Al - Haider VT-4 MBT - The Premier PA Ground Asset [Developments]

[Raja Porus]

Seems like we have moved away from the NATO styled 4 tank troop to the Soviet 3 tank trp system.
Our Sabre Sqns are organised as follows:
4× tank trps ( 3 tks each)
Sqn Hq (2tks)

So instead of seeing individual trp actions we are focusing on sqn lvl actions with one trp providing overwatch/fire base while other forms the manoeuvre unit instead of the previous 2+2.

Pros:
- this would create local superiority (6 vs 4 tks).
- easy control reduced cmd burden
- More plots for same number of tks
- centralised control (actually a drawback in modern combat)

Cons:
- reduced redundancy ( one tk loss reduces cmbt effectiveness by 33%, 4 tk trp retains 75)
- reduced tactical flexibility( 2+1 would lve either fire base or manoeuvre unit weak)
- more dependence on coy cmd, reducing initiative
- reduced firepower of single trp

So while during large scale offensive ops 3 tk trp might be be useful it will compromise indp action, infantry support and force cmdrs to carry out company lvl manoeuvres.

Also one thing to note is that in the Russio-Ukraine conflict this 3 tk plt has been a major drawback with Ukr hitting the cmd tank leading to paralysis of the remaining two and loss of tempo(this however might be offset as our NCO corps is far better trained than theirs).


So we're trading trp robustness and lower level initiative to increase the efficiency of larger formations?

 

[Yasser76]

Seems like we have moved away from the NATO styled 4 tank troop to the Soviet 3 tank trp system.
Our Sabre Sqns are organised as follows:
4× tank trps ( 3 tks each)
Sqn Hq (2tks)

So instead of seeing individual trp actions we are focusing on sqn lvl actions with one trp providing overwatch/fire base while other forms the manoeuvre unit instead of the previous 2+2.

Pros:
- this would create local superiority (6 vs 4 tks).
- easy control reduced cmd burden
- More plots for same number of tks
- centralised control (actually a drawback in modern combat)

Cons:
- reduced redundancy ( one tk loss reduces cmbt effectiveness by 33%, 4 tk trp retains 75)
- reduced tactical flexibility( 2+1 would lve either fire base or manoeuvre unit weak)
- more dependence on coy cmd, reducing initiative
- reduced firepower of single trp

So while during large scale offensive ops 3 tk trp might be be useful it will compromise indp action, infantry support and force cmdrs to carry out company lvl manoeuvres.

Also one thing to note is that in the Russio-Ukraine conflict this 3 tk plt has been a major drawback with Ukr hitting the cmd tank leading to paralysis of the remaining two and loss of tempo(this however might be offset as our NCO corps is far better trained than theirs).


So we're trading trp robustness and lower level initiative to increase the efficiency of larger formations?

Brits tried 5 tanks troops and they had to stop, feedback was "Every troop commander turned into Napolean"...

 

[SBD-3]

How about an upgrade similar to M1A2s TUSK for VT-4 to assist LEAs in urban combat and COIN war since 6th Armored Division sitting Gujranwala has no impact on the current war fought on and inside the western border. One armored regiment used as test bed for urban fighting by MBTs, can be deployed in the volatile KPK region, distributed among other regular units as well as FC wings in either squadron or troop configuration to see effectiveness in curbing terrorism.

I don't think armored platforms are the most effective offensive solution for the terrain in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Based on the numerous videos of TTP and BLA ambushes, one consistent pattern is their ability to exploit high ground and difficult terrain. No armored vehicle can be optimized for every such scenario.

In my view, the more effective approach is to significantly expand the drone fleet and maintain a standard response time of 15–20 minutes across the western theater, backed by persistent ISR and precision engagement capabilities. AI can further enhance this by automating target detection, tracking, and mission management, allowing human operators to focus on decision-making. The greater the Pakistan Army's investment in scalable drone capabilities, the more effectively it can leverage its existing weapons and forces.

This also presents an opportunity to strengthen indigenous platforms such as the Shahpar series instead of relying primarily on expensive imported systems like the Akıncı. By continuously adapting, improving, and optimizing the Shahpar as a reliable workhorse for counterinsurgency operations and border surveillance, Pakistan can build a more sustainable, cost-effective, and operationally resilient capability.

 

[Raja Porus]

Seems like we have moved away from the NATO styled 4 tank troop to the Soviet 3 tank trp system.
Our Sabre Sqns are organised as follows:
4× tank trps ( 3 tks each)
Sqn Hq (2tks)

So instead of seeing individual trp actions we are focusing on sqn lvl actions with one trp providing overwatch/fire base while other forms the manoeuvre unit instead of the previous 2+2.

Pros:
- this would create local superiority (6 vs 4 tks).
- easy control reduced cmd burden
- More plots for same number of tks
- centralised control (actually a drawback in modern combat)

Cons:
- reduced redundancy ( one tk loss reduces cmbt effectiveness by 33%, 4 tk trp retains 75)
- reduced tactical flexibility( 2+1 would lve either fire base or manoeuvre unit weak)
- more dependence on coy cmd, reducing initiative
- reduced firepower of single trp

So while during large scale offensive ops 3 tk trp might be be useful it will compromise indp action, infantry support and force cmdrs to carry out company lvl manoeuvres.

Also one thing to note is that in the Russio-Ukraine conflict this 3 tk plt has been a major drawback with Ukr hitting the cmd tank leading to paralysis of the remaining two and loss of tempo(this however might be offset as our NCO corps is far better trained than theirs).


So we're trading trp robustness and lower level initiative to increase the efficiency of larger formations?

@Panzerkiel sir your views plz

 

[Raja Porus]

Brits tried 5 tanks troops and they had to stop, feedback was "Every troop commander turned into Napolean"...

Germans also tried it and had the same issues. Unwieldy and too heavy.