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

[sparten]

Nopes.
Our doctrine dictates that infantry has to be dropped off out of effective range of enemy anti tank systems, otherwise one good hit takes a whole section out, along with the vehicle.

Infantry fighting vehicles are distinct from armored personnel carriers (APCs), which are transport vehicles armed only for self-defense and not specifically engineered to fight on their own. IFVs are designed to be more mobile than tanks and are equipped with a rapid-firing autocannon or a large conventional gun; they may include side ports for infantrymen to fire their personal weapons while on board.... Armies which think that their future operations entail long distance mobile battles thus have them.

Don’t we put a premium on identifying and killing enemy anti tank teams for this reason? I mean all armies consider them important targets, but in our case isn’t the foe’s ATGM operators supposed to be eating Arty and mortars even before contact is made?

 

[PanzerKiel]

Don’t we put a premium on identifying and killing enemy anti tank teams for this reason? I mean all armies consider them important targets, but in our case isn’t the foe’s ATGM operators supposed to be eating Arty and mortars even before contact is made?

ATGM systems are so small and well concealed that they are normally seen only once they fire. That's why the standard procedure for them is to shoot and scoot after every engagement.

Mechanized infantry accompanying the tanks is just for that purpose. They have the requisite mortars with them. Same is done by the self propelled artillery unit which is normally accompanying the tanks in direct support.

 

[sparten]

Surely the proliferations of UAV down to much lower levels and the near persistent observation of the battlefield has changed that?

 

[Signalian]

our main focus is on Vigo dala

Ripsaw seems an alternative, i like the mobility it offers

 

[Signalian]

Surely the proliferations of UAV down to much lower levels and the near persistent observation of the battlefield has changed that?

A few other factors faced by ATGW/Bazooka/LAW/bunker buster teams

Infantry ATG weapons would need to be capable of destroying enemy armor as well as other targets, they also would be carrying responsibilities for "bunker busting"- reducing hardened targets and creating entry points in buildings. They would need sensors and communications to allow them to detect and engage targets and work with the rest of the combined arms team.

This would require a crew-served weapon and would mean carrying sufficient rounds (6-10) in order to sustain the battle. Even with only a few rounds, the team would need some kind of vehicle to carry their ammunition, sensors and communications, or they would quickly become exhausted. The ATGW team would also need to cross rough, broken terrain under fire in order to move around the battlefield. Thus the vehicle carrying their weapon would need all-terrain capability. In approaching or engaging in battle, they would need protection from enemy artillery and mortars for without such protection, they would not last long. They would also need sufficient protection to expose themselves to fire while scanning to acquire targets. So, to make infantry bunker-busters a viable replacement for tanks would require a heavy weapon able to penetrate buildings and destroy strongpoints, served by a crew of two or three, mounted in a high-mobility vehicle with protection against enemy fire and with sensors to acquire targets. ATGW teams need a protected, mobile weapon system to be able to conduct close combat.

This brings to mounted and dis-mounted ATGW teams.

 

[ali_raza]

ATGM systems are so small and well concealed that they are normally seen only once they fire. That's why the standard procedure for them is to shoot and scoot after every engagement.

Mechanized infantry accompanying the tanks is just for that purpose. They have the requisite mortars with them. Same is done by the self propelled artillery unit which is normally accompanying the tanks in direct support.

what about we for example replace mortars and small artillery with atgms in for example mountains
ucavs giving 24/7 cover and employing infrared and identification tools which are very advanced now
pinpointing anything that moves
firing them all at once clearing the area and waiting for enemy to reinforce the area in rush and then all hell break loose with artillery fire from long range heavy caliber

A few other factors faced by ATGW/Bazooka/LAW/bunker buster teams

Infantry ATG weapons would need to be capable of destroying enemy armor as well as other targets, they also would be carrying responsibilities for "bunker busting"- reducing hardened targets and creating entry points in buildings. They would
need sensors and communications to allow them to detect and engage targets and work with the rest of the combined arms team.

