• 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

McG said:
Hand firing 120 mm leads to traumatic brain injury. Expect to see less of that weapon except breach loaded systems in turrets or with auto-loaders.
Click to expand...
Wha? Source research pls.
 
Now keep in mind the 120mm mortar muzzle is not exactly far away from the crews head.

It is possible to reduce the pressure levels Alamed by the crew by redirecting the majority of it further way from the crew.

Longer barrels and blast deflectors are a thing…
 
FJAG said:
Yeah. I could see where 60 some odd battalions of "The Royal Canadian Regiment" might have some resistance.

And what is it with things like "2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment (Queensland Mounted Infantry)?"
Click to expand...
A willingness to combine Battalions? :ROFLMAO:
 
I think you are going to see a gradually move away from the muzzle fed 120mm because of these studies and seeing breechloading versions, either trailered or mounted in lightweight turrets to protect the crew. I was a fan of getting these, but looking at what the Carl-G and 105 did to me and these are appear to be even worse, and multiple it by thousands of claims, that would pay for some turreted mortar SPG's in the long run.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
I think you are going to see a gradually move away from the muzzle fed 120mm because of these studies and seeing breechloading versions, either trailered or mounted in lightweight turrets to protect the crew. I was a fan of getting these, but looking at what the Carl-G and 105 did to me and these are appear to be even worse, and multiple it by thousands of claims, that would pay for some turreted mortar SPG's in the long run.
Click to expand...
You either pay for the right gear up front or continue to pay later for the damage you've caused.

Don't be surprised if government (which includes military leadership) selects to save money (or more kindly - obtain more equipment for the same bucks) in the present and leave future problems to future governments. There's also the quantum of costs issue - will the future health care claims be larger in future dollars than the current cost differential between the two equipment options? That's if future damage even crosses their minds.

Sigh

🍻
 
One could take your statement above as a bit of a subtle criticism of what Ukraine is doing in regards to using artillery. I don't think we are in a position to critic anyone else when it comes to artillery. A arm we have allowed to whither since the 1990's.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Not sure if Canada can lecture anyone on the role of artillery or systems to use.
Click to expand...
Why not? The PM lectures other countries on all kinds of things.

Seriously though, we know artillery fairly well. We just don't have the resources to practice it. Like the armoured corps, the Canadian artillery is the victim of an infantry-centric army with limited resources.

🍻
 
Colin Parkinson said:
One could take your statement above as a bit of a subtle criticism of what Ukraine is doing in regards to using artillery. I don't think we are in a position to critic anyone else when it comes to artillery. A arm we have allowed to whither since the 1990's.
Click to expand...
You needed to want to find a criticism of Ukraine to have found it, because there was none there. Ukraine is doing what it must to survive. Some decision that Ukraine makes out of necessity would be catastrophically stupid for Canada to make while not in the same circumstances. This thread is about Canada replacing its 105 mm howitzers. That Ukraine is building new towed howitzers is not an argument for Canada to invest in the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bossi
Real war story from Iraq (not Hollywood)
Replies
2
Views
5K
Fruss
F
Back
Top