Troops of Karachi Corps are practicing tactical drills as part of Exercise “Jidar-ul-Hadeed”

[spectregunship]

why? Last I check Pakistan's official language is Urdu, and now Arabic or Farsi?

Its basically the inspiration that the Army draws from our Islamic history that we choose to name exercises, equipment, systems in Arabic. Just to be clear, we also use Urdu, English and regional languages for various operations, equipment or exercises. Example, Op Rah e Raast, Zarb e Azb, Bia Dar Ghalam (Pushto), Destiny and many others. So its a mix of anything that makes sense and relevance as well.

 

[SQ8]

Maaz pasand nai aya ? It has a good big ATGM launcher on it, plus a 12.7 ack ack. Turret hona zaruri thi kiya ? ya 12.7mm k bajaye 20 or 25 mm cannon hota ?

Doctrine is one factor. The whole "APC is battle taxi" whose purpose is to deliver troops to frontlines and troops fight dismounted to support MBTs. For direct combat where an IFV may face MBTs, it needs to have adequate protection and firepower to stand its ground. A Bmp-2 may face PA MBT, it may even fire an ATGM at MBT, which the MBT can survive through ERA or APS or any other countermeasure but will the Bmp-2 survive if the MBT fires from its main gun ? Seriously doubt it. So now, not only an IFV is lost but 7-10 Indian troops have lost their armored transport. If the troops would have been inside, they would burn to death if not already exhumed in exploding ammo of Bmp-2. If luckily the troops were dismounted, they would need another form of transport be it Bmp-2 or truck. Do read about Namer APC of IDF. Then an APC in most cases can carry more troops, an IFV carries lesser troops. If IFV carries 6 troops plus 3 crew, while lets say that M-113 carries 9 troops plus 2 crew, so an all IFV battalion would then need more vehicles than a regular MIB (APC equipped). Even if the MIB is a mixture of IFV and APC, that battalion may still need APCs to carry all troops securely to battlefield. Cost factor. Dismounted troops can scatter more actively than a lone IFV proving to be a bigger threat with the diverse array of weapons they carry to take out different targets - assault rifle, LMG, bazooka/RPG, mortar etc. While an IFV can engage one target at a time, the dismounted troops can engage many targets at the same time. So apart from doctrine, there are pros and cons.

Jo bhi ho bhai, bus ab IFV hi chaiye. Bring Viper in service.

The IDF has the Merkava - the most heavily armored and survivable IFV out there - yes, I did just classify a 65 ton vehicle with a 120mm Smoothbore as a IFV - it can carry 5 regulars to the front line.

 

[iLION12345_1]

The IDF has the Merkava - the most heavily armored and survivable IFV out there - yes, I did just classify a 65 ton vehicle with a 120mm Smoothbore as a IFV - it can carry 5 regulars to the front line.

I mean no offense, but I do not think you’re aware of all the shortcomings of the Merkava, of which it has many, the engine being at the front being one, secondly all ammo needs to be removed for it to carry any troops. Rendering it defenseless and useless as an IFV/Troop transport. The Merkava is one of the most highly overrated modern tanks, too many flaws for it to come close to what most of the west and Russia uses.

 

[Raja Porus]

I think that LATs should be requipped with 4×4 trucks with atgms/MGs instead of APCs. What's the difference between LATs and HATs except for the atgm the use. If that is not possible then the designation of LAT should be dissolved as it is the carrier and not the atgm that is the difference(like heavy and light cavalry, historically). Lats have a different operational role then HATs. With APCs LATs will provide a greater target at a greater range for the enemy's tank/helis will also attract artillery. Larger detection range and heavier weight means that they will not be able to perform the role they are usually expected to perform i.e screening,hit and run,shoot and scoot and most importantly will not be able to set up ambushes as quickly as they will be if equipped with 4x4s. If they require much time to build/find firing positions then the whole concept of LATs is flawed. If we see 65/71 we see that the sudden fast paced strikes of LATs have often been instrumental in protecting strategically/tactically important position/areas because of thy require less time e.g 13FF at Sialkot (if I'm not wrong). Also our APCs do not provide much protection except for artillery shrapnels and small arms fire, moreover, unlike MIBs, APCs of LATs would have to get in direct contact with enemy forces.
For HATs I propose that we move to AFT-10 which will be true "heavy" AT.
@PanzerKiel @Signalian
@JPMM @Inception-06
@HRK

 

[Inception-06]

As the discussion is always going to a impossible demand to replace the M-113, it would be more realistic to modify the M-113 with new battlefield reality’s, as pointed out by many Members, India is gaining superiority in close combat, in precision and fire suppression and that in combination with quantity makes the battfield more aggressive and difficult for our troops to survive and fulfill the mission.
As described by @Signalian and our Portuguese Tank men, we should think what to do, to make our infantry better.

