C3 Howitzer Replacement

[GK .Dundas]

Actually off of Magnificent (Maggie) with a kludged up ground mount .

 

[NavyShooter]

Yup. Bonnie never had 40mm Bofors.

She had 4x 3"50 twin mounts, plus 3x 6 pdr Saluting guns.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yup. Bonnie never had 40mm Bofors.

She had 4x 3"50 twin mounts, plus 3x 6 pdr Saluting guns.

Interesting, thank you.

 

[NavyShooter]

Of note, we still use the same saluting guns today.

After her second refit, Bonnie had the forward set of 3"50's removed and several of the forward boat bays closed up. The seas that we operated her in resulted in those boats being damaged, and apparently the guns as well.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The hurricane bow (an enclosed bow ) was developed for the RN's carriers. As they tended to operate in the North Atlantic more often the the Americans.
The American would adopt it as well fairly soon after that 1944 Pacific typhoon that did so much damage.

 

[markppcli]

Proposal -

WW1 saw 3 gun batteries and 1 howitzer battery per regiment
WW2 saw 3 gun-howitzer batteries with 8 gun-howitzers per battery
The Cold War saw 3 to 4 howitzer plus or minus an air-defence battery.

What happens if

The Regiment becomes 2 AD Batteries, 1 large 12 tube howitzer battery and 1x 8 launcher HIMARS battery?

The AD Batteries could be responsible for UAS and overall situational awareness and make the targeting of the howitzers more effective. The HIMARS battery would be under the Brigade Commander's direct control and informed by the Recce Regiment's inputs.

The real plus I see is that it changes the focus to defence from attack while retaining the systems to conduct attacks. In a country where we aren't allowed to buy "Attack Helicopters" and "Peace Keeping" is our thing, then having artillery regiments whose first priority is to Defend might make them an easier sell. It would certainly result in a justification for the Artillery to lead the way on even benign Peace Keeping missions. And GBAD seems to be the flavour of the month.

The GBAD batteries would also take all the C2 into the field with them so that they could be accompanied by a troop of howitzers and/or a section of HIMARs if the situation warranted.

It would also leave the Reserves free to focus on supplying firing troops for the howitzers and the HIMARS.

Money could be spent on stocks of ammunition and spare turrets.....

Thought: If the GBAD system can co-ordinate multiple remote gun and missile turrets in operation against multiple targets could the turret array include fixed remote 155mm and GMRLS turrets?

View attachment 78966View attachment 78967

Boxer RCH 155 demonstrates MRSI and fire-on-the-move capabilities – Below The Turret Ring

below-the-turret-ring.com

Your GBAD battery, with 2 watchkeepers could now comprise 6x 35mm, 2x NASAMs with 12 total AIM9s/AIM120s/AIM7s/ESSMs.... a pair of 155s and a couple of MRLS pods.

Analysis: 155mm Wheeled Mobile Howitzers Could Become Anti-Ship Artillery - Naval News

The concept of 155mm tracked Self-Propelled Howitzers (SPHs) acting as mobile coastal artillery isn’t particularly new; however, the reality of implementing this concept recently got much better with new advances in GPS precision-guided rocket-assisted projectiles and Hypervelocity shell technology.

www.navalnews.com

The range revolution - Nammo

www.nammo.com

The static turrets could also be deployed from the backs of vehicles as well to supply manoeuvre support.



View attachment 78969View attachment 78970View attachment 78971

Why 1 12 tube battery? What advantages are there in doing that? To be your grouped a great deal of guns in one organization which limits it mobility, ability to sustain, and command and control. “Ah but we’ll deploy them as troops you see” - well if that troop is large enough to command 6 guns, has its own organic logistics, and has all the other bells and whistles it is in effect a battery.

And again we see the fixation on the fixed turret, which provide not real advantages.


We’re an expeditionary army be design, always have been (be 1885 was expeditionary in terms of deployment).

 

[IKnowNothing]

I seem to remember the Hawkeye being posted in this thread- looks like AM has scaled up.


https://www.amgeneral.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BRUTUS-155mm-MHS_081821.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

From the bottom up...

