# Cdn. troops exchange fire with insurgents



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Feb 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060219/kandahar_troops_060219

CTV.ca News Staff

Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan exchanged fire with a group of insurgents on Saturday.

Military officials told The Canadian Press that attackers fired three rocket-propelled grenades at a platoon from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry taking shelter in a compound in Gumbad, about 60 kilometres northeast of Kandahar.

No Canadians were reportedly injured in the attack, which occurred at about 7:30 p.m. local time. The rockets fell into fields surrounding the camp, just south of the small village.

Military officials said a patrol was sent out to investigate the enemy firing positions, but found no sign of insurgents. 

It's the first minor skirmish reported since a new rotation of Canadian soldiers began arriving in the country for Task Force Afghanistan during the past month. The number of soldiers is expected to reach 2,200 by next month.

The news comes as 87 more soldiers are en route to Kandahar after saying goodbye to loved ones in Edmonton on Saturday. The troops are leaving after several serious roadside bombings and vehicle accidents have wounded their comrades.

As some families said goodbye, 40 troops returned from their six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan, arriving at Edmonton International Airport.

Meanwhile, three Canadian soldiers injured in Afghanistan will soon be flying home to Canada. The three returnees are currently at a U.S.-run military hospital in Germany.

Glad to hear all are ok.


----------



## MikeM (19 Feb 2006)

Give 'em hell guys!

Good to see everyone is ok.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Feb 2006)

60 km from Khandahar?  What kind of firesupport do they have?  IMHO, more reason for some Gunner's to go packing with them, bringing some 81mm.  That, or establish (re-establish?) a quasi advanced mortar course at the Infantry School, for use with the 60mm.  Sure, the range is limited with it, but if there were 4 of them with each "group" (not necessarily per company, but task tailored), that gives that "element" an integral indirect fire support that is quick, responsive, and effective to 2800 metres!

Having said all that, glad to hear that our lads are well, and that as alluded to in the title of the article, that they were able to exchange fire, just just take it (Note to Canada: this ain't Bosnia)


----------



## Haggis (19 Feb 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> 60 km from Khandahar?  What kind of firesupport do they have?  IMHO, more reason for some Gunner's to go packing with them, bringing some 81mm.  That, or establish (re-establish?) a quasi advanced mortar course at the Infantry School, for use with the 60mm.  Sure, the range is limited with it, but if there were 4 of them with each "group" (not necessarily per company, but task tailored), that gives that "element" an integral indirect fire support that is quick, responsive, and effective to 2800 metres!
> 
> Having said all that, glad to hear that our lads are well, and that as alluded to in the title of the article, that they were able to exchange fire, just just take it (Note to Canada: this ain't Bosnia)



Looks like they did more than cap off a few in return:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/19/1451420-cp.html

"The Canadians returned fire, illuminating the area with flares and firing shells from their new M777 howitzer. "


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Feb 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Looks like they did more than cap off a few in return:
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/19/1451420-cp.html
> 
> "The Canadians returned fire, illuminating the area with flares and firing shells from their new M777 howitzer. "



Groovy!  
"The guns!  The guns!  Thank God!  The guns!"


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2006)

who would have thought
the CF bought something "off the shelf" (777s) and they worked as advertised!

now if we could use the LSVWs for target practice


----------



## Gunner (19 Feb 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Groovy!
> "The guns!  The guns!  Thank God!  The guns!"



We don't need no stinkin 81's.


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> We don't need no stinkin 81's.



Don't need no stinkin LSVWs either


----------



## Armymedic (19 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> who would have thought
> the CF bought something "off the shelf" (777s) and they worked as advertised!



from what I understand:
Bought off the shelf...without parts.

Something breaks and those M777 become 10000 lb paperweights.

Good new though, we have 30 Excaliber rounds.


----------



## Cannonfodder (19 Feb 2006)

30 excaliber rounds at 30,000 US a pop , accurate within 10 meters at 20 KM , range of 40 KM , smart artillery ? . Who  needs air support ? sounds like a cost effective weapons platform , I hope commanders dont worry too much about the cost . Are the regular 155 rounds about 1000 each ? .


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Feb 2006)

maybe we can scrounge parts off the Americans.

And we'd be more then happy to take the 81's back.


----------



## TCBF (19 Feb 2006)

"60 km from Khandahar?  What kind of firesupport do they have? "

- Same as we had on two-Coyote (a "patrol") 8 hour 100km long loops out of KAF in 2002:
Apache, B-52, etc.

Tom


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "60 km from Khandahar?  What kind of firesupport do they have? "
> 
> - Same as we had on two-Coyote (a "patrol") 8 hour 100km long loops out of KAF in 2002:
> Apache, B-52, etc.
> ...


Let me rephrase: what kind of INTEGRAL and GUARANTEED fire support do they have?  From what others have already said, the M777s were within range and responsive.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Feb 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> We don't need no stinkin 81's.


Then gimme back me friggin' mortars ;-)


----------



## greydak (19 Feb 2006)

- Are they running their patrols out of a FOB?

- Do we have any air support? (Drop the shy Hawks as a diversion) 

- M777 sounds great, until you get further then 40km then what?


----------



## MikeL (19 Feb 2006)

greydak said:
			
		

> - Are they running their patrols out of a FOB?
> 
> - Do we have any air support? (Drop the shy Hawks as a diversion)
> 
> - M777 sounds great, until you get further then 40km then what?



For CAS, etc  we rely on our allies over there.





Anyways, good on our guys for dishing it back out an none got injured.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Feb 2006)

MikeL said:
			
		

> Anyways, good on our guys for dishing it back out an none got injured.


Amen!


----------



## Armymatters (19 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> greydak...
> beyond 40Km........ like maybe we move the 155s forward
> they are haulable and air portable (with a little bit of help froms a Chinook)



In theory, we can also lift the M777 using a Sikorsky Black Hawk, but we will have to leave behind the ammo, crew, and we are range limited to roughly 80nm (if we are talking about the the US Army's updated model, the UH-60M, which has a better performing main rotor, plus other minor improvements). 

Anyways, good job to our guys dishing out some serious return fire against those insurgents.


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2006)

love that FTD saying....

"Reach out and touch someone"

Priceless!


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (19 Feb 2006)

They'll be thinking a little harder next time, when the idea of taking pot shots comes to their heads...


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Feb 2006)

> In theory, we can also lift the M777 using a Sikorsky Black Hawk, but we will have to leave behind the ammo, crew, and we are range limited to roughly 80nm (if we are talking about the the US Army's updated model, the UH-60M, which has a better performing main rotor, plus other minor improvements).



Seen,

What is your opinion on reaction time of the lift move?

dileas

tess


----------



## Armymatters (20 Feb 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Seen,
> 
> What is your opinion on reaction time of the lift move?
> 
> ...



I have no comments on it, but from the looks of it, it looks fairly inefficient if you are lifting using a Black Hawk, as you pretty much have to strip the gun down to the bare minimum in order to lift it with a Black Hawk. You either have the Black Hawk running 3 times back and forth, bringing the crew, then the ammo, then the gun, or you have 2-3 Black Hawk's going to lift just one gun and everything that goes with it. A EH-101 would look better, but only marginally so, as it looks like you need to do two runs (the gun can go with the crew now, but the ammo comes seperate), but really, to lift a useful combat load plus the crew, a CH-47 Chinook or a CH-53E Sea Stallion would be a whole lot better. Haul the gun, crew and ammo all in a single lift. What I would like to see is some sort of CF heavy lift chopper (either Chinook or Sea Stallion, or something in the same catergory) in service.


----------



## Goober (20 Feb 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> from what I understand:
> Bought off the shelf...without parts.
> ...



BAE systems will supply the parts.



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> 30 excaliber rounds at 30,000 US a pop , accurate within 10 meters at 20 KM , range of 40 KM , smart artillery ? . ...



Accurate to less than 10 meters at 40 KM. On paper anyway. The UH-60M Black Hawk wouldn't lift a M777 you would need a chinook, an Osprey or fixed wing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Feb 2006)

> In theory, we can also lift the M777 using a Sikorsky Black Hawk, but we will have to leave behind the ammo, crew, and we are range limited to roughly 80nm (if we are talking about the the US Army's updated model, the UH-60M, which has a better performing main rotor, plus other minor improvements).



Armymatters- would you care to post the 8,000 ft performance charts (both In and Out of Ground Effect) for the UH-60M?  I'm having trouble verifying your claim...


----------



## Armymatters (20 Feb 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Armymatters- would you care to post the 8,000 ft performance charts (both In and Out of Ground Effect) for the UH-60M?  I'm having trouble verifying your claim...



Check the Sikorsky website and their PDF regarding the Black Hawk.
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,167,00.pdf
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,245,00.pdf
Look at the charts regarding hover ceiling, it gives a decent idea of what it can do.
Assume the Black Hawk is fully loaded (at max external gross weight, which is 23,500 lbs), according to the charts, at 8000 ft, and ambient temperatures of around +10C we will need ground effect just to get the Black Hawk airborne with the load, if we are operating clean, and the gun is at production weight. Once the load is airborne, and we are in foward flight, the load will stay airborne. The charts are the the -L model, which only has uprated engines (compared to the baseline model), compared to the -M, which features a new wide chord composite spar main rotor blades (which will provide 500lb more lift than the current UH-60L blade), and the General Electric T700-GE-701D engine, which is even more powerful than the ones on the -L. 

