What's new

Mechanised Divisions Pakistan Army

A development of a Anti-UAV Defense System (AUDS) in Pakistan in collaboration with Turkey or China.
I personally like ADATs.

A regiment or 2 in every Armored/Mechanized Division. 18-24 launchers per regiment on M-113 chassis. Upgraded 10 Km+ range to take out ground and air threats. Its a swing role platform.

You saw that Ukrainian Strela coming up on Russian MRAP. That MRAP would have been history if ADATs was installed on Strela chassis.

I can't think of pro thing about it, except being close together.

Doesn't it show desperation for providing supplies? failure to plan supplies and routes and timing ?
It also shows that Russians dont fear Ukrainian aerial attacks by gunships, UCAVS, aircrafts or even ambushes from Ukrainian ground forces. The "highway of death" in 1991 Gulf war should not be repeated.

Russian isn't facing USAF or NATO-AF, story would be different then.
 
Alright back to the thread.

Have you seen videos of Ukrainian civilians confronting Russian Armored vehicles like MBTs? Pondering why Tanks are operating in smaller groups without infantry support.

Secondly, tanks and other vehicles running out of fuel. This is the logistical part which comes in planning before invasion and then sustainability during campaign. I have been saying in Indo-Pak scenario that PA logistics line has to be held intact if Strike Corps were to cross border and enter India.

In Russia's case, was the scale of invasion too quick than anticipated by Russian Generals ? Were Logistics slow to catch up ? Was it badly planned from the start ? Were local fuel resources (Ukrainian petrol pumps) considered as an alternative ?

Ordinance by MBTs may not have been spent much however there was lot of small arms and artillery fire, so ordinance and ammo supplies shouldn't be an issue.
Way too fast and lack of training and not much motivation and sending conscripts with mostly old or broken down equipment who most don't even know why or where they are or think they just doing exercises. If it was exercises, it's the most realistic ever in military training of what not to do.

I personally like ADATs.

A regiment or 2 in every Armored/Mechanized Division. 18-24 launchers per regiment on M-113 chassis. Upgraded 10 Km+ range to take out ground and air threats. Its a swing role platform.

You saw that Ukrainian Strela coming up on Russian MRAP. That MRAP would have been history if ADATs was installed on Strela chassis.


Doesn't it show desperation for providing supplies? failure to plan supplies and routes and timing ?
It also shows that Russians dont fear Ukrainian aerial attacks by gunships, UCAVS, aircrafts or even ambushes from Ukrainian ground forces. The "highway of death" in 1991 Gulf war should not be repeated.

Russian isn't facing USAF or NATO-AF, story would be different then.
Either it shows no fear of possible airstrikes or artillery on those supply convoys or they are just poorly trained or very ignorant.
 
Way too fast and lack of training and not much motivation and sending conscripts with mostly old or broken down equipment who most don't even know why or where they are or think they just doing exercises. If it was exercises, it's the most realistic ever in military training of what not to do.
So you identified "training" issues and that conscripts probably don't give better results in war. Are officers also conscripts ?

I think the command and control also needs to improve a lot. Russia had good experience of air strikes in Syrian war, however this invasion is dominantly ground force. A brigade-structure would have been better for cohesion among regiments for command and control. US Army shifted to Brigade sized structure for effective deployment leading up to war. Russian forces in smaller groups (company level) seem to lack that.
 
So you identified "training" issues and that conscripts probably don't give better results in war. Are officers also conscripts ?

I think the command and control also needs to improve a lot. Russia had good experience of air strikes in Syrian war, however this invasion is dominantly ground force. A brigade-structure would have been better for cohesion among regiments for command and control. US Army shifted to Brigade sized structure for effective deployment leading up to war. Russian forces in smaller groups (company level) seem to lack that.
Yes they have lots of experience in air strikes as we have seen in Syria, but since this is Ukraine and Putin says he's a liberator, that pretty held him back, but at the same time, most of the troops involved have no experience as well as lack of training mostly due to corruption where the money was suppose to be used for training and equipment but went instead into the pockets of the politicians.
 

