Pakistan's Artillery Upgrade Discussions

[Signalian]

View attachment 519334
40mm remote controlled platform

Good for bunker busting at LOC

I think what sir horus is saying ,
The loc is not one line , there's forward posts behind them company HQ( firaeupport base with mortar and company sniper plus HMG and anti bunker anti air ) behind them is the battalion HQ with heavy weapons support , a vehicle like that could easily reach at least the battalion HQ if not the company HQ , thus can be used On the ' LOC ' but not on the actual line that divides
I hope this answers?

No, he mentioned dug up positions which are right in front of Indian positions, usually entrenched in the forests. You don't park these vehicles in your Rear HQs. It makes the idea of their deployment on LOC redundant.

Army AD units heavy calibre AAA like 35mm or 40mm already, so the weapon is already available in the area. The mobility that this vehicle offers, tracked or wheels, can help as logistics vehicle for supply and med evac between own lines.

1- Roads cannot be built everywhere e.g on isolated posts up on a mountain.
2- Our forces are deployed to cover large rugged frontiers on both Eastern and Western borders. Not every area is suitable for roads.
4- Roads cost money.
5- What about friendly forces occupying an enemy area with no roads?

Army Engineers can carve the area as they want: Dirt Roads (Paths made for vehicles), trenches, obstacles, bunkers, bridges etc.

3- Armies even employ human porters, mules are a far better option.

Mules are the cheapest option but take many days to arrive.

6- Watch the video and think about this

Heli drop should be made possible in majority of areas, followed by shorter version of Al-Qaswa M-113 variant for logistics. Last option: Mules where nothing else can negotiate the terrain.

bro if HIT can't put something like this together then big time laanat

Need to make 105mm or 155mm towed piece first then SP

Laser guided weaponry for artillery should be introduced. The guided mortar would be very effective in loc. Very easy to conceal.

An artillery round was displayed in a presentation back in 2001-2 which locked on the top side of targets like MBT's and other vehicles. i dont remember if it was laser or not.

Only if we use 120mm or 160mm mortars as the rest have little impact on reinforced sanghars.

81mm packs a good punch too with excellent rate of fire.

 

[denel]

China has shown that construction is possible in the worst of terrains. Difficult terrain is no longer an excuse. The point IS that there should be no such thing as 'remote outpost'.

Roads are not just for supplies. They also enable armor and heavy artillery to get closer. The mule capability should be there, but it should not be the first recourse.

For difficult terrain in hostile territory, we need a good number of supply helis.

Finally, the noise made by the robot vehicle in the video will attract fire and give away the position.

Unfotunately making roads is tantamount to giving the advantage to the otherwise to deny and take it to their own advantage.

 

[CriticalThought]

Unfotunately making roads is tantamount to giving the advantage to the otherwise to deny and take it to their own advantage.

If you can build, you can destroy as well.

 

[denel]

If you can build, you can destroy as well.

best is to not do it. we used the kalahari landscape to our advantage and built vehicles to traverse it vs building roads. That is an advantage you want to have.

 

[CriticalThought]

best is to not do it. we used the kalahari landscape to our advantage and built vehicles to traverse it vs building roads. That is an advantage you want to have.

I disagree. There are only advantages:

1. Allow use of heavy armor and artillery.
2. Predict enemy movement in case of retreat.
3. Due to predictability, booby trap the path.

The enemy would be extremely foolish to use those roads.

 

[Signalian]

I disagree. There are only advantages:

1. Allow use of heavy armor and artillery.
2. Predict enemy movement in case of retreat.
3. Due to predictability, booby trap the path.

The enemy would be extremely foolish to use those roads.

LOC ?

 

[CriticalThought]

LOC ?

Even the most unforgiving mountains can be tunneled, or shaped. You need to invest, that's all.

 

[Psychic]

Army Engineers can carve the area as they want: Dirt Roads (Paths made for vehicles), trenches, obstacles, bunkers, bridges etc.