In short, with the -L, it is a bit iffy, but possible, but with the -M, it is definetely possible, barely.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2006)

The US Army tested the M777 in its intial design weight being lifted by a UH-60H, which was around 8500 pounds. However, the final design came in at 9300 pounds and 9800 pounds for the A1 version.
As a result it can only be lifted by the Ch-47,CH-53 or the Osprey. Also to lift the payload in Afghanistan with the higher altitudes would be a safety issue. It could do it in an emergency and only for a short distance. There are enough Chinook's in theater to lift a couple of M777's if the need arises.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Feb 2006)

> In short, with the -L, it is a bit iffy, but possible, but with the -M, it is definetely possible, barely.



That's not the way I read the charts (which are only for and S-70A and the -60L), but, hey, I guess you are the expert.

Can Duey wade in here?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Feb 2006)

I think he's bucking for a job with Janes Defence Weekly. ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2006)

Low rate production of the UH-60M began last year with 22 airframes and will be increased to 90 a year by 2012. There are 1200 UH-60's to be upgraded and there may be up to 300 new production UH-60's.

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/PRNEWS/20050606/2005_06_06_14_1154_1384409


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Feb 2006)

Holy heck...last time I read this thread it was comfortably on the tracks!  

Armymatters, before you even get to the chart, the 'Hawk's hook is only rated to 9,000lbs, current M777's and future developments are non-starters.  Geo, Goober and Tomahawk are right...'Hook is the only thing in theatre to lift this puppy (the M777).  I'd recommend that before you start cranking your brain too hard on the load charts, that you think about the whole picture and remember that a helo is not very useful without its crew and some fuel.  Basic weight means lubricating fluids and NOTHING else in the aircraft.  Crew, pers gear, fuel, reserves, ammo, etc...all eat into your payload.  Then think about using the beasties in ISA+30 and ISA+40 conditions at altitudes several thousands of feet above home aerodrome elevation (which I'm sure you know from your scholastic research) and you'll start to get the picture about conditions over here.  When a machine like the Chinook can only comfortably deliver 1/2 to 2/3's at best of its sea-level payload where it has to be delivered, there's something to be said for how demanding the environment is.  Oh, BTW, the -60M's 701Ds have better hot and high performance than the L's 701Cs, but the MGB doesn't have an increased rating so the M's engines' benefit are only realized for OEI conditions.

One should be weary of taking any manufacturer's glossy performance charts to indicate true battlefield performance.  Only the charts found in the ac flight manual have any real value...everything else is making the machine look impressive.

Let's just look at the S-70A (Int'l ver) charts for a sec... http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,167,00.pdf...the HOGE chart on page 16 of 24 in the linked document.  I'll use ISA+30, which roughly slides the PA/MGTOW intersect line to the right by 10* throughout the chart (a fair assumption, but not exact).  I want to see what kind of slung load I can insert at a location 3000' above KAF's aerodrome (~3000' itself), so I'm looking at a pressure altitude of 6000'.  I know of several locations that have been "visited" above this, but I'm just picking 6000' insertion altitude as "kind" example to the -60.

Start at 6000' PA on the left.  Drive right along the 6000' line until you hit ISA+20 slant intersect (reference down to about 23*C) and slide 10 more degrees to the right along the 6000' PA line (to get to ISA+30 equivalent).  Now take a pen or straight edge and align it with that point along the 6000' PA line that represents 10 degrees past the ISA+20 slant line....now rotate your straight edge about 30 CW, to make it perpendicular to the MHOGEW (max hover out of ground-effect weight) curves and you should see that the maximum permissable hover weight is about 18,800 lbs.  Now consider the basic weight is 11,744...which I'll be kind to an aircraft with defensive EW suite and countermeasures and add 356 lbs...okay, up to 12,100...add four crew (pilot x 2, FE, LM) with their gear...300 lbs each is totally reasonable with PPE and survival gear, etc...1,200 added to 12,100 equals 13,300.  Okay, now time to add armament (lets say 2 x C6/M249 with ammo)...another 550 lbs...up to 13,850lbs.  Now give the 'Hawk a 75nm radius of action, with 10 minutes to hover and dispatch the load and return to base and keep 20 min reserves...(150nm at 60 kts = 2.5 hrs at 1,500 lbs/hr = 3,750lbs fuel for transit + 200 for the 10 minute hover + 500 lbs for reserves = 4,450lbs fuel)...means 4,450lbs fuel to the 13,850 operational weight equals 18,300lbs....which subtracted from the 18,800lbs max hover out of ground effect at 6000'PA and ISA+30 =.....

     500 lbs on the hook...

Wow...that's pretty good, how many IMPs was that again???

Armymatters, I won't directly recommend that you stay in your lane, but parroting corporate glossiness without deeper, dare I say, operationally-experienced analysis is a recipe for embarrassment...


Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  Good on the boys for returning fire...any word as to whether we used Excalibur rounds or std 155?


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> In short, with the -L, it is a bit iffy, but possible, but with the -M, it is definetely possible, barely.



Hardly the kind of margin on which you would want to be hinging the reliability of deploying your fire support in operations.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Feb 2006)

Duey- thank-you for the straight goods.  Always a pleasure dealing with the pros!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Holy heck...last time I read this thread it was comfortably on the tracks!
> 
> Armymatters, before you even get to the chart, the 'Hawk's hook is only rated to 9,000lbs, current M777's and future developments are non-starters.  Geo, Goober and Tomahawk are right...'Hook is the only thing in theatre to lift this puppy (the M777).  I'd recommend that before you start cranking your brain too hard on the load charts, that you think about the whole picture and remember that a helo is not very useful without its crew and some fuel.  Basic weight means lubricating fluids and NOTHING else in the aircraft.  Crew, pers gear, fuel, reserves, ammo, etc...all eat into your payload.  Then think about using the beasties in ISA+30 and ISA+40 conditions at altitudes several thousands of feet above home aerodrome elevation (which I'm sure you know from your scholastic research) and you'll start to get the picture about conditions over here.  When a machine like the Chinook can only comfortably deliver 1/2 to 2/3's at best of its sea-level payload where it has to be delivered, there's something to be said for how demanding the environment is.  Oh, BTW, the -60M's 701Ds have better hot and high performance than the L's 701Cs, but the MGB doesn't have an increased rating so the M's engines' benefit are only realized for OEI conditions.
> 
> ...



So what you're saying is NDHQ needs to write up a spec sheet for 500lb 155mm howizter?  Sorry, 300lb 155mm howitzer so we've got some additional capacity for ammo.


Matt.   ;D


----------



## TCBF (20 Feb 2006)

It will have to be built in the Mirimachi, you left that out.


----------



## McG (20 Feb 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> ... more reason for some Gunner's to go packing with them...


What's to say our gunners haven't been out there with the infantry?



			
				greydak said:
			
		

> - M777 sounds great, until you get further then 40km then what?


Move them.  They do have wheels.



			
				vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Let me rephrase: what kind of INTEGRAL and GUARANTEED fire support do they have?


The Bty is a part of the BG.  That sounds integral to me.


----------



## Guy. E (20 Feb 2006)

why is it when i read this, i get that warm fuzzy fealing inside...  

Give em hell  >


----------



## KevinB (20 Feb 2006)

>  thanks Duey.

Folks we live in a world that has lanes - stay in them...


----------



## Armymedic (20 Feb 2006)

now that Armymatters has been successfully summed up...

Does anyone find the sensationalized headline slightly deceiving?

I mean, what is the headline going to be when the guys get into a running small arms gunfight?


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (20 Feb 2006)

"They turned their cannons on the insurgents, first sending up flares to illuminate the area before dropping explosive rounds." 
Why illuminate the area? When we have the night vision advantage it seems to me we should lose it by giving light to the enemy that has no night vision equipment. I don't understand.  ???


----------



## Armymedic (20 Feb 2006)

I do not believe that we have handheld night vision binoculars.


----------



## Blakey (20 Feb 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> "They turned their cannons on the insurgents, first sending up flares to illuminate the area before dropping explosive rounds."
> Why illuminate the area? When we have the night vision advantage it seems to me we should lose it by giving light to the enemy *that has no night vision equipment.* I don't understand.  ???


IMO, That is an assumption that could probably get you killed over there. What is it Zun Tsu said about never underestimating your enemy...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, (fellows that have been / are there now) but considering these "anti-coalition forces" (as some news outlets describe them) have/are funded from various terror organizations, it is easy to pick up night vision equipment civi side.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Feb 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I do not believe that we have handheld night vision binoculars.


