A Vision of a New Combined Arms Philosophy & Doctrine

[jhungary]

I'd have to disagree with that assessment that Pakistan is too small to engage in maneuver warfare.

About size of Indian Army - it has 40 divisions currently. Assuming this goes up to say 43 by the time such a plan comes to fruition, this scenario above calls for about 38 divisions.

Given that India has a long border with a host of other countries, it won't have all its divisions in play. So, we can assume in combat, if in the future the Indian Army goes up to 43 divisions from its present 40, they will have to assign at least 5 divisions to protect other fronts - 1 division for Bangladesh, 1 for Myanmar, 2-3 for its long border with China.

Furthermore, Pakistan can mobilize its entire force in 1 day, while, because of the wide dispersion in the interior for India, it takes a lot longer.

Suffice it to say 38 Pakistani divisions will meat approximately the same number in combat.

In any case, the disparity in numbers is not that great neither in current terms, or in the proposed combined arms expansion.

It will be foolhardy and hard to do a large airborne assault against Pakistan without air superiority, otherwise the helis and transports will be shot down like flies by Pakistan's extensive IADS.

As for assault from the sea, again, unlikely to be very successful given the massive modernization taking place in PN and the unsuitability of the Sir Creek area for amphibious landing and penetration.

The problem is not what India have or have not, the problem is the concern is still and not just applies on Indian Side. Because you still have to split your force to defence different approach, just because it was hard (by your word, not mine) that does not mean you don't need to defend those approach

For a defender, you still need to put your army into front line troop, supporting troop and reserve, the situation is the same between India and Pakistan, because Pakistan also facing different border.

And if you are talking about mobilisation, then you also need to talk about how long and how much India can mobilise other than that 43 standing division they have? You cannot just use the scale and tip it over to Pakistan every time you compare between India and Pakistan.

Also, please do tell if and when India launch a general offensive, can Pakistan stop it near the border? If so, how? And you failed to see even if a particular spearhead is hard to pull off, that does not mean you don't need to station defence on those area, because whether or not India will attack from the sea or from the mountain is their business, your business is to defend those area, and even if India did not attack via the sea, it does not mean it is not a threat, see how the US Marine feign a Amphibious assault to draw Saddam defence off the main line (Kuwait border) to the Basra area? Even the assault was actually for show, you still need to pull defence force up to those region, and when that happened, you don't have 38 division facing the Indian main strike, you would have less.

Also, the whole point of getting Combine arms unit is so they can be more effectively used over a sparse battlefield, not making it bigger, the way you propose using Combine Arms in corps level is basically useless and it basically take away the evenly distributed lethality Combine Arms unit have to give, and while you are suggesting to use only 8 to 12 planes over a whole corps, well, I honestly don't know what are you thinking if you think that would make sense.

This is illogical because you're ignoring how contemporary armies use attack helicopters without having to force the entire air force under army command. So I'd say that's a red herring in your argument and a scarecrow.

Contemporary armies uses attack helicopter because those army have the what we called "Local Superiority" and gunship do get shot down from time to time even we are talking about US Army, where they usually achieve COMPLETE AIRSUPERIORITY over a battlefield.

Even in the US Army, if there are AA threat on the AO, request for Gunship and Chopper would be declined automatically, and you can only use fast air.

 

[Armchair]

@Armchair

I haven't been able to reply you in depth, i can list a few points.

1. Wheeled vs Tracked AFV:

a. Weight issue on wheels due to increased/extra armor.
b. Higher caliber weapon 125mm on wheeled AFV.
c. Mobility in the desert.

2. Effectiveness of 30mm, 35mm, 40mm or 76mm caliber.

a. Above mentioned calibers installed on IFV like CV-90 or Bradley. Considering that PA uses M-113 with 12.7mm as battle taxi only and why should M-113 be replaced by a tracked or wheeled IFV like Ratel.

b. Should MRAP capability become a standard in all future APC/IFV.

c. should ATGM be a standard on all IFV's.

3. Coming to combined arms; an independent armored brigade usually has armor, mech infantry, artillery and can get AD from Corps.

a. Its the division level where either its infantry or armored oriented. If the focus is on division, then its battalion or brigade structure should effective distribution of armor, infantry, artillery, air defence, aviation apart from support elements. Corps is already combined arms, Corps already has infantry, armor, artillery Divs or brigades.

b. In the division lay out of post 51, air assault or air borne formations are required foremost. Then the disparity between infantry and armor divs is too much. Pakistan needs more armor formations. Infantry needs APC or IFV battalions. In fact Infantry divisions should have at least one armored brigade, instead of a lone armor regiment covering 9 infantry battalions. Armor formations need not just Tanks, but SP Arty, SP AD, more IFV's/APC's. Increasing tanks doesn't help.

Okay, let me try to address each of them:

Wheeled vs. Tracked AFVs

I understand that the M113 has been used so far. The doctrine has been as a battle taxi. This is perfect for the M113 as it is made of aluminum and shaped charges will burn through them and set them on fire if used in a direct combat role.

If we are looking at a battle-taxi, then weight would not be an issue. A 6x6 at about 10-15 tons would be just fine for a wheeled AFV. Problem starts at about 30 tons for wheeled AFVs. This can be an APC that builds the core of your mechanized infantry battalions.

Regarding the Flex tank, which is essentially a hybrid of a tank and an IFV, the weight should not be a problem because the Rooikat design has been extensively tested in South Africa under very stringent and demanding criteria. For a long time the design kept failing the test until they perfected it.

Higher caliber gun - the Flex tank will use the South African 76 mm tank gun that was designed to be highly effective - designed specifically to destroy T-55 / T-62 tanks. Its a high velocity gun with a SABOT round. The Flex tank would also have 8x ATGMs similar to the Bradley which was highly successful at taking out enemy tanks including T-72s.

I also thought that some variants could get the 125 mm gun to serve what you described as LAT / HAT role. This should be possible, but will limit mobility, which is fine from the theoretical viewpoint of a LAT / HAT.

Mobility in the desert -

South Africa has tested and specially designed the Rooikat for the fine grained sand that is so impassible and difficult to deal with for tracked MBTs. Incidentally, this fine grained sand issue is also a problem for Pakistan's desert, where while foreigners think this is a place that can allow tank warfare, in actuality, the desert is very difficult and taxing for armor or any kind of mobility.

Ultimately - for both the AFV and the Flex Tank, the proof is in the pudding. We would need to build such vehicles and test them - or purchase a few Rooikats and Ratels as rough equivalents and test them. Then see what works and what doesn't.

2. Effectiveness of 30mm, 35mm, 40mm or 76mm caliber.

a. Above mentioned calibers installed on IFV like CV-90 or Bradley. Considering that PA uses M-113 with 12.7mm as battle taxi only and why should M-113 be replaced by a tracked or wheeled IFV like Ratel.

PA should not replace the M-113 with Ratel at all. The wheeled 6x6 I'm proposing is a simple battle taxi, not designed to be used for combat, except the niche version - say for LAT or recon.

The doctrine of battle-taxi is sound IMHO. Imagine a simple, mass produced, low cost 6x6 with space for 12 combat equiped troops. I think we are in agreement here.

b. Should MRAP capability become a standard in all future APC/IFV.

I don't have an answer to that. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. There are technical issues with that and cost concerns. Perhaps we can see how the South Africans used MRAPs and why they chose the Ratel and the Rooikat to not be MRAP based.

Remember, a central theme of the strategic doctrine we have built is mass production. A simple, mass produced tank or APC will cost 3-10 times less than equivalents, due to economies of scale. So, that would need to be considered, whatever the decision may be after a technical evaluation

should ATGM be a standard on all IFV's.

ATGMs are precision munitions, which are a major disruptive technology reshaping the battlefield. If we are to maximize our advantage against IA, it has to be effectively incorporated into our doctrine and strategy, down to the tactical and operational levels.

However, I don't think it should be standard on all IFVs. Our major IFV is actually a hybrid IFV / Tank and that certainly should have ATGMs as standard, given we are going lower on the main gun caliber. However, if we are using a 6x6 APC as battle taxi, it makes no sense to put ATGMs as standard.

What do you think?

3. Coming to combined arms; an independent armored brigade usually has armor, mech infantry, artillery and can get AD from Corps.

a. Its the division level where either its infantry or armored oriented. If the focus is on division, then its battalion or brigade structure should effective distribution of armor, infantry, artillery, air defence, aviation apart from support elements. Corps is already combined arms, Corps already has infantry, armor, artillery Divs or brigades.

b. In the division lay out of post 51, air assault or air borne formations are required foremost. Then the disparity between infantry and armor divs is too much. Pakistan needs more armor formations. Infantry needs APC or IFV battalions. In fact Infantry divisions should have at least one armored brigade, instead of a lone armor regiment covering 9 infantry battalions. Armor formations need not just Tanks, but SP Arty, SP AD, more IFV's/APC's. Increasing tanks doesn't help.

At the highest strategic level, our most important units are probably going to be Corps or Corps sized units, given that in our battle plan, we have 38 odd divisions. However, at lower command levels, this doesn't mean the Corps will be king - the division and brigade will be king for them. Similarly, for a brigadier, the brigade and the battalions will be important. And for the lieutenant his company will be important.

Our aim is to make each level of command most effective and efficient. For this purpose, we have done the following:

1. Beefed up the Infantry divisions and infantry brigade with more tanks, IFVs, APCs, mechanized battalions
2. Beefed artillery with mobile 120 mm mortars, along with wheeled SPGs
3. Incorporated UAVs down to the brigade level.
4. Incorporate attack helicopters / CAS aircraft at the Corps level.

In the mix, even the battalion will find that it can call upon armor, artillery, air support better than ever before. Which is the aim.

You're right, just tanks will not help. We need a wide assortment of equipment. So far, in the plan outlined we have:

1. About 4000 APCs
2. About 4000 Flex Tanks (which are a tank / IFV hybrid as they can carry 4x soldiers along with the tank personnel)
3. 500 mobile mortar, basically the Flex chassis with a high velocity, recoiling 120mm mortar. This is actually an artillery weapon. Should give a range of about 20 kms. An Israeli weapon developed similarly provides accuracy and range.

Basically, this third element introduced is a contemporary equivalent of the Mongolian horse-archer, mobile, fast and with a ranged assault.

4. CAS aircraft 100 - 200 of them. For the first time as an integrated element within the armed forces. Basically you're taking a page from the US Marine Corps

5. We'd probably need about 10000 trucks. Here is where the 500 hp engine that will be the core of the Flex Tank / APC / truck / mobile mortar comes in. This mass produced engine will be the heart of the combined arms strategy.

I have only said we need wheeled artillery but haven't detailed or specified it properly. This is because I simply don't know enough about it, and don't have any good technical knowledge of it. Nor do I have any ideas about how this can be sourced or produced. But surely, mobile (wheeled or tracked) artillery is a key element.

I was just reading today about the Indian Artillery Division. That is a really interesting concept. Its basically the equivalent of the elephant units in ancient armies - a slow division that brings massive firepower.

Perhaps a place to start our research on how to bring about enough artillery to arm our 38 divisions can start by researching the Turkish position particularly their Firtina and to look at South African use of wheeled / motorized artillery.

About airborne assault brigade / division - perhaps you can help me understand it better - I don't know how it can be relevant without meaningful air superiority. The single mountain division we've specified, has air assault but this I imagine will have the cover of mountainous terrain in Kashmir. Perhaps you can help me understand how air assault brigades can be used in the open plains of Punjab and Sindh when IAF and India's IADs, as well as their considerable stock of SAMs will be all over us.

Jhungary - I will let you do your reading, it seems you think Pakistan is too small to do maneuver warfare, that India can gain air superiority over Pakistan, and that India has more than 43 divisions that it needs to mobilize. India actually only has 40 divisions. It can't mobilize more divisions than it has. I was being generous with 43, imagining that they would have expanded their army in the future. If you're making up your arguments based on the information I'm providing, it wouldn't be meaningful for me to engage.

 

[Armchair]

THE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND THEIR COMPOSITION (UPDATED)

INFANTRY DIVISION (15)

3 Infantry Brigades each brigade: 2 Infantry Battalion + 1 Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Trucks for regular infantry battalions, 6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion with 10 organic flex tanks
1 Regiment of Tanks MBT or Flex Tanks
Artillery Brigade with MLRS
LAT Regiment with Flex Tanks / 6x6 APC armed with Flex turret weaponry
AD regiment
Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level Corps Level: CAS Aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)


ARMOURED DIVISION (2)

Uparmed to 2 Armored Brigades and 1 Mechanized Infantry Brigade
Mechanized Infantry Brigade - 2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions + 1 Flex tank regiment
6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion

Artillery Brigade armed with SPGs, wheeled SPGs, mobile 120 mm high velocity recoiling mortars (Flex chassis)

LAT / HAT regiment armed with Flex tank chassis based 125 mm MBT gun, 6x6 chassis based ATGMs

Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Corps Level: CAS Aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)

MOUNTAIN DIVISION (1)

3 Infantry Brigades each brigade: 2 Infantry Battalion + 1 air assault battalion
1 Regiment of Tanks MBT / Flex Tanks
Double Artillery Brigade with MLRS, with emphasis on light artillery
LAT Regiment with ATGMs deployed using APCs, Attack Helicopters, CAS Aircraft
Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Helicopters for airborne assault
Recon Regiment: Recon helicopters

MECHANIZED DIVISION (4)

There are 3 brigades in the mechanized division
Each Brigade:
2 of the three brigades: 2x armor regiments + 1x mechanized infantry battalion
3rd brigade: mechanized infantry brigade
Mechanized Infantry Brigade - 2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions + 1 Flex tank regiment
6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion

Artillery Brigade armed with SPGs, wheeled SPGs, mobile 120 mm high velocity recoiling mortars (Flex chassis)

LAT / HAT regiment armed with Flex tank chassis based 125 mm MBT gun, 6x6 chassis based ATGMs

Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Corps level: CAS aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)

FLEX DIVISION (15)

Three brigades: 2 Flex brigades + 1 Mechanized Infantry Brigade

Flex Brigade:
2x Flex tank regiments + 1x mechanized infantry battalion

Mechanized Infantry Brigade: 2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions + 1 Flex tank regiment
6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion

Artillery Brigade armed with SPGs, wheeled SPGs, mobile 120 mm high velocity recoiling mortars (Flex chassis)

Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Corps level: CAS aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)


To disguise this buildup, you could call the Flex tanks as IFVs and the Flex Division as a Motorized Infantry Division
Things we haven't still figured out - SPG sourcing, Special forces utilization, air defense equipment and doctrine

Food for thought:

Artillery Division
Between Sialkot to somewhat south of Sahiwal ("the Anvil") you have on both sides, well defended areas with water obstacle and a large number of forces on both sides. This sector can be reinforced with an Artillery Division that looks to maximize the use of both tube and rocket artillery.

Basically its an under-strength Infantry Division vis:
3x Infantry Brigades
Each Infantry Brigade: 2x Infantry battalions
LAT with 6x6
2x Artillery Brigades (double artillery)
2x Rocket artillery regiments (MLRS, tactical BMs)
UAVs
CAS aircraft at Corps level

 

[Signalian]

Okay, let me try to address each of them:

Wheeled vs. Tracked AFVs

I understand that the M113 has been used so far. The doctrine has been as a battle taxi. This is perfect for the M113 as it is made of aluminum and shaped charges will burn through them and set them on fire if used in a direct combat role.

If we are looking at a battle-taxi, then weight would not be an issue. A 6x6 at about 10-15 tons would be just fine for a wheeled AFV. Problem starts at about 30 tons for wheeled AFVs. This can be an APC that builds the core of your mechanized infantry battalions.

Regarding the Flex tank, which is essentially a hybrid of a tank and an IFV, the weight should not be a problem because the Rooikat design has been extensively tested in South Africa under very stringent and demanding criteria. For a long time the design kept failing the test until they perfected it.

Higher caliber gun - the Flex tank will use the South African 76 mm tank gun that was designed to be highly effective - designed specifically to destroy T-55 / T-62 tanks. Its a high velocity gun with a SABOT round. The Flex tank would also have 8x ATGMs similar to the Bradley which was highly successful at taking out enemy tanks including T-72s.

I also thought that some variants could get the 125 mm gun to serve what you described as LAT / HAT role. This should be possible, but will limit mobility, which is fine from the theoretical viewpoint of a LAT / HAT.

Mobility in the desert -

South Africa has tested and specially designed the Rooikat for the fine grained sand that is so impassible and difficult to deal with for tracked MBTs. Incidentally, this fine grained sand issue is also a problem for Pakistan's desert, where while foreigners think this is a place that can allow tank warfare, in actuality, the desert is very difficult and taxing for armor or any kind of mobility.

Ultimately - for both the AFV and the Flex Tank, the proof is in the pudding. We would need to build such vehicles and test them - or purchase a few Rooikats and Ratels as rough equivalents and test them. Then see what works and what doesn't.




PA should not replace the M-113 with Ratel at all. The wheeled 6x6 I'm proposing is a simple battle taxi, not designed to be used for combat, except the niche version - say for LAT or recon.

The doctrine of battle-taxi is sound IMHO. Imagine a simple, mass produced, low cost 6x6 with space for 12 combat equiped troops. I think we are in agreement here.



I don't have an answer to that. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. There are technical issues with that and cost concerns. Perhaps we can see how the South Africans used MRAPs and why they chose the Ratel and the Rooikat to not be MRAP based.

Remember, a central theme of the strategic doctrine we have built is mass production. A simple, mass produced tank or APC will cost 3-10 times less than equivalents, due to economies of scale. So, that would need to be considered, whatever the decision may be after a technical evaluation



ATGMs are precision munitions, which are a major disruptive technology reshaping the battlefield. If we are to maximize our advantage against IA, it has to be effectively incorporated into our doctrine and strategy, down to the tactical and operational levels.

However, I don't think it should be standard on all IFVs. Our major IFV is actually a hybrid IFV / Tank and that certainly should have ATGMs as standard, given we are going lower on the main gun caliber. However, if we are using a 6x6 APC as battle taxi, it makes no sense to put ATGMs as standard.

What do you think?




At the highest strategic level, our most important units are probably going to be Corps or Corps sized units, given that in our battle plan, we have 38 odd divisions. However, at lower command levels, this doesn't mean the Corps will be king - the division and brigade will be king for them. Similarly, for a brigadier, the brigade and the battalions will be important. And for the lieutenant his company will be important.

Our aim is to make each level of command most effective and efficient. For this purpose, we have done the following:

1. Beefed up the Infantry divisions and infantry brigade with more tanks, IFVs, APCs, mechanized battalions
2. Beefed artillery with mobile 120 mm mortars, along with wheeled SPGs
3. Incorporated UAVs down to the brigade level.
4. Incorporate attack helicopters / CAS aircraft at the Corps level.

In the mix, even the battalion will find that it can call upon armor, artillery, air support better than ever before. Which is the aim.

You're right, just tanks will not help. We need a wide assortment of equipment. So far, in the plan outlined we have:

1. About 4000 APCs
2. About 4000 Flex Tanks (which are a tank / IFV hybrid as they can carry 4x soldiers along with the tank personnel)
3. 500 mobile mortar, basically the Flex chassis with a high velocity, recoiling 120mm mortar. This is actually an artillery weapon. Should give a range of about 20 kms. An Israeli weapon developed similarly provides accuracy and range.

Basically, this third element introduced is a contemporary equivalent of the Mongolian horse-archer, mobile, fast and with a ranged assault.

4. CAS aircraft 100 - 200 of them. For the first time as an integrated element within the armed forces. Basically you're taking a page from the US Marine Corps

5. We'd probably need about 10000 trucks. Here is where the 500 hp engine that will be the core of the Flex Tank / APC / truck / mobile mortar comes in. This mass produced engine will be the heart of the combined arms strategy.

I have only said we need wheeled artillery but haven't detailed or specified it properly. This is because I simply don't know enough about it, and don't have any good technical knowledge of it. Nor do I have any ideas about how this can be sourced or produced. But surely, mobile (wheeled or tracked) artillery is a key element.

I was just reading today about the Indian Artillery Division. That is a really interesting concept. Its basically the equivalent of the elephant units in ancient armies - a slow division that brings massive firepower.

