TaimiKhan
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,956
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Northern Exposure
By USMAN ANSARI
Fairly recently I went on a trip in to the mountains along the Karakorum Highway (KKH), during which I branched off and ventured fairly close to the Line of Control separating Azad Kashmir from Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK).
I could drone on about how I think that much of the Northern Areas should be closed to visitors because they don’t appreciate the natural beauty of the place. They throw their rubbish wherever they feel like doing, and drive off road at the drop of the hat. There’s no concept of care for the environment. Not even in a national park, where I saw not only normal food related rubbish, but a baby’s nappy as well, which I sure the hell didn’t go up there to see because I could have seen that in any city in Pakistan!!! I don’t know if I speak for myself and to myself in saying this, but people should take only memories, and leave only footprints!! You’re supposed to take your rubbish with you!!!!
Anyway, I think we’ll skip that and stick to military related topics. I was however on an off road trip which was entirely unconnected with the military, but looking around it did get me thinking about how easy or difficult it would be to protect the area. Some of the roads were fairly narrow, and the surfaces of them wouldn’t stand up to a large amount of heavy traffic, and the bridges over rivers and streams are limited in the weight of vehicle they can accommodate. The KKH itself is in places badly potholed. There’s a lot of work being done to upgrade, resurface and widen the highway, which means there’s a lot of disruption. Other tracks are being widened and turned into all weather metalled roads. Currently therefore it would be very difficult to move a large amount of men and material around the region.
However, even once all these road improvements are made, it has to be asked what it would be possible to move on these roads. I think the usual logistics vehicles would make it along with 4x4 vehicles, but tracked vehicles would never be able to be used on such roads. They would damage the road surface for a start, and their engines may not be able to perform adequately at such altitudes (at times over 4,000m). Some types of vehicles and weapons may never able to use these roads. According to Brian Clougley’s ‘A History of the Pakistan Army – Wars and Insurrections’, (Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 2006; ISBN 0-19-547334-5 – which I strongly recommend you all rush out and buy right now), the Indians claimed that the Pakistan Army moved ballistic missiles into the Deosai Plains High Altitude National Park during the Kargil crisis in 1999. Having been there during this trip, I can tell you right now this is total rubbish. The roads and bridges would never have been able to have withstood vehicles of such weight, and having seen the vehicles in question, they would never have been able to have negotiated some of the mountain turns.
I am reliably informed however, that what did happen was that some radar systems were positioned in the park by PAF helicopters because the Deosai Plains are right up against the LoC. In such an environment the importance of helicopters cannot be over emphasised, because it’s the only way you can move men and material around at speed. However, the best helicopter that Pakistan has for this task is the Mil Mi-17 Hip, of which it has a very small number in relation to its needs. There’s only really one high altitude post on the Siachen Glacier where you would need something like the Lama, or its replacement the Ecureuil. There are simply not enough helicopters in the Pakistani military let alone the army, to fulfil the logistics effort in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, and this could possibly have severe implications for the defence of these areas. Considering Pakistan’s perennial financial constraints, this is always likely to be the case.
So how can Pakistan’s firepower, transport and logistics capabilities be improved then? I’ve already mentioned that road links are being upgraded to make them negotiable in all weathers. However, tracked, and very heavy/large wheeled vehicles will never be able to use them in any numbers if at all. Everything would have to be carried on smaller wheeled vehicles. Obviously ‘lorried infantry’ is nothing new, as this dates back to the dawn of industrial warfare in WWI, but what about a more flexible class of vehicles? Indeed what about a series of 8x8 vehicles?
