H
Harry
Guest
Succint, accurate and unfortunately so true.
UBIQUE
Canadian Artillery-5 Years[and counting] of Artillery Thoughts
- Thread starter Gunner
- Start date
A
Andrew
Guest
Would there be a use for the Artillery in the near future battles. What I mean is that with the the missles that can give your direct fire. Would you need indirect fire? I was just pondering over this and wondering what peoples views are.
Did the americans use there artillery in Desert Storm?
Or is the artillery going to be switched to...say missles...in the future?
Andrew :bullet: :bullet:
Did the americans use there artillery in Desert Storm?
Or is the artillery going to be switched to...say missles...in the future?
Andrew :bullet:
:bullet:
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Arty was used by both the US and the Brits, during Desert Storm. Maybe some of the other Allies, but I‘m not sure. Every delivery system has its pros and cons, I suppose. I know that both MLRS and conventional artillery were used.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
There are still roles for indirect fire support. MLRS are good for big area targets but on some fire plans, it would be like hitting a nat with a baseball bat.
Another reason for indirect fire support is its CB capability. If at war or peacemaking, and the bad guys are dropping rounds on you, wouldn‘t it be nice to have someone on your side capable of reaching out and touching them. Direct fire can‘t counter mortor rds.
Another reason for indirect fire support is its CB capability. If at war or peacemaking, and the bad guys are dropping rounds on you, wouldn‘t it be nice to have someone on your side capable of reaching out and touching them. Direct fire can‘t counter mortor rds.
H
humint
Guest
Here is a recent article about this same issue, but about the 11th Field in Guelph. No one seems to know what is going on, even the CO. Downsizing the Reg is a major concern. Personally, I think the niche roles are likely to be of greater value in responding to contemporary conflicts -- well, may be not for the open desert, but you get what I mean, right?
http://www.guelphmercury.com/topstory_03010484429.html
Local artillery regiment may be losing its big guns
Saturday January 4, 2003
ANDREW BRUCE
MERCURY STAFF
PHOTO
Master Bombardiers Don Smith, foreground, and Dave Crow along with Sgt. Alex Prentice stand in front of 105-mm C-3 howitzer field guns. The Guelph-based 11th Field Regiment may be switching from field guns to mortars as a result of restructuring.
GUELPH -- Restructuring of the reserves could mean a historic switch to mortars from field guns for the Guelph-based 11th Field Artillery Regiment.
Changes proposed for the Canadian reserve forces, which haven‘t been finalized or approved, would see the Guelph unit give up its 105-mm howitzers for 81-mm or 120-mm mortars sometime in 2004.
But regiment commander Lt.-Col. Robert Elliott said he is hoping to convince higher powers to leave the field guns with the Guelph-based unit and just add the new equipment.
What‘s up in the air for the artillery regiment is whether it would grow or shrink, or even remain in its distinctive building on Wyndham Street downtown, if it becomes a mortar-only unit.
"I don‘t think you are going to see the 11th Field Regiment disappear," stressed Lt.-Col. Elliott.
"Right now, there is a possibility of its staying the same, a possibility of it shrinking and there‘s a possibility of it growing."
The Canadian militia, which has had a presence in Guelph since the mid-19th century, is expected to go through a major restructuring, if government funding is freed up for the initiative.
The plan is to modernize and expand the "citizen soldier" force, involving the creation of new units and new unit types.
The 31 Canadian Brigade Group, which is the upper hierarchy of reserves in Southern Ontario, is holding a series of meetings with community leaders in cities that host militia units, and one is planned for Guelph in early February. The military will be looking for input on the role of reserve forces and how communities would be impacted by increases, reductions and closures of units.
"I don‘t think you are going to see anybody (militia units) close," Lt.-Col. Elliott noted.
He said Ontario now has five "mission elements" that incorporate artillery guns, including the 11th Field Regiment, which also has a detachment in Hamilton. The new, tentative plan calls for one less unit with guns and two new mortar units.
Most often mortars are employed for indirect fire support by the Canadian military abroad, as was the case in the recent mission in Afghanistan.
Elliott doesn‘t know how many mortars or soldiers would be needed in a restructured 11th Field Regiment. The current strength of the unit is just under 100 men and women, but the new unit, as envisioned, could have anywhere between 76 and 109 soldiers.
The castle-like downtown armoury, built in 1911, is still functional for the reserve forces, said Elliott, so the commander is not expecting any orders to find new facilities.
Elliott said he is pushing for the 11th to keep its guns, and take on the mortars as well, but that is still subject to "negotiations" among the reserve unit commanders and headquarters.
He noted Waterloo Region and Guelph is a high population growth area that he would like to see be a focus of reserve expansion.
