What's new

Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
639
3
1,336
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
That is a tough SOB then.
From the account of that attack (the Al-zarrar one) it took an RPG hit and 7 VBIEDS on motorbikes (suicide attacks). Hadn’t heard of the SPG-9s but if it took that too then it just further goes to show how tough that armor upgrade was, no wonder the composite block is gone, but it did its job just fine.
My question was that if anyone knew where this AZ was destroyed, forgot to put a question mark,sorry. Perhaps manstein can answer it with an interesting story.
The Al Zarrar was lost in Swat, the story of how it happened is in this thread on both the first page from a media documentary and then on the second page from a member who claims to have been there (though I do not know wether he was actually there and there’s no way to prove it, so I would take that with a grain of salt). The most believable and likely the true one is from the Aaj TV doc in the first post, which describes the Suicide and RPG attacks on it.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-al-zarrar-mbt-was-destroyed.27211/page-2

There are also people in that thread saying that the tank was abandoned by the crew and then later blown up by one of our own Cobras so it wouldn’t be used by the Taliban, but judging by the type of damage done to it, that is highly unlikely and it doesn’t make sense either.
 

bhola record

FULL MEMBER
Jul 22, 2020
463
0
669
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
From the account of that attack (the Al-zarrar one) it took an RPG hit and 7 VBIEDS on motorbikes (suicide attacks). Hadn’t heard of the SPG-9s but if it took that too then it just further goes to show how tough that armor upgrade was, no wonder the composite block is gone, but it did its job just fine.
What about the crew anyone know?
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
639
3
1,336
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
What about the crew anyone know?
The crew in this particular case survived, all 4 of them, without major injuries (according to the news documentary.)
I have heard that in the other case, the Type 59, two or the crew succumbed to their injuries after being rescued from the destroyed tank, but I’m not 100% sure of that since I’ve only heard it from other people.

Pakistan lost either 2 or 3 tanks in total in the War on terror, 1 AZ, 1Type 59, and the third was apparently a Type 69 that drove over an IED and was disabled, but that is also unconfirmed.
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
606
1
1,130
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
You can include multiple SPG9s as well.
From this following hypothesis (and hence questions) can be deduced:
Infantry support:
It is the job of infantry to protect the tanks from such threats especially in urban warfare/LICs. After the the first shot the Infantry should have neutralised the AT team or atleast should have suppressed it considering the fact that SPG-9 has a max effective range of just 600-800m. But in this case the enemy was able to fire multiple shots at the tank and infantry was unable to provide timely response. It can be said that the Infantry was of SIB but still cooperation with tanks is one of the basic necessities in modern warfare andour soldiers are given training on it.
Air support by Cobras:
An AT team would've made an important target for our cobras but they were unable to neutralise it especially if the AT team had fired multiple times. It can be said the they had RTB but it is highly unlikely as the Cobras gave all round protection especially when the enemy was present in enough force to attack tanks with spg. Another point may be that infantry was unable to guide the pilots,another fatal mistake.
Artillery Support:
Our ops in Bajaur and Swat were supported with field and even medium artillery. One of the main objectives of arty in modern warfare along with the softening up of enemy is the suppression of enemy AT teams and ambushes but in this case arty was alao unable to provide timely fire and again the blame can be put on the Infantry for not being able to provide timely coordinates to them. Same can be said of the inf mortars if there were any.
Accompanying Tanks:
If the crew of the tank after being hit was badly hurt and unable to respond,the supporting tanks should have deployed smoke screens and suppressed/neutralised the AT teams but they were unable to do so.
All of these elements are necessary for combined arms warfare and if anyone of these are missing then it could lead to mission failure which may have strategic implications. Also our enemy in the east will have better atgms(incl fnf), the air will be contested, enemy inf will be using better tactics and our arty will also be facing counter battery fire.
P.S, I know I'm comparing LIC with conventional warfare and that changes/improvements must have been brought.
@PanzerKiel @Signalian @iLION12345_1 @Tipu7 @HRK
@Inception-06
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
606
1
1,130
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Both Al-Zs were lost to enemy fire on two different ocassions. Out of the eight crew members, 4 were lost. Out of the four, one was lost to the direct effect of tank being destroyed. Remaining three were lost to allied incidents, such as being shot while evacuating from the burning tanks.
I can't divulge technical details here. My limitations. Only i can assure you is that I know. I was there.
A total of 3 three tanks have been lost to enemy fire in these years. 1 x T-69IIMP and 2 x Al-Zs. There have been a certain no of them disabled due to heavy potency IED blasts but all the tanks / crew were recovered safely and those tanks are all back in combat again.
hi everyone .. its almost a year since this incident took place..... and well we have taken a year to come to terms with this loss .... there are of course many versions to what had happened that day, not any of them is entirely accurate. I will not go in details of what and how things happened there. All i can tell you is that we actually lost three AZ tanks in this particular conflict. One was disabled due to a massive IED blast, but luckily the crew survived. The tank took the brunt of the blast. Its track was broken, lost the idler wheel, the diesel tanks ruptured due to the shock wave and the belly was practically bent front side.
remaining two tanks were lost to direct anti-tank rocket attack. In all speculations they were RPG-7s fired at a very close rage (range does not effect penetration but accuracy for sure!!!). In both the cases, the crew managed to come out alive, but (in both the cases), but the gunner and loader were lost due to subsequent reasons (burn wounds, gun fire)....

