What's new

Italy delivering surplus self-propelled howitzers to Pakistan Army

Like have you researched? I did with Wikipedia and we were lacking both in quality and quantity
Quality is not always the features in specs, its the way a weapon is utilised in combat and produces results. Quantity is important in a few ways, especially when there are enough guns to support all troops, which Pakistan has in good numbers to cover both infantry and armor, while India clearly lacks in armored warfare. Pakistan has good numbers of SPGs to cover all armored formations be it division or brigade level. Pakistan infantry formations are lesser than Indian infantry formations, so supporting artillery guns will also be lesser in number.

Deployment terrains are different, at some places its difficult to place 155 mm towed guns, while at some places mortars do the job easily due to better elevation angles. Some targets require heavy calibre weapon to take out in one or two shots where 203 mm will be used. Some 122mm artillery guns are easily traversed 360 deg without re-deployment even. 105 mm deployed in and around siachen area are useful and their ammunition is lighter so logistics is easier. So different calibres have advantages and constraints.

Artillery guns are not always numbers, range of projectile etc but they are also about strategic deployment, elevation angles, logistics of both guns and ammunition etc. These factors are overlooked when artillery is discussed. Effective and accurate fire by 6 guns is also useful than having 18 guns constantly pounding the same area and expending 3 times more ammunition.
 
.
Quality is not always the features in specs, its the way a weapon is utilised in combat and produces results. Quantity is important in a few ways, especially when there are enough guns to support all troops, which Pakistan has in good numbers to cover both infantry and armor, while India clearly lacks in armored warfare. Pakistan has good numbers of SPGs to cover all armored formations be it division or brigade level. Pakistan infantry formations are lesser than Indian infantry formations, so supporting artillery guns will also be lesser in number.

Deployment terrains are different, at some places its difficult to place 155 mm towed guns, while at some places mortars do the job easily due to better elevation angles. Some targets require heavy calibre weapon to take out in one or two shots where 203 mm will be used. Some 122mm artillery guns are easily traversed 360 deg without re-deployment even. 105 mm deployed in and around siachen area are useful and their ammunition is lighter so logistics is easier. So different calibres have advantages and constraints.

Artillery guns are not always numbers, range of projectile etc but they are also about strategic deployment, elevation angles, logistics of both guns and ammunition etc. These factors are overlooked when artillery is discussed. Effective and accurate fire by 6 guns is also useful than having 18 guns constantly pounding the same area and expending 3 times more ammunition.

Good to see you back. You were sorely missed on the forum
 
.
As per 2018 report of Senate of Italy following is the Amount of Authorised Arms sales to Pakistan for the period of 2013-2018

Italian Amrs to sales to Pakistan 2013-2018.jpg

[Link]

As far as we know agreement for M-109L was concluded in the year 2015 and all the transfers were completed till Jan-2019 while the transfers were started in the year 2017 so the approval for M-109L by Italian Authorities must be granted either in 2015 or in 2016.
 
.
As per 2018 report of Senate of Italy following is the Amount of Authorised Arms sales to Pakistan for the period of 2013-2018

View attachment 673423
[Link]

As far as we know agreement for M-109L was concluded in the year 2015 and all the transfers were completed till Jan-2019 while the transfers were started in the year 2017 so the approval for M-109L by Italian Authorities must be granted either in 2015 or in 2016.
Do we know the number of guns received?
 
. . .
Quality is not always the features in specs, its the way a weapon is utilised in combat and produces results. Quantity is important in a few ways, especially when there are enough guns to support all troops, which Pakistan has in good numbers to cover both infantry and armor, while India clearly lacks in armored warfare. Pakistan has good numbers of SPGs to cover all armored formations be it division or brigade level. Pakistan infantry formations are lesser than Indian infantry formations, so supporting artillery guns will also be lesser in number.

Deployment terrains are different, at some places its difficult to place 155 mm towed guns, while at some places mortars do the job easily due to better elevation angles. Some targets require heavy calibre weapon to take out in one or two shots where 203 mm will be used. Some 122mm artillery guns are easily traversed 360 deg without re-deployment even. 105 mm deployed in and around siachen area are useful and their ammunition is lighter so logistics is easier. So different calibres have advantages and constraints.

Artillery guns are not always numbers, range of projectile etc but they are also about strategic deployment, elevation angles, logistics of both guns and ammunition etc. These factors are overlooked when artillery is discussed. Effective and accurate fire by 6 guns is also useful than having 18 guns constantly pounding the same area and expending 3 times more ammunition.

What about more focus towards LOC-related procurements? Seems like IA has drawn ahead with towed artillery, through imports and "indigenous" production.
 
.
So PA already had 150 of these. Which mean 150 + 122 = 272 Total??
150+115+122= 387

additionally 41 M-109A2 were acquired from Canada their Operational status is unknown, therefore our M-109 inventory could be 380 at minimum or upto +420 IF Canadian M-109 SPH are also made operational
 
. . . .
Indian Army has acquired K-9 SP Arty, though short in numbers, it could prove to be an effective gun with armored forces.
India is also going to acquire several hundred towed artillery guns from Israel. Which could be really bad for us.
 
.
India is also going to acquire several hundred towed artillery guns from Israel. Which could be really bad for us.

Towed guns not a problem, Pak has many of these too. They are not the same as SPH
 
.
150+115+122= 387

additionally 41 M-109A2 were acquired from Canada their Operational status is unknown, therefore our M-109 inventory could be 380 at minimum or upto +420 IF Canadian M-109 SPH are also made operational

As per SIPRI database till 2019 we have acquired 151 M-109L from Italy out of 245 on offer, which mean our fleet should be

152 [Originally acquired from USA during the period of 1981-1989]​
115 [2nd batch acquired from USA during the period 2007-2010]​
151 [3rd batch acquired from Italy during 2017-2019]
418 [excluding 40 acquired from Canada as their status is not clear]​
 
.
@Game.Invade @Signalian
@Mangus Ortus Novem
@Armchair


An interesting fact is, that after we were capable of mass-producing our own MANPAD Anza-1 and 2 for the air defence, because during the beginning of the 1990s, the Pakistan army registered the shortness of mobile and pinpoint air defence and continued so in the area of Anti Tank missiles a la Bakthar Shikan and mastered in the field of armour through the development and production of the Alkhalid Tank, it seems there was never a strategic demand for an in house development or production of howitzer or a towed field gun.

Despite that the Pakistan Army continued using the British WW2 The BL 5.5 inch Gun and the Ordnance QF 25-pounder till ca. 2002, years ago some members did write that, the guns are retired, which I don't agree because the Military history of Pakistan Army teaches another way.
It was not seen necessary to produce own Artillery guns, but to produce the ammunition for the captured Indian 25 Punders, the question here is, if these guns are really retired and not handed over to the Frontier Corps or stationed at the LOC, what will be happening to the tons of shells which P.O.F. produced over the period of 25 years. I question the retirement of these guns because the Pakistan Army lives the philosophy "It's the men behind the gun" as we have seen in the Kargil war, where the Army used WW2 Guns during the offensive and defensive operations. So in the Pakistan Army, nothing got wasted, neither the economical situation of the country would allow such privilege as the neighbouring Indian Army have, and so is the case for all other ca.500 Artillery pieces which have their origins from the WW2 purchased from the US or China (Russian soviet origin).

It is not publicly known of any upgrades or updates of the Pakistani Artillery gun inventory, and I doubt that there was ever any or planed, again here it seems it was not seen necessary to standardise the inventory on the 155mm calibre as its the trend in the western and Indian Army, maybe the Army believes the Artillery can fulfil the task with the current inventory.

The latest artillery gun procurement was during the 1980s and 1990s for the M198 155mm and the D-30 122mm during the recent operations in the ongoing mountain warfare in western Pakistan.

Under Musharraf era, there was seen the 155mm Turkish Panthers presented in a press release by the ISPR, it was labelled that it will be produced under license in Pakistan and there were plans to procure over 100 guns, but because off the shortcomings, thats the official statement, the procurement was stopped and maybe even the Artillery guns were shipped back Turkey !

For any new procurement, modernisation, or in house production, we should raise the Question which role will the towed Pakistani artillery play in a conventional Pak-Indo war, in my opinion after analysing the current development, it will take the defensive role, the offensive will be lead by the Self propelled Artillery, where Pakistan at the moment enjoys an advantage (which is only a question of time, as India is mass producing the Korean self-propelled 155 mm K-9 Thunder, which seems equal to our current SP-Inventory).

As Pakistan has a very long border with India, and in a conventional war if it wants to gain any meters in Indian Punjab and Kashmir sector it needs massive and overhelming firepower, to overcome the Indian Anti-tank obstacles, Anti-tank trenches, Anti-tank mines, very large minefields, deep trenches and bunker which are constructed in many lines. If anyone has studied and understood the doctrine of the East German Army, Wehrmacht or soviet Army, the forces were in the same strategic path situation, a border to border war, where both sides have build up a massive defence wall over the past 70 years. The East Germany Army had to face the same task as today Pakistan, penetrate the enemy territory, breakthrough with Tank armies and capture high-value territory for negotiations till reinforcement from the east arrives, the difficulty in these tasks lied, that neither east Germany had the technologie nor, the budget to full fill this task. The Nato equipped west German Army had better technologies and equipment, more Division because all Nato allies were already stationed in west Germany.

So we find some major similarity here between Pakistans task and the east Germany mission to fight an overwhelming enemy and gain at the same time territory. The Procurement Artillery history of the East German army NVA can be compared with that of Pakistan, not retiring old Artillery systems to keep the numbers in inventory high, purchase used Artillery guns from the WW2 era of ex-soviet Russian arsenal and shortness in procuring modern systems.

But come back to the question to the role of the Artillery in an offensive carried out by Pakistan against the Indian border strongholds, why its necessary to have modern Artillery in high numbers?

The answer is simple to crush the Indian strongholds and make the way free for Infantry and Tanks, for this task Pakistan needs high calibre guns in high numbers, call it a massive and destructive firepower. I will not continue now to write about the East Germany NVA doctrine, how they planned to make a breakthrough the Nato lines with opening the battle on the ground with a massive artillery fire, because the would need a whole chapter here in PDF to be written (if anyone is interested then after my exams). But the conclusions is, towed artillery is cheaper to maintain and procure than SP-Artillery, its needed to crush the Indian stronghold lines along the Border and in the mountains, for that we need high calibre standard artillery in higher numbers, this can be archived by study and development of our artillery inventory and meet the demand of the Army through purchasing a system which can be produced in Pakistan.

@Huffal here is one article written by me and when you Google:”Pakistan Artillery Kargil war” you will find tons of pictures of the 5.5inch gun in firing against Indian positions!

Lol 😂 after reading my article again, I
Must have been on adrenaline because of engineering exams, which I passed thanks god, even by spending to
much time in PDF.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom