Simple problem here is that M113 will not survive the modern munitions. I won't specify it here, but its survivability is beyond questionable.
My thought is that Pakistan needs to develop a family of tracked vehicles based on mature AK chassis. These new types of vehicles shall slowly and gradually phase out M113s which can be re-fitted to serve support roles and or to equip territorial forces.
Another family of vehicles should be developed based on the Dragoon ASV. Look into the Canadian TAPV. The wheeled 4x4 vehicles to serve various roles including COIN ops etc.
The Chinese DF Mengshi vehicles are also a highly modular option. They already are being produced in almost 10 different configurations.
I think its not a debate at all. Its been settled during 1973 Arab Israeli War.
Israel has since developed heavily armored APCs typically armed with an HMG (now being equipped with a remote turret). As well as with heavy class of IFVs based on the Merkava IV chassis.
Egypt inducted M2 Bradley vehicles and also BMPs.
The reason i quote 73 War as a use case here is because it bears a number of similarities to our scenario with India.
I am copying old posts since the topic has been discussed before.
Hit has a thrifty approach amalgamated with PA's mechanized doctrine of APCs. Inclusion of 25 mm or 30 mm or bigger cannon, an ATGM and also lesser seating capacity plus the protection systems and sensors on a single platform is what PA is looking for ? I still doubt if PA would pitch thin skinned (than MBT) at FEoB. Secondly, 125 mm holds the biggest punch, is it necessary to provide back up with 30 mm cannon ? and then isn't ATGM carrier with a 120 mm or 152 mm caliber missile a better weapon for one shot one kill scenario coupled with a longer range than a 30 mm cannon. 12.7 mm still mows down infantry, 30 mm is an over kill. Lots of factors be to debated.
There are 2-3 types of Mech battalions in PA.
The regular MIBs and then LATs and HATs. There are also mechanized transport elements in an armored regiment like M-113s derivates.
MIBs have the usual strength of ~770 troops. They are assigned roughly 50 x M113s. Each M-113 has carrying capacity is 13 troops including driver and commander/gunner. Where as an IFV will take 6 troops and 3 crew (driver, loader, commander/gunner). Where will the extra 4 troops go ? Cost issue- assign more IFVs means more fuel requirement and maintenance, assign more missiles for launcher and ammunition for 25 or 30 mm. Or cut down MIB troop strength, that means all Ops will need to be over hauled as Brigade and Division commander options will be limited. Almost a company strength in MIB has ATGM capable M-113.
Now if you cut strength then you come towards the LAT and HAT, around 550-600 troops. Again 48 - 50 x M-113s, but more than half strength are ATGM carriers M-113. Previously CJ-3, CJ-5 and defenders had 4-5 troops on every 4x4, now its 4 -5 troops on M-901 or Maaz.
MIBs work in conjunction with Armored Regiments, M-113s trail behind MBTs and then deploy infantry to support Armor, where as LATs and HATs are extremely mobile and are required to provide heavy firepower against infantry as well as armor. LATs and HATs deploy their weapons just like an Armor regiment deploys MBTs, but MIBs deploy troops, just like normal/regular infantry regiment. Both types of units have different roles.
LATs also had recon role or scout role previously, Im not sure if the role is still maintained, so a scout IFV like M3A3 Bradley?
Now change the doctrine and try to fit in IFV like Bradley or VIPER in MIB and LAT/HAT.