Tanks are very powerful machines, but at the same time, they are very vulnerable to close range attacks. therefore the dependence on infantry to protect them from close range attacks. If in any eventuality, the infantry leaves a gap in this protection, specially during a gun battle, that gap is exploited by the miscreants to attack the tank. That is exactly what had happened in the later two occasions when the tanks were fired upon by rockets from a very close range.
 

PanzerKiel

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Dec 5, 2006
2,462
145
13,956
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
From this following hypothesis (and hence questions) can be deduced:
Infantry support:
It is the job of infantry to protect the tanks from such threats especially in urban warfare/LICs. After the the first shot the Infantry should have neutralised the AT team or atleast should have suppressed it considering the fact that SPG-9 has a max effective range of just 600-800m. But in this case the enemy was able to fire multiple shots at the tank and infantry was unable to provide timely response. It can be said that the Infantry was of SIB but still cooperation with tanks is one of the basic necessities in modern warfare andour soldiers are given training on it.
Kitaabi baatein....you are mixing everything.....would like you to experience one of these situations...anywayz...

In this case enemy is not that much visible, enemy is also in large numbers, you cannot sufficiently elevate your tank gun in order to take out an AT team perched on top.....enemy perched on top is otherwise harder to take out....

Air support by Cobras:
An AT team would've made an important target for our cobras but they were unable to neutralise it especially if the AT team had fired multiple times. It can be said the they had RTB but it is highly unlikely as the Cobras gave all round protection especially when the enemy was present in enough force to attack tanks with spg. Another point may be that infantry was unable to guide the pilots,another fatal mistake.
Such AT teams are not visible from a high flying cobra, cobra cant risk coming low since it will be engaged with RPGs, and then you will have a separate BLACK HAWK DOWN op on your hands.....as far as infantry guiding pilots are concerned, when both friendly and enemy forces are hugging each other, nothing much can be done about it.

Artillery Support:
Our ops in Bajaur and Swat were supported with field and even medium artillery. One of the main objectives of arty in modern warfare along with the softening up of enemy is the suppression of enemy AT teams and ambushes but in this case arty was alao unable to provide timely fire and again the blame can be put on the Infantry for not being able to provide timely coordinates to them. Same can be said of the inf mortars if there were any.
Artillery cant do much in mountains, try reading up what happened to Indian Army in Kargil...one wrong shot and you risk own troops being hit.....
Accompanying Tanks:
If the crew of the tank after being hit was badly hurt and unable to respond,the supporting tanks should have deployed smoke screens and suppressed/neutralised the AT teams but they were unable to do so.
All of these elements are necessary for combined arms warfare and if anyone of these are missing then it could lead to mission failure which may have strategic implications. Also our enemy in the east will have better atgms(incl fnf), the air will be contested, enemy inf will be using better tactics and our arty will also be facing counter battery fire.
There are no supporting tanks, these roads hardly support a single tank...that tank cant move around to avoid fire.....mountains are not made for tanks.....its not a whole armor regiment in action that supporting tanks would be covering each other....

