• 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???

Gunnerlove

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Lets save the cash and wait a few years till NLOS-C comes on line then we can tack a number of units onto the US order. Hell we already use the ordinance. Towed is great for people who have Chinooks for mobility or are to poor to operate a fleet of modern SP guns. Which are we?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,817
Points
1,060
Gunnerlove said:
Lets save the cash and wait a few years till NLOS-C comes on line then we can tack a number of units onto the US order. Hell we already use the ordinance. Towed is great for people who have Chinooks for mobility or are to poor to operate a fleet of modern SP guns. Which are we?

I think we may have to wait for another budget, and possibly an election, for that answer.  :)
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
380
Meanwhile, this might belong in the radio chatter section, then again, maybe not.
This was a Nijmegan marching tune for Canadian gunners, might be worthwhile knowing, better than "The Screw Guns" anyway I think
(sung to the tune of "I moved 16 tons"):

I was born with a lanyard
in my hand.
I'm cannon cocky
I'm a shootin' man.
1st a gunner
now a number one,
with a 109 baby
I'm a son-of-gun.

I ride 26 tons
an' wadda I get?
'nother day over
an' deeper in debt
St Peter dontcha
ya call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my balls to the DCO

Well up jump a dusty
cannoneer
This was a tough one
he had no peer.
Had a back
made of solid rock
'cause he humped dem rounds
around the clock

He ride 26 tons
an' what'd he get?
'nother day over
an' deeper in debt
St Peter dontcha
ya call him cause he can't go
He owes dem balls to the DCO

Well they shoot, move, communicate
this is the pride of the R-C-H-A
These are killers
you will see
When they give that battle
dignity

They ride 26 tons
an' wadda they get?
'nother day over
an' deeper in debt
St Peter dontcha
ya call 'em cause they can't go
they owe their balls to the DCO

 
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
257
Points
880
I was under the impression our M109s were sold off (this was from an arty WO). Maybe rumour mill, but I trust my source that at least some are gone.

m109, Keep them out of service. they had their time.

I agree with getting on board with the FCS NLOS-C
 

Bobbyoreo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
M109's were mothballed...I sent the ones from Shilo to Meaford for storage...unless they used them for targets ;D
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
380
Bobbyoreo said:
M109's were mothballed...

They're not quite dead yet, a number of them are still in storage, I believe in Montreal, not all of them have been disposed of.
I don't think it's likely they will be brought back into service, but it's not impossible either.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, with the M777s in theatre and another batch of M777s on order from the Mfg, it is highly inprobable that these old warhorses will be brought back. 

M777s can be slung under a Chinook - the M109s need, at the very least, a C17 to fly.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
380
Geo, I would agree that it is improbable, but not impossible.

The M777 that are about to be procured will still not be enough to replace all the M109's that were withdrawn from service, I don't think they're intended to do that anyway. The additional M777's are being procured so there is some depth to sustain Ops and resolve some training issues. IMO the M777 is still a mission specific, ie in Afghanistan, piece of kit.
I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea to bring the M109's back simply because we can't replace them with something, but still, in this case, I would not entirely rule it out either. If the funds are not coming anytime soon for a replacement for the M109, then I would suspect that the "improbable" would be considered.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I do not expect the M109s to come out of hiding until the day someone decides to acquire additional / new / almost new Tanks.

While I concurr that the limited number of M777s we have in theatre requires multiplication - if only in order to train AND give hands on experience to gunners PRIOR to deployment, I do not view a pressing need for 155mm capacity across the board
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,101
Points
1,060
The M109 provided good service during the last Iraq war, I still think a battery or 2 of SPG is required, the possibility of us getting involved in a major conflict over the next 15 years is quite high and we won’t have time to buy new toys. Keeping a battery of 109 running would allow the skills and tactic to be maintained until a new SPG is bought.
 

hegg.dg

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I agree with keeping the M109.

