C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Maxman1]

So, resurrect 1 SSM?

 

[KevinB]

Same reason the artillery uses 105mm and 155m, one has more range and larger blast, but is slower to fire and less mobile and needs a larger crew (K6: crew of 5, 31 pound shell, maximum range 7km; M-66: crew of 6-8, 84 pound shell, maximum range 9.6km). The K6 is a conventional, if large, mortar and can be packed up and transported inside a truck already employed in towing a howitzer. The M-66 is a towed mortar, requiring its own prime mover.

Pretty much all Militaries have dumped 105mm Howitzers -- I would suggest that the CF would be better off doing the same...

And the infantry will get the 81 back. The artillery will be losing the mortar capability. Issuing them heavy mortars maintains and expands that knowledge and capability while also having a distinct purpose from the 81, 60 or 51.

Great if it happens - of course the same theory can be said about Pioneers, and ADP/Tow, and going back further MG Platoon from Cat Spt Coy - but I don't see it happening - even though the Arty seems like they want to give the 81's back (and have since Day 1.)

Exactly how often are suppressors used in the CAF, outside of special forces?

Snipers currently - but the same argument goes for Rifle grenades -- if you look to capability generation - suppressors with the signature reduction aspect do a lot more good - especially on low light operations.

Those three fit on a standard NATO 22mm muzzle device, i.e. C7 flash hider. And being able to fire a breaching device from an unmodified rifle and be able immediately to engage any threats is a big advantage over having to switch between a rifle and other breaching tools. And launching rifle grenades in a section attack would be a big advantage as well.

The Section Attack is a training fallacy.
The Carl G, M72 offer stand off for urban breaching.

I've seen the Simon used and been less than impressed - the rest of the rifle grenade aspect is Euro trash Marketting

Rifle grenades can carry more explosives than a 40x46mm grenade shell, which, while more accurate and longer range, must fit inside a launcher and contain its own propellant.

Perhaps the M79 should make a reappearance. It's more accurate, longer range and less awkward than the M203.

No argument on the M79, or the Hk69 (I like it better personally - but few exist outside US SOF these days).
Frankly the Armscor 6 shot, that is made under license by VLTOR in the States for the USMC is a better option - as I believe they solved the low velocity dud issue (poor seal on the cylinder/barrel resulting in failure to spin arm the fuze) when I visited the USMC in Camp Pendleton I had talked to the Master Gunner there about that (was a pretty obvious answer) and that was in '10 or 11.

M119A3 howitzer, if possible made in Canada under license. Same shell as the C3 and has digital fire control (but still has manual controls), among many other upgrades from the A1 and A2.

The 105mm isn't light enough to do a job that the 777 can't. The Light gun capability died with the Para Bty in 93.

There's also the GC-45 155mm howitzer, which could be used to train reservists on 155mm guns so they only need familiarization with an M777 rather than retraining from the ground up on 155mm before a deployment or CT, and also fill in the gaps in regular units that don't have enough M777s. The design is not owned by anyone, so no license would be needed. And it's a Canadian design.

I don't think the CF would touch a Gerald Bull design with a 10m Pole...
Again even with 100% Drawings and Models - ramping up to built IF the CF had a desire would be more costly for the qty desired than just buying more 777's

 

[Ostrozac]

Rifle grenades can carry more explosives than a 40x46mm grenade shell, which, while more accurate and longer range, must fit inside a launcher and contain its own propellant.

The rifle grenade isn’t as effective at distributing high explosives as a grenade launcher. That’s pretty clear. The one niche that the rifle grenade had going for it was armour penetration. But nowadays, for close range desperate last stands against armour, that role is now filled by the M72 (or by the RPG-22).

 

[daftandbarmy]

The rifle grenade isn’t as effective at distributing high explosives as a grenade launcher. That’s pretty clear. The one niche that the rifle grenade had going for it was armour penetration. But nowadays, for close range desperate last stands against armour, that role is now filled by the M72 (or by the RPG-22).

And, hopefully, intimate support tanks with 120mm chest pokers.

Lots more tanks would be an awesome complement to lots more artillery

 

[Kirkhill]

And, hopefully, intimate support tanks with 120mm chest pokers.

Lots more tanks would be an awesome complement to lots more artillery

And lots more ships to get them..... where do you want to get them to?

 

[daftandbarmy]

And lots more ships to get them..... where do you want to get them to?

Victory.

