I think you have some very good thoughts. They might not be informed through experience, but it shows you have the ability to take a deeper look at things, try to identify problems, and come up with solutions. I really want to encourage you to continue doing that. Don't be demotivated by the usual low IQ Pakistani nay sayers.From this following hypothesis (and hence questions) can be deduced:
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.
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.
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
Wrong. We should revisit these situations, analyze them, and try to derive lessons for the future. They serve as excellent test cases that can be discussed at PMA Kakul and other institutions.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