Master Bombardier Andrew Geoghegan, a member of the Guelph regiment, said mortars might be welcomed by the rank and file as "something different."
"It‘s not something that is going to create any hard feelings," he said. "We‘ll just carry on with the job."
But he added there have been rumours of such changes for years, and in the army soldiers learn they can‘t count on anything until it actually happens, he said.
David Birtwistle, a city councillor and former soldier who has been invited to the meeting Feb. 8, said "it would be a shame" to lose the 11th Field Regiment, if that ever came about.
"I think they should be encouraged (by the community) to stay," he noted.
The councillor said if the unit changes over to mortars from guns he doesn‘t foresee any significant ripples in the community. But some of the veterans who served in the Second World War or the Korean War might have some reservations, he said.
"The young people won‘t have any real difficulty with it. It‘s the old timers," he said.
Guelph has been an artillery community since 1866. The 11th was formed as the 1st Provisional Brigade of Field Artillery in 1880, and it is one of Canada‘s oldest artillery regiments.
Frank Bayne, a retired artillery officer living in Guelph, served in a battery raised from the 11th Field Regiment during the Korean War.
He sees a trend in the military to get rid of artillery guns in favour of more mobile mortars, but he isn‘t so sure the Canadian military of the future isn‘t going to need the heavier weapons.
"These are the cold hard facts (at the moment)," he said. "In order to survive, the artillery is going to have to go to mortars. This seems to be the trend. I think it is a mistake to do so."
http://www.guelphmercury.com/topstory_03010484429.html
Local artillery regiment may be losing its big guns
Saturday January 4, 2003
ANDREW BRUCE
MERCURY STAFF
PHOTO
Master Bombardiers Don Smith, foreground, and Dave Crow along with Sgt. Alex Prentice stand in front of 105-mm C-3 howitzer field guns. The Guelph-based 11th Field Regiment may be switching from field guns to mortars as a result of restructuring.
GUELPH -- Restructuring of the reserves could mean a historic switch to mortars from field guns for the Guelph-based 11th Field Artillery Regiment.
Changes proposed for the Canadian reserve forces, which haven‘t been finalized or approved, would see the Guelph unit give up its 105-mm howitzers for 81-mm or 120-mm mortars sometime in 2004.
But regiment commander Lt.-Col. Robert Elliott said he is hoping to convince higher powers to leave the field guns with the Guelph-based unit and just add the new equipment.
What‘s up in the air for the artillery regiment is whether it would grow or shrink, or even remain in its distinctive building on Wyndham Street downtown, if it becomes a mortar-only unit.
"I don‘t think you are going to see the 11th Field Regiment disappear," stressed Lt.-Col. Elliott.
"Right now, there is a possibility of its staying the same, a possibility of it shrinking and there‘s a possibility of it growing."
The Canadian militia, which has had a presence in Guelph since the mid-19th century, is expected to go through a major restructuring, if government funding is freed up for the initiative.
The plan is to modernize and expand the "citizen soldier" force, involving the creation of new units and new unit types.
The 31 Canadian Brigade Group, which is the upper hierarchy of reserves in Southern Ontario, is holding a series of meetings with community leaders in cities that host militia units, and one is planned for Guelph in early February. The military will be looking for input on the role of reserve forces and how communities would be impacted by increases, reductions and closures of units.
"I don‘t think you are going to see anybody (militia units) close," Lt.-Col. Elliott noted.
He said Ontario now has five "mission elements" that incorporate artillery guns, including the 11th Field Regiment, which also has a detachment in Hamilton. The new, tentative plan calls for one less unit with guns and two new mortar units.
Most often mortars are employed for indirect fire support by the Canadian military abroad, as was the case in the recent mission in Afghanistan.
Elliott doesn‘t know how many mortars or soldiers would be needed in a restructured 11th Field Regiment. The current strength of the unit is just under 100 men and women, but the new unit, as envisioned, could have anywhere between 76 and 109 soldiers.
The castle-like downtown armoury, built in 1911, is still functional for the reserve forces, said Elliott, so the commander is not expecting any orders to find new facilities.
Elliott said he is pushing for the 11th to keep its guns, and take on the mortars as well, but that is still subject to "negotiations" among the reserve unit commanders and headquarters.
He noted Waterloo Region and Guelph is a high population growth area that he would like to see be a focus of reserve expansion.
Master Bombardier Andrew Geoghegan, a member of the Guelph regiment, said mortars might be welcomed by the rank and file as "something different."
"It‘s not something that is going to create any hard feelings," he said. "We‘ll just carry on with the job."
But he added there have been rumours of such changes for years, and in the army soldiers learn they can‘t count on anything until it actually happens, he said.
