ARTY GUNS

[FormerHorseGuard]

read in todays national post and found some interesting facts.
New guns barrels are cracking, company  replacing them at their own cost.
but the really  interesting fact was the guns on the line right now , are the oldest pieces of equipment in the CF stores,e ven older then the Sea Kings, now that is sad.

50 plus year old guns. too old I think but they can do the job.
no new guns on the buy list because they  think that ary  is too war like and not peacekeeping styled
no word if guns are going back with the troops going over to Kabual

interesting story

 

[Gunner]

National Post, July 25, 2005

New guns sent back with cracked barrels

FRENCH-BUILT HOWITZERS

Army forced to use `obsolete' weapons first used in 1957

BY CHRIS WATTIE

More than half of the newest howitzers in the Canadian army's arsenal have been sidelined by cracks in their steel barrels, while the rest of the artillery branch has been reduced to using moth-balled Vietnam-era guns.  All but 10 of Canada's 28 French-built LG1 howitzers, bought in 1997 as light artillery to support the army's infantry bat-talions, were found to have devel-oped the potentially dangerous cracks, an army spokesman said yesterday.  "Out of 28 guns we managed to find 10 that were not cracked," said Major Bruno Di Ilio, of the army's directorate of land requirements.

Maj. Di Ilio said that as soon as the problem was detected late last year the Canadian Forces called in Giat, the French manu-facturer of the LG1 Mark II. "They came out and took a look at it and determined that it was a problem in the manufacturing process:"  The firm quickly corrected the flaw in the 10 guns with un-cracked barrels, but is still work-ing on a fix for the remaining 18 howitzers. "I was hoping to have it done by now, frankly;" said Maj. Di Ilio.

Meanwhile, the army's ar-tillery regiments have been forced to press a 48-year-old gun back into service long after it was retired to fill a gap left by the re-tirement of their M109 self-pro-pelled guns.  The C1 howitzer, which first came into service in 1957, is now being used by some gun batteries for training, Maj. Di Ilio said.
Critics called it "scandalous" that the army was reduced to us-ing five-decade-old equipment.

Colonel Brian MacDonald, a for-mer artillery officer who is now a researcher with the Royal Canadian Military Institute, said the C1 howitzer was a good weapon in its day, but that day is long past.  "It's obsolete," he said. "We're replacing a medium howitzer' that can throw a bullet 19 kilome-tres with an older, short-range one that can only throw one 11 kilometres. "And if we have to go up against more modern artillery with longer range, we're dead meat:'  Col. MacDonald said the C1 was actually built based on an even older design.  "These guns were designed be-fore World War Two for heaven's sake.... They are the oldest piece of equipment in the entire Cana-dian Forces:'

Gordon O'Connor, the Con-servative defence critic, said the artillery branch has suffered particularly from government neglect of the Canadian Forces because of the warlike nature of the guns.  -'They're oriented around indi-rect firepower," he said. "They're a combat arm - it's hard to use artillery for peacekeeping or peacemaking, and that's all the Liberal government's been inter-ested in lately."  "[So] their equipment has been allowed to just rust away."  Mr. O'Connor said that there are no active plans to replace the army's self-propelled guns, mean-ing the artillery might be stuck with the antique C1 howitzers for some time.  "They're older than the Sea Kings [maritime helicopters] and will probably be around even longer," he said. "That's how bad a state the artillery branch is in - and they're way down the list for replacing their capital equip-ment:'
Maj. Di Ilio acknowledged that  there are no immediate plans for ' new self-propelled guns that the C1 howitzers are replacing "as an interim measure," but said there are proposals "on the drawing board:"

There is no immediate word on when the LG1's cracked bar-rels will be fixed, but Maj. Di Ilio said the work will be done at the company's expense.
The LG1 is usually towed be-hind a truck or armoured vehicle, but, at a total weight of 1.5 tonnes, was designed to be light enough to be lifted by helicopter, dropped by parachute and trans-ported by air.

It has a crew of between three and seven gunners, depending on the mission, and with its "ex-tended range" shells, it can fire' at targets up to 19 kilometres away.
A battery of four LG1s 'was sent to Kabul in 2003 with the first Canadian battle group de-ployed to the Afghan capital as part of the International Security Assistance Force.

Military spokesmen said it has not yet been decided whether the guns will accompany a Canadian battle group to Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, early next year.

