PAKISTAN MAY NEGOTIATE WITH UKRAINE FOR 100 OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANKS

[Signalian]

Excellent post sir. But I think FC is (like rangers) while due to WOT it got COIN oriented. Can it supplement regular infantry on Eastern borders?
Also our T-59ll and Al-Zarrars would be susceptible to IA ATGMs? Or they will b with holding formations hence relatively safe from ATGM threat.

Thank you.
FC got T-59 for COIN but its upto army discretion where to deploy FC in case of war.

AZ is part of armoured division so it will be facing T-90, T-72 as well as ATGM threats. T-59 II will be supporting infantry formations so it will definitely be facing IA ATGM.

 

[Zarvan]

Lot misinformation regarding al Khalid tank(chinese mbt 2000) by some senior pakistani members here.
Pakistan ordered 500 MBT 2000 from china in 1998.Of which only 358 were delivered till 2015.Pakistan army has around 360 alkhalid tank as of now

O Mr no AL KHALID were ever ordered from China. Pakistan produces all AL KHALID in Pakistan and the Al KHALID we use is now totally different from engine to main Gun to other internal systems.

 

[Zarvan]

Don't spread misinformation

You are spreading misinformation not me. AL KHALID we are using are all produced in Pakistan and not only that we changed everything in it long ago. From engine to Gun to other systems. Nothing Chinese is left in this Tank.

 

[Zarvan]

Again misinformation .open sipri database. See yourself

I know so called databases they are big fat lie. Pakistan produces all AL KHALID in Pakistan and all AL KHALID which we use have hardly anything commen with Chinese because we long ago changed each and everything in our AL KHALID.

 

[Signalian]

No of Tanks in each Regiment is nearly equal for both PA & IA. Pakistan has 44-46 tanks per regiment, India got 46-48 tanks.
Currently India is operating 18 regiments of T90 with nearly 850 tanks in total. (Average 47 tank per Reg). They are looking to upgrade 10 Tank regiments by replacing T72Mk1 with T90MS by adding 420 tanks. (Average 42 Tank per Reg)
Size of their T72 regiments is same. Arjun case is however different. Since Arjun has poor availability and is prone to technical glitches so both Arjun tank regiments are of large size. (62 Tank per regiment). They have 2 Regiments armed with Arjun and are planning to follow 2 Regiments of Arjun Mk2 in similar numbers. To how much extent this plan will materialise and will it be a addition or replacement of Mk1s, its yet to be known.


To be Honest, considering Indo Pak armor combat I consider T59/69 as Metal Coffin.
As you mentioned, it has ammo constraints (105mm against Standard 125mm) hence create troubles in supplies. Lack enough muzzle velocity & range required to pierce through enemy tanks, lack hunter killer capability, cannot fire ATGM from gun, has limited night vision, lack thermal sights, lack add on armor, its own armor is very weak against anti tank projectiles, lack enough range/speed. etc etc even more weak points can be mentioned. I only consider this tank Worthy to be given slight upgrades and provided to FC where the worse enemy it can face is either RPG, mortar shells or heavy MG against which it can hold it self up better.




I wish for second option only. Or may be PA consider converting it into IFV armed with 30mm gun with ATGM with limited troop carrying capability? A concept similar to Russian BTR-T conversion of T55? Or how about using its chassis for developing a dedicated anti tank unit with 8 long range fire & forget missiles similar to Chinese AFT10?

T-59 and T-69 have chances of survival when fighting alongside infantry. This infantry is not mechanised nor it is motorised when in combat. In subcontinent wars, infantry mostly covers ground and fights on foot.

One armoured regiment in an Infantry Divisions supports 9 infantry battalions (3 brigades). Its upto the GOC and his staff how he deploys the tanks from this armoured regiment. If the regiments is broken down systematically, then its 12-14 tanks per brigade. Further broken down to 4 tanks per infantry battalion.
The Infantry Division has a dedicated anti tank battalion usually which combats enemy tanks. This means that Division's own tanks can solely fulfill the role of supporting foot infantry during an offensive.

During an attack, the infantry can pick out entrenched enemy ATGM teams and direct fire at them like LMG, sniper, mortar or even Direct Artillery fire to suppress them while the T-59 starts taking out enemy hardened LMG bunkers with HEAT rounds head on or even flank the enemy from its weak point (where ATGM teams are less or not present at all).
Problem will occur if T-59 act alone without infantry support(easily ambushed). Vice versa Infantry will suffer huge losses if tanks and artillery dont support them(losing 100 men instead of 30-40).

Your list of short comings on T-59 part are true, but if used correctly with infantry, it is still an effective Tank.

PA already is short of MBT. T-59 and T-69 are 1000 in number. After they are replaced, probably then PA can think of converting them to heavier IFV, but then again PA inducts APC's, not IFV.
The ATGM carriers are nimble and swift, they do the damage and leave. A heavier ATGM carrier is also a good option. So far PA is satisfied with Talha variant of ATGM carrier.

 

[Khafee]

Don't spread misinformation

Enough BS from you. No more trolling.

 

[帅的一匹]

@DESERT FIGHTER Thailand Royal army asked for T99A2, but the IFQ was denied immediately. I don't know whether China will send T99A2 to Pakistan for test or not. If that is so, T99A2 is a overkill for Oplot M.

Lot misinformation regarding al Khalid tank(chinese mbt 2000) by some senior pakistani members here.
Pakistan ordered 500 MBT 2000 from china in 1998.Of which only 358 were delivered till 2015.Pakistan army has around 360 alkhalid tank as of now

Al Khalid(MBT 2000), a project co developed by China and Pakistan. The configuration of MBT2000(we call it VT1) and Al Khalid is somehow different, more foreign imported sub systems on AK. And there is no direct links between MBT2000 and MBT 3000. Cause MBT 3000 design is based on T99 and MBT2000 is based on T90-II.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@DESERT FIGHTER Thailand Royal army asked for T99A2, but the IFQ was denied immediately. I don't know whether China will send T99A2 to Pakistan for test or not. If that is so, T99A2 is a overkill for Oplot M.

Well Thailand ain't China's best buddy either...

And we have always bought the best you could offer and in the old time made it better for us and you too...

Il give you an example .. We bought the A-100 MRLS... Those had issues... We resolved/rectified those issues ... The input was also given to your guys ... And than a production cum worshop facility was built...

The SLC-2 issues again faced issues .. PA being a long time US weapon user again fixed those and the helped China improve it further...

We bought Type-99,90IIMs (built under tot) we improved them made modifications and upgraded them... So whatever we do helps Chinese industries too...

You sold us the F-7s in the good old days.. We improved them... The ejection seats,gondolas (we did them),the radars,even put on US SWs on em..

Right now China have Pak 3 Z-10s .. What does China get in return ? Real time combat experience and data ... Helps you improve your weapons and sellin systems to Pak also makes your systems look credible...

 

[帅的一匹]

Well Thailand ain't China's best buddy either...

And we have always bought the best you could offer and in the old time made it better for us and you too...

Il give you an example .. We bought the A-100 MRLS... Those had issues... We resolved/rectified those issues ... The input was also given to your guys ... And than a production cum worshop facility was built...

The SLC-2 issues again faced issues .. PA being a long time US weapon user again fixed those and the helped China improve it further...

We bought Type-99,90IIMs (built under tot) we improved them made modifications and upgraded them... So whatever we do helps Chinese industries too...

You sold us the F-7s in the good old days.. We improved them... The ejection seats,gondolas (we did them),the radars,even put on US SWs on em..

Right now China have Pak 3 Z-10s .. What does China get in return ? Real time combat experience and data ... Helps you improve your weapons and sellin systems to Pak also makes your systems look credible...

Brother, Last time I remembered you said PA revalue Z10 and quite satisfied with its improvement? Can you brief it further? I thought you have army background, am I right?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Brother, Last time I remembered you said PA revalue Z10 and quite satisfied with its improvement? Can you brief it further?