Enemy in the east you are referring to will be fighting in much open spaces with good fields of fire, unlike the scenario you have painted.....

you must experience a real ambush in FATA region and then must let me know what all you were able to achieve out of all the things you pointed out....
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
606
1
1,130
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
its not a whole armor regiment in action that supporting tanks would be covering each other....
But I've usually seen and heard of squadron being deployed.
you must experience a real ambush in FATA region and then must let me know what all you were able to achieve out of all the things you pointed out....
I should have added that there is no negativity in my criticism.
 

PanzerKiel

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Dec 5, 2006
2,462
145
13,956
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
But I've usually seen and heard of squadron being deployed.
Squadron deployment doesnt mean all fourteen tanks together, you simply dont have space to deploy all of them....you may have one tank supporting op of a complete infantry unit, three to four tanks for a whole brigade, thats how you fight in mountains......you try squeezing in all fourteen tanks, then be ready to find fourteen burning hulls instead of one which you have seen in pic...
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
606
1
1,130
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Squadron deployment doesnt mean all fourteen tanks together, you simply dont have space to deploy all of them....you may have one tank supporting op of a complete infantry unit, three to four tanks for a whole brigade, thats how you fight in mountains......you try squeezing in all fourteen tanks, then be ready to find fourteen burning hulls instead of one which you have seen in pic...
Sorry i meant to write a troop, got confused.
Thanks anyways.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
639
3
1,336
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
From this following hypothesis (and hence questions) can be deduced:
Infantry support:
It is the job of infantry to protect the tanks from such threats especially in urban warfare/LICs. After the the first shot the Infantry should have neutralised the AT team or atleast should have suppressed it considering the fact that SPG-9 has a max effective range of just 600-800m. But in this case the enemy was able to fire multiple shots at the tank and infantry was unable to provide timely response. It can be said that the Infantry was of SIB but still cooperation with tanks is one of the basic necessities in modern warfare andour soldiers are given training on it.
Air support by Cobras:
An AT team would've made an important target for our cobras but they were unable to neutralise it especially if the AT team had fired multiple times. It can be said the they had RTB but it is highly unlikely as the Cobras gave all round protection especially when the enemy was present in enough force to attack tanks with spg. Another point may be that infantry was unable to guide the pilots,another fatal mistake.
Artillery Support:
Our ops in Bajaur and Swat were supported with field and even medium artillery. One of the main objectives of arty in modern warfare along with the softening up of enemy is the suppression of enemy AT teams and ambushes but in this case arty was alao unable to provide timely fire and again the blame can be put on the Infantry for not being able to provide timely coordinates to them. Same can be said of the inf mortars if there were any.
Accompanying Tanks:
If the crew of the tank after being hit was badly hurt and unable to respond,the supporting tanks should have deployed smoke screens and suppressed/neutralised the AT teams but they were unable to do so.
All of these elements are necessary for combined arms warfare and if anyone of these are missing then it could lead to mission failure which may have strategic implications. Also our enemy in the east will have better atgms(incl fnf), the air will be contested, enemy inf will be using better tactics and our arty will also be facing counter battery fire.
P.S, I know I'm comparing LIC with conventional warfare and that changes/improvements must have been brought.
@PanzerKiel @Signalian @iLION12345_1 @Tipu7 @HRK
@Inception-06
Although Sir PanzerKiel already answered all that needed to be answered, I’ll just add some context so maybe the situation makes more sense.
It was part of small force at the front to make first contact with the militants along with force of around 35 personals of Pakistani army. It was ambushed from three sides of the mountainous road and has to face at least six suicide attack attempts within span of 15 minutes along with attacks through improvised explosive devices that were buried in their way. Crew of the destroyed Al-Zarrar MBT survived without injuries and tank was recovered as neither turret of chassis of Al-Zarrar MBT was penetrated which also proved the recent upgrade was successful”