National Post czeattie@nationalpost.com

 

[AmmoTech90]

Colonel Brian MacDonald, a for-mer artillery officer who is now a researcher with the Royal Canadian Military Institute, said the C1 howitzer was a good weapon in its day, but that day is long past.  "It's obsolete," he said. "We're replacing a medium howitzer' that can throw a bullet 19 kilome-tres with an older, short-range one that can only throw one 11 kilometres. "And if we have to go up against more modern artillery with longer range, we're dead meat:'  Col. MacDonald said the C1 was actually built based on an even older design.  "These guns were designed be-fore World War Two for heaven's sake.... They are the oldest piece of equipment in the entire Cana-dian Forces

I always thought that light/medium/heavy was based on calibre.  And considering both the guns are 105mm wouldn't they both be light?
I would also hope a researcher could spend some time researching a subject before talking about it.  Around a minute on the Army's website would highlight the fact that we also have C3 howitzers with a similar range as the LG1, 96 of them to be exact.  Oh, and they came into service after the LG1.

 

[Old Sweat]

In this case "light" refers to employment/capability as well as calibre. A light gun is designed to have good strategic and tactical mobility. This implies reduced weight compared to normal field guns such as the C1, or its derivative, the C3. Over the years the Canadian artillery has had no more than four different light guns, the 7-pdr mountain gun used by the Red River garrison in the early-1870s (and after use by the NWMP by B Battery in the North West Rebellion), the 75-mm Pack Howitzer used by the airborne battery in the post-war years; the Italian L5 105-mm Pack Howitzer from 1968 until they were taken out of general service circa 1972 because of cracked barrels, and the LG1.

To compare weight, the C1 weighs 4680 pounds compared to 2880 (I think) for the L5. Thus, the latter could be lifted, with difficulty, by the Twin Huey in use at the time, while it took a Voyaguer medium lift helicopter to move the C1.

On the downside, the reduced weight also means less robustness, and there was an unfortunate incident in Vietnam when a New Zealand L5 dropped a round on some Australian infantry, killing several in the process, because the sight mount was not able to hand the prolonged stresses of heavy firing.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
the Italian L5 105-mm Pack Howitzer from 1968 until they were taken out of general service circa 1972 because of cracked barrels, and the LG1.

Just a sidenote Old Sweat, I did my TQ3 on the L-5 in 1978 and used it for several years after that in 2 RCHA. Just my thinking here but maybe the safety comprimise to bring them back was we did not fire them with charge 7.

 

[Bomber]

The L 5 is still produced by Italy, it is now in a mark 2 version that can fire all the fancy new rounds.  I think ours left service a little later than 72, I remember seeing them in about 97 in 2 horse, right when the LG 1's came in.  I also believe they were use in the final drop of the airborne gunners around 94 ish.

 

[Old Sweat]

I believe you are both correct and I did not provide a complete answer. The L5 remained in service with the airborne battery for a long time. However, the other batteries in 2 and 3 RCHA and 5 RALC that used it converted to the C1 and then the M109. I came to Petawawa as BC D in 1973 and we had six L5s sans barrels in the gun park, along with six C1s.

 

[Gunner98]

In 1968, L5 how came into service and in September 1993, E Battery (Para) retired the L5 Pack Howitzers.

 

[PJ D-Dog]

I'm not surprised this has happened.  I was not a fan of the LG1 although I only really saw it in action during a demo in Gagetown.  When our old C2 guns went in for a refit to become a C3, they pulled old C2 guns out of the moth balls so we would have something to shoot.  I remember the nervousness involved in firing that first round down range using a very long piece of 550 cord as a lanyard so we could have some cover in case the gun blew up.  Nothing ever happened and it all worked out in the wash.

This should be a wake-up call to the Canadian popuation that our army is in dire need of upgrading.  Unfortunately, it will be years before the CF is able to plow through the acquisition process to replace some the older pieces of equipment in our arsenal.  Despite the increase in the defense budget promissed by the Liberal governemnt, it will be some time before the CF can get back up to speed with the rest of the western world in terms of its warfighting capabilities.  I don't foresee the CF being upgraded to any suitable standard until Canada is forced to go to war for real and even then it will be too late.  It's just a darn shame.

PJ D-Dog

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Interesting news, indeed.

Another nail in the coffin for the future of the RCA/RCHA?   I certainly hope not, but with the combination of the barrel failures of the LG-1 and the demise of the Dutch firm RDM that was going to do the additional C-3 rebuilds and the prime contractor for MAVS is very disconcerting.    

It makes you wonder if the CFs just shouldn't start looking at a single arty. platform ie. Denel G-7 105mm, which can do triple duty as a light gun (3000kg system mass in the works), truck-mounted MAVS system, or armoured SPH in an LAV-3 or similar light/medium armoured chasis with a range of approx 30km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7_howitzer
http://www.denel.co.za/Landsystems/LS_ArtillerySysTowedGun.pdf

 

[Old Sweat]

Matt

Things have been bad before this. The government almost sold our original 50 M109s in 1970-1971, as the plan was to convert the army to air mobile. This was followed by the discovery of the cracked barrels on the L5, and then to add insult to injury, we realized at the school, thanks to WO Jack Vann, who looked after the gun park, that given our training load and ammunition consumption, we were going to shoot out our C1 barrels within a year. (The original life of these barrels was 20,000 EFCs, but because of metal fatigue this had been recently cut by a factor of ten - I think.) Anyway, it looked real bad for a while, but we discovered some replacement barrels and replaced the old ones as they wore out.

