The future of Light Arty (105 mm) (From: Mortars)

[Colin Parkinson]

Not mortar s, but just read elsewhere that the US Army is ordering more M119 105mm Howitzers for 2013. So the 105mm is far from dead.

 

[GnyHwy]

Any the 120mm mortar has its advantages in built up areas and PGMs, but in the open terrain in a more traditional role, I'm taking a 105mm howitzer all day long.

 

[Old Sweat]

Not mortar s, but just read elsewhere that the US Army is ordering more M119 105mm Howitzers for 2013. So the 105mm is far from dead.

I trialed a development model at the school in Shilo in the summer of 1969. It was ballistically similar to the US M102 which meant a maximum range of 11,500 metres.

Edit: Here is a link to the 1969 Canadian Gunner which includes an article on the trial. The post-war Canadian Army peaked in 1969 and it was pretty well all downhill for three decades after that. A quick scan of the articles will give you an idea of what we could do back then.

http://www.artillery.net/beta/files/Canadian%20Gunner%201969.pdf

 

[dapaterson]

I trialed a development model at the school in Shilo in the summer of 1969. It was ballistically similar to the US M102 which meant a maximum range of 11,500 metres.

Edit: Here is a link to the 1969 Canadian Gunner which includes an article on the trial. The post-war Canadian Army peaked in 1969 and it was pretty well all downhill for three decades after that. A quick scan of the articles will give you an idea of what we could do back then.

http://www.artillery.net/beta/files/Canadian%20Gunner%201969.pdf

So the decline of the Canadian Army ran in parallel to your career?  Now, correlation does not imply causation, but...

 

[Old Sweat]

So the decline of the Canadian Army ran in parallel to your career?  Now, correlation does not imply causation, but...

I'm not sure which was the cause and which was the effect; it was not a lot of fun watching great hunks of the army go flying off into nothingness.

 

[FJAG]

I'm not sure which was the cause and which was the effect; it was not a lot of fun watching great hunks of the army go flying off into nothingness.

I joined in 69 and was posted to H Bty in the Third in 70. Went on a two month course and when I came back the Bty was gone. I think we did releases and remusters to the tune of changing strength from somewhere around 4,000 to around 1600 in as little as a year.

One consequence was that most of our gun sergeants at that time were to infirm to do their jobs but blocked positions. All of J Bty's guns were run by the newly created MBdr appointments (which at that time made the princely sum of $5.00 per month more than the Bdrs). I think we had no promotions to the rank of sergeant for about five years. Morale was just peachy.

 

[Old Sweat]

Leaving all that aside, the question is whether the 105mm is still a viable round in terms of range and effect at the sharp end. Physics seems to dictate that we can't get much more that 18km in range, and that has an effect on the life of the tube and blast overpressure on the detachment. Considering that newer types of 155mm HE have safety distances and lethality about the same as the 105mm and can reach out much farther, is it worthwhile considering a light gun?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 105mm light gun is a good choice for reserves and adds a tool into the toolbox where a 155 might not fit. The 105 would be a poor choice to go up against the Soviet counter battery system, but I can see it playing a part in future ops where politics or logistics may block the 155. The m119 weighs in about 300kgs less than the C3.
The 155 is just to big for the reserves based on what I have seen, needs a larger tractor, more crew and more expensive ammo. For the reserves you need a logistically easy gun and that is what the C1,2 & 3 gave them. A new 105mm gun should have the exact same (or close as possible) aiming systems as the 155 in service, this will allow for better training and easier cross training.

 

[jeffb]

In addition, there are many armouries around Canada that simply can not accommodate M777s and the associated gun tractors. 155mm for the reserves is moot anyways as I can't imagine the government committing to buying a few dozen more.

 

[ArmyRick]

At this point, the talk of getting a new 105mm light gun seems more "wish" list than anything else. With CF committing to buy several more M777s for Reg force and I could have sworn I saw a tid bit about picking up something similar to HIMARS, I don't see a new 105mm being on the shopping list anytime soon.

 

[Ostrozac]

I do agree that the Canadian Army needs a mix of indirect fire capabilities.

This could include 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortars, 105mm and 155mm howitzers, and a MLRS/ballistic missile capability. But it won't, and shouldn't, include all of those capabilities simultaneously -- that capability mix would probably be unsustainable for us at our current size.

