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

How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?

quadrapiper

Full Member
Reaction score
13
Points
230
Anything to be said for buying the equipment/dies/molds/whatever to make the barrels for whatever gun(s) are/are going to be our mainstays? Maintain the skill-set as a national asset and have the ability to do the ten-barrels-a-year routine.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
353
Points
880
Barrel making is not that hightech, you just need a big enough lathe. That was one of the bottlenecks that led to a reduced 6pdr supply and making a short barreled gun instead of a long 6pdr.

I can't tell you who is equipped to do the barrels. Having seen the inside of the recoil system, it's pretty simple, but would require a competent manufacturer to maintain tolerances, the old ones were made by Otis (of elevator fame). The cradle would be easy to make. the design dates back as far as 1919 (riveted trails). 

Interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7_howitzer
Potential customers

In 2004, DLS partnered with General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) to offer the gun in self-propelled form to the United States Army. GDLS provided an armoured vehicle (the LAV III), while Denel provided a G7 mounted inside a specially-designed, unmanned turret. The combined system weighs only 17.5 tons when fully loaded with ammunition, making it light enough to be transportable inside a C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. The combination took part in a number of tests for the US Army. Though currently unfunded, the US Army has indicated a requirement for such a system to equip its Stryker Brigade. The Strykers cannot use current self-propelled and towed howitzers as their weight is a limiting factor on the brigade's mobility.

Interest in the system has also been exhibited by the militaries of South Africa, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In addition, the US Army and United States Marine Corps (USMC) have exhibited interest in the towed version as a possible replacement for their towed 105 mm howitzer stocks.

In parallel with the G7's testing on the LAV-III Denel is also planning to fit it and its turret to a Rooikat armoured vehicle for its offer to the South African Army.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Colin P said:
I would buy new cradles, recoil systems and barrels together, show them where the failures are in our current setup and let them tweak the desgin to accommodate the higher stresses better. I don't recall to many carriage failures?
Re cradle failures, see pic

Barrel manufacture is far more complicated than the way you've described it Colin, but essentially it is correct that Canada's order would be too small, and unique, for anyone to want to make just the barrels, or piece meal components.
There are manufacturers that would certainly want to sell Canada a complete system, but far as I know there is no project being created to support that. More mortars might come, maybe, but even those are not a priority (IMO they should be, and they should go to the infantry - this is discussed ad nauseam elsewhere on this site)

The rebuild work can be done by gov't workshops, but it is a matter of priority of work, and having the accurate engineering data (something that is also a problem for the C3), and parts

For example, while the recoil might seem simple, it is tricky enough that the rebuilds being done by the Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquilmalt, often get it wrong. Even for something that has well documented design specs, it can be problematic if no one can make critical components. Due to scarcity of seals for the C1, it made it necessary to create a hybrid version of the C3's recoil system for the C1 being used for avalanche control. With the problems, and shortages, for the gun's recoil system, plus carriage failures (besides the one that snapped in two in Gagetown, two others had collapsed trail legs), the C1 quickly divested itself and the C3 is now doing the same thing

The US have offered their test facilities to determine causes of failure, and potential failure, but the critical component remains the barrel.

Which does make the OP question relevant. Should the C3 quickly divest itself, then it might mean some of the LG1s being deployed for avalanche control. LG1 were used briefly in 2011 for avalanche control, although not ideal since the spades don't fit the gun rings there. Nevertheless, should it become necessary for the LG1 to be used for avalanche control, again, it would be sensible to train P Res Gun dets in 3 Div on the LG1, (including the unit the OP intends to join), since they typically augment the 1 RCHA avcon dets the most
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FJAG said:
Absolutely true but that's exactly the type of thinking that leads to bean counting defence planning.

The fact is that if there is any expectation to fight anything in the nature of a near-peer force we need not only equipment in place but trained forces (including maintainers) to use it.

