I disagree in particular to the circumstances of the Indo-Pakistan front. Revelations in Ukraine should be viewed cautiously, as it is a peculiar front in that both sides had substantial soviet-era stockpiles and heavy equipments intended to arm group armies now repurposed for brigades or even battalion level engagements, fighting in the donbass where the level of urbanization, thanks to soviet-era infrastructure, is unusually high. It meant that the front is unusually densely populated with platforms like artillery and air defense systems, as well as garrisoned towns and small cities, which made mobile mechanized field warfare with large breakthroughs and encirclements difficult.
This is not the case for the Indo-Pakistan front, where substantially large areas of flood plains and deserts are ideal for superior numbers of Indian motorized forces to maneuver and launch concentrated breakthroughs. Indian army also possess a substantial number of, albeit outdated, soviet-era self-propelled AD systems that have proved themselves still competent against most attack drones and loitering munitions in Ukraine. In this sense, where Pakistan lines are stretched thinner and without the luxury to litter the entire length of the front with garrisoned positions where drones can operate out of.
Anti-tank weapons does not make tanks obsolete, as it has been for anti-tank rifles, towed anti-tank guns, self-propelled tank destroyers, man portable AT launchers, ATGMs, and as it is with FPV drones and loitering munitions. Russian soldiers use electric scooters and dirt bikes primarily when traversing along roads within Russian controlled areas that’s still contested by Ukrainian FPV strikes, where a single drone strike would not be able to incur serious losses in expensive vehicles or multiple personnel. When conducting offensives, especially against garrisoned towns and villages, it is still customary where 1-2 tanks along with 1-2 BMPs or BTRs are needed, as tanks remain the only viable portfolio of lethality against most targets hard and soft, tactical maneuverability, and survivability. Until something can do the tank’s job but better, tanks will never be obsolete. Whenever you try to go without tanks where tanks are needed, you get circumstances like in the 2023 Zaporizhia Counteroffensive, where large columns of Ukrainian wheeled vehicles like MRAP and Maxxpro, alongside embarked infantry, suffered heavy losses for no gains.
nicely argued but... this is just theory based.
The reality is armour in the sub continent has limited uses mainly as to "de-dent" penetrations ..
Lets look at the facts
1) History: Battles of Chiwinda 1965 and Longwala 1971 has shown neither armies have made effective breakthrough using armor. We dont have great record of armored warfare ie both armies. Unstandable as both were effectively infantry based army since partition and the legacy has continued.
2) The geography heavily favors the defender... the places that armor can be used as nothing more than prepared killing fields.. oh and Pakistan army loves mines..
In 1971 the indian army captured large parts of Pakistani empty deserts.. looks impressive for propaganda purposes but it was part of Pakistan tactic of elastic defense. In the modern warfare with supply lines stretched and small teams of ATM 4x4 , drones etc good luck trying to resupply energy and ammo hungry armored divisons ..
3) Only three nations on earth can successfully used combined arms ware fare ie USA, Russia and possibly China. This method of warfare is highly complex needs constant training , coordination between interarms and exercises and it is very expensive. check out Scott's Ritter V long on this it is very informative. When is it the last time India did such an exercise ? .. see the point
Pakistan army also invested into combine arms warfare as part of it's offensive defense strategy but it also knows it can only push back incursions by india ... there is no chance of armor rolling down Srinagar streets to liberate Occupied Kashmir. They are not under any illusion.
4) Pakistan in all its wars has always managed maintain local air superiority or the very least heavily contest airspace in west Pakistan. Today even more so. what ever gaps that do happen can be covered by AirPower. Pakistan has plenty of mirages and F7PG that do the down and dirty work of CAS
5) Indian armoured formations are in poor shape , they lack the effective logistics, training and the combined armed support they need to conduct the armored thrust that General Sundarji once dreamt of.
6) so yes armor is important but it is no longer the queen of battle and as destructive tech improves in relation to miniaturisation of weapons armored warfare is going to be unlikely event in the sub continent. Tanks dont become obsolete just less relevant. Yes anti tank rifles have been around since WW2 and so have panzerfauset that knocked thousands of T-34.. .. and this is india they have no appetite of losses .. nor can they mass produce armor. Pakistan situation is way better.. china will ensure any replacement of losses.
Jane's Defense had an article on such a situation and their assessment was indian military was unlikely to make much headway despite their numbers and firepower.
there is much more but I had a conversation with PAF people many years before and indian armor threat wasn't a big deal for them as they said they have many counters against indian armor at that time .. For every sword the indian army has the Pakistan army has a shield. The main worry was in the air was lack of BVRs and AWACS... that was in 1990s.
not much has decisively changed since then.
