C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Maxman1]

Seeing that AMPV is new and the A7 conversion is, makes me think we'll be seeing Bradleys for some time to come. That actually creates a very good tracked fleet to concentrate on with the LAVs as a second fleet. Honestly if both the Bradley and LAV could be converted to Moog turrets you'd have weapon commonality as well.

Call James Burton, tell him the good news.

 

[Kirkhill]

@markppcli FYI

The 82nd Airborne is dropping munitions from drones

Soldiers at Fort Liberty are dropping munitions from drones during training, the first in the Army to do so, according to Army officials.

taskandpurpose.com

Soldiers at Fort Liberty are dropping munitions from drones while training in the field, making them the first in the Army to do so, according to Army officials.

The new Marine infantry battalion is slimmer, saltier and more techy

Phase one concluded in June. Phase two begins in 2023.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

First Lt. Michael Meier, a Marine Corps Warfighting Lab fellow working with the battalion experiment development team and former company executive officer for 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, the on deck phase two experimentation unit, updated lethality changes.

In the video, Meier pointed to both Javelin and multipurpose anti-armor anti-personnel weapons systems in the company, precision rifles in the company arms room and integration of aerial loitering munitions.

This combination gives the company a 50 km reach for organic fires. Previously that range stood at 3.4 km with the 60 mm mortar. And the 60 mm mortars remain in the company, spokesman Maj. Eric Flanagan told Marine Corps Times.

 

[markppcli]

@markppcli FYI

The 82nd Airborne is dropping munitions from drones

Soldiers at Fort Liberty are dropping munitions from drones during training, the first in the Army to do so, according to Army officials.

taskandpurpose.com

Your claim was specific to squads. Saying that squads would be dropping munitions that’s where I commented.

The new Marine infantry battalion is slimmer, saltier and more techy

Phase one concluded in June. Phase two begins in 2023.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

How on earth are they getting 50 k out of a loitering munition, ah well sure. It’s doubly interesting since they only launched tenders for their loitering munition project in April. Of course the USMC also said there were going to have a JFO in every squad and that never happened.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the discussion

June 2024

FPV drones in Ukraine are changing modern warfare

First Person View (FPV) attack drones are shaping the battlefield in Ukraine and transforming our understanding of modern warfare, write Tomas Milasauskas and Liudvikas Jaškūnas.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

March 2024

Outgunned in the Drone Fight: The U.S. Military Is Failing to Adopt the Next Machine Gun - War on the Rocks

The British Army began World War I with only two machine guns per infantry battalion. One gun was a spare, meaning the effective ratio was one per 1,000

warontherocks.com

Aug 2024

New tech will make tomorrow’s wars more dangerous to troops, Army says

New sensors and long-range weapons may force the service to rethink doctrine.

www.defenseone.com

I find myself in the J.F.C. Fuller camp.

 

[KevinB]

Further to the discussion

June 2024

FPV drones in Ukraine are changing modern warfare

First Person View (FPV) attack drones are shaping the battlefield in Ukraine and transforming our understanding of modern warfare, write Tomas Milasauskas and Liudvikas Jaškūnas.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

March 2024

Outgunned in the Drone Fight: The U.S. Military Is Failing to Adopt the Next Machine Gun - War on the Rocks

The British Army began World War I with only two machine guns per infantry battalion. One gun was a spare, meaning the effective ratio was one per 1,000

warontherocks.com

Aug 2024

New tech will make tomorrow’s wars more dangerous to troops, Army says

New sensors and long-range weapons may force the service to rethink doctrine.

www.defenseone.com

I find myself in the J.F.C. Fuller camp.

You go off on these strange tangents, and it’s impossible to follow what you are actually trying to put forward as an argument/discussion point.

 

[MilEME09]

If we need to keep the C3 fleet going for awhile, maybe buying some M101s from Vietnam might be an idea, looks like they are well taken care of.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1818243854216151144

 

[FJAG]

If we need to keep the C3 fleet going for awhile, maybe buying some M101s from Vietnam might be an idea, looks like they are well taken care of.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1818243854216151144

Frankly if keeping the C3 fleet as a training system was in the cards, I'd go to S Korea - they have around 2,000 M101A1s - and I'd buy around 100 sets of S Korean M101A1 barrels, recoil sleighs, recuperators and mount them on the C3 carriage. the range doesn't matter for training. I'm not sure how well that would work because with the barrel mass reduced it might unbalance the gun and we might need to buy M101 trails as well. Long story short we'd be back to something like the older C1 but with a reliable source of parts and the big IP factors that are the problem now would be gone.