We do.  And they are thermal.  Not all have them, but all have the Monocular Night Vision Goggles.  Need "some" ambient light for them to be effective.  Maybe it was an illuminate-coordinate mission


----------



## Goober (20 Feb 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> "They turned their cannons on the insurgents, first sending up flares to illuminate the area before dropping explosive rounds."
> Why illuminate the area? When we have the night vision advantage it seems to me we should lose it by giving light to the enemy that has no night vision equipment. I don't understand.  ???



Reasons why the target was illuminated could be many fold. The first and foremost that comes to my mind is, adjustment. The OP has to see the rounds come in. Our night vision goggles offer no depth perception. Illumination can also cause the enemy to panic and become disorientated.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Feb 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> What's to say our gunners haven't been out there with the infantry?
> Move them.  They do have wheels.
> The Bty is a part of the BG.  That sounds integral to me.


Not saying that the gunners haven't been out there with them.  Just saying that a group of mortars (or troop, if you will) out there with those beyond the reach of the guns pretty well puts to bed the question as to how to move a M777 that fast to respond to a multi-level and simultaneous call for fire
Yes, they have wheels, but so do the Mortar Bison variant (which is no longer used), and the mortar bison is quicker into action.  Much quicker.
Yes, the Bty is part of the BG, just as a Bty always has been.  The BG (or TF) level FSCC had a minimum of three fire units previously (two mortar groups and a battery).  Less is indeed less in this case.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Feb 2006)

Goober said:
			
		

> Reasons why the target was illuminated could be many fold. The first and foremost that comes to my mind is, adjustment. The OP has to see the rounds come in. Our night vision goggles offer no depth perception. Illumination can also cause the enemy to panic and become disorientated.


Yes, very much so.  So many reasons to illuminate.  Remember, illum can be used to assist in adjustment (if required, but MSTAR puts that to bed), or even marking for aircraft.  Who knows?  Illum ain't just for seeing anymore


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (20 Feb 2006)

Goober said:
			
		

> Reasons why the target was illuminated could be many fold. The first and foremost that comes to my mind is, adjustment. The OP has to see the rounds come in. Our night vision goggles offer no depth perception. Illumination can also cause the enemy to panic and become disorientated.


OK, thanks for illuminating me.  ;D


----------



## Goober (21 Feb 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Not saying that the gunners haven't been out there with them.  Just saying that a group of mortars (or troop, if you will) out there with those beyond the reach of the guns pretty well puts to bed the question as to how to move a M777 that fast to respond to a multi-level and simultaneous call for fire
> Yes, they have wheels, but so do the Mortar Bison variant (which is no longer used), and the mortar bison is quicker into action.  Much quicker.
> Yes, the Bty is part of the BG, just as a Bty always has been.  The BG (or TF) level FSCC had a minimum of three fire units previously (two mortar groups and a battery).  Less is indeed less in this case.



Can you explain more about the Mortor Bison. I'm not mortor qualified, and would like to know a bit more. How fast can it get into action and recorded?

We had the M777 recorded, and ready to fire rounds in xxxxxxxxxxxxxx from when the truck stopped and "Halt! Action Front!" was called.

Mod note: Deleted time.....remember OPSEC troops!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

"We had the M777 recorded, and ready to fire rounds in xxxxxxxxxx from when the truck stopped and "Halt! Action Front!" was called"

Is that good?

Same as above.....OPSEC!


----------



## Gunner (21 Feb 2006)

xxxxxxxxxxx is good, particularly for an action front.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

Thank you.


----------



## Goober (21 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> "We had the M777 recorded, and ready to fire rounds in xxxxxxxxx  from when the truck stopped and "Halt! Action Front!" was called"
> 
> Is that good?



Very good. It takes about  xxxxxx to record a C3 105mm howitzer.


----------



## Goober (21 Feb 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> xxxxxxxxxx  is good, particularly for an action front.



For the M777 since its towed by the front, there is no manhandling of the gun like an Action Front with a C3, its like the Action Rear with the C3.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

Thanks for elaborating.


----------



## Gunner (21 Feb 2006)

Goober, ack!  :-[ I was thinking moving the gun tractor out of the way, etc.


----------



## Goober (21 Feb 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Goober, ack!  :-[ I was thinking moving the gun tractor out of the way, etc.



Oh sorry, my bad. Yea, the gun tractor has to pull around behind the gun, then when its ready to hook in, pull back in front, and back up. So there is more fooling around with the gun tractor on a M777, as opposed to the C3.


----------



## MJP (21 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> p.s.  Good on the boys for returning fire...any word as to whether we used Excalibur rounds or std 155?



Talking to the FOO attached to us they don't have the excalibur rounds yet either in Canada or in country with us, some kind of problem with the testing according to them.


