Featured SH15 Artillery in Pakistan

[iLION12345_1]

Improve firing accuracy of unguided projectiles by 50%
Offering better dispersion level when firing regular HE projectiles.

View attachment 818749

How many artillery projectiles you ever shoot? I mean, first-hand experience? I shoot many.

I had 35 solders on my command. Old equipment, yes. But I do know artillery.

View attachment 818740

View attachment 818741
View attachment 818747

View attachment 818744


View attachment 818746
View attachment 818745

View attachment 818743

Using a chinese advertisement posters and random pictures to tell me how Chinese artillery is better than others is not proof of anything. I’m sorry but just because you’re Chinese and say a Chinese thing is better doesn’t make it better.

You misunderstand my point. I’m not calling Chinese artillery bad. I don’t think I’ve ever called the SH-15 bad or worst than other guns, if anything I’ve praised it where it has deserved it.
It’s as good as any of its competitors, there’s a reason why we buy them too, but to call it better than another gun without any proof is just bias.

And how many western artillery guns have you shot to be able to compare the SH-15 with the CEASAR or other competitors? I’ve probably fired more types of artillery guns than you, doesn’t make me an expert on the subject at all, I respect your service and expertise, but they just don’t matter in this regard.

I don’t know why Chinese some members get offended so easily, they seem to think I’m anti-China or that I think Chinese technology is bad, I’ve never said either of those things (apart from when the technology is actually unequivocally bad, which is rarely the case nowadays with how much China has advanced). I just don’t like this pure “it’s better because it’s Chinese” bias spread by some paid bots on this server, one of whom I replied to just in my post above. Please be realistic.

This @iLION12345_1 is just a pretender. He claim we know nothing but yet can't prove anything besides his usual rattling..

I’ve tired explaining to you about a billion times now, it’s not my fault you can’t understand basic stuff.
Here’s what happens; your little ego gets hurt, you complain and cry, you get another negative rating because you’re wrong, you receive another paycheck from the Chinese propaganda ministry, you go back to doing the same thing. Please stop making all the respectable Chinese members and Chinese technology look bad on this forum.

 

[Beast]

Using a chinese advertisement posters and random pictures to tell me how Chinese artillery is better than others is not proof. I’m sorry but just because you’re Chinese and say a Chinese thing is better doesn’t make it better.

You misunderstand my point. I’m not calling Chinese artillery bad. It’s as good as any of its competitors, there’s a reason why we buy them too, but to call it better than another gun without any proof is just bias.

And how many western artillery guns have you shot to be able to compare the SH-15 with the CEASAR or other competitors? Your experience in this regard doesn’t count towards anything, and just for the Record, I’ve probably fired more types of artillery than you, doesn’t make me an expert on the subject at all.

I don’t know why Chinese some members get offended so easily, they seem to think I’m anti-China or that I think Chinese technology is bad, I’ve never said either of those things (apart from when the technology is actually unequivocally bad, which is rarely the case nowadays with how much China has advanced). I just don’t like this pure “it’s better because it’s Chinese” bias spread by some paid bots on this server, one of whom I replied to just in my post above. Please be realistic.


I’ve tired explaining to you about a billion times now, it’s not my fault you can’t understand basic stuff.
Here’s what happens; your little ego gets hurt, you complain and cry, you get another negative rating because you’re wrong, you receive another paycheck from the Chinese propaganda ministry, you go back to doing the same thing. Please stop making all the respectable Chinese members and Chinese technology look bad on this forum.

More like you cannot accept SH-15 has better stability and less recoil than European counterpart. The low chasis is designed to give better stability. You cannot have a perfect design. Caesar SPH has better ground clearance but it also result in high center of gravity which contribute the more recoil which affect accuracy. And its your stupid phase of wording trying to imply Chinese design is bad with lower clearance compare to other counterpart. That is totally false.

We never claim SH-15 is better than counterpart in every area. It is you putting your words into our mouth.

