What's new

Pakistan's Artillery Upgrade Discussions

.
It doesn’t have it, if it did it would be very clearly visible on the gun. It has a semi-automatic loading system. You can clearly see it being hand-loaded in videos.
You are right 😊

Hadn't seen the video and haven't seen it in person, as of yet but soon I will In Sha Allah.
 
.
No idea. But from other then China most likely. That was the original plan. If that plan still is there or abandoned that is not known.
If they go for it must have some features missing in SH 15 , will not be truck based and may be auto loader may be in heavier category
 
. . . . .
Not going into technicalities, wheeled SPs are more mobile, tracked are more well protected/armored.
Not really a good comparison or contrast of either. Tracked SPs can be more mobile than wheeled ones depending on terrain. Tracked SPs don’t have much armor either, nor is it a major consideration when testing them. At most it can stop small arms fire (which wheeled SPs cabins can too). If you’re ever in a position where your artillery needs to be armored to stop direct fire then something has gone very wrong.

There are several other advantages and disadvantages of both, just not particularly those two.


Do these are superior than k 9 og india
Read my previous posts in regard to K-9 and other SPs based off M109. The FCS systems are impossible to comparable because we don’t know enough about them. K9 obviously reserves the advantages of a tracked SP while the SH-15 reserves those of a wheeled SP. However I believe the SH-15 currently has longer range with its best ammunition than the K-9. I wouldn’t say one is significantly better than the other because it’s an apples to oranges comparison, they’re just two different things.

If we want to compare the correct guns, it would be the Chinese PLZ-05 versus the K-9, in which case the PLZ-05 definitely has some advantages.
 
.
Not really a good comparison or contrast of either. Tracked SPs can be more mobile than wheeled ones depending on terrain. Tracked SPs don’t have much armor either, nor is it a major consideration when testing them. At most it can stop small arms fire (which wheeled SPs cabins can too). If you’re ever in a position where your artillery needs to be armored to stop direct fire then something has gone very wrong.
The fact that SH-15 is partial armour and semi auto , got to do with it doctrine. SH-15 are designed to mass replace tow 155mm howitzer, they are meant to be light, mobile and mostly self independence without too much support.

Sure, u can added more amour, give it more protection all round, and u can even give it full auto loading at expense of heavier , bigger loading mechanism which will make the new SPH 50 % increase in mass and volume compare to current SH-15.

Then u will end up with a wheel SPH that cannot fit into a C-130J or Y-9 transport plane or transport over certain soft terrain.
A wheel SPH that is more costly to replace every tow howitzer in service.

This is not what PA and PLA wants.
 
.
The fact that SH-15 is partial armour and semi auto , got to do with it doctrine. SH-15 are designed to mass replace tow 155mm howitzer, they are meant to be light, mobile and mostly self independence without too much support.

Sure, u can added more amour, give it more protection all round, and u can even give it full auto loading at expense of heavier , bigger loading mechanism which will make the new SPH 50 % increase in mass and volume compare to current SH-15.

Then u will end up with a wheel SPH that cannot fit into a C-130J or Y-9 transport plane or transport over certain soft terrain.
A wheel SPH that is more costly to replace every tow howitzer in service.

This is not what PA and PLA wants.
I’m aware of the doctrinal decisions that led to the creation of the SH-15, I’ve already detailed all of what you said in one my previous posts and agreed with you when you repeated it, there’s no need to repeat it again :)

However I will comment on the last line, SH-15 is designed according to PLA doctrine, but PA doesn’t have the same doctrine, they’d have preferred a heavier SP with an auto-loader, but China gives the better deal, they give ToT and they are willing to modify their guns, hence it makes them a more appealing option for the PA, even if it doesn’t fully fit their criteria. Pakistan is never going to need to transport these guns by air.
 
.
I’m aware of the doctrinal decisions that led to the creation of the SH-15, I’ve already detailed all of what you said in one my previous posts and agreed with you when you repeated it, there’s no need to repeat it again :)

However I will comment on the last line, SH-15 is designed according to PLA doctrine, but PA doesn’t have the same doctrine, they’d have preferred a heavier SP with an auto-loader, but China gives the better deal, they give ToT and they are willing to modify their guns, hence it makes them a more appealing option for the PA, even if it doesn’t fully fit their criteria. Pakistan is never going to need to transport these guns by air.
I don't think PA prefer a heavier SP. They will never go for SH-15 if that is the case.
 
.
I don't think PA prefer a heavier SP. They will never go for SH-15 if that is the case.
I already told you the reason why PA went for the SH-15. SH-15 was the only lighter SP trialed by PA among half a dozen competitors, that should easily show PAs preferences.

They Seem to have made a decision between a much better deal on a lighter SP without an auto-loader and some extra features or a heavier SP with all the features but a worst deal and possible loss of ToT. The kinetic performance of the guns themselves I cannot comment on since no information was released, but I’d comfortably say the Chinese gun is as good (if not better, seeing as PA has picked it) as it’s competitors in that regard.

PLA has little need for the air-transportability or the lower weight of SH-15 due to their doctrine.
 
.
I already told you the reason why PA went for the SH-15. SH-15 was the only lighter SP trialed by PA among half a dozen competitors, that should easily show PAs preferences.

They Seem to have made a decision between a much better deal on a lighter SP without an auto-loader and some extra features or a heavier SP with all the features but a worst deal and possible loss of ToT. The kinetic performance of the guns themselves I cannot comment on since no information was released, but I’d comfortably say the Chinese gun is as good (if not better, seeing as PA has picked it) as it’s competitors in that regard.

PLA has little need for the air-transportability or the lower weight of SH-15 due to their doctrine.

I don't think any transfer of ToT is mention in the deal plus, during the trial, PA tow many of these SP to hilly mountains in Pakistan. I dare to bet none of those western SP will perform as good as SH-15 in mobility and speed in changing of position to avoid enemy counter fire.

You can have the best armour protection, best auto loader, longer firing range but if u are slow in switching your firing position or being limited in terrain u can travel due to its weight. It is good as zero becos enemy can easy launch counter fire to wipe out your position.

SH-15 won PA tender purely by its virtue spec.
 
. . .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom