Anti-Tank Capabilities of Infantry Divisions in Strike Corps

[Mrc]

RBS 70 is enough for Apache?

Passive sensors are hard to counter .

 

[Inception-06]

RBS 70 is enough for Apache?

no, but the combination with different AA Guns Anza series yes! Watch the below Video to understand how our air defence works!

RBS 70 is enough for Apache?

Inception-06, post: 11684870, member: 5165"]

Do you like Pakistani Stingers against indian Apachis ?

 

[Gryphon]

Now this is what I like about you both. Excellent suggestions here.

The usual PA Infantry Division has 9 infantry battalions under 3 Bde HQs, 1 LAT Bn, 1 Armoured Regt, 1 Signals Bn, 1 Engr Bn, 1 Supply & Transport Bn, 1 Medical Bn, 1 EME Bn and the provost (MP Unit). Brigade Artillery had 3 Field Regts, 1 Medium Regt, 1 Heavy Mortar Battery and a Locating Battery.

AFAIK the 14 Div is still at Okara, hence grouped under HQ II Corps.

Integral armour is obsolete for modern warfare especially when we're concerned with the anti-tank capability. Formation of LAT/HAT Bde would certainly give greater firepower, and anti-tank potential, but the overall manpower of the division will be depleted as these units are usually about 60% of the regular infantry battalion.

In the years preceding '65, firepower at the unit level was bolstered by Musa's reforms, as then the manpower ratio vis à vis the Indian Army was much greater than what it is now, hence to make up for this shortage, and to enable the infantry to cover a wider frontage, MMGs, RCLs per unit were increased, and we all know about the formation of R&S units, predecessors of the modern-day LAT/HAT Bns.

These reforms did manage to allow the PA to inflict greater attrition to the opposition in the war, but due to Indian manpower, their formations manage to occupy greater territory of strategic value, hence while we did great at the tactical level, the strategic outcome was a stalemate.

In my personal view, the purpose of LAT/HAT is primarily defensive, to plug vulnerable gaps and fend off enemy counterattacks. Hence their importance may be greater when deployed with holding divisions.

With the Strike Corps', the supporting infantry is to create bridgeheads into enemy territory for the armour. Remember the objectives of these formations lie in the most strategically vital places, hence capturing maximum territory, and holding on to them, is a very essential goal for the IDs, and they would be more capable to perform such tasks with adequate manpower. Shedding infantry would have consequences on the strategic outcome in the ops area.

I'm personally satisfied with the LAT/HAT deployment, but I agree that there can more efforts to improve survivability in hostile environment.

Gryphon's account of an event in 23 Div AoR is interesting, considering the use of a 4x4 would have been along the Tawi River axis. Don't our infantry units have an anti-tank platoon? Or was the certain unit equipped with RCLs for this role?

14 Inf Div is subordinate to HQ 31 Corps.

There are anti-tank platoons operating tripod launchers, but fixed ATGM launcher equipped 4×4 jeeps bring in the mobility advantage, i.e, shoot-and-scoot.

Better than having nothing but numbers are low.

Additional pcs are being acquired.

Does a Bakhtar Shikan has the capability to take out an Indian T 90? If no then do we an ATGM to take out an IA's T90? Also how will our Corps counter IA's Apaches without PAF?
@Signalian @Gryphon @HRK

PA is transitioning from HJ-8C to the more capable HJ-8D. Rest assured, the weapon system is effective.

Understand HJ-12 Red Arrow developed by the Chinese Norinco is a man-portable 'State of the art tank killer missile'. Won't it be cheaper to attach one anti-tank company of say about 12 Jeep mounted Red Arrow anti-tank missile systems with each Infantry Brigade?

Each Inf Div (except mountain/light) already has a LAT Regt, which can provide 1× LAT company to each of its Inf. Bdes.

ATGM type is a separate matter.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

That is why I was saying Pakistan should cooperate with UAE on missile production. Imagine an anti-tank vehicle equipped with imaging infrared and ATGM from UAE.

Take an M-113

Add these ATGMs in 2 pods of 4.

You get an ADATS vehicle without radar that can take out anything that moves.

Isnt that what Pak is trying to do with?

Viper:

 

[Philip the Arab]

Isnt that what Pak is trying to do with?

Viper:
View attachment 589882

That is an IFV, I'm talking about a dedicated tank destroyer with 2 or 3 crew members, and no infantry carrying capability.

 

[Inception-06]

That is an IFV, I'm talking about a dedicated tank destroyer with 2 or 3 crew members, and no infantry carrying capability.

we lack in resources, we have to work with less and what is available, in our case LAT and HAT both locally produced since decades, payable in rupees !

 

[HRK]

Does a Bakhtar Shikan has the capability to take out an Indian T 90? If no then do we an ATGM to take out an IA's T90? Also how will our Corps counter IA's Apaches without PAF?
@Signalian @Gryphon @HRK

answer is both yes and no ....

Yes for the older versions of T-90s and for T-70s which form the bulk of India Army Tank inventory, No for the new version of T-90 tank which have thicker armour at front as compare to older version, so against new version BS anti-tank missile is comparatively less effective, therefore new AT weapon is required ....

penetrations at the side armour of of T-90 Turret ...

note the thickness of side armour of T-90 turret

Not enough armor penetration, and modern ERA takes even more penetration out of that. 500-600 is not enough for almost all parts of T-90.

No tank in Indian Army inventory provides protection at side and at rear armour equivalent to the thickness of 500-600 mm RHA, in fact it is believed that frontal armour of T-90S is less than 600 mm RHA, so Bakthar Shikan ATGM with little bit of operational tactic is still effective in our theatre

 

[Philip the Arab]

we lack in resources, we have to work with less and what is available, in our case LAT and HAT both locally produced since decades, payable in rupees !

There needs to be major upgrades done to Baktar Shikan then.

 

[Signalian]

Mangla-based 19 Inf Div is now subordinate to the co-located HQ 1 Corps. Which means the Strike Corps has 3× Inf Div's besides the Armd Div.

34 Light Inf Div for 10 Corps.

19th ID is mountain based. Does it have armor component ?

3× Field and 1× Medium Regt.
I believe there are no AD Regt's in Inf Div's.

AFAIk, the 4th Regt is of Corps Artillery.
Strike Corps Inf Divs have AD component but u can confirm and let me know.

Since you have suggested conversion of 1× Inf Bde to LAT Bde and also the presently existing LAT Regiment to HAT, I would like to mention a few things here:

• ATGM/vehicle used: HAT's use TOW-mounted APCs, while LAT's use Baktar-Shikan (HJ-8) mounted APCs / 4×4 jeeps.

• Current deployment: LAT's deployed south of Okara in semi-desert/desert areas use Baktar-Shikan mounted APCs. Same is the case with LAT's stationed north of Sialkot due to rivulets / boggy areas.

Side note: Few years back, a unit in 23 Inf Div AOR was engaged in severe clashes on LOC. A LAT was called, far away from Gujranwala, to provide its 4×4 jeep mounted firepower... moved in, hit hard, withdrew.

• Corps HAT Regt: There is a HAT Regt under both HQ 1 Corps and HQ 2 Corps.

• Conversion of LAT Regiment to HAT: Will involve replacing Baktar-Shikan with TOW/Kornet-E. APCs already available.

• Conversion of Inf Bde to LAT Bde: Increases firepower, but decreases troop numbers available for dismount.

• Effectiveness: If both conversions are applied, that will give a ratio of 6:4 (infantry battalions and AT battalions) in an Inf Div.

Side note: IMO, LAT's and HAT's are meant to shoot-and-scoot and their survivability in direct confrontation with enemy remains low.

• Other solution: Number of HAT Regt's under Corps HQ can be increased, with the CC at liberty to allocate 1× HAT Regt per Inf Div. This has been implemented in 31 Corps, and no changes to divisional structure are required.

LAT/HAT is compromise on personnel through fire power. The fire power compensates for reduction in number of troops. LAT is 350-400 men, regular infantry battalion is 770+ men. LATs generally provide recon capability to Divisions ( Ex R&S, Recon and Support).

I proposed more LATs because the the Inf Div will get run over with IA's armor considering it usually has 24 ATGM launchers Vs 72-96 ATGM launchers. LAT is awesome in defense against any threat: be it infantry, mechanized or armor forces. LAT has excellent mobility and its fuel consumption is lesser than mechanized or armor, still it gives a punch almost equal to them. Due to its mobility, it can cover more distance than infantry or armor. The use of MG on 4x4 and ATGM on 4x4 gives LAT an all-round capability. Dismount in LATs is required when in defensive positions, because the main weapons of LAT are already mounted on 4x4. Even if infantry is dismounted, 4x4 are positioned in dug out position. The 4x4 can reverse out and drive off.

OLD RR jeep - old concept of new LAT

If a LAT is paired up with Armor regiment, it gives hard-hitting Recon capability and acts as a screen for armor. 4x4 or land rovers leading tanks. The Hit and Run tactics with LATs are almost similar to LRRPs of WW2 @Inception-06 . LATs can cause massive damage to enemy armor and drive away with in minutes at great speeds. The infantry Divs with Strike Corps require such mobility with hard hitting powerful weapons.

 

[Zulfiqar]

You don't always need ATGMs with a 1000 plus RHA penetration value.

Direct hits on front is not always needed as hit on sides can also damage tanks which may result in at least mobility kill or damage to critical parts (which may not be repaired in field timely in heat of battle).

Considering armour threat from IA, BS with TOW pose a decent deterrent.

However, newer longer range ATGMs with better tech need to be fielded in order to deal with evolving threat.

Further armour will also be backed up by SP and field artillery along with MLRS. PA can use the regular munitions although guided munitions like SADARM are preferable (if sourced from china e.t.c).

Moreover, PA don't need to completely damage the capability of a unit. Mobility kills are always welcome.

