markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,493
- Points
- 1,260
We could probably also get some F86s or M48s cheap, doesn’t mean they’d be a good use of money
C3 Howitzer Replacement
- Thread starter MattGotts
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,390
- Points
- 1,160
Sheesh lighten up. Ironic that Vietnam has the equivalent of about our entire stock of C3 in one shed.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,493
- Points
- 1,260
well they got them pretty cheap…
- Reaction score
- 28,571
- Points
- 1,090
Military and civilian deaths for the North, the South and the VC combined estimated as up to 1.8 million does not sound cheap.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,493
- Points
- 1,260
While true that civil war was going to happen regardless of if they got to keep a large stock of US equipment.
- Reaction score
- 8,472
- Points
- 1,160
Revolutionary Training: The 82nd Airborne's Integration Of Drone Munitions
In an innovative move that marks a significant shift in military tactics, the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Liberty is leading the Army into a new era of
dronexl.co
The new Marine infantry battalion is slimmer, saltier and more techy
Phase one concluded in June. Phase two begins in 2023.
www.marinecorpstimes.com
Engaging....
Dispersion is happening.
50 km USMC Companies with integral fire support.
5 km US Army Squads with integral drones capable of dropping munitions precisely necessitating range revisions in training areas.
US Army Squads also equipped with Javelins capable of reaching out to the 2.5 to 5 km band.
Where exactly does an 11 km cannon fit given those range constraints?
I don't doubt the problems associated with command, control, coordination and supply. I understand the difficulties in trying to co-ordinate a dispersed artillery park.
Setting those noteworthy difficulties aside, what does an 11 km gun bring to the fight when Squads are being dispersed over Battalion frontages and Companies are operating independently in Brigade areas?
155mm cannons are reaching out over 70 km. That seems to be more in keeping with the templates being discussed for the Squads and Companies.
Do I realistically envisage an M119 in every platoon weapons det? No. Of course not. I just don't see an 11 km weapon as being compatible with the dispersed operations currently envisaged that are under development.
- Reaction score
- 22,371
- Points
- 1,260
Okay now I am seeing where you went with that.Revolutionary Training: The 82nd Airborne's Integration Of Drone Munitions
In an innovative move that marks a significant shift in military tactics, the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Liberty is leading the Army into a new era of
The new Marine infantry battalion is slimmer, saltier and more techy
Phase one concluded in June. Phase two begins in 2023.
Engaging....
Dispersion is happening.
50 km USMC Companies with integral fire support.
5 km US Army Squads with integral drones capable of dropping munitions precisely necessitating range revisions in training areas.
US Army Squads also equipped with Javelins capable of reaching out to the 2.5 to 5 km band.
Where exactly does an 11 km cannon fit given those range constraints?
I don't doubt the problems associated with command, control, coordination and supply. I understand the difficulties in trying to co-ordinate a dispersed artillery park.
Setting those noteworthy difficulties aside, what does an 11 km gun bring to the fight when Squads are being dispersed over Battalion frontages and Companies are operating independently in Brigade areas?
155mm cannons are reaching out over 70 km. That seems to be more in keeping with the templates being discussed for the Squads and Companies.
Do I realistically envisage an M119 in every platoon weapons det? No. Of course not. I just don't see an 11 km weapon as being compatible with the dispersed operations currently envisaged that are under development.
But keep in mind the entire concept of dispersion for a LSCO isn’t that one fights dispersed, one dispersed for movement and/or safety to not be targeted easily. But retains the ability to mass for attack and some defensive requirements.
The USMC concept use dispersion for occupying multiple islands and providing more longer range attack positions.
Europe and the Pacific Theatre’s have a great deal of different requirements due to the terrain. An Army isn’t a good fit for the Pacific - hence why the USMC has drastically changed its make up from being the second best US Army entity to being an agile island hoping force. With more and more small boat usage and long range missiles.
When one looks at the M101 105mm, a 120mm Mortar offers more in terms of range and payload, as well as ease of movement.
- Reaction score
- 28,571
- Points
- 1,090
No, I am assured by DLR that an AGL is a perfect replacement for a mortar.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,270
- Points
- 1,160
@KevinB beat me to much of what I was going to try and get at...
Just because Squads/Companies have access to systems with much greater range doesn't mean that they will disperse to cover much larger areas. While the situation in the Pacific (as noted above) is a unique situation that may require greater physical dispersion of combat elements than elsewhere, even there I see "dispersion" as Companies/Squads being physically separated from their neigbouring units due to terrain, not that the Companies/Squads themselves will deploy in a widely dispersed manner.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 16,095
- Points
- 1,260
Who is the genius that told you that? What a crock of shit.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,493
- Points
- 1,260
That was the whole reason we got the C16….
Revolutionary Training: The 82nd Airborne's Integration Of Drone Munitions
In an innovative move that marks a significant shift in military tactics, the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Liberty is leading the Army into a new era of
The new Marine infantry battalion is slimmer, saltier and more techy
Phase one concluded in June. Phase two begins in 2023.
Engaging....
Dispersion is happening.
Dispersion has always happened, we’re still massing to fight
Where do you get 50km from ?
Your article doesn’t quote drones as a section / squad weapon at all. They can observe to five, nothing new.
Weight of fire and speed into action.
Companies aren’t operating independently, they’re dispersed in a coordinated plan.
I think you’re far far far too focused on the simple numbers and not at all considering differences in effect.
- Reaction score
- 22,371
- Points
- 1,260
Sadly that was the justification for the C-16, they pulled the 60mm Mortar.
The fact that they are complementary weapons wasn’t relevant as it seemed that someone has decided in the CA that any new weapons/concepts need to replace an existing system.
One could have argued much more reasonably that the C-16 was a M2 .50 replacement - but then it wouldn’t have provided numbers (I’m guessing) for a 1 / Platoon establishment.
The fact that the weight of the C-16 makes it fairly only reasonable for fixed positions or vehicles apparently wasn’t considered, or at least factored heavily enough to make the point it can’t be a Pl Spt Wpn for a LIB or Mech Inf unit.
But for the Artillery this could work as an advantage as are currently 3 types of guns fielded. The M777, the LG-1 and the C3A1.
The LG-1 and C3A1 are pretty much self divesting - but could be replaced with both M109 and Archer type systems. The only hiccup gets when DLR may/will want to consider HIMARS (or other wheeled MLR system) as yet another replacement system - so you may just get one SPA and HIMARS.
I suspect you will end up with M109’s again - which isn’t bad, and if you want a 52cal barrel BAE has done it.
I suspect if Canada wanted BAE would build you M109A8, as they’ve been shopping it around a bunch.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 16,095
- Points
- 1,260
Add to the fact if you need targeting software then its not an infantry weapon. The targeting software should be a well trained soldier. We are too reliant on techy solutions.
- Reaction score
- 22,371
- Points
- 1,260
You don’t need a fancy FCS, you can use iron sights or a red dot - but a FCS with LRF and ballistic reticle does help.
But keeping mind nearly everything these days has some sort of electro-optic, those are enablers - and should not be discarded.
I mean the LAV turret is run by Infantry, and it’s got a lot of switches and knobs
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 16,095
- Points
- 1,260
And infantry eat crayons.....You don’t need a fancy FCS, you can use iron sights or a red dot - but a FCS with LRF and ballistic reticle does help.
But keeping mind nearly everything these days has some sort of electro-optic, those are enablers - and should not be discarded.
I mean the LAV turret is run by Infantry, and it’s got a lot of switches and knobs
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,226
- Points
- 1,160
Sadly that seems to be an army process. The number of times I've heard people say "we had to give up Y to get X" or "we couldn't afford to maintain Y anymore" or "we don't have the PYs to keep both X and Y in service." Personally I think its part of the short focus on today and what we need for our deployed rotos and not the army as a whole.
There are two distinct projects: IFM and LRPF - both unfunded and with some scope for LG1 and C3 replacement. A lot of folks are saying "it's a great time to be a gunner" I'll wait until the Latvia SP UOR funding and the IFM & LRPF funding comes through before I start dancing.
I expect that if the UOR goes M109 that an A6 is most likely as I think BAE is still working on A6 to A7 conversions for the US. They'd have to let us jump the line again like for the M777. Not sure if BAE has the capacity to do M109-52s just yet.
If I recall correctly then the M109A8 was the interim designation for the ERCA (with an L58 barrel) which eventually became the M1299. The M109-52 is a different kettle of fish. The M1299 has died while the M109-52 seems to be in its 8th month of gestation. My guess is that either way Canada would stay away from a gun that's still in Beta testing. But then again.
- Reaction score
- 22,371
- Points
- 1,260
The M109A7 is an entirely different (Bradley based) chassis - no sense in getting an A6 then needing to throw 1/2 of it away to upgrade to A7.Sadly that seems to be an army process. The number of times I've heard people say "we had to give up Y to get X" or "we couldn't afford to maintain Y anymore" or "we don't have the PYs to keep both X and Y in service." Personally I think its part of the short focus on today and what we need for our deployed rotos and not the army as a whole.
There are two distinct projects: IFM and LRPF - both unfunded and with some scope for LG1 and C3 replacement. A lot of folks are saying "it's a great time to be a gunner" I'll wait until the Latvia SP UOR funding and the IFM & LRPF funding comes through before I start dancing.
I expect that if the UOR goes M109 that an A6 is most likely as I think BAE is still working on A6 to A7 conversions for the US. They'd have to let us jump the line again like for the M777. Not sure if BAE has the capacity to do M109-52s just yet.
If I recall correctly then the M109A8 was the interim designation for the ERCA (with an L58 barrel) which eventually became the M1299. The M109-52 is a different kettle of fish. The M1299 has died while the M109-52 seems to be in its 8th month of gestation. My guess is that either way Canada would stay away from a gun that's still in Beta testing. But then again.
I don’t think it’s a beta at this point - more of a waiting for a customer to start LRIP.
I expect the Army here will somewhat grudgingly move to a 52 cal A8 next FY. Frankly they should stop the A6 conversions, mothball those (or FMS/FMA them) and just get new compete systems.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,226
- Points
- 1,160
I hate using Wikipedia as a reference but that's exactly what it sounds like to me. I presume there is a substantial cost saving in using the same ordnance, turret and fire control system.
Since the M1299 has gone down the tubes, I don't think they have any choice. My guess is that they'll do only some of them to start. The new armd div's GS battalions, perhaps.
But they've been doing A7 conversions since 2014. Again, citing Wikipedia (the world's most accurate research site) there are 271 x A7s in service, 400 x A6s in service and another 850 x A6 in storage (according to the 2024 IISS).
Interestingly I noted an article from 2021 identifying the 1-113th FA of the North Carolina National Guard as the first ARNG unit to get A7s. The article goes on to say that the ARNG makes up the majority of the arty units equipped with M109s. Sigh. We had a full three battalions worth of A4+s. Could we figure out a way to keep them - Oh. Nooooo! - We kept 60-year old self divesting C3s ... and a handful of equally wonderful LG1s that a Griffon can lift for a few miles.
- Reaction score
- 22,371
- Points
- 1,260
Given APMV is a Bradley chassis as well, I suspect the ability to produce the chassis far outstrips what is current being done.
With the US Army, the A6 to A7 mod allowed the obsolete chassis to be divested.
Since Canada doesn’t have A6’s the isn’t much point in getting A6’s to upgrade to A7’s then eventually upgrade to A8’s
I’d suggest that a fresh A8 buy of 116 would be Canada’s best choice.
That provides 4 X 24 gun Regiments (I wish you used BN) for 96 (baking extras for Reserve units or the RRCA to be reconstituted and a hybrid Reg/Res Artillery construct to be created).
8 for W Bty in Gagetown (if it’s a thing still)
8 for Shilo School
4 for Wpn and Vehicle Tech schools
That allows for 2RCHA to have all the M777’s
1RCHA and 5RALC to be 109 with full 3 8 gun batteries, as well as two full PRes Regiments (which I suspect would take nearly all the RCA units other than those tasked to AD).