Perhaps a place to start our research on how to bring about enough artillery to arm our 38 divisions can start by researching the Turkish position particularly their Firtina and to look at South African use of wheeled / motorized artillery.

About airborne assault brigade / division - perhaps you can help me understand it better - I don't know how it can be relevant without meaningful air superiority. The single mountain division we've specified, has air assault but this I imagine will have the cover of mountainous terrain in Kashmir. Perhaps you can help me understand how air assault brigades can be used in the open plains of Punjab and Sindh when IAF and India's IADs, as well as their considerable stock of SAMs will be all over us.

Jhungary - I will let you do your reading, it seems you think Pakistan is too small to do maneuver warfare, that India can gain air superiority over Pakistan, and that India has more than 43 divisions that it needs to mobilize. India actually only has 40 divisions. It can't mobilize more divisions than it has. I was being generous with 43, imagining that they would have expanded their army in the future. If you're making up your arguments based on the information I'm providing, it wouldn't be meaningful for me to engage.

1. What are your targets with 76mm cannon?

2. If a 10-15 ton 6x6 APC will be used in infantry formations then a 5-ton -10 Ton truck is also good enough, since APC's job is to ferry infantry short of front lines, where infantry dismounts and attacks. In Armored divisions, the pace is very fast and an APC such as M-113 with cross country traversing profile is required.
If it has to be an IFV then it has to have adequate armor and fire power. This is why i mentioned 30mm to 40 mm cannons. it also means that a battalion may have a mix of APC and IFV. This actually gives following options:

a. Infantry formations using trucks like before. One infantry brigade uses wheeled APCs and IFV's in conjunction with Armor of that infantry formation.

b. Mechanised infantry battalions of mechanised and armor formations use tracked IFV's and APC's.

c. Same mechanised infantry uses just APC's and tank destroyers armed with ATGM and the IFV is never inducted for fire power. The LAT and HAT has ATGM as weapons, not 125mm cannons.

3 . Tracked vehicles have fared suitably in the desert of Pakistan and India, so tracked vehicle is the way forward in these sectors.

4. The 6x6 unless used as an IFV doesn't help infantry formations. It needs to support dis mounted infantry in the absence of the tanks that the infantry divisions lack.

5. IFV's operating in absence of tanks should be armed with ATGM.

6. Mortars are support weapons and integral to battalion weapons company/platoon.

7. SP guns are not required in Artillery Division. SP guns are for shoot and scoot and keeping advance with armored formations. Towed guns and MBRL work fine in Artillery division.

8. At this stage, air borne/air assault formations are very small and its impossible to manage a brigade or Div level Ops. Even if air superiority is required, it's not going to be a 30 x transport helicopter air assault, it might be 3-10 transport helicopter air assault at a certain location. Concealing heli movement is easier in mountains from radar and that is where the mobility is primarily required. But bear in mind that the mobility of heli cannot be matched by any ground transport in speed. Sometimes a certain objective may need to be captured for an advance to continue and that's where the SF, air borne, air assault ops come in. That objective may need to be captured by a platoon or company strength. If the fight is on borders, then flight time may not be enough for enemy to have sufficient time to fly alert fighters. Not achieving air superiority doesn't mean that air borne or air assault forces should not exist at all. There are blind spots in SAM/AD coverage areas. there are edges of maximum ranges which can be exploited, SEAD Ops will be conducted by PAF and air cover for certain ground operations are inevitable.

THE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND THEIR COMPOSITION (UPDATED)

INFANTRY DIVISION (15)

3 Infantry Brigades each brigade: 2 Infantry Battalion + 1 Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Trucks for regular infantry battalions, 6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion with 10 organic flex tanks
1 Regiment of Tanks MBT or Flex Tanks
Artillery Brigade with MLRS
LAT Regiment with Flex Tanks / 6x6 APC armed with Flex turret weaponry
AD regiment
Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level Corps Level: CAS Aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)


ARMOURED DIVISION (2)

Uparmed to 2 Armored Brigades and 1 Mechanized Infantry Brigade
Mechanized Infantry Brigade - 2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions + 1 Flex tank regiment
6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion

Artillery Brigade armed with SPGs, wheeled SPGs, mobile 120 mm high velocity recoiling mortars (Flex chassis)

LAT / HAT regiment armed with Flex tank chassis based 125 mm MBT gun, 6x6 chassis based ATGMs

Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Corps Level: CAS Aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)

MOUNTAIN DIVISION (1)

3 Infantry Brigades each brigade: 2 Infantry Battalion + 1 air assault battalion
1 Regiment of Tanks MBT / Flex Tanks
Double Artillery Brigade with MLRS, with emphasis on light artillery
LAT Regiment with ATGMs deployed using APCs, Attack Helicopters, CAS Aircraft
Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Helicopters for airborne assault
Recon Regiment: Recon helicopters

MECHANIZED DIVISION (4)

There are 3 brigades in the mechanized division
Each Brigade:
2 of the three brigades: 2x armor regiments + 1x mechanized infantry battalion
3rd brigade: mechanized infantry brigade
Mechanized Infantry Brigade - 2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions + 1 Flex tank regiment
6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion

Artillery Brigade armed with SPGs, wheeled SPGs, mobile 120 mm high velocity recoiling mortars (Flex chassis)

LAT / HAT regiment armed with Flex tank chassis based 125 mm MBT gun, 6x6 chassis based ATGMs

Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Corps level: CAS aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)

FLEX DIVISION (15)

Three brigades: 2 Flex brigades + 1 Mechanized Infantry Brigade

Flex Brigade:
2x Flex tank regiments + 1x mechanized infantry battalion

Mechanized Infantry Brigade: 2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions + 1 Flex tank regiment
6x6 APCs for mechanized infantry battalion

Artillery Brigade armed with SPGs, wheeled SPGs, mobile 120 mm high velocity recoiling mortars (Flex chassis)

Aviation - 4 UAVs at both division HQ and 4 UAVs at brigade level. Corps level: CAS aircraft
Recon Regiment 6x6 IFV (recon by fire)


To disguise this buildup, you could call the Flex tanks as IFVs and the Flex Division as a Motorized Infantry Division
Things we haven't still figured out - SPG sourcing, Special forces utilization, air defense equipment and doctrine

Food for thought:

Artillery Division
Between Sialkot to somewhat south of Sahiwal ("the Anvil") you have on both sides, well defended areas with water obstacle and a large number of forces on both sides. This sector can be reinforced with an Artillery Division that looks to maximize the use of both tube and rocket artillery.

Basically its an under-strength Infantry Division vis:
3x Infantry Brigades
Each Infantry Brigade: 2x Infantry battalions
LAT with 6x6
2x Artillery Brigades (double artillery)
2x Rocket artillery regiments (MLRS, tactical BMs)
UAVs
CAS aircraft at Corps level

Mountain Division doesn't need Armor. It needs helis and artillery. Mountain infantry battalions are smaller in strength than contemporary infantry battalions.

Artillery Division doesn't need any infantry battalion nor LAT. It needs SAM-AD regiments.

Armor Division should have 4 Armor brigades(minimum 3, not 2), 1 Artillery and 1 AD Brigade, 1 Attack heli squadron, 1 UCAV/UAV regiment. Brigades should have 2+1 config. Mech infantry should also carry ATGM.

 

[Armchair]

So here is a comparison between what you're looking at and what I'm considering:

@Signalian : MBT Tank with heavy IFV, tracked APCs (M113) (all vehicles tracked)
Me: MBT (small numbers) + Flex Tank + 6x6 APC (all wheeled except MBT)

My solution allows large scale production, meaning you can get a large number of weapon systems, 3x to 10x times more than the conventional solution.

Your solution is the current solution.

If tracked will work better than wheeled is possible but South African experience shows its open to debate, so one has to actually test this. Its surprising no one has. If it worked for South Africa, that had similar terrain including very fine grained sand, then it should work for PA. There is no conclusion to this debate except actual ground testing.

1. What are your targets with 76mm cannon?

The 76 mm gun will be effective for a wide number or roles, including against infantry, bunkers, structures, APCs, IFVs, even tanks in certain circumstances (they are designed by Denel to take out T-55s / T-62s at range in a single shot). So the gun in a general purpose gun and th 8x ATGM would specialize in being used against tanks. I believe its a high velocity rifled gun.

2. If a 10-15 ton 6x6 APC will be used in infantry formations then a 5-ton -10 Ton truck is also good enough, since APC's job is to ferry infantry short of front lines, where infantry dismounts and attacks. In Armored divisions, the pace is very fast and an APC such as M-113 with cross country traversing profile is required.
If it has to be an IFV then it has to have adequate armor and fire power. This is why i mentioned 30mm to 40 mm cannons. it also means that a battalion may have a mix of APC and IFV. This actually gives following options:

a. Infantry formations using trucks like before. One infantry brigade uses wheeled APCs and IFV's in conjunction with Armor of that infantry formation.

b. Mechanised infantry battalions of mechanised and armor formations use tracked IFV's and APC's.

c. Same mechanised infantry uses just APC's and tank destroyers armed with ATGM and the IFV is never inducted for fire power. The LAT and HAT has ATGM as weapons, not 125mm cannons.

My argument is that a 10-15 ton wheeled APC can be a reasonably good and cheap substitute to a M-113 role of battle taxi. It will be asking too much to make it into an IFV except for niche roles perhaps.
Instead, in my development, you have Flex tanks that are hybrid IFV / Tanks.

As I see it PA has:
2 Armored and 4 Mechanized Divisions
These are roughly aligned to the conventional wisdom of tracked APCs and MBTs

As you've noted, the normal Infantry brigade uses trucks - we are in agreement
The Mechanized Infantry Battalion / Brigade uses wheeled APCs and Flex tanks

The Flex units act as a third type.

3 . Tracked vehicles have fared suitably in the desert of Pakistan and India, so tracked vehicle is the way forward in these sectors.

We will never know unless we actually test vehicles like the Rooikat and Ratel...

4. The 6x6 unless used as an IFV doesn't help infantry formations. It needs to support dis mounted infantry in the absence of the tanks that the infantry divisions lack.