I’ve never really understood what seems to be an inertia when it comes to adapting such vehicles in some militaries, and Pakistan seems to be one of them. They’re increasingly common elsewhere, because they’re more rapidly deployable, cheaper to purchase and operate, less complicated and therefore easier to maintain than tracked vehicles, and only slightly less capable over rough ground. The Pakistan Army could avail itself of large numbers of them able to roam from the open badlands of Baluchistan and Sind, to the high altitudes of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. It’s not as if we’re ever going to find any tracked vehicles operating there, so that rules out tanks and self-propelled artillery. Every indirect fire support weapon is therefore currently towed, from the M-198 155mm, downwards to the large calibre mortars, but similar firepower, if not greater, could be delivered in an 8x8 vehicle. Not only this, but also direct fire support, and troop mobility.
The best example of what I speak of is the Stryker or LAV-25 families of 8x8 vehicles currently operated by the U.S military. There are three principal variants I have in mind besides the Stryker’s M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle; the Stryker’s M1128 Mobile Gun System, the LAV-25s ‘Dragon Fire’ fully automated mortar system, and the Stryker’s MXXXX 105mm Self Propelled Howitzer variant currently under development. The M1128 is armed with a 105mm tank gun like the Italian B1 Centauro tank destroyer. You’re basically not going to get a higher level of direct firepower delivered from a vehicle based weapon in mountainous regions. The ‘Dragon Fire’ programme hopes to deliver a heavy 120mm mortar which is fully automated in every aspect and able to be fired from its mounted position within the vehicle. An alternative to this system could be the AMOS, (Advanced MOrtar System), currently in use with the Finnish and Swedish armies. The double barrelled 120mm mortar system can place 14 rounds on a target using the ‘multiple rounds simultaneous impact’ capability, and has a maximum rate of fire of 26 rounds a minute. Both these systems can fire rounds out to 10-13km. Admittedly some may be sceptical of the 105mm howitzer, but you’re not going to get a 155mm weapon mounted on an 8x8, or even a 10x10. With extended range ammunition and the capability to land multiple rounds on a target using the ‘multiple rounds simultaneous impact’ capability, it would be highly versatile and devastating weapon. What I am trying to highlight by mentioning these systems, is that defences need not be static in mountainous terrain, and mobility can be as much part of a weapon’s characteristics as it would be elsewhere. Perhaps not as much as on an open plain, but firepower in mountainous terrain need not be static.
I’m also not saying that the U.S is somehow simply going to hand over these systems, some of which are still in development. Pakistan could equally look to its time tested defence partners China and Turkey, both of which are, if not actively introducing 8x8 vehicles (as is the case with Turkey and its Pars/Leopard family of vehicles), but testing its own family of vehicles (as is the case with China). Buying into these programmes should not be difficult for Pakistan.
As ever though, there has to be someone with the vision and will power in decision making circles to push for this change. Pakistan used to operate armoured cars, (and very successfully so), but they somehow went out of fashion, and when it comes to the whole range of heavy armoured cars Pakistan has missed the boat entirely. Money is of course another factor, but how many more wheeled vehicles could be bought for the amount of money spent on tracked vehicles? Numbers are as much an issue as quality in many respects.
Pakistan does have a programme in place to replace its motley collection of artillery pieces, and aims to have a largely 155mm range of artillery by the end of the next decade. The current 155mm pieces are the M198 howitzers obtained from the U.S. They’re excellent weapons, but a little heavy nowadays, so if something new is to be purchased, it has to be lighter. A cheaper way of doing this would be to modify the Chinese Type-59 130mm artillery pieces, but that’s not really the best long term solution on grounds of cost effectiveness, and also quality, (they’re good enough for a short sharp war, but in terms of quality were seemingly built to be disposable, not to last). What this will all result in is anyone’s guess, but I don’t think we’ll be seeing as anything heavy as the South African Denel G-5 howitzer, despite the fact it’s a truly formidable weapon. It may perhaps simply be too heavy to be lugged about mountainous roads.
Somehow I doubt there are many takers in the Pakistan army for a family of 8x8 vehicles. This is a pity because there are highly versatile systems out there that Pakistan would do well to take a closer look at, especially when it comes to boosting its defensive capabilities in the north. It all seems a little exposed at present.
http://usmanansari.com/
By USMAN ANSARI
Fairly recently I went on a trip in to the mountains along the Karakorum Highway (KKH), during which I branched off and ventured fairly close to the Line of Control separating Azad Kashmir from Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK).