I returned from Afghanistan Aug 28 2006. The old saying that being in the FOO party is "the pointy end" is no longer valid. The gunline often deployed in open fields with no other protection than what they had on their back and head. With a SP Howitzer on location they would have had at least some protection other than their PPE. As far as the heat is concerned, I was an FE Tech for G11 and even with AC in the Lav, the temp exceeded 50 degrees celcius. There is no hiding from it, you simply hydrate or die. The gunline came under fire in one of the FOB's from enemy mortar fire. The M109 unmodified is designed to protect the crew from shrapnel caused by eny artillery and mortar. The gunners in typical fashion answered the call for fire in not much more than their PPE and a pair of flip flops. The M777 performed in all conditions and I can speak credibly about the fall of shot as I was there for many fire missions. But the fall of shot and the ease with which it is deployed or moved does not negate the requirement for crew protection. Never mind the requirement for ammo protection. Yes it is insensitive ammo but after a 10 tonne truck sustained shrapnel damage from a mortar round, it was determined that several charge canisters were rendered unuseable. The supply lines at the time we were deployed was strained to the limits as it was, as a result the crew had to scavange tires from other 10 tonnes just so the Gun Crew could leave the FOB. More often as not the guns were deployed with standoff being the opperative word(no civilian structures within 2km). The environment over there is 360 degrees, we had no lines then and I do not have any evidence to show that we have any now. Fighting the artillery Battle in an urban setting does not allow us the range to ensure crew safety without sacrificing our ability to give fire support. Having an armoured SP Howitzer would alleviate some issues while raising others.
    In one sentance I will sum it up, there are many arguments for the M109 and several against bringing it back into service, if the gunners manning the howitzer are so preoccupied by incoming fire how can we answer the call for fire effectively while ensuring the gunners safety?
 

Gunnerlove

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/04_Vickory_105mm_Indirect_Fire.pdf

My friend was standing next to that HL when the shell hit. Protection for the gunners allows us to complete missions regardless of harassment, and without requiring casevac. Our current artillery capabilities are woefully inadequate. 60k in the Reg forces and we as a military posses 6 deployable towed guns, which is the better fit embarrassing or disgraceful?
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,260
Love the very last thing on the pdf.

"NOT YOUR FATHER'S 105 MM."
 

241

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Love the very last thing on the pdf.

"NOT YOUR FATHER'S 105 MM."

Not so sure they liked it...The page seems to have vanished...Or atleast thatw what its telling me when I hit the link...
 

241

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yeah its working now, may have been maintenance going on at the site when I tried or something....
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
380
gent's I hear you, but you've got to watch what you're throwing out into the public domain here.
A few weeks ago while the CLS was visiting the school, the very issues you are talking about came up, he is well aware of them.
3 weeks ago at a meeting in Ottawa I attended on the future gun tractor, and some other issues, it came up again.
The best advice I can give you is to make sure every damned time a survey or anything else with after action is concerned, including UCR's, shows up you fill it out or do your best to feed the machine the info.
The highest levels know roughly what you're talking about, but the devil's in the details.
No need to give any devils those details.
Kapish?
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Interesting resource.... on a LAV III chassis to boot
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
380
I saw a proto type LEO at General Dynamics Land in London about 2 years ago, yes it is impressive
Some unique things I noticed
- can fire APDS
- can fire LAHAT through bore missile (counter Attack Helo's as well as guided direct fire against surface targets)
- carries a lot of ammo (without an auto loader I think it was in the neighbourhood of 60 rounds all types)
But it has only limited long range indirect accuracy, a course correction fuse may help, a bit, but it still hits the wall (so to speak) at around 30 km. 155 is going out past 40 now, and with Excalibur, very accurately. 
Some of the values they associate with accuracy on their glossy is suspect, for example comparing it against the M549 RAP, which is pretty much obsolete. The lethality is missleading too, yes there may be lethal fragments out that far, but how many; what's the likelihood you're going to hit someone? Telling is the reduced safe distance. So some of the fragments may carry further, but there won't be as many of them (relative to 155)
But Denel does not just push the 105, they also push the 155 type as well and this makes for a more reasonable comparison
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/pride.pdf
M777 has the potential to use that ammo.
BTW our old M109s can fire Excalibur, but not with the higher MAC charges (to try and go back to the thread).
 

Gunnerlove

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Back to the initial thread. The M109 is long in the tooth, however the A6 mods have kept it modern enough to remain deployable decades after introduction. My push would be to upgrade 24 M109 to Paladin specs to allow us three deployable batteries of 6 guns each (My math leaves six in reserve for maint, training and the inevitable demo derby). The Skill set of operating SP Guns must not be lost or allowed to erode and that is more important than the platform used.


As for the ammo, on range sweeps have you noticed the 155 shrapnel lying around? big chunks of steel. Prefrag replaces that with tungsten pellets in order to saturate the area surrounding the shell burst. The pellets don't carry as far which is why they pose less of a risk to friendly forces. However if you are within the lethal radius you are getting your ticket punched.

105, 155 and MLRS are complementary systems. They all have advantages (rate of fire, proj weight, range) but there are also weaknesses with all. The different systems complement each other. Kind of like Towed and SP Guns.   
 
Top