It's a simple way to get back to basics. In that scenario I wouldn't object to an M119 either. For me the question really is are we ready and funded enough to outfit the ResF with an operational gun rather than just a training gun. As I mentioned above, IMHO Canada has the RegF and ResF strength already funded to comfortably man 6-7 18-gun regiments. That's about 140 guns all told (including the school and some spares. We already have 33 we can use. That leaves a mere 110 to buy. The costs for the guns alone would be somewhere in the $1/2 to 1 billion depending on the system. Not something that would break the bank but ...

 

[Kirkhill]

You go off on these strange tangents, and it’s impossible to follow what you are actually trying to put forward as an argument/discussion point.

Common thread

Alternative fires and their impact on the modern battlefield.

Related, the lack of haste in adjusting to change.

Fuller, in 1918, had a completely different hand to play than Haig did in 1914.

We are still trying to play with Fuller's cards.

I think that Fuller would be rethinking his plan.

 

[KevinB]

Common thread

Alternative fires and their impact on the modern battlefield.

Related, the lack of haste in adjusting to change.

Fuller, in 1918, had a completely different hand to play than Haig did in 1914.

We are still trying to play with Fuller's cards.

I think that Fuller would be rethinking his plan.

Except that isn’t this thread. This is a C3 Howitzer Replacement thread.

Which means it isn’t the place for your theories on fires. It’s a place to discuss C3 replacement options.

Going off on tangents doesn’t fit the point.

I’d recommend making a Restructuring of the RRCA in Keeping with Technology thread if your goal is to discuss what changes in technology can be implemented to make changes the the Artillery Organization.


Otherwise it’s impossible to understand what you are trying to say and why.

 

[markppcli]

First step how many artillery regiments do we need as a total force and what ought they have for guns?

• I think we all agree it’s 3 Batteries of 6, per our existing doctrine
• We need a minimum of 1 CS regiment per Bde. The reserves can realistically provide another 3 CS regiments, 1 from each division, and the remain reserve artillery structures can provide the STA and AD augmentation.

So we need gun for those regiments with another battery in Gagetown, a battery of spares, and a regiment’s worth of war stock.

So the total becomes 23 “battery sets” of six, or 138. From that we can take out the 36 odd M777s for some kind of air mobile / air assault / light force support - be that a battery of guns per Bde or a light regiment.

 

[suffolkowner]

First step how many artillery regiments do we need as a total force and what ought they have for guns?

• I think we all agree it’s 3 Batteries of 6, per our existing doctrine
• We need a minimum of 1 CS regiment per Bde. The reserves can realistically provide another 3 CS regiments, 1 from each division, and the remain reserve artillery structures can provide the STA and AD augmentation.

So we need gun for those regiments with another battery in Gagetown, a battery of spares, and a regiment’s worth of war stock.

So the total becomes 23 “battery sets” of six, or 138. From that we can take out the 36 odd M777s for some kind of air mobile / air assault / light force support - be that a battery of guns per Bde or a light regiment.

would this be all fires including MLRS or just towed 155's?

eg.
?# of HIMARS
?# of tracked SPH
?# of wheeled SPH
?# of towed
?# of LM launchers

 

[KevinB]

would this be all fires including MLRS or just towed 155's?

eg.
?# of HIMARS
?# of tracked SPH
?# of wheeled SPH
?# of towed
?# of LM launchers

He’s talking Close Support, not GS, so that would generally mean 155

So it wouldn’t be HIMARS/MLRS type systems.

I don’t like to think of Artillery as a Bde system- more of a Division and Corps setups, Bde’s to me should be maneuver units.


So 3-4 CS Arty units / Division and one GS unit (I’m using unit as opposed to Reg’t or Bn).

Given Canada’s predisposition to put 4 maneuver units into a Bde, I would like one CS subunit / maneuver element for direct support . That means 4 gun batteries / unit.
I’m willing to go to a 6 gun Bty (vice my prefered 8 gun) to get the 4th Gun Bty as a CS subunit for the 4th maneuver unit — and I accept tanks won’t be used in isolation, but I still like a 1 Bty / Bn support setup.

That leaves one with an Arty Bde / Div with 4 CS and 1 GS unit. As well as 2 GS Rocket units at higher (Corps Arty).

So you would have 3 Inf and 1 Armour and
Cbt Eng assets for those units / Bde
At Div, you would have the Arty Bde and Eng Bde.