David Birtwistle, a city councillor and former soldier who has been invited to the meeting Feb. 8, said "it would be a shame" to lose the 11th Field Regiment, if that ever came about.
"I think they should be encouraged (by the community) to stay," he noted.
The councillor said if the unit changes over to mortars from guns he doesn‘t foresee any significant ripples in the community. But some of the veterans who served in the Second World War or the Korean War might have some reservations, he said.
"The young people won‘t have any real difficulty with it. It‘s the old timers," he said.
Guelph has been an artillery community since 1866. The 11th was formed as the 1st Provisional Brigade of Field Artillery in 1880, and it is one of Canada‘s oldest artillery regiments.
Frank Bayne, a retired artillery officer living in Guelph, served in a battery raised from the 11th Field Regiment during the Korean War.
He sees a trend in the military to get rid of artillery guns in favour of more mobile mortars, but he isn‘t so sure the Canadian military of the future isn‘t going to need the heavier weapons.
"These are the cold hard facts (at the moment)," he said. "In order to survive, the artillery is going to have to go to mortars. This seems to be the trend. I think it is a mistake to do so."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Very interesting reading on this site. As for the future of the Artillery, well it leaves me thinking also. The 80mm mtr is to me an unwelcomed site. I have to wonder what the Bn Comdr thinks of it. For him to let go of his only Bn level indirect fire must leave him with a feeling that he is truly at the hands of Bde for indirect fire support. It leaves him with no felexability. I feel that the restructure of the army that Gen Jeffrey has laid out is good. But as we see we are going back to what we had. Although it will be better, Petawawa wont be the SSF, but a highly mobile light Bde. I think that this is very usefull considering the types of OP‘s that we have conducted in the past 10 yrs. It is important for the Canadian Army to change with the times. Unfortunatly we dont have the money to do it very fast. The Artillery of the future I think should continue to exist. However it may need to change again. The introduction of MLRS would be good as some systems can fire up to 200Kms. But then again it is a very costly system. In the end I think it is safe to say that the Army needs to cut where it can in these days of restricted budget. Lets face it the Artillery is a VERY expensive trade to try and train in. But I think that we definetly need an Artillery. There hasnt been a war yet that hasnt been won without it.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,755
- Points
- 1,040
Just because the tubes have been withdrawn completely under the artillery‘s wing doesn‘t mean a deployed battalion won‘t have mortars under command.
H
Harry
Guest
Check out Jeffries original hat badge.
I smell the survival of the Arty at what ever cost.
81 mm, come on. It was and should be an Inf weapon, but with the dispora in the Army, I have a feeling there is much more interesting empirical crap to come.
I smell the survival of the Arty at what ever cost.
81 mm, come on. It was and should be an Inf weapon, but with the dispora in the Army, I have a feeling there is much more interesting empirical crap to come.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,755
- Points
- 1,040
The infantry doesn‘t need technical and training control over mortars, it needs mortars under command during operations. If the batteries or troops never or only rarely train with the battalions, then I foresee a problem - they may become insufficiently accustomed to working together. If there is an efficiency to having the gunners responsible for "all things indirect fire support" and the sappers responsible for "all things field engineer", then provided the elements are integrated into the unit-level combat groupings for collective training (particularly prior to deployment) it may be a useful evolution.
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
There is no insidious plot to keep the arty by "stealing" the mortars from the Infantry. The PYs associated with the Mortar Pls (and Pnr) will be used to offset PY requirements for CMTC and the Comd Sp Bn. The Gunners won‘t even man the 81‘s on a regular basis, rather they will be brought out of the QM for operations (at least in the near term). If I remember the recent DLFR SITREP, it stated the priority for manning within the arty is LG1, followed by M109. There was no requirement to "man the mortars" on a continuous basis.
We are very much moving formalizing (in organization) the way we man deployments overseas. BGs will be amalgamations on many different units and organizations.
We are very much moving formalizing (in organization) the way we man deployments overseas. BGs will be amalgamations on many different units and organizations.
D
deathwing5
Guest
Can you guys tell me what appeals to you most, and what you don‘t find to be all that great of the Artillery. I‘d just like to know thanks. After my interview hopefully i‘ll be in.
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
I liked the camraderie (sp?) and sense of traditions, but hopefully you will find that in any Unit. The Artillery is a little different, because it is more like a single Unit, spread across the Country, and to some extent, the world. You can‘t go anywhere, without meeting someone that knows so-and-so. I liked the fact that Gunnery is a far more technical trade than people expect. I enjoyed being in the field (usually), and "serving the Guns" is kind of a neat concept. We have things like IGs, AIGs, Master Gunners, and of course, the Captain General, that other Units don‘t have. The things I didn‘t like, toward the end, were inherent to the Army as a whole, not Arty specific.
