Author Topic: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?  (Read 32411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2015, 23:44:51 »
Sharki9876, I don't think you're following what I'm saying: the response to the latest problems shows just how diligently the maintenance is being done.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 00:00:28 by Petard »

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,567
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2015, 02:05:01 »
I agree, now i'm no expert but considering how old the C3 is, is it possible the cracks are damage due to the age of the barrels them selves? now of course im just speculating but that is a weak point on the barrel near the muzzle so there would be more of a chance of breaking.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline sidemount

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 455
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2015, 10:18:49 »
These guns are very well maintained, the weapons and EO guys spend a ton of time prior to, during, and after shoots. I was posted to the artillery a few years ago and even with the M777 there, we still spent a lot of time looking after C3s

Petard: the only reason I say they are going to be around is simply due to lack of a replacement. They should have been retired years ago. Even the mortars are taking a beating. The arty needs some new gear beyond just the M777
Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 181,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,118
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2015, 10:38:33 »
I agree, now i'm no expert but considering how old the C3 is, is it possible the cracks are damage due to the age of the barrels them selves? now of course im just speculating but that is a weak point on the barrel near the muzzle so there would be more of a chance of breaking.

I never spent time with the C3. In my day they were the M2A1/C1 version and those barrels had a lot more years and EFCs on them than the C3 probably did. My "guess" is that the extra length and muzzle brake were not up to the extra strains put on them in the first place.

As to avalanche control one should note that of the target data on each avalanche release point is determined by registering the target by live fire and not by calculation. Accordingly a switch to any new weapon system would require re-registering each and every target.

This whole issue has left a bad taste in my mouth about the army/artillery leadership and its ability to develop a reserve force capable of making a contribution to the future of the Canadian Forces. When we decided to replace the M109's (perfectly serviceable guns) out of service we should instead have allocated them to the reserves. Regretfully we have bean counters who are doing our future capabilities planning. Infantry without mortars and artillery running 81mms. I never would have dreamed that we could be so stupid to play such a hollow shell-game.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,567
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2015, 12:06:38 »
I never spent time with the C3. In my day they were the M2A1/C1 version and those barrels had a lot more years and EFCs on them than the C3 probably did. My "guess" is that the extra length and muzzle brake were not up to the extra strains put on them in the first place.

As to avalanche control one should note that of the target data on each avalanche release point is determined by registering the target by live fire and not by calculation. Accordingly a switch to any new weapon system would require re-registering each and every target.

This whole issue has left a bad taste in my mouth about the army/artillery leadership and its ability to develop a reserve force capable of making a contribution to the future of the Canadian Forces. When we decided to replace the M109's (perfectly serviceable guns) out of service we should instead have allocated them to the reserves. Regretfully we have bean counters who are doing our future capabilities planning. Infantry without mortars and artillery running 81mms. I never would have dreamed that we could be so stupid to play such a hollow shell-game.

 :cheers:

In my opinion all equipment such as weapon systems, and vehicles should be given to the reserves, and held for X number of years, not just scrapped. would save us from a lot of problems I think
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 444,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,337
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2015, 12:43:22 »
In my opinion all equipment such as weapon systems, and vehicles should be given to the reserves, and held for X number of years, not just scrapped. would save us from a lot of problems I think

Dumping equipment on the Reserves without ensuring support is a recipe for disaster.  In the current NDHQ environment, however, combat capability magically appears and magically sustains itself, since support is a four-letter word. 
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2015, 13:53:10 »
I sure don't share sidemount's optimism

The latest C3 problems are cracks at the muzzle and the machined clinometer area on the barrel (see pic)

Inspections are ongoing using magnetic particle inspection techniques to determine which guns have these cracks (they can't be detected by eye). Any gun with these type of barrel cracks are permanently prohibited from live fire; no word yet if they'll be allowed to remain with the unit for dry training and salute purposes only.

So far the prognosis isn't good; the cause is not known, and there are no spare barrels to repair them.

I'd say we'll have them within units for another year, but I'd expect a pooling of the few live fire remaining C3 at training centres most likely, and hopefully some dry fire ones still in units for training.
But if they don't determine the cause of this cracking within the next year, I'd say they won't be around much longer.

Having looked at how the threads are cut, I not that surprised. The pressure wave coming down the barrel would hit that cut. It would have been better if the threaded area was proud of the barrel and threads not cutting into the barrel area. The early 105mm had a smooth barrel which was prone to cracking, hence the muzzle swell on the C1.