I can think of a hundred ways of keeping the capability within the forces using a sliding scale of costs. Purely as an example, most of the guns and associated tracked vehicles could be put into long term preservation while a few are positioned in a few limited locations for training purposes. Those locations would be where both reg and res force maintainers are available.

The key leadership decision has to be to keep the capability alive and not to throw it out with budget cuts. Reserves are a cost effective way of keeping expensive systems available (take for example the ARNG in the US which maintains M1s, Bradleys, and M109s). I sometimes think that the real problem is not so much the finance side of things but that our reg force leaders no longer see our involvement in a serious conflict as a possibility and have long ago convinced themselves that the reserves are an institution which needs be endured rather than one that can be built on. They'd much rather spend untold billions on maintaining a robust headquarters structure.

When I started serving in the sixties we had 138 serviceable guns with the regular regiments and at least another hundred and twenty with the reserves and more in stocks. We've come down a long way, baby, and so have the infantry and the tankers.

IMHO the DND structure needs a radical rethink from the middle to the top. :2c:

For those who watch NCIS you'll be familiar with Gibb's rule # 5 "You don't waste good." Again, IMHO, we've been wasting good soldiers (both reg and res) for years by applying short sighted defence priorities based on false economy budgeting.

:cheers:

I agree. There was talks of replacing the reserve guns with m777 and centralizing them in the reg force arty locations as you discuss. However the current flavour of the day is to kit out the reserve force with 120mm mortars as a reserve capability. How this works on a deployment (unless there are reg force 120mm mortar men) beats me though, as we would be hoping for enough reserve augmentation to man them, maintain them, etc.

I also believe that the death of the AD is partially due to the re-rolling of the ad reserve units. You note the lack of interest in preparing for the big fight from leadership, but arty leadership is also very implicit in this. Arty transformation was built on the afghan model, including re-rolling 4 AD to support bed level ops (with div assets).

Part of the reason for bringing the LG1s to gagetown was to use them to assist w battery I believe as well.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
353
Points
880
Petard said:
Re cradle failures, see pic

Barrel manufacture is far more complicated than the way you've described it Colin, but essentially it is correct that Canada's order would be too small, and unique, for anyone to want to make just the barrels, or piece meal components.
There are manufacturers that would certainly want to sell Canada a complete system, but far as I know there is no project being created to support that. More mortars might come, maybe, but even those are not a priority (IMO they should be, and they should go to the infantry - this is discussed ad nauseam elsewhere on this site)

The rebuild work can be done by gov't workshops, but it is a matter of priority of work, and having the accurate engineering data (something that is also a problem for the C3), and parts

For example, while the recoil might seem simple, it is tricky enough that the rebuilds being done by the Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquilmalt, often get it wrong. Even for something that has well documented design specs, it can be problematic if no one can make critical components. Due to scarcity of seals for the C1, it made it necessary to create a hybrid version of the C3's recoil system for the C1 being used for avalanche control. With the problems, and shortages, for the gun's recoil system, plus carriage failures (besides the one that snapped in two in Gagetown, two others had collapsed trail legs), the C1 quickly divested itself and the C3 is now doing the same thing

The US have offered their test facilities to determine causes of failure, and potential failure, but the critical component remains the barrel.

Which does make the OP question relevant. Should the C3 quickly divest itself, then it might mean some of the LG1s being deployed for avalanche control. LG1 were used briefly in 2011 for avalanche control, although not ideal since the spades don't fit the gun rings there. Nevertheless, should it become necessary for the LG1 to be used for avalanche control, again, it would be sensible to train P Res Gun dets in 3 Div on the LG1, (including the unit the OP intends to join), since they typically augment the 1 RCHA avcon dets the most

I realize there is more to it, but a facility that can make tank gun barrels and 155mm barrels, could easily make 105mm Howitzer barrels. Machine setup is the cost and the willingness depends a lot on how busy the facility is and how hungry they are for business.

