Yes I have nothing against the VT4 either...it's a great tank. My issue is not having a vision and too much splintering of the tank types...which would create inefficiencies and be a disadvantage in a prolonged war.
To reduce the number of types...and somewhat address the chronic shortage of funds...I think Pak should try to sell some or all of its T59/T69 to BD(or some other country that operates these already). In case of BD...depending on the condition of the tank...they can either cannibalize them or upgrade them to Durjoy standard(which is kind of similar to AZ).
Add that money to the budget of AK production and churn out more AKs. T80UD, T85s...and the rumored upgrades for them...are still capable and should serve longer. AZ can serve in areas where lighter tanks are needed on the eastern front...otherwise it can be used on the western front or put in storage(in case of a prolonged war...they may be needed to make up depleting numbers of tanks). At least this way T59/T69s can be removed from the various types...adding more AKs to create some semblance of uniformity.
With time AZ, T80UD, and T85s can also be phased out...but that's much further. Long term plan should be for two tank types...heavy/medium weight(like for example VT4 and AK...some variant)...
...or whatever else suits the army's needs. One thing is for sure...this "stop gap" purchases of a couple hundred this and a couple hundred that needs to stop.
Its the AK project and production by HIT where my concerns lie. Buying weapons from other countries to safeguard own country, when the production assemblies in own country are in place is disappointing. Pakistan Army is 73-74 years old in experience now. Deterrence has been achieved through nuclear weapons and defences have been set up through new formations and reserves. Offensives would require local production for losses to be replaced in battlefield in order to continue and press on that offensive. 33% losses occur and unit loses its potential, that is roughly 14-15 Tanks ( a squadron worth) out of 44-45 tanks of an armor regiment. This is where reserve weapons come in as replacement, if any. Tomorrow 6th Armd Div goes to war, starts incurring VT-4 tank losses, it will stay on the defensive for the rest of the war, unless losses are replaced. Even if PA buys 1000 VT-4, local production (AK) is cheaper economically, reliable and can be speeded up if required.
In 1965, 1st Armd Div crossed border, faced losses and went to Sialkot to reinforce 6th Armd Div. In 1971, both Armd Divs kept sitting as strategic reserves. Tactics were changed in EX Zarb-e-Momin as Type-85 was deployed to face T-72, but the bulk of armor was Type-59 even then. Strike formations are expected to operate in enemy territory, losses will occur. If new formations keep forming up, PA will ad hoc commands in war time and start shuffling them and their weaponry.
Don't you think we should increase the number of tank regiments deployed with infantry by keep utilizing the Type 59/69 fleet?
Either do that or give Type-59 to FC. No reserve equipment for losses still.
99% of armored warfare is driving (mobility, covering terrain) otherwise an immobile tank is a sitting duck like a pill box. Look at Longewala on the map, check its distance from the IB. PA was expecting miracles from a Type-59 with a small engine and average speed in the desert. M-48s covered more distance under 1st Armed Div in 1965. Type-59 II is upgraded, 105mm HE round is good against infantry and its speed is adequate when deployed with an infantry formation but an infantry formation which is expected to launch attacks not just hold ground, should be given a modern tank, not just increasing the armored regiments.
.