It would not be difficult to build new parts for this gun and I think South Korea does still make parts. This is very old tech. It just requires will and a plan. It is an excellent gun for the Reserves and we have gotten more than our monies worth out of them. the question is would the cost of rebuilding them be value for money over another newer gun system in 105mm or large mortar in 120mm? 

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2015, 15:09:28 »
It's not as easy as you might think to get someone else to make new barrels for this gun, or anything else for that matter for the C3; although Chile did work out a deal with Royal Ordnance to do so when they bought their version of the C3.

Either way, rebuild or buy new, there wasn't anything planned for the level of expenditures needed to deal with these C3 problems right now.
Something will have to be done soon, and just having the Reserves train using only mortars isn't going to work in the near term either; the majority of the 81s are nearing the end of their service life too.

Offline sharki9876

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 41
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2015, 15:37:31 »
Why are there no plans for new artillery for the reserves? Is it just because we don't have the budget for it?

Also, I'm assuming this is not a problem for the regular forces since they're using newer hardware like the LG-1?


Offline sidemount

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 455
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2015, 16:28:16 »
Reg force is using M777, sometime supplemented by C3 or LG1 (if available). But M777 is the main howitzer.

The LG1 is not "better hardware". The hydraulic system is sketchy at best and the sighting systems are garbage. There is a reason why the OFC system on the M777 is similar to the OFC on the C3 and nothing like the LG1.

(my personal opinion from a tech perspective)
Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell

Offline sharki9876

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 41
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2015, 16:58:22 »
Reg force is using M777, sometime supplemented by C3 or LG1 (if available). But M777 is the main howitzer.

The LG1 is not "better hardware". The hydraulic system is sketchy at best and the sighting systems are garbage. There is a reason why the OFC system on the M777 is similar to the OFC on the C3 and nothing like the LG1.

(my personal opinion from a tech perspective)

Well I respect your experience and perspective. This is why I ask these questions.

So sounds like despite its age the C3 is still a good system for training, just aging like any other would.

Offline sidemount

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 455
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2015, 17:03:00 »
Like I said just my opinion :)

I believe the C3 is still a good system fundamentally. (Old and worn out not withstanding)

The optical fire control system is very basic and quite robust. The quadrants and sight mounts are just a better design to the lg1. It holds up to sustained firing. The dial sight carrier on the lg1 just needs constant maint and is not user friendly.

Again all just one guys opinion so take that with a grain of salt haha
Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 181,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,118
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2015, 17:52:21 »
Dumping equipment on the Reserves without ensuring support is a recipe for disaster.  In the current NDHQ environment, however, combat capability magically appears and magically sustains itself, since support is a four-letter word.

Absolutely true but that's exactly the type of thinking that leads to bean counting defence planning.

The fact is that if there is any expectation to fight anything in the nature of a near-peer force we need not only equipment in place but trained forces (including maintainers) to use it.

I can think of a hundred ways of keeping the capability within the forces using a sliding scale of costs. Purely as an example, most of the guns and associated tracked vehicles could be put into long term preservation while a few are positioned in a few limited locations for training purposes. Those locations would be where both reg and res force maintainers are available.

The key leadership decision has to be to keep the capability alive and not to throw it out with budget cuts. Reserves are a cost effective way of keeping expensive systems available (take for example the ARNG in the US which maintains M1s, Bradleys, and M109s). I sometimes think that the real problem is not so much the finance side of things but that our reg force leaders no longer see our involvement in a serious conflict as a possibility and have long ago convinced themselves that the reserves are an institution which needs be endured rather than one that can be built on. They'd much rather spend untold billions on maintaining a robust headquarters structure.

When I started serving in the sixties we had 138 serviceable guns with the regular regiments and at least another hundred and twenty with the reserves and more in stocks. We've come down a long way, baby, and so have the infantry and the tankers.

IMHO the DND structure needs a radical rethink from the middle to the top. :2c:

For those who watch NCIS you'll be familiar with Gibb's rule # 5 "You don't waste good." Again, IMHO, we've been wasting good soldiers (both reg and res) for years by applying short sighted defence priorities based on false economy budgeting.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Ralph

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 176
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2015, 19:39:55 »
maybe that's why I heard that no ones maintaining them.
Quote

That's like saying that because I have a car with only one set of tires, there's no point in fixing a crack in the windshield or changing the oil.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 19:51:35 by Ralph »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2015, 10:30:21 »
It's not as easy as you might think to get someone else to make new barrels for this gun, or anything else for that matter for the C3; although Chile did work out a deal with Royal Ordnance to do so when they bought their version of the C3.

