• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
357
Points
880
hmmm yes like the way you think.....

It is a good time to look at what we want the Reserve Artillery to look like, but it needs to be done quickly and it needs to keep in mind that in this day and age if you don't have loud toys like howitzers or fancy toys like UAV/missiles or AD gus, you are going to suffer on the recruiting end.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
122
Points
680
Colin P said:
hmmm yes like the way you think.....

It is a good time to look at what we want the Reserve Artillery to look like, but it needs to be done quickly and it needs to keep in mind that in this day and age if you don't have loud toys like howitzers or fancy toys like UAV/missiles or AD gus, you are going to suffer on the recruiting end.

Well that aspect does ad to the wow factor to recruiting, if all your reserve arty becomes is a mortar det, is it really worth it?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
357
Points
880
I remember joining up in the late 70’s I wanted armour, but all they had was jeeps, artillery had big cannons so I went there, not deep thinking, but then young males rarely do.
 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
38
Points
280
PuckChaser said:
You don't need artillery to peacekeep, and we're about to see a defense white paper by a government that was against using airpower to stop genocide.

You can use artillery in peacekeeping missions. MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of Congo has artillery (Tanzanian D-30 122mm) to go along with their attack helicopters. MONUSCO is, as I understand it, the largest UN peacekeeping mission in history.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2
Points
430
What about the L119/M119?  It is a light air-portable 105 mm that has been linked with a digital fire-control system derived from the same system as is used on the M777.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
200
Points
680
Arty39 said:
Can level and entire grid square in one f/m.

But you might actually hurt....woe is me....or kill some peace loving purveyor of a misunderstood religion!!!
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
357
Points
880
MCG said:
What about the L119/M119?  It is a light air-portable 105 mm that has been linked with a digital fire-control system derived from the same system as is used on the M777.

and in service with several nations with the upgrade done recently. Just missing the will to fix the problem.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
122
Points
680
Colin P said:
and in service with several nations with the upgrade done recently. Just missing the will to fix the problem.

and a procurement system to purchase it before the system is obsolete. On this issue on the 120mm mortar, if we got it as a towed system, could we create a mortar carrier variant of say a LAV as a mobile fire support unit?
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MCG said:
What about the L119/M119?  It is a light air-portable 105 mm that has been linked with a digital fire-control system derived from the same system as is used on the M777.

When I was at the arty school the AIG course I was running was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 105mm replacement and the IG course was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 120mm mortar system for the reserves.

The options the AIG came up with was essentially a rebuild of the C3, the L119, and the self propelled 105 CAESAR.

At the end of the session the CIG got up and said that there was no intent to buy another 105mm as they aren't intending to deploy them operationally (that's the M777 role at this time) and that the 120mm was being considered to maintain a reserve training capability and potentially to have a deployable capability.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
106
Points
630
If the powers at be have stated they have no intention of replacing the 105mm with another 105mm, and the M777 is to be our deployable artillery asset -- any word on purchasing more M777?

There aren't enough M777 for both training and deployable stocks, are there?  (My understanding is 34 guns were purchased, but I could be wrong?)


A 120mm mortar may actually be a relatively low maintainence, easily trainable, useful mission for the reserve artillery.  (As was stated above, even peacekeeping needs to have a heavy hand available when needed.)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
357
Points
880
Bird_Gunner45 said:
When I was at the arty school the AIG course I was running was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 105mm replacement and the IG course was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 120mm mortar system for the reserves.

The options the AIG came up with was essentially a rebuild of the C3, the L119, and the self propelled 105 CAESAR.

At the end of the session the CIG got up and said that there was no intent to buy another 105mm as they aren't intending to deploy them operationally (that's the M777 role at this time) and that the 120mm was being considered to maintain a reserve training capability and potentially to have a deployable capability.

Yet other nations happily deployed them from what I have read and with good effect, plus they are easier to move. As for "intent" that's what they said of the Bison and Cougar as well. If the shit really hits the fan big time, it will be come as you are party and they will need every gun and round they can find.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
122
Points
680
Colin P said:
Yet other nations happily deployed them from what I have read and with good effect, plus they are easier to move. As for "intent" that's what they said of the Bison and Cougar as well. If the crap really hits the fan big time, it will be come as you are party and they will need every gun and round they can find.

Somehow I feel our war stocks aren't what they used to be
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
175
Points
780
MilEME09 said:
Somehow I feel our war stocks aren't what they used to be

Pretty sure our "war stock" doesn't exist anymore. What we have at units is what we have total.
 