 

[HRK]

NOTE: OFF-Topic post therefore will keep limited

If we want to take this concept to its full, then Pakistan must devolve into dozens -- if not a hundred or so -- municipal districts. Give each district a locally elected government, and in turn, a simplified tax split with the federal or national government (that's renegotiable every 3-5 years). Do that and Pakistan will do better. I don't know how much better, but I think Karachi, Sialkot, Faisalabad, Gwadar etc, could fourish.

Provinces get their share under National Finance commission, but refuse to replicate the same concept of distribution of revenue within provinces, on principle Provincial Finance Commission was agreed but No province is implementing it as Provinces will lose ~52% of their share to their respective districts.

 

[vi-va]

Using a chinese advertisement posters and random pictures to tell me how Chinese artillery is better than others is not proof of anything. I’m sorry but just because you’re Chinese and say a Chinese thing is better doesn’t make it better.

You misunderstand my point. I’m not calling Chinese artillery bad. I don’t think I’ve ever called the SH-15 bad or worst than other guns, if anything I’ve praised it where it has deserved it.
It’s as good as any of its competitors, there’s a reason why we buy them too, but to call it better than another gun without any proof is just bias.

And how many western artillery guns have you shot to be able to compare the SH-15 with the CEASAR or other competitors? ’ve probably fired more types of artillery guns than you, doesn’t make me an expert on the subject at all, I respect your service and expertise, but they just don’t matter in this regard.

I don’t know why Chinese some members get offended so easily, they seem to think I’m anti-China or that I think Chinese technology is bad, I’ve never said either of those things (apart from when the technology is actually unequivocally bad, which is rarely the case nowadays with how much China has advanced). I just don’t like this pure “it’s better because it’s Chinese” bias spread by some paid bots on this server, one of whom I replied to just in my post above. Please be realistic.


I’ve tired explaining to you about a billion times now, it’s not my fault you can’t understand basic stuff.
Here’s what happens; your little ego gets hurt, you complain and cry, you get another negative rating because you’re wrong, you receive another paycheck from the Chinese propaganda ministry, you go back to doing the same thing. Please stop making all the respectable Chinese members and Chinese technology look bad on this forum.

I am not offended. Glad you have first-hand experience.

My major is C3I, and I served in air defense forces as lieutenant.

I don't have hard proof, because China never reveal the data, nor did China show it in the war. Maybe Pakistan can show Sh-15 performance to the whole world if India provoke and exchanged fire. Better not. Peace, peace.

China developed Sh-15 on the experience of Caesar and many other wheeled SPH. Designing a wheeled SPH is very easy for China, but China spent much more efforts than France.

China has much higher standards than France, because our potential rivals are not the African countries, while Caesar is designed for African countries.

Regarding accuracy, Sh-15 is the same as PLZ-52, which is SPH, same as K-9(3 times price). That's China Army requirement, no compromise on accuracy.

I learn artillery in air defense force, the more the platform is stable, the better.

Because my major is C3I, I understand automation system. There are closed loop feedback system which can remove the effects of destabilization, but there is limitation.

Sh-15 platform is almost as stable as towed artillery. Caesar is a bad design, very bad, cheap and quick platform. Sh-15 platform is completely redesigned around the big gun.

After Cold War, the artillery system development in the western countries is low priority, but it's high priority in China. China tried hard to catch up. I would say China artillery system is one of the best on the market, considering performance and price.

There are so many materials can back what I said, but in Chinese. Most Chinese can read English, we knew very well how slow western artillery develops nowadays.

 

[Joe Shearer]

In what I have said below, it is important to realise that there is a solid bloc of people in India who wish for peace with China, but a just peace, not a peace that has not yet been offered. After reading your post, it seems to me that many of the events that may have seemed impressive to you are not so impressive if they are taken into time sequence.

Above all, if you want to discuss peace, it is helpful to do it without thinking that the people you are talking to are idiots with no background or no experience.

You do remember China offered a deal on China-India border issues, 3 times offered in history.

