Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions

[PanzerKiel]

CAS is a time sensitive element and PAF is unlikely to be able to provide assets for this mission set. Given the relative size of PAF compared to IAF, there just isn't enough resources to practically provide CAS.

PA now will potentially have a large number of artillery, tanks (relatively), APCs, etc. But modern combat indicates the effectiveness of an air component. Following are the force multipliers discovered in the past 40 years or so:

1. CAS either fixed wing or rotary
2. Heliborne force projection, particularly useful in the mountains
3. UAVs for recce and armed UAVs

First coming to force multipliers...
This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.

Examples of possible force multipliers
PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.

CAS is a time sensitive element and PAF is unlikely to be able to provide assets for this mission set. Given the relative size of PAF compared to IAF, there just isn't enough resources to practically provide CAS.

PA now will potentially have a large number of artillery, tanks (relatively), APCs, etc. But modern combat indicates the effectiveness of an air component.

In fact, the best way to defeat Indian armor is from the air.

It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.

Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in your count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making over decades, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.

 

[313ghazi]

First coming to force multipliers...
This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.

Examples of possible force multipliers
PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.



It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.

Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in your count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making over decades, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.

What do you think about PA aviation wing being armed with weaponised drones to use on the battlefield? Do the Indians have integrated air defence with their armoured columns? Would thee drones be vulnerable. Do we have integrated air defence with our armoured columns?

 

[PanzerKiel]

What do you think about PA aviation wing being armed with weaponised drones to use on the battlefield? Do the Indians have integrated air defence with their armoured columns? Would thee drones be vulnerable. Do we have integrated air defence with our armoured columns?

They, as well as us, we both have integrated AD elements moving with our respective armor components.

What do you think about PA aviation wing being armed with weaponised drones to use on the battlefield?

Who would not like them on the battlefield. But then money problems come in our way, therefore we have to prioritise our purchases. Either you can have 300 VT-4s or may be 300 UCAVs.....but then most armies know that boots on ground, rather in air, matter more.

 

[Armchair]

First coming to force multipliers...
This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.

Examples of possible force multipliers
PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.



It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.

Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in you count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.

Force multiplier, simply put:

Force Multiplier, in military terms it refers to an attribute or a combination of attributes that dramatically increases (hence “multiplies”) the effectiveness of an item or group, giving a given number of troops (or other personnel) or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater things than without it.

Having ATGMs is not a substitute to having CAS. Never has been. Also, the utility of CAS, and how effective it has been since not only WWII, but dramatically since Gulf War I, has to be appreciated.

CAS is the new cavalry equivalent. A flight of CAS aircraft can destroy a column of tanks near Lahore, turn around, fly south and stop an armoured thrust near Multan.

When you are countering Indian T-90MS with VT-4, you can multiply the effectiveness of your battle against enemy armor by having an integrated combined arms approach with CAS aircraft, UAVs, artillery and HAT / LAT, etc.

Pakistan army right now has a pre-Gulf War orientation as it completely ignores CAS or having a meaningful UAV force like Turkey as @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ just explained.

While the T-90MS has been countered, how will PA deal with that 100-200 LCH and other attack helicopters in the Indian Army? How effective were the "Stingers on every peak" in Kargil? If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?

For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?

 

[JPMM]

First coming to force multipliers...
This term may mean nothing. It was first applied to E3 AWACS, and the implication was that its command and control features permitted the more effective use of fighters. Thus instead of adding more fighters to meet a threat, you could procure AWACS, which would multiply the combat power of your fighters.
But then, all improvements to command and control are FORCE MULTIPLIERS, as are all improvements to weapons, intelligence, leadership, logistics, tactics, strategy and diplomacy.

Examples of possible force multipliers
PGMs since they reduce number of sorties needed to kill a target.
ATMGs provide an eco way to take out much expensive tanks.
Our military institutions since they enhance our leadership standards and permit an efficient use of existing force.
EW units since they give a more precise know how of opponent's moves, enabling own efficient use of force.
Vehicles with balloon tyres in desert since they have improved mobility, which improves logistics, which improves combat power.
Any defence treaty can be termed as a force multiplier since it can enable you to free forces from a particular front to be employed en masse at another place.