I could drone on about how I think that much of the Northern Areas should be closed to visitors because they don’t appreciate the natural beauty of the place. They throw their rubbish wherever they feel like doing, and drive off road at the drop of the hat. There’s no concept of care for the environment. Not even in a national park, where I saw not only normal food related rubbish, but a baby’s nappy as well, which I sure the hell didn’t go up there to see because I could have seen that in any city in Pakistan!!! I don’t know if I speak for myself and to myself in saying this, but people should take only memories, and leave only footprints!! You’re supposed to take your rubbish with you!!!!
Anyway, I think we’ll skip that and stick to military related topics. I was however on an off road trip which was entirely unconnected with the military, but looking around it did get me thinking about how easy or difficult it would be to protect the area. Some of the roads were fairly narrow, and the surfaces of them wouldn’t stand up to a large amount of heavy traffic, and the bridges over rivers and streams are limited in the weight of vehicle they can accommodate. The KKH itself is in places badly potholed. There’s a lot of work being done to upgrade, resurface and widen the highway, which means there’s a lot of disruption. Other tracks are being widened and turned into all weather metalled roads. Currently therefore it would be very difficult to move a large amount of men and material around the region.
However, even once all these road improvements are made, it has to be asked what it would be possible to move on these roads. I think the usual logistics vehicles would make it along with 4x4 vehicles, but tracked vehicles would never be able to be used on such roads. They would damage the road surface for a start, and their engines may not be able to perform adequately at such altitudes (at times over 4,000m). Some types of vehicles and weapons may never able to use these roads. According to Brian Clougley’s ‘A History of the Pakistan Army – Wars and Insurrections’, (Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 2006; ISBN 0-19-547334-5 – which I strongly recommend you all rush out and buy right now), the Indians claimed that the Pakistan Army moved ballistic missiles into the Deosai Plains High Altitude National Park during the Kargil crisis in 1999. Having been there during this trip, I can tell you right now this is total rubbish. The roads and bridges would never have been able to have withstood vehicles of such weight, and having seen the vehicles in question, they would never have been able to have negotiated some of the mountain turns.
I am reliably informed however, that what did happen was that some radar systems were positioned in the park by PAF helicopters because the Deosai Plains are right up against the LoC. In such an environment the importance of helicopters cannot be over emphasised, because it’s the only way you can move men and material around at speed. However, the best helicopter that Pakistan has for this task is the Mil Mi-17 Hip, of which it has a very small number in relation to its needs. There’s only really one high altitude post on the Siachen Glacier where you would need something like the Lama, or its replacement the Ecureuil. There are simply not enough helicopters in the Pakistani military let alone the army, to fulfil the logistics effort in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, and this could possibly have severe implications for the defence of these areas. Considering Pakistan’s perennial financial constraints, this is always likely to be the case.
So how can Pakistan’s firepower, transport and logistics capabilities be improved then? I’ve already mentioned that road links are being upgraded to make them negotiable in all weathers. However, tracked, and very heavy/large wheeled vehicles will never be able to use them in any numbers if at all. Everything would have to be carried on smaller wheeled vehicles. Obviously ‘lorried infantry’ is nothing new, as this dates back to the dawn of industrial warfare in WWI, but what about a more flexible class of vehicles? Indeed what about a series of 8x8 vehicles?
I’ve never really understood what seems to be an inertia when it comes to adapting such vehicles in some militaries, and Pakistan seems to be one of them. They’re increasingly common elsewhere, because they’re more rapidly deployable, cheaper to purchase and operate, less complicated and therefore easier to maintain than tracked vehicles, and only slightly less capable over rough ground. The Pakistan Army could avail itself of large numbers of them able to roam from the open badlands of Baluchistan and Sind, to the high altitudes of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. It’s not as if we’re ever going to find any tracked vehicles operating there, so that rules out tanks and self-propelled artillery. Every indirect fire support weapon is therefore currently towed, from the M-198 155mm, downwards to the large calibre mortars, but similar firepower, if not greater, could be delivered in an 8x8 vehicle. Not only this, but also direct fire support, and troop mobility.