Petard
Do you know anything about the G7 and what Canada thought of it?
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Colin P said:
Petard
Do you know anything about the G7 and what Canada thought of it?

Yes, I was in South Africa for a about a month doing research on artillery ammunition; the G7 is an outstanding gun, and so is the Igala family of ammunition it fires. The G7 can also fire the legacy M1 family of projectiles. It is interesting that the demonstrator they built with it mounted on the LAV chasis, was also capable of firing LAHAT missiles

If it were up to me, I'd go with the towed G7 with a variant of the digital gun management system currently on the M777. This way, it would give an actual operational capability and not just a P Res training gun to the CAF. It would add somewhat to the P Res training bill, but would reduce the training delta for those P Res that are Force Generated for deploying Reg F Gun Bty's

I really don't know how high a priority it is, to to maintain indirect fire training capability within the P Res; my guess is there will only be efforts to try and work out the cause of the latest C3 woes, and limit the use of the C3 until its replacement can become a priority. Otherwise it will divest itself faster than it can be husbanded to extend its life, and many P Res Arty units will wither, and the only P Res gunner activity will be seen on special occasions at ceremonial saluting bases
The only exception, maybe, will be those that augment the Avcon Gun Dets and those in the School. 
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
120
Points
680
I have a power point on the LAV mounted g7 on my home computer. Interesting pierce of kit, very mobile, my concern would be how weight distribution is while firing, I heard the stories of the MMEV flipping on its side during a test would a LAV 6 105mm SPG suffer a similar problem? Perhaps we do a mixed fleet buy of 105 spg LAVs and some 120mm mortor carrier LAVs for the PRes.
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MilEME09 said:
I have a power point on the LAV mounted g7 on my home computer. Interesting pierce of kit, very mobile, my concern would be how weight distribution is while firing, I heard the stories of the MMEV flipping on its side during a test would a LAV 6 105mm SPG suffer a similar problem? Perhaps we do a mixed fleet buy of 105 spg LAVs and some 120mm mortar carrier LAVs for the PRes.

The 6.0 is capable of being quite a lot heavier than the original LAV III/MMEV, about 3x heavier, so it would seem that the potential for flipping could be resolved.

I don't see going the 105 route anyway, and I would not mix 120 and 105, no matter what configuration. The 120 makes a lot of sense for many reasons.  Seems kind of pointless to mix the fleet, since they shoot similar ranges, and it would add logistical complexity, for little to negative gain. 

Petard said:
If it were up to me, I'd go with the towed G7 with a variant of the digital gun management system currently on the M777. This way, it would give an actual operational capability and not just a P Res training gun to the CAF. It would add somewhat to the P Res training bill, but would reduce the training delta for those P Res that are Force Generated for deploying Reg F Gun Bty's

Would a 120 with a similar FCS and gun management system accomplish the same thing? 
 

blackberet17

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Petard said:
There are 28 LG1's in service: 1 is used for training weapon technicians, one is used as test bed for different purposes, and 2 are used for salute purposes in St John's.  The remaining 2 dozen are used in the Artillery School and the Primary Reserve Artillery units in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

We (see cap badge on left) have two.

Shh. Don't tell anyone.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
353
Points
880
Thanks Petard

I would be happy with a 120mm or 105mm capability for the PRes. the advantage of the 120mm is we can get rid of those monster gun tractors that won't fit inside the majority of the Armouries.

I notice the Philippines still uses the 105mm short barrel (C1) We could try buying them off of their army ( I can imagine the condition won't be great, but beggars can't be to choosy)

From wiki
Total 150 delivered, some with Marine Corps. Delivered in 1957-1958. 12 units upgraded to M101/30 in 1997 by GIAT Industries.[18]
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
120
Points
680
Well we know GD has turretless versions of the lav, would it require a lot of work to turn one into a mortor carrier? Kind of a bison 2.0
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
blackberet17 said:
We (see cap badge on left) have two.

