Author Topic: C3 Howitzer Replacement  (Read 138393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,842
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,502
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #225 on: June 04, 2019, 21:38:46 »
I'm not sure this is the correct way of looking at this project.

No - you're missing the whole point.

Think of all of the PYs that will be saved, that can now be re-distributed to organizations much more important than mere Combat Arms units.

Think of all of those poor, starving headquarters.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,613
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #226 on: June 04, 2019, 22:57:35 »
No - you're missing the whole point.

Think of all of the PYs that will be saved, that can now be re-distributed to organizations much more important than mere Combat Arms units.

Think of all of those poor, starving headquarters.

 :rofl:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 315,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,251
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #227 on: June 05, 2019, 13:16:49 »
And a prime example of how to increase productivity.

Next question.

This is three women driving a battery's worth of firepower.  Is the highest rank Bombardier (Corporal) or Major?

If it was an Air Force artillery battery it would likely be a Squadron Commander ;)
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 199,841
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,393
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #228 on: June 05, 2019, 14:29:53 »
Bring back the rank of Corporal-Captain!  (M.A.S.H. reference...)
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,570
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #229 on: March 09, 2020, 20:42:38 »
Wonder if it would fit the LAV? interesting loading system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQczLyXnIbA

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,324
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #230 on: March 09, 2020, 21:08:37 »
Wonder if it would fit the LAV? interesting loading system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQczLyXnIbA

Possible but without seeing the internals of the weapon and loading mechanism it would be hard to say for certain. New turret would be required and the troop compartment would be converted into ammo storage.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 199,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,855
  • Freespeecher
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #231 on: March 10, 2020, 01:01:00 »
The loading system seems similar to the USMC's "Dragonfire 2" experiment. The Dragonfire 2 actually was designed to fit inside a LAV chassis (although I suspect it was a modified LAV 25 mortar carrier which usually held an 81mm mortar).

There are plenty of turreted mortars out there already, it would be nice if someone in charge could actually get one...
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,324
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,842
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,502
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #233 on: March 12, 2020, 07:00:52 »
There are plenty of turreted mortars out there already, it would be nice if someone in charge could actually get one...

GD was either building or upgrading one (a LAV-25 variant, if I remember) for a customer who favours tan paint when we did the 4 RCR tour in 2013 or 2014.

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 34,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,299
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #234 on: April 08, 2020, 15:58:28 »
This?

Excellent system with a dirt simple fire control system, capable of firing Stryx anti-tank mortar bombs, and has all the advantages of a closed system in a CBRN environment
Chance of replacing C3 = zero 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,570
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #235 on: April 08, 2020, 16:07:39 »
Domestically produced version of this under licence? Would mean jobs. Build 400 plus spare parts based on historical issues by other nations, use 200 at any one time and the rest in storage with them being cycled through to maintain even wear and continuous upgrades. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOd1ZlaBxtM&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0GKY8TbZ_cNDc9l-eb76pio9OGq6fhlCw5K4qRDwIHaaK7IyHdCJEiiAw

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 499
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #236 on: April 08, 2020, 20:52:13 »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,570
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #237 on: April 08, 2020, 21:32:28 »
Thanks for that, barring buying ex South Korean M101's i still think the M118/119 is the way to go for the Reserves, it would mean we could shrink the Gun tractors as well, which would solve a lot of logistical problems at Reserve units across the country and manage costs. I would then lease two batteries worth of Paladins from the US to support the tanks, with one battery to deploy and the other training. A 120mm mortar system mounted on LAV's to keep up with the LAV's and each Regular force artillery unit gets a battery of 105mm for training purposes or deployment to FOB's to small to take M777. 

So the school gets m777's, 105mm and 120mm mortars for training

Lets say 1RCHA gets the Paladins and battery of 105 for training

2 RCHA is M777 with a training battery in 105's

5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada gets the 120mm with a training battery in 105's

(the above can be moved around)

Since the M119 uses almost the same FCS as the M777 then we have reduced training time between the 2 towed systems. The 120mm mortars provide close up fire support for the LAV, the Paladins provide it for the tanks. The mix means we can tailor the artillery support for the deployment and even tailor it for the mission. So deploy to Europe = Paladins, deploy to Mali, main FOB gets the M777, large movement get the mounted 120mm and small FOB or helicopter deployments bring the 105mm.

