What's new

The first batch of VT5 light tanks was delivered to Bangladesh

Michael Corleone

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 27, 2014
10,245
-5
10,603
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Ukraine
A 38 ton tank is considered "light". Talk about wasting money. Should have spent that money on UCAV or more importantly try to get some fighter jets for the Air Force.
Just stfu internet general

You need at least 100 modern tanks too hold your ground for a middle size battle. Other wise your enemy armory will penetrate you line like knife cutting butter. Unless, you have overpowered air force which are super expensive.


VT-5 is THE best tank that weight under 40 ton. Excellent use for low infrastructure area and muddy field.
If your heavy tank cant reach the front line...it's useless.

By the way. VT-5 have most powerful 105mm gun in the world. Here is the test for it. 550mm steel at 2km.

APFSDS that’s why. I wonder what’s the AP shell penetration spec

We will need to induct aircraft carriers in the long term if we want develop the ability to counter a naval blockade by India. (Stress on "need"; does not necessarily mean we can afford)

The presence of Indian military bases and ports in Andaman Nicober Islands and along their South Eastern coastline enables their ships and fighter jets to maintain a sustained presence around Bangladesh's Sea boundaries. BN frigates and BAF fighter jets based in Southern Bangladesh alone cannot negate such a strategic advantage for India as we need sustained military presence in the area marked in red (range and refuelling issues). Only aircraft carriers can neutralise these Indian installations to keep our sea lines clear.
View attachment 648993
Subs

- Japan built 22 aircraft carriers before 1940. Only 2 of these carriers were taken near Hawai to invade the US military installations there during WWll
Six, not 2... six in Pearl Harbor and 4 lost at midway
 

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
11,768
0
13,416
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
Six, not 2... six in Pearl Harbor and 4 lost at midway
Where did you get this wrong information? Now, I re-checked and found Japan built 25 aircraft carriers to fight the Pacific war. All were built by itself and not by purchase from other countries. Only two they used to attack Pearl Harbor. Why it used only two and not five? It was because the navy did not want its carriers to be detected by the USA before attacking.

- Fleet carriers 15
- Light carriers 5
- Escort carriers 5
 

mb444

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 18, 2012
4,161
1
6,954
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Where did you get this wrong information? Now, I re-checked and found Japan built 25 aircraft carriers to fight the Pacific war. All were built by itself and not by purchase from other countries. Only two they used to attack Pearl Harbor. Why it used only two and not five? It was because the navy did not want its carriers to be detected by the USA before attacking.

- Fleet carriers 15
- Light carriers 5
- Escort carriers 5
A carrier has a fleet of ship with it. 2 carrier battle group was enough.

Japs almost won against US in the pacific. They just ran out of steam and nukes made the war untenable.
 

Destranator

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 20, 2018
2,197
-2
3,927
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
We will need to induct aircraft carriers in the long term if we want develop the ability to counter a naval blockade by India. (Stress on "need"; does not necessarily mean we can afford)

The presence of Indian military bases and ports in Andaman Nicober Islands and along their South Eastern coastline enables their ships and fighter jets to maintain a sustained presence around Bangladesh's Sea boundaries. BN frigates and BAF fighter jets based in Southern Bangladesh alone cannot negate such a strategic advantage for India as we need sustained military presence in the area marked in red (range and refuelling issues). Only aircraft carriers can neutralise these Indian installations to keep our sea lines clear.
View attachment 648993
Subs

/QUOTE]
Subs may sink ships which would physically "block" the sea lines but this is not enough deterrence. We need to possess the ability to strike nearby Indian ports/naval bases harbouring IN ships and air bases hosting maritime strike aircraft to actual secure the sea lines for merchant ships to sail.

This cannot be achieved without ACs as BAF fighter jets cannot sustain themselves ferrying back and forth from the Bangladeshi coasts.

Again, before anyone mis-quotes me: the above is what we NEED, not necessarily what we can afford.
 

Bilal9

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 4, 2014
18,293
1
28,949
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United States
A carrier has a fleet of ship with it. 2 carrier battle group was enough.

Japs almost won against US in the pacific. They just ran out of steam and nukes made the war untenable.
Well stated bhai. The Japanese were experts at converting regular ships into aircraft carriers, Still awe-inspiring some eighty years later. This is the IJN A/C Ryujo.


Yamato class had bigger guns than American battleships. Americans basically outproduced the Japanese in building all kinds of ships. Just like Russians outproduced the Germans in the Tank wars.

It's not the quality of your stuff, it's how many you have as backup (if you keep producing) and keep throwing against the enemy...

The Germans' entire strategy starting in WWII was about lightweight recon tanks, just like with our VT5 purchase.

Bird in hand is worth two in the bush...
 

Bengal71

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 21, 2018
2,414
-13
2,998
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Australia
Subs may sink ships which would physically "block" the sea lines but this is not enough deterrence. We need to possess the ability to strike nearby Indian ports/naval bases harbouring IN ships and air bases hosting maritime strike aircraft to actual secure the sea lines for merchant ships to sail.

This cannot be achieved without ACs as BAF fighter jets cannot sustain themselves ferrying back and forth from the Bangladeshi coasts.