We’re an expeditionary army be design, always have been (be 1885 was expeditionary in terms of deployment).

Agreed. We need to be operationally mobile. How tactically mobile do we need to be?
Deploying an Engineer Squadron, a Light Infantry Battalion and a GBAD battery - easier or harder than a mechanized battlegroup? More or less useful across all phases of war?
I accept that it is a debatable issue.
I don't accept that the Mech Battle Group is the universal solution.

And again we see the fixation on the fixed turret, which provide not real advantages.

No we do not see a fixation on a fixed turret. We see a fixation on the modular, remote turret which is available in all calibres, and all effectors and sensors. And which is the continuing state of the art and Best Available Technology.

Those turrets can be "fixed" on a cement pad, on the deck of a ship or boat, on the back of a truck, or the back of an APC, or even a helicopter or aircraft, manned or unmanned. The same turret. Fixed or Mobile.

If you are going to put down trails for three months, or three years or thirty years why would you waste time, effort and money maintaining and replacing wheels, replacing tyres and bearings, greasing them, reinflating them --- or worse yet tying up a perfectly useful vehicle that could be doing other things for you?

The Swedes defended their coasts for the duration of the cold war with emplaced artillery. We defended Lahr for the like duration with guns on trailers and guns on tracked tractors.

Riga needs defending and isn't going anywhere. Camp Adazi likewise. Munitions factories. Srebrenica. Medak. Camp Bondsteel. Kandahar. All of those needed defending and an mobile weapons system tied up in their defence was over kill for the defence and a waste of resources that could be employed offensively.

Most things worth defending aren't going anywhere.

The best we can do is to make the defence as efficient as possible, meaning to use as few people as possible while destroying as many targets as possible and fortunately that equates to industrial practices.

Why 1 12 tube battery?
What advantages are there in doing that?

To be your grouped a great deal of guns in one organization which limits it mobility, ability to sustain, and command and control. “Ah but we’ll deploy them as troops you see” - well if that troop is large enough to command 6 guns, has its own organic logistics, and has all the other bells and whistles it is in effect a battery.

The clear answer is that it is easier to convert 4 regiments of 4 batteries than it is to raise 3 or 4 more regiments.
Also I do not accept that all forces have to be mobile to be effective. See above.
In fact many effective forces MUST be static.

And being expeditionary does not mean being mobile.

Some mobile forces, like Heliportable Divisions and Armoured Divisions are decidedly difficult to expedite due to their lack of mobility. Not just the physical limits but, as you point out, their sustainment costs.

Conversely a GBAD battery at Adazi (I have to assume that somebody has already got that covered but why could that not be a Canadian contribution?) is probably a good idea.

I know GBAD batteries take money away from tank squadrons. My choice would be for the GBAD battery as a priority over a tank squadron, or even an Apache squadron.

All of my "fixed" turrets are only "fixed" when the circumstances permit or demand. All of them can be mounted on any mobile platform and converted to manouever support systems. Equally all of them can go trails down for extended periods and be wired in to a protected CIC/FCS and manned by a couple of watchkeepers rather than requiring a separate crew for every turret. Those "redundant" crews could be on course, on leave, or training for manoeuvre warfare.

The weapon is separate from the vehicle and the vehicle is separate from the crew.

 

[KevinB]

From the bottom up...


Agreed. We need to be operationally mobile. How tactically mobile do we need to be?
Deploying an Engineer Squadron, a Light Infantry Battalion and a GBAD battery - easier or harder than a mechanized battlegroup? More or less useful across all phases of war?
I accept that it is a debatable issue.
I don't accept that the Mech Battle Group is the universal solution.

I do not think anyone believes that it is the universal solution.
But if that is what you are asked for by allies, it is what you should supply.

No we do not see a fixation on a fixed turret. We see a fixation on the modular, remote turret which is available in all calibres, and all effectors and sensors. And which is the continuing state of the art and Best Available Technology.