The 6x6 isn't designed to take any kind of punishment. They will be opened like tin cans if they are put in a direct combat role. Unless you use them in the role of a mobile mortar / NLOS weapon

It's main role is to get infantry to the battlefield and get them out of it. Trucks can't do that as well, as they don't have good comparative mobility. One of the greatest successes in the South African experience was to find this sweet spot between a tracked APC and a truck.

5. IFV's operating in absence of tanks should be armed with ATGM.

Perhaps the Flex tank can help here?

6. Mortars are support weapons and integral to battalion weapons company/platoon.

Yes, true. But these new 120 mm mortars developed by Israel are a breed all its own. They are high velocity, recoiling, with ballistic computation. They are accurate and long ranged. As long ranged as upto 10-20 kms. As such they can be employed to an extent like artillery. Perhaps integral at the brigade / battalion / Division level. At platoon level you probably want a more conventional mortar system of smaller caliber.

7. SP guns are not required in Artillery Division. SP guns are for shoot and scoot and keeping advance with armored formations. Towed guns and MBRL work fine in Artillery division.

I was thinking that some form of self-propelling can help them avoid return volleys. Perhaps the wheeled SP or perhaps the South African solution of having a small motor for easy relocation ?

8. At this stage, air borne/air assault formations are very small and its impossible to manage a brigade or Div level Ops. Even if air superiority is required, it's not going to be a 30 x transport helicopter air assault, it might be 3-10 transport helicopter air assault at a certain location. Concealing heli movement is easier in mountains from radar and that is where the mobility is primarily required. But bear in mind that the mobility of heli cannot be matched by any ground transport in speed. Sometimes a certain objective may need to be captured for an advance to continue and that's where the SF, air borne, air assault ops come in. That objective may need to be captured by a platoon or company strength. If the fight is on borders, then flight time may not be enough for enemy to have sufficient time to fly alert fighters. Not achieving air superiority doesn't mean that air borne or air assault forces should not exist at all. There are blind spots in SAM/AD coverage areas. there are edges of maximum ranges which can be exploited, SEAD Ops will be conducted by PAF and air cover for certain ground operations are inevitable.

A single airborne assault brigade may cost you the equivalent of 10 infantry brigades and 5 Flex brigades. Is the cost-benefit worth it? Punjab and Sindh are some of the most heavily monitored airspaces in the world. With AWACs / all kinds of ground radars, gigantic FLANKER fighters with huge loiter times. Massive LRSAMs, LOMADS. Imagining going into this with a large number of helicopters, you're bound to lose a good number. And how would you resupply these lightly armed forces inside Indian territory?

Would it be like the WW2 movie "A Bridge Too Far"?

Helis are critical in Kashmir and there will never be enough helicopters for PA. I have no smart or easy way to produce them locally that I can think of... which means importing, high costs, small numbers...

I don't know, but I'd love you to develop it and explain it. I think what you want is for them to be used like SOCOM assets to capture bridges and things of that nature. There are lots of rivers and canals in Indian Punjab.

ARTILLERY DIVISION

The idea is from Soviet doctrine and India is currently the only country with it. It combines mainly infantry with artillery of various types. These are capable of independent operation rather than merely as support assets. India is currently raising its third such division.

Hope I answered everything!

I would love to see a plan from you Signalian, of capturing Kashmir or major Indian territory. I hope you liked my map.

Oh I forgot - Why I put armor in the Mountain Division - there is some tankable country in Kashmir that's why.

 

[Signalian]

@Armchair
Just out of curiosity, how many PDF members do you think understand where we are heading in this thread?

 

[Armchair]

Armor Division should have 4 Armor brigades(minimum 3, not 2), 1 Artillery and 1 AD Brigade, 1 Attack heli squadron, 1 UCAV/UAV regiment. Brigades should have 2+1 config. Mech infantry should also carry ATGM.

Agreed but that is the present status of PA armored divisons have only 2 armored brigades ? and each brigade has only 2 armored regiments? Or am I wrong?

 

[Signalian]

Agreed but that is the present status of PA armored divisons have only 2 armored brigades ? and each brigade has only 2 armored regiments? Or am I wrong?

Right 2+2 and 1= 5

 

[Armchair]

@Armchair
Just out of curiosity, how many PDF members do you think understand where we are heading in this thread?

Haha I don't know but I glad I found you! haha

 

[Signalian]

So here is a comparison between what you're looking at and what I'm considering:

@Signalian : MBT Tank with heavy IFV, tracked APCs (M113) (all vehicles tracked)
Me: MBT (small numbers) + Flex Tank + 6x6 APC (all wheeled except MBT)

My solution allows large scale production, meaning you can get a large number of weapon systems, 3x to 10x times more than the conventional solution.

Your solution is the current solution.

My solution is not only current but also realistic, lol, coz if PA has to adopt a weapon system like an IFV with heavy calibre gun and ATGM's, then we need to discuss where do they fit in the current doctrine.

You push my thinking towards Kashmir , this guy @HRK is an opportunist lol , he intentionally hammers me into Afghanistan discussions j/k hehehehe.
Where as if you ask me, i'm trying to find members for purely technical discussion on communication techniques, eaves dropping ,radars, EW, jamming etc.
@Tipu7 runs away from tech talk, @Gryphon concentrates on Army weaponry and will not forgive me if i make an error of 0.01% in referring something, @Inception-06 is a born enemy of M-113, @Dazzler is in to AFV's, @Arsalan is artillery oriented, @Nilgiri the guy who knows about tech stuff is banned 364 days out of 365, @tps77 talks more politics than tech stuff, @Basel and @blueazure remain to be asked. Most of the other learned lot have high walls of ego and i have yet to ask few others.