Again, before anyone mis-quotes me: the above is what we NEED, not necessarily what we can afford.
Naval bases can be hit cheaply with cruise and ballistic missiles. We need to have an indigenous missile program similar to what Iran has.
 

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
11,768
0
13,416
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
A carrier has a fleet of ship with it. 2 carrier battle group was enough.

Japs almost won against US in the pacific. They just ran out of steam and nukes made the war untenable.
There was no way Japan would have won in the Pacific war. One point is it overextended to many countries, like Guam, part of China, Taiwan, united Korea, etc. After this, the USA slapped a sanction against Japan barring ships to carry fuel from Indonesia.

. So, Japan invaded the Philippines and expelled America.
. It invaded Vietnam and expelled France.
. It invaded Indonesia and expelled Holland.
. Next, they attacked Malay and Singapore and expelled the British.
. Next, they attacked Burma and expelled the British.
. There were some countries where Australia interfered and Japan expelled Australia. I do not remember which countries, could it be south Pacific islands?
. It bombed some places in Chittagong and Kumilla by flying its Zero fighter planes from Burma.
The Zero fighters were even better than German planes those days. British planes were no match.

Japan did not invade only Thailand. it respected the latter because of its sense of dignity of not accepting a European rule. However, from Japan to Indonesia to Burma was a vast territory when Manchuria and other parts of China is considered.

It lost the war because the USA won against Germany and re-directed its troops and strength to the Pacific. The USA kept Japan under occupation for a few years. But, most Japanese would say it was good for the population because General MacArthur introduced a very effective land reform and the warmonger rightists here lost steam.

Japan lost about 3,000,000 armed and civilian population in the long five year of heavy fighting in the Pacific war. Every name of the dead is registered. Now, read about Onoda Hiroo who finally surrendered in 1974.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...wwii-soldier-hiroo-onoda-hid-jungles-decades/
 

mb444

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 18, 2012
4,161
1
6,954
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Should not we talk on things that we can put in our mouths, chew them and swallow as well. Please note below which countries are able to manufacture what aircraft carriers.

- Japan built 22 aircraft carriers before 1940. Only 2 of these carriers were taken near Hawai to invade the US military installations there during WWll.
- Mighty China in 2020 has only 2 aircraft carriers. There is no record it has ever used it.
- Mighty India possesses only 2 aircraft carriers in 2020. No record of using it.

So, which year do you want a strong BN to induct 2 to 5 such carriers? Or, just 1 will be enough?
I would contend that BD has no need for air craft carriers at all. What we require is a large submarine force and lots and lots of missiles.

A carrier battle group is an almost stationary target. Chuck enough missiles at it and it will be destroyed. Only time carriers ever fought was during WW2 when missile tech was absent and today anti missile tech not good enough and ultimately a carrier group can mount defense for only a period of time before its resources are exhausted.

This is how iran keeps US at bay. BD needs to do the same to ensure we can never be blocked by IN.
 

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
11,768
0
13,416
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
A carrier battle group is an almost stationary target. Chuck enough missiles at it and it will be destroyed.
i will response to other things. But, a moving object is not that easy to target by missiles thrown from a land-based site. Water vessels are not stationary. Also, a moving carrier has its own missiles that can target fixed missile sites on land.
 

mb444

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 18, 2012
4,161
1
6,954
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
i will response to other things. But, a moving object is not that easy to target by missiles thrown from a land-based site. Water vessels are not stationary. Also, a moving carrier has its own missiles that can target fixed missile sites on land.

Well offcourse there are counter measures that a CBG can apply and correspondingly land based missiles are also generally mobile.

The point is if you aim 50 missiles at a carrier there is zero chance they can all be intercepted. Even if 5 hits the carrier its pretty much dead in the water.

For BD a CBG wont provide any deterrence. What we need are lots of subs to secure the Bay and our interest. With missiles we can neutralise INs andamans operation and in the sea we face only threat from the east.

My point BN needs to be super agile and offensive and eliminate possibility of a blockade.

In land and in sea missiles are the key. BAF can not match the IAF threat. However i do believe a missile force will enable BN and BA to check indian aggresion from land, sea and air.

Any potential conflict would be short and it will primarily play out in the political arena. We need to ensure we present a clear threat so a conflict never occurs between us and if it does in the negotiating table we have a strong position.

At the moment India can beat us but can never hold BD for any length of time. They know this. However they know they can exact humiliating terms from us. We need to get out of this scenario.

To ensure zero conflict between india and BD we need to become stronger and we need to do this faster. Stabilty for us lies in strength....obvious and offcourse you i assume will concur.
 
Last edited:

Bilal9

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 4, 2014
18,293
1
28,949
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United States
Naval bases can be hit cheaply with cruise and ballistic missiles. We need to have an indigenous missile program similar to what Iran has.
Iran also has highly mobile platforms like mini torpedo boats to launch those missiles from close quarters. Like 'swarm attack' strategy. If they can fight against the US with that strategy, no issue with us using those ideas against our naval adversaries.