TBH Modular often brings complexities that are not really needed -- or realities that it isn't a feasibly modular as portrayed

Those turrets can be "fixed" on a cement pad, on the deck of a ship or boat, on the back of a truck, or the back of an APC, or even a helicopter or aircraft, manned or unmanned. The same turret. Fixed or Mobile.

This is where I dont understand the benefit of the same turret.
The stability requirements as well as the armor one will want are going to be significantly different - as well a vehicle mounted system will generally want to be much more of an "All in one" platform than a fixed site system needs to be.

If you are going to put down trails for three months, or three years or thirty years why would you waste time, effort and money maintaining and replacing wheels, replacing tyres and bearings, greasing them, reinflating them --- or worse yet tying up a perfectly useful vehicle that could be doing other things for you?

No disagreement there

The Swedes defended their coasts for the duration of the cold war with emplaced artillery. We defended Lahr for the like duration with guns on trailers and guns on tracked tractors.

Riga needs defending and isn't going anywhere. Camp Adazi likewise. Munitions factories. Srebrenica. Medak. Camp Bondsteel. Kandahar. All of those needed defending and an mobile weapons system tied up in their defence was over kill for the defence and a waste of resources that could be employed offensively.

Most things worth defending aren't going anywhere.

The best we can do is to make the defence as efficient as possible, meaning to use as few people as possible while destroying as many targets as possible and fortunately that equates to industrial practices.

The issue is see is then a lot of the actual mobile systems get ignored or not acquired.

The clear answer is that it is easier to convert 4 regiments of 4 batteries than it is to raise 3 or 4 more regiments.
Also I do not accept that all forces have to be mobile to be effective. See above.
In fact many effective forces MUST be static.

And being expeditionary does not mean being mobile.

Some mobile forces, like Heliportable Divisions and Armoured Divisions are decidedly difficult to expedite due to their lack of mobility. Not just the physical limits but, as you point out, their sustainment costs.

Conversely a GBAD battery at Adazi (I have to assume that somebody has already got that covered but why could that not be a Canadian contribution?) is probably a good idea.

I know GBAD batteries take money away from tank squadrons. My choice would be for the GBAD battery as a priority over a tank squadron, or even an Apache squadron.

I don't think anyone I saying that GBAD isn't needed -- but you are missing the major issue in that your GBAD assets are not part of a Battle Group - and potentially not part of a Bde -- when you are considering fighting you want a cohesive formation, something that the Tank Squadron is...

All of my "fixed" turrets are only "fixed" when the circumstances permit or demand. All of them can be mounted on any mobile platform and converted to manouever support systems. Equally all of them can go trails down for extended periods and be wired in to a protected CIC/FCS and manned by a couple of watchkeepers rather than requiring a separate crew for every turret. Those "redundant" crews could be on course, on leave, or training for manoeuvre warfare.

The false economy of "modularity" as they need dedicated vehicles if they are maneuver support systems.
You will then end up without one or the other...

 

[Kirkhill]

I do not think anyone believes that it is the universal solution.
But if that is what you are asked for by allies, it is what you should supply.

We should supply what we promise.
We should supply things that benefit our national defence first.
The things we supply should be surplus to our direct needs but be seen as an opportunity to gain operational experience with them.
Uncle Sam needs jungle fighters. Fine. We don't. Talk to somebody that has them.

TBH Modular often brings complexities that are not really needed -- or realities that it isn't a feasibly modular as portrayed

This is where I dont understand the benefit of the same turret.
The stability requirements as well as the armor one will want are going to be significantly different - as well a vehicle mounted system will generally want to be much more of an "All in one" platform than a fixed site system needs to be.

See I am a B student. I am quite happy with an 80% solution that works in 90% of the cases. I don't see the benefit of bespoke Gucci kit tailored for one specific mission. We don't have that luxury.

No disagreement there

The issue is see is then a lot of the actual mobile systems get ignored or not acquired.

No matter what is acquired something else will not be acquired. See comment about not having the luxury of buying the best of everything for every occasion. Equally as bad, as far as I am concerned, is having the absolute best equipment for only one occasion. The enemy, in the words of the great philosopher Meatloaf, "won't do that".

