Author Topic: C3 Howitzer Replacement  (Read 158150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,024
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #650 on: October 19, 2020, 13:51:08 »
The problem with exclusively using expensive smart weapons is that we will be limited in the number of both launchers and munitions that we can afford.

That typically won't be a problem when dealing with most non-peer opponents (which to be fair accounts for the majority of the enemies we are likely to face) which is why it makes sense to equip our Regular Force with these weapons. 

However, if we're only planning on mobilizing our Reserve units in case of a full-scale war against a peer enemy (i.e. Russia or China...realistically Russia in a land warfare scenario) and in that scenario we are likely going to be facing a situation where the Russians have considerably more weapons platforms than us, then relying ONLY on a limited number of "smart" launchers will risk having those assets overwhelmed by the sheer volume of enemy fire. 

Having some "volume" of our own in the form of some less expensive platforms would not only increase the amount of steel we can put down range but it would also allow us to focus our smart weapons on higher value targets that will have a bigger impact.  It will also make the enemy's job harder because they will have more potential targets to deal with.

I guess it's like anything...you need a variety of different tools in the toolbox in order to get the job done efficiently.  You wouldn't use your fancy laser level to pound in a nail...you'd use a hammer.  So we should probably have both hammers (cheap but effective HE launchers in quantity) and laser levels (HIMARS, Excalibur rounds, etc.) in our toolbox.
Excellent summary, and I wish I had written it. Now, we are considering an equipment for most units, and we need a relatively inexpensive, simple, and reliable system that will see a lot of time being bounced around in the field as people are learning to master their craft. I did my initial gunner training on the 105mm howitzer in Shilo in May and June 1958, and can still remember how to lay, load and all the rest on one. In fact, I just stripped the breech and firing lock in my head. I'll bet FJAG can as well. Leave the fancy, long range stuff for a few specialized fire units that will operate under the direction of "higher", and learn to fight and win fire fights with indirect fire.

We came close to declaring that sort of thing was obsolete, as precision weapons was the wave of the future. Tell that to the infantry who fought at close quarters in the sandbox. There certainly was a place for precision weaponry, but there also was a place for tons of dumb rounds crashing in at Danger Close. Maybe I'm a gunosaurus, but I still feel several rounds of fire for effect from a troop or battery, or for that matter a regiment or even every gun in range can tip the balance in favour of our side pdq.

So, let's find a good, practical field gun of 1no more than 155mm calibre, and use it both to train gunners, some of whom can move on to the more fancy stuff, and to take into battle when the next call comes.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 314,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,796
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #651 on: October 19, 2020, 16:40:06 »
... we need a relatively inexpensive, simple, and reliable system that will see a lot of time being bounced around in the field as people are learning to master their craft. I did my initial gunner training on the 105mm howitzer in Shilo in May and June 1958, and can still remember how to lay, load and all the rest on one. In fact, I just stripped the breech and firing lock in my head. I'll bet FJAG can as well. Leave the fancy, long range stuff for a few specialized fire units that will operate under the direction of "higher", and learn to fight and win fire fights with indirect fire.

We came close to declaring that sort of thing was obsolete, as precision weapons was the wave of the future. Tell that to the infantry who fought at close quarters in the sandbox. There certainly was a place for precision weaponry, but there also was a place for tons of dumb rounds crashing in at Danger Close. Maybe I'm a gunosaurus, but I still feel several rounds of fire for effect from a troop or battery, or for that matter a regiment or even every gun in range can tip the balance in favour of our side pdq.

So, let's find a good, practical field gun of 1no more than 155mm calibre, and use it both to train gunners, some of whom can move on to the more fancy stuff, and to take into battle when the next call comes.

Must admit I frequently have flashbacks of leaping over the tailgate of a deuce and a half on "halt action right" and using the panoramic to lay on the director.

I've got to diverge a bit though. I'm very much a "break glass in case of emergency" kind of guy when it comes to a role for the reserves. Basically train and equip them for those situations which the RegF doesn't have to deal with every day but only in extreme circumstances. Lets face it, the RegF rarely has to do artillery stuff every day. In the last 60 years, Afghanistan was an aberration.

There is always a need for some RegF artillery if for no other reason then as a centre of excellence and knowledge to help develop doctrine and train the deployable force, but quite frankly we could save large sums of money on full-time personnel costs and divert those funds to fully equipping and training a predominantly ResF artillery. That way you do create the mass that you need but reduce the day-to-day costs associated with it.

I still can't see why the reserves shouldn't have the "esoteric" equipment that we will fight with for their training. If the US Army National Guard can operate Paladins, MLRS, HIMARS, Avengers and drones, so can our people.

I'll be the first guy to admit that under the way our reserves are organized and led these days it would be impractical BUT, the fixes are moderately easy and just require some vision and cohones on the part of our leadership.

Is there a role for light and simple guns - absolutely and we should have at least one brigade in Canada equipped as a light air transportable quick reaction force. BUT, there's also a pressing need for long range mechanized artillery, long range rockets, air defence at multiple levels, radars, attack drones and numerous other skills which have limited application in the Army's day-to-day life but are essential in times of actual conflict.

For me the big overarching problem is that a predominantly expensive full-time force which sits around most days and does nothing but train and administer itself, is the biggest obstacle to having a large properly equipped force when the unthinkable finally happens. Fully half of the Army is reservists and at present it is capable of contributing very little without a major mobilization effort which requires not only a lengthy training cycle but also the acquisition of large amounts of equipment. Personally, I think that's a luxury we won't have which means that, as usual, the military will have few options to offer our politicians when the time comes.

 :brickwall:

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 suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 526
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #652 on: October 19, 2020, 19:07:02 »
https://defpost.com/bae-systems-offers-archer-howitzer-for-u-s-armys-155mm-wheeled-gun-system-requirement/

just add another 48 for us! Interesting in that i always imagined the US was not super interested in adopting foreign designs

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,366
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #653 on: October 19, 2020, 19:37:54 »
https://defpost.com/bae-systems-offers-archer-howitzer-for-u-s-armys-155mm-wheeled-gun-system-requirement/

just add another 48 for us! Interesting in that i always imagined the US was not super interested in adopting foreign designs



Under license, they seem to be more & more willing to adopt foreign designs.

-  The Striker has it's roots with the Piranha family of vehicles, and I believe a licensing fee is paid

-  The FFG(X) is an adopted Italian design

-  The NSM/JSM is the Norwegian design, which the Americans modified to also be fired from aircraft

-  The Carl G, including the new model just recently announced, is a Swedish weapon adopted with minimal modifications.  (Although some enhancements such as sights and fire control computers, which are common, may be American.)

-  The 76mm naval guns on a majority of their warships is based off an Italian design, and I believe still manufactured for the US Navy by Oto Melara

-  Quite a few of the options presented for the GCV / Future GCV / etc etc - project has become alive and died so many times under different acronyms - quite a few of those options were foreign designs, to be built under license


They seem to be less adverse to foreign designs than they used to be. 

Perhaps (??) because the American giants tend to take forever to design anything, and come in far more expensive than some of the foreign designs that offer similar capabilities?
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 328,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,579
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #654 on: October 19, 2020, 20:04:05 »


Under license, they seem to be more & more willing to adopt foreign designs.

-  The Striker has it's roots with the Piranha family of vehicles, and I believe a licensing fee is paid

-  The FFG(X) is an adopted Italian design

-  The NSM/JSM is the Norwegian design, which the Americans modified to also be fired from aircraft

-  The Carl G, including the new model just recently announced, is a Swedish weapon adopted with minimal modifications.  (Although some enhancements such as sights and fire control computers, which are common, may be American.)

-  The 76mm naval guns on a majority of their warships is based off an Italian design, and I believe still manufactured for the US Navy by Oto Melara

-  Quite a few of the options presented for the GCV / Future GCV / etc etc - project has become alive and died so many times under different acronyms - quite a few of those options were foreign designs, to be built under license


They seem to be less adverse to foreign designs than they used to be. 

Perhaps (??) because the American giants tend to take forever to design anything, and come in far more expensive than some of the foreign designs that offer similar capabilities?

And don't forget that the USMC copied CADPAT :)

http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #655 on: October 19, 2020, 21:36:48 »
Must admit I frequently have flashbacks of leaping over the tailgate of a deuce and a half on "halt action right" and using the panoramic to lay on the director.

I've got to diverge a bit though. I'm very much a "break glass in case of emergency" kind of guy when it comes to a role for the reserves. Basically train and equip them for those situations which the RegF doesn't have to deal with every day but only in extreme circumstances. Lets face it, the RegF rarely has to do artillery stuff every day. In the last 60 years, Afghanistan was an aberration.

There is always a need for some RegF artillery if for no other reason then as a centre of excellence and knowledge to help develop doctrine and train the deployable force, but quite frankly we could save large sums of money on full-time personnel costs and divert those funds to fully equipping and training a predominantly ResF artillery. That way you do create the mass that you need but reduce the day-to-day costs associated with it.

I still can't see why the reserves shouldn't have the "esoteric" equipment that we will fight with for their training. If the US Army National Guard can operate Paladins, MLRS, HIMARS, Avengers and drones, so can our people.

I'll be the first guy to admit that under the way our reserves are organized and led these days it would be impractical BUT, the fixes are moderately easy and just require some vision and cohones on the part of our leadership.

Is there a role for light and simple guns - absolutely and we should have at least one brigade in Canada equipped as a light air transportable quick reaction force. BUT, there's also a pressing need for long range mechanized artillery, long range rockets, air defence at multiple levels, radars, attack drones and numerous other skills which have limited application in the Army's day-to-day life but are essential in times of actual conflict.

For me the big overarching problem is that a predominantly expensive full-time force which sits around most days and does nothing but train and administer itself, is the biggest obstacle to having a large properly equipped force when the unthinkable finally happens. Fully half of the Army is reservists and at present it is capable of contributing very little without a major mobilization effort which requires not only a lengthy training cycle but also the acquisition of large amounts of equipment. Personally, I think that's a luxury we won't have which means that, as usual, the military will have few options to offer our politicians when the time comes.

 :brickwall:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #656 on: October 19, 2020, 21:37:26 »
Your last para.  Can't agree more. 

Saw an article recently where a bunch of US youngsters were given a fleet of remote drive M113s or some such.  Command allowed a one week familiarization delta.  The troops were up to speed in half an hour.

RC vehicles and ps4 is the standard required.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 21:41:55 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,425
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #657 on: October 20, 2020, 00:01:37 »
Your last para.  Can't agree more. 

Saw an article recently where a bunch of US youngsters were given a fleet of remote drive M113s or some such.  Command allowed a one week familiarization delta.  The troops were up to speed in half an hour.

RC vehicles and ps4 is the standard required.

The reserves could be a powerful tool for force generation if we were reorganized, trained and funded effectively, and had our civilian careers protected.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,366
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #658 on: October 20, 2020, 03:09:20 »
Aren't civilian careers already protected under existing legislation?

I remember during the Afghan war hayday, many reservists were deployed, and there was legislation in place to protect those careers.



Thankfully, most emergency services agencies didn't need the ultimatum, and many supported their members even while they were deployed. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 328,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,579
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #659 on: October 20, 2020, 10:20:01 »
Aren't civilian careers already protected under existing legislation?

I remember during the Afghan war hayday, many reservists were deployed, and there was legislation in place to protect those careers.



Thankfully, most emergency services agencies didn't need the ultimatum, and many supported their members even while they were deployed.

I saw several reservists deploy, some more than once, to AFG and lost their jobs. One for sure I know even had his business collapse.

To my knowledge no employer was ever charged with anything, and none were hired back. There was no help available from the CAF apart form offering them Class B jobs based on availability etc.

Those who were in the emergency services professions, like cops and firefighters, seemed to do better but I'm sure had stunted civilian careers due to their tendency to head out for a year at fairly short notice (maybe even the MND? Not sure there  .... )

In 'Class A land' all bets are off once you take the step through the looking glass and develop the crazy idea that you can both deploy operationally and have a good career in civvie street.
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,425
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #660 on: October 20, 2020, 10:45:21 »
Aren't civilian careers already protected under existing legislation?

I remember during the Afghan war hayday, many reservists were deployed, and there was legislation in place to protect those careers.



Thankfully, most emergency services agencies didn't need the ultimatum, and many supported their members even while they were deployed.

Alberta for example only legally entitles us to 20 days per year. After that it has to be negotiated with the employer. I have a soldier who had to use his vacation for the next two years just to get time off for his DP1. People complain but the enforcement side doesn't seem to happen. I have on three occasions now been basically told sorry we filled the position while you were gone, bye.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 314,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,796
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #661 on: October 20, 2020, 12:26:01 »
On the employee protection legislation issue, there are provisions in each province and territory that are designed to protect reservists on deployment. The Federal website providing information on this is here.

The problem - like the 20 day limitation in Alberta - is that each province has it's own legislation; it is mostly toothless; it doesn't provide provisions for training; it doesn't provide any mechanism (such as an ombudsman, arbitrator, or assistant) to help individuals terminated or negatively effected as a result of their service.