 

[FJAG]

Why? What range band gap are they filling?
IF we agree that the 120mm makes sense - then you can't also ask for the 160mm.
The problem is the BN Commander lost the 81mm in 2003 - they went to the Arty, and I don't think you can justify the 120mm if the 81mm exists - even if the 120mm is a better Arty Mortar option - and while I've been out of the CF for a while, I don't see the 81mm coming back to the Inf without significant pain.

I actually like the SBCT idea of an M1299 Stryker mortar with a vehicle mounted 120mm and an additional weapon locker 81mm for each det to use in dismounted operations (Remembering that a Stryker brigade moves mounted but fights dismounted and can be deployed away from its vehicles in a dismounted or airmobile role)

But you're bang on. What band is the weapon to be used in? Define the tactical purpose to be met and then select the appropriate weapon system to match it.

I think that the mortar MUST go back to the infantry regardless of the pain. There are some infantry forces that do not have integral mortars (such as a ABCT combined arms battalion and I think the Panzergrenadiers gave theirs up some time ago) but generally for light and mech forces in particular, its a battalion weapon. There are lots of platoon-sized reserve infantry battalions if push comes to shove and as I irreverently said before mortars aren't rocket science. It was a two-day module on our basic arty officer's course before we went live firing (and we did crater analysis concurrently with it ). I know there's a lot more to forming a good mortar platoon than that but still it's well within a Res F ability to grasp and train with - especially now that the arty has to supply the battalion FSCC (which used to be the mor pl comd augmented by CS artillery when assigned)

 

[FJAG]

Same reason the artillery uses 105mm and 155m, one has more range and larger blast, but is slower to fire and less mobile and needs a larger crew (K6: crew of 5, 31 pound shell, maximum range 7km; M-66: crew of 6-8, 84 pound shell, maximum range 9.6km). The K6 is a conventional, if large, mortar and can be packed up and transported inside a truck already employed in towing a howitzer. The M-66 is a towed mortar, requiring its own prime mover.

And the infantry will get the 81 back. The artillery will be losing the mortar capability. Issuing them heavy mortars maintains and expands that knowledge and capability while also having a distinct purpose from the 81, 60 or 51.

They may have made the RCAS the centre of "excellence" for all things mortars when the infantry gave them up but, quite frankly, the artillery doesn't need to, or want to, keep up its knowledge and capability on mortars. It already has to deal with three different howitzers, two different weapon locating radars, a UAV system, air support and fire support coordination, JTACing, and, in the future, air defence and possibly precision rockets and maybe loitering munitions.

So thanks but no thanks. I'm a firm believer that mortars belong to the infantry for a dozen good reasons and the question of what calibre that they think best suits their various roles should be left up to them to decide. That said I'm quite sure that some bean counter in NDHQ is going to want each M777 det to keep an 81mm mortar around because its cheaper then sending over a separate mortar platoon.

Just as an aside, one of the big changes in focus for the artillery in Afghanistan was the need for precision fire for danger close and low collateral damage. That's quite a change from area neutralization. Just a point from Op Apollo in 2002 is that mortars, of whatever calibre, are not precision weapons when firing at a high ordinate in windy mountain conditions with targets on steep slopes that exacerbate fall of shot probable errors. At the same time, they are a devastating weapon when precision is not a requirement.

 

[FJAG]

Pretty much all Militaries have dumped 105mm Howitzers -- I would suggest that the CF would be better off doing the same...

There are still tons in service. If Wikipedia can be believed, South Korea has 1,988 of the M2, M3 and M101 variants (basically C1s) "in service" and another 1,000 "in reserve/storage". But I tend to agree with you. We should give up that calibre.

My ideal training gun is any of a number of full-service-capable 155mm guns with a 75mm sub-calibre device to use during training.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There are still tons in service. If Wikipedia can be believed, South Korea has 1,988 of the M2, M3 and M101 variants (basically C1s) "in service" and another 1,000 "in reserve/storage". But I tend to agree with you. We should give up that calibre.

My ideal training gun is any of a number of full-service-capable 155mm guns with a 75mm sub-calibre device to use during training.

Or re-issue the 75mm Pack How as 'Infantillary', backed up by the 155mm etc.

75MM Pack Howitzer | Ordnance TSF: An Inside Look​

 

[OldSolduer]

The problem is the BN Commander lost the 81mm in 2003 - they went to the Arty, and I don't think you can justify the 120mm if the 81mm exists - even if the 120mm is a better Arty Mortar option - and while I've been out of the CF for a while, I don't see the 81mm coming back to the Inf without significant pain.

Absolutely correct. You don't make competent mortar numbers overnight, nor FCs, CPOs or Group Commanders. Years of experience plus the knowledge and -dare I say it - intelligence make a good mortar platoon.

Yes even crayon eaters have their moments.

 

[FJAG]

Or re-issue the 75mm Pack How as 'Infantillary', backed up by the 155mm etc.

75MM Pack Howitzer | Ordnance TSF: An Inside Look​

I want reservists to learn their job on the gun they are actually going to have to go into combat with. A proper subcalibre device makes training cheaper, possible on smaller ranges and still gives you the full muscle memory to do the job for real.

Same, same for MLRS or HIMARS. There is a training rocket available for those which makes it practical to conduct live fire training without sending $100,000 to $750,000 downrange per shot.

 

[Maxman1]

Pretty much all Militaries have dumped 105mm Howitzers -- I would suggest that the CF would be better off doing the same...

Guess the Americans and British didn't get the memo, since both currently issue the L118/M119 in active service, with multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans even designed a new version in 2013, the M119A3, and have almost as many M119s (821) as they have M777 (1,001).

Additionally, the M102 is still used by National Guard units and in AC-130 gunships, and was deployed in Iraq.

Maybe you should tell them not to do that.

Snipers currently

Using a sniper for door breaching or on a section attack is about the dumbest thing you could do, and a downright criminal misuse of assets.

The 105mm isn't light enough to do a job that the 777 can't. The Light gun capability died with the Para Bty in 93.

The M119 is half the weight of the M777.

M119A3: 5,110 pounds with circular firing platform, 4,690 pounds without platform (and yes, it can be used without it)
M777A2: 9,300 pounds

Additionally, the M777 has a normal fire rate of 2 RPM, maximum of 7 and takes 6 minutes to set up. The M119 has a normal rate of 3 RPM and maximum of 8 and takes 2-3 minutes to set up.

The 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, and the 10th Mountain Division, are equipped with the M119A3 and routinely use it in airborne operation slingeloaded on helicopters, such as here:

And by the British, here:

Maybe you should tell them not to do that, too.

 

[KevinB]

Guess the Americans and British didn't get the memo, since both currently issue the L118/M119 in active service, with multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans even designed a new version in 2013, the M119A3, and have almost as many M119s (821) as they have M777 (1,001).

Additionally, the M102 is still used by National Guard units and in AC-130 gunships, and was deployed in Iraq.

Compared to how many 155mm? The 82nd jumps 155mm's - and they are slung under BlackHawks, and Chinooks - given the CF doesn't sling C3's from the Griffons (correct me if I am wrong) but that leaves the only sling load option in the CF the Hooks - and they can do the 777.
The 105mm doesn't have precision munitions - or the range of the 155mm.

Maybe you should tell them not to do that.

So you want to try to mirror a force than is over 20x the CF size in terms of equipment -- you will go broke.
The 105mm doesn't offer you anything that you cannot do with the 155mm
Sure the 105mm is lighter - but you pay for that with less range - and less capability.

Using a sniper for door breaching or on a section attack is about the dumbest thing you could do, and a downright criminal misuse of assets.

You asked who in the regular CF has cans - I answered you -- you then entirely ignored my other points -

My point is Suppressors are a better add to a Inf unit than a Rifle grenade - the USMC has figured this one out - and are fielding cans to all their Inf units, from rifle to MG.
It gets rid of the crack from crack/thump - as well as the visual and acoustic signature reduction - which goes toward increasing survivability -- even a muppet with an AK can aim at muzzle flashes.

Then I also want to point out that the Simon grenade absolutely stinks for breaching - the hole it makes in most buildings isn't enough to do much more than peep through or toss a grenade - something that one then needs to close with to do - and if you can close with already unopposed - its much easier to make a breaching charge for the specific breach you are trying to make - and you can do that with stealth (until you blown the charge).
If you are fighting opposed - then a 84mm Car G offers a lot more stand off breaching ability - even in poured concrete with rebar - or cinderblock over poured walls.

It briefs well for the uninformed - but has zero practical application -- unless you are fighting in a wood frames house with thin residential doors - something that doesn't really occur in Iraq, Afghanistan or most the other places that are vogue to fight in these days.

The M119 is half the weight of the M777.

