C3 Howitzer Replacement

[ueo]

So I was explaining why the Estonian force structure looks the way it does, and how it’s actually not really what most of NATO would consider Brigades in that they essentially include schools. Obviously that’s a little nuanced and involves some research so I’ll drop it and rephrase it more simply:

Would you want your week 1 BMQ platoon in a trench in eastern Ukraine? Sure they may kill a Russia, but frankly so can anyone, since “can” is an absurdly vague term that has no real standard. The better question to ask for a peace time army is “are they ready to kill an enemy, and survive the battle field right now” the answer to that question is no. They are not.




Yeah you could, but that’s not what those other two Bns in the Estonian 1st Bde are. One is a single company which handles, fro what I can tell, more advanced training of conscripts, the other is a flat out turn civilians into soldiers conscript training Bn. They’re training them on the Pasis and I imagine if the balloon went up they’d expect to use the Bn as infantry but it’s not really what we’d think of as and infantry battalion. The reserves man the other Bde. I’m all for the idea of calling guys “back to the colours” to rapidly build up the army. And i fully agree reservists have an important role to play, im just pointing out that using the two brigades Estonia has as a cost to production analysis is as flawed as counting our 5 Divisions as actual divisions.



Depends on the Bde, CBG yeah absolutely do not go to the field, CMBG - lots of field time.

Best Comd I ever experienced for having Bde HQ in the field was Rad Walters, ( Yes I'm that old!)

 

[markppcli]

Hey 22B- Whats your exposure to these areas? Level/ etc?

Well he’s pretty openly posted about being a tank Sqn OC, and was.a CO after some staff time. So I’d say “extensive”

 

[FJAG]

Best Comd I ever experienced for having Bde HQ in the field was Rad Walters, ( Yes I'm that old!)

Kip Kirby was no slouch either - I'm not quite Rad Walters old. Strangely, while I served under 6 different brigade commanders during my days of regimental tours, Kip is the only one I remember and can name. Maybe its because I never saw any of the others in the field.

 

[markppcli]

The Estonian force structure looks the way that it looks because Estonia quite simply subscribes to a Reserve-based defence model.

And is built in conscription. And doesn’t have to pay its soldiers s. You spoke about a return on their investment being higher than our. Well if we conscripted every able bodied Canadian and paid them 200 a month we’d probably have 4 divisions. We can’t and we don’t.

It trains people to a certain level and then has them on reserve service on a call-back basis. Every year it exercises various units by calling reservists back to the colours for an exercise. The efficiency of such a system varies depending on the equipment issued and the degree of training given them. Do they compare to our RegF folks who are paid 365 days a year and train for the equivalent of 3 or 4 months per year? Probably not but are they good enough to defend their country? Considering that they seem to be fairly well armed and getting better, I wouldn't count them out. Are they BMQ week 1 recruits? No. Every year they run 3,200-4,000 troops through 8-11 months of training/service and have more than enough reservists to call back to fill out those two brigades and more with trained people.

I understand the system, my point wasn’t their ineffectiveness, it was pointing out that a direct comparison of cost to return is never going to be functional.

The fact that they use the RegF as instructors and equipment holders is not a weakness. They are not schools in so far as they are organized and equipped to be actual battalions and brigades once rounded out by reservists. They function as schools in peacetime and units in wartime. That is a perfectly logical way to form a force. Canada did it that way until the years between WW2 and Korea. Our schools are instructional only. They do not hold the equipment to allow mobilization. Theirs do.

Do their schools hold that? What’s their scale of issue ?

To go a touch further, the Estonians have even formed a rudimentary divisional headquarters which unifies the operations of their two brigades when mobilized and their territorial defence forces. That too shows a balanced organizational core.

My pint was again “they have two Bde,” well no they don’t. They have a Bn, and some training units then another Bde that gets filled out. Those other two Bns aren’t built to do operations.

It's too easy to dismiss the fighting capability of a force simply because it is not swamped by full-timers waiting out their pensionable time many of whom are administrators and not leaders or trainers. The real question is are they using their people to their best advantage. If you think back, most of NATO's Cold War army was for most of its time a conscript one with many of its soldiers having less training and time in service then your average Militia soldier today. This is no different. While you can point to the Russians as a failure of the contract soldier/conscript reserve system, you can point to the Ukrainian one for its success. The difference is in how they are equipped, trained and led and not in the fact that many in the ranks are reservists.

Again please see whatnn no I wrote, I’m pointing out that the cost to put out can’t be a direct comparison.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Hey 22B- Whats your exposure to these areas? Level/ etc?