Some additional useful info below:

https://s9e.github.io/iframe/imgur.min.html#a/gIjCo

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

AsA @Signalian
Great thread brother. Nice info as always. Please shed some light on following points as well

1. In addition to shuffling resources among various strike corps, could we also add more independent armored, artillery and HAT/LAT units? These units could be attached to any division/brigade as per the need/requirement during a Corps operations in its AoR. These independent units could also be quickly deployed to counter maneuvers by IBGs
2. How much work we are putting in on creating men made obstacles, road/rail infrastructure in areas where future battles are expected. Unlike 1971, there are no more worthless deserted lands, which could be left undefended. Thar coal mines and upcoming power generation units there are very important.

There are some more points in my mind but busy with earning rozee roti atm. Will try to catch up later. Thanks in advance

 

[Cuirassier]

I've seen the 14 Div Commander in clips at B'pur and Quetta. It seems as if it's either deception or the formation is a Southern Command reserve. Similarly looks like the 19 Div plays same role with Central Command.

14 Inf Div is subordinate to HQ 31 Corps.

There are anti-tank platoons operating tripod launchers, but fixed ATGM launcher equipped 4×4 jeeps bring in the mobility advantage, i.e, shoot-and-scoot.



Additional pcs are being acquired.



PA is transitioning from HJ-8C to the more capable HJ-8D. Rest assured, the weapon system is effective.



Each Inf Div (except mountain/light) already has a LAT Regt, which can provide 1× LAT company to each of its Inf. Bdes.

ATGM type is a separate matter.

 

[Cuirassier]

19th ID is mountain based. Does it have armor component ?


AFAIk, the 4th Regt is of Corps Artillery.
Strike Corps Inf Divs have AD component but u can confirm and let me know.

LAT/HAT is compromise on personnel through fire power. The fire power compensates for reduction in number of troops. LAT is 350-400 men, regular infantry battalion is 770+ men. LATs generally provide recon capability to Divisions ( Ex R&S, Recon and Support).

I proposed more LATs because the the Inf Div will get run over with IA's armor considering it usually has 24 ATGM launchers Vs 72-96 ATGM launchers. LAT is awesome in defense against any threat: be it infantry, mechanized or armor forces. LAT has excellent mobility and its fuel consumption is lesser than mechanized or armor, still it gives a punch almost equal to them. Due to its mobility, it can cover more distance than infantry or armor. The use of MG on 4x4 and ATGM on 4x4 gives LAT an all-round capability. Dismount in LATs is required when in defensive positions, because the main weapons of LAT are already mounted on 4x4. Even if infantry is dismounted, 4x4 are positioned in dug out position. The 4x4 can reverse out and drive off.

OLD RR jeep - old concept of new LAT
View attachment 589912

If a LAT is paired up with Armor regiment, it gives hard-hitting Recon capability and acts as a screen for armor. 4x4 or land rovers leading tanks. The Hit and Run tactics with LATs are almost similar to LRRPs of WW2 @Inception-06 . LATs can cause massive damage to enemy armor and drive away with in minutes at great speeds. The infantry Divs with Strike Corps require such mobility with hard hitting powerful weapons.


View attachment 589918

LATs with 24 ATGM launchers each? Sounds quite low considering our R&S units had 48 x 106mm RCL jeeps each sanctioned back in the days.

 

[Signalian]

LATs with 24 ATGM launchers each? Sounds quite low considering our R&S units had 48 x 106mm RCL jeeps each sanctioned back in the days.

24 x RR 106mm
24 x HMG 12.7mm or MG3 7.62mm

total 48

AsA @Signalian
Great thread brother. Nice info as always. Please shed some light on following points as well

1. In addition to shuffling resources among various strike corps, could we also add more independent armored, artillery and HAT/LAT units? These units could be attached to any division/brigade as per the need/requirement during a Corps operations in its AoR. These independent units could also be quickly deployed to counter maneuvers by IBGs

Indp are there, and some divisions are under required strength so Corps HQ's or GHQ reserved provide extra troops for assault.
IA IBG is not an issue. There are effective measures to counter it.
More artillery is always good.
Infantry Divisions need more element of armor.

2. How much work we are putting in on creating men made obstacles, road/rail infrastructure in areas where future battles are expected. Unlike 1971, there are no more worthless deserted lands, which could be left undefended. Thar coal mines and upcoming power generation units there are very important.

There are some more points in my mind but busy with earning rozee roti atm. Will try to catch up later. Thanks in advance

Punjab has most obstacles, its not a tank friendly terrain. Desert area is an issue. Air and ground mobility is required there to stop offensives. Thats where Gunships and UCAVs come in along with mobile armored forces.

 

[Inception-06]

24 x RR 106mm
24 x HMG 12.7mm or MG3 7.62mm

total 48


Indp are there, and some divisions are under required strength so Corps HQ's or GHQ reserved provide extra troops for assault.
IA IBG is not an issue. There are effective measures to counter it.
More artillery is always good.
Infantry Divisions need more element of armor.


Punjab has most obstacles, its not a tank friendly terrain. Desert area is an issue. Air and ground mobility is required there to stop offensives. Thats where Gunships and UCAVs come in along with mobile armored forces.

HMG 12.7mm is a standard on defenders/jeeps/pick ups now or just sporadiclly implemented?