The best example of what I speak of is the Stryker or LAV-25 families of 8x8 vehicles currently operated by the U.S military. There are three principal variants I have in mind besides the Stryker’s M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle; the Stryker’s M1128 Mobile Gun System, the LAV-25s ‘Dragon Fire’ fully automated mortar system, and the Stryker’s MXXXX 105mm Self Propelled Howitzer variant currently under development. The M1128 is armed with a 105mm tank gun like the Italian B1 Centauro tank destroyer. You’re basically not going to get a higher level of direct firepower delivered from a vehicle based weapon in mountainous regions. The ‘Dragon Fire’ programme hopes to deliver a heavy 120mm mortar which is fully automated in every aspect and able to be fired from its mounted position within the vehicle. An alternative to this system could be the AMOS, (Advanced MOrtar System), currently in use with the Finnish and Swedish armies. The double barrelled 120mm mortar system can place 14 rounds on a target using the ‘multiple rounds simultaneous impact’ capability, and has a maximum rate of fire of 26 rounds a minute. Both these systems can fire rounds out to 10-13km. Admittedly some may be sceptical of the 105mm howitzer, but you’re not going to get a 155mm weapon mounted on an 8x8, or even a 10x10. With extended range ammunition and the capability to land multiple rounds on a target using the ‘multiple rounds simultaneous impact’ capability, it would be highly versatile and devastating weapon. What I am trying to highlight by mentioning these systems, is that defences need not be static in mountainous terrain, and mobility can be as much part of a weapon’s characteristics as it would be elsewhere. Perhaps not as much as on an open plain, but firepower in mountainous terrain need not be static.
I’m also not saying that the U.S is somehow simply going to hand over these systems, some of which are still in development. Pakistan could equally look to its time tested defence partners China and Turkey, both of which are, if not actively introducing 8x8 vehicles (as is the case with Turkey and its Pars/Leopard family of vehicles), but testing its own family of vehicles (as is the case with China). Buying into these programmes should not be difficult for Pakistan.
As ever though, there has to be someone with the vision and will power in decision making circles to push for this change. Pakistan used to operate armoured cars, (and very successfully so), but they somehow went out of fashion, and when it comes to the whole range of heavy armoured cars Pakistan has missed the boat entirely. Money is of course another factor, but how many more wheeled vehicles could be bought for the amount of money spent on tracked vehicles? Numbers are as much an issue as quality in many respects.
Pakistan does have a programme in place to replace its motley collection of artillery pieces, and aims to have a largely 155mm range of artillery by the end of the next decade. The current 155mm pieces are the M198 howitzers obtained from the U.S. They’re excellent weapons, but a little heavy nowadays, so if something new is to be purchased, it has to be lighter. A cheaper way of doing this would be to modify the Chinese Type-59 130mm artillery pieces, but that’s not really the best long term solution on grounds of cost effectiveness, and also quality, (they’re good enough for a short sharp war, but in terms of quality were seemingly built to be disposable, not to last). What this will all result in is anyone’s guess, but I don’t think we’ll be seeing as anything heavy as the South African Denel G-5 howitzer, despite the fact it’s a truly formidable weapon. It may perhaps simply be too heavy to be lugged about mountainous roads.
Somehow I doubt there are many takers in the Pakistan army for a family of 8x8 vehicles. This is a pity because there are highly versatile systems out there that Pakistan would do well to take a closer look at, especially when it comes to boosting its defensive capabilities in the north. It all seems a little exposed at present.
http://usmanansari.com/
Last edited:
