C3 Howitzer Replacement

[foresterab]

Archer comes in at around 35 to 38 tonnes. A Leo 2 at around 65. While a second fleet, lighter, fleet of trailers could do, I tend to favour the concept of one fleet type.

Essentially flatbeds are items not in constant use. To have two fleets on standby much of the time is a wasted resource. It's mostly an issue of determining the maximum fleet needed at any given time to move the combined force that needs to be moved. i.e. do the guns and IFVs and tanks need to be moved concurrently or can they be moved in discrete packages or mixed packages. Essentially, and IMHO, the best thing is to have all flatbeds of the same high-end capacity so that at the tactical level there is the greatest amount of flexibility available in how to handle a strategic level displacement.

Thanks FJAG,

Not at all up to speed on heavy armour or artillery. I've seen a few units on Avalanche duty in BC but mostly it's the old forts like the Halifax citadel where I see the guns. And black powder sure isn't what we dealing with in this discussion here. For reference the Archer is coming in at around the same weight as a D8 bulldozer (roadbuilding/moving serious rock) and the Leo 2 is around the D10 range (heavy mining operations). Mostly what I deal with though are D6 units which are more like 25 tonnes in weight so it's a different lowboy used again....we're also using smaller units since they don't sink as much in the swamps .

But I view artillery like air support....expensive to have in holding patterns but god do you love it when you're on the ground and it's covering your butt.

Thanks for the insight,
foresterab

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The industrial vehicles that they are based on, also get low bedded to worksites, so it makes sense, they are optimized for offroad use, you can drive them on the highway, but they are not optimized for that and just increases maintenance.

 

[suffolkowner]

6x6 artics for sure as they are not designed for long continuous moves but i wondered more about the conventional truck based platforms

 

[Kirkhill]

French Caesar with a Ukrainian Accent: Artillery that Mercilessly Destroys the Infantry and Armored Vehicles of Russian Invaders

French Caesar with a Ukrainian Accent: Artillery that Mercilessly Destroys the Infantry and Armored Vehicles of Russian Invaders | Honest news about the army, war and defense.

mil.in.ua

Unimog 2450L

12 tonnes. 100 km/h on road. Airportable in a CC-130
18 rounds on board. 6 Rounds per minute.

5 Crew - Exposed while firing. Limited ammunition capacity.

 

[FJAG]

French Caesar with a Ukrainian Accent: Artillery that Mercilessly Destroys the Infantry and Armored Vehicles of Russian Invaders

French Caesar with a Ukrainian Accent: Artillery that Mercilessly Destroys the Infantry and Armored Vehicles of Russian Invaders | Honest news about the army, war and defense.

mil.in.ua

View attachment 90366

Unimog 2450L

12 tonnes. 100 km/h on road. Airportable in a CC-130
18 rounds on board. 6 Rounds per minute.

5 Crew - Exposed while firing. Limited ammunition capacity.

You've already identified the key issues about this gun as to why I'm not too fond of it, just for the fun of it let's talk about what I like.

It has a 155/L52 barrel and could be relatively easily adapted to an automated fire control system we already use.

It has a relatively decent automated assisted ammo handling system at the breach,

It's relatively inexpensive compared to some other offerings in this class.

It has a a good history of sales and deliveries (albeit there is a large backlog to work through)

They have a good track record of mounting the system on a variety of vehicles - which makes me think that we could develop a good SEV versions of the ACSV as both a gun carrier and as an ammo limber vehicle.

I still want to see a gun where the crew operates under armour rather than in the open and supported by a good limber vehicle.

 

[Kirkhill]

You've already identified the key issues about this gun as to why I'm not too fond of it, just for the fun of it let's talk about what I like.

It has a 155/L52 barrel and could be relatively easily adapted to an automated fire control system we already use.

It has a relatively decent automated assisted ammo handling system at the breach,

It's relatively inexpensive compared to some other offerings in this class.

It has a a good history of sales and deliveries (albeit there is a large backlog to work through)

They have a good track record of mounting the system on a variety of vehicles - which makes me think that we could develop a good SEV versions of the ACSV as both a gun carrier and as an ammo limber vehicle.

I still want to see a gun where the crew operates under armour rather than in the open and supported by a good limber vehicle.

I wonder how it would fare as a Reserve force staple with a good supply of those HVP AD rounds?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

View attachment 90362



6x6 artics for sure as they are not designed for long continuous moves but i wondered more about the conventional truck based platforms

I think theses are a better option, you lose a bit of your off road capability, but you likley gain on fuel range, ammunition and stores onboard

 

[FJAG]

I wonder how it would fare as a Reserve force staple with a good supply of those HVP AD rounds?

I don't have any info on any reserve units anywhere using Caesar but quite frankly if the US ARNG can handle M109A7s then I really don't see an issue so long as the appropriate arrangements are made for their maintenance and access for training (The old argument that our armouries are well made for marching infantry out the front door but little else. I paraded at Moss Park which was brand spanking new in 1966 and you could barely drive a deuce through the back door unless the tarp was in the low position.)

Ammo isn't a reserve issue. It's an army capability issue. What we stock, and how much of it, is very important but only interacts with reservists on the training side if there are specific special handling issues associated with it.

 

[Furniture]

I don't have any info on any reserve units anywhere using Caesar but quite frankly if the US ARNG can handle M109A7s then I really don't see an issue so long as the appropriate arrangements are made for their maintenance and access for training (The old argument that our armouries are well made for marching infantry out the front door but little else. I paraded at Moss Park which was brand spanking new in 1966 and you could barely drive a deuce through the back door unless the tarp was in the low position.)

Ammo isn't a reserve issue. It's an army capability issue. What we stock, and how much of it, is very important but only interacts with reservists on the training side if there are specific special handling issues associated with it.

I think our obsession with trying to match a country with a 10x larger population and far greater population density than ours is not a path to success...

Systems like the M109A7 require large training areas to use them/store them, and lots of specialized techs to keep them running. If we wanted a couple of ResF batteries in Brandon/Winnipeg, Ottawa/Pembroke, and Quebec/Valcartier, they make a fair bit of sense, but if we want ResF batteries in places like Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Halifax, St John, etc... We need systems that are useful, and require less continuous maintenance and specialized technicians. Alternatively, we need systems that are able to move themselves to the training areas in a reasonable time frame, and that can be maintained alongside the other trucks a units needs to function.

Looking at this through the lens of someone who helps manage a small specialized occupation spread out across the country in small dets, it is a massive personnel drain to try to maintain those small dets. Not just in money for postings, but also for retention and morale. People either hate where they are and want out, or love where they are and never want to leave. That works when you have a lot of room for a member to move and get promoted locally, but when you have 1 x MS 1x PO 2 per location, it inevitably leads to people getting angry/frustrated and leaving, or becoming a poison in the section.

The less complex the system, while also keeping it effective, the more likely we are to have enough functional systems(and the pers to use and fix them) when needed.