D
deathwing5
Guest
that‘s cool, i also expected comradery to be one of the things I look forward to.
C
Cadet810
Guest
What is the role of Horse Artillery? :bullet:
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
Drop rounds short to spur the infantry on to victory! 
Actually the role of the artillery is to assist in the defeat of the enemy through the use of indirect fire.
Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA), in general, refers to Regular Force members of 1 and 2 RCHA and 5 RALC (French speaking).
Check out the Royal Regiment of Canadian Arilltery Website for additional information.
Hope that helps...
Actually the role of the artillery is to assist in the defeat of the enemy through the use of indirect fire.
Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA), in general, refers to Regular Force members of 1 and 2 RCHA and 5 RALC (French speaking).
Check out the Royal Regiment of Canadian Arilltery Website for additional information.
Hope that helps...
C
Cadet810
Guest
Thankyou. 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
A friend and I have been foloowing the development of the latest and greatest American Bread of self-propelled howitzers. I‘m not sure how many are familiar with the crusader, but this thing a harbringer of doom, and I wonder just how faith in our own drills and equipment will compair to the might of this behemoth.
heres a really good link to info about the crusader and some really good movies. I‘d like to hear some opinions on whether we could compete with this thing or not.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2001.htm
Personnally, I like the multi-trajectory assault pattern. You‘ll know what I mean when you watch the video.
heres a really good link to info about the crusader and some really good movies. I‘d like to hear some opinions on whether we could compete with this thing or not.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2001.htm
Personnally, I like the multi-trajectory assault pattern. You‘ll know what I mean when you watch the video.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,992
- Points
- 1,160
You wouldn‘t want to take on modern armour with a 105mm C3 if you could help it, but if you have to, them everything is a mess and you won‘t be able to rely on anyone else. I have seen what a C1 Howitzer can do to a M575 APC with the HE set on delay, penetrated the hull and exploded inside, very nasty! Likely a 105 could take out a BTR-80, MTLB, BMP1 on the flank with just HE. If you had HEAT, HEP or HESH you could do a T55.
a battery of 105‘s could likely deal with a couple of T55‘s if they got first round hits and just kept pounding them, but it would be a real pucker moment. If you missed, it would be good to get away from the gun, the T-55 HEAT would not make a terribly effective anti-persoanl round and hopefully someone is setting up the Carl G for a flank shot. Mind you the bad guys in the tanks might not know what you don‘t have and beat a hasty retreat
a battery of 105‘s could likely deal with a couple of T55‘s if they got first round hits and just kept pounding them, but it would be a real pucker moment. If you missed, it would be good to get away from the gun, the T-55 HEAT would not make a terribly effective anti-persoanl round and hopefully someone is setting up the Carl G for a flank shot. Mind you the bad guys in the tanks might not know what you don‘t have and beat a hasty retreat
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
My understanding is the Crusader program has been cancelled by Donald Rumsfeld. I haven‘t followed the issue that much but allow the Crusader is a much sexier weapon, I don‘t see it as being that much better then the M109A6 (my thoughts only). The multibillion dollar final development and fielding costs perhaps are the best use of army resources. Crusader seems to be a product of the military-industrial complex that exerts enormous influence over political decision making in the US. Some would say ... too much.
Having said that, I think Rumsfeld‘s focus on lighter and faster forces may come into increasing resistence considering the lack of resources experienced by the US in the drive on Baghdad. Had the Iraqi‘s put up a determined fight (or a fight at all), the US would have had to use an increasing amount of their resources to clear and safeguard thier lines of communication. The utter disintegration of an Iraqi threat negated that requirement, however, Rumsfeld came under increasing criticism for not (or perceived not) having adequate forces in theatre. This was particularly due to Turkey‘s decision to deny US forces the ability to conduct operations out of their country.
Canada has made the decision to go with a wheeled medium weight force. Like it or not, we are no longer capable of conducting high intensity warfare.
Having said that, I think Rumsfeld‘s focus on lighter and faster forces may come into increasing resistence considering the lack of resources experienced by the US in the drive on Baghdad. Had the Iraqi‘s put up a determined fight (or a fight at all), the US would have had to use an increasing amount of their resources to clear and safeguard thier lines of communication. The utter disintegration of an Iraqi threat negated that requirement, however, Rumsfeld came under increasing criticism for not (or perceived not) having adequate forces in theatre. This was particularly due to Turkey‘s decision to deny US forces the ability to conduct operations out of their country.
Canada has made the decision to go with a wheeled medium weight force. Like it or not, we are no longer capable of conducting high intensity warfare.
Similar threads