Is there really a good reason to carve dirt road to a difficult mountain top post where mules or human porters can do the job e.g posts on LOC.
We used human porters during Kargil war. No roads were carved out, in fact many volunteers were frustrated that they volunteered to fight but were used for portering duties.

Mules where nothing else can negotiate the terrain.

Obviously!

And if one is employing human porters, using mules instead will almost always be better.
We employ mules on LOC, Siachen, and even areas of FATA.

Monabao is there for a reason.

China has shown that construction is possible in the worst of terrains. Difficult terrain is no longer an excuse. The point IS that there should be no such thing as 'remote outpost'.

One does not necessarily need to build roads in every nook and cranny of the country.

Chinese soldiers carrying luggage on their backs. Mules could've helped.
And god forbid if the enemy achieves a breakthrough, he will put his trucks on the same road. We already have good mobility in Northern Punjab and along the LOC. We can deploy troops to operational areas in Punjab in a very short time(roads are present). Same goes for LOC where Indian lines of communication are much exposed, and moreover Indians also employ human porters even use Kashmiri villagers as porters.

the noise made by the robot vehicle in the video will attract fire and give away the position.

I think it's in trials and testing phase atm.
What about noise made by trucks?
What about fuel consumed by trucks? For supplying a mountain post merely a few thousand meters away from supply dump, in difficult terrain? Will you bring an engineer battalion engaged somehwere else during the conflict all the way up to build a 500 meter dirt track because the men cannot haul light luggage on their backs?

Mules are not for supplying troops all the way from Pindi to Bhimber, they are for short range supply.

Roads are not just for supplies. They also enable armor and heavy artillery to get closer.

The main roads and highways for heavy arty and Armour are already present.
Isolated small posts on some remote mountains just 500 meters away from main road really need a link road ? So that trucks can move (and also consume fuel ---and so close to the front line)

No one said to move back to Napoleonic era and disband trucks altogether. There is no point in having a road up a small hill maned by a section.

 

[CriticalThought]

Is there really a good reason to carve dirt road to a difficult mountain top post where mules or human porters can do the job e.g posts on LOC.
We used human porters during Kargil war. No roads were carved out, in fact many volunteers were frustrated that they volunteered to fight but were used for portering duties.

Obviously!

And if one is employing human porters, using mules instead will almost always be better.
We employ mules on LOC, Siachen, and even areas of FATA.

Monabao is there for a reason.


One does not necessarily need to build roads in every nook and cranny of the country.

Chinese soldiers carrying luggage on their backs. Mules could've helped.
And god forbid if the enemy achieves a breakthrough, he will put his trucks on the same road. We already have good mobility in Northern Punjab and along the LOC. We can deploy troops to operational areas in Punjab in a very short time(roads are present). Same goes for LOC where Indian lines of communication are much exposed, and moreover Indians also employ human porters even use Kashmiri villagers as porters.

I think it's in trials and testing phase atm.
What about noise made by trucks?
What about fuel consumed by trucks? For supplying a mountain post merely a few thousand meters away from supply dump, in difficult terrain? Will you bring an engineer battalion engaged somehwere else during the conflict all the way up to build a 500 meter dirt track because the men cannot haul light luggage on their backs?

Mules are not for supplying troops all the way from Pindi to Bhimber, they are for short range supply.

The main roads and highways for heavy arty and Armour are already present.
Isolated small posts on some remote mountains just 500 meters away from main road really need a link road ? So that trucks can move (and also consume fuel ---and so close to the front line)

No one said to move back to Napoleonic era and disband trucks altogether. There is no point in having a road up a small hill maned by a section.

There is the grand war fighting strategy, and the tiny skirmishes. My suggestion is to ensure road access so Indian forward posts can be easily and accurately targeted through armor and artillery across all of LoC. Remember some time ago, there was talk of Indians attacking through armor hidden in bunkers. It was even mentioned in Mahaaz. Also, supplies should be brought by roads in general.

