ANALYSIS: PAKISTAN’S VT4 ACQUISITION

[IblinI]

The Pakistani, Chinese relationship across the board has become very important for both countries, but the defense side now is so close that the defence forces have the ability to coordinate themselves in the same theatre, this is revolutionary.

Expect more closeness and acquisition of platforms and systems from China to Pakistan.

But behind the scenes their is cooperation in other forms of defence including EW, C4I2SR, Cyber and Space.

Keep your eyes on the net centric capability of the Armed Forces, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Knowing that Pakistan has the CEC capability for quite sometimes, is there by any chance that your county is looking at the Network-Centric Warfare which is bulid on a more advanced solution TCN (Tactical Component Network)?

Is there any cooperation on this part between China and Pakistan, since the US aside, Rus and China has already applied in their Armed forces.
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/9th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/030.pdf

 

[Rafi]

Knowing that Pakistan has the CEC capability for quite sometimes, is there by any chance that your county is looking at the Network-Centric Warfare which is bulid on a more advanced solution TCN (Tactical Component Network)?

Is there any cooperation on this part between China and Pakistan, since the US aside, Rus and China has already applied in their Armed forces.
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/9th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/030.pdf

A lot of stuff going on, much of it classified, suffice to say, it is extraordinary.

 

[Dazzler]

A lot of stuff going on, much of it classified, suffice to say, it is extraordinary.

War is looming.. preparations underway..

 

[Zarvan]

A lot of stuff going on, much of it classified, suffice to say, it is extraordinary.

Please do a new thread on proposed new acquisitions by all three forces.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

But then, an APC carrying, at most, 10 ATGMs rounds in it, against a heavily armored tanks carrying more than 40 rounds of APFSDS or DU..


Time of flight of a normal ATGM till 3000 meters is 15 to 20 seconds....a tank round can cover the same distance in around 3 seconds....

An ATGM is extremely accurate and can change direction on flight, a tank round can't. Modern ATGM also have a much higher penetration than armour APFSDS. Also, infantry have taken the role of tank hunting. Just look at Syria and tell me how many tank vs tank battle happened there.

 

[PanzerKiel]

An ATGM is extremely accurate and can change direction on flight, a tank round can't. Modern ATGM also have a much higher penetration than armour APFSDS. Also, infantry have taken the role of tank hunting. Just look at Syria and tell me how many tank vs tank battle happened there.

A tank round compensates for its lack of accuracy by its high speed and the minimum loading time for a tank round.

A tank may be able to fire 3 rounds while an ATGM launcher will fire only one round in the same time.

ATGM detachment is also vulnerable to all types of fire , small arms, mortar and Artillery.... However tank affords better protection against these threats.

Tank can also fire while on the move, ATGMs can't do that, which makes them more vulnerable .

As far as your Syrian example is concerned.... Do please compare the number of tanks in action by both sides in Syria with the number of tanks being held by Pakistan and India.....You'll get the answer why ATGMs are mostly used there.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

War is looming.. preparations underway..

A tank round compensates for its lack of accuracy by its high speed and the minimum loading time for a tank round.

A tank may be able to fire 3 rounds while an ATGM launcher will fire only one round in the same time.

ATGM detachment is also vulnerable to all types of fire , small arms, mortar and Artillery.... However tank affords better protection against these threats.

Tank can also fire while on the move, ATGMs can't do that, which makes them more vulnerable .

As far as your Syrian example is concerned.... Do please compare the number of tanks in action by both sides in Syria with the number of tanks being held by Pakistan and India.....You'll get the answer why ATGMs are mostly used there.

Can Tank round be equivalent in destruction to ATGM?

 

[PanzerKiel]

Can Tank round be equivalent in destruction to ATGM?

Depends upon several factors

Type of round... HE, HEAT, HEP, HESH, AP, APFSDS, APCBC, HVAP, DU..... all do different types of damages

The location where the round has hit... If tank tracks are destroyed, then tank gets immobilized and its as good as destroyed.... If round penetrates to the area where tank rounds are stored then tanks get cooked off followed by a it's total destruction...... If round hits the rear, it can disable the engine or may even destroy it..... Minimum, the optics outside a tank are always vulnerable to small weapons as well...

 

[CHI RULES]

An ATGM is extremely accurate and can change direction on flight, a tank round can't. Modern ATGM also have a much higher penetration than armour APFSDS. Also, infantry have taken the role of tank hunting. Just look at Syria and tell me how many tank vs tank battle happened there.

Please accept a pro's explanation further tank destroyers have limited role meanwhile MBTs role is multi dimensional. The MBT one to one battles happened in Kuwait war, meanwhile in Syria the main party using MBTs was Syrian forces against rebels without MBTs, meanwhile in later stages Turkey entered their MBTs which at first suffered some losses but perhaps due to change of tactics and protection levels they are now effective. PA has used successfully the MBTs against terrorists in some areas of KPK/FATA. The future IFVs with heavy protection levels being developed shall be supportive to MBTs but perhaps cannot replace them for long time. Further it is better that we should discuss capabilities of VT-4.

Can Tank round be equivalent in destruction to ATGM?

Russian/Chinese MBTs are also quite capable to deploy ATGMS.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Please accept a pro's explanation further tank destroyers have limited role meanwhile MBTs role is multi dimensional. The MBT one to one battles happened in Kuwait war, meanwhile in Syria the main party using MBTs was Syrian forces against rebels without MBTs, meanwhile in later stages Turkey entered their MBTs which at first suffered some losses but perhaps due to change of tactics and protection levels they are now effective. PA has used successfully the MBTs against terrorists in some areas of KPK/FATA. The future IFVs with heavy protection levels being developed shall be supportive to MBTs but perhaps cannot replace them for long time. Further it is better that we should discuss capabilities of VT-4.

