what should be added in Pak Army?

[adeel]

Hello

I wont comment on the orbat that you have posted Libyan, I simply do not know enough about the organization of a military formation to judge. My question is this, If an army is say organized on the basis of a Russian orbat, wouldnt that also entail the use of Russian strategy and tactics. Pakistan has been using a more "westernized" doctrine in their warfighting. Will it be possible for an army which is modeled on a Russian Orbat to fight effectively using a doctrine designed for a different type of military.

I admire the fast moving hard hitting Russian strategy, which is one reason Russian tanks sacrifice protection for speed and mobility. But there are flaws, command control is centgralized, this impedes fluid maneuvers and the ability to react quickly to the changing environment. As far as I know Pakistan and India are both moving towards decentralized control and are modernizing their doctrines in order to adopt a more western approach. Which also includes investing more in troop training and the quality of the individual soldier over large numbers. We can see this in the development of Pakistans Strike Corps and Indias RAPIDS units.

just my two cents folks, hopefully someone who knows more than I, can clear this up

Regards
Adeel

 

[Libyan]

adeel is it possible you might forward to me your instant messenger so we can talk about this more in depth.?

 

[adeel]

hello Libyan,
i cannot use the PM system in this forum yet, i have under 20 posts. All though would be very interested to discuss this. Its 2am my time, I need some sleep ....but will be looking forward to seeing your replies here untill i can use the PM system.

goodnight
adeel

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hello

I wont comment on the orbat that you have posted Libyan, I simply do not know enough about the organization of a military formation to judge. My question is this, If an army is say organized on the basis of a Russian orbat, wouldnt that also entail the use of Russian strategy and tactics. Pakistan has been using a more "westernized" doctrine in their warfighting. Will it be possible for an army which is modeled on a Russian Orbat to fight effectively using a doctrine designed for a different type of military.

I admire the fast moving hard hitting Russian strategy, which is one reason Russian tanks sacrifice protection for speed and mobility. But there are flaws, command control is centgralized, this impedes fluid maneuvers and the ability to react quickly to the changing environment. As far as I know Pakistan and India are both moving towards decentralized control and are modernizing their doctrines in order to adopt a more western approach. Which also includes investing more in troop training and the quality of the individual soldier over large numbers. We can see this in the development of Pakistans Strike Corps and Indias RAPIDS units.

just my two cents folks, hopefully someone who knows more than I, can clear this up

Regards
Adeel

I really would question the basis of wanting to develop a "soviet" model. There is no empirical data to show that any of its client states (mainly egypt and syria) were able to effect a continuous and substantial military response.

The very structure of soviet systems was based on centralised control, even the bulk of their interception was based on centralised command and lacked autonomy.

In a modern theatre, a failure to impart autonomous control into a very fluid theatre is going to be a self defeating exercise in battlefield management.

 

[Libyan]

I am talking about adopting their orginisational tables

Armored Divisions MTOW

Motor Rifle Regiments


Artillery Divisions and Corps


Air Assault Divisions


The Armored Divisions will be designed to be slower and very well armed and able to slug it out with the enemy


While the motor rifle regiments and divisions will be designed to be fast and mobile and able to get beyond the FEBA and FLOT (foward edge of balle area, and foward line of troops)

 

[mysterious]

A clear example is the fact that this Israeli or American (cant remember correctly) guy was grateful (after the first Middle East war) that most of Iraqi Air Force's training came from the Russians and the French and Pakistanis were not given much chance; which otherwise would've told another tale of losses on both the sides! People know how Pakistan goes about training and how Russia does. Then again, I leave all the complicated stuff and details to be elaborated up on by Gary.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am talking about adopting their orginisational tables

Armored Divisions MTOW

Motor Rifle Regiments


Artillery Divisions and Corps


Air Assault Divisions


The Armored Divisions will be designed to be slower and very well armed and able to slug it out with the enemy


While the motor rifle regiments and divisions will be designed to be fast and mobile and able to get beyond the FEBA and FLOT (foward edge of balle area, and foward line of troops)

Ok, in that case, I do agree to some extent. But I think that British/US/German doctrine is far more effective. Force structure is one element of it.

I happen to believe that the UK regimental structure is a proven and sound basis to model an army on. It instils a deeper cameraderie than (say) the US system.

The russian force structure was designed to shock and overwhelm, but if the momentum was checked, then the russians could only throw more manpower, or start using battlefield nukes. They also had the advantage (then) of manpower. With their re-org, they are starting to look suspiciously like a US Marine or Airborne doctrine in "shape".

 

[Shazzz]

Nice suggestion by all the friends but i think we also have to added some latest aircarft in pak airforce

 

[yasin_khan]

Libyan your ORBAT is good but very big and Pakistan armed forces will only do self defense in any expedition.the inventry u listed is very much big as concern to tanks.
In my opinion Pakistan should induct tanks but not in that huge quantity.

pakistani armored forces 2010


t-80/u/84 1,000 (total cost from ukraine some 1 billion dollars)

al Khalied 2,000 (main produced battle tank)

it will be like this T-80 not more then 600,AL-Khalid will 1500-1800.

al zarrar 5,000 (t-55s and chinese t-59s are being sold now at under the cost of luxury cars around some $40kusd the al zarrar upgrade costs less than $210k

As far as Al-Zarrar is concern all the T-69s,T-55s and T50s will be upgraded to the program and it will remain that how much they have?
The most hit sector is artillery,anti tank weapons and attack helis.
And new artilleries,anti tanks and attack helis should be added.

 

[yasin_khan]

shazzz
This is land forces forum and if u want to say some thing about Pakistan Air Force then u have to go on military aviation.

Our Topic Is "What Should Be Added In Pak Army?" Pleace stick To the topis thanks for all replies.

Admin: Lets leave admin advice to the admins shall we...

 

[Libyan]

well I am of the oppinion the pakistan should seriously consider the fact that attack helis are now outdated


even the americans in iraq were unable to use the helicopter due to the dominance of aaa and manpads.

Admin: Follow on posts merged together

as for the 1,000 t-80/u the president of ukraine was quoted as stating he could provide turkey with 1,000 of his nations tanks at a mere cost of some 1 billion dollars.



The T-80/u/t-84 which he is refering to is superior in armor and technology to the Pakistani produced al khalied.


the figure of 2,000 al khalids represents a ten year mass production of 200 tanks per year.


the figures of t-55 types and upgrades represents a concerted effort on the govt of pakistan to purchase obsolete tanks and upgrade them. the t-55 can be had and cheaply egypt purchased t-55's and t-62s from czech rep. for around 55k per tank I believe pakistan can buy the same tanks from china ar less than this cost. and not all of these will be used as tanks others will be in the IFV role as seen here.

 

[gf0012-aust]

well I am of the oppinion the pakistan should seriously consider the fact that attack helis are now outdated


even the americans in iraq were unable to use the helicopter due to the dominance of aaa and manpads.

I agree to some extent, but part of the reason for disproportionate helo losses in Iraq was poor doctrine. They broke their own engagement doctrine and paid the price in some areas for it.

btw, T-72's can be bought in the war surplus heavy plant stores for about 40k.