Case for AFT-10 in Pakistan's armored divisions

[Signalian]

This exact system been discussed?

The system is ATGM, so yes discussed in many contexts like multiple launchers operating in a single area, mobility of ATGM, defense and ambush by ATGM etc. In armored warfare, the difference in range holds minimal effect due to the nature of mobility of armored vehicles and their related arms. This goes for Artillery and MLRS also. Real warfare is not video games where long range weapon will take out a moving target and enemy will keep coming and keep getting hit and destroyed. The sudden appearance of a new or unique weapon demands change of tactics and strategy by adversary who very soon finds a method how to approach and destroy it. Even though desert always gives a better line of sight with spaces to traverse without many natural obstacles, yet this doesn't guarantee that a weapon like ATGM will be utilized to its maximum range of 5 km or 10 km. If its a Non-LOS then the range increases by gaining altitude and finally descending. The concept of IFV is not mature in PA, however ATGM carriers keep evolving. If the enemy is to be kept at bay, its better to use a weapon with 50+ km range.

 

[Philip the Arab]

The system is ATGM, so yes discussed in many contexts like multiple launchers operating in a single area, mobility of ATGM, defense and ambush by ATGM etc. In armored warfare, the difference in range holds minimal effect due to the nature of mobility of armored vehicles and their related arms. This goes for Artillery and MLRS also. Real warfare is not video games where long range weapon will take out a moving target and enemy will keep coming and keep getting hit and destroyed. The sudden appearance of a new or unique weapon demands change of tactics and strategy by adversary who very soon finds a method how to approach and destroy it. Even though desert always gives a better line of sight with spaces to traverse without many natural obstacles, yet this doesn't guarantee that a weapon like ATGM will be utilized to its maximum range of 5 km or 10 km. If its a Non-LOS then the range increases by gaining altitude and finally descending. The concept of IFV is not mature in PA, however ATGM carriers keep evolving. If the enemy is to be kept at bay, its better to use a weapon with 50+ km range.

I ask you, what kind of weapon can reliably take down a whole armored division at 50kms?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

70km range is pretty far, that would be good for single targets but taking out entire armored units would be hard.

Do you guys know if there would be armored battles, and where would they be most likely? The LOC?

More like Panjab and Sindh.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Do you guys know if there would be armored battles, and where would they be most likely? The LOC?

Mostly in the plains and deserts of Punjab and Sindh...at least that has been the case in the past...and the same is expected if India/Pak go to war again.

 

[Philip the Arab]

So, how about the ALAS system from Serbia? I think they would be glad to give TOT for it.

 

[Basel]

@Gryphon @Tipu7 @Dazzler @HRK @Basel @khanasifm @LKJ86 @Deino @Signalian


You are saying mount HJ 12 on them which has max 10km range?

Vehicle mounted ATGM of PLA is HJ-10.

 

[Signalian]

I ask you, what kind of weapon can reliably take down a whole armored division at 50kms?

Nuke it.

You fail to get the jist of my post - while you have made a thread around a weapon and want to see it deployed in combat to destroy tanks and other armored vehicles, you are failing to see the bigger picture. War on a battlefield not about a WEAPON, war is about planning, strategy, tactics, deployment, logistics etc.

A force facing an armored division, needs tanks, APC, ATGM, Infantry, Artillery, Aviation like Gunships, Strike aircrafts etc, then a plan either to meet the enemy or trap them inside designated geography. Tactics like combined arms, hitting enemy supplies, how to use weather and terrain against enemy etc and strategy to annihilate the enemy completely or capture their equipment or force a surrender by cutting them off etc. The amount of reinforcements and how to supply own forces etc.

You bring in an ATGM with 10 km range, mount it on a mobile platform and start engaging enemy tanks. War is not that simple.

What if enemy recon detects this ATGM deployment, uses terrain for cover, deploys infantry (mechanized , motorized or foot) against ATGM team and traverses to completely avoid this area till its infantry and artillery finishes off or reduces the ATGM deployment to less than 60%. With 40% assets destroyed in first 1-3 hours of fighting between enemy infantry Vs ATGM teams, the enemy tanks join in the battle and reduce ATGM team to further 30% while losing just 10% Tanks ?

Even if you say that own MBTs are present in the area along with ATGM team, the enemy sends its ATGM teams with infantry to engage MBTs and ATGM team, keeping tanks in reserve for final push till the report comes in that most of MBT and ATGM teams are destroyed.

Infact enemy starts throwing salvos of MLRS before the attack begins by enemy infantry at the location of ATGM team, the MBTs are mobile to advance or retreat, but the ATGM teams are dug in to ambush enemy armor and will become easy targets.

If your ATGM team is covering your MBTs which are on an offensive with your infantry, and enemy knows your ATGM has 10 km range LOS or NLOS, the enemy will lure you in a terrain with natural obstacles to nullify the effect of long range ATGM.

There are just too many variables in a war. This is not a video game against AI or online players.

 

[Philip the Arab]

@Signalian
Changing the premise of this whole thread, wouldn't the HJ-10 be better at anti-tank duties for your(or not yours) proposed Infantry Divisions in strike corps then the M113s with the TOW ATGMs?

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/anti-tank-capabilities-of-infantry-divisions-in-strike-corps.643137/

 

[Shabi1]

Cost feasibility is a huge factor for mobile NLOS missile systems. They are really expensive and are expensive liabilities if the enemy gets to them. Limited numbers on rear of a armored unit is ok but can't really be fielded in large numbers to replace conventional anti tank carriers.

But another issue is target identification and differentiation between friendly and enemy tanks. Without visual confirmation we cant confirm identity in dense environments and UAVs will probably be shot down. So might end up using a $100k to destroy own tank or a enemy truck. This is why relatively cheaper 2+km range missiles are more suited.

You see the practicality issue here despite being perfect on paper.

 

[Blacklight]

I ask you, what kind of weapon can reliably take down a whole armored division at 50kms?

SRBM or Nasr-2

There are just too many variables in a war.

Including SOF / LCB behind enemy lines, effectiveness of attack helos, and possibly naval support by missile or mortar boats.