U.S. To Beef Up Pakistani Weapons

[Sid]

I dont understand why people keep comparing Al-KHalid to an Abrams. Al-Khalids are manufactured with a different war doctrine, geographical contraints and battlefield strategy in mind and Abrams are manufactured for different theatres.

Subcontinent conditions favor light weight tanks for one and an Abrams would simply get bogged down in almost all tank territory that Pakistan can offer just because of its sheer weight.

It doesn't need a rocket scientist to figure that out and other factors which would tell that a comparison between the two is useless.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Subcontinent conditions favor light weight tanks for one and an Abrams would simply get bogged down in almost all tank territory that Pakistan can offer just because of its sheer weight.

Why? Unless you're talking bridges which then is an Engineer's problem. Mud is mud and it will slow down either tank. Dry is dry and it will support both tanks.

The terrain that will stop an M1xx will stop an AL-KHALID.

 

[tahirkhely]

Too many classified products within that toy to be given away. You're talking uplink and downlink; encrytion and compression; and both COMSEC and OPSEC protocals. Even allies like Canada and the UK are not authorized to have the PREDATOR.

i am not talking about predator. i am talkingbaout lighter UAVs only for recco.
Predator has limited a2g capabilities.
Thanks for sharing that knowledge btw.

 

[Sid]

Why? Unless you're talking bridges which then is an Engineer's problem. Mud is mud and it will slow down either tank. Dry is dry and it will support both tanks.

The terrain that will stop an M1xx will stop an AL-KHALID.

I'm sure you understand that most of the tank territory in Pakistan is in the Indus Plains comprising of a good area of Punjab and Sindh. There's no talk of bridges here; and its not as simple as 'mud is mud' and 'dry is dry'. There are many 'marshlands' and 'soggy fields' where a tank weighing around 47 tons (Al-Khalid) finds it relatively easier to manouver and operate (thereby not getting bogged down) than an Abrams weighing a mamoth 60+ tons which would simply become a sitting duck due to severe mobility problems.

Also the engine and power to weight ratio is important and Al-Khalid has been perfected to suit the demands of terrain and temperatures of the harsh subcontinent tank territory.

Bridges is only 'one' aspect of this entire paradigm.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

There are many 'marshlands' and 'soggy fields' where a tank weighing around 47 tons (Al-Khalid) finds it relatively easier to manouver and operate (thereby not getting bogged down) than an Abrams weighing a mamoth 60+ tons which would simply become a sitting duck due to severe mobility problems.

Combat engineer here. Mobility is one of my jobs. It's not just weight but also the width of the tracks. How much weight is spread over the surface area. However, I think you're getting a bit confuse here. In order to sink, the mud's surface tension must be broken and that is done by even a man standing. So, to state that 47 tons somehow have some advantage over 60 tons is misleading.

The Canadian AEVs were all M113s and we worked alongside the Leo C1s. There has been not one case where what stopped the Leo C1s did not stop the M113 AEV.

Also, I've been on enough exercises where it has been pouring rain for a week and I did not see whole tank battalions stop. Individual tanks did get stuck and were buddy pulled out or embarrassingly call us engineers out to help.

I've also been thinking more on this and I now do agree that the AL-KHALID is better suited than the M1 series, not because of the terrain but because of your roads. The M1s would eat your roads while the AL-KHALID would be somewhat gentler. In your scenarios, roads would be the fastest LOCs to any potential battlefield.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Boggy and marshlands are areas where tanks, whatever their classification be, cannot function.

That is why inundation plans are also made in the operational plans. Though inundation of an area takes time.

The irrigation canals are excellent tank inhibitors since tanks have to cross them. These are ideal for defence i.e. the Ichogil Canal and the like. Then there are double canals which too when defended cleverly can trap the armour between the two canals and let the Air Force have a field day.