 

[Tps43]

My solution is not only current but also realistic, lol, coz if PA has to adopt a weapon system like an IFV with heavy calibre gun and ATGM's, then we need to discuss where do they fit in the current doctrine.

You push my thinking towards Kashmir , this guy @HRK is an opportunist lol , he intentionally hammers me into Afghanistan discussions j/k hehehehe.
Where as if you ask me, i'm trying to find members for purely technical discussion on communication techniques, eaves dropping ,radars, EW, jamming etc.
@Tipu7 runs away from tech talk, @Gryphon concentrates on Army weaponry and will not forgive me if i make an error of 0.01% in referring something, @Inception-06 is a born enemy of M-113, @Dazzler is in to AFV's, @Arsalan is artillery oriented, @Nilgiri the guy who knows about tech stuff is banned 364 days out of 365, @tps77 talks more politics than tech stuff, @Basel and @blueazure remain to be asked. Most of the other learned lot have high walls of ego and i have yet to ask few others.

Yup u r right about me for past few months I talk more of political or intel stuff then tech one which I regret .
I am more oriented towards AD setups tho

 

[HRK]

this guy @HRK is an opportunist lol

hahaha what else you could expect from a guy having a background of business and management ..... I am "innocent" as charged ....

I have to read this thread before to comment ... look like interesting conversation on the subject.

technical discussion on communication techniques, eaves dropping ,radars, EW, jamming etc.

I believe @denel is right guy for you to discuss this subject

 

[Gryphon]

My solution is not only current but also realistic, lol, coz if PA has to adopt a weapon system like an IFV with heavy calibre gun and ATGM's, then we need to discuss where do they fit in the current doctrine.

You push my thinking towards Kashmir , this guy @HRK is an opportunist lol , he intentionally hammers me into Afghanistan discussions j/k hehehehe.
Where as if you ask me, i'm trying to find members for purely technical discussion on communication techniques, eaves dropping ,radars, EW, jamming etc.
@Tipu7 runs away from tech talk, @Gryphon concentrates on Army weaponry and will not forgive me if i make an error of 0.01% in referring something, @Inception-06 is a born enemy of M-113, @Dazzler is in to AFV's, @Arsalan is artillery oriented, @Nilgiri the guy who knows about tech stuff is banned 364 days out of 365, @tps77 talks more politics than tech stuff, @Basel and @blueazure remain to be asked. Most of the other learned lot have high walls of ego and i have yet to ask few others.

A heavy caliber gun, 76mm or 100mm, on an IFV is inadequate against tanks/IFV's of this day. IA doesn't rely on APCs as 'battle taxi', which is evident from its inventory of BMP's.

Last year, we had a long discussion on this IFV matter. IMO, any IFV inducted should have anti-infantry and anti-armour roles both with a 30mm cannon, ATGM launchers (upto 4x ATGM's which can be fired on the move),7.62mm MG and AGL.

I understand it will not be cheap to induct IFV's in sizable numbers. PA can make incremental purchases every financial year, and start with IABG's and IMBG's.

IABG's have 2 AR + 1 MIB, so a structure of 44+44 tanks, 30 APC & 30 IFV (like VN-17,BMP-2M) may be considered.

IMBG's have 1 AR + 2 MIB, so a structure of 44 tanks, 60 APC & 60 IFV may be considered.

This can be later replicated in Armd div and Mech div.

 

[Tipu7]

Where as if you ask me, i'm trying to find members for purely technical discussion on communication techniques, eaves dropping ,radars, EW, jamming etc.
@Tipu7 runs away from tech talk,

Bhai I deliberately run away as there are more credible members on this forum as far as tech talk is concerned. My areas are related to nuclear strategy alongside conventional and asymmetric warfare, not precisely related to technology entirely.

And I am very moody as far as writing long comments is concerned. I prefer to hit instead of extending the argument

 

[blueazure]

My solution is not only current but also realistic, lol, coz if PA has to adopt a weapon system like an IFV with heavy calibre gun and ATGM's, then we need to discuss where do they fit in the current doctrine.

You push my thinking towards Kashmir , this guy @HRK is an opportunist lol , he intentionally hammers me into Afghanistan discussions j/k hehehehe.
Where as if you ask me, i'm trying to find members for purely technical discussion on communication techniques, eaves dropping ,radars, EW, jamming etc.
@Tipu7 runs away from tech talk, @Gryphon concentrates on Army weaponry and will not forgive me if i make an error of 0.01% in referring something, @Inception-06 is a born enemy of M-113, @Dazzler is in to AFV's, @Arsalan is artillery oriented, @Nilgiri the guy who knows about tech stuff is banned 364 days out of 365, @tps77 talks more politics than tech stuff, @Basel and @blueazure remain to be asked. Most of the other learned lot have high walls of ego and i have yet to ask few others.

not sure what this thread is about and where its headed to ............