• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Guns for 1 RCHA...

Matt_Ubbing

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't know if any of you have heard yet, but 1 RCHA, A bty more specifically are getting new guns. They are getting the M777 from the US. I guess its a 155 mm towed howitzer. There are a buncha people from my Regiment getting augmented to A bty for the upcoming tour in Feb and I would like to know what you guys think of this gun.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
I'm wondering if this purchase was because someone finally reallized that the 105 didn't have much "ommph" or just that we have so much 155 stockpiled that we need something to fire it with?
 

Gunner98

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Type M777 into the search field and you will find at least 5 threads concerning this topic, read them then seek more info.

When do your sources indicate: 1) A Bty will receive the new Guns, and 2) That the TO&E for Feb Roto is going to be amended to include the Guns?
 

Teddy Ruxpin

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Moreover, I'd be interested to learn when the capital project for these guns was formally launched and when the M777 was selected as the new gun.  I've read the CLS direction on artillery transformation and nowhere does it identify a specific gun or assign augmentation roles on specific operations.

AFAIK, CF and Army transformation has fast-tracked a substantial revision to the Regular Force artillery, including UAV batteries, increased FOO parties, and a revision of the gun battery structure.  I also know that the guns will transition to a towed medium capability (firing PGMs) that will include, to some extent, a role for P Res gunners.

Beyond that, if anyone has anything more definitive, I'd love to hear it.

CFL:  assisted = with rocket assistance.
 

1feral1

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think its a good idea to have field and medium artillery, as what we have here in Australia, as there is a place for both 105mm and 155mm guns
 

AmmoTech90

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
35
Points
530
CFL said:
What's it mean by: "Range: 30-40 km (assisted), 22.5-30 km (unassisted)".

That would be 30 to 40 km with either RAP (Rocket Assist Projectiles) or ERFB-BB (Extended Range Full Bore Base Bleed) projectiles and 22.5 to 30 km with conventional projectiles and max charge (red bag, or 6 or 7 MACS).
 
T

trigger

Guest
Gunner78 said:
I don't know if any of you have heard yet, but 1 RCHA, A bty more specifically are getting new guns. They are getting the M777 from the US. I guess its a 155 mm towed howitzer. There are a buncha people from my Regiment getting augmented to A bty for the upcoming tour in Feb and I would like to know what you guys think of this gun.

First let's issue the manning. Get more man power.
Second let's issue the fact that 1RCHA is breaking their troops constantly on 105mm towed guns and 155 self-propelled. Now add the fact that the broken numbers will only increase with a towed 155.   When all the troops are broken there will be no manning the guns.

Now with the joking aside:

I personally think we should have purchased more light 105's.
In the warfare we're involved in we're dealing with CQB and BUA fighting, a 105 will reduce collateral damage to ssurrounding"non-combatants" and "non-military tgts".   There are several light guns out there that will come in and out of action fast, with self guiding GPS lay on.   This speed is essential in the modern combat, unless on a fire base where tgts are already recorded.   Also the air-mobility issue would be resolved...let's face it the LG1 doesn't pack perfect.   I remember running trials years ago with CBty when we did the first Air Mobile Op with the darn thing.   We had to carry the ammo in one chopper, while the other chopper would carry the gun...not unusual you say! You're right it's not, except for the fact that the gun was stripped of the breach to save on weight and the chopper that carried the gun was stripped of it's doors and would also require to have half a load of fuel to ensure it could lift the weight of the LG1.   It's not the guns fault, the choppers we purchased aren't designed for a "war machine", they're executive helicopters painted green. Things aren't as bad now, we only did this to test, and build up from there, however, things aren't great, so we should work with what we have...the choppers are all ready there, now let's look to buying other kit that will work with them, otherwise we will "cripple" ourselves   with a bad buy.
I see no reason for a 155.   We should be expanding the mobility and speed issues, purchase light guns, and mortars, not just the mortars you "hump", but also some that are mounted.

  As for the issue that we may have so much 155mm stock piled:  If I'm not mistaken, I believe we fired that off a few years ago when we were told the 109's (155) were being retired.
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Yes and from my understanding, they will be used on TF 1-06.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
757
Points
1,040
So, for one far removed from the scene,....good, bad, or halfway?
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Bruce, I think it is a good thing.  It is a "lightweight" 155 that can be towed by a prime mover or airlifted by tactical aircraft or helicopters (ie Chinook).  Obviously towed artillery will be less labour intensive than self propelled and more versatile according to the Defence Policy vision.  The 155 is a more stable trajectory than a 105.  Correct me if I am wrong but there is a larger selection of munitions for 155 vice 105.  I would be interested to hear what those serving in the school and regiments think.
 

Teddy Ruxpin

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I believe that the idea is to procure the XM982 Excalibur round with the guns... Excalibur is an "accelerated" US Army procurement.

A very good thing - in this black hat's books...

Teddy
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
56
Points
480
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, and the first buy - the 15 mentioned in the story in today's National Post - may well come from US stocks, but the factory which manufactures these guns is reported as being in Pacagoula, Mississippi which is between Biloxi and Mobile. Is there any word on the condition of the plant?
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
trigger said:
First let's issue the manning. Get more man power.
Second let's issue the fact that 1RCHA is breaking their troops constantly on 105mm towed guns and 155 self-propelled. Now add the fact that the broken numbers will only increase with a towed 155.   When all the troops are broken there will be no manning the guns.

Now with the joking aside:

I personally think we should have purchased more light 105's.
In the warfare we're involved in we're dealing with CQB and BUA fighting, a 105 will reduce collateral damage to ssurrounding"non-combatants" and "non-military tgts".   There are several light guns out there that will come in and out of action fast, with self guiding GPS lay on.   This speed is essential in the modern combat, unless on a fire base where tgts are already recorded.   Also the air-mobility issue would be resolved...let's face it the LG1 doesn't pack perfect.   I remember running trials years ago with CBty when we did the first Air Mobile Op with the darn thing.   We had to carry the ammo in one chopper, while the other chopper would carry the gun...not unusual you say! You're right it's not, except for the fact that the gun was stripped of the breach to save on weight and the chopper that carried the gun was stripped of it's doors and would also require to have half a load of fuel to ensure it could lift the weight of the LG1.   It's not the guns fault, the choppers we purchased aren't designed for a "war machine", they're executive helicopters painted green. Things aren't as bad now, we only did this to test, and build up from there, however, things aren't great, so we should work with what we have...the choppers are all ready there, now let's look to buying other kit that will work with them, otherwise we will "cripple" ourselves   with a bad buy.
I see no reason for a 155.   We should be expanding the mobility and speed issues, purchase light guns, and mortars, not just the mortars you "hump", but also some that are mounted.

  As for the issue that we may have so much 155mm stock piled:   If I'm not mistaken, I believe we fired that off a few years ago when we were told the 109's (155) were being retired.

Certainly not an expert in artillery (or anything else for that matter), but the 155mm seems to be a necessity as that's where all the R&D is going to be spent in the US for precision-guided rounds.



Matthew.  :salute:
 

RCA

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
As for the guns being in TF 1-06. That should be interesting, because they don't have them yet, and as far as I know, 1 RCHA is using C3s and LG1s on the BTE. Which means that they won't see/have the gun until late Oct, early Nov and with deployment sometime in Feb cutting a fine timeline because Shilo ranges can't be used in Nov because of hunting season. As well, not being familiar with the M777, can it be towed by an MLVW or must it use a 10 ton, further complicating the deployment issue. I stand to be corrected by someone more in the know.

As for acquiring the 155, it is always a good thing to increase weapons mix, which in turn increases our flexability and capabilities.

 
Top