----------



## armchair (21 Feb 2006)

If I under stand it right Canada is the the first to deploy the new M777 overseas so this action would be the first time this gun system
was fired in anger? Correct me if I'm wrong


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Feb 2006)

Goober said:
			
		

> Can you explain more about the Mortor Bison. I'm not mortor qualified, and would like to know a bit more. How fast can it get into action and recorded?
> 
> We had the M777 recorded, and ready to fire rounds in xxxxxxx from when the truck stopped and "Halt! Action Front!" was called.


Hi Goober.  I checked but could not find the assessment guides for the 81 (Bison).  For the ground mounted role, I believe from the time "Rounds Action" is called that they have xxxxxxx to do it in (some are better, some don't make it).  Also, the bedding in is a detriment when in the dismounted role; however, the C120 makes it easier as the C120 is basically a shotgun round (fires pellets in the air, so that you don't give yourself away to counter mortar radar, etc).  You just lay on centre of arc, elevetion of 1100, and when ready as a group, fire two rounds bedding in: no need to wait for the first call for fire.  Of course, with the bison, there is no need to bed in (a big plus)

I'll keep checking!


----------



## CdnArtyWife (21 Feb 2006)

Hey all, just wanted to say...

YAY 1 Horse! Some of those arty guys are good friends of ours...and we just recieved this pic of the "babies" from one of them last week...







I, too, get that "warm and fuzzy" feeling from reading this thread.


----------



## Goober (21 Feb 2006)

Nice pic CdnArtyWife. I wonder how the guns are doing in the Afghan weather, probably pretty damn good. In warm weather, I'd rather be on a M777 det as opposed to a C3 det, but in Shilo winters... I'd rather be on a C3 det.

In December, when we had the guns in the field in Shilo, took us about 50 some minutes to record one gun. 45 of those minutes was digging it in with a jackhammer and a concrete saw.


----------



## Hollywog (21 Feb 2006)

Blakey said:
			
		

> IMO, That is an assumption that could probably get you killed over there. What is it Zun Tsu said about never underestimating your enemy...
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, (fellows that have been / are there now) but considering these "anti-coalition forces" (as some news outlets describe them) have/are funded from various terror organizations, it is easy to pick up night vision equipment civi side.




It's not like they have no coin.  

their pay,.....

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1140475845405&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

If the article isn't hogwash.


----------



## Guy. E (21 Feb 2006)

<(that picture)


----------



## Blakey (21 Feb 2006)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> It's not like they have no coin.
> 
> their pay,.....
> 
> ...


I don't understand your post, are you saying you agree that they "are funded funded from various terror organization's", and as such, would be able to acquire this equipment? OR are you being facetious when you say that they "have no coin"?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

I think he is saying that the terrorists do have money to spend on kit.


----------



## Guy. E (21 Feb 2006)

Well, the average Afghan family there is living off of about $1 Can a day.

What do old left over Russian RPG cost over the AK's?

I'm trying to figure out what it most cost effective here, hiring suicide bombers or civvies as murks off the street as opposed to equipting loyal insurgents.


Over there in Afghanistan when the Canadians first showed up and perhaps even now, there was a problem with traffic accidents. The thing was/ is its bad to stop a convoy for any period of time. (it takes only about 10-15 min to call in your local suicide bomber) what was happening to my understanding is in the event of a traffic accident the Afghan was given a filled out piece of paper which they brought to they're friendly local CF....Base/ Camp? wile the convoy kept moving. Form they're they (the Afghans) were given $100 in return for the damaged vehicle.

Like said above, they only live off of about $1 a day. if you were given $100 nearly 1/3 of a years living costs for supporting your family, for getting a vehicle 'Accident' what would you do? even is someone wanted to give you some money to go shoot people there to help you.


yea, the cash it tough over there. and most anybody will do anything for some money.


sorry for the hijacking, I'm sure most/ all of you knew this already. but if you didn't, there it is.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> well, the average Afghan family there is living off of about $1 Can a day.
> 
> what does an old left over Russian RPG cost? of the AK's?
> 
> ...


Do you know how long it took me to decipher your post?  Are you taking Senior Matriculation in School?


----------



## Guy. E (21 Feb 2006)

??? how did that happen  ???

I'm guessing that it took more time to edit the quote and make the errors stick out  then it did to over look the little F* ups and just read it.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2006)

NO!

I originally deleted my post, so as not to hijack this thread.  However, you insist on using poor spelling, grammar and then MSN speak in all your posts, so I thought I had better put it back.  We have a neat tool that picks up most spelling mistakes.  That, and I get tired of seeing people who don't know the difference between: there; their; they're and other words like it is, it's, its' etc.  I also notice you don't know the first thing about sentence structure, capitalization, and punctuation.  I am amazed at how poorly people can write at your supposed level of education, and then they want to become Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Officers in the Military, and other highly positioned jobs, yet they have not mastered the use of the written word.