Either way, rebuild or buy new, there wasn't anything planned for the level of expenditures needed to deal with these C3 problems right now.
Something will have to be done soon, and just having the Reserves train using only mortars isn't going to work in the near term either; the majority of the 81s are nearing the end of their service life too.

Korea makes tanks and Hyundia-WIA makes tank and artillery barrels. Likely the real problem is the quantity and price we want to pay. Instead of buying 100 barrels at time, we will want to buy 10 and then another 10 next fiscal and so on. No one is going to bother setting up their machines for an order like that. Talking to people who have dealt with Chile armament companies say it's like banging your head against a brick wall on a good day. Shame as they have a nice facility for making rifle barrels that is heavily underutilized.

I would buy new cradles, recoil systems and barrels together, show them where the failures are in our current setup and let them tweak the desgin to accommodate the higher stresses better. I don't recall to many carriage failures?

The 81 and 60mm mortars are cheap and can be bought off the shelf, with a small buy every couple of years. We could use some of the billions we return every year, but then the politician could not balance the budget as easily.

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 305
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2015, 15:14:51 »
Anything to be said for buying the equipment/dies/molds/whatever to make the barrels for whatever gun(s) are/are going to be our mainstays? Maintain the skill-set as a national asset and have the ability to do the ten-barrels-a-year routine.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2015, 17:33:46 »
Barrel making is not that hightech, you just need a big enough lathe. That was one of the bottlenecks that led to a reduced 6pdr supply and making a short barreled gun instead of a long 6pdr.

I can't tell you who is equipped to do the barrels. Having seen the inside of the recoil system, it's pretty simple, but would require a competent manufacturer to maintain tolerances, the old ones were made by Otis (of elevator fame). The cradle would be easy to make. the design dates back as far as 1919 (riveted trails). 

Interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7_howitzer
Potential customers

In 2004, DLS partnered with General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) to offer the gun in self-propelled form to the United States Army. GDLS provided an armoured vehicle (the LAV III), while Denel provided a G7 mounted inside a specially-designed, unmanned turret. The combined system weighs only 17.5 tons when fully loaded with ammunition, making it light enough to be transportable inside a C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. The combination took part in a number of tests for the US Army. Though currently unfunded, the US Army has indicated a requirement for such a system to equip its Stryker Brigade. The Strykers cannot use current self-propelled and towed howitzers as their weight is a limiting factor on the brigade's mobility.

Interest in the system has also been exhibited by the militaries of South Africa, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In addition, the US Army and United States Marine Corps (USMC) have exhibited interest in the towed version as a possible replacement for their towed 105 mm howitzer stocks.

In parallel with the G7's testing on the LAV-III Denel is also planning to fit it and its turret to a Rooikat armoured vehicle for its offer to the South African Army.

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2015, 21:37:59 »
I would buy new cradles, recoil systems and barrels together, show them where the failures are in our current setup and let them tweak the desgin to accommodate the higher stresses better. I don't recall to many carriage failures?
Re cradle failures, see pic

Barrel manufacture is far more complicated than the way you've described it Colin, but essentially it is correct that Canada's order would be too small, and unique, for anyone to want to make just the barrels, or piece meal components.
There are manufacturers that would certainly want to sell Canada a complete system, but far as I know there is no project being created to support that. More mortars might come, maybe, but even those are not a priority (IMO they should be, and they should go to the infantry - this is discussed ad nauseam elsewhere on this site)

The rebuild work can be done by gov't workshops, but it is a matter of priority of work, and having the accurate engineering data (something that is also a problem for the C3), and parts

For example, while the recoil might seem simple, it is tricky enough that the rebuilds being done by the Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquilmalt, often get it wrong. Even for something that has well documented design specs, it can be problematic if no one can make critical components. Due to scarcity of seals for the C1, it made it necessary to create a hybrid version of the C3's recoil system for the C1 being used for avalanche control. With the problems, and shortages, for the gun's recoil system, plus carriage failures (besides the one that snapped in two in Gagetown, two others had collapsed trail legs), the C1 quickly divested itself and the C3 is now doing the same thing

The US have offered their test facilities to determine causes of failure, and potential failure, but the critical component remains the barrel.