The only thing we need to get into production is the M119 and if we were to do a sizeable order, we might be able to interest another nation as well. If we are doing it domestically, then perhaps split the order into 50 a year for 2-4 years, the C3 can be retired as the new guns come on line. The Paladins are leased which should help our relations and pocketbooks, not to mention avoiding a procurement nightmare, the 120mm would be from the market and in use with NATO forces and the M777's we have.


Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,268
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #238 on: April 08, 2020, 21:44:11 »
finish take on their light artillery situation

https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/03/31/nenonens-heritage-pt-2-the-curious-case-of-the-light-gun/


Thank You for posting that - fantastic read.  I actually read most of it word for word, rather than skimming over it.  Very insightful!

It also helped change my thinking.


I think some of us (myself included) tend to think "Why spend our limited money on replacing the C3 with another light gun that won't ever see operational service, and is really just there as a basic trainer for the reserves so they can get on an M777 course?"

But after reading that article, especially about the supply chains & support vehicles all being able to be lighter, less maintenance intensive, more ammo being able to be moved, and that a larger number of rounds will probably be more effective than the size of the rounds - it helped me change my perspective on the light artillery gap.

Maybe there actually is quite a useful role for light artillery after all, and have some available for operations in addition to the M777 would actually help fulfill more capabilities that I hadn't thought of.



Seems they are in a very similar boat to us, and are looking at similar systems from similar sources as us.  Some promising systems out there too, even in the vehicle-based mortar perspective, that seem to need the extra push to get off the ground.  (Aka, interested buyers.)
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline jeffb

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 27,561
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 684
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #239 on: April 08, 2020, 22:12:05 »
Thanks for that, barring buying ex South Korean M101's i still think the M118/119 is the way to go for the Reserves, it would mean we could shrink the Gun tractors as well, which would solve a lot of logistical problems at Reserve units across the country and manage costs. I would then lease two batteries worth of Paladins from the US to support the tanks, with one battery to deploy and the other training. A 120mm mortar system mounted on LAV's to keep up with the LAV's and each Regular force artillery unit gets a battery of 105mm for training purposes or deployment to FOB's to small to take M777. 

So the school gets m777's, 105mm and 120mm mortars for training

Lets say 1RCHA gets the Paladins and battery of 105 for training

2 RCHA is M777 with a training battery in 105's

5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada gets the 120mm with a training battery in 105's

(the above can be moved around)

Since the M119 uses almost the same FCS as the M777 then we have reduced training time between the 2 towed systems. The 120mm mortars provide close up fire support for the LAV, the Paladins provide it for the tanks. The mix means we can tailor the artillery support for the deployment and even tailor it for the mission. So deploy to Europe = Paladins, deploy to Mali, main FOB gets the M777, large movement get the mounted 120mm and small FOB or helicopter deployments bring the 105mm.

The only thing we need to get into production is the M119 and if we were to do a sizeable order, we might be able to interest another nation as well. If we are doing it domestically, then perhaps split the order into 50 a year for 2-4 years, the C3 can be retired as the new guns come on line. The Paladins are leased which should help our relations and pocketbooks, not to mention avoiding a procurement nightmare, the 120mm would be from the market and in use with NATO forces and the M777's we have.

PzH2000 would be a good option as well. It already shares many components in common with the Leopard which would make maintenance that much easier.
~ Ubique ~
Simple is better except when complicated looks really cool.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,570
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #240 on: April 08, 2020, 22:24:13 »

Thank You for posting that - fantastic read.  I actually read most of it word for word, rather than skimming over it.  Very insightful!

It also helped change my thinking.


I think some of us (myself included) tend to think "Why spend our limited money on replacing the C3 with another light gun that won't ever see operational service, and is really just there as a basic trainer for the reserves so they can get on an M777 course?"

But after reading that article, especially about the supply chains & support vehicles all being able to be lighter, less maintenance intensive, more ammo being able to be moved, and that a larger number of rounds will probably be more effective than the size of the rounds - it helped me change my perspective on the light artillery gap.

Maybe there actually is quite a useful role for light artillery after all, and have some available for operations in addition to the M777 would actually help fulfill more capabilities that I hadn't thought of.



Seems they are in a very similar boat to us, and are looking at similar systems from similar sources as us.  Some promising systems out there too, even in the vehicle-based mortar perspective, that seem to need the extra push to get off the ground.  (Aka, interested buyers.)

