Pakistan Army Information

[jehangirhaider]

Type: 122mm Type 83 (Azar)
Manufacturer: Institute of Industrial Control Systems
Role: Multiple Rocket System
Original Total: 45

Why these numbers are so small,though these are indigenous and we have been listening about these since 1989 or may be earlier.
So far only 45 are produced.Strange?

[fatman17]

Originally Posted by jehangirhaider

Why these numbers are so small,though these are indigenous and we have been listening about these since 1989 or may be earlier.
So far only 45 are produced.Strange?

test and evaluation takes time - now the numbers will increase. the top priority in HIT are AK and APC variants.

some MRLs have also been imported so the strategy could be a mix of imported and local weapons platforms.

[fatman17]

Originally Posted by wave69

Thanks for the feedback, (Kargil) !! This is the point , going back to 71 war any one remembers loogewala Battle?? The operation conducted by PA in this sector was not only incompetent but right down STUPID!! The Indians might have glorified this by their movie.. Border... but once again PA did not learn... (Kargil) episode point in case... PA got hammered in Logewala becus NO AIR COVER !! === inter-service co-ordination..

loogewala is a good example and dont forget shakargarh, where PAF F-6s came in the nick of time to deter the indian armour advance.

[fatman17]

Originally Posted by enigma947

i dont agree with what you have said in your second paragarph!
We are not the US military which can dedicate any number of assests at any point of time at any place of application!

We and many others have to priortize and sort out the theaters, objective, times and mission where certain assests and support would be required inevetively!!

The tri services do has plans to cater for this eventuality. Or i must say procedure are there to sift through the situation in order to provide the most critical theater of war with the most critical resources in order the bring out the best.

An example to this can the Strike Corps Operations..where 'things' are available when are where required! (nothing more is coming out from on this)



A very valid point has been brought out by you...but i must tell you things have changed manifolds now...Kargil and stuff has taught us alot!!

hope you are right however just a bit of warning. my sources tell me that even within the army there are new "rivalries" between eg: pure infantry formations and mechanised infantry formations. if this is a +ve behaviour then its ok, otherwise well....!

[Ratus Ratus]

Originally Posted by fatman17

Now if the PAF had the requsite numbers of dedicated ADF and CAS aircraft then the co-ordination issues would subside to a great extent. now the PAF is working towards this with its ambitious plan of inducting 250 JF-17 multi-role aircraft which would be dedicated for various roles like ADF, CAS, NavAttack etc. this would leave the F-16s and the F-20s dedicated for the prime purpose. flying top cover.

now i am not a air strategist but this is how i see it.

i was talking to a naval officer attending a war course at NDU and there the navy is proposing that it should have its own naval air arm (PAF pilots deputised to the navy. the navy commander would write their annual ACRs) for the same reasons i have mentioned above.

Just a passing thought as we went though a funny where the Air Force took over all fixed wing roles. I am still unsure this was a good move as it has left us with no projected air assets besides rotor from the navy. But then an aircraft carrier as a capital ship needs a lot of support and protection. They cost too much to loose.

Firstly with the PAF holding all control especially on the, as you put it, “dedicated ADF and CAS aircraft”, what stops under the overall selection of equipment/planes being only what the PAF feels is correct without PA input.
It still comes down to who decides on the specific operational front as being relevant vs the front that actually needs the assets. Since the ownership is PAF this decision will still/or could end up in a delicate mess, to be polite.
There are times certain aircraft need to be part of that service vs allocated by another service.

The issue of the navy wanting its own aircraft is and would be in parallel with the Army wanting its own dedicated ADF, CAS assets.

[Ratus Ratus]

Originally Posted by fatman17

hope you are right however just a bit of warning. my sources tell me that even within the army there are new "rivalries" between eg: pure infantry formations and mechanised infantry formations. if this is a +ve behaviour then its ok, otherwise well....!

Out of interest is there a push to move the pure inf, what I call light Inf, into wheeled formations, ie motorised vs the mechanised, tracked, inf formations?
By motorised I don’t mean trucks but wheeled APCs/IMVs, etc.

[fatman17]

Originally Posted by Ratus Ratus

Out of interest is there a push to move the pure inf, what I call light Inf, into wheeled formations, ie motorised vs the mechanised, tracked, inf formations?
By motorised I don’t mean trucks but wheeled APCs/IMVs, etc.

correct esp the strike formations. the three conventional corps situated in Lahore and LoC are the pure light infantry formations.

