- Reaction score
- 8,330
- Points
- 1,160
That's funny. Because the poor buggers they are defending aren't "scooting" anywhere.
C3 Howitzer Replacement
- Thread starter MattGotts
- Start date
That's funny. Because the poor buggers they are defending aren't "scooting" anywhere.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,404
- Points
- 1,260
As though different arms doing different jobs do things differently in concert to achieve an effect.
Also is this whole conversation going to be in the context of this hypothetical construct doing one specific task exclusively ? Because that’s rather at odds with your previous comments on single purpose entities isn’t it ?
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,794
- Points
- 1,160
Swedish coastal defence isn't/wasn't totally the balliwick of the Coastal Artillery (which, at 120 years old, was a 'relative' newcomer to coastal defence). Mostly they have relied on a "green water" navy.
Swedish Coastal Defence Over Four Centuries: War as a Changing Institution of International Society
This is an article on Swedish coastal defence over four centuries. It seeks to understand the changes in Swedish naval policy over time by exploring how the understanding of the nature of war visible in defence planning varies over time, due to both changing norms and changes in harder factors...
sjms.nu
Their most recent "firing shots in anger" has usually been dropping depth charges - sometimes on 'confirmed' Soviet submarines. There were a few incidents during the Cold War. The damage they have inflicted is unknown. The only time that they took control of a Soviet submarine was when it strayed and ended up on the rocks (they eventually towed it off into international waters and turned it over to the Soviets).
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,903
- Points
- 1,160
One of the things one considers when picking artillery manoeuvre areas in the brigade's rear area is to not place them near other facilities back there specifically so they won't be when counterfire rains down. Sometimes its tough because it can get crowded back there.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,010
- Points
- 1,160
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,010
- Points
- 1,160
The thing about Coastal defences was to make attacking a costly venture. Perhaps ask North Korean Train crews how much they enjoyed the lack of coastal defences?
- Reaction score
- 8,330
- Points
- 1,160
One of the things one considers when picking artillery manoeuvre areas in the brigade's rear area is to not place them near other facilities back there specifically so they won't be when counterfire rains down. Sometimes its tough because it can get crowded back there.
My point is that you are defending people in cities and they are not moving unless you fail at your job.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,467
- Points
- 1,260
Absolutely. The naval version was called the Boffin. They were in storage after we decommissioned the Bonnie and the Maggie and anecdotally my understanding was that NATO was insisting in the early / mid 1970s that all military airfields be protected by air defence systems (and I think with buildings to be painted in matt green). NATO put up money for that to happen and Canada cashed in, got the Boffins out of storage, bought a bunch of Blowpipe missile systems of the Brits and voila. We created AD batteries and installed the Boffins around our airfields. That didn't change until we did the Low Level Aird Defence project that replaced the Boffins with the Oerlikon and ADATS and the Blowpipes with the Javelins.
Do you know what happened to the guns ? How long they were in place for ?
- Reaction score
- 4,204
- Points
- 1,120
I recall in the 90's seeing the 40mm Bofors guns that cycled through FMFCS for refurbishment as they were prepped to arm the MCDV's. It's been a few years, but I stopped to look at each of the green painted Receivers that were stripped and awaiting refinishing (and repainting!) and noted that the dates on them were all 1942-1944.
Story goes, those 40mm were WW2 Air Defense guns, that were transferred to Maggie, then transferred to the Army again for use in Germany, then stored, some of them were put in museums, then pulled out for the Gulf War in 1990/91, then put back in service on the MCDV's before finally being put out to pasture a couple of years ago.
That said, I do have photographic evidence that the 6 Pdr Saluting Guns that we still use today are those from HMCS Bonaventure. They are actually WW2 ground mount 6 Pdr AT guns that have been grafted onto Vickers Sons and Maxim 1904-1906 dated 3 Pdr gun mounts.
Next year, the oldest of those mounts will be 120. The oldest still serving/active artillery pieces and mounts in Canada I think.
Story goes, those 40mm were WW2 Air Defense guns, that were transferred to Maggie, then transferred to the Army again for use in Germany, then stored, some of them were put in museums, then pulled out for the Gulf War in 1990/91, then put back in service on the MCDV's before finally being put out to pasture a couple of years ago.
That said, I do have photographic evidence that the 6 Pdr Saluting Guns that we still use today are those from HMCS Bonaventure. They are actually WW2 ground mount 6 Pdr AT guns that have been grafted onto Vickers Sons and Maxim 1904-1906 dated 3 Pdr gun mounts.
Next year, the oldest of those mounts will be 120. The oldest still serving/active artillery pieces and mounts in Canada I think.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,644
- Points
- 960
I think it's safe to say we at least got our money's worth from both the Bofors guns and the saluting guns.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,467
- Points
- 1,260
I assume these are the same saluting guns we use on the quarterdeck of the CPFs ?
- Reaction score
- 4,204
- Points
- 1,120
Affirmative.
And the MCDV's. The original 3pdr mount has been adapted with a .50 cal mount base so it matches the bolt hole pattern.
- Reaction score
- 6,771
- Points
- 1,140
You defend those cities better if you engage the enemy farther away, and don't lose your assets to counter battery fire.