Yes, in isolated instances, such as a post that is 500m away, a road doesn't make sense. Or a post on a glacier that has nothing but ice all the way. But these are very specialized cases.

The video you posted is of a mine clearing operation. Obviously they are not going to create a road for that.

 

[Psychic]

, there was talk of Indians attacking through armor hidden in bunkers.

That is true or maybe its a rumor. They did something like that in 48 war in Zojilla pass, however that was against mujahideen lacking any anti-tank weaponry.

There are much cheaper alternatives for that. We have been fielding long range AAA 14.5mm( very long range) in bunkers to hit IA posts along with 106mm recoilless and even ATGMs(3KM+) which are doing the same job as tanks and are much cheaper alternatives. Tank will fire the same range as ATGM, and become exposed when going in and out of bunker along a dirt track on rough terrain at slow speed.

Maybe in FATA, tanks are OK for such use where enemy doesn't have long range anti tank capability. Or in an offensive posture against TTP like groups in terrain similar to FATA or LOC. In that case, you are already in enemy territory.

 

[CriticalThought]

That is true or maybe its a rumor. They did something like that in 48 war in Zojilla pass, however that was against mujahideen lacking any anti-tank weaponry.

There are much cheaper alternatives for that. We have been fielding long range AAA 14.5mm( very long range) in bunkers to hit IA posts along with 106mm recoilless and even ATGMs(3KM+) which are doing the same job as tanks and are much cheaper alternatives. Tank will fire the same range as ATGM, and become exposed when going in and out of bunker along a dirt track on rough terrain at slow speed.

Maybe in FATA, tanks are OK for such use where enemy doesn't have long range anti tank capability. Or in an offensive posture against TTP like groups in terrain similar to FATA or LOC. In that case, you are already in enemy territory.

That's interesting, ATGMs having the same effect as tanks! I thought tanks impart a higher kinematic energy due to explosive charge which cannot be equaled by a mere ATGM? Also, the type of warheads on the shells is also different. I am guessing the equivalence is against a specific type if target such as reinforced bunkers? Right?

 

[Army research]

That's interesting, ATGMs having the same effect as tanks! I thought tanks impart a higher kinematic energy due to explosive charge which cannot be equaled by a mere ATGM? Also, the type of warheads on the shells is also different. I am guessing the equivalence is against a specific type if target such as reinforced bunkers? Right?

A machine gun nest or HMG/ AA and reccoiless/ATGM nest are an enemies main defensive positions, however whether you shoot a 125 mm HE round or a ATGM missile, both can accomplish the task, with the former just doing it with a louder noise and exposing it self

 

[Psychic]

That's interesting, ATGMs having the same effect as tanks! I thought tanks impart a higher kinematic energy due to explosive charge which cannot be equaled by a mere ATGM? Also, the type of warheads on the shells is also different. I am guessing the equivalence is against a specific type if target such as reinforced bunkers? Right?

ATGMs are also employed in hitting bunkers. Just like 106mm RR. Similarly 14.5mm AA is also very good.
Reinforced concrete bunkers I am not sure tho.

 

[Cuirassier]

ATGMs are also employed in hitting bunkers. Just like 106mm RR. Similarly 14.5mm AA is also very good.
Reinforced concrete bunkers I am not sure tho.

We also employ SPG-9 73mm recoiless rifles and in some instances I've seen 37mm single barreled AA guns for counterfire to Indian 23mm. Retaliation is always according to calibre used by the adversary.

 

[denel]

I disagree. There are only advantages:

1. Allow use of heavy armor and artillery.
2. Predict enemy movement in case of retreat.
3. Due to predictability, booby trap the path.

The enemy would be extremely foolish to use those roads.

no friend, heavy armor and artillery are prone to becoming completely stuck. no good.
Let us define what exact terrain we are after? mountainous? then we can discuss more on . please define then we can elaborate.