I joined in 1989, so the Cold War was ending. As for my experience in conventional tactics I have been a Recce Sqn Comd for two years, a unit DCO for two years with two MAPLE RESOLVE serials as a BG DCO, served in 1st Cdn Div for two years, was Directing Staff at our Army Command and Staff College for three years and was a Bde COS for a year. On formation-level conventional warfighting exercises I have been on several UNIFIED RESOLVES at the unit, CMBG and Divisional level. I was in a Div HQ on a Corps level exercise in Europe with a contemporary warfighting scenario. I attended a US Army school for six months in 1998 covering warfighting from the company to brigade level in a conventional context, using doctrine that was emerging from the Cold War but before the big shifts of the war on terror. An aspect of my staff college research topic about ten years ago was the development of US Army doctrine in the 1970s arising from their observations of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. My paper would make a good sleep aid, but it did make me dive into US doctrine of the time.

Having said that, I am agnostic on what is acquired to replace the C3 Howitzer.

 

[FJAG]

I am agnostic on what is acquired to replace the C3 Howitzer.

You shouldn't be.

One of the army's perpetual problems is that artillery, like logistics - and dare I say, heavy armour - are items that are only of interest to the folks who carry the weight at the table when the bullets are flying. During peacetime they very quickly become sacrificial lambs to the budgeting gods.

The C3 has slipped from an effective combat weapon in the 1940s to 1970s to a training aid by the 1980s. The L5 and LG1 kept some usefulness for very light forces. The L5 is gone and the LG1 is pretty much in the same boat as the C3. You don't even see it anymore in the RegF Regt's inventory to support light battalions having been supplanted, by the all-singing, all-dancing M777.

The C3s/LG1s are now no longer just an irrelevancy for combat but are also becoming an impediment in their training role. The need to replace them is long past due. They need to be replaced by something if we wish to retain gunner reservists and it shouldn't be with just another training aid to keep the peasants happy.

We need more than gunner officers to answer the question of how we are going to supply both the non-kinetic effects, the mass effects and the precision effects of indirect fire support that the combat arms will need on the future battle space. There are a host of relatively inexpensive weapon systems that could easily be manned and maintained by reserve gunners. What the Army needs to do is build a consensus of which of these are essential to a modern force and in what order of priority should they be acquired and maintained so that their use can be integrated into our doctrine and TTPs.

When competition for resources is a fact of life within the Army then what everyone thinks matters much more than what the subject matter experts push as their party line. Someone like you, who is a subject matter expert on armoured/reconnaissance/cavalry operations should be very interested in how you fight and what role and what weapon systems the artillery ought to bring to the table for you and should be advocating for them especially if they are able to be operated by reservists in a mostly PY and sustainment budget neutral context.

This is the right time for non gunners to voice their requirements and opinions.

 

[GR66]

It's funny how once again a major conflict has shown that the majority of casualties have been caused by indirect fire and yet our tanks still get the most media attention. We have 82 (now 74) tanks but only 37 (now 33) M777s. You'd think that upgrading our artillery would be a more prominent topic of discussion with a greater sense of urgency.

The bonus of artillery systems is also that the firing units actually suit themselves quite well to Reserve units which should be a major plus when we are facing such a personnel crisis. Creating a well-equipped Reserve Artillery Brigade is probably the easiest and cheapest thing Canada could do to seriously upgrade the combat effectiveness of the Army.

 

[Kirkhill]

Where does regular end, and reserv orconscript begin? Hard to really do analysis without that I understanding.

Nm I did the research for is.

The Estonian Bdes are not fully manned. The only professional, full time, unit is the Scouts Bn. Either Bde is manned at full strength unless it’s wartime. So no that’s not what those numbers give you.

More to your point Mark


I think the key passage here is -

The Estonian Defence Forces are a reserve force and, if necessary, Estonia will be defended by units formed of reservists.

The Scout Battalion is the only field ready force.
,
On the other hand Estonia has a population of 1.3 million. Calgary has the same population

The current population of Estonia is 1,328,889 as of Friday, February 24, 2023, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data

In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, the City of Calgary had a population of 1,306,784

@FJAG

Your reserve army. VP1 and a Calgary Division of 2 Brigades, 6 HIMARS and 36 K9s with LdSH and an Edmonton Division of another 2 Brigades, 6 more HIMARS and 36 more K9s.

CONSCRIPT SERVICE​

The Constitution of the Republic of Estonia foresees conscript service in the Defence Forces of all physically and mentally healthy male citizens.

The duration of the conscript service is 8 or 11 months, depending on the selectee’s level of education and the position to which the Defence Forces assigns the conscript. In the conscript service, conscripts acquire basic knowledge necessary for them to act as specialists in wartime military units.
When sent to the reserve, they make up one reserve unit led by commanders who have been trained during the conscript service and who come from the same unit.
After the conscript service, reservists are called up for reservist training. There the skills mastered during the conscript service are reinforced and new arms and equipment are introduced.

What do you learn in the conscript service?​

In the first months of the service, soldiers acquire the main skills needed by a single fighter. In the basic course, you learn about arms, orientation and first aid, and also acquire skills for forest camps, knowledge about basic tactics, behaviour in the Defence Forces and legislation. The level of basic knowledge is checked with a theoretical and practical soldier’s exam.
During the conscript service, you acquire basic knowledge of national defence and are provided training to enable you to fight as a member of a team. After the conscript service, you are sent to the reserve.

What will happen after conscript service?​

The Estonian Defence Forces are a reserve force and, if necessary, Estonia will be defended by units formed of reservists.
As a reservist, you may be called up for training at a unit, training centre or defence force educational institution. At reserve trainings, the knowledge and skills acquired in the conscript service are refreshed. As the technology and requirements in the Defence Forces are changing, it is necessary for the reserve to keep up to date and become familiar with the characteristics and use of new technology. You will be called up to reserve trainings together with the people with whom you completed your conscript training.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hey 22B- Whats your exposure to these areas? Level/ etc?

T2B knows whereof he speaks. As does Markppcli.

 

[ueo]

T2B knows whereof he speaks. As does Markppcli.

Umm OK. but my question still remains unanswered.

 

[ueo]

I joined in 1989, so the Cold War was ending. As for my experience in conventional tactics I have been a Recce Sqn Comd for two years, a unit DCO for two years with two MAPLE RESOLVE serials as a BG DCO, served in 1st Cdn Div for two years, was Directing Staff at our Army Command and Staff College for three years and was a Bde COS for a year. On formation-level conventional warfighting exercises I have been on several UNIFIED RESOLVES at the unit, CMBG and Divisional level. I was in a Div HQ on a Corps level exercise in Europe with a contemporary warfighting scenario. I attended a US Army school for six months in 1998 covering warfighting from the company to brigade level in a conventional context, using doctrine that was emerging from the Cold War but before the big shifts of the war on terror. An aspect of my staff college research topic about ten years ago was the development of US Army doctrine in the 1970s arising from their observations of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. My paper would make a good sleep aid, but it did make me dive into US doctrine of the time.

Having said that, I am agnostic on what is acquired to replace the C3 Howitzer.

Thankyou!

 

[Kirkhill]

It's funny how once again a major conflict has shown that the majority of casualties have been caused by indirect fire and yet our tanks still get the most media attention. We have 82 (now 74) tanks but only 37 (now 33) M777s. You'd think that upgrading our artillery would be a more prominent topic of discussion with a greater sense of urgency.

The bonus of artillery systems is also that the firing units actually suit themselves quite well to Reserve units which should be a major plus when we are facing such a personnel crisis. Creating a well-equipped Reserve Artillery Brigade is probably the easiest and cheapest thing Canada could do to seriously upgrade the combat effectiveness of the Army.

Meanwhile Estonia (back to that case study) in looking at their defence needs prioritizes mobile infantry backed by long range artillery in the form of L52 guns and HIMARS missiles. They are on content to rely on their allies to supply Tank support. The infantry moves in armoured vehicles from prepared trench to prepared trench with effective long range, man portable weapons.

The infantry focuses more on the weapons of our non-existant Combat Support Company than on the single infanteer and her rifle.

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile Estonia (back to that case study) in looking at their defence needs prioritizes mobile infantry backed by long range artillery in the form of L52 guns and HIMARS missiles. They are on content to rely on their allies to supply Tank support. The infantry moves in armoured vehicles from prepared trench to prepared trench with effective long range, man portable weapons.

The infantry focuses more on the weapons of our non-existant Combat Support Company than on the single infanteer and her rifle.

Most defensive based armies don’t see a need for tanks. They are needed for expeditions and offensive actions, which of course also need robust fires and Cbt support…

 

[Kirkhill]

Most defensive based armies don’t see a need for tanks. They are needed for expeditions and offensive actions, which of course also need robust fires and Cbt support…

I will always see a need for an ability to manoeuvre and carry the fight to the enemy. The Tank does that. Montcalm, in my opinion, lost the Plains of Abraham, Quebec and New France because he didn't have a cavalry force that could threaten Wolfe's flanks as he was forming up.

I get the need. I don't think the need has gone away.

My concern is whether the tanks can be brought into the field as fully formed divisions as was the case in WW2 and Iraq. I think that environmental pressures are pushing the tanks towards penny packets simply on the grounds that a battalion/regiment of tanks makes a sizeable high value target for long range precision fires.

As to the infantry. All infantry needs motors to move it and its gear. Ship motors, plane motors, copter motors, truck motors and UGV motors.

Most infantry is going to be fighting from a vehicle or fighting in a trench or other fortified position. Even the ones fighting in the trenches though need their vehicles to get them and their kit there, to replenish their supplies, to withdraw their wounded, to relocate to a different fighting position when required. (Even I can learn when the lessons come at me often enough and hard enough).

My current sense is that the infantry fighting from a vehicle need heavy vehicles with heavy fire support such as tanks can provide but need to reduce the risk by operating in small units of vehicles widely dispersed for as long as possible with small numbers of assaulters in each vehicle, perhaps plussing up the number of GIBs at the time of the actual assault. So maybe the standard vehicle normally carries one "brick" but when committed to the assault it can carry two "bricks" safely. Most of their actual fighting power is in the vehicle itself and the mounted weapons and sensors.

On the other hand the infantry in the trenches they need the crew served weapons - and the heavier the better. So they need weapons that can be transported with them from trench to trench with their vehicles. But they also need low profile weapons that are unobtrusive and can be easily dug in and provided with overhead protection.

So ....

rifles and ATGMs with optics to make every infanteer a direct fire marksman by day and by night
tripod mounted MGs and Mortars as well as modern long range technological marvels like ATGMs, UASs and LAMs
light autocannons in the 20 to 25 mm range - such as have been popular with the infantry since WW2 - we have the ability to make some of those self propelled and remotely operated now without having to put a 5 to 50 tonne truck under it.

lightly armoured Zulu vehicles which can transport the troops rapidly and safely while retiring to the next position,
which can transport the supplies, the ammunition, the weapons and the sensors which will dismount with the troops,
and which can mount some of the dismounted weapons to provide a degree of self-defence while on the move,
and, finally which provide comms nodes and situational awareness.

If there is a good road network in the vicinity of the trenches then the troops can be motorized with armoured pickup trucks supplemented with lightweight, roadworthy, trailers.
If there is no good road network the motorization needs to take the form of helicopters and vehicles that can be transported by helicopter.


And then there is Woolwich and its Arsenal of Ordnance.

 

[GR66]

Most defensive based armies don’t see a need for tanks. They are needed for expeditions and offensive actions, which of course also need robust fires and Cbt support…

Unfortunately most Canadians find the idea of "offensive" military actions....well offensive. They are happy to see the military as a force to defend our allies and ideals but shudder at the idea of "attacking" someone. How they square that with the obvious necessity to re-take territory that has been taken by the bad guys is unclear (Ukraine, Kuwait and Korea among others enter the chat).

Unfortunately our political and military leaders have been unable to effectively articulate the need for "offensive" capabilities either, which is one of the reasons why the CAF is in the state that it is.

 

[Kirkhill]

Unfortunately most Canadians find the idea of "offensive" military actions....well offensive. They are happy to see the military as a force to defend our allies and ideals but shudder at the idea of "attacking" someone. How they square that with the obvious necessity to re-take territory that has been taken by the bad guys is unclear (Ukraine, Kuwait and Korea among others enter the chat).

Unfortunately our political and military leaders have been unable to effectively articulate the need for "offensive" capabilities either, which is one of the reasons why the CAF is in the state that it is.

Assault rifles and Attack helicopters come to mind.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I see a desperate need for artillery systems of all types. But I also see the need for more combat engineering equipment. The abilty to quickly build fortifications is going to be important with all the precision weapons loitering around. The L trench with cover is going to be the minimum needed and lots of modern camouflage netting.

 

[quadrapiper]

Assault rifles and Attack helicopters come to mind.

The US penchant, whether official or otherwise, for that sort of action-movie (or action figure) name doesn't help.

Something like a Colt, Stoner, or internal-piston rifle (see: FN, Webley, SLR), or anti-tank or tank-hunter helicopter (see: missiles, guns, mines, grenades) might be less likely to muddle the issue, especially given how little lethal equipment doesn't have an assault or attack role.

 

[childs56]

I see a desperate need for artillery systems of all types. But I also see the need for more combat engineering equipment. The abilty to quickly build fortifications is going to be important with all the precision weapons loitering around. The L trench with cover is going to be the minimum needed and lots of modern camouflage netting.

I understand the need for a armored engineering vehicle for quick breeching, digging etc. We could always repurpose things like Dozers, trenchers, cable layers, excavators backhoes into a Military purpose. Something like this thing would work good at making an initial defensive line .

 

[Maxman1]

Just add an excavator arm to this:

And maybe arm it with the L9/M135 165mm demolition gun.