Is a 5-km long armored and supply convoy lined up on the road a good idea ?
Fuel, logistics, armored vehs.

Pros and Cons please ?


I have given diverse food for thought in posts after request from Inception-06's.
Care to chip in now.

Really Brother I get headaches watching Russian convoy movement-

- no convoy discipline in camouflage
- I don’t see any tactical movement of convoy with a protection against hidden insurgents for example first middle and last vehicles should the best protected and weaponed and be responsible for commanding and and leading the fight against ambushes
- the convoy vehicles mainly trucks haven’t any medium machine guns on the top hatches and no measures for observing and firing positions on the sides and rear of the trucks and other vehicles
- UAV surveillance, ELINT and ground reconnaissance should be drilled and implemented and their result’s calculated in the battle or convoy movement plan
- there doesn’t exist any plan or tactics in convoy movement like restrictions of vehicles to a limited numbers
- medium machine guns are installed less on all vehicles, the Russians are facing mainly infantry, while the Russians try heavily deploy large calibres against this infantry, so mass of the Russians vehicles are equipped with big calibres weapons, but the advantages of medium machine guns is, more ammunition for fire suppression, aiming and firing is faster and easier then larger calibres, the bullet straying is greater and faster
- air defence network with observation and surveillance must be established over the battlefield, while the air defence units must be protected by dismounted infantry

What I noticed I the in first two days, and I deleted many times my posts, thought it couldn’t be true, the Russians are repeating the same failures of Afghanistan and Chechen war. What they have learned their seemed not to be written any where. They don’t to have the quality of structure, discipline and training like the NATO standards, very low level leading by the command as you mention it above. I don’t see any concept or plan here.
 
Last edited:
Really Brother I get headaches watching Russian convoy movement-
I just include a sample, but the rest is in the link about the logistics of the Russian Army.

Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin commissioned as a second lieutenant, branched armor, in 2002. He has 10 years of frontline experience in Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan, including four combat tours. Since 2014, he has worked as a modeling and simulations officer in concept development and experimentation field for NATO and the U.S. Army, including a tour at the U.S. Army Sustainment Battle Lab, where he led the experimentation scenario team.

FEEDING THE BEAR: A CLOSER LOOK AT RUSSIAN ARMY LOGISTICS AND THE FAIT ACCOMPLI​

ALEX VERSHININ
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
COMMENTARY

"Most of these wargames, such as RAND’s Baltic study, focus on fait accompli, an attack by the Russian government aimed at seizing terrain — then quickly digging in. This creates a dilemma for NATO: launch a costly counter-attack and risk heavy casualties and possibly a nuclear crisis or accept a Russian fait accompli and undermine faith in the credibility of the alliance. Some analysts have argued that these seizures are much more likely to be small in size, limited to one or two towns. While that scenario should, of course, be studied, the concern about the feasibility of a fait accompli in the form of a major invasion still stands.

While the Russian army definitely has the combat power to achieve these scenarios, does Russia have the logistics force structure to support these operations? The short answer is not in the timelines envisioned by Western wargames. In an initial offensive — depending on the fighting involved — Russian forces might reach early objectives, but logistics would impose requirements for operational pauses. As a result, a large land grab is unrealistic as a fait accompli. The Russian army has the combat power to capture the objectives envisioned in a fait accompli scenario, but it does not have the logistic forces to do it in a single push without a logistical pause to reset its sustainment infrastructure. The Russian Aerospace Forces (with a sizable tactical bomber and attack aircraft force) and attack helicopters can also pick up fire support to alleviate artillery ammunition consumption.

NATO planners should develop plans focusing on exploiting Russian logistic challenges rather than trying to address the disparity in combat power. This involves drawing the Russian army deep into NATO territory and stretching Russian supply lines to the maximum while targeting logistics and transportation infrastructure such as trucks, railroad bridges, and pipelines. Committing to a decisive battle at the frontier would play directly into Russian hands, allowing a shorter supply to compensate for their logistic shortfalls."