M119A3: 5,110 pounds with circular firing platform, 4,690 pounds without platform (and yes, it can be used without it)
M777A2: 9,300 pounds

Additionally, the M777 has a normal fire rate of 2 RPM, maximum of 7 and takes 6 minutes to set up. The M119 has a normal rate of 3 RPM and maximum of 8 and takes 2-3 minutes to set up.

The CF has 777's and does not have M119's

The 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, and the 10th Mountain Division, are equipped with the M119A3 and routinely use it in airborne operation slingeloaded on helicopters, such as here:

And by the British, here:

Maybe you should tell them not to do that, too.

The 82nd and 101st also have 777's -
You cannot allocate assets you don't have - the CF is a fraction of the US Army - the are more forces in Ft Bragg than the entire Canadian Army -

 

[Kirkhill]

The Brits appear to have plans for the following kinetic brigades:

4 Light Brigades
2 Heavy Brigades
1 Artillery Brigade
1 Combat Aviation Brigade

The Combat Aviation Brigade operates 3 squadrons of Wildcat and 5 squadrons of Apache helicopters and 3 or 4 RA batteries of Watchkeeper UASs

The Artillery Brigade operates one MLRS/N-LOS regiment, 2 regiments of AS-90s and 4 regiments of Lt Guns. There is a separate Air Defense Group operating one SHORAD regiment transitioning from Rapiers to CAMMs and one operating with Startstreak VSHORAD missiles.

The Aviation Brigade can operate as independent flights or squadrons in support of both the Army and the Marines, ashore and afloat.

The Artillery Brigade seems likely to form the basis of the Deep Strike Recce Brigade Combat Team of 3 UK Div and will operate with the 2 AS90 Regiments and the MLRS Regiment. For the time being.

The Light Guns, the 105s are likely to follow the path already trod by 7 (Para) RHA and 29 (Commando) RA which have been detached from their supervisory Brigade for a number of decades and permanently attached to their operational Brigade Groups. It seems reasonable that both of the Light Brigade Combat Teams of 1 UK Div will permanently acquire a regiment of Lt Guns each.

But.

There is a fly in the ointment.

Today’s Royal Marines Commandos are structured as follows:

There is 30 Commando (also named the Information Exploitation Group), which has the primary role of supporting 3 Commando Brigade Headquarters, providing the signals and infrastructure for the Brigade HQ.

40 and 45 Commandos are the closest to conventional Army battalions, providing Company Groups to the Lead Commando Group (see just below) and, in future, strike Company Groups for the Littoral Response Group and then Littoral Strike Group – forces with varying vessels, helicopters and other vehicles custom-assembled for a particular mission and geographical area.

42 Commando provides specialist marine assault and interdiction and well as SALT (Support, Augment, Liaise and Train) elements for 3 Commando Brigade, the main field formation of the Royal Marines.

43 Commando, meanwhile, is a fleet protection group specialising in the protection of the UK’s nuclear arsenal and
47 Commando is a raiding group that supports the Lead Commando Group, which is the main force put together for a particular operation (and therefore varies in size and composition, depending on the nature of that operation.)

These elements are further supported by the Commando Logistic Regiment which provides particular equipment as well as mobility, medical and logistic services; Commando Helicopter Force, which is part of the Fleet Air Arm and provides aviation transport and support to the Royal Marines; the Royal Marines Reserves, which provides additional personnel; and the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (CTCRM), which ensures reservists and regulars are trained up for the various roles they perform.

Know Your Navy – The Royal Marines

An overview of the Royal Marines and the equipment they use.

www.forces.net

Where has 29 (Commando) RA gone?

And what would its role be?

The new structure is built around small raiding teams with the largest seeming to be or reinforced company size on long term deployment on permanent stations. 40 and 45 will be committed to maintaining a rotating supply of those teams. 42 seems to be intent on expanding the Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre role in the production of operational specialists and trainers.

When is the Brigade going to be used? And if the Brigade isn't going to be used when will 29 RA and its Light Guns be used?

Perhaps 16 Air Assault Brigade offers a clue.

Combat Support

• Joint Effects and Targeting Group (JETG)
  • 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery (7 PARA RHA)
    - operates 105mm light guns
  • A Battery (1st City of London) Honourable Artillery Company
    - operates 105mm light guns
  • 53 (Louisburg) Battery, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery (RA)
    - operates in Surveillance and Target Acquisition (STA) role
  • 12 (Minden) Air Assault Battery, 12 Regiment RA
    - operating Starstreak HVM in air defence role
    view video of the unit training
  • 21 (Gibraltar 1779 - 83) Air Assault Bty, RA
    - operates DH3 (Miniature Unmanned Aerial Systems)
  • 613 and 616 Tactical Air Control Parties (TACP), RAF Regiment
    - 4-man teams of Forward Air Controllers (FAC) (2) and Signallers (2)

16 Air Assault Brigade

Info on 16 Air Assault Brigade, Britain's air-mobile rapid reaction force.

www.eliteukforces.info

7 (Para) RHA has dropped to two reg force batteries and shuttled one off to the reserves (HAC).

However it has gained attachments in the form of the long range STA battery from 5 RA, an MUAS battery, a VSHORA battery and a couple of TACPs from the RAF Regiment.

Does that indicate a direction of travel?

Seems to be a 12 man joint team transportable as 2 dets.

Also the weapons of choice are not 29s own guns but the USMCs M777s and HIMARS.

Again. Does that indicate a direction of travel?

 

[Maxman1]

Compared to how many 155mm?

1,001 M777s, 580 in the Marines and 421 in the US Army. They divested all their stocks of M198s in 2005 when they adopted the M777, which is now their sole 155mm howitzer.

The 82nd jumps 155mm's

And they jump 105mms.

and they are slung under BlackHawks, and Chinooks - given the CF doesn't sling C3's from the Griffons

Maybe that has to do with the age and condition of the C3. Or maybe it's because the Griffon, a civilian version of the single engine Huey, isn't as capable as the Blackhawk and UH-1W and Y.

The 105mm doesn't have precision munitions

We don't use or produce precision munitions with the M777. Just the M107 HE, M485A2 ILL and MR103 trainer.

But the Americans have developed a new 105mm round, the M1130E1, that combines the M1, M760, M927 and M1130 rounds (we currently use the M1 HE round).

So you want to try to mirror a force than is over 20x the CF size in terms of equipment

No. I am suggesting we replace the aging C3 and boutique LG1 with the same howitzer our two largest allies use.

or the range of the 155mm.
The 105mm doesn't offer you anything that you cannot do with the 155mm
Sure the 105mm is lighter - but you pay for that with less range - and less capability.

It's more mobile, faster to emplace and displace and fires faster. Some situations call for the range of a 155, some call for greater mobility only offered by a 105. Hence why we used the LG1 in Afghanistan even after adopting the M777.

And reportedly, American gunners prefer the M119A3 over the M777 for that exact reason: it's lighter, faster, more mobile and easier to adjust azimuth.

You asked who in the regular CF has cans

Because you mentioned suppressors when talking about rifle grenades.

Then I also want to point out that the Simon grenade absolutely stinks for breaching - the hole it makes in most buildings isn't enough to do much more than peep through or toss a grenade

It blows the door off its hinges. Unless you're this guy, that won't be an issue for entry.

a 84mm Car G offers a lot more stand off breaching ability

It's also significantly heavier than a SIMON grenade and is a separate weapons system. A breaching rifle grenade is more flexible than a Carl G. You can have any rifleman fire it at a door instead of having to have a dedicated 84 gunner.

The CF has 777's and does not have M119's

We also have aging, out-of-production C3s that need replacement, and the now-orphaned LG1 which will eventually need replacing as well.

I am suggesting we replace both with the M119A3 and use common artillery systems as our two largest allies.

The 82nd and 101st also have 777's

And they have M119A3s.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I have said, I am a fan of the 105 for the Reserve, except for some units that could go M777 if they are near a support base. For units like 15th FD or 5 bty, the 105 will easily fit into the existing buildings, are more easily transported to firing ranges in either Alberta or Washington State. Are easier to maintain with the current resources, smaller safety areas, cheaper ammunition meaning more rounds fired per detachment per year. Smaller gun crews, can be towed by almost every vehicle in the fleet and could have a much smaller dedicated guntractor than the current behemoth.
If we get the current government back, there will be no money for new systems like MRLS for at least a decade. If we get a new CPC government, they are going to be slashing spending to get debt under control. Likely the CAF will eff the dog on procuring more gun systems for the Reg force while they argue about what they need also for another decade. The C3 will divest itself and likley through a spectacular accident that maims or kills people, which will then force the government to purchase a like for like replacement. So if the US has a surplus of the M119A3, then that is a good choice and would be quick procurement. It would also lend itself well to a Caesar like mounted system.