That should still allows for the LRPF program
With the US Army, the A6 to A7 mod allowed the obsolete chassis to be divested.
Since Canada doesn’t have A6’s the isn’t much point in getting A6’s to upgrade to A7’s then eventually upgrade to A8’s
I’d suggest that a fresh A8 buy of 116 would be Canada’s best choice.
That provides 4 X 24 gun Regiments (I wish you used BN) for 96 (baking extras for Reserve units or the RRCA to be reconstituted and a hybrid Reg/Res Artillery construct to be created).
8 for W Bty in Gagetown (if it’s a thing still)
8 for Shilo School
4 for Wpn and Vehicle Tech schools
That allows for 2RCHA to have all the M777’s
1RCHA and 5RALC to be 109 with full 3 8 gun batteries, as well as two full PRes Regiments (which I suspect would take nearly all the RCA units other than those tasked to AD).
That should still allows for the LRPF program
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,226
- Points
- 1,160
Seeing that AMPV is new and the A7 conversion is, makes me think we'll be seeing Bradleys for some time to come. That actually creates a very good tracked fleet to concentrate on with the LAVs as a second fleet. Honestly if both the Bradley and LAV could be converted to Moog turrets you'd have weapon commonality as well.
That makes sense to me and timelines don't seem to matter to Canada it's not as if we need to make an interim purchase. To me if we go "interim" on an A^, then that is where we will be for a long time.
I wish we would use the term battalion as well - have for some time - when I was a young teen gunner I always wondered what the sense was of having a regiment (7 Toronto) inside a regiment (The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery). Don't get me started on the armoured or infantry.
I'd be good with two tranches. As I've previously groused, I'd reconvert the three RegF regiments to six hybrid regiments. 1 RCHA is the only RegF regt that remains. The remaining RegF gunners are split into 7 x 30/70 gun regts (this is a change for me of +1) each with one RegF gun battery, 1 x 70/30 GBAD regt with 2 x RegF AD batteries and 1 x 30/70 LRPF regt with 1 x RegF battery. All regts (except GBAD) are 18 x gun/launcher configurations with 2 x 3 gun/launchers per bty capable of single gun deployments.
The first tranche of new SPs is to equip the RCAS with 7 guns (a bty with a spare) to teach high end gunnery. All DP1 training is done at the unit/div schools. 3 x tech spares. Also 4 x 6-gun batteries to 26 Fd Shilo, 7 Tor, 56 Fd Brantford and 1 RCHA stationed in Latvia. Each has one RegF bty equipped with 6 x new SPs. (That totals 34 new guns in Tranche 1) and is sufficient to have a RegF battery posted into Latvia with a RegF HQ and CSS and three RegF batteries to train and prep for posting to Latvia.
30 Fd's title moves to Petawawa and it becomes a 70/30 unit with its HQ and two RegF M777 batteries in Petawawa. It is equipped with 2 x 6-gun M777 batteries. Each of 2 Fd Montreal and 6 Fd Levis become 30/70 units with 1 x 6 - M777 battery each. 6 Fd's HQ and RegF battery are located in Valcartier. That totals 24 x M777 plus 6 for RCAS and 3 tech spares (none in Latvia)
That creates sufficient guns and RegF batteries to be aggregated (if required) into a fully equip a 3-battery SP regt and an 3-battery M777 regt with an additional spare battery. More than enough to train and continuously equip for Canada's operational missions as they stand.
The second tranche of new SPs would be raised to round out the force as follows: Two additional new SPs batteries for each of 26 Fd, 7 Tor, 56 Brand, and 1 RCHA (total 48 new guns); three new SP batteries for each of 2 Fd Mont and 6 Fd Valcartier/Levis (total 36 new guns); and move all M777s to 30 Fd Petawawa to provide three full 6-gun batteries and 6 spares. Total new SPs for Tranche 2 is 84 new SPs for a total purchase across both tranches of 118. (Our figures are damn close Huh!) The end state is 6 x 18-gun SP regiments and 1 x 24 gun M777 regiment to support 2 divisions of 6 manoeuvre brigades and one forward deployed posted/flyover brigade.