I don't think anyone I saying that GBAD isn't needed -- but you are missing the major issue in that your GBAD assets are not part of a Battle Group - and potentially not part of a Bde -- when you are considering fighting you want a cohesive formation, something that the Tank Squadron is...

What on earth are you havering about?

A Battle Group could just as easily be a Light Infantry Battle Group with a GBAD battery and an Engr Sqn tasked to the defence of an airfield in Kuwait housing an RCAF CF18 squadron.

Or it could be the defence element of an airfield in Lahr from which RCAF squadrons and a Mech Brigade (+/-) operates - 4 CMBG was minus a battalion and plus a couple of batteries.

4 CMBG needed someplace to hang out even if it was just to keep their whistles wet at the local pubs.

And fighting the defensive battle doesn't require cohesion?

PS --- I am reliably informed that a squadron is not a formation. It is a sub-unit.

The false economy of "modularity" as they need dedicated vehicles if they are maneuver support systems.
You will then end up without one or the other...

Which is why you want to buy more than you need.

And I can buy more turrets if I don't need to buy separate armoured vehicles for each one of them and, instead, can mount them on the back of an MSVS with an armoured cab - if necessary.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you are setting up AD to defend a plant, then the crews do not need to be military. They could be formed as a territorial defense unit or "Civil Protection Brigade". Taught how to do there one job very well and practice it. A lot of the coastal artillery units in many countries were dedicated troops or reserve/volunteers for that duty.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is no reflection of the skills of the women of the WAAT, ATS and Home Guard but there was a lot of the Air Defence that was tasked out to those organizations to leave others available to fill out the front line Divisions.

Nostalgia: The brave Manchester women who crewed anti-aircraft guns during World War II

We remember the brave Manchester women who played vital roles during World War II.

www.inyourarea.co.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

ATS plotters with the Coastal Artillery

1st Kent Artillery Volunteers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another occupation suitable to the Reserves?

 

[markppcli]

Swedish Coastal Artillery, when’s the last time they fired a shot in anger again ?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Don't know about the Swedes but I know when the Norwegians did and they were untrained conscripts who did pretty well.
* Someone else will have to provide the movie clip because I haven't a clue how to do that from my phone.

 

[Kirkhill]

Swedish Coastal Artillery, when’s the last time they fired a shot in anger again ?

We might want to be a bit careful with that line of attack? How long has it been since Panjwaii?

 

[markppcli]

Don't know about the Swedes but I know when the Norwegians did and they were untrained conscripts who did pretty well.
* Someone else will have to provide the movie clip because I haven't a clue how to do that from my phone.

That was more a general point that looking to the Swedes for inspiration should be tempered by the knowledge they haven’t fought a war since the invention of the combustion engine.

We should supply what we promise.
We should supply things that benefit our national defence first.
The things we supply should be surplus to our direct needs but be seen as an opportunity to gain operational experience with them.
Uncle Sam needs jungle fighters. Fine. We don't. Talk to somebody that has them.



See I am a B student. I am quite happy with an 80% solution that works in 90% of the cases. I don't see the benefit of bespoke Gucci kit tailored for one specific mission. We don't have that luxury.

And yet that exactly what you called for. An organization built to accomplish exactly one possible task.

No matter what is acquired something else will not be acquired. See comment about not having the luxury of buying the best of everything for every occasion. Equally as bad, as far as I am concerned, is having the absolute best equipment for only one occasion. The enemy, in the words of the great philosopher Meatloaf, "won't do that".


What on earth are you havering about?

he’s patiently explaining that Air Defence is not held by BGs and generally not by Bdes and is instead deployed as a cohesive network. So they don’t belong to Bde and lower formations and are instead maneuvered and deployed to create a network. But by all means talk down to people.

From the bottom up...


Agreed. We need to be operationally mobile. How tactically mobile do we need to be?
Deploying an Engineer Squadron, a Light Infantry Battalion and a GBAD battery - easier or harder than a mechanized battlegroup? More or less useful across all phases of war?
I accept that it is a debatable issue.
I don't accept that the Mech Battle Group is the universal solution.