The Reserves can not manage the 155 without building up all of the other support systems and that is not going to happen anytime soon, it's a sad state of affairs, but that our reality and I don't see it changing as there appears to be no voice for the RCA at the table.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It blows the door off its hinges. Unless you're this guy, that won't be an issue for entry.

That's friggin' awesome.

I could have used that for some block inspections back in the day

 

[KevinB]

1,001 M777s, 580 in the Marines and 421 in the US Army. They divested all their stocks of M198s in 2005 when they adopted the M777, which is now their sole 155mm howitzer.



And they jump 105mms.



Maybe that has to do with the age and condition of the C3. Or maybe it's because the Griffon, a civilian version of the single engine Huey, isn't as capable as the Blackhawk and UH-1W and Y.



We don't use or produce precision munitions with the M777. Just the M107 HE, M485A2 ILL and MR103 trainer.

But the Americans have developed a new 105mm round, the M1130E1, that combines the M1, M760, M927 and M1130 rounds (we currently use the M1 HE round).



No. I am suggesting we replace the aging C3 and boutique LG1 with the same howitzer our two largest allies use.



It's more mobile, faster to emplace and displace and fires faster. Some situations call for the range of a 155, some call for greater mobility only offered by a 105. Hence why we used the LG1 in Afghanistan even after adopting the M777.

And reportedly, American gunners prefer the M119A3 over the M777 for that exact reason: it's lighter, faster, more mobile and easier to adjust azimuth.



Because you mentioned suppressors when talking about rifle grenades.



It blows the door off its hinges. Unless you're this guy, that won't be an issue for entry.

It's also significantly heavier than a SIMON grenade and is a separate weapons system. A breaching rifle grenade is more flexible than a Carl G. You can have any rifleman fire it at a door instead of having to have a dedicated 84 gunner.



We also have aging, out-of-production C3s that need replacement, and the now-orphaned LG1 which will eventually need replacing as well.

I am suggesting we replace both with the M119A3 and use common artillery systems as our two largest allies.



And they have M119A3s.

I feel we are talking past each other.

I am not arguing the 105mm is entirely obsolete - but for Canada I feel that it is - simply because the there are no Rocket or Missile batteries - and not a lot of 777 (and no remaining M109's) that the 777 is a better choice - and streamline to 1 towed gun - the Triple 7.

Griffon should ever have been acquired in the first place - but it touches back to my point on it doesn't matter for 105mm v 155mm for lift - as a Hook needs to do it anyway.
*as for what gun line folks like -- of course they will like the lighter ammo, easier to maneuver gun - but I don't see anyone saying bring back the 75mm Pack How - or worse the old E Bty 105mm Spaghetti Gun - sure they where light - but at what sacrifice to down range capability?

I don't really follow CF Arty anymore - but I was pretty sure the CF 777's had access to US precision munitions in Afghanistan.
Precision fires are needed in this day an age - either due to close contact support "Danger Close" or due to proximity of non combatants (or "not currently confirmed combatants") - and extraneous "collateral damage" just fuels insurgent ranks.


Secondly - believe PM Ammo down here at your own peril. I base this on my experiences.


I mentioned suppressors - as they are a significantly more useful capability than a OTB Rifle Grenade.
As to the video - yes briefs well - downrange effects aren't exactly as thrilling on the typical structure one sees these days-
40mm LV Grenade launchers with HEDP make about the same breach in my experience as the Simon on a relatively similar construction - the CF 40x46mm is a poor cousin to what can be done with that, as the US HEDP offers better fragmentation and penetration - and there are some way better after effect rounds available for it as well.
I'm not keen on the 40mm LV for a lot - but it fits better than OTB RG's - like we had agreed before it would be better off as a stand alone - and I come back to the M32A1 the USMC has.


I am in total agreement with you on the C3 and the LG1 (which boggled my mind when it was acquired ~94 IIRC). I'm curious as to the C3 lifespan - as they didn't come into service that long ago - I thought that adoption/modieifcation was a colossal goat rope too.

I come back to when one looks at the costs, training, and O&M - it is easier to pure fleet the 777 as a towed system for the CF.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From what I have read and heard the C3 mod was to much for the old 1960's gun, cracking cradle, cracks near the muzzle, wheel rim failures, carriage cracks as well I think. We started out with 367 C1's, now we might have 70 guns that can be fired? We should have moved to the M119 when the US was buying them.