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

Time To Dust Off Our M109???

toglmonster

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
With our Leopard tanks getting a new lease on life and being sent to Afghanistan would it be a good idea to ship off a battery or two of M109 with them. Or have they already been scrapped??? With airplanes on order that can easily carry them maybe our M109 should be upgraded not retired.
 

COBRA-6

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
for what purpose? I don't think the taliban have counter-battery capabilities that would require protection for the gun det while firing, and I would think (I'm not a gunner) that the M777 are more mobile than than the M109's would be...
 

toglmonster

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
We only have small number of  M777 in country, is that enough? Also I'd feel much safer from snipers in a M109 or from any wandering bands of al- Qaida or Taliban.
 

toglmonster

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gee I thought armor stopped bullets, papper cover rock. But your right, I know dick . Just throwing out an idea for discuion. But just one more thing, if an M109 in country is such a bad idea why do the Dutch have there PzH 2000 over there?
 

COBRA-6

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
the gun crews already have armoured veh

ever stop to think of the logistical tail that comes with armour? the tanks are being brought in to fill a direct-fire requirement, no such requirement exists for the M109, as the M777 is doing the job quite well.
 

Koenigsegg

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Compared to our M-109s, the PzH 2000s are lightyears ahead.  Far superior.

And the M-109 armour effectively protects from rounds up to 7.62mm if I am not mistaken.  An RPG will cause serious damage, likely killed all the crew.  Sniper rifles of large calibre will potential rip right through the armor, and make a good day bad.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,386
Points
1,040
toglmonster said:
With our Leopard tanks getting a new lease on life and being sent to Afghanistan would it be a good idea to ship off a battery or two of M109 with them. ...  With airplanes on order that can easily carry them maybe our M109 should be upgraded not retired.
What are you suggesting?  M109 in Kandahar or an M109 life extension program?

What is the capability you think this will give us in Afghanistan? A big armoured & very slow moving gun?  Something that we will need to support by sending unarmoured tractors with lowbeds in order to haul around the country?

Koenigsegg said:
Compared to our M-109s, the PzH 2000s are lightyears ahead.
Our M109 are old even by standards of other M109.
 

silentbutdeadly

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yeah there's no need for the 109 in Kdr. The M777 is doing just fine and has alot of protection when they are in there battle posns.
 

toglmonster

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gentleman, thank you, if your happy with the M777 that's great, I like it too, hope we get more.   Your also right I should have made this two topices. Question: Should we put our M109 in a Life Extension Program.


MOD EDIT: Changed the "my profile" line as I deleted the post that went after it.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,260
Everyone, I cleaned this thread up and I am unlocking this as I think this topic is worthy of discussion.

Anyone who thought 6 months ago that we would dust off the Leo's and use them in Afghanistan please raise your hand.....................yup, that's what I thought.

As for profiles, it states in the site rules that no one is REQUIRED to fill it in, just that it does help others to see your way of looking at things.
Bruce
 

JackD

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
By the way are there any intentions to buy more of these m777's? What are the intentions for distribution? What other equipment is in the pipeline?
 

GUNS

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I for one would not want to see M109's in A'gan. Can you picture being inside the turret when it 40C out side with no wind. I don't think so. The M109 had its place in Canadian military history now its time to move on to newer and better equipment. Just a footnote I was on the first gun crew that fired the first round from a M109 in Shilo in 1968, they made the #4(loader) use a 25ft. lanyard to fire the gun.
 

HItorMiss

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Some facts still remain, unless you're in the Artillery and have operational experience, talking about what protection the armoured M109 offers is moot, Without having been to see the actual gun lines used by the the arty in theater and what security procautions are taken to ensure the safety of the gun line against "wandering groups of Taliban" is also useless.

If your talking about life extention program for the M109 I think that is also long dead, the M777 is twice the gun system the M109 would be if we tried t use it today. Now if your advocating the purchase of a new armoured SPG, then that's a whole different argument and again one that should be discussed by people who can answer the points in my first part of this post.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
M109 Life Extension Program?

In probable theatres of deployment, what would an M109 MLE program provide that justifies the additional cost as opposed to supplemental M777 or perhaps HIMARS?

Traditional conventional war where it's already in place, and capable of immediate fire support against an invading conventional force?

Rolling off a ship and providing immediate artillery support from a beachhead position?

....and if DND chose to keep an SPH for either of those roles, would it not be cheaper (when one takes into account adminstrative costs) to buy surplus PzH2000's rather than creating another "Made in Canada" solution with all the associated bidding nonsense for so very few chassis?


Matthew.  ???
 

COBRA-6

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
or perhapse a LAV-based system?

fire1.jpg
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,582
Points
1,110
Having been a gunner long long ago (before I elevated to being Patricia  ;D) - I think the M777 is a better system for Afghan -- it is Airmobile - unlike the M109.
  Having a very brief stint on a M109 I would not wish it on anyone.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,815
Points
1,060
Just to add some more fuel to the fire, and that of the guns/missiles debate, I add these two commentaries from Strategy Page.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20060808.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20050928.aspx

Unlike Excalibur, and for that matter the NLOS PAM - HIMARS/GMLRS already has a track record.
Like Excalibur, and the Small Diameter Bomb, the unit cost is on the same order of magnitude
Warhead of 81.6 kg, Range of 70 km
Loiter Time (on the ground) indefinite

A readily available system for Arty to deliver PGMs as a back up to the M777s?

Unlike the Air Force it doesn't need a runway and while support may be more expensive than comparable support for the guns it is a lot cheaper and more likely to be on hand than aircraft.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
380
This thread seems to have drifted off into the excalibur one.
I agree HIMARS would be good to have, but when considering the limitations of time and money, and if you can only have one, the M777, IMO, is the better choice.
HIMARS might give you range and precision when needed, but even in it's reduced effects form it still carries a large warhead that might not be so desirable in danger close situations or when collateral damage is more likely from the larger blast. Most rockets do not give you much of a sustained fire capability unless you have a good lot of them to make up for the longer reload times, nor does it give you (in most cases) other capabilities for munitions like illumination or multi-spectral smoke.
But the M109, why? Comparing it to the Leopard deploying isn't a very good parallel for a number of reasons, not the least of which because the Leo has stayed in service whereas the M109 was withdrawn, and in any case they both are meant for very different roles.
But if we're going to talk about bringing back some old Artillery gun into service I'd vote for the L5, now there was a honey. She'd stick by you through all kinds of abuse and terrain and still perform for you. You could strip her right down, more so than any other, and get her cleaned up or packed up into all kinds of different transport. A very forgiving gun, mind you if you grabbed one of her legs the wrong way she sure could pinch you bad.
Yes I'm still talking about a gun here, although it might've sounded like I was talking about an old sweetheart, then again, maybe I am.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,260
Darn right.....in my perfect world all Artillery guns have folding trails.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,815
Points
1,060
Petard said:
... if you can only have one, the M777, IMO, is the better choice.....

I agree.

And in that case the Excalibur, if it can be made to work at a reasonable price, would seem a reasonable addition to the arsenal.  If there is a bit more money in the budget, if the need for PGMs it that pressing then the HIMARS is a here and now solution, not a somewhen solution.
 
Top