What's new

Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
7,489
227
20,515
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Viper is based on Saad APC, which is 14.5 tons with a 354 HP engine. That’s 24.4 Hp/Tonne, if viper uses the same engine, given the increased armor and the RCWS, it’s P/W is likely less than or comparable to Bradley (20-22 Hp/Tonne depending on variant) and that’s with likely significantly less protection (Viper is STANAG level IV? And Bradley is STANAG level VI) and that’s before Add-on armor increases the weight.

PAs MBTs (apart from VT-4) are generally not more mobile than an abrams, because while on paper the 1200HP of the Al-Khalid gives it great P/W, the significantly lower torque of its engine also means that it’s Mobility is not ideal compared to other modern MBTs Like the VT-4. (it’s saved by its lower weight and good transmission,it’s still more mobile than an Indian T90S, so it’s perfectly adequate for our use)
The M1A1 Abrams has a 0-32KPH time of about 7 seconds (7.2 for the M1A2, maybe slightly more for the latest SEPV3). For Al-Khalid it’s about 10 Seconds. They both have similar top speeds, though the abrams is electronically limited (around 70KPH).
Based on these calculations, is Viper's mobility adequate for PA needs?
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,968
12
5,842
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Based on these calculations, is Viper's mobility adequate for PA needs?
I’m not sure if anyone has the exact weight for the viper because that may change the calculations, currently I’ve assumed a weight of 16.5 tons.

But going with that educated guess, I would say it should have no trouble keeping up with older tanks like the Al-Zarrar, the type 85UGs and the T80UDs. It will probably also be fine following Al-Khalids, but will likely not be able to keep up with VT-4Ps, another thing to take into consideration would be the future plans for the Al-Khalid, which do include a more powerful engine, maybe the same one from VT-4 or a Ukrainian option.

However that also reminds me that there was a more powerful engine option available for the Saad APC itself, 405 HP I believe, I wonder if that has been or will be considered for the Viper, it could boost the mobility. But that still does leave some questions about it’s protection, if the base protection is STANAG level 4, then it should be able to stop 14.5MM rounds, and with Cage armor or ERA, maybe RPGs as well, how that would effect mobility also remains to be seen. I also remember you asking about how the aluminum armor of M113 (flammable) would react to getting hit given the M113s being battle taxis aren’t supposed to get hit, but this thing will. I assume the add-on armor isn’t aluminum at all, it is very likely steel, and I recall that Pakistani M113s/Talhas/Saads have their fuel tanks moved to reduce the risk of fire as well. The engines found in the Newer M113 models are also far less likely to catch fire than the original M113s.

Keep in mind the armor, weight etc are my speculations but are hopefully close to the realistic values, I’d also wait and see what the new version of the viper is like, considering that it does seem to be somewhat modified from the original. PA may have asked for entirely different specifications.
 
Last edited:

Reddawn

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 13, 2012
84
0
45
The lack of IED protection is a minor issue in the grand scheme of issues with the Viper design.
To me the usefulness of the viper depends on just how cheap it actually is. Even if it’s half the cost of a modern-IFV (by which I mean a modern design, the sensors and weaponry on the viper prototype were already decent, but I highly doubt it has good mobility or good protection compared to modern Designs and it’s silhouette/design is already old given it’s just a larger and heavier M113) then it’s not worth purchasing given its just not future proof. How many years can it severe before PA just needs to replace it again? Is a large purchase of these vehicles cost effective? Will it become another bad project like The dragoon APC or the armed AS550 helicopters?
What's wrong with the armed AS550?
 

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
7,489
227
20,515
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
I’m not sure if anyone has the exact weight for the viper because that may change the calculations, currently I’ve assumed a weight of 16.5 tons.

But going with that educated guess, I would say it should have no trouble keeping up with older tanks like the Al-Zarrar, the type 85UGs and the T80UDs. It will probably also be fine following Al-Khalids, but will likely not be able to keep up with VT-4Ps, another thing to take into consideration would be the future plans for the Al-Khalid, which do include a more powerful engine, maybe the same one from VT-4 or a Ukrainian option.

However that also reminds me that there was a more powerful engine option available for the Saad APC itself, 405 HP I believe, I wonder if that has been or will be considered for the Viper, it could boost the mobility. But that still does leave some questions about it’s protection, if the base protection is STANAG level 4, then it should be able to stop 14.5MM rounds, and with Cage armor or ERA, maybe RPGs as well, how that would effect mobility also remains to be seen. I also remember you asking about how the aluminum armor of M113 (flammable) would react to getting hit given the M113s being battle taxis aren’t supposed to get hit, but this thing will. I assume the add-on armor isn’t aluminum at all, it is very likely steel, and I recall that Pakistani M113s/Talhas/Saads have their fuel tanks moved to reduce the risk of fire as well. The engines found in the Newer M113 models are also far less likely to catch fire than the original M113s.