[fatman17]

Originally Posted by Ratus Ratus

Just a passing thought as we went though a funny where the Air Force took over all fixed wing roles. I am still unsure this was a good move as it has left us with no projected air assets besides rotor from the navy. But then an aircraft carrier as a capital ship needs a lot of support and protection. They cost too much to loose.

Firstly with the PAF holding all control especially on the, as you put it, “dedicated ADF and CAS aircraft”, what stops under the overall selection of equipment/planes being only what the PAF feels is correct without PA input.
It still comes down to who decides on the specific operational front as being relevant vs the front that actually needs the assets. Since the ownership is PAF this decision will still/or could end up in a delicate mess, to be polite.
There are times certain aircraft need to be part of that service vs allocated by another service.

The issue of the navy wanting its own aircraft is and would be in parallel with the Army wanting its own dedicated ADF, CAS assets.

traditional roles of the tri-services play strongly!

[Ratus Ratus]

Originally Posted by fatman17

traditional roles of the tri-services play strongly!

It was this “traditional roles” attitude that forced us to loose the naval and army air wings. It also left much up to the RAAF to make the so called decisions usually with little reference to other services asset appreciation, ie aircraft selection.

This traditional concept seems to counter the suggestion of the Pakistan Navy wanting its own air assets.

I understand the concept of this traditional role approach but in modern warfare I am not sure it can still be held as a fully appropriate role allocation approach.

[fatman17]

This traditional concept seems to counter the suggestion of the Pakistan Navy wanting its own air assets.

yes but will meet stiff resistance from the PAF.

[Ratus Ratus]

Originally Posted by fatman17

This traditional concept seems to counter the suggestion of the Pakistan Navy wanting its own air assets.

yes but will meet stiff resistance from the PAF.

That sounds more like an understatement than anything else.
Unless the Navy has something to fly off that is on water the PAF will dig in strongly as would any airforce.

[xeric]

Originally Posted by wave69

Thanks for the feedback, (Kargil) !! This is the point , going back to 71 war any one remembers loogewala Battle?? The operation conducted by PA in this sector was not only incompetent but right down STUPID!! The Indians might have glorified this by their movie.. Border... but once again PA did not learn... (Kargil) episode point in case... PA got hammered in Logewala becus NO AIR COVER !! === inter-service co-ordination..

Originally Posted by fatman17

loogewala is a good example and dont forget shakargarh, where PAF F-6s came in the nick of time to deter the indian armour advance.

You missed Pathankot!!!

[xeric]

Originally Posted by fatman17

hope you are right however just a bit of warning. my sources tell me that even within the army there are new "rivalries" between eg: pure infantry formations and mechanised infantry formations. if this is a +ve behaviour then its ok, otherwise well....!

Thnx for the consideration.
But what the inter-services 'mis coordination" has to do with inter-arm rivalry?

If you talk about the differences between foot infantry and mechanized infantry then probably you have forgotten about the petty differences between infantry and amour, artillery and infantry, aviation and all the remaining arms.

You don't call these 'things' as 'problems' these are minor issues as you and i have with our brothers and friends or the marketing branch have issue with the admin in some private corporation.

So don't worry about these. These things are healthy and serve as a catalyst for fruitful competitions.
Cheers!

[fatman17]

Originally Posted by enigma947

Thnx for the consideration.
But what the inter-services 'mis coordination" has to do with inter-arm rivalry?

If you talk about the differences between foot infantry and mechanized infantry then probably you have forgotten about the petty differences between infantry and amour, artillery and infantry, aviation and all the remaining arms.

You don't call these 'things' as 'problems' these are minor issues as you and i have with our brothers and friends or the marketing branch have issue with the admin in some private corporation.

So don't worry about these. These things are healthy and serve as a catalyst for fruitful competitions.
Cheers!

rivalries and petty differences are different! however your confidence is encouraging!

what is your background if i may ask? you can PM me if you want. i am retd army.

[Ratus Ratus]

But what the inter-services 'mis coordination" has to do with inter-arm rivalry?
It would if negative add to the degree of miscoordination. If this affects asset allocation or purchasing decisions.

If you talk about the differences between foot infantry and mechanized infantry then probably you have forgotten about the petty differences between infantry and amour, artillery and infantry, aviation and all the remaining arms.

You don't call these 'things' as 'problems' these are minor issues as you and i have with our brothers and friends or the marketing branch have issue with the admin in some private corporation.

So don't worry about these. These things are healthy and serve as a catalyst for fruitful competitions.
These are healty so long as it is just as you describe.
Once it goes to the depth of asset purchasing and allocation it will be detremental. Much depends of the higer HQ's decision making and planning, that also deals with their individual pesonnal bent, arms wise.