The Brits deployed their 105's to Afghanistan, smaller footprint if your further away from resupply or in a smaller FOB.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,613
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #241 on: April 08, 2020, 23:36:35 »
...
But after reading that article, especially about the supply chains & support vehicles all being able to be lighter, less maintenance intensive, more ammo being able to be moved, and that a larger number of rounds will probably be more effective than the size of the rounds - it helped me change my perspective on the light artillery gap.

Maybe there actually is quite a useful role for light artillery after all, and have some available for operations in addition to the M777 would actually help fulfill more capabilities that I hadn't thought of. ...

I definitely think that there is. But in part that requires that we structure our brigades better. While we could structure our artillery regiments with two M777 batteries for the two LAVs and a light battery for the light infantry battalion, it would make more sense to reorganize the brigades into a light and two medium LAV brigades and assign guns accordingly. (I'm also still a holdout for a heavy brigade with tanks, IFVs and SPs)

In the days that we had L5s, (2,840 lbs) we could lift them with our Hueys and tow them with 3/4 ton trucks (although we also used 2 1/2 ton and M548 portees) while the C1s (4,980 lbs) needed Voyageurs and deuce and a halfs. Now you need a Chinook to lift an "ultralight howitzer" M777 (9,300 lbs). The US M102 and the GIAT LG1 are only slightly heavier than the L5 at 3,300 lbs while the Brit L119 comes in at 4,100 lbs. The UH-1N could lift 5,000 lbs externally. I'm not sure if the Griffon has that capability but my guess is that it probably doesn't but might still be able to lift a stripped down L5.

If one could move to a UH-60 Blackhawk with 9,000 lb external lift one would have much more flexibility in what kind of gun to employ.

Those weight factors and how easily you move the gun (and it's ammo) plays almost (but not quite) as big a role as the gun's range because it affects how easily you can move the thing and employ it in difficult terrain where your supported grunts might have to operate. I was with the Italians in the Alps and saw just how useful a little piece of kit like the L5 could be for a light footborne force. Even the C1 would have had difficulties there.

That difficult terrain issue also plays into truck mounted self propelled guns. Sometimes you just can't get a vehicle borne/towed gun into where it's needed and that's where you are left with a light gun/mortar choice. I think the Airborne Battery in its day had the right concept being able to field either 6 x L5 packs or 12 x 81mm mortars or a combination of the two depending on the operation.

My problem in this entire debate is that we should never, ever have "training" guns. What we need are the guns that we intend our soldiers to go to war with. By all means get them to use subcalibre training devices to save training ammunition costs but if you don't have the "war gun" when its needed then you won't be able to go to war. Right now we don't have enough M777s and we don't intend to fight with anything else. Just as important, one (and that's everyone from the gunner to the regimental commander) doesn't develop the ongoing muscle memory of training on the gun you will fight with - learning it's capabilities, limitations and idiosyncrasies. You'll forever be having to do predeployment conversion training which is not the same as having trained for years on the kit you are going to fight with.

I think the many years of making do with the substandard equipment that we have and the substandard organizational structures that we have had to serve in has gotten us to exactly the state we are in now.

 :stirpot:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,570
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #242 on: April 09, 2020, 00:45:49 »
I don't see the 105's as "training guns" even as I mention for the Reg force they mainly are. For the Reserves, a 105 makes sense, everything is cheaper and logistically easier and that means more hands on training and more rounds downrange. Just make the FCS the same as the M777 and invest in modern equipment for the OP's and CP's. The next conflict may very well be "come as you are" so we are going to need tubes and lots of them, along with rounds to shoot. Seems the supply of 155 got pretty short there for awhile.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 315,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,251
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #243 on: April 09, 2020, 11:42:30 »
I definitely think that there is. But in part that requires that we structure our brigades better. While we could structure our artillery regiments with two M777 batteries for the two LAVs and a light battery for the light infantry battalion, it would make more sense to reorganize the brigades into a light and two medium LAV brigades and assign guns accordingly. (I'm also still a holdout for a heavy brigade with tanks, IFVs and SPs)

In the days that we had L5s, (2,840 lbs) we could lift them with our Hueys and tow them with 3/4 ton trucks (although we also used 2 1/2 ton and M548 portees) while the C1s (4,980 lbs) needed Voyageurs and deuce and a halfs. Now you need a Chinook to lift an "ultralight howitzer" M777 (9,300 lbs). The US M102 and the GIAT LG1 are only slightly heavier than the L5 at 3,300 lbs while the Brit L119 comes in at 4,100 lbs. The UH-1N could lift 5,000 lbs externally. I'm not sure if the Griffon has that capability but my guess is that it probably doesn't but might still be able to lift a stripped down L5.

If one could move to a UH-60 Blackhawk with 9,000 lb external lift one would have much more flexibility in what kind of gun to employ.

Those weight factors and how easily you move the gun (and it's ammo) plays almost (but not quite) as big a role as the gun's range because it affects how easily you can move the thing and employ it in difficult terrain where your supported grunts might have to operate. I was with the Italians in the Alps and saw just how useful a little piece of kit like the L5 could be for a light footborne force. Even the C1 would have had difficulties there.

That difficult terrain issue also plays into truck mounted self propelled guns. Sometimes you just can't get a vehicle borne/towed gun into where it's needed and that's where you are left with a light gun/mortar choice. I think the Airborne Battery in its day had the right concept being able to field either 6 x L5 packs or 12 x 81mm mortars or a combination of the two depending on the operation.

My problem in this entire debate is that we should never, ever have "training" guns. What we need are the guns that we intend our soldiers to go to war with. By all means get them to use subcalibre training devices to save training ammunition costs but if you don't have the "war gun" when its needed then you won't be able to go to war. Right now we don't have enough M777s and we don't intend to fight with anything else. Just as important, one (and that's everyone from the gunner to the regimental commander) doesn't develop the ongoing muscle memory of training on the gun you will fight with - learning it's capabilities, limitations and idiosyncrasies. You'll forever be having to do predeployment conversion training which is not the same as having trained for years on the kit you are going to fight with.

I think the many years of making do with the substandard equipment that we have and the substandard organizational structures that we have had to serve in has gotten us to exactly the state we are in now.

 :stirpot:

A 105mmm with good range and PGM capability might be just the ticket....
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,324
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #244 on: April 09, 2020, 11:49:46 »
A 105mmm with good range and PGM capability might be just the ticket....

The key will be numbers, we need hundreds of guns to outfit the reg force, training establishments and reserve, who ever thought we could get by with the few M777's we have I would love to hit on the head
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,613
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #245 on: April 09, 2020, 14:38:17 »
I don't see the 105's as "training guns" even as I mention for the Reg force they mainly are. For the Reserves, a 105 makes sense, everything is cheaper and logistically easier and that means more hands on training and more rounds downrange. Just make the FCS the same as the M777 and invest in modern equipment for the OP's and CP's. The next conflict may very well be "come as you are" so we are going to need tubes and lots of them, along with rounds to shoot. Seems the supply of 155 got pretty short there for awhile.

It's a training gun until there is an operations plan to deploy it into a potential combat zone. No such plan exists and until such time as reserve units (or even sub units) are organized, manned and equipped with everything needed to deploy (including a functioning A echelon) there won't be any such plan.

Yes, the gun is serviceable and is being used by numerous countries as an operational one, but for us, it's merely a training aid.

We currently have only one theatre of operations where the possibility of combat exists: Latvia. No one would be prepared to deploy C3s to Latvia and I, for one, have serious reservations about even using M777s there because they wouldn't last long.

In my recent article and book I keep using the phrase "more lethal, more credible force". Canada currently has in excess of 20,000 reservists who are unequipped and under-trained. The Regular Force has some 13-15,000 soldiers in three brigades. We could easily double the size of the army's capabilities but without the proper warfighting equipment, organization and training we cannot create more brigades.

The US Army National Guard has M777s, Paladins, HIMARS and Avengers in fully equipped battalions. That's what I mean by adding "lethality and credibility" to the force.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,570
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #246 on: April 10, 2020, 12:58:51 »
Problem is as pointed out in other threads that the basic infrastructure is not there to support that equipment in the Reserves. New 105's are doable within the structure that exists and foreseeable budgets. You then have something that can deploy. I have given up on "big fixes", mainly as everytime i see a "big fix" it turns into a cluster (Looking at you Phoenix, Workforce adjustment,etc). I think leasing a couple of batteries of Paladins is doable and avoids the procurement cluster, put one in Europe and the other in Shilo/Wainwright. 

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,613
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #247 on: April 10, 2020, 13:58:31 »
In the words of J.L Granatstein and LGen (ret’d) Charles Belzile when discussing mobilization (or “activation”) of the reserves in their ten year review of the Special Commission of the Restructuring of the Reserves 1995:

Quote
... Another way of putting this is that no planning is being done for a major war.
This is shortsighted in the extreme. A military that thinks in terms of turning itself into a great host in a crisis is very different from one that is small, thinks small, and plans for very little.
The Canadian Forces needs a plan.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/41/attachments/original/1413661138/Restructuring_The_Reserves_-_English.pdf?1413661138 at page 12.

Our problem for many decades now is that the CAF "thinks small and plans for very little" and focuses mainly on preserving Reg F PYs at the expense of everything else. Canada pays DND tens of billions annually well over half of which goes into Reg F and civilian salaries.

Infrastructure isn't the problem. We have armouries everywhere where we need them. We have bases and ranges in sufficient quantities and sizes across the country. All we need are some places to store and maintain equipment and there are more than enough unused factories/warehouses around to do that.

All we really need is to cut the financial bleed caused by our overstaffed headquarters and convert that to equipment and O&M funds.

All we really need is a plan. One that can start in small, scaled projects that builds up to a desired end state.

See here for an outline: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/page19-eng.asp

And see here for the details: https://www.amazon.ca/Unsustainable-At-Any-Price-Canadian-ebook/dp/B086HXC66Q

End of rant!

 :cdnsalute:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,570
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #248 on: April 10, 2020, 14:49:13 »
I was using infrastructure as in parts, mechanics, storage and PY's to pay them with. Many of the Armouries are to small or the door won't allow the current truck fleet in. We also need a proper tactical truck that's not a frigging monster that is really meant for roads and will actually fit inside the buildings we have now. Currently the Reserve is the majority "Point of contact" with the Canadian Public, most of the plans I have heard here look to divorce the CF even further from the Public, which will lead to more budget and recruiting crisis down the road.

As part of our pandemic recovery I would run SYEP type courses, increase the numbers of Class B at the unit level for 2 years and offer more courses at the unit level. While i fully understand and see the value of having the same level of courses as the reg force, I not sure how sustainable that is in the long run.

Back to the topic, the one thing I love about the C1/2/3 was it is a very simple system and easy to teach the basic concepts on, the M119 would replicate that, meaning that a lot of the basics can be taught at the unit level, if there was more funding for that.   

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,613
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #249 on: April 10, 2020, 16:05:32 »
I've never been a fan of the M119/L118. Maybe it's because I once owned a Triumph Spitfire and an Austin Mini I consider most British machinery poorly designed and unnecessarily complex. The L118 has had problems with its recoil mechanism and requires a high amount of technical (rather than user) maintenance. The US has done much to simplify the original issues but.... It's not much lighter than the C3 (which could be lightened by the removal of it's shield assembly).

I've never been a fan of single trail/platform guns. Harder to bring in and out of action and less able to cover an arc without displacing the trail. Overall, the C3 is simplicity mixed with durability although all these guns are challenged by the physical strain of the new improved ranges demanded of them.

As for mobility, I've never worked with the Navstar "monsters". I too see it as overkill. The old 2 1/2 tons were exactly tuned to the weight of the C1/C3 and worked well although crew comfort was replaced for utility. The old truck certainly facilitated coming into and out of action. If stripped down it could also (just barely) come within the towing capacity of a HMMWV or JLTV (although it would need two vehicles, a tower and an ammo limber)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti C3. I'm anti the "training gun" concept. As I mentioned above, I believe that we should form one Reg F light brigade group and equip them with 105mms so long as we determine what the tactical deployment for the brigade should be and put all the appropriate ancillary equipment in place (including helicopter lift) IMHO, a slightly modified C3 would works as well as any other 105 mm, and better than some of them. I'll go a step further. For such a brigade, at least two of its batteries and some of it's headquarters should be reservists because we don't operationally deploy artillery that often and we could save a couple of hundred Reg F PYs.

The same goes for the reserve force brigade groups. I would have no problems with using the C3 as an operational gun if we created properly equipped and trained reserve infantry brigades (like the USARNG and yes, by all means we must stay in the local communities) BUT having said that I simply do not see an operational role for such brigades so why form them in the first place?  Considering our commitment to NATO and the Baltics, I do see a need for properly trained and equipped heavy forces. We do need more heavy combat power and with that a mechanism for deploying and sustaining them in the Baltics. What Canada has created is a hybrid/light and middle weight force without the proper combat enablers and sustainment capabilities and without any plan to reinvent itself for the future. We seem to be randomly seeking out missions that we can perform (and Latvia, IMHO, isn't one we can perform as configured) in order to justify exorbitant paychecks for an exorbitant Reg F.

I've ranted again. Go read the book.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/