Keep in mind the armor, weight etc are my speculations but are hopefully close to the realistic values, I’d also wait and see what the new version of the viper is like, considering that it does seem to be somewhat modified from the original. PA may have asked for entirely different specifications.
Going by our discussion, Saad IFV seems to offer itself as a reasonable option for PA.
VT-4 is deployed up in Punjab plains, its exact potential of mobility cannot be ascertained in the ambush-prone, mined, obstacle-laden area where its going to operate, the Sialkot-Narowal-Shakargarh axis and beyond into India. Perhaps, an Indian Army RAPID deployment north of this area with T-90s warranted a modern MBT where as AZ is still a potent tank.

We still have to look into how western Armies and Indian Army deploy their IFVs with MBTs.
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
1,109
2
2,483
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
One reason why PA maybe reluctant to immediately shift to IFVs from APCs is because both are designed to perform closely related yet different tasks. Different capabilities means different tactics (especially at coy and Bn lvl). This would mean complete changing/rewriting of training manuals and guides etc. As a result officers and JCOs would have to be re-trained accordingly by instructors who themselves have to to be trained first, most probably by foreign courses, cadres. However these type of changes are common as well as necessary for modern armies.
The real challenge lies at the operational lvl understanding and employment of MIBs equipped with IFVs since the will be completely different from APC equipped ones. Both have different capabilities and hence will have different objectives. This would result in re-defining the operational objs of MIBs as well as the formations including these MIBs. This would result in alteration of our operational doctrine to some limited extent. Thus we will see a strenuous period of instructing, war gaming, live exercises, reviewing these exercises and deducing results from them. The experiences and results gained from these exercises will then be used to further develop our manuals, change the operational employment of MIBs and their formations. These steps become even more painstaking for a budget conscious and a highly professional force.
Fortunately PA(unlike any other institution)has learned alot from its past experiences as well as from its neighbour and buying eqpt just with spec related trails and not considering/understanding their employment at all lvls only leads the shiny stuff to disaster as happened to our Pattons.
Thus we may(or it may not be publicised initially) first see PA getting a small batch of IFVs for experimenting and once PA feels confident of absorbing the eqpt it will go for them in large numbers. This is why me often not see new eqpt for the first time in parades but instead in live exercises once they are fully operational (as was the case with AD wpns, bridge layers and even VT4). However IFV, like pre-mentioned eqpt is not just a weapon system but a completely new concept of undertaking mech ops for us and considering the quantity in which its going to inducted in PA it will surely have a profound impact from Tactical to operational lvl. Thus its induction would effect our doctrine and Changing/modifying/improving a doctrine takes atleast a decade of it is to saved from being squandered by haste.
Fortunately our neighbour hasn't taken this important lesson and as Panzerkiel says "they want to do too much in too little time". Hence we see the confusion, lack of preparedness amd logistical issues on their side. On the other hand PA wants to be as cost effective and efficient as possible. Thus it meets up its deficiencies by thought process and hence we came up the ideas of LAT and HATs
In short it is neither the shortage of funds nor old school mindset of generals but infact a question of evolving our whole doctrine.
 
Last edited:

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
7,489
227
20,515
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
One reason why PA maybe reluctant to immediately shift to IFVs from APCs is because both are designed to perform closely related yet different tasks. Different capabilities means different tactics (especially at coy and Bn lvl). This would mean complete changing/rewriting of training manuals and guides etc. As a result officers and JCOs would have to be re-trained accordingly by instructors who themselves have to to be trained first, most probably by foreign courses, cadres. However these type of changes are common as well as necessary for modern armies.
The real challenge lies at the operational lvl understanding and employment of MIBs equipped with IFVs since the will be completely different from APC equipped ones. Both have different capabilities and hence will have different objectives. This would result in re-defining the operational objs of MIBs as well as the formations including these MIBs. This would result in alteration of our operational doctrine to some limited extent. Thus we will see a strenuous period of instructing, war gaming, live exercises, reviewing these exercises and deducing results from them. The experiences and results gained from these exercises will then be used to further develop our manuals, change the operational employment of MIBs and their formations. These steps become even more painstaking for a budget conscious and a highly professional force.
Fortunately PA(unlike any other institution)has learned alot from its past experiences as well as from its neighbour and buying eqpt just with spec related trails and not considering/understanding their employment at all lvls only leads the shiny stuff to disaster as happened to our Pattons.
Thus we may(or it may not be publicised initially) first see PA getting a small batch of IFVs for experimenting and once PA feels confident of absorbing the eqpt it will go for them in large numbers. This is why me often not see new eqpt for the first time in parades but instead in live exercises once they are fully operational (as was the case with AD wpns, bridge layers and even VT4). However IFV, like pre-mentioned eqpt is not just a weapon system but a completely new concept of undertaking mech ops for us and considering the quantity in which its going to inducted in PA it will surely have a profound impact from Tactical to operational lvl. Thus its induction would effect our doctrine and Changing/modifying/improving a doctrine takes atleast a decade of it is to saved from being squandered by haste.
Fortunately our neighbour hasn't taken this important lesson and as Panzerkiel says "they want to do too much in too little time". Hence we see the confusion, lack of preparedness amd logistical issues on their side. On the other hand PA wants to be as cost effective and efficient as possible. Thus it meets up its deficiencies by thought process and hence we came up the ideas of LAT and HATs
In short it is neither the shortage of funds nor old school mindset of generals but infact a question of evolving our whole doctrine.
The amount of studies and exams conducted in Military are the most numerous in the country. All the other Govt and civilian sectors don't come close except the research sector. PA is lacking behind in IFV-concept when all the major modern armies are looked at considering the top 15 or top 20 armies of the world. Some 20 years ago PA had limited concept of COIN and AT Ops. SSG had to be sent everywhere for specialized combat, now LCB, Rangers and FC are trained to handle incidents. Infantry battalions of Army have been trained in COIN war too. Similarly, war and combat are evolving in different doctrines. Equipping army with IFVs is another one of them. Training and deployment will come next. The average infantry NCO has to go through a new curriculum in institutions to become more effective in leading a section or squad in IFV. The difference between a sepoy and a commander is that leader adapts according to changing and demanding circumstances, where as a sepoy just takes orders even if it costs him his life. Army is late in introducing IFV to its commanders and soldiers. It could be due to many reasons, the COIN war took priority in past decades and M-113s were seen with different up-armored/protective methods in the deployment zones. IFV is just one the concepts which need to be introduced. In future PA should make micro UAVs common for infantry recon/surveillance, more reliance on ground robots for infantry and stop deploying infantry as cannon fodder rather protect infantry by increasing support from long range and precise weapons for infantry soldiers to avoid direct combat and putting soldiers in harms way unless unavoidable.
The R&S battalions came up with plan to hold ground through "mobility and firepower" since PA lacked the numbers, this is why an infantry battalion of 800 troops could be divided into two R&S battalions of 400+ troops and handed over HMGs and RR guns armed on 4x4 jeeps thus holding more ground than a regular infantry battalion. If PA had the numbers to face IA, maybe R&S battalion concept might never have come up.
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
1,109
2
2,483
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Cage armour on turrets of Russian tanks as anti-UCAV measure.
20211128_201638.jpg


Despite the imprudent assertions that tanks have become redundant; tanks will hit back with improved turret protection especially from top attack munitions.
Moreover Active protection systems and ECM may turn the tables altogether.
 
Last edited:

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,968
12
5,842
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Cage armour on turrets of Russian tanks as anti-UCAV measure.
View attachment 797358

Despite the imprudent assertions that tanks have become redundant; tanks will hit back with improved turret protection especially from top attack munitions.
Moreover Active protection systems and ECM may turn the tables altogether.
I believe this was added as Top-Attack ATGM protection more than UCAV protection. I can also tell you it’s hilarious and will not stop either of those, the most it will do is obstruct vision and make it harder for anyone to get in and out of the tank, and also increase the tanks footprint, making it easier to spot. It really confuses me why this was done, it really doesn’t look like it will help much.
 

TsAr

FULL MEMBER
Dec 2, 2008
1,284
0
1,670
Cage armour on turrets of Russian tanks as anti-UCAV measure.
View attachment 797358

Despite the imprudent assertions that tanks have become redundant; tanks will hit back with improved turret protection especially from top attack munitions.
Moreover Active protection systems and ECM may turn the tables altogether.
What a stupid idea, looks more like a jangla for Kabootars to land...
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
1,109
2
2,483
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I believe this was added as Top-Attack ATGM protection more than UCAV protection. I can also tell you it’s hilarious and will not stop either of those, the most it will do is obstruct vision and make it harder for anyone to get in and out of the tank, and also increase the tanks footprint, making it easier to spot. It really confuses me why this was done, it really doesn’t look like it will help much.
Though it may not be able to completely stop a Javelin used by Ukrainian forces it can considerably reduce its kill probability.
Ukrainians have also been using quadcopters woth rpg-3 warheads, that's why
It really confuses me why this was done,
 

Desert Fox 1

FULL MEMBER
Aug 11, 2020
1,109
2
2,483
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
M113 with a dhsk mount by the way so its probably PA
Remember the news when COAS visited Ukraine and it was said that PA was interested in atgms.
Most probably a Skif↓
189465534_493755312063864_5205952742268972913_n-1-696x445.jpg


 
Last edited:

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,968
12
5,842
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Though it may not be able to completely stop a Javelin used by Ukrainian forces it can considerably reduce its kill probability.
Ukrainians have also been using quadcopters woth rpg-3 warheads, that's why
It will still mission kill the tank be destroying most of the optics and the sensors on the roof. Maybe the crew will survive, you have to remember that the armor up top isn’t that thick anyways.
 

Inception-06

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2007
3,668
18
4,839
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Remember the news when COAS visited Ukraine and it was said that PA was interested in atgms.
Most probably a Skif↓
View attachment 797571

Why is Pakistan not buying more Kornets ?
 

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


Top Bottom