No we do not see a fixation on a fixed turret. We see a fixation on the modular, remote turret which is available in all calibres, and all effectors and sensors. And which is the continuing state of the art and Best Available Technology.

Those turrets can be "fixed" on a cement pad, on the deck of a ship or boat, on the back of a truck, or the back of an APC, or even a helicopter or aircraft, manned or unmanned. The same turret. Fixed or Mobile.

If you are going to put down trails for three months, or three years or thirty years why would you waste time, effort and money maintaining and replacing wheels, replacing tyres and bearings, greasing them, reinflating them --- or worse yet tying up a perfectly useful vehicle that could be doing other things for you?

The Swedes defended their coasts for the duration of the cold war with emplaced artillery. We defended Lahr for the like duration with guns on trailers and guns on tracked tractors.

Riga needs defending and isn't going anywhere. Camp Adazi likewise. Munitions factories. Srebrenica. Medak. Camp Bondsteel. Kandahar. All of those needed defending and an mobile weapons system tied up in their defence was over kill for the defence and a waste of resources that could be employed offensively.

Most things worth defending aren't going anywhere.

The best we can do is to make the defence as efficient as possible, meaning to use as few people as possible while destroying as many targets as possible and fortunately that equates to industrial practices.




The clear answer is that it is easier to convert 4 regiments of 4 batteries than it is to raise 3 or 4 more regiments.
Also I do not accept that all forces have to be mobile to be effective. See above.
In fact many effective forces MUST be static.

Such as what force that’s best employed static ? The vaunted costal artillery?

Artillery, to avoid counter battery, needs to “shoot and scoot” which means it has to move. Even a heavy weight boxer doesn’t keep his head in one place when he’s standing there.

All of my "fixed" turrets are only "fixed" when the circumstances permit or demand. All of them can be mounted on any mobile platform and converted to manouever support systems. Equally all of them can go trails down for extended periods and be wired in to a protected CIC/FCS and manned by a couple of watchkeepers rather than requiring a separate crew for every turret. Those "redundant" crews could be on course, on leave, or training for manoeuvre warfare.



View attachment 79000

View attachment 79010View attachment 79006



View attachment 79002View attachment 79003View attachment 79004

View attachment 79008View attachment 79009

The weapon is separate from the vehicle and the vehicle is separate from the crew.

All theory and brochure. What does that vehicle do when its turret is ripped off? Have we shipped over a full Swiss Army knife for it? What about the unit it belonged to that is now lacking that fire power.

Ah never mind the response will be “80 percent solution” and a hand wave.

 

[markppcli]

We might want to be a bit careful with that line of attack? How long has it been since Panjwaii?

The difference being the leadership of the CAF were all there. The modern Kingdom of Sweden hasn’t caught a war since it opposed Napoleon.

 

[GR66]

If it's the ability to scale and reduce cost that we're looking for then I'd argue that looking to create our own modular family of systems is not the way to go. The US already has kit to perform any capability that we need/want and they have it in volume along with the various supporting components (vehicles, optics, replacement components and importantly ammo) in large enough volume to be able to replace and resupply our units if required.

Dollar for dollar our best bet is to wherever possible adopt they same systems as them. Better ability to maintain in combat than a bespoke set of systems and if we are smart and plug into their procurement system we can probably get better pricing and significant industrial benefits from Canadian suppliers if we get in at the ground level.

 

[FJAG]

Didn't the Arty folks get some old 40mm bofors off the Bonnie for use as AFAD in Germany ?

Absolutely. The naval version was called the Boffin. They were in storage after we decommissioned the Bonnie and the Maggie and anecdotally my understanding was that NATO was insisting in the early / mid 1970s that all military airfields be protected by air defence systems (and I think with buildings to be painted in matt green). NATO put up money for that to happen and Canada cashed in, got the Boffins out of storage, bought a bunch of Blowpipe missile systems of the Brits and voila. We created AD batteries and installed the Boffins around our airfields. That didn't change until we did the Low Level Aird Defence project that replaced the Boffins with the Oerlikon and ADATS and the Blowpipes with the Javelins.