This would require a crew-served weapon and would mean carrying sufficient rounds (6-10) in order to sustain the battle. Even with only a few rounds, the team would need some kind of vehicle to carry their ammunition, sensors and communications, or they would quickly become exhausted. The ATGW team would also need to cross rough, broken terrain under fire in order to move around the battlefield. Thus the vehicle carrying their weapon would need all-terrain capability. In approaching or engaging in battle, they would need protection from enemy.

artillery and mortars for without such protection, they would not last long. They would also need sufficient protection to
expose themselves to fire while scanning to acquire targets. So, to make infantry bunker-busters a viable replacement for tanks would require a heavy weapon able to penetrate buildings and destroy strongpoints, served by a crew of two
or three, mounted in a high-mobility vehicle with protection against enemy fire and with sensors to acquire targets. ATGW teams need a protected, mobile weapon system to be able to conduct close combat.

This brings to mounted and dis-mounted ATGW teams.

how r u doing my friend

 

[Signalian]

how r u doing my friend

Allah's blessings, cant complain, very thankful to Allah Almighty.

ATGM systems are so small and well concealed that they are normally seen only once they fire. That's why the standard procedure for them is to shoot and scoot after every engagement.

Mechanized infantry accompanying the tanks is just for that purpose. They have the requisite mortars with them. Same is done by the self propelled artillery unit which is normally accompanying the tanks in direct support.

A modern visualization of combat I did many years ago.

our main focus is on Vigo dala

Bhai Vigo is everywhere.

leads from the front

Sits with artillery

And stands with troops all the way

Did the PA ever think about fielding an IFV with a 105 mm cannon as a 'light tank?' Especially if it thought about acquiring an IFV?

I like the korean camo more than european

Brits playing around with tracked APCs

 

[Suff Shikan]

 

[Signalian]

.... Which brings me to my call sign here...

The Panzerkeil ("armoured wedge" or "tank wedge") was an offensive armoured tactic developed by German Kampfgruppe (battle groups) on the Eastern Front during World War II. The Panzerkeil was developed in response to the Soviet employment of the Pakfront anti-tank gun defence.

The Panzerkeil was an offensive formation used by armoured vehicles, most commonly tanks, supported by Panzergrenadier mechanised infantry and aircraft.The tanks would form into a wedge-shaped formation, with the most heavily armed and armoured vehicles forming the tip. At the Battle of Kursk, Tiger I heavy tanks would form the tip, Panther medium tanks (where available) the base, with Panzer IV and Panzer III medium tanks forming the wings.

The advantage of the Panzerkeil was that the anti-tank gunners of the opposing Pakfront would be forced to constantly adjust their ranges due to the depth of the formation. Also, the heavily armoured Tigers and Panthers would bear the brunt of the anti-tank fire, leaving the more vulnerable tanks safe from enemy fire.

With the advent of new ATGM weapons, gunships and drones carrying missiles, tank plinking has become easier. One more thing, the light tank, medium tank and heavy tank concept has also vanished when MBT came into existence. Putting Type-59s at wings while VT-4 leads the the attack, may not serve the intended purpose. Hats off to ordnance officers in those days who along with logistics officer would supply and maintain different calibers of ammunition for all tanks. Same goes for maintenance crews who would service different types of tanks. Take for example a standard late 43/44 Panzer Div which has 2 x regiments, 1 of Pz V and one of Pz IV. The heavy panzer regiments of Tigers I and II were independent of course, In PA now, the MBT standards are AK and VT-4, while there the APC standard is M-113 branching into Talha and VCC. The SP Arty is M-109 with few M-110s and now the wheeled SH-1.

Still, AK, AK-I and VT-4 form the tip, T-80, AZ and T-85 come next and then the Type-59 IIs. Now forming a panzerkeil tactic out of them would be interesting, if PA had kept them in same formation like,
2 x Regts of AK
2 x Regts of T-85
2 x Regts of Type-59 IIs.

but PA has candidly made brigade and Division structure out of them, with each brigade having common tanks in its regiments.

The combined arms strategy is still effective.

 

[python-000]

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1689224637480050688

 

[Signalian]

Fire on the move has to be bloody effective.

Target ID duty finally assigned to drone.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

I see nothing wrong in buying Chinese equipment, especially if they come with transfer of technology.

Fvck buying Western shit.

Western shit is overpriced anyways.

 

[Path-Finder]

I see nothing wrong in buying Chinese equipment, especially if they come with transfer of technology.

Fvck buying Western shit.

Western shit is overpriced anyways.

you have blasphemed