Also: “they were attacked from three sides by different militant groups that have divided themselves into smaller groups of four to five. First attack was through improvise explosive devices which resulted in destruction of the tank (here we can assume an IED is what disabled the tank by breaking its tracks and rupturing the outer fuel tanks, as the Iceman guy said) and afterwards Taliban started firing at them, they say that it was very difficult for them to access the direction of the fire and strength of the enemy. Soldiers involved in this fight say that it took us some time to estimate their positions and after that we started counter attack by sending our troops to surround them. Taliban felt the heat and started second part of the attack to scatter and destroy the advance party of Pakistan army, they launched one of their front end weapon against this small advance party; suicide bombers. Because of the magnitude of this attack, one can easily describe it as the largest suicide attack in Pakistan if not the largest in the world, mounted against a small force in shuch a limited time. This attack involved at least six different vehicles and three motor bikes filled with explosives and driven by suicide bombers within short span of time of only fifteen minutes. Pakistani soldiers first gave them warnings to stop as they thought these were civilian vehicles, but later on they recognized the threat in time and started firing at them, most of these vehicles were destroyed but due to high speed some made it to the front line vehicles of this small military force. (The tank) According to the commanding officer of this advance force, they were very fortunate that none of their troop involved in this operation was killed and all thirty five of them were able to survive this attack.”


PS: on further digging it seems the person named “ice man” that was recounting the attack may have been present there judging by his other posts on the forum and that his brother to backed him up, not concrete proof but it’s something.
His account says that of the three tanks lost in total. One was an AZ and two were type 59s. One in 2008 and the other in 2009.
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,551
16
6,862
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Kitaabi baatein....you are mixing everything.....would like you to experience one of these situations...anywayz...

In this case enemy is not that much visible, enemy is also in large numbers, you cannot sufficiently elevate your tank gun in order to take out an AT team perched on top.....enemy perched on top is otherwise harder to take out....


Such AT teams are not visible from a high flying cobra, cobra cant risk coming low since it will be engaged with RPGs, and then you will have a separate BLACK HAWK DOWN op on your hands.....as far as infantry guiding pilots are concerned, when both friendly and enemy forces are hugging each other, nothing much can be done about it.


Artillery cant do much in mountains, try reading up what happened to Indian Army in Kargil...one wrong shot and you risk own troops being hit.....

There are no supporting tanks, these roads hardly support a single tank...that tank cant move around to avoid fire.....mountains are not made for tanks.....its not a whole armor regiment in action that supporting tanks would be covering each other....

Enemy in the east you are referring to will be fighting in much open spaces with good fields of fire, unlike the scenario you have painted.....

you must experience a real ambush in FATA region and then must let me know what all you were able to achieve out of all the things you pointed out....
For starters, you need technology such as this to be able to see where your enemy is:

 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
639
3
1,336
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
At the end of the day, I don’t think too much thought should be given to these incidents. It was over 12 years ago now, things have changed, improved and a lot of information about how things happened has been lost, so assuming may just lead to false conclusions. Losing a tank or two for peace was not a bad trade :)
 

arjunk

FULL MEMBER
Apr 16, 2020
1,659
0
3,408
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
At the end of the day, I don’t think too much thought should be given to these incidents. It was over 12 years ago now, things have changed, improved and a lot of information about how things happened has been lost, so assuming may just lead to false conclusions. Losing a tank or two for peace was not a bad trade :)
Yes, you constantly see videos of tanks being blown by IEDs or ATGMs in Syria etc and wonder how Pakistan managed to lose only 3.
 

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


Top Bottom