Feel any better now; that your question has been answered?


----------



## geo (21 Feb 2006)

George...
Not everyone's mother tongue is English
what I have read from Guy over the last little while is relatively easy to read.

Armchair,
Canada is not the 1st country to deploy the M777. The USMC have it in Iraq. We might be the 1st in Afghanistan..... certainly 1st in Kandahar area


----------



## RangerRay (21 Feb 2006)

CdnArtyWife ,

Can I share that picture around?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

Has it been mentioned as to who called in the fire mission, ie the patrol commander or FOO Party etc.


----------



## Guy. E (21 Feb 2006)

so much for that. Back to topic.


----------



## 043 (21 Feb 2006)

Glad to see the guns finally getting used on a tour!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well done and lets hope they get more action!!!!!!!!

Chimo!!!!!


----------



## CdnArtyWife (21 Feb 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> CdnArtyWife ,
> 
> Can I share that picture around?



I don't think it would be a problem, as my hubby has already circulated it around the Arty School.

Go nuts!

Kara


----------



## Goober (21 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Armchair,
> Canada is not the 1st country to deploy the M777. The USMC have it in Iraq. We might be the 1st in Afghanistan..... certainly 1st in Kandahar area



Canada is the first to use the M777 in any theatre. The US won't have it in Iraq until March or April, according to Major Moore of the US NETT team.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

I believe you but is there any report etc that you can produce to back up what your saying ie from the Maj Moore etc.


----------



## geo (21 Feb 2006)

I stand corrected.......

Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment stationed at Twentynine Palms, California, were the first unit to receive the M777. 

495 M777A1 are due to be delivered over a four-year period starting in July 2006 and running through to October 2009.

Late in 2005 it was revealed that Canada was to take delivery of six M777 systems from the initial US Marine Corps order of 94 M777s. These will be deployed to Afghanistan in 2006. 

http://www8.janes.com/Search/documentView.do?docId=/content1/janesdata/yb/jaa/jaa_0550.htm@current&pageSelected=allJanes&keyword=m777&backPath=http://search.janes.com/Search&Prod_Name=JAA&


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

geo did the Marines you mentioned take them over to Iraq and if so were they used?


----------



## geo (21 Feb 2006)

From what Jane's says, the units they have taken into delivery were the test beds.
Production models are coming out in July

Then again, I ain't no gunner and have no contact in the USMC anymore... will take Goober's word for it. The USMC often feels comfortable working with some older pieces of kit (Hey, it works!) eg: Cobra gun ships..... so using the older towed 155s shouldn't bee too much of a hardship. Also, not sure where they are with the Excalubur rounds that the guns are designed around.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

I agree with you and Goober.  I'd just like to see something "Official" is all.


----------



## manhole (21 Feb 2006)

40 km?   move the guns within range!!  they are mobile.

Ubique


----------



## geo (21 Feb 2006)

already been said Fiddlehead


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Feb 2006)

fiddlehead said:
			
		

> 40 km?   move the guns within range!!  they are mobile.
> 
> Ubique


[Mod edit - removed for OPSEC reasons]


----------



## 043 (21 Feb 2006)

It must feel good for the Artillerymen over there to finally, after years of deploying and not doing anything, do there job!!!!!!!


----------



## Goober (21 Feb 2006)

The info I have is first hand from Major Moore himself, however, there is a report in the arty news section at www.army.gc.ca which has a quote by the Major, which I believe says the same thing, in print.

It might be in the LFWA website too. I'll try and find it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

Thanks.  I do believe you but just wanted to see it in print as well.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Feb 2006)

A very similar picture was in the newspaper.


----------



## Andy (22 Feb 2006)

Insurgents firing rocket-propelled grenades attacked fresh <Canadian> troops manning an outpost in southern Afghanistan on the weekend in a first test of their resolve under fire. 

The platoon from Princess Patricia's <Canadian> <Light> <Infantry> answered with a fusillade from their rifles and machine-guns while an artillery crew a few kilometres away cut loose a couple dozen deafening rounds from their new 155-millimetre howitzers. 

No one was hurt in the exchange. It was the first skirmish between <Canadians> and anti-coalition forces since the military beefed up its presence in southern Afghanistan, officials said. 

<Canadians> and Afghan soldiers later swept through the rocky outcroppings where the enemy had launched their rockets. 

"Nothing was found," said Lt.-Col. Ian Hope, the head of the <PPCLI> battle group, who was visiting the battery of howitzers when the fight broke out. 