Railroads and Russian Logistics Capabilities

Russian army logistics forces are not designed for a large-scale ground offensive far from their railroads. Inside maneuver units, Russian sustainment units are a size lower than their Western counterparts. Only brigades have an equivalent logistics capability, but it’s not an exact comparison. Russian formations have only three-quarters the number of combat vehicles as their U.S. counterparts but almost three times as much artillery. On paper (not all brigades have a full number of battalions), Russian brigades have two artillery battalions, a rocket battalion, and two air defense battalions per brigade as opposed to one artillery battalion and an attached air defense company per U.S. brigade. As a result of extra artillery and air defense battalions, the Russian logistics requirements are much larger than their U.S. counterparts.
 
They are not anticipating resistance from the streets in the form of RPG or ATGM or bazooka. Maybe the town has been cleared from Ukranian soldiers while civilians could be carrying AKs only which wont leave a dent even on the armored vehs. Possibly the routes for convoys offer no threat except from the air (UCAV).

Now have you noted the amount of russian army trucks in other videos. Those are the support vehs to sustain armored and mechanized forces. Next, Russian soldiers are moving in MRAPs instead of light 4x4s like pickups or SUVs. Basically there are T-72s, BMPs and MRAPs.

Notice three things in below video:

1. civilian cars driving as if its a normal day
2. Russian MRAP engaging Ukranian Strela at short distance
3. Strela not engaging MRAP



If it was Ukrainian's, then such attacks would have been occurring from Day-1 on Ukrainian-Russian border. In fact, Russians might not have made it to outskirts of Kyiv in a matter of a day or 2. "Droning" has started a bit late, nonetheless, its effective.
Thats a Ukrainian Kozak Mrap
 
Cmon dear, you still believe that Ukraine is behind all these counters?
Ukraine should be a lesson to all Muslim countries like Pakistan tho. Sending weapons to Rohingya or to any other Muslim group resisting occupation isn’t wrong. If west can support Ukrainians against Russia and openly send weapons then why can’t we against an irrelevant state like Burma? This is the perfect time as well because world won’t care about such irrelevant states and won’t even care to stop us.

BIG lesson for Muslim states. NO ONE IS YOUR ALLY EXCEPT YOUR SELVES. STOP SUCKING WEST’S D*ck and grow some balls and stand for what you believe in!

No one will come defend us, no one will help us , no one will care about us. Only people who will help us are our Muslim brothers. Quit the crying sanctions and help our Muslim brothers around the world.

PDFers crying there’s no ummah. Man the whites are more united then you. Look at the whites “ummah” work. A white nation was attacked all came to its defence yet y’all want to continue fighting your brothers.

@PanzerKiel you tell me your self, what is the difference between Ukraine and say Palestine or Kashmir or Rohingyas etc? You said your self rn others are behind this. Why shall we muslim countries and Muslim armies stay quiet and see our Muslim brothers get massacred mercilessly around the world? Where’s our ghairat? Where’s the only Muslim nuclear power in the world? Where’s the largest Muslim army in the world why can’t we provide atgms and manpads to our fellow Muslim brothers or our own people our jugular view Kashmir? Why don’t we have Javid Nasir’s or Hameed Gul’s in our army anymore?


40 miles long 😳

Russian convoy has spread to 17 miles.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the geographical implications of this conflict are.. One thing is guaranteed, that from now on pdf will move away from just technical details/comparisons and towards a more professional approach to kinetic warfare.
 
What your assumption? Possible that Pakistanis are better artists in this field ?
We fared relatively well in the battles against Taliban especially those in Bajaur. Our infantry was always leading and covering the tanks. We were in the initial period of WoT and had not developed proper tactics for COIN ops still we are able to root out the ttp. The terrain was much more complicated and fire support was limited due to civs. Much of the credit goes to one man- Gen Tariq khan, who happened to be of armour.
We were able to develop our own operational concept called the A4I (Armour, Arty, Airforce, Aviation and Infantry). This paid great dividends and must have helped improve our conventional planning as well.

rsonally like ADATs.

A regiment or 2 in every Armored/Mechanized Division. 18-24 launchers per regiment on M-113 chassis. Upgraded 10 Km+ range to take out ground and air threats. Its a swing role platform
What if AD support is required at one place and HAT support somewhere else.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom