• 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

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
89
Points
530

sidemount

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
daftandbarmy said:
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 :)
And there it is...the m777 does not stand up to the abuse of constant off road and rough terrain. It is extremely maint heavy. Having deployed to the sand box as a tech for the m777s and spending 5 years at the guns I have yet to see an ex where multiple guns dont go down for various mechanical (usually the hydrolic scavenge system)  or something electrical with the GMS. (another thing the had canadian mods that, IMO
, screwed up a good working system that the brits have been using on their 105 for quite some time).
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
226
Points
780
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?
 

sidemount

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thats how we moved them in the stan when I was there....actually have a wicked video of a drop off and pickup at the same time from sper on 1-10

I can see not wanting to lose the firepower to an ied
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,111
Points
910
PuckChaser said:
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?

In a high intensity conflict 'if it flies, it dies', so I doubt that choppers would be available all the time.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
226
Points
780
With the amount of technology out there, we're all dead in a peer on peer fight. Obviously if we don't have air superiority, you can't sling load it, but you're also a nice target dragging a big towed gun. Risk assessment I guess.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PuckChaser said:
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?

No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.
 

GR66

Sr. Member
Reaction score
53
Points
330
Another example of the Quality vs Quantity debate?  If we have 12 x M777's deployed for a brigade group and a Russian Independant Motor Rifle Brigade (according to Wikipedia anyways:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200th_Independent_Motor_Rifle_Brigade) has 36 x 2S19 Msta self-propelled howitzers and 18 x BM-21 Grad Multiple Rocket Launchers then does the quality of the M777 make up for the quantity of the Russian guns/launchers?
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
Maybe I'm just ignorant of army tactics, but why not go with a self propelled variant?  There doesn't seem to be anyone really using a 105mm SPG, but there are a lot of 155s. We could get a few from the Germans alongside our tanks!

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
419
Points
880
Next you be wanting a CCV type tracked vehicle to stay with the tanks, why to much like a NATO Brigade then.....

Getting rid of the SPG's was always a dumb move, keeping one battery towed for missions like Afghanistan is fine, but at least 1/2 of the Reg force should be in SPG's. Looking at the US army storage depot, I count around 250 M109's in storage in Nevada. I suspect the US would be willing to see us a bunch to be upgraded to improve NATO's punch.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
89
Points
530
You know who is not dead in a peer on peer fight: the guy with the pointy stick.

How long does it take to work the target list down past aircraft carriers and missile silos, past frigates, subs and aircraft, past guns and tanks and CCVs?  Judging from the limited experience of Gulf Wars 1 and 2 I would suggest a matter of months.  If people haven't come to their senses in that time, and still have the will to continue the fight the fight will continue at the partisan/terrorist level.

And weaponry will be whatever can be cobbled together locally - back to spring loaded catapults for chucking hand grenades.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
How about a 105mm on a LAV 6 chassis? would mean a lot less maintenance cost due to commonality of parts. Towed arty will always have it's place I feel, but in a highly mobile warfare situation, a group of self propelled artillery is required.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
226
Points
780
Bird_Gunner45 said:
No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.

Was that not due to the lack of integral medium lift helo support in JTF-A? We didn't get our own chinooks until 2009 I think, and what ones in theatre were real busy moving everything else around. I think it was more necessity that they were moved by road, not a preferred COA.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
89
Points
530
MilEME09 said:
How about a 105mm on a LAV 6 chassis? would mean a lot less maintenance cost due to commonality of parts. Towed arty will always have it's place I feel, but in a highly mobile warfare situation, a group of self propelled artillery is required.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/21166/post-18224.html#msg18224

South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic006.jpg
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
Chris Pook said:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/21166/post-18224.html#msg18224

South_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic006.jpg
Exactly what i was referring to

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PuckChaser said:
Was that not due to the lack of integral medium lift helo support in JTF-A? We didn't get our own chinooks until 2009 I think, and what ones in theatre were real busy moving everything else around. I think it was more necessity that they were moved by road, not a preferred COA.

For that particular theatre, yes, airmobility would be valuable. In a theatre with a GBAD threat than this would be unlikely. The point is that they were designed to be towed OR airmobile, without one being the prime mover.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Bird_Gunner45 said:
No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.

Actually they were being moved by Chinook from 2006 on, frequently, just not Canadian ones then

Recce is actually different using the GMS, so too are the gun drills.  Maybe if the School practiced it more often instead of mostly using C3 and LG1, perhaps those being trained at the School would be better at deploying it and have more confidence in it
Training with optic sights and survey instruments is good for learning the back up methods, but can lead to misunderstanding and underestimating the advantages of GMS, especially at night

The "D" in DGMS hasn't been working so well, not since the micro light radio was abandoned for the heavier LINAPS hung on the cradle, and the newer Det Commander tablet came into use.  That needs to be fixed and once it is, FWIW, I believe it should be fitted to the C3 and LG1 as well
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Petard said:
Actually they were being moved by Chinook from 2006 on, frequently, just not Canadian ones then

The "D" in DGMS hasn't been working so well, not since the micro light radio was abandoned for the heavier LINAPS hung on the cradle, and the newer Det Commander tablet came into use.  That needs to be fixed and once it is, FWIW, I believe it should be fitted to the C3 and LG1 as well

Just to correct myself, it is the EPLRS radio hung under the cradle, not LINAPS
LINAPS is the basis of Automatic Pointing System used on the British light gun and the M777; it does not need a radio to work, but that being said something does need to replace the aging FABCS used for passing voice orders
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
226
Points
780
Good thing it doesn't need the radio to work, because you're rolling dice with EPLRS.
 
Top