"There were no locals, there was no enemy traces found. But that's quite normal too because normally they shoot and they run." 

The hit-and-run attack and <Canadian> response began in a downpour at about 7:30 p.m. Saturday evening about 60 kilometres northeast of Kandahar, where the <Canadians> were staying in a small operating base in a farmyard. 

The soldiers were settling in for the night near the village of Gumbad when the RPGs were fired. 

The grenades exploded harmlessly in the fields that surround the mud-walled compound where the <Canadians> were staying, just south of the village. The platoon fired back with rifles and machine-guns and called for support from a nearby <Canadian> artillery crew. They happened to be a few kilometres away trying out their new M777 howitzers. 

They turned their cannons on the insurgents, first sending up flares to illuminate the area before dropping explosive rounds. 

"This was a significant day for them," Hope explained. "It's the first time they've fired rounds ... in an operational theatre." 

The <Canadian> infantry and their Afghan allies then slogged through the mud to the suspected firing positions but found no evidence of the attackers. 

They did find a series of trenches and tunnels used as an escape route. 

"According to our American counterparts, it is a well-known area that the Taliban have used for fortifications in the past," Hope said. 

"They've conducted several ambushes there. They've actually killed some (Afghan National <Army> soldiers) from those positions, so it was no surprise ... that that was an area that they were firing from." 

Nearer to <Canada's> two main bases in Kandahar city, a unit of the <Canadian> Military Engineers removed 43 explosive devices found by the Afghan National Police on Sunday. 

The cache included anti-personnel mines and dozens of components used to make roadside bombs. 

"It's a small amount that's probably made readily available to Taliban forces, but every little bit helps in reducing injuries to coalition forces," said one military engineer who helped collect the devices. Hope said he was pleased with the performance of <Canadian> troops who came under fire. 

"We had two vehicle accidents last week on Wednesday and Thursday," he said. "Since then, every day has been a good day without a casualty." 

Three <Canadian> soldiers were hurt seriously enough to be sent home in the accidents. However, none of the injuries are considered life-threatening.

 >


----------



## Scott (22 Feb 2006)

Do you have a link to your source, please?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Feb 2006)

Isn't this the same incident as the one mentioned a few days back with the new guns firing for the first time in anger?


----------



## Guy. E (22 Feb 2006)

It will require some searching, but it ahs already been posted here and is at upwards of 4 or 5 pages now.


----------



## Andy (22 Feb 2006)

Well I have searched through Military Current Affairs & News and I have found nothing about it.  This just happened on the 18th or 19th of Feb and I saw no posts about it.  

As to the link to the article I found it on the DIN and you can't access it from any home computer just military computers.


----------



## Guy. E (22 Feb 2006)

Ahhh, Good 'ol D-Net

I cant find the oriognal thread here, but here are two pages i had book marked:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y100/CdnArtyWife/AfghanistanBegining034.jpg 

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060219/kandahar_troops_060219


----------



## Armymedic (22 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Isn't this the same incident as the one mentioned a few days back with the new guns firing for the first time in anger?



Yes it is the same article, almost word for word. I believe it was titled:

"Canadians exchange fire with insurgents"

I have no idea where that thread has gone.

BTW I have a problem with this title, like I did that one...."Canadian's Seeing Action"

What have we been rotating with our thumbs in our rectums for the last 20 yrs or something? The only difference now is we are EXPECTED to shoot back.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Feb 2006)

Andy,
Whats with the "Red Devil's" moniker for the company? Saw it in an article a week or so ago.

Isn't that already a nickname for the British Paras?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Feb 2006)

Folks, the thread has been shelved untill we can clean out some OPSEC flaws that were pointed out to us.
Thanks


----------



## big bad john (22 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Folks, the thread has been shelved untill we can clean out some OPSEC flaws that were pointed out to us.
> Thanks.



Thanks for the update.


----------



## Blakey (22 Feb 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Andy,
> Whats with the "Red Devil's" moniker for the company? Saw it in an article a week or so ago.
> 
> Isn't that already a nickname for the British Paras?





			
				MJP said:
			
		

> AFAIK  A-Coy has always had the red devil as it's Coy mascot of sorts.  It wasn't until 2001 that we really started to play it up.  Makes for somes good Esprit de Corps within the Coy.


AM, there is more information in this thread. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39758.0.html


----------



## Armymedic (22 Feb 2006)

Ack. Good show then.

In the future, I wanna see pics of the mascot, in "the shit", so to speak


----------



## MJP (23 Feb 2006)

Will do Armymedic.....


----------