Eland2

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PuckChaser said:
Pretty sure our "war stock" doesn't exist anymore. What we have at units is what we have total.

We probably haven't had any real war stocks since the end of the Korean War, given the succession of governments over the ensuing decades
that have tried to do defence on the cheap.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
CBH99 said:
If the powers at be have stated they have no intention of replacing the 105mm with another 105mm, and the M777 is to be our deployable artillery asset -- any word on purchasing more M777?

There aren't enough M777 for both training and deployable stocks, are there?  (My understanding is 34 guns were purchased, but I could be wrong?)

Depends how you view the problem. If you look at current Regimental configurations of 2 x 4 or 6 gun batteries (4 x gun to be regular force manned, 2 x guns to be reserve) than there is a need for a maximum of 36 x M777, not including the guns needed for the artillery school (2 last I heard) and the RCEME school (1). in reality, they are kitted to the 2 x 4 gun standard. So, in theory, to achieve the 2 x 6 gun batteries we should have a minimum of 40 M777.(Note- this may have changed).

For war, the LOO 5 (or whatever LOO it is) described in CONPLAN JUPITER would see a worst case deployment of 2 x 6 gun batteries, 1 x STA battery, and some form of GBAMD shooter once there's a capability. So, for operations there's a requirement for 12x M777 plus spares (say 2).

The M777 deployed, in theory, would be from the Regiment within the Brigade. Many of the Regiments though still keep 1 x 105 gun or 1 x 81mm battery and put their 8 x M777 into 1 battery. 1 RCHA, for example, has A Bty supporting 3 VP and using 81mm mortars.

Realistically, Canada needs to be able to force generate, at most, 1 brigade to either be part of a multinational div under the Americans or our very own Div HQ. If the threat model changes than we could go back to 3 gun battery regiments, but as that isn't expected in the next 20 years,it is likely that the system that replaces the M777 would be the one intended for that purpose.

Buying a cheap 105mm for the reserves, to me, would be good to use as a training gun, allowing the M777's to be babied... The computer systems and hydraulics aren't designed to bound through Gagetown or Shilo, so having a cheap C3-esque gun to do that with would be optimal, with the M777 being used for static fires and the high readiness Regiment, IMHO.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
61
Points
530
Bird_Gunner45 said:
....
Buying a cheap 105mm for the reserves, to me, would be good to use as a training gun, allowing the M777's to be babied... The computer systems and hydraulics aren't designed to bound through Gagetown or Shilo, so having a cheap C3-esque gun to do that with would be optimal, with the M777 being used for static fires and the high readiness Regiment, IMHO.

Wouldn't you just be encouraging the development of bad habits?  If the weapon needs to be treated with care and consideration why would you train people to handle a similar weapon roughly?  Just curious.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Chris Pook said:
Wouldn't you just be encouraging the development of bad habits?  If the weapon needs to be treated with care and consideration why would you train people to handle a similar weapon roughly?  Just curious.

The intent was to allow for more "strenuous" training to be allowed, mostly in the recce and deployment arena. The M777 CAN be bounded and deployed IAW the TTPs, so it's not necessarily training poor habits. However, with the cost of the system it's preferable to drag a cheap and mechanically simple gun all over the training area than risk breaking the M777. The arty school, for example, uses the LG1s and C3s for recce and deployment on courses to this day as they dont want to break the 2 M777 they have. When doing danger close on the FOO course they use the M777 to improve realism, but 105mm for the rest of the shooting.

The only difference for recce and deployment would be the gun platform requirements, which you could still force students/jr Officers to recce, whether a 105mm or the M777 eventually sits on.

:2c:
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
888
Points
910
Bird_Gunner45 said:
The intent was to allow for more "strenuous" training to be allowed, mostly in the recce and deployment arena. The M777 CAN be bounded and deployed IAW the TTPs, so it's not necessarily training poor habits. However, with the cost of the system it's preferable to drag a cheap and mechanically simple gun all over the training area than risk breaking the M777. The arty school, for example, uses the LG1s and C3s for recce and deployment on courses to this day as they dont want to break the 2 M777 they have. When doing danger close on the FOO course they use the M777 to improve realism, but 105mm for the rest of the shooting.

The only difference for recce and deployment would be the gun platform requirements, which you could still force students/jr Officers to recce, whether a 105mm or the M777 eventually sits on.

:2c:

I guess that begs the question of why we have to rely on a 'fragile' gun that might pack up at critical moments during a high intensity conflict.... unlike the 25 pounder of course :)
 
Top