 

[1feral1]

I spent over 5 yrs attached to an RAA Sydney based Regiment as an armourer with the L118/119 105mm Hamel. One should never knock the ole US M2A2 (C1 How) 105mm gun. She is a workhorse, and puts our Hamel 105's to shame for robustness and reliability. BTW, the current Aussie Hamel only has an 11,000 metre range with the M1 (for US M1 105mm ammo) ordnance attached, 19,000 with the UK Abbot ordnance (elec fired UK designed 105mm ammo) fitted.

I remember back at the Regina Armouries, 10 Fd's 105's had breech rings dated 1942, and this was in the late 1980's.

The M2A2 is still in use here by the RAA, and its used for firing splintex, as the hamels have a muzzle break. Our M2A2's are old too (many wartime), but so what. As long as the guns are serviceable, and maintained, they'll go for another 60 yrs.

Ubique!

Wes

 

[Old Sweat]

Wes

Canada sold Australia a fairly large number of 105 C1s in the sixties after your L5s began to break. A Canadian gunner friend of mine who attended the Australian Army Staff College told me he had seen my signature in the daily record of rounds fired of a couple of these guns while visiting one of your artillery units.

 

[1feral1]

Good one!

I have seen many M2A2 marked breech rings, but I'll keep an eye out for some C1's. The last Regt I was with had two M2A2's. Those L5's are still around, but are now 'garden guns' in front of bldgs etc. They truly did literally begin to break, as many many rds/efc's were pumped out of them in VN, and I was told they were not designed to get the continual 'use and abuse' as they did there.

The Artillery museum at North Head in Sydney has one, and numerous other guns from old to current, foreign (including Japanese, German and even Iraqi) and domestic (25 pounder, 5.5's and some WW1 guns too). When in Sydney do check this national museum out. Its a great way to spend an afternoon. This includes tours of the underground coastal artillery gun positions and the tunnels, etc.

For any RCA types who read this, try doing a google search for 'fire support base coral' and get a good history lesson. I had never head of this battle til I moved here. Its was a very twisted attack by the NVA and the Cong against an Aussie FSB in SVN in the 1960's, and its hard to comprehend that all this was going on when I was a kid growning up in Saskatchewan.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[anonymoussoldier]

Around NDHQ and surrounding National Defense buildings in Ottawa. There has been rumour of the Canadian Government purchasing 155mm towed howitzers for the artillery, and that it will most likely be the M777 American/British Howitzer. If this is correct I believe this will finally be a good purchase for the army.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M777,,00.html

Some Facts about the M777
Length: 30.4 ft (9275 mm) in tow
                33.5 ft (10210 mm) firing mode
Width:   9.1 ft (2770 mm) in tow
                12.2 ft (3720 mm) firing mode
Height: 7.4 ft (2260 mm) in tow
Barrel life: 2650 firings
Maximum effective range: conventional ammunition (unassisted): 24.7 km,
                                           rocket-assisted projectile: 30 km,
(Also will be able to launch the Excalibur projectile) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm
Rate of fire: 5 round/min, intense
                       2 round/min, sustained
Weight: 9200 lbs; or 7000lbs if the government purchases the M77A1
Det size: 8 gunners. (I believe thats including the driver)

According to rumour even the reserve regiments would eventually receive these guns, as then artillery reservists going on tours with reg force artillery regiments would not need to take additional training for the reg force guns. I really hope this rumour is true, but I currently believe that this is just that; a rumour.
If you have heard anything about this please share the information.
Also please feel free to leave any thoughts on this.

 

[30fdGunner]

I have also heard those rumours, and I agree that it would be a nice pickup for the Canadian Artillery. Although it would require either new trucks, or HL's to tow. Speaking of which, does anybody know anything about the trucks we are looking at to replace the ML?

 

[Old Sweat]

I was told about the M777 yesterday at an informal gunner gathering by an unimpeachable source who must remain confidential. He said both the gun and the Excaliber ammunition were being purchased.

 

[Goober]

This months Esprit de Corps magazine has an article about the ML replacement. I don't remember the detals off the top of my head though.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't remember the detals off the top of my head though.

Given the source, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Gun Shy]

The CLS was in CFB Gagetown Last month and stated to the Arty Officer's DP1.2 that Canada wanted to purchase the M777 and Excalibur and to have it available for use by Jan 06. I think that this is more than a rumour.