Then your Corps assets

So for a 2 Division force you would need 10 Arty units and 2 for higher for a total of 12.

So each Arty CS unit would be 24 guns (vice 18 from the 3x6 - see I still get my 24 gun Unit )
So 8 CS units @ 192 tubes

4 GS units (3x8 batteries/unit ) @ 96

So in my world you would end up with

96 M109A8 for 1 Cdn Div
96 M777 for 2 Cdn Div
96 HIMARS - 24 to each Div, and 48 on Corps/Theatre Support.

* I would be willing to have 2 of the 4 CS units in 2Div be M109A8 as well - as I believe if 2 Division was needed to be deployed as a Division it would likely be as a result of a LSCO where the Airborne/Airmobile/Light aspect of 2Div would be fairly localized and the fact that half of the Artillery was tracked Artillery wouldn’t be a major issue.

Plus 20% spares and training so let’s say 20 extra of each.

So 116 each.

I would also have 120mm Mortar Platoons run by each Maneuver unit

As well as 1 ADA Unit / Division and 2 at “Corps”

 

[markppcli]

would this be all fires including MLRS or just towed 155's?

eg.
?# of HIMARS
?# of tracked SPH
?# of wheeled SPH
?# of towed
?# of LM launchers

The thread is about C3 replacement, which I take to mean really the gun used by reserve artillery. This leads to a few assumptions:

1. Tube artillery will remain the primary fires of the CAF
2. Substantial reorganization likely won’t happen, but grouping of reserve units into Bty’s is possible.
3. Maintaining a seperate howitzer fleet is inefficient, insufficient, and makes augmentation more difficult.
4. We can go back on forth about how augmentation should be done but the simple fact is that it won’t effect the number of guns we need.

So with that in mind some form of SPH would be ideal. While I like Archer, I think the M109 makes the most sense given where it’s made and the fact that we still have people who remember how to use it.

I have some thoughts about Air Defence (looking at you 5 Fd Regiment) and LRPF but to me that’s outside the scope here. As are mortars.

 

[suffolkowner]

He’s talking Close Support, not GS, so that would generally mean 155

So it wouldn’t be HIMARS/MLRS type systems.

I don’t like to think of Artillery as a Bde system- more of a Division and Corps setups, Bde’s to me should be maneuver units.


So 3-4 CS Arty units / Division and one GS unit (I’m using unit as opposed to Reg’t or Bn).

Given Canada’s predisposition to put 4 maneuver units into a Bde, I would like one CS subunit / maneuver element for direct support . That means 4 gun batteries / unit.
I’m willing to go to a 6 gun Bty (vice my prefered 8 gun) to get the 4th Gun Bty as a CS subunit for the 4th maneuver unit — and I accept tanks won’t be used in isolation, but I still like a 1 Bty / Bn support setup.

That leaves one with an Arty Bde / Div with 4 CS and 1 GS unit. As well as 2 GS Rocket units at higher (Corps Arty).

So you would have 3 Inf and 1 Armour and
Cbt Eng assets for those units / Bde
At Div, you would have the Arty Bde and Eng Bde.

Then your Corps assets

So for a 2 Division force you would need 10 Arty units and 2 for higher for a total of 12.

So each Arty CS unit would be 24 guns (vice 18 from the 3x6 - see I still get my 24 gun Unit )
So 8 CS units @ 192 tubes

4 GS units (3x8 batteries/unit ) @ 96

So in my world you would end up with

96 M109A8 for 1 Cdn Div
96 M777 for 2 Cdn Div
96 HIMARS - 24 to each Div, and 48 on Corps/Theatre Support.

* I would be willing to have 2 of the 4 CS units in 2Div be M109A8 as well - as I believe if 2 Division was needed to be deployed as a Division it would likely be as a result of a LSCO where the Airborne/Airmobile/Light aspect of 2Div would be fairly localized and the fact that half of the Artillery was tracked Artillery wouldn’t be a major issue.

Plus 20% spares and training so let’s say 20 extra of each.

So 116 each.

I would also have 120mm Mortar Platoons run by each Maneuver unit

As well as 1 ADA Unit / Division and 2 at “Corps”

I think we'd be lucky to get the 48 towed howitzers plus your 20% maybe do that again with a SPH and half that for 24 HIMARs

 

[markppcli]

I think we'd be lucky to get the 48 towed howitzers plus your 20% maybe do that again with a SPH and half that for 24 HIMARs

Probably, but this is all idealized.