In the US, the provisions for reservist protection comes under their Federal "Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act" (USERRA) under Title 20 of the US Code.

For the Act itself, see here;

For an example of an older informational brochure on the USERRA published by the Federal Attorney General for the Eastern District of North Carolina, see here.

While not perfect, USERRA is a vast improvement over our hodge-podge of weak legislation and quite frankly, without a piece of legislation like this, Canada will never have an effective, capable reserve force. IMHO, while labour law is a provincial jurisdiction, legislation like this can and should be issued by the federal government under the National Defence provisions of item 7 of s 91 of the Constitution Act.

 :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 Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,024
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #662 on: October 20, 2020, 13:02:07 »
FJAG, I'd like to hear your opinion on the following.

Many, many years ago (it might have been at Staff College) an authority on the matter, perhaps a JAG officer, stated that, if we had such legislation, employers merely would not hire reservists, and would not allow any of their employees from joining the reserves, on threat of termination.

The lack of job protection legislation may have been the case for a very long time. In March 1885 when the uprising is the NW began, the 90th Winnipeg Rifles and the Winnipeg Field Battery were ordered to occupy Fort Qu'Apelle (sp). When researching the RWR history, I found reference to a number of members of the 90th would did not report for duty, as their employers refused to give them time off work.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2020, 14:01:21 by Old Sweat »

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 314,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,796
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #663 on: October 20, 2020, 14:58:28 »
FJAG, I'd like to hear your opinion on the following.

Many, many years ago (it might have been at Staff College) an authority on the matter, perhaps a JAG officer, stated that, if we had such legislation, employers merely would not hire reservists, and would not allow any of their employees from joining the reserves, on threat of termination.

The lack of job protection legislation may have been the case for a very long time. In March 1885 when the uprising is the NW began, the 90th Winnipeg Rifles and the Winnipeg Field Battery were ordered to occupy Fort Qu'Apelle (sp). When researching the RWR history, I found reference to a number of members of the 90th would did not report for duty, as their employers refused to give them time off work.

It's a good question, Brian, unfortunately any opinion I would have would be, like that lecturer, a guess at best.

I can only point to the US where there are some 807,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel across the four services who seem to be able to find employment in the civilian sector notwithstanding USERRA.

As I pointed out in my little book, restructuring the reserves into an effective force capable of deployment requires several actions to be taken including creating incentives for employers to hire and retain reservists. A few that I touch on there are:

1. First and foremost to create a form of covenant with the soldier, his family, the employer and the military that mandatory training for reservists be set by regulations to a certain number of days and events that will be clearly set in advance AND NOT dicked around with by the local unit. I recommended the months of September to June at a 2.5 day weekend per month; none whatsoever in July to allow for family vacations and a 3 weeks annual exercise in August. I think the single greatest disincentive for an employer (and family) these days is that reserve service is largely unpredictable in the long term as to when exercises or courses will take place (which I think in large part is why many reservists just don't show up for them);

2. Concentrating the mass of training that a reservist needs to be effective into the first four years of service so as to
allow students to have full summer employment and reach trained status well before actually reaching the work force and having major family responsibilities;

3. Supporting the initial civilian education of soldiers by paying for the tuition at universities (for officer candidates) and community colleges (particularly for skilled trades such as transport operators, mechanics, health care workers, cooks, supply technicians, even engineers, etc) and in some cases even offering short periods (a year or two) of full time employment to make them more desirable as new hires;

4. Incentive programs for employers that provide concrete financial support in finding and temporarily replacing reservists called to active service;

5. A robust education program for employers that helps them to understand the benefits that they receive by having a trained reservist work for them (especially a no-cost-to-employer ongoing skills and leadership development program that benefits them as well as the military)

Brian, I know that no system will ever be perfect (except maybe conscription) but at present we are failing miserably in that the bulk of our reservists never show up for training and are incapable of any deployment without a long and lengthy pre-deployment training phase. The reserve units are overloaded with marginally capable leaders, have virtually no equipment to train on or deploy with and in short, are not fit for purpose except for some of the most simple of tasks. They've been in this shape pretty much since WW2. They should be a great low-cost option to allow our government to rapidly expand the size of our force both in breadth and depth in an emergency. They aren't and no one wants to do anything about it.

To get back to the topic of a replacement for the C3. There are literally dozens of options for equipment (both guns and other) that could go to the reserves that I would agree with. My single requirement is that it isn't merely a training tool but something that you can go to war with. However, regardless of the kit we eventually select, unless there is an across the board, fundamental change on what we want the reserves to do, how they are organized, what their terms of service are and how they will go about getting there, all we are really doing is putting lipstick on a pig.