I am aware of the offers made by Chou En Lai, not of any others. These were made before the border conflicts of 1962, and never repeated. Until today, to date, China has never, even once, explained what her territorial borders should be, or on what legacy these were based; the only positions taken have been based on the original extent of Chinese penetration in 1962, positions vacated by China herself, but revived after many decades, compromising the mutually agreed modes of coexistence on the borders.

President Xi visited India, and vice versa many times since Modi took in charge.

Again, there was no indication, either from India, Indian media, from China, from Chinese media about any kind of settlement proposed.

IK extended olive branches the day he became PM.

Those were uniformly of the type that if all their requirements were met, peace would be possible.

India can hold out olive branches to China in that fashion.

If China withdraws from Tibet, and removes troops from Gansu and Qing Hai, we can sign a peace treaty for 500 years.

China gave green light to both Pakistan and India on joining Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

China and Pakistan started CPEC, and some other projects, which offered India to join in.

Frankly, as far as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is concerned, its utility has to be explained. That was originally to demilitarise the Central Asian region, and to work together to reduce terrorism. India has continuously been under terrorist attack, after joining the organisation in 2017; India's efforts at getting UN identification of known terrorists from a neighbouring country have been repeatedly blocked by China. As for de-militarisation, what happened is there in front of the whole world to see.

India is invited into and an official member of BRICS, which is the new IMF.

India has one of the largest share of voting power of AIIB, which is the new World Bank. Pakistan is member too.

Both true, but what has that got to do with peace between India and her neighbours? We have peaceful relations with five of our neighbours, difficulties with two others, and those two have difficulties with all their neighbours, with one exception, in one case, and with the entire community of south east Asian nations, some openly, some muted due to fear and due to dependence, in the other case.

I think in China world view, peace among Pakistan, China and India is the best solution for all 3 parties, and there is a position for India in the new world order.

That is wonderful. When it is put into practice, we will stop holding our collective breath.

When you stop building up military forces on our borders, we may take these thoughts seriously.

What's the world order Yankees offered to India? QUAD. While QUAD is new NATO.

True.

This was after the aggressive behaviour that was displayed by China, so the question arises, did China foresee friction with the US over Taiwan, and did China foresee QUAD, and did China for that reason behave with such aggression on the Indian borders?

And AUKUS, which excluded India. Which means in Yankees world view, India is at most second tier countries.

Perhaps.

India does not wish to be a first tier defence partner with anybody. India wishes to be free to procure arms and weapons from any source, without restriction; if the other side presents that freedom under their own formula, why should India bother?

In Doklam stand-off, China is very much restrained.

On the contrary; while a temporary respite was forced on China, thereafter she has gone back to infrastructure building and to encroaching without any let-up.

After Galwan Valley conflicts and Ukraine crisis, it's very clear that India is on your own. QUAD is not backing India anyway.

It appears that we are looking at things in a timeless universe. QUAD was never offered before the Galwan Valley conflicts; whatever had to be done was done by India in isolation, and it will remain like that. No foreign troops or foreign military presence, except permission to use our airports and sea ports for transit, has ever been in India after 1947.

India is in fever of extreme nationalism and victim delusions, as well as fancy of west support, which is just hot air.

Correct on the first one, but beyond that, those who are not extreme nationalists continue to distrust Chinese motives and intentions. Western support was never our criterion, otherwise India was pressingly invited to get involved in the wars on Iraq, and in the war on Afghanistan, and refused.

You need to get your sequences of events sorted, also your views on your country's leadership.

 

[Sayfullah]

India's efforts at getting UN identification of known terrorists from a neighbouring country have been repeatedly blocked by China.

Because what Indians call terrorists are not terrorists rather freedom fighters. The real terrorists are the ones who need 900k troops in a small valley to occupy and control it.

 

[vi-va]

In what I have said below, it is important to realise that there is a solid bloc of people in India who wish for peace with China, but a just peace, not a peace that has not yet been offered. After reading your post, it seems to me that many of the events that may have seemed impressive to you are not so impressive if they are taken into time sequence.

Above all, if you want to discuss peace, it is helpful to do it without thinking that the people you are talking to are idiots with no background or no experience.

I am aware of the offers made by Chou En Lai, not of any others. These were made before the border conflicts of 1962, and never repeated. Until today, to date, China has never, even once, explained what her territorial borders should be, or on what legacy these were based; the only positions taken have been based on the original extent of Chinese penetration in 1962, positions vacated by China herself, but revived after many decades, compromising the mutually agreed modes of coexistence on the borders.

Again, there was no indication, either from India, Indian media, from China, from Chinese media about any kind of settlement proposed.

Those were uniformly of the type that if all their requirements were met, peace would be possible.

India can hold out olive branches to China in that fashion.

If China withdraws from Tibet, and removes troops from Gansu and Qing Hai, we can sign a peace treaty for 500 years.

Frankly, as far as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is concerned, its utility has to be explained. That was originally to demilitarise the Central Asian region, and to work together to reduce terrorism. India has continuously been under terrorist attack, after joining the organisation in 2017; India's efforts at getting UN identification of known terrorists from a neighbouring country have been repeatedly blocked by China. As for de-militarisation, what happened is there in front of the whole world to see.

Both true, but what has that got to do with peace between India and her neighbours? We have peaceful relations with five of our neighbours, difficulties with two others, and those two have difficulties with all their neighbours, with one exception, in one case, and with the entire community of south east Asian nations, some openly, some muted due to fear and due to dependence, in the other case.

That is wonderful. When it is put into practice, we will stop holding our collective breath.

When you stop building up military forces on our borders, we may take these thoughts seriously.

True.

This was after the aggressive behaviour that was displayed by China, so the question arises, did China foresee friction with the US over Taiwan, and did China foresee QUAD, and did China for that reason behave with such aggression on the Indian borders?

Perhaps.

India does not wish to be a first tier defence partner with anybody. India wishes to be free to procure arms and weapons from any source, without restriction; if the other side presents that freedom under their own formula, why should India bother?

On the contrary; while a temporary respite was forced on China, thereafter she has gone back to infrastructure building and to encroaching without any let-up.

It appears that we are looking at things in a timeless universe. QUAD was never offered before the Galwan Valley conflicts; whatever had to be done was done by India in isolation, and it will remain like that. No foreign troops or foreign military presence, except permission to use our airports and sea ports for transit, has ever been in India after 1947.

Correct on the first one, but beyond that, those who are not extreme nationalists continue to distrust Chinese motives and intentions. Western support was never our criterion, otherwise India was pressingly invited to get involved in the wars on Iraq, and in the war on Afghanistan, and refused.

You need to get your sequences of events sorted, also your views on your country's leadership.

At most a few thousands Chinese troop deployed near China-India LAC in past decades before 2020 Galwan Valley skirmish. There are around 1-2 troops per kilometer if you think China is threatening others.

That explains everything. Victim delusions of India to some extent.

Let me tell you what is real threat and warmonger.

 

[SIPRA]

I am aware of the offers made by Chou En Lai, not of any others. These were made before the border conflicts of 1962, and never repeated.

I recently read an article in some Indian paper, which I fail to recall, that this offer was repeated by Chou En-Lai, even after 1962 War, through a secrete personal letter, addressed to Nehru, and transmitted through an Indian diplomat, whose name I have forgotten. Nehru burned that letter, with his lighter, and threw the ash in ashtray, after giving some sarcastic remarks, in front of that diplomat. I think with these tag words, you may search that article.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Because what Indians call terrorists are not terrorists rather freedom fighters.

That is how you want to term them, up to you. On this side of the LOC, they will be treated as what they are, not as what you wish to call them.

The real terrorists are the ones who need 900k troops in a small valley to occupy and control it.

LOL.

If you have friends who have some idea about military formations, ask them what is a battalion, what is a brigade and what is a division. Once you learn this, and ask your own country's experts on something called an Order of Battle, you will find the real figure of troops (and armed policemen) in the Vale. Spoiler alert - the number is less than 1/3 of what you speculate.

Until then, you should do your homework.

I recently read an article in some Indian paper, which I fail to recall, that this offer was repeated by Chou En-Lai, even after 1962 War, through a secrete personal letter, addressed to Nehru, and transmitted through an Indian diplomat, whose name I have forgotten. Nehru burned that letter, with his lighter, and threw the ash in ashtray, after giving some sarcastic remarks, in front of that diplomat. I think with these tag words, you may search that article.

As I not only keep up with the history of that conflict, but have professionally engaged historians who have an intimate knowledge of these affairs, I can only say that since you have suggested it, I will look, but with no great hope of success.

 

[Joe Shearer]

At most a few thousands Chinese troop deployed near China-India LAC in past decades before 2020 Galwan Valley skirmish. There are around 1-2 troops per kilometer if you think China is threatening others.

That explains everything. Victim delusions of India to some extent.

Let me remind you that this was the situation on both sides. On the Indian side, if you have a map in front of you, you will find that India had on the east one (1) Infantry Division covering the entire stretch, BEFORE recent disturbances, when one more armoured brigade was brought in, and two more infantry divisions.

Earlier, both sides, forces were on par.

It was the breach of protocols evolved over years of dialogue and local interaction that caused the tension.

Let me tell you what is real threat and warmonger.

View attachment 818784

What have we to do with this? We have never offered the US bases, nor have we had (except for a brief period) any military presence abroad.

China does, however; at Djibouti, according to my information.

I agree that the US is threatening and wages war at the slightest excuse. Do you remember that in 1971, both the US and the Chinese put pressure on India? Isn't that ironic? China copying the actions of a threatening war-monger!

I recently read an article in some Indian paper, which I fail to recall, that this offer was repeated by Chou En-Lai, even after 1962 War, through a secrete personal letter, addressed to Nehru, and transmitted through an Indian diplomat, whose name I have forgotten. Nehru burned that letter, with his lighter, and threw the ash in ashtray, after giving some sarcastic remarks, in front of that diplomat. I think with these tag words, you may search that article.

My first sweep got nothing. I will try again.

 

[Signalian]

Back to artillery please.

In that case it's more justified to have atleast 1000 Sh-15. No ?

Loot sale is on ?

Artillery is a support arm. 1000 x SP arty pieces would mean 5-10 Armored divisions otherwise mechanisation of infantry divisions to mobile/mechanised divisions.

 

[SIPRA]

My first sweep got nothing. I will try again.

I have found it. This incidence is reported by PK Bannerjee, who was India's envoy in China (1961-63), in his book entitled "My Peking Memoirs of the Chinese Invasion of India" (1990). He himself was the carrier of that secret message, in mid-1963. I have now downloaded a PDF article, written by some Kishan S Rana, who reproduces this incidence.

 

[Signalian]

Pak making mistake by depending on just one supplier china

When HIT makes the gun, we will put it on Hino truck

 

[Sayfullah]

That is how you want to term them, up to you. On this side of the LOC, they will be treated as what they are, not as what you wish to call them.

On the other side of loc, Kashmiris see them as hero’s as well. Its people on the other side of the Kashmir india border who see them as terrorists.
Hafiz Saeed Masood Azhar Syed Salahuddin

LOL.

If you have friends who have some idea about military formations, ask them what is a battalion, what is a brigade and what is a division. Once you learn this, and ask your own country's experts on something called an Order of Battle, you will find the real figure of troops (and armed policemen) in the Vale. Spoiler alert - the number is less than 1/3 of what you speculate.

Until then, you should do your homework.

Idc what they are, they are occupiers or collaborators of occupiers. Even 1/3 the amount which is 300k is a lot for such a small valley. Shows who the real terrorists are.
“Order of Battle”, killing innocents without weapons is now “battle”? It should be called “Order of Terrorism”.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have found it. This incidence is reported by PK Bannerjee, who was India's envoy in China (1961-63), in his book entitled "My Peking Memoirs of the Chinese Invasion of India" (1990). He himself was the carrier of that secret message, in mid-1963. I have now downloaded a PDF article, written by some Kishan S Rana, who reproduces this incidence.

I would never have got it. Now I know where to look.