Author Topic: C3 Howitzer Replacement  (Read 75963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2016, 10:09:02 »
When I was at the arty school the AIG course I was running was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 105mm replacement and the IG course was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 120mm mortar system for the reserves.

The options the AIG came up with was essentially a rebuild of the C3, the L119, and the self propelled 105 CAESAR.

At the end of the session the CIG got up and said that there was no intent to buy another 105mm as they aren't intending to deploy them operationally (that's the M777 role at this time) and that the 120mm was being considered to maintain a reserve training capability and potentially to have a deployable capability.

Yet other nations happily deployed them from what I have read and with good effect, plus they are easier to move. As for "intent" that's what they said of the Bison and Cougar as well. If the crap really hits the fan big time, it will be come as you are party and they will need every gun and round they can find.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,567
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #51 on: April 07, 2016, 14:28:38 »
Yet other nations happily deployed them from what I have read and with good effect, plus they are easier to move. As for "intent" that's what they said of the Bison and Cougar as well. If the crap really hits the fan big time, it will be come as you are party and they will need every gun and round they can find.

Somehow I feel our war stocks aren't what they used to be
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 917,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,140
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #52 on: April 07, 2016, 14:55:06 »
Somehow I feel our war stocks aren't what they used to be

Pretty sure our "war stock" doesn't exist anymore. What we have at units is what we have total.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #53 on: April 07, 2016, 15:39:24 »
I would almost be afraid to ask

Offline Eland2

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #54 on: April 07, 2016, 16:54:58 »
Pretty sure our "war stock" doesn't exist anymore. What we have at units is what we have total.

We probably haven't had any real war stocks since the end of the Korean War, given the succession of governments over the ensuing decades
that have tried to do defence on the cheap.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 39,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,628
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #55 on: April 07, 2016, 17:19:08 »

There aren't enough M777 for both training and deployable stocks, are there?  (My understanding is 34 guns were purchased, but I could be wrong?)

Initial purchase was of 12, then a follow-up order of 25 for a total of 37.

$118 Million in New Orders for BAE Systems' M777
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,111
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #56 on: April 07, 2016, 18:16:14 »
If the powers at be have stated they have no intention of replacing the 105mm with another 105mm, and the M777 is to be our deployable artillery asset -- any word on purchasing more M777?

There aren't enough M777 for both training and deployable stocks, are there?  (My understanding is 34 guns were purchased, but I could be wrong?)



Depends how you view the problem. If you look at current Regimental configurations of 2 x 4 or 6 gun batteries (4 x gun to be regular force manned, 2 x guns to be reserve) than there is a need for a maximum of 36 x M777, not including the guns needed for the artillery school (2 last I heard) and the RCEME school (1). in reality, they are kitted to the 2 x 4 gun standard. So, in theory, to achieve the 2 x 6 gun batteries we should have a minimum of 40 M777.(Note- this may have changed).

For war, the LOO 5 (or whatever LOO it is) described in CONPLAN JUPITER would see a worst case deployment of 2 x 6 gun batteries, 1 x STA battery, and some form of GBAMD shooter once there's a capability. So, for operations there's a requirement for 12x M777 plus spares (say 2).

The M777 deployed, in theory, would be from the Regiment within the Brigade. Many of the Regiments though still keep 1 x 105 gun or 1 x 81mm battery and put their 8 x M777 into 1 battery. 1 RCHA, for example, has A Bty supporting 3 VP and using 81mm mortars.

Realistically, Canada needs to be able to force generate, at most, 1 brigade to either be part of a multinational div under the Americans or our very own Div HQ. If the threat model changes than we could go back to 3 gun battery regiments, but as that isn't expected in the next 20 years,it is likely that the system that replaces the M777 would be the one intended for that purpose.

Buying a cheap 105mm for the reserves, to me, would be good to use as a training gun, allowing the M777's to be babied... The computer systems and hydraulics aren't designed to bound through Gagetown or Shilo, so having a cheap C3-esque gun to do that with would be optimal, with the M777 being used for static fires and the high readiness Regiment, IMHO.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,611
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2016, 18:50:27 »
....
Buying a cheap 105mm for the reserves, to me, would be good to use as a training gun, allowing the M777's to be babied... The computer systems and hydraulics aren't designed to bound through Gagetown or Shilo, so having a cheap C3-esque gun to do that with would be optimal, with the M777 being used for static fires and the high readiness Regiment, IMHO.

Wouldn't you just be encouraging the development of bad habits?  If the weapon needs to be treated with care and consideration why would you train people to handle a similar weapon roughly?  Just curious.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,111
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2016, 19:14:35 »
Wouldn't you just be encouraging the development of bad habits?  If the weapon needs to be treated with care and consideration why would you train people to handle a similar weapon roughly?  Just curious.

The intent was to allow for more "strenuous" training to be allowed, mostly in the recce and deployment arena. The M777 CAN be bounded and deployed IAW the TTPs, so it's not necessarily training poor habits. However, with the cost of the system it's preferable to drag a cheap and mechanically simple gun all over the training area than risk breaking the M777. The arty school, for example, uses the LG1s and C3s for recce and deployment on courses to this day as they dont want to break the 2 M777 they have. When doing danger close on the FOO course they use the M777 to improve realism, but 105mm for the rest of the shooting.

The only difference for recce and deployment would be the gun platform requirements, which you could still force students/jr Officers to recce, whether a 105mm or the M777 eventually sits on.

 :2c:

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 231,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,253
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2016, 19:23:30 »
The intent was to allow for more "strenuous" training to be allowed, mostly in the recce and deployment arena. The M777 CAN be bounded and deployed IAW the TTPs, so it's not necessarily training poor habits. However, with the cost of the system it's preferable to drag a cheap and mechanically simple gun all over the training area than risk breaking the M777. The arty school, for example, uses the LG1s and C3s for recce and deployment on courses to this day as they dont want to break the 2 M777 they have. When doing danger close on the FOO course they use the M777 to improve realism, but 105mm for the rest of the shooting.

The only difference for recce and deployment would be the gun platform requirements, which you could still force students/jr Officers to recce, whether a 105mm or the M777 eventually sits on.

 :2c:

I guess that begs the question of why we have to rely on a 'fragile' gun that might pack up at critical moments during a high intensity conflict.... unlike the 25 pounder of course :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,611
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2016, 19:57:05 »
I guess that begs the question of why we have to rely on a 'fragile' gun that might pack up at critical moments during a high intensity conflict.... unlike the 25 pounder of course :)

Why are things that are needlessly complicated called "Byzantine"?

We have myriads of systems that perform miraculously once, on the test range.  But what happens when IT can't take your call?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline sidemount

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 455
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #61 on: April 07, 2016, 22:26:27 »
I guess that begs the question of why we have to rely on a 'fragile' gun that might pack up at critical moments during a high intensity conflict.... unlike the 25 pounder of course :)
And there it is...the m777 does not stand up to the abuse of constant off road and rough terrain. It is extremely maint heavy. Having deployed to the sand box as a tech for the m777s and spending 5 years at the guns I have yet to see an ex where multiple guns dont go down for various mechanical (usually the hydrolic scavenge system)  or something electrical with the GMS. (another thing the had canadian mods that, IMO
, screwed up a good working system that the brits have been using on their 105 for quite some time).
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 PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 917,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,140
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #62 on: April 07, 2016, 22:56:20 »
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?

Offline sidemount

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 455
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2016, 23:11:41 »
Thats how we moved them in the stan when I was there....actually have a wicked video of a drop off and pickup at the same time from sper on 1-10

I can see not wanting to lose the firepower to an ied
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 daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 231,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,253
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #64 on: April 08, 2016, 00:10:26 »
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?

In a high intensity conflict 'if it flies, it dies', so I doubt that choppers would be available all the time.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 917,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,140
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #65 on: April 08, 2016, 00:29:08 »
With the amount of technology out there, we're all dead in a peer on peer fight. Obviously if we don't have air superiority, you can't sling load it, but you're also a nice target dragging a big towed gun. Risk assessment I guess.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,111
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #66 on: April 08, 2016, 08:42:42 »
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?

No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 54,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 611
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #67 on: April 08, 2016, 08:44:19 »
Another example of the Quality vs Quantity debate?  If we have 12 x M777's deployed for a brigade group and a Russian Independant Motor Rifle Brigade (according to Wikipedia anyways:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200th_Independent_Motor_Rifle_Brigade) has 36 x 2S19 Msta self-propelled howitzers and 18 x BM-21 Grad Multiple Rocket Launchers then does the quality of the M777 make up for the quantity of the Russian guns/launchers?

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,959
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,051
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #68 on: April 08, 2016, 09:03:44 »
Maybe I'm just ignorant of army tactics, but why not go with a self propelled variant?  There doesn't seem to be anyone really using a 105mm SPG, but there are a lot of 155s. We could get a few from the Germans alongside our tanks!

"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #69 on: April 08, 2016, 10:21:43 »
Next you be wanting a CCV type tracked vehicle to stay with the tanks, why to much like a NATO Brigade then.....

Getting rid of the SPG's was always a dumb move, keeping one battery towed for missions like Afghanistan is fine, but at least 1/2 of the Reg force should be in SPG's. Looking at the US army storage depot, I count around 250 M109's in storage in Nevada. I suspect the US would be willing to see us a bunch to be upgraded to improve NATO's punch.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,611
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2016, 11:32:37 »
You know who is not dead in a peer on peer fight: the guy with the pointy stick.

How long does it take to work the target list down past aircraft carriers and missile silos, past frigates, subs and aircraft, past guns and tanks and CCVs?  Judging from the limited experience of Gulf Wars 1 and 2 I would suggest a matter of months.  If people haven't come to their senses in that time, and still have the will to continue the fight the fight will continue at the partisan/terrorist level.

And weaponry will be whatever can be cobbled together locally - back to spring loaded catapults for chucking hand grenades.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 11:35:31 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,567
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #71 on: April 08, 2016, 14:23:34 »
How about a 105mm on a LAV 6 chassis? would mean a lot less maintenance cost due to commonality of parts. Towed arty will always have it's place I feel, but in a highly mobile warfare situation, a group of self propelled artillery is required.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 917,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,140
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #72 on: April 08, 2016, 14:36:16 »
No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.

Was that not due to the lack of integral medium lift helo support in JTF-A? We didn't get our own chinooks until 2009 I think, and what ones in theatre were real busy moving everything else around. I think it was more necessity that they were moved by road, not a preferred COA.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,611
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2016, 14:56:48 »
How about a 105mm on a LAV 6 chassis? would mean a lot less maintenance cost due to commonality of parts. Towed arty will always have it's place I feel, but in a highly mobile warfare situation, a group of self propelled artillery is required.

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21166.msg18224.html#msg18224

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,567
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #74 on: April 08, 2016, 15:30:08 »
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"