Hence, tanks for a country depends on the terrain that it will use and the various other operational issues that come into play. Hence, comparison of tanks merely by specification is not the ideal way to check the effectiveness and efficiency of a tank.

 

[Sid]

... I've been on enough exercises where it has been pouring rain for a week and I did not see whole tank battalions stop. Individual tanks did get stuck and were buddy pulled out or embarrassingly call us engineers out to help...

That may be acceptable in exercises but in a battlefield, events like these could turn the tide.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That may be acceptable in exercises but in a battlefield, events like these could turn the tide.

Sorry, I don't understand. Train as you fight. Fight as you train.

 

[MOO]

Pakistan doesn't need heavy armored tanks like the M1 Abrams its jus way to heavy and expensive to operate while consuming way to much fuel.

What Pakistan need is IFV; lightweight, mobile, well armored and in quantities for its military. What better way to sneak attack Indian forces on the offensive than to use IFV armed with 25/30mm or perhaps better a 105mm cannon.


A Bradley for example would do perfect for Pakistan. Imagine riding across the desert with these, and also to mention its IFV are really small and mobile so it'll be hard to detect. Even better if Pakistan can at least liscense to manufacture the Bradley Turrent onto their AL Taha armor vehicles. It can still work also.

 

[Ahassan]

pakistan only need's to counter indian's t-90s..........

 

[Quwa]

Pakistan did evaluate the M1 Abrams back in the late 1980s; the primary reason why they did not get it is because of our lack of capable infrastructure. Bridges, roads, etc, they could not handle the Abrams - and then there was the logistical costs of maintaining it; overall it did not suit, no was it a good deal for the PA. The Al Khalid is not really a superb or invincible tank; in fact it is a lower - or at best middle - end third generation tank (Chinese standards). Because of this, Pakistan is gearing towards to the development and production of the Al Khalid II. Al Khalid II I can imagine would vastly be superior to the Al Khalid and even T-84, while still inferior to the Chinese T-99.

I would not mind the PA going for a couple hundred Bradley IFV/APCs though; are those available under the Excess Defence Articles program?

 

[RAPTOR]

Pakistan did evaluate the M1 Abrams back in the late 1980s; the primary reason why they did not get it is because of our lack of capable infrastructure. Bridges, roads, etc, they could not handle the Abrams - and then there was the logistical costs of maintaining it; overall it did not suit, no was it a good deal for the PA. The Al Khalid is not really a superb or invincible tank; in fact it is a lower - or at best middle - end third generation tank (Chinese standards). Because of this, Pakistan is gearing towards to the development and production of the Al Khalid II. Al Khalid II I can imagine would vastly be superior to the Al Khalid and even T-84, while still inferior to the Chinese T-99.

I would not mind the PA going for a couple hundred Bradley IFV/APCs though; are those available under the Excess Defence Articles program?

Pakistan was interested in buying around 1000 plus Bradleys back in 2003, i dont know what came out of that interest to date.

 

[TexasJohn]

Pakistan did evaluate the M1 Abrams back in the late 1980s; the primary reason why they did not get it is because of our lack of capable infrastructure. Bridges, roads, etc, they could not handle the Abrams
I would not mind the PA going for a couple hundred Bradley IFV/APCs though; are those available under the Excess Defence Articles program?

From what I understand, one of the limiting factors of India's own MBT is the size of it - not being able to fit on existing rail cars, etc. Of course the fact that it is still " buggy" is a different story.

Bradleys? dude look at their record in Iraq! yuk!

 

[sigatoka]

Bradleys? dude look at their record in Iraq! yuk!

What do you mean? They seem to be performing pretty well?

 

[TexasJohn]

What do you mean? They seem to be performing pretty well?

There is a whole thread on just that on tank.net. Take a look.

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=12215&st=80

I remember back in the 80s, when LTV was working on the fire control system of the Bradleys, right here in town. It really sucked back then and it's not all that good now. Take out the old bugs, put in the new!!