they plan for these tanks to continue fighting long periods in frontline against well armed and supplied enemy. Also because most frontline units will meet artillery from other side.

GL-5 is mostly export option but PLA's active protection system is different and is not yet shown. Only the laser dazzler is shown but to defeat ATGM from soldiers or helicopter there are many methods. Only wire guided is unjammable but then you just need to make sure those wire guided type missiles you don't encounter using drones, helicopters, and guided artillery or heavier tanks that have much better chance against ATGM. This means Type 15 is useless by itself and Chinese military commenters said it is highly networked and dependent on network and information to be effective. Light tanks are useless alone. Light tanks definitely need units with active protection if they want to sustain fighting on frontline but both sides frontline will immediately be destroyed by artillery and first air strike before distance fighting.
Aps was Israeli invention after encounter inlebonon. Against asymmetric threats so not to say it’s not effective but expensive proposition which developed nations can to some extend afford
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
921
2
1,954
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Terrain. Kashmir is far different from Laddakh. Any sort of tank/IFV etc will be nothing but a sitting duck. What's the use of tank if it can't manoeuvre. Tanks if ued will only be for Infantry support (as direct support weapons). At the same time they will be a liability for the Infantry as they would be responsible for looking after the tank and not vice versa. The gun elevation is also quite important in this regard. The only time tanks were successful in Kashmir was when Indians brought Stuarts to such a height that the mujahideen were stunned, but also remember that the lashkars were even out of small arms ammunition often what to say about any AT weapons and hence we lost Zoji La. Another thing the Stuarts were brought disassembled ,and were used only as direct support. Also the Stuarts weighed about 15 tonnes while VT5 weighs about 33 tonnes. Add to that the modern PA's atgms system and attack helicopters and IA wont be able to move an inch( and vice versa). In 65 during GrandSlam we had superiority not only in quality but quantity as well. While we had more numerous M48s IA only had a regt of AMX13 tanks. The guns of AMX were no match against the Pattons but instead of conentrating our tanks we divided them to company level and they became easy targets of enemy infantry and tanks which otherwise wouldn't have been possible. Tactics is the key in Kashmir. Instead of buying new tanks it is better to deploy old t59s/69s with newer TI sights for defensive purposes or supporting infantry instead of buying a completely new system. Why not use the funds to buy MBTs and deploy them where they are more important. We will also have to buy/start manufacturing new 105mm ammunition. Or Why not focus on special mountain regts?
Runn of kutch is suitable for tanks oy in winter but that too for some specific routes and hence specific axis of advance which can easily be checked by PAF, why raise another armoured division. Also what id the use of light tanks in a completely open region. Also how will infantry support the light tanks. There are no light IFVs except for Russian amphibious BMP3 in which IA is yet not interested. Will the IA in raise and sustain a div size force just to capture marshes? It is not worth for so much men and money
As I explained in the post quoted above, the tanks in Kashmir (or any other such terrain) will not be able to perform their original roles i.e breaking through defences, flanking because they just don't have the space and their role will be reduced to supporting infantry ( like a moving pill box)that too only in places where they can move or the bridges support them. It will be like fish out of water. Even the recoiless rifles will be a great threat to them what to mention a modern atgm.
Also isn't it better to order more VT4s, increase the production of AK1s or upgrade T80UDs and beef up the numbers in Gujranwala bulge or sindh where they are required instead of buying a completely new system which doesn't even suit our doctrine but costs almost the same. Also in the end logistics, ammunition, maintenance,spare parts, training costs more than the equipment itself.
 

redtom

FULL MEMBER
Aug 2, 2020
948
-1
1,613
Country
China
Location
United States
Or they need to engage at long range (greater than 5km). That's why a low profile missile based tank destroyer makes more sense then a light tank. Tank guns have effective range of less than 4km...around 5km if they are firing laser guided missiles. HJ10 has a range over 8km. A light vehicle and shoot and scoot with out risking being hit...especially in the open desert. Superior engagement range is why the M1 Abrams decimated Iraqi T-72's in the gulf wars.

UGV also make great sense for PA to narrow the manpower gap...especially if they are eventually fully controlled by AI. This is still years away.
However, according to the PLA's assessment, the missile could not penetrate the defense of the main battle tank.I don't know exactly what they tested, but some speculate that the MBT's defense system consists of lasers, active kill ammo, jamming smoke, additional armor modules.

The most efficient weapon is the armor-piercing bullet.The VT4's main gun can fire armor-piercing rounds at five times the speed of sound. Even some people pessimistically claim that the most advanced main battle tank facing the most advanced main battle tank, the most likely outcome is each other can not penetrate the frontal armor.
 

CrazyZ

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 3, 2019
3,761
2
4,925
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
However, according to the PLA's assessment, the missile could not penetrate the defense of the main battle tank.I don't know exactly what they tested, but some speculate that the MBT's defense system consists of lasers, active kill ammo, jamming smoke, additional armor modules.

The most efficient weapon is the armor-piercing bullet.The VT4's main gun can fire armor-piercing rounds at five times the speed of sound. Even some people pessimistically claim that the most advanced main battle tank facing the most advanced main battle tank, the most likely outcome is each other can not penetrate the frontal armor.
Agreed. MBT like VT-4 make much more sense then a light tank operating in open terrain and allow for offensive ops into enemy territory. I would only argue for missile based tank destroyer as a lower cost force multiplier when fighting in the defense (which is most likely for PA).

I'm sure PA already has a host of lighter vehicles and infantry that can do this as well. But we may want something more durable against artillery fragments an small arms. Baktar-Shikan/HJ-8 are combat proven against T-72 level armor. Based on recent conflicts in the ME....anti-tank missiles are a big threat to any armored vehicle and will remain so as long as continually upgraded.

1623328783045.png
 
Last edited:

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
7,289
227
19,947
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Agreed. MBT like VT-4 make much more sense then a light tank operating in open terrain and allow for offensive ops into enemy territory. I would only argue for missile based tank destroyer as a lower cost force multiplier when fighting in the defense (which is most likely for PA).

I'm sure PA already has a host of lighter vehicles and infantry that can do this as well. But we may want something more durable against artillery fragments an small arms. Baktar-Shikan/HJ-8 are combat proven against T-72 level armor. Based on recent conflicts in the ME....anti-tank missiles are a big threat to any armored vehicle and will remain so as long as continually upgraded.

View attachment 752089
M-901 and Ma'az. These two should be put against IA armor formations instead of throwing MBT against MBT.
 

PanzerKiel

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Dec 5, 2006
2,813
157
16,780
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
It's all mountains and narrow valleys. Even if they did somehow manage to get tanks up there, those tanks wouldn't be able to move more than a few feet. Sitting ducks for artillery and ATGMs.
Indians have already lost many tanks along the LOC, not a favorable terrain for tanks anyway since tanks cannot make good use of their long ranges guns, along with elevation and depression problems.
 

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


Top Bottom