Yes, a war where drones did not exist and the Iraqi Army was using the 60's Soviet tactics of pushing with armour without infantry support. The Syrian Army tried it early in the war but failed massively. As for Turkey, their MBTs hasn't done much since Al-Bab where the majority losses of armour were.

A tank round compensates for its lack of accuracy by its high speed and the minimum loading time for a tank round.

A tank may be able to fire 3 rounds while an ATGM launcher will fire only one round in the same time.

ATGM detachment is also vulnerable to all types of fire , small arms, mortar and Artillery.... However tank affords better protection against these threats.

Tank can also fire while on the move, ATGMs can't do that, which makes them more vulnerable .

As far as your Syrian example is concerned.... Do please compare the number of tanks in action by both sides in Syria with the number of tanks being held by Pakistan and India.....You'll get the answer why ATGMs are mostly used there.

The speed of the ATGM doesn't matter much when it is faster than the tank it is targeting.

A tank can't fire "3 rounds", it needs time to load the next round.

ATGM are also hard to find compared to tanks. Good example would be Israel and Hezbollah war where Hezbollah did not field a single armour.

As for Syria, the Syrian regime had more tanks than Pakistan. In fact, even if you go back to the 80's, Israel wouldn't field its tank fleet in fear of falling prey to Syrian Gazelle helicopters. And guess what the helicopters used, ATGM

 

[TaimiKhan]

An ATGM is extremely accurate and can change direction on flight, a tank round can't. Modern ATGM also have a much higher penetration than armour APFSDS. Also, infantry have taken the role of tank hunting. Just look at Syria and tell me how many tank vs tank battle happened there.

Syria was a civil war, with most of the fighting done in urban warfare. That is why syrian tanks took a beating as they are not made for urban warfare. Tanks will play their own role and with hard kill protection systems coming up, their role in future warfare is not ended.
What Pakistan needs is a very good long range ATGM system with with 6-10km range, APC carrying multiple missiles, thus taking out enemy formations from a safe distance and have high mobility to shoot and scoot. That chinese APC with HJ10 missiles AFT-10 or something like that, linked with quadcopter drones is a perfect option, plus HJ-12 man portable missiles for infantry.
Also need to have good IFVs with ATGM capability and having AHEAD rounds capability to engage tanks. They wont kill tanks but can damage their sighting systems to make them useless or out of action atleast for days or hours.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Syria was a civil war, with most of the fighting done in urban warfare. That is why syrian tanks took a beating as they are not made for urban warfare. Tanks will play their own role and with hard kill protection systems coming up, their role in future warfare is not ended.

Want to see when was the last time "hard kill system" took place, there isn't. Israel claimed it had success but it had shown zero footage. These systems were developed over a decade back and yet doesn't seem to be integrated properly in any military.

Look at the European Armies, they aren't really investing much in newer model tanks and are reducing their tank forces. Same goes for the U.S.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Want to see when was the last time "hard kill system" took place, there isn't. Israel claimed it had success but it had shown zero footage. These systems were developed over a decade back and yet doesn't seem to be integrated properly in any military.

Look at the European Armies, they aren't really investing much in newer model tanks and are reducing their tank forces. Same goes for the U.S.

Israel not losing tanks the way they used to is a testament that the system works. US army is already buying hundreds of these systems for their abrams. Russian latest development armata tank has such system.
Plus operational videos of Palestinian freedom fighter missiles getting intercepted are there.

And European armies reducing their numbers is a different issue.

Even germans tested israeli system for their leopards and european options are being developed and ready.

Europeans are upgrading heavily their tanks which they think are sufficient for now technology wise for the russian threat.

 

[ZAC1]

Kitna number a chuka?

 

[PanzerKiel]

Yes, a war where drones did not exist and the Iraqi Army was using the 60's Soviet tactics of pushing with armour without infantry support. The Syrian Army tried it early in the war but failed massively. As for Turkey, their MBTs hasn't done much since Al-Bab where the majority losses of armour were.


The speed of the ATGM doesn't matter much when it is faster than the tank it is targeting.

A tank can't fire "3 rounds", it needs time to load the next round.

ATGM are also hard to find compared to tanks. Good example would be Israel and Hezbollah war where Hezbollah did not field a single armour.

As for Syria, the Syrian regime had more tanks than Pakistan. In fact, even if you go back to the 80's, Israel wouldn't field its tank fleet in fear of falling prey to Syrian Gazelle helicopters. And guess what the helicopters used, ATGM

The speed of the ATGM does matter, because if the launch gets somehow detected by the tank crew, the tank can simply move to the nearest defilade and wait....ATGMs aren't just fired on any tank that is visible, you have to keep the surrounding terrain in view, you have to think it out that once ATGM is fired, there shouldn't be any sort of cover available within about 20 seconds traveling time for the tank to make a dash for... Then there are other complicated firing considerations as well which one has to keep in mind while firing ATGMs.

Tank round loading time is much faster than an ATGM, you may like to compare it with data available online and ATGM firing videos available.

Tanks generally don't operate alone, they operate minimum at troop level which means groups of three. Therefore a detected ATGM launcher can expected a lot of firepower coming its way from the tank main gun and AA HMG mounted on top.

Coming to the Syrian example, the Syrians had lot many tanks, yes..... And lot many of their tanks got destroyed as well in different conflicts.... You may like to read that how many of their hundreds of destroyed tanks in different wars were destroyed by Centurions, Sabras and Merkavas compared to Israeli ATGMs.