Which does make the OP question relevant. Should the C3 quickly divest itself, then it might mean some of the LG1s being deployed for avalanche control. LG1 were used briefly in 2011 for avalanche control, although not ideal since the spades don't fit the gun rings there. Nevertheless, should it become necessary for the LG1 to be used for avalanche control, again, it would be sensible to train P Res Gun dets in 3 Div on the LG1, (including the unit the OP intends to join), since they typically augment the 1 RCHA avcon dets the most

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,111
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2015, 21:45:51 »
Absolutely true but that's exactly the type of thinking that leads to bean counting defence planning.

The fact is that if there is any expectation to fight anything in the nature of a near-peer force we need not only equipment in place but trained forces (including maintainers) to use it.

I can think of a hundred ways of keeping the capability within the forces using a sliding scale of costs. Purely as an example, most of the guns and associated tracked vehicles could be put into long term preservation while a few are positioned in a few limited locations for training purposes. Those locations would be where both reg and res force maintainers are available.

The key leadership decision has to be to keep the capability alive and not to throw it out with budget cuts. Reserves are a cost effective way of keeping expensive systems available (take for example the ARNG in the US which maintains M1s, Bradleys, and M109s). I sometimes think that the real problem is not so much the finance side of things but that our reg force leaders no longer see our involvement in a serious conflict as a possibility and have long ago convinced themselves that the reserves are an institution which needs be endured rather than one that can be built on. They'd much rather spend untold billions on maintaining a robust headquarters structure.

When I started serving in the sixties we had 138 serviceable guns with the regular regiments and at least another hundred and twenty with the reserves and more in stocks. We've come down a long way, baby, and so have the infantry and the tankers.

IMHO the DND structure needs a radical rethink from the middle to the top. :2c:

For those who watch NCIS you'll be familiar with Gibb's rule # 5 "You don't waste good." Again, IMHO, we've been wasting good soldiers (both reg and res) for years by applying short sighted defence priorities based on false economy budgeting.

 :cheers:

I agree. There was talks of replacing the reserve guns with m777 and centralizing them in the reg force arty locations as you discuss. However the current flavour of the day is to kit out the reserve force with 120mm mortars as a reserve capability. How this works on a deployment (unless there are reg force 120mm mortar men) beats me though, as we would be hoping for enough reserve augmentation to man them, maintain them, etc.

I also believe that the death of the AD is partially due to the re-rolling of the ad reserve units. You note the lack of interest in preparing for the big fight from leadership, but arty leadership is also very implicit in this. Arty transformation was built on the afghan model, including re-rolling 4 AD to support bed level ops (with div assets).

Part of the reason for bringing the LG1s to gagetown was to use them to assist w battery I believe as well.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #44 on: March 04, 2015, 10:27:47 »
Re cradle failures, see pic

Barrel manufacture is far more complicated than the way you've described it Colin, but essentially it is correct that Canada's order would be too small, and unique, for anyone to want to make just the barrels, or piece meal components.
There are manufacturers that would certainly want to sell Canada a complete system, but far as I know there is no project being created to support that. More mortars might come, maybe, but even those are not a priority (IMO they should be, and they should go to the infantry - this is discussed ad nauseam elsewhere on this site)

The rebuild work can be done by gov't workshops, but it is a matter of priority of work, and having the accurate engineering data (something that is also a problem for the C3), and parts

For example, while the recoil might seem simple, it is tricky enough that the rebuilds being done by the Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquilmalt, often get it wrong. Even for something that has well documented design specs, it can be problematic if no one can make critical components. Due to scarcity of seals for the C1, it made it necessary to create a hybrid version of the C3's recoil system for the C1 being used for avalanche control. With the problems, and shortages, for the gun's recoil system, plus carriage failures (besides the one that snapped in two in Gagetown, two others had collapsed trail legs), the C1 quickly divested itself and the C3 is now doing the same thing

The US have offered their test facilities to determine causes of failure, and potential failure, but the critical component remains the barrel.

Which does make the OP question relevant. Should the C3 quickly divest itself, then it might mean some of the LG1s being deployed for avalanche control. LG1 were used briefly in 2011 for avalanche control, although not ideal since the spades don't fit the gun rings there. Nevertheless, should it become necessary for the LG1 to be used for avalanche control, again, it would be sensible to train P Res Gun dets in 3 Div on the LG1, (including the unit the OP intends to join), since they typically augment the 1 RCHA avcon dets the most

I realize there is more to it, but a facility that can make tank gun barrels and 155mm barrels, could easily make 105mm Howitzer barrels. Machine setup is the cost and the willingness depends a lot on how busy the facility is and how hungry they are for business.