I can see the argument of having a smaller general purpose gun that has a lesser logistics footprint than the M777 -- I would like to see the capability comparision between the available 105mm and 120mm mortars. In addition, I know that I have seen the GIAT LG1 towed behind AVGP -- while I have only seen M777 towed by softskins. Is that an inherant advantage of 105mm, that they can be towed by APCs? Similarly, could you store a 120mm mortar internally in a LAV3 or TLAV? Now that we have no self-propelled arty, survivability might be a consideration for our indirect fire weapons.

 

[FJAG]

In addition, there are many armouries around Canada that simply can not accommodate M777s and the associated gun tractors. 155mm for the reserves is moot anyways as I can't imagine the government committing to buying a few dozen more.

I agree that the point is moot, but not because the government won't buy more. It's because the reg f won't commit money out of their budgets to do it. That's the same reason why reserve recce regiments use G-wagons instead of Coyotes.

Sixty years ago when life was simpler reserve units had tanks, self propelled howitzers, locating regiments, etc. We still believed in mobilizing reservists when needed. Even our forces as late as Korea were raised primarily from the reserves (including many WW2 vets)

Then the world changed and with the formation of standing commitments to NATO in Europe and we developed an attitude that wars would happen so quickly that only standing regular force units would get there. The concept of mobilizing a reserve force fell out of fashion and guess what - the reg f which became the centre of our forces in being and ran the CF and NDHQ - diverted whatever funds the government allocated to them and the reserves became less capable and subjected to ever lower levels of expectation.

That attitude is still here today. Reg F personnel have a vested interest in maintaining PYs within their respective empires. Since funding reg f PYs are built into the establishment and funding training, armoury changes, new equipment and res f pay are not, no one realistically wants to rebuild the system from the ground up. Tinker with it sure, but rebuild it? No thanks that's not in the reg f establishments vested interests.

I think I said this in another thread. First figure out what the overall army's objectives are and then determine what needs to be done by people who are there every day and what can and should be done by part timers. Then equip them, train them and house them accordingly to meet their defence objectives.

Concepts like 777's and their tractors won't fit in armouries or the C1 is a nice and simple gun that even a reservist can operate have no place in planning a defence organization that meets defence objectives.

And just to stay on thread, I believe that there is clearly a role for the 105 in certain establishments where light easily air transportable equipment is needed and the lighter terminal effects of the smaller round and the more limited range are not a critical handicap. Much as I hated the L5, we could carry it just about everywhere and it could be lifted by a Huey -- we needed Voyagers or Chinooks for the C1s.

The fact that there is a role for the 105 does not mean its by necessity a reserve force role simply because they currently have the guns.

In my mind mortars are not the solution for light organization needs. Flatter trajectories, shorter times of flight and less exposure to the effects of higher atmosphere and CM radars have a definite advantage for guns over mortars. Don't get me wrong. There's a very necessary role for mortars, but in my mind that's still within the hands of the infantry - maybe even a reserve infantry role. The two are complimentary, not competitors.

:2c:  :remembrance:

 

[Old Sweat]

Great points, Wolf.* However given the size of our defence budget, can you realistically see a hefty slice of it being alloted to buy 30-50 105mm guns mainly for the reserves, when perhaps there might be a chance of six being used in action?

* FJAG and I served together in 2 RCHA in the early seventies.

 

[dapaterson]

Great points, Wolf.* However given the size of our defence budget, can you realistically see a hefty slice of it being alloted to buy 30-50 105mm guns mainly for the reserves, when perhaps there might be a chance of six being used in action?

* FJAG and I served together in 2 RCHA in the early seventies.

The cost of the guns would not be excessive, compared to, say, the CCV or other DND/CF pipe dreams, and would ensure the ability of the Reserves to continue to force generate gunners for operations.

Besides that, there's the additional, ceremonial requirement for gun salutes; I can't quite imagine a 21 tube salute fired by a mortar battery...

 

[Old Sweat]

The cost of the guns would not be excessive, compared to, say, the CCV or other DND/CF pipe dreams, and would ensure the ability of the Reserves to continue to force generate gunners for operations.

Besides that, there's the additional, ceremonial requirement for gun salutes; I can't quite imagine a 21 tube salute fired by a mortar battery...

It would, however, probably come out of the meagre slice of the pie given to the artillery. Hard decisions, and not because of salutes!

 

[dapaterson]

It would, however, probably come out of the meagre slice of the pie given to the artillery. Hard decisions, and not because of salutes!

It's a question of balancing capabilities and priorities within the overall Army priority list.

Frankly, given the institutional inability to expend the planned capital amounts, a low-rate production contract could permit the CF to but half a dozen or so a year for a decade at a low cost per year without an increase to current allocations.  Of course, stretching out production like that would more than double the cost (top of my head math), but would fill a real requirement.

Of course, getting "more of the same" isn't sexy - new and different is sexy - so I doubt we'd see that any time soon.

 

[Allgunzblazing]

The British Army employes the 105 mm light gun with their airborne forces - http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/artillery-air-defence/1511.aspx

Can this be a foreseeable use of the 105 mm Light Gun within the CF? Airborne batteries within the existing Reg Force Arty units...

 

[dangerboy]

I can't see  Canada ever going back to having Airborne Batteries.  The most I can see is having jump qual FOO parties.

 

[FJAG]

Great points, Wolf.* However given the size of our defence budget, can you realistically see a hefty slice of it being alloted to buy 30-50 105mm guns mainly for the reserves, when perhaps there might be a chance of six being used in action?

* FJAG and I served together in 2 RCHA in the early seventies.

Not at all. You may not know but as DJAG Res/ Snr P Res Leg O I sat on the Chief of Reserves Council for some seven years or so and in my last three years I was on Class B in Ottawa with JAG. I had more arguments with people than I care to remember about how we should approach the role of the reserves in what were changing times.

I have always been (and continue to be) an advocate of using our existing legislation to call-up reservists for duty similar to how the US does it. I constantly ran into a stone wall of Reg F General officers who didn't understand our legislation and believed that our reserves were purely voluntary and couldn't be compelled to go into harms way. As proof they sited that we hadn't done it in over fifty years. (That though had more to do with what we chose to do rather than what we could have done)

In short I have a firm belief that our senior leaders do not know how reservists could potentially be used, and have very little interest in learning. Even our reserve leaders are relatively content with our status quo and not about to advocate for change. As such reservists are thought of and continue to think of themselves as "limited liability part-timers" notwithstanding their tremendous contribution in Afghanistan.

That said to address your point - I see absolutely no way that anyone is about to buy any new 105s for the reserves when there are already guns around that can do whatever the job is we want reservists to do.

I actually have two separate but related points:

I think to seriously address the overall budget concerns of the forces, the reg f could easily lose hundreds of PYs by divesting themselves of all the gun lines in each regiment except one battery's worth with the remainder (including the equipment and maintainers and a core of leaders) to go to the reserves. In addition other equipment not used day - to - day but necessary in war - such as radars - to go to the reserves as well.

We should simplify our gun inventory. If the 777 is our standard piece then sufficient (and by that I mean just a few) should be available for training for reservists. I think our inventory is at 37 so we are looking at up to six six-gun or eight or nine four-gun batteries (are the M777 batteries at four guns now?)  Either way if 24 are left with the Reg regiments and the RCSA a dozen are free to give to designated res units tasked to augment designated reg f units.

I think we have about 28 or so LG1s which is enough to equip about 8 or 9 three gun troops/batteries - enough to be used in reserve regiments for initial and continuing gun number training, for saluting troops, and as the operational light gun if ever needed. The C1 is on the way out and I don't see the C3 ever being sent to war. Why keep and maintain it?

So in summary I don't think we'll get new 105s and I don't think we need them either. That said you can see what I've done here is exactly what I advocate we don't do - rationalize our establishment based on what we have rather than build it from the ground up based on what our defence needs are. 

Cheers

 

[dapaterson]

The LG1s have little life left in them.  And the M777 fleet would be insufficient to have a deployable battery "waiting on the dock" while routine training is ongoing- and, aslt I heard, the intent was to have equipment ready to roll on short notice.


As for ignorance of senior leaders about the Reserves: if it's any consolation, they're mostly ignorant about the Reg F as well...