C3 Howitzer Replacement

[GR66]

That gets me back to 30/70 units. IMHO the sole good option is to take the people and equipment of the current four regiments and make them into eight 30/70 regiments which have the same number of RegF batteries and people and the ResF people and all their equipment but distributed in such a way that the ResF elements would have better access to the equipment and instructors and leadership needed to make them proficient and would be sufficient in number to fully round out the eight regiments with people if not equipment. That will at least give you something for the future to build on.

I'm thinking that a better 1st step would be to bring up to full strength (through Reserve augmentation) the existing 4 x Artillery Regiments rather than doubling the number of Regiments to eight (and diluting the leadership and specialist skills). I don't think there's enough butter to spread on that toast so to speak.

3 x Gun Regiments each with 4 x 6-gun Batteries and 1 x AD Regiment with 4 x Batteries. We don't have enough guns to fill that ORBAT currently but that should be the initial procurement goal.

• 1 RCHA (including 10 Field Regiment, 26 Field Regiment and 116 Ind. Field Battery) - New SP 155mm when procured
• 2 RCHA (including 30 Field Regiment, 42 Field Regiment and 49 Field Regiment) - Consolidate all M777's here for 2 Light Infantry Brigade
• 5 RALC (including 2 Field Regiment, 6 RAC and 62 RAC) - New SP 155mm when procured
• 4 AD Regt (including 1 Field Regiment, 3 Field Regiment and 84 Ind. Field Battery) - New AD Platform when procured

The remaining Reserve Artillery Regiments could then be grouped into two additional Regiments and equipped with new General Support weapon systems as they come available:

• 5 (BC) Field Regiment, 15 Field Regiment, 20 Field Regiment and 20 Ind. Field Battery - HIMARS
• 7 (Toronto) Regiment, 11 Field Regiment, 56 Field Regiment - Loitering Munitions

 

[Kirkhill]

Probably debatable at this point.

Or are we talking about finding useful jobs for the people that used to fire light howitzers to supply close support to light infantry battalions?

See GR66 above.

 

[GK .Dundas]

We could get 50+ refurbished M101's from SK which means you don't have to change your training, ammunition storage or safety traces. The gun plumbers know hoe to fix them. You can update the FCS to make the training more practical. Get 75+ and you can also use them at Battle school for basic gunnery and OP training.
This will solve the current crisis while our betters enjoy their circle jerk and allows us to still pretend we are a relevant army.

Bingo ! We have a winner !

 

[KevinB]

Bingo ! We have a winner !

Why invest in an obsolete platform?

You are just throwing away good money at that point to say ‘we have some guns’ the fact they are useless for anything should be an issue.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Do you honestly believe that that Canadian Government is actually going to spend actual money on utterly necessary and useful equipment ? Short of invasion from space by aliens.?
This is at least something so modest you might just be able to convince them .

 

[GR66]

Or are we talking about finding useful jobs for the people that used to fire light howitzers to supply close support to light infantry battalions?

See GR66 above.

To be honest I don't think we should be looking for a "C3 Howitzer Replacement" as the thread is titled at all.

With the entirety of Reg Force Artillery consisting of 6 x 4-gun Batteries we in reality only have one full Reg Force Artillery Regiment. Rather than finding a C3 replacement to give to a group of Reserve Regiments which really are only Batteries + we should be using those Reservists to bring our three Reg Force Regiments up to full strength.

That will use up the majority of the Reserve Artillery manning that's available. There is no separate "Reserve" weapons system required. What we need is enough guns for the three Reg Force Regiments which should be brought up to full strength through Reserve augmentation.

For the fairly limited number of Reserve Artillery PYs that remain (I'm guesstimating at 2 Regiments worth above) that is where we should be looking at a "C3 Howitzer Replacement". Personally I think the Ukraine war has shown that Rocket Artillery (HIMARS or MLRS) and Loitering Munitions are the two systems that would be most beneficial for the CAF to add.

 

[Kirkhill]

To be honest I don't think we should be looking for a "C3 Howitzer Replacement" as the thread is titled at all.

With the entirety of Reg Force Artillery consisting of 6 x 4-gun Batteries we in reality only have one full Reg Force Artillery Regiment. Rather than finding a C3 replacement to give to a group of Reserve Regiments which really are only Batteries + we should be using those Reservists to bring our three Reg Force Regiments up to full strength.

That will use up the majority of the Reserve Artillery manning that's available. There is no separate "Reserve" weapons system required. What we need is enough guns for the three Reg Force Regiments which should be brought up to full strength through Reserve augmentation.

For the fairly limited number of Reserve Artillery PYs that remain (I'm guesstimating at 2 Regiments worth above) that is where we should be looking at a "C3 Howitzer Replacement". Personally I think the Ukraine war has shown that Rocket Artillery (HIMARS or MLRS) and Loitering Munitions are the two systems that would be most beneficial for the CAF to add.

Don't forget that air defence stuff!

 

[Kirkhill]

To be honest I don't think we should be looking for a "C3 Howitzer Replacement" as the thread is titled at all.

With the entirety of Reg Force Artillery consisting of 6 x 4-gun Batteries we in reality only have one full Reg Force Artillery Regiment. Rather than finding a C3 replacement to give to a group of Reserve Regiments which really are only Batteries + we should be using those Reservists to bring our three Reg Force Regiments up to full strength.

That will use up the majority of the Reserve Artillery manning that's available. There is no separate "Reserve" weapons system required. What we need is enough guns for the three Reg Force Regiments which should be brought up to full strength through Reserve augmentation.

For the fairly limited number of Reserve Artillery PYs that remain (I'm guesstimating at 2 Regiments worth above) that is where we should be looking at a "C3 Howitzer Replacement". Personally I think the Ukraine war has shown that Rocket Artillery (HIMARS or MLRS) and Loitering Munitions are the two systems that would be most beneficial for the CAF to add.

Additional thoughts - don't forget that the size of the gun crews, amongst other things, have shrunk radically.

HIMARS is operated by a crew of three - a driver, gunner and section chief - but the computer-based fire control system enables a crew of two or even a single soldier to load and unload the system. The fire control system includes video, keyboard control, a gigabyte of program storage and global positioning system. The fire control computer allows firing missions to be carried out in automatic or manual mode.

M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS)

www.globalsecurity.org

M101/L119 crew of 5 to 7?
M777 crew of 7 to 10?

HIMARS crew of 1 to 3. - Likewise for any other missile launch system.
Archer crew of 2 to 4
RCH 155 crew of 2

Which is why GR66 is right to focus on utilizing the available PYs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You still need people to handle and load the ammunition. The "firing crew" is smaller, but the amount of maintainers and ammunition handlers increases. I suspect you have the same PY's, just you won't lose as many to counter battery fire.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile, well within the realm of doable for the PRes

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile, well within the realm of doable for the PRes

They seem to have the dress regs for a Scottish Unit, so why not?

 

[GK .Dundas]

I wonder what ever happened to all those RH 202 twin 20 mm mounts the Germans placed in storage ?
And then we all those Milvardo's ....
Everybody needs the occasional hobby horse.....this is currently mine.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder what ever happened to all those RH 202 twin 20 mm mounts the Germans placed in storage ?
And then we all those Milvardo's ....
Everybody needs the occasional hobby horse.....this is currently mine.

my edit didn't take, I added that this would be better

 

[FJAG]

I'm thinking that a better 1st step would be to bring up to full strength (through Reserve augmentation) the existing 4 x Artillery Regiments rather than doubling the number of Regiments to eight (and diluting the leadership and specialist skills). I don't think there's enough butter to spread on that toast so to speak.

3 x Gun Regiments each with 4 x 6-gun Batteries and 1 x AD Regiment with 4 x Batteries. We don't have enough guns to fill that ORBAT currently but that should be the initial procurement goal.

• 1 RCHA (including 10 Field Regiment, 26 Field Regiment and 116 Ind. Field Battery) - New SP 155mm when procured
• 2 RCHA (including 30 Field Regiment, 42 Field Regiment and 49 Field Regiment) - Consolidate all M777's here for 2 Light Infantry Brigade
• 5 RALC (including 2 Field Regiment, 6 RAC and 62 RAC) - New SP 155mm when procured
• 4 AD Regt (including 1 Field Regiment, 3 Field Regiment and 84 Ind. Field Battery) - New AD Platform when procured

The remaining Reserve Artillery Regiments could then be grouped into two additional Regiments and equipped with new General Support weapon systems as they come available:

• 5 (BC) Field Regiment, 15 Field Regiment, 20 Field Regiment and 20 Ind. Field Battery - HIMARS
• 7 (Toronto) Regiment, 11 Field Regiment, 56 Field Regiment - Loitering Munitions

I would agree with you if my aim was to beef up the RegF artillery regiments. It's not. My aim is to create an artillery that can meet the following objectives:

1) generate six rotations of a composite CS battery with three two-gun troops; an LCMR troop; a UAV troop; a STACC; a tactical troop with an FSCC, a BC tac, and three FOO parties; and a battery A echelon together with a Bde level FSCC. Generating these battery groups is the primary objective given to the artillery under the Advancing with Purpose Artillery Transformation. Each CS regiment will have the ability to generate one such battery completely from within its own RegF establishment;

2) in addition, six CS regiments are sufficient to create two artillery brigades. This has the ability to generate two complete 3-CS battery regiments from RegF resources. That's sufficient to a) completely support one deployed brigade; and b) simultaneously have sufficient RegF personnel available to create further rotos augmented by ResF personnel;

3) during peace-time each regiment has sufficient RegF personnel and equipment to develop all career requirements for both officers and NCMs and conduct all battery level and basic regimental level training;

4) during peace time each regiment has enough RegF personnel to train and mentor their ResF personnel including on shared RegF equipment as well as the ResF batteries own equipment.;

5) the structure incorporates the existing personnel strength and existing equipment holdings of the RegF and ResF artillery to form six CS regiments and two GS regiments; and

6) the establishment forms the basis for a gradual expansion over the years by adding equipment holdings to the regiments as may be determined appropriate - effectively a doctrinal approach that builds two artillery brigades to support up to two divisions.

Here's a bit of a breakdown of how such a sample regiment might look.

 

[FJAG]

Why invest in an obsolete platform?

You are just throwing away good money at that point to say ‘we have some guns’ the fact they are useless for anything should be an issue.

Frankly I don't think we need to buy the whole M101s at all. All we really need are the barrels and recoil systems and reverse engineer to a C1. Most of our problems are there (although there are a few other issues but they too (IMHO) are caused by the extra mass of the C3 barrel.) That might cause an unbalancing with the trails so those may need reconverting. I'm not sure if anyone is still turning out those barrels. Range doesn't matter when you use it as a training gun.

I'm somewhat joking here because I too think we need a proper operational gun.

Effectively for my model above, we have and need:

1) M777 - we have 34 in hand. Take six for tech spares and the RCSA leaves us 28 four six four-gun batteries plus four. One has to remember that we've turned the whole system into a building block shuffle where composite batteries are formed from a flock of troops. The way we employ them a battery could be two troops or five troops. It really doesn't matter for training although once you get back to peer warfare you want to ensure that whatever forward force you deploy has the proper weight of fire. We haven't to this point deployed a regiment operationally since we stood down 4 CMBG - batteries only and invariably throughout Afghanistan no single battery was able to do the job itself. They all needed augmentation from other batteries and reservists. We routinely augmented batteries with 15% reservists. For any operation that requires a regiment we can easily assemble three 6-gun batteries and still have 10 or more back in country to train further rotos or replacements.

2) LG1 - we have 28 in hand. Not sure of their VOR rate at the moment but that's enough for 18 for a regiment to support a light brigade. We could do like the Americans and use a 6-gun M777 battery and two 6-gun LG1 batteries and still have enough M777s to support a Mech brigade. I doubt that under the current regime and structure that we would ever deploy a light brigade and a mech brigade simultaneously, but if we did, we we could muster the operational guns for that and have a handful on hand for follow up training. That, in a nutshell, is the rational of our current holdings which are entirely based on only participating in discretionary operations and does not think in terms of "mobilizing a host".

3) So, for my six CS regiments we form:

a) two regiments with four fully equipped LG1 batteries (24) plus 4 spares spread around between the school, tech spares and ResF training establishments, and two fully equipped C3 batteries (12) targeted at supporting up to a light brigade and sustaining its rotations; and

b) four regiments with four fully equipped M777 batteries (24) plus 10 spares spread around between the school and tech spares, and eight fully equipped C3 batteries (48) aimed at supporting up to a mech brigade and its rotations;

c) 18 x gun batteries total.

4) My Phase 2 would be to rebuild to:

a) three regiments of 3 x 155mm SPs batteries each - within a mech division capable of deploying and sustaining one to two mech brigades;

b) one regiment of 3 x M777 batteries; and two regiments of 1 x M777 battery and 2 x LG1 batteries each - within a light division capable of deploying and sustaining one to two light brigades.

Long story short - aim for those 9 x 155mm SP batteries and keep using the C3 as long as it takes to get there. I haven't forgotten about other systems. Once you have them, there are enough tubes to support a well balanced artillery. (and no I haven't forgotten about loitering munitions and such but that's another story)

 

[ueo]

Frankly I don't think we need to buy the whole M101s at all. All we really need are the barrels and recoil systems and reverse engineer to a C1. Most of our problems are there (although there are a few other issues but they too (IMHO) are caused by the extra mass of the C3 barrel.) That might cause an unbalancing with the trails so those may need reconverting. I'm not sure if anyone is still turning out those barrels. Range doesn't matter when you use it as a training gun.

I'm somewhat joking here because I too think we need a proper operational gun.

Effectively for my model above, we have and need:

1) M777 - we have 34 in hand. Take six for tech spares and the RCSA leaves us 28 four six four-gun batteries plus four. One has to remember that we've turned the whole system into a building block shuffle where composite batteries are formed from a flock of troops. The way we employ them a battery could be two troops or five troops. It really doesn't matter for training although once you get back to peer warfare you want to ensure that whatever forward force you deploy has the proper weight of fire. We haven't to this point deployed a regiment operationally since we stood down 4 CMBG - batteries only and invariably throughout Afghanistan no single battery was able to do the job itself. They all needed augmentation from other batteries and reservists. We routinely augmented batteries with 15% reservists. For any operation that requires a regiment we can easily assemble three 6-gun batteries and still have 10 or more back in country to train further rotos or replacements.

2) LG1 - we have 28 in hand. Not sure of their VOR rate at the moment but that's enough for 18 for a regiment to support a light brigade. We could do like the Americans and use a 6-gun M777 battery and two 6-gun LG1 batteries and still have enough M777s to support a Mech brigade. I doubt that under the current regime and structure that we would ever deploy a light brigade and a mech brigade simultaneously, but if we did, we we could muster the operational guns for that and have a handful on hand for follow up training. That, in a nutshell, is the rational of our current holdings which are entirely based on only participating in discretionary operations and does not think in terms of "mobilizing a host".

3) So, for my six CS regiments we form:

a) two regiments with four fully equipped LG1 batteries (24) plus 4 spares spread around between the school, tech spares and ResF training establishments, and two fully equipped C3 batteries (12) targeted at supporting up to a light brigade and sustaining its rotations; and

b) four regiments with four fully equipped M777 batteries (24) plus 10 spares spread around between the school and tech spares, and eight fully equipped C3 batteries (48) aimed at supporting up to a mech brigade and its rotations;

c) 18 x gun batteries total.

4) My Phase 2 would be to rebuild to:

a) three regiments of 3 x 155mm SPs batteries each - within a mech division capable of deploying and sustaining one to two mech brigades;

b) one regiment of 3 x M777 batteries; and two regiments of 1 x M777 battery and 2 x LG1 batteries each - within a light division capable of deploying and sustaining one to two light brigades.

Long story short - aim for those 9 x 155mm SP batteries and keep using the C3 as long as it takes to get there. I haven't forgotten about other systems. Once you have them, there are enough tubes to support a well balanced artillery. (and no I haven't forgotten about loitering munitions and such but that's another story)

We've been going on about arty and all that nice techie stuff, but appear to have forgottenthe follks requesting/needing it, Maybe drop the discussion of how many mxxx tubes/systems and what proportion should be reg res etc etc. Define the role of the CA, start at trench 1 and builld a reasonable force with all the correct componants, fund equipment and then decide manning. Just my opinion.

 

[GR66]

We've been going on about arty and all that nice techie stuff, but appear to have forgottenthe follks requesting/needing it, Maybe drop the discussion of how many mxxx tubes/systems and what proportion should be reg res etc etc. Define the role of the CA, start at trench 1 and builld a reasonable force with all the correct componants, fund equipment and then decide manning. Just my opinion.

I'm sure that Force 2025 will clearly define the role of the CA (including the Reserves) going forward and answer all of these questions for us. It will then just be a matter of waiting for the new kit to arrive.

[/sarcasm]

 

[daftandbarmy]

We've been going on about arty and all that nice techie stuff, but appear to have forgottenthe follks requesting/needing it, Maybe drop the discussion of how many mxxx tubes/systems and what proportion should be reg res etc etc. Define the role of the CA, start at trench 1 and builld a reasonable force with all the correct componants, fund equipment and then decide manning. Just my opinion.

Or maybe just keep it status quo... like ordering up a bunch of trucks because someone thought it was a good idea?

 

[OldSolduer]

IF you're going to do it right, order the guns, ammo AND the gun tractors, and the required logistics vehicle all in the same package.

AM I making sense?

 

[FJAG]

IF you're going to do it right, order the guns, ammo AND the gun tractors, and the required logistics vehicle all in the same package.

AM I making sense?

Not to DLR. That's been a perpetual problem and not just for ResF arty.

We've been going on about arty and all that nice techie stuff, but appear to have forgottenthe follks requesting/needing it, Maybe drop the discussion of how many mxxx tubes/systems and what proportion should be reg res etc etc. Define the role of the CA, start at trench 1 and builld a reasonable force with all the correct componants, fund equipment and then decide manning. Just my opinion.

And therein lies the problem. That's how it should work in a logical, rational world.

The last time we did that was in the 1980s. Since then we've been living in a phony peace-dividend world where the guidance comes from how much money is available, how many PYs can we protect and how many capabilities can we shed without assuming an unacceptable level of political risk.