Shh. Don't tell anyone.

When it comes to the C1s', the PEIR have nothing to be proud about; if that stings, so be it, they earned it.

Fascinating that the powers that be have entrusted the PEIR with the LG1; they were not supposed to get any, largely for the dismal way they'd treated the C1's
That they had the honour of looking after the Artillery's colours definitely escaped many in that unit when they had the C1s.
Year after year of inspection reports, telling what god awful shape they were in, don't lie. Perhaps they learned their lesson (but I doubt it)

The gun salutes in Charlottetown were supposed to be done by 1st or 3rd Fd, when necessary; guess that didn't work out (funds and availability I suppose), and they'd rather take the risk of the LG1s being treated as crappy as the C1s were

Re the question on whether a 120 mortar fits the need, I don't know, my personal view is no. The need has to be better defined, I suppose.
IMO, the need is for a means that provides training P Res, that minmizes the training delta for P Res Gnrs FG to Reg F units, and those units have towed artillery. There are huge differences between the TTP of deploying mortars and towed training, but things are so bad, just nailing down the actual need, and timelines, would be good a start
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
353
Points
880
My preference is for towed Howitzers, but large Mortars will do and then we can push the 81's back to the PBI where they belong.
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Petard said:
When it comes to the C1s', the PEIR have nothing to be proud about; if that stings, so be it, they earned it.

Fascinating that the powers that be have entrusted the PEIR with the LG1; they were not supposed to get any, largely for the dismissal way they'd treated the C1's
That they had the honour of looking after the Artillery's colours definitely escaped many in that unit when they had the C1s.

True story!
 

blackberet17

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Petard said:
When it comes to the C1s', the PEIR have nothing to be proud about; if that stings, so be it, they earned it.

Fascinating that the powers that be have entrusted the PEIR with the LG1; they were not supposed to get any, largely for the dismal way they'd treated the C1's
That they had the honour of looking after the Artillery's colours definitely escaped many in that unit when they had the C1s.
Year after year of inspection reports, telling what god awful shape they were in, don't lie. Perhaps they learned their lesson (but I doubt it)

The gun salutes in Charlottetown were supposed to be done by 1st or 3rd Fd, when necessary; guess that didn't work out (funds and availability I suppose), and they'd rather take the risk of the LG1s being treated as crappy as the C1s were

Re the question on whether a 120 mortar fits the need, I don't know, my personal view is no. The need has to be better defined, I suppose.
IMO, the need is for a means that provides training P Res, that minmizes the training delta for P Res Gnrs FG to Reg F units, and those units have towed artillery. There are huge differences between the TTP of deploying mortars and towed training, but things are so bad, just nailing down the actual need, and timelines, would be good a start

Before my time. Well, sorta. I was only in two years or so when the LG1s arrived. No exposure to the guns myself until my first Victoria Day salute.

What I do know is we are limited in space to store them, and don't have a devoted gun team to look after them, unfortunately.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
blackberet17 said:
What I do know is we are limited in space to store them, and don't have a devoted gun team to look after them, unfortunately.

All the more reason they shouldn't have been left in that unit's care
 

blackberet17

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, as you pointed out, Petard, "The gun salutes in Charlottetown were supposed to be done by 1st or 3rd Fd, when necessary". So, until a solution to this issue is determined (above both our pay grades), it will have to be SNAFU.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
120
Points
680
For the gunners here, would there be any benefit to replacing the C3 with some type of 120mm mortar system?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
353
Points
880
Well other than having a modern indirect fire system compatible with our nearest ally, good terminal effect and no need for a honking big gun tractor, ummm no. As Petard pointed out, it would make transitioning to the Reg Force Arty harder.
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Colin P said:
Well other than having a modern indirect fire system compatible with our nearest ally, good very good terminal effect and no need for a honking big gun tractor, ummm no.

I would think that those are 4 pretty big reasons for it.

 
Top