PA Options against Indian Armour - ATGMs on MANPADS & Attack Gunship Helicopter - News & Discussions

[StormOfTruth]

Chinese Poly Defence GAM 10X Series

The GAM-10X series consists of the GAM-100 and GAM-102. The former is a short-range ATGM with an effective range of 200–2,500 m, while the latter is a medium-range system with an effective range of 300–4,000 m.

The systems use uncooled components and self-developed infrared (IR) core ships, which significantly decreases the warm-up period, according to Poly Defence.

The GAM-100 variant has a length of 1,200 mm and a weight of 13 kg. The missile has a maximum speed of 170 m/s.

The individual shoulder and soft-launch profiles permit firing from a fighting position or confined spaces. It features a tandem-shaped charge, which allows a penetration depth of 800 mm. The whole system is composed of a GAM-100 anti-tank missile, a launch tube assembly, and a command launch unit.The missile sports an IR seeker in its nose and is stabilised in flight by way of spring-loaded fins. Fins are located aft of the missiles at midway point and at the tail. Once launched from its holding tube, the missile's fin automatically folds out and the projectile is guided to its target by the IR imaging homing seeker.

The GAM-102 missile's modular design allows for integration and installation on a variety of vehicle platforms, from light all-terrain vehicles to tracked infantry fighting vehicles. According to Poly Defence, the missile adopts a high-explosive tandem-charged armour penetration warhead that is able to realise about 1,000 mm penetration depth.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...plays-gam-10x-anti-tank-guided-missile-system

 

[Joe Shearer]

Uve after all these years have guessed it right.......Indian subcontinent is Pakistans property n all the ppl living their are Pakistans subject.

Good.
Are you planning to sell your properties to raise money? Let us know; we have a couple of people who are looking for such investments.

 

[CSAW]

It is possible to ridicule soldiers sitting on our backsides. I request very sincerely that we do not see this kind of shit again.

That was not the intent.

 

[KingQamaR]

Precisely.

And tanks are a substitute - a fast-moving substitute - for artillery. If an adversary mounted six or seven artillery divisions, equipped with 155 mm howitzers, with sufficient missile air cover, the infantry formations that have been shown would be swept away in fifteen days' time.

All of what you describe sir , requires a massive investment in equipment, logistics, and training. It all works brilliantly when you are fighting an enemy who has no clue about combined arms and has invested little in the above. It doesn't work nearly as well when fighting sophisticated near peer who has done all the hard work.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That was not the intent.

It did feel painful, but as you say that was not the intention, the matter must rest at that.

All of what you describe sir , requires a massive investment in equipment, logistics, and training. It all works brilliantly when you are fighting an enemy who has no clue about combined arms and has invested little in the above. It doesn't work nearly as well when fighting sophisticated near peer who has done all the hard work.

Maybe you are right.

 

[Joe Shearer]

All of what you describe sir , requires a massive investment in equipment, logistics, and training. It all works brilliantly when you are fighting an enemy who has no clue about combined arms and has invested little in the above. It doesn't work nearly as well when fighting sophisticated near peer who has done all the hard work.

What would be the size of a combined arms formation, according to you? I'm going somewhere with this.

 

[Joe Shearer]

equipment, logistics, and training

This is a dangerous statement.
The unkind might interpret it to mean that you are deprecating equipment, and logistics and training.

 

[Oscar]

Precisely.

And tanks are a substitute - a fast-moving substitute - for artillery. If an adversary mounted six or seven artillery divisions, equipped with 155 mm howitzers, with sufficient missile air cover, the infantry formations that have been shown would be swept away in fifteen days' time.

That was the gist of it pointed out by a former tanker(not Jhungary) from the US at the old PDF that at the end any infantry defense and teams will only hold for so long. They will maul the tank divisions but wont stop them unless you basically put up an impossible number of mobility obstacles.

 

[KingQamaR]

Not much has really changed since WWII. In restrictive terrain infantry will lead the way since the infantry can clear all the little nooks and crannies the armor can't reach. But in wide open fields and deserts armor will lead the way since infantry can't hide nearly as well.

 

[nahtanbob]

One aspect not pointed out is the ability of artillery to take out enemy armor. Im not sure if M712 Copperhead is being used by PA, but it can be used by M-109 and M-198 artillery. Maybe SH-1 has capability against enemy armor. I remember seeing a presentation of artillery howitzers being deployed with anti-armor ammunition but it was a long time back and I had to sit forcibly in auditorium to watch it so don't remember much

I do not know about Pakistan. But for India wouldn't it be advantageous to put artillery guns in light/heavy armored vehicles instead of investing in tanks ? That way it can be deployed both against China and Pakistan

@Joe Shearer

 

[nahtanbob]

That was the gist of it pointed out by a former tanker(not Jhungary) from the US at the old PDF that at the end any infantry defense and teams will only hold for so long. They will maul the tank divisions but wont stop them unless you basically put up an impossible number of mobility obstacles.

won't infantry troops with some heavy artillery and unlimited supply of anti-tank missiles stop an armored division ? Isn't that the playback Ukraine is employing versus Russia ?

 

[LeGenD]

Not much has really changed since WWII. In restrictive terrain infantry will lead the way since the infantry can clear all the little nooks and crannies the armor can't reach. But in wide open fields and deserts armor will lead the way since infantry can't hide nearly as well.

Beautifully put.

 

[Oscar]

won't infantry troops with some heavy artillery and unlimited supply of anti-tank missiles stop an armored division ? Isn't that the playback Ukraine is employing versus Russia ?

Different environments - boggy think marshes versus our unforgiving deserts?
Even within Punjab the breakthroughs can be made with combined ops.

Although- technically for both sides the danger remains the extreme environment.

Its not a matter of if but when indian forces can breakthrough and the associated costs to do it.

 

[Bossman]

Go read up on the Yom Kipper war and then use Google Earth to look for the Killing zones

 

[Joe Shearer]

I do not know about Pakistan. But for India wouldn't it be advantageous to put artillery guns in light/heavy armored vehicles instead of investing in tanks ? That way it can be deployed both against China and Pakistan

@Joe Shearer

Yes, that is our primary need, not tanks. For warfare to succeed on the basis of armoured formation superiority, we need to overwhelm the opposing forces either through mass or through movement, and we need control of the skies, and against a daring foe like the PAF, it is better not to count on this. Also, dominating the PAF, either in the air or through Air Defence, is more difficult while advancing, as the settled bases are left further and further behind, easier when defending.

Taking these two factors into account, artillery is important. Your solution of producing tank destroyers, and self-propelled artillery, is better, less expensive, less vulnerable and more effective than tanks.

China is difficult to plan against, as we stand against the PLA in the same disadvantage as the Pakistan Army faces against us: the defender is defending from a height, the attacker has to climb; the defender is defending internal lines of defence, the attacker has to traverse longer distances to get to grips with the strategic objectives. On top of that, the PLA has enormous logistical superiority. What to do against such a foe has to be thought through very carefully. Not impossible, but very, very difficult.