It is correct to deduce that PAF may not be able to provide CAS in an ideal sense, but the we also should not say that it will not be at all available. You can ask a pilot what a single 2000 or 5000 pounder dumb bomb does to a large area, it may completely deny it to another force for any period of time.

Since concern is much more for IA armor, do please keep in your count the thousands of ATGMS (BSWS) we have been making over decades, coupled with imports of BGM-71 and its variants. Present understanding is that unless you find an armor regiment, brigade or a division concentrated in a specific area, it will be under-utilization of PAF to be used on scattered targets. Aim is, if PAF (our strat asset) ought to be used, it should then create comparative strat effects as well, which cannot be accrued by targeting smaller targets.

Western/NATO type Air Forces (PAF included) are presently designed as "Air Campaign" formations.
Direct support fires are majorly made by Artillery, Combat Helos and UAVs. Target aquisition, reconaissance and surveillance are also majorly made by UAVs and electronic equipment.
Few Air Forces spend Money in dedicated CAS platforms.
Gone are those days in Santa Margarida, were I slept in the back of Unimog, and every day at 6.00 a PoAF Alpha Jet (CAS) fly at 50m above my Fire Support Base. The

FAAR (Radar) syrennes stroke and I jump on my boots, pick my helmet/gear & G3, and run to my hole with 50cm of water.​

PS: and shouted "God morning Mother Fu**er!

 

[PanzerKiel]

Force multiplier, simply put:


Having ATGMs is not a substitute to having CAS. Never has been. Also, the utility of CAS, and how effective it has been since not only WWII, but dramatically since Gulf War I, has to be appreciated.

CAS is the new cavalry equivalent. A flight of CAS aircraft can destroy a column of tanks near Lahore, turn around, fly south and stop an armoured thrust near Multan.

When you are countering Indian T-90MS with VT-4, you can multiply the effectiveness of your battle against enemy armor by having an integrated combined arms approach with CAS aircraft, UAVs, artillery and HAT / LAT, etc.

Pakistan army right now has a pre-Gulf War orientation as it completely ignores CAS or having a meaningful UAV force like Turkey as @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ just explained.

While the T-90MS has been countered, how will PA deal with that 100-200 LCH and other attack helicopters in the Indian Army? How effective were the "Stingers on every peak" in Kargil? If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?

For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?

Ideally you are right. But what you say will be possible only if we have corresponding number of air assets (fighter, support, AWACS), more air bases, more pilots and more money. If we have everything in abundance, then which ground commander wont like to call in CAS, like the US do even to take out a small number of individuals. Costs of a single sortie of specialized aircraft is not that low.

PA doesnt ignore CAS, like everyone we would also like to have CAS as much as possible.

For those 100-200 LCH, you are then forgetting our AD assets. Somehow, you will find that AD and logistics are seldom discussed here on PDF, thats why people dont know about them, their AD and our AD assets, their organization, working and command articulation. You may get surprised by their capabilities. (Example, a single Gun Missile Regiment is enough to defend an area of 120 sq km)

As far as stingers on peak are concerned, once IAF lost MIG21, MIG27 and MI17, they stopped coming low and started high altitude bombing, so stingers on peaks achieved what was required out of them.

You may also like to go into the military concepts of Air Interdiction and Battlefield Air Interdiction. They will answer almost all your questions.

If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?

Our basic defensive layout caters for an all-arms assaults, it is made in a manner to absorb that assault before it reaches our sensitive area.

For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?

Their infantry (advancing in the open) will be dealt by our dug-in infantry, their tanks by our ATGMs grouped with infantry, their artillery by our own counter bombardment fire missions and WLRs, their CAS by our AD.

P.S. The great number of AD brigades and units we are having are not there just to fill our ORBATs, they will actually come in quiet handy.

 

[IblinI]

Their infantry (advancing in the open) will be dealt by our dug-in infantry, their tanks by our ATGMs grouped with infantry, their artillery by our own counter bombardment fire missions and WLRs, their CAS by our AD.

P.S. The great number of AD brigades and units we are having are not there just to fill our ORBATs, they will actually come in quiet handy.

Could you shed some light on the India's armed force structure and how effective they are able to deal with a modern warfare.

 

[PanzerKiel]

Could you shed some light on the India's armed force structure and how effective they are able to deal with a modern warfare.

Dear, a separate thread is required for this gigantic task.

 

[Armchair]

Ideally you are right. But what you say will be possible only if we have corresponding number of air assets (fighter, support, AWACS), more air bases, more pilots and more money. If we have everything in abundance, then which ground commander wont like to call in CAS, like the US do even to take out a small number of individuals. Costs of a single sortie of specialized aircraft is not that low.

Hi Panzerkiel, the basic requirement for a CAS aircraft does not need a modern fighter jet. CAS does not require a supersonic flight profile. It needs something relatively slow (like an attack helicopter or an A-10 aircraft).

Because modern munitions allow a CAS aircraft to fight from standoff ranges, heavy armor or a big gun are also not as important as it was in the past.

If your tanks have NCW capability, you can add armed drones and CAS aircraft easily and create a very effective combination of UAVs, tanks, CAS aircraft, artillery. This has tremendeous real time potential for the commander.

Here is a low cost way to include these in your battle plans. This is my original research. It's a combination of technologies which would allow you to build low cost UAVs, CAS aircraft and even cruise missiles. The technology is a hybrid development of a WWII era tech that a basic workshop can churn out.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/a-diy-drone-cas-aircraft-for-the-paa-concept.656964/

CAS today does not require a very high cost solution. It requires a relatively basic aircraft / drone to have a sensor and designator and lob standoff laser guided munition. Flight profiles are either from 5000 ft to 10,000 ft, or in air contested environment the standard Cold War European theatre NATO tactic is to fly nap of the earth, pop up, deliver munition, get out.

VT-4s networked with UAVs and CAS aircraft could be a game changer. AD is like anti tank for aircraft. AD does not mean you give up on CAS any more than ATGMs, HAT, LAT means you give up on tanks.

Last I remember, Stingers on peaks didn't stop the Indian M2Ks from having a game changing impact on the PA positions.
However, to avoid going off topic I'll end it here. Do check out the link, I think you'll find it interesting.

 

[IblinI]

Dear, a separate thread is required for this gigantic task.

I am just unable to find an totally objective article that is worth reading or any valuble input from this forum.

 

[PanzerKiel]

.
Last I remember, Stingers on peaks didn't stop the Indian M2Ks from having a game changing impact on the PA positions.

Stingers were and are never meant to engage targets flying at high altitude, out of their engagement range. LOMADS and HIMADS are responsible for them.

 

[Cookie Monster]

So the story goes like this.

None of Indian mbts have effective apfsds ammo against the adversary. The best they have as of now is bm42 mango, the round is certified to achieve 430mm armor at 0 degrees. This is not sufficient to penetrate ERA equipped mbts.

Second, their mainstay t72 ajeya cannot fire the same apfsds as the t90s despite both having 125mm smoothbore. Sounds funny right, here is why.
T90s has 1a45 fcs that the t72 lacks. In fact, it has no fcs which makes firing the bm42 and Invar heat round difficult as values must be fed to fcc computer.

Third , they don't have DU rounds for any of their mbts. Arjun has a tiny apfsds that can barely achieve 300mm at 0 degrees
Don't forget the bursting barrels.

They think the MS, whenever it comes, will solve these issues but no order is placed and Russians have raised the price of MS. NOT to mention, they want separate contract for ammo as usual at higher price.

Nicely milked I say. @PakFactor

Yes that's exactly what Red Effect was saying...Mango has about 300mm penetration from 2km...the penetrating rod is laughably short compared to modern APFSDS rounds and doesn't stand a chance against modern armor.

It's astounding that after so much money thrown at Arjun...they couldn't come up with a decent APFSDS or DU rounds. I bet lots of politicians, bureaucrats, and the seniors at DRDO were laughing all the way to the bank having delivered a lemon at such exorbitant price.

 

[313ghazi]

@PanzerKiel would it be fair to say that financial restrictions have required Pakistani armed forces to plan in a more pragmatic manner? It seems to be that there is the ideal solution and then the solution we can afford. Are we striking the right balance between the two in your opinion?

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Force multiplier, simply put:


Having ATGMs is not a substitute to having CAS. Never has been. Also, the utility of CAS, and how effective it has been since not only WWII, but dramatically since Gulf War I, has to be appreciated.

CAS is the new cavalry equivalent. A flight of CAS aircraft can destroy a column of tanks near Lahore, turn around, fly south and stop an armoured thrust near Multan.

When you are countering Indian T-90MS with VT-4, you can multiply the effectiveness of your battle against enemy armor by having an integrated combined arms approach with CAS aircraft, UAVs, artillery and HAT / LAT, etc.

Pakistan army right now has a pre-Gulf War orientation as it completely ignores CAS or having a meaningful UAV force like Turkey as @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ just explained.

While the T-90MS has been countered, how will PA deal with that 100-200 LCH and other attack helicopters in the Indian Army? How effective were the "Stingers on every peak" in Kargil? If not that effective, how would PA look to defend against a combined arms assault of the IA?

For instance, when large numbers of Indian infantry, tanks, artillery and CAS is attacking you simultaneously, how would you deal with that when you are meaningfully missing the CAS element from your own mix?

Since you brought up first gulf war ... it would be important to mention the role of A-10 warthog. The plane that decimated Iraqi tank columns. Simply put in this day and age one cannot be without CAS or found lacking.

300 UCAVs can perhaps provide serve whole of eastern frontier. Not only providing vital intel, they can help troops that are getting bogged down at any given location. Ofcourse future is for much greater unmanned support all the way to unit level.

 

[PanzerKiel]

Hi Panzerkiel, the basic requirement for a CAS aircraft does not need a modern fighter jet. CAS does not require a supersonic flight profile. It needs something relatively slow (like an attack helicopter or an A-10 aircraft).

Because modern munitions allow a CAS aircraft to fight from standoff ranges, heavy armor or a big gun are also not as important as it was in the past.

If your tanks have NCW capability, you can add armed drones and CAS aircraft easily and create a very effective combination of UAVs, tanks, CAS aircraft, artillery. This has tremendeous real time potential for the commander.

Here is a low cost way to include these in your battle plans. This is my original research. It's a combination of technologies which would allow you to build low cost UAVs, CAS aircraft and even cruise missiles. The technology is a hybrid development of a WWII era tech that a basic workshop can churn out.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/a-diy-drone-cas-aircraft-for-the-paa-concept.656964/

CAS today does not require a very high cost solution. It requires a relatively basic aircraft / drone to have a sensor and designator and lob standoff laser guided munition. Flight profiles are either from 5000 ft to 10,000 ft, or in air contested environment the standard Cold War European theatre NATO tactic is to fly nap of the earth, pop up, deliver munition, get out.

VT-4s networked with UAVs and CAS aircraft could be a game changer. AD is like anti tank for aircraft. AD does not mean you give up on CAS any more than ATGMs, HAT, LAT means you give up on tanks.

Last I remember, Stingers on peaks didn't stop the Indian M2Ks from having a game changing impact on the PA positions.

Whatever you have suggested is surely logical and workable. But then PAF or Pakistan Armed Forces cannot adopt your solution in a blink of an eye. Starting from doctrine, which takes decades to be formulated, everything.... Everything will have to be changed.

@PanzerKiel would it be fair to say that financial restrictions have required Pakistani armed forces to plan in a more pragmatic manner? It seems to be that there is the ideal solution and then the solution we can afford. Are we striking the right balance between the two in your opinion?

That would be, and that is, the wisest thing to do.