Bro .. I personally have no idea on its induction.. Expect the fact that it's still in Pak... All 3 of them... And being tested by Cobra pilot instructors .. (Also in combat missions)... These people also tested the T-129s.. And probably will be the first to get their hands on the Vipers (on order)... So any input by them would be valuable ... Now I'm not saying that the choppers (Zulu's) have any issue .. I'm just suggesting that anything needing improvement could be pointed out .. During real combat operations)...


But the combat data is an essential thing ... If there are any issues (or areas which can be improved further)... Such data is valuable in that regard..

Now I'm not dissing Chinese weapons .. China has come a long way ... Your progress actually is envious ...! In a decade or half you would probably overtake the Europeans .. (You already have done that in many fields already).

Don't spread misinformation

It's a shame you got banned .. I'd have loved to embarrass you.. Damn shame.

 

[帅的一匹]

Bro .. I personally have no idea on its induction.. Expect the fact that it's still in Pak... All 3 of them...

But the combat data is an essential thing ... If there are any issues (or areas which can be improved further)... Such data is valuable in that regard..

Now I'm not dissing Chinese weapons .. China has come a long way ... Your progress actually is envious ...! In a decade or half you would probably overtake the Europeans .. (You already have done that in many fields already).



It's a shame you got banned .. I'd have loved to embarrass you.. Damn shame.

only the most sincere friend will tell you the truth, I love the way Pakistani and Chinese frankly treat each other.

 

[CriticalThought]

T-59 and T-69 have chances of survival when fighting alongside infantry. This infantry is not mechanised nor it is motorised when in combat. In subcontinent wars, infantry mostly covers ground and fights on foot.

One armoured regiment in an Infantry Divisions supports 9 infantry battalions (3 brigades). Its upto the GOC and his staff how he deploys the tanks from this armoured regiment. If the regiments is broken down systematically, then its 12-14 tanks per brigade. Further broken down to 4 tanks per infantry battalion.
The Infantry Division has a dedicated anti tank battalion usually which combats enemy tanks. This means that Division's own tanks can solely fulfill the role of supporting foot infantry during an offensive.

During an attack, the infantry can pick out entrenched enemy ATGM teams and direct fire at them like LMG, sniper, mortar or even Direct Artillery fire to suppress them while the T-59 starts taking out enemy hardened LMG bunkers with HEAT rounds head on or even flank the enemy from its weak point (where ATGM teams are less or not present at all).
Problem will occur if T-59 act alone without infantry support(easily ambushed). Vice versa Infantry will suffer huge losses if tanks and artillery dont support them(losing 100 men instead of 30-40).

Your list of short comings on T-59 part are true, but if used correctly with infantry, it is still an effective Tank.

PA already is short of MBT. T-59 and T-69 are 1000 in number. After they are replaced, probably then PA can think of converting them to heavier IFV, but then again PA inducts APC's, not IFV.
The ATGM carriers are nimble and swift, they do the damage and leave. A heavier ATGM carrier is also a good option. So far PA is satisfied with Talha variant of ATGM carrier.

First of all, each of your posts is an absolute gem and deserves a positive rating.

On my part, I just can't help idealizing things and then sharing my thoughts. Hope you'll not take offense.

So, for our spearhead attacking formations of AK and T-80 fast movers. And even fo AK-II I strongly propose NOT compromising on top speed at any cost. These should be further muscled with attack gunships, dedicated infantry in armored carriers, air offense in the form of FP-7, and air superiority in the form of F-16s and/or JF-17s. These formations should be considered elite, and should be battle hardened and battle ready, forming Pakistan's offense into enemy territory.

And for the infantry divisions, seriously we need to:

1. Make armor dependent on mission type. And armor can mean tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft missile batteries with radars (short range), and specialized shoulder carry anti-aircraft missiles. In any case, 4 tanks for ~900 men is abysmal!!!! Also, since the tanks will be facing ATGMs, I fully support heavier, well armored tanks in this case. This is where Al-Haider with 1500hp engine comes in. I researched on the internet and the article below provides some insight into how the US military does it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-3/f377apc.htm

2. Make infantry highly mobile. No use having them exhausted by walking. Transportation is essential.

3. The recent change to CZ-806 needs to be factored in. My understanding is that engagement from a distance with battle rifles is going to be a thing of the past. Please correct me if I am wrong. This means while initial contact will be made through the tanks/artillery, the resulting chaos will give men in boots to get up close and personal with the enemy. I am assuming each soldier will have xWeather sights to engage with deadly accuracy, thus reducing the number of bullets used.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

First of all, each of your posts is an absolute gem and deserves a positive rating.

On my part, I just can't help idealizing things and then sharing my thoughts. Hope you'll not take offense.

So, for our spearhead attacking formations of AK and T-80 fast movers. And even fo AK-II I strongly propose NOT compromising on top speed at any cost. These should be further muscled with attack gunships, dedicated infantry in armored carriers, air offense in the form of FP-7, and air superiority in the form of F-16s and/or JF-17s. These formations should be considered elite, and should be battle hardened and battle ready, forming Pakistan's offense into enemy territory.

And for the infantry divisions, seriously we need to:

1. Make armor dependent on mission type. And armor can mean tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft missile batteries with radars (short range), and specialized shoulder carry anti-aircraft missiles. In any case, 4 tanks for ~900 men is abysmal!!!! Also, since the tanks will be facing ATGMs, I fully support heavier, well armored tanks in this case. This is where Al-Haider with 1500hp engine comes in. I researched on the internet and the article below provides some insight into how the US military does it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-3/f377apc.htm

2. Make infantry highly mobile. No use having them exhausted by walking. Transportation is essential.

3. The recent change to CZ-806 needs to be factored in. My understanding is that engagement from a distance with battle rifles is going to be a thing of the past. Please correct me if I am wrong. This means while initial contact will be made through the tanks/artillery, the resulting chaos will give men in boots to get up close and personal with the enemy. I am assuming each soldier will have xWeather sights to engage with deadly accuracy, thus reducing the number of bullets used.

Infantry mobility will require various investments. Thanks to the increasingly pervasive road network, not just in Pakistan but the region as a whole, we can begin looking at wheeled-APCs - such as the Hamza MCV - seriously. The off-road element will require tracked APCs, especially when deployed in the think of armour-on-armour operations. A larger air lift capability via medium-lift helicopters would be helpful too, which I think the Mi-171 and/or Super Puma (assuming the MoDP interest in the Romanian H215 line is genuine) could fulfill. Some surplus Chinooks would be helpful too.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Is the Oplot less of a death-trap now than the T-80 series was? Russia was quick to move on to the T-90 (T-72 re-designed) and so was India.

Any reason for all the love for the tank at defence.pk when we already build a superior tank in the Al Khalid (not to mention the up and coming Al Khalid II)?

Why do we need another tank?

Just questions not picking a fight, since I do not know the answers.

 

[Tipu7]

T80 is not a death trap. It earned bad reputation bcoz Russians operated them in Urban warfare with poor planning.
In fact compared to T72 & T90 series it has more thick armor.
Russia moved back to T72 as it's very cheap to operate compared to T80 series which in one on one comparison is generation ahead of T72 and is more expensive to buy ,operate & mass produce.
India never operated T80 in first place. They moved directly to T90 as being T72 operator it was most feasible option considering common attributes of both tanks.

T80 was inducted due to delays in Al Khalid project. And now Oplot (AH) is here to over come the production demand which is hard to full fill by HIT Al Khalid which can produce 50 tanks per year at best ...... It's better to have 600 Tanks of two types in 6 years than having 600 Tanks of one type in 12 years. Plus T80 & AK series share a lot of common features from ammo to engine so it's a practical choice to go for both as time saving measure.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Is the Oplot less of a death-trap now than the T-80 series was? Russia was quick to move on to the T-90 (T-72 re-designed) and so was India.

Any reason for all the love for the tank at defence.pk when we already build a superior tank in the Al Khalid (not to mention the up and coming Al Khalid II)?

Why do we need another tank?

Just questions not picking a fight, since I do not know the answers.