Petard
Do you know anything about the G7 and what Canada thought of it?

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2015, 11:53:39 »
Petard
Do you know anything about the G7 and what Canada thought of it?

Yes, I was in South Africa for a about a month doing research on artillery ammunition; the G7 is an outstanding gun, and so is the Igala family of ammunition it fires. The G7 can also fire the legacy M1 family of projectiles. It is interesting that the demonstrator they built with it mounted on the LAV chasis, was also capable of firing LAHAT missiles

If it were up to me, I'd go with the towed G7 with a variant of the digital gun management system currently on the M777. This way, it would give an actual operational capability and not just a P Res training gun to the CAF. It would add somewhat to the P Res training bill, but would reduce the training delta for those P Res that are Force Generated for deploying Reg F Gun Bty's

I really don't know how high a priority it is, to to maintain indirect fire training capability within the P Res; my guess is there will only be efforts to try and work out the cause of the latest C3 woes, and limit the use of the C3 until its replacement can become a priority. Otherwise it will divest itself faster than it can be husbanded to extend its life, and many P Res Arty units will wither, and the only P Res gunner activity will be seen on special occasions at ceremonial saluting bases
The only exception, maybe, will be those that augment the Avcon Gun Dets and those in the School. 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2015, 12:01:35 by Petard »

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,567
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2015, 12:14:49 »
I have a power point on the LAV mounted g7 on my home computer. Interesting pierce of kit, very mobile, my concern would be how weight distribution is while firing, I heard the stories of the MMEV flipping on its side during a test would a LAV 6 105mm SPG suffer a similar problem? Perhaps we do a mixed fleet buy of 105 spg LAVs and some 120mm mortor carrier LAVs for the PRes.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2015, 13:38:19 »
I have a power point on the LAV mounted g7 on my home computer. Interesting pierce of kit, very mobile, my concern would be how weight distribution is while firing, I heard the stories of the MMEV flipping on its side during a test would a LAV 6 105mm SPG suffer a similar problem? Perhaps we do a mixed fleet buy of 105 spg LAVs and some 120mm mortar carrier LAVs for the PRes.

The 6.0 is capable of being quite a lot heavier than the original LAV III/MMEV, about 3x heavier, so it would seem that the potential for flipping could be resolved.

I don't see going the 105 route anyway, and I would not mix 120 and 105, no matter what configuration. The 120 makes a lot of sense for many reasons.  Seems kind of pointless to mix the fleet, since they shoot similar ranges, and it would add logistical complexity, for little to negative gain. 

If it were up to me, I'd go with the towed G7 with a variant of the digital gun management system currently on the M777. This way, it would give an actual operational capability and not just a P Res training gun to the CAF. It would add somewhat to the P Res training bill, but would reduce the training delta for those P Res that are Force Generated for deploying Reg F Gun Bty's

Would a 120 with a similar FCS and gun management system accomplish the same thing? 

Offline blackberet17

  • "The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept." - LGen David Morrison, Chief of Army, Australia
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 12,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 506
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2015, 13:50:58 »
There are 28 LG1's in service: 1 is used for training weapon technicians, one is used as test bed for different purposes, and 2 are used for salute purposes in St John's.  The remaining 2 dozen are used in the Artillery School and the Primary Reserve Artillery units in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

We (see cap badge on left) have two.

Shh. Don't tell anyone.
« Ne vous occupez pas d'eux; ils ne savent pas tirer. [...] Il y a des ennemis devant nous, derrière nous et sur nos flancs. Il ne reste qu'une place sans danger, soit vers l'objectif. » Paul Triquet, VC

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2015, 13:54:12 »
Thanks Petard

I would be happy with a 120mm or 105mm capability for the PRes. the advantage of the 120mm is we can get rid of those monster gun tractors that won't fit inside the majority of the Armouries.

I notice the Philippines still uses the 105mm short barrel (C1) We could try buying them off of their army ( I can imagine the condition won't be great, but beggars can't be to choosy)

From wiki
Total 150 delivered, some with Marine Corps. Delivered in 1957-1958. 12 units upgraded to M101/30 in 1997 by GIAT Industries.[18]