1- better infantry precision weapons like Scar rifle etc.

2- a up to date light shoulder fired ATGM (alcotan is not bad)

3. The MG-3 needs a Drum Magazine, scope, and grip stick for a better mobility and precision fire

If higher fire precision is gained, less ammunition will be wasted and carried.

4. A good and lightweight body armor will allow the troops to survive longer and fulfill the task

Infantry modernization is more costs effective and can be done with a less budge then buying a 2000 new IFV.

 

[CriticalThought]

Its all related to our battle doctrine.... Once doctrine is finalised, then the equipment required to implement it is procured....

In other words, IFV won't suit our present doctrine, not M113 would suit Indian doctrine....

And then doctrine is also not something which one can change every decade or so.... It gets changed maybe once a generation... Or as a result of a major event, such as war itself.

Then I fear we have a failed doctrine. Any land warfare doctrine that does not recognize the importance of flanking maneuvers is a failure. On the modern battlefield where the enemy employs drones and helis, a successful flank attack would require fast moving vehicles mounted with AAGs (Anti-aircraft guns) and the equivalent of shoulder fired missiles, along with machine guns and ATGMs. Obviously all of this cannot be present on one vehicle so a mix would be needed. For brevity, I will refer to all of these as IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles).

A mixture of IFVs and APCs deploy troops to the battlefield. The APCs naturally fall back, while the IFVs move towards the flanks. A minimal crew of 2 - driver + weapons officer - must be present. This requires top notch automatic tracking and firing solutions for machine guns, ATGMs, AAGs, and SAMs (shoulder fire equivalent). At the behest of the battle commander, these could proactively engage the enemy's flanks, or protect own flanks and rear.

In all the exercises that are publicized, I have never seen anything even remotely close to this. It reflects a one-dimensional, inflexible, and linear thought process in the top brass who are too set in their ways to fully embrace modern technologies, or devise cunning new strategies.

 

[farooqbhai007]

I mean no offense, but I do not think you’re aware of all the shortcomings of the Merkava, of which it has many, the engine being at the front being one, secondly all ammo needs to be removed for it to carry any troops. Rendering it defenseless and useless as an IFV/Troop transport. The Merkava is one of the most highly overrated modern tanks, too many flaws for it to come close to what most of the west and Russia uses.

5 troops or a full load of 120mm shells , either one not both ,
and even those 5 are for mainly for soliders who need emergency medevac and it cant carry fully kitted troops

Then I fear we have a failed doctrine. Any land warfare doctrine that does not recognize the importance of flanking maneuvers is a failure. On the modern battlefield where the enemy employs drones and helis, a successful flank attack would require fast moving vehicles mounted with AAGs (Anti-aircraft guns) and the equivalent of shoulder fired missiles, along with machine guns and ATGMs. Obviously all of this cannot be present on one vehicle so a mix would be needed. For brevity, I will refer to all of these as IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles).

A mixture of IFVs and APCs deploy troops to the battlefield. The APCs naturally fall back, while the IFVs move towards the flanks. A minimal crew of 2 - driver + weapons officer - must be present. This requires top notch automatic tracking and firing solutions for machine guns, ATGMs, AAGs, and SAMs (shoulder fire equivalent). At the behest of the battle commander, these could proactively engage the enemy's flanks, or protect own flanks and rear.

In all the exercises that are publicized, I have never seen anything even remotely close to this. It reflects a one-dimensional, inflexible, and linear thought process in the top brass who are too set in their ways to fully embrace modern technologies, or devise cunning new strategies.

aap ki ifv ki definition to USA kay pass nahi to hamray pass kya honi ,

 

[Signalian]

I think that LATs should be requipped with 4×4 trucks with atgms/MGs instead of APCs.

How about fully motorizing all infantry units with 4 x4.

 

[Signalian]

The IDF has the Merkava - the most heavily armored and survivable IFV out there - yes, I did just classify a 65 ton vehicle with a 120mm Smoothbore as a IFV - it can carry 5 regulars to the front line.

A major rift will be created between Armor regiments and MIBs since the beast would qualify both as tank and IFV.

 

[Khan vilatey]

Hey I was looking at some of the videos from the exercise which I must admit is videos released by ISPR over and over again. I did not see significant air defenses. Units accompanying our arm formations. The best was a Talah APC ( up armored M113 ) with a manipad team. What about a dedicated anti aircraft platform like the Indian upgraded

the Indian version is terrible as usual because the placed the optical sensor on the spinning radar. Hence when firing the radar will have to be stopped...... someone was smoking good shit before they Designed this.

on the IFV front we all so pentagon wars and the problems with an IFV in battle. It’s far cheaper and effective to deploy phalanx or ATGM teams to the front to blunt enemy armor.the wisdom of the ages. A great example of this was the 1965 pak India war where antitank Battalions stoped the Indian advance, the Egypt Israeli conflict where the Russian atgm’s devastated American made armor at the fraction of the cost. William Wallace against British heaven cavalry

Could not resist

k

 

[arjunk]

on the IFV front we all so pentagon wars and the problems with an IFV in battle. It’s far cheaper and effective to deploy phalanx or ATGM teams to the front to blunt enemy armor.the wisdom of the ages. A great example of this was the 1965 pak India war where antitank Battalions stoped the Indian advance, the Egypt Israeli conflict where the Russian atgm’s devastated American made armor at the fraction of the cost. William Wallace against British heaven cavalry

Armour is almost always accompanied with sniper teams to deal with this.

 

[Khan vilatey]

Armour is almost always accompanied with sniper teams to deal with this.

Hey bro, can you please provide some more context to this as tanks would be moving at speed towards our armor units. Would snipers deploy once tanks stop?

k

 

[Raja Porus]

Armour is almost always accompanied with sniper teams to deal with this.

Hey bro, can you please provide some more context to this as tanks would be moving at speed towards our armor units. Would snipers deploy once tanks stop?

k

Snipers are never there with tanks otherwise their movement will be slow which is the last thing you want to do. Artillery or other indirect fire is used where enemy is suspected or usually dismounted infantry ( of APCs) are used to clear the way. Moreover thermal scopes are also used especially in open areas to detect atgm teams. This is one of the reasons that tanks are not successful in urban environments as they can't detect the enemy in time. Nowadays UAVs/UCAVs can also be used.

 

[SQ8]

I mean no offense, but I do not think you’re aware of all the shortcomings of the Merkava, of which it has many, the engine being at the front being one, secondly all ammo needs to be removed for it to carry any troops. Rendering it defenseless and useless as an IFV/Troop transport. The Merkava is one of the most highly overrated modern tanks, too many flaws for it to come close to what most of the west and Russia uses.

The engine at the front was the whole point - earlier model Merkava’s were vulnerable to RPG hits that immobilized the tank but the current variety can take multiple ATGMs.
Add the Trophy or Iron fist to it and it would take a lot of weapons to take it out.

As far as ammo vs personnel capacity, it is not really the primary role but more alone the line of a bonus. That was meant for rapid resupply, crew swap out or CASEVAC.

 

[SQ8]

A major rift will be created between Armor regiments and MIBs since the beast would qualify both as tank and IFV.

It truly is not that effective but as @PanzerKiel pointed out, it is all about doctrine.
While not as well versed on the subject I believe the easiest delineation is APC being nothing more than armored Taxis to drop off and retreat back while IFV’s are expected to stick around and provide support.

Oddly, the Namer is more heavily armored than a BMP Sarath but due to its lack of offensive armament it is still a APC.

Perhaps that India’s doctrine is inherently offensive where they are not expecting any preexisting defensive positions or support they prefer having firepower support. In any case the Sarath is still no Tank and their commanders thinking of playing a T-90 commander while find a nice RPG up their keyster pretty soon.
They are best suited to staying a few hundred yards from the offensive line.

I don’t see a doctrinal need for a IFV for Pakistan except for the strike corps. The m-113 family is still viable to be used to dismount infantry one terrain feature away from the FLOT. That being said, M-113s with ATGMs who properly use their engineering teams to properly dig in can hold off armored formations for a short period while support in terms of tanks , helis or the airforce is called in.