Personally I'd rather have one viable reserve manoeuvre brigade, one viable combat service support brigade and one viable artillery brigade of 10,000 or so trained and equipped reservists in total than 20 - 30,000 of what we have now. But give me 22 - 25,000 reservists and you can have the five brigade structure I laid out in the book.

 :2c:
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
  • *****
  • 183,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,691
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #664 on: October 20, 2020, 15:58:39 »
Along with the legislation should be some carrots which will help offsets some of the costs to the employer, like a tax credit for active reservists who are employed with the company.

Online Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 746
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #665 on: October 20, 2020, 16:30:07 »
It's a good question, Brian, unfortunately any opinion I would have would be, like that lecturer, a guess at best.

I can only point to the US where there are some 807,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel across the four services who seem to be able to find employment in the civilian sector notwithstanding USERRA.

As I pointed out in my little book, restructuring the reserves into an effective force capable of deployment requires several actions to be taken including creating incentives for employers to hire and retain reservists. A few that I touch on there are:

1. First and foremost to create a form of covenant with the soldier, his family, the employer and the military that mandatory training for reservists be set by regulations to a certain number of days and events that will be clearly set in advance AND NOT dicked around with by the local unit. I recommended the months of September to June at a 2.5 day weekend per month; none whatsoever in July to allow for family vacations and a 3 weeks annual exercise in August. I think the single greatest disincentive for an employer (and family) these days is that reserve service is largely unpredictable in the long term as to when exercises or courses will take place (which I think in large part is why many reservists just don't show up for them);

2. Concentrating the mass of training that a reservist needs to be effective into the first four years of service so as to
allow students to have full summer employment and reach trained status well before actually reaching the work force and having major family responsibilities;

3. Supporting the initial civilian education of soldiers by paying for the tuition at universities (for officer candidates) and community colleges (particularly for skilled trades such as transport operators, mechanics, health care workers, cooks, supply technicians, even engineers, etc) and in some cases even offering short periods (a year or two) of full time employment to make them more desirable as new hires;

4. Incentive programs for employers that provide concrete financial support in finding and temporarily replacing reservists called to active service;

5. A robust education program for employers that helps them to understand the benefits that they receive by having a trained reservist work for them (especially a no-cost-to-employer ongoing skills and leadership development program that benefits them as well as the military)

Brian, I know that no system will ever be perfect (except maybe conscription) but at present we are failing miserably in that the bulk of our reservists never show up for training and are incapable of any deployment without a long and lengthy pre-deployment training phase. The reserve units are overloaded with marginally capable leaders, have virtually no equipment to train on or deploy with and in short, are not fit for purpose except for some of the most simple of tasks. They've been in this shape pretty much since WW2. They should be a great low-cost option to allow our government to rapidly expand the size of our force both in breadth and depth in an emergency. They aren't and no one wants to do anything about it.

To get back to the topic of a replacement for the C3. There are literally dozens of options for equipment (both guns and other) that could go to the reserves that I would agree with. My single requirement is that it isn't merely a training tool but something that you can go to war with. However, regardless of the kit we eventually select, unless there is an across the board, fundamental change on what we want the reserves to do, how they are organized, what their terms of service are and how they will go about getting there, all we are really doing is putting lipstick on a pig.

Personally I'd rather have one viable reserve manoeuvre brigade, one viable combat service support brigade and one viable artillery brigade of 10,000 or so trained and equipped reservists in total than 20 - 30,000 of what we have now. But give me 22 - 25,000 reservists and you can have the five brigade structure I laid out in the book.

 :2c:

All laudable and worthwhile initiatives in your book FJAG. I wonder how they will withstand a post-covid economic environment.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 314,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,796
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #666 on: October 20, 2020, 17:21:38 »
All laudable and worthwhile initiatives in your book FJAG. I wonder how they will withstand a post-covid economic environment.

Here's the thing. The part-time reservist costs us about 1/6th of a full-time soldier (both in immediate pay and benefits as well as long term pensions). Converting the reserves to the type of system that I propose is pretty much a wash over current costs based on a limit of 48 days annual mandatory training; the existing four years annual summer training for students; and the existing educational benefits programs. If you yank all the Class B's out of Ottawa where they are merely constituting a workaround the authorized PY limits on the RegF you have even more cash available.

In my proposal, we reduce the existing four divisional headquarters to just two, the ten reserve brigades and the CSSB to five brigade headquarters, and the number of individual units from some 146 non-deployable reserve (that's army, MP and medical) and hybrid units to 52 deployable reserve and hybrid units and 5 non-deployable hybrid units (essentially the depot battalions). That saves a significant high priced staff overhead which can also be laid off for additional cost savings.

I'm looking at the same armories and trg facilities footprint, so that's a wash.

Equipment does constitute a cost. That's a long range process that can also be tied to a national economic recovery process if done right.

I know this makes no sense to the people in Ottawa who have zero respect for the potential that a properly structured reserve force can bring to the defence table, but the single most wasted funding within DND is for full-time personnel costs (both military and civilian) that exist at the headquarters level above brigade. If you read Leslie's Report you'll see just how much inflation went on there during the 2004-2011 period.

If we truly get hit with post-Covid cutbacks then our first reaction should be to cut back massively on the administrative headquarters cost that DND/CAF bears (and I do not mean the logistic tail here - that's needed. I mean the administrative leadership and their staff. I've previously said that half of the legal branch could go. Same goes for the public affairs branch ;D) i.e Reg F PYs need to be cut to stop the current and future funding bleed.

If we need to cut more than that then we should realistically look at again cutting full time PY's at the brigade, wing, fleet level and transferring their equipment to a restructured/reformed reserve.

The first exercise should not cut our actual defence outputs (merely the administration which badly needs reform anyway) the second will transfer some of our current defence outputs to a reserve status which obviously means less responsive force but one with equal capabilities once mobilized.

The entire idea behind my proposal in restructuring and equipping the reserves into deployable entities is to increase our actual defence outputs more commensurate with the existing funding envelope Canada already supplies. Right now everyone in government is talking about maintaining that funding commitment. I guess we'll see. Either way, we need reserve reform.

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: October 20, 2020, 17:38:27 by FJAG »
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
  • *****
  • 183,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,691
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #667 on: October 20, 2020, 18:20:10 »
At this point I would just be happy with a new gun that won't break or end up killing some of our own gun crews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN84r_4GTdQ&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR2zXTZjGxEmgS6MYw6UFUCqhUxepp0EesA1uDXrqAivZSUaaMKfm3c0GKA

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 102,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,220
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #668 on: October 20, 2020, 19:40:37 »
Wolf, you may have to an estimate if Trudeau is re-elected, and some Provinces leave. ;D
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 314,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,796
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #669 on: October 23, 2020, 14:37:27 »
A touch off topic but look what I found while unpacking my model railroad. The old C Tp, J Bty 3 RCHA tac signs salvaged from my command post from 1971 when we switched over to the new NATO system.



 ;D
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 CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,366
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #670 on: October 23, 2020, 17:26:13 »
Very cool   :nod:
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline Larry Strong

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 228,271
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,687
  • 546 days from 0 to being King of the Castle
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #671 on: October 24, 2020, 10:29:01 »
Very nice momentos.....


Cheers
Larry
Proud sponsor of the Maple Leaf Legacy Project. http://www.mapleleaflegacy.ca

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 552,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,634
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #672 on: October 24, 2020, 11:00:07 »
A touch off topic but look what I found while unpacking my model railroad. The old C Tp, J Bty 3 RCHA tac signs salvaged from my command post from 1971 when we switched over to the new NATO system.



 ;D

"Salvaged"

Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,024
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #673 on: October 24, 2020, 11:31:58 »
I have been mulling over FJAG's plan, and think there are a number of very good points to it, but I think it may founder on the principle of forces in being that has been the backbone of our defence policy since about 1950. Being one known to have dabbled in military history, I can state with some confidence it is much easier to predict the past than it is to do the same for guess the future.

The CAF would have to convince the Federal bureaucracy that we had an achievable solution, after we had convinced ourselves, and then would have to do the same to our allies and to our Parliamentarians and academics, and, probably above all else, the HCols cabal. There are a number of aspects that would have to be addressed, and solved economically and effectively, or we will be bogged down like a Centurion in the Lawfield Corridor. (OK, a flash from the past, but a number of you will get my drift.)

Mods, I suggest this could be a stand along discussion separate from the C3 replacement.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 254,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,426
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #674 on: October 24, 2020, 13:09:16 »

Mods, I suggest this could be a stand along discussion separate from the C3 replacement.

Or migrated to the FJAG originated topic Army Reserve Restructuring
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.