Look at how heavily armed Pakistan's small LPC Azmat class is, which is meant to use 'shoot and scoot' strategy. Classic small Navy doctrine. Azmat class is smaller than even our locally built Durjoy class variant.

Same strategy with Mini subs Pakistan has. WE need to get some or build some.

Well offcourse there are counter measures that a CBG can apply and correspondingly land based missiles are also generally mobile.

The point is if you aim 50 missiles at a carrier there is zero chance they can all be intercepted. Even if 5 hits the carrier its pretty much dead in the water.

For BD a CBG wont provide any deterrence. What we need are lots of subs to secure the Bay and our interest. With missiles we can neutralise INs andamans operation and in the sea we face only threat from the east.

My point BN needs to be super agile and offensive and eliminate possibility of a blockade.

In land and in sea missiles are the key. BAF can not match the IAF threat. However i do believe a missile force will enable BN and BA to check indian aggresion from land, sea and air.

Any potential conflict would be short and it will primarily play out in the political arena. We need to ensure we present a clear threat so a conflict never occurs between us and if it does in the negotiating table we have a strong position.

At the moment India can beat us but can never hold BD for any length of time. They know this. However they know they can exact humiliating terms from us. We need to get out of this scenario.

To ensure zero conflict between india and BD we need to become stronger and we need to do this faster. Stabilty for us lies in strength....obvious and offcourse you i assume will concur.
You guys are echoing my thoughts exactly. :-)
 

Michael Corleone

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 27, 2014
10,245
-5
10,603
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Ukraine
Where did you get this wrong information? Now, I re-checked and found Japan built 25 aircraft carriers to fight the Pacific war. All were built by itself and not by purchase from other countries. Only two they used to attack Pearl Harbor. Why it used only two and not five? It was because the navy did not want its carriers to be detected by the USA before attacking.

- Fleet carriers 15
- Light carriers 5
- Escort carriers 5
The attack commenced at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time (18:18 GMT).[nb 4][16] The base was attacked by 353[17] Imperial Japanese aircraft (including fighters, level and dive bombers, and torpedo bombers) in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers.[17] All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four sunk.
source Wikipedia attack on Pearl Harbor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

there was two waves of attack, a third was called off...

Subs may sink ships which would physically "block" the sea lines but this is not enough deterrence. We need to possess the ability to strike nearby Indian ports/naval bases harbouring IN ships and air bases hosting maritime strike aircraft to actual secure the sea lines for merchant ships to sail.

This cannot be achieved without ACs as BAF fighter jets cannot sustain themselves ferrying back and forth from the Bangladeshi coasts.

Again, before anyone mis-quotes me: the above is what we NEED, not necessarily what we can afford.
BM, an aircraft carrier is impractical for an economy or military the size of Bangladesh.
 

bluesky

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 14, 2016
11,768
0
13,416
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
The attack commenced at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time (18:18 GMT).[nb 4][16] The base was attacked by 353[17] Imperial Japanese aircraft (including fighters, level and dive bombers, and torpedo bombers) in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers.[17] All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four sunk.
source Wikipedia attack on Pearl Harbor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

there was two waves of attack, a third was called off...

BM, an aircraft carrier is impractical for an economy or military the size of Bangladesh.
Now, I see there were six (not two as I assumed before) aircraft carriers involved in the attacks on the US military assets in Hawai. But, Japan had 22 carriers that they built before 1939.

- Japan was already a technology superpower in the late 1890s. It captured Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc.
- Japan defeated Russia in 1905 in the bloodiest naval war in Tsushima Strait. Russia was regarded as the strongest naval power of the then world. It annihilated more than hundred Russian navy ships and chased others towards Vladivostok.

About Bangladesh, I will be happy if it can build frigates. Note that the machines and weapons systems in the made-in-Bangladesh frigates are imported mostly from China.

BD is a very sad story without any achievements in any field to say of.

Well offcourse there are counter measures that a CBG can apply and correspondingly land based missiles are also generally mobile.

The point is if you aim 50 missiles at a carrier there is zero chance they can all be intercepted. Even if 5 hits the carrier its pretty much dead in the water.

For BD a CBG wont provide any deterrence. What we need are lots of subs to secure the Bay and our interest. With missiles we can neutralise INs andamans operation and in the sea we face only threat from the east.

My point BN needs to be super agile and offensive and eliminate possibility of a blockade.

In land and in sea missiles are the key. BAF can not match the IAF threat. However i do believe a missile force will enable BN and BA to check indian aggresion from land, sea and air.

Any potential conflict would be short and it will primarily play out in the political arena. We need to ensure we present a clear threat so a conflict never occurs between us and if it does in the negotiating table we have a strong position.

At the moment India can beat us but can never hold BD for any length of time. They know this. However they know they can exact humiliating terms from us. We need to get out of this scenario.

To ensure zero conflict between india and BD we need to become stronger and we need to do this faster. Stabilty for us lies in strength....obvious and offcourse you i assume will concur.
Whatever you say about finetuning technology to target a moving object it is not practical by attacks from land. A naval ship must be attacked by bombing by planes, torpedo or such other things. attack from the land will not give any tangible results.
 

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


Top Bottom