Also, have you considered how the ______s might feel about foreign forces establishing fixed defensive kit in their cities? Mobile systems can be brought in as needed, then moved away when not.
More simply, Canada can't afford to have both fixed and mobile systems right now. A mobile system can do everything a fixed system can, but a fixed system can't do what mobile systems do.
- Reaction score
- 8,330
- Points
- 1,160
This is absolutely true...
And yet Poland finds it necessary to back its forces all the up to its western border to buy them space and time against an eastern enemy despite the fact that the western border has historically been at least as problematic as the eastern border. The point is that there is no safe place in Poland, or any European country for the locals. The locals deserve a defence and that defence has to be more than the promise of eliminating their attacker at some indeterminate time in the future when, or if, the counter force achieves that aim.
Thus the popularity of Iron Dome in Israel, C-RAM at bases in Afghanistan and Anti-Aircraft Regiments in WW2 Britain.
Contrary to popular belief I am not against Canada generating a well-founded Mechanized Brigade Group. I support that concept and I think we can afford to do it well and we should do it well. My concern is that we seem to be focused on that outcome to the exclusion of all others. I understand there is a fight on for scarce dollars (although I am told there are more dollars available than we seem to manage to spend).
To put my position in historic terms I believe the army needs both a sword AND a shield in order to be a balanced force capable of managing a broad range of threats. The Mech Brigade is the sword. Every army needs one. But we have no shield.
Instead of this
I believe our Canadian Army looks more like this
The fencer is offensively oriented, has to stay actively engaged to defend, is poorly protected, tied to a piste and has little staying power despite being well trained.
We have a sabre. We need a shield as well.
If we were to deliver an anti-aircraft regiment to Kyiv do you think the locals would complain?
As for fixed
I am persuaded that this is a "cake and eat it" solution. It can dropped off to defend a fixed location pro tem. It can be removed rapidly with no lasting scars. It can be operated in the portee mode. It can even be fired on the move. It can be transported on a light truck, an armoured truck, an APC, a boat or even underslung by helicopter.
I find it no different to the ubiquitous Bofors 40s, Oerlikon 20s or even Browning 50s. It is a package that can be employed and deployed widely as part of a system, as part of a network.
Precisely.
But the mobile system, and by that I mean the "dedicated" mobile system tailored for a specific task, like, for example, the 1970s vintage Gepard, costs more and is harder to deploy resulting in fewer guns on the ground, fewer shells in the air and fewer targets destroyed.... and more casualties on the ground.
The other major advantage of the SkyRanger turret over the Gepard turret is that it is unmanned so that when the guns attract return fire, as they inevitably will, and when the guns are destroyed, as they inevitably will be, only the gun is lost, not the four man crew serving the guns.
My overall take?
1 Canadian Div takes over the command of
6 CCSB
1, 2 and 5 CMBGs and
1 Wing.
1,2 and 5 CMBGs lose 3 RCR/PPCLI/R22eR to 1 Wing to create a tactical heliportable formation alongside 1,2 and 5 CMBGs.
1,2 and 5 CMBGs revert to a 4 CMBG configuration of 2 Infantry Battalions in LAVs and 1 Armoured Regiment as well as an Arty Regiment.
The Armoured Regiment I would turn that into an entirely black-hatted combined arms regiment, with Leos and LAVs unless and until a heavy tracked IFV/APC is procured.
The Arty, the man of the hour in this discussion, I propose, takes full advantage of the high level of automation being adopted by all other armies and increase the number of guns per regimental bodies. And in increasing the number of guns increase the variety of tasks the guns can fulfil. I would also take advantage of the range increases and the reduction in volumes of fire (and I accept that is a contentious statement but even with the high expenditure rates being seen in Ukraine many targets are being eliminated by "plinking" that would previously required a barrage). Also, reducing the sense to shoot time demands that capabilities, especially command and control, be pushed forwards and down. That also necessitates more dispersion of the guns rather than concentration with effects being concentrated on target while the guns are dispersed.
As for the Brigadiers back in Canada that have lost their CMBGs they will have to build their JTFs around their Reserve troops and this is where I truly think that modularity works for us because dropping off a turret and a Fire Control Station at every armoury and Naval Reserve Division would result in a common basis of training, with assets that could come in handy locally and which can also be easily extracted and deployed domestically or internationally, afloat or ashore, statically or on the move. And reserve gunners available to man them as part of a co-ordinated network that can be exercised virtually on Wednesday nights.
Edit-
A turret an an FCS at all 150 armouries and 24 NRDs might be a bit excessive. But one set for each Arty Regiment and Independent Battery as well as the 24 NRDs should be doable. That would be about 50 sets. Additional sets could be held in storage.
Last edited:
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,903
- Points
- 1,160
4 AD Regt was stood up in Germany on 27 Nov 1987. It had three batteries, two of which--128 and 129 AD--were designated airfield defence batteries and were equipped with the new equipment coming off the Low Level AD project which had run during the mid 1980s. I would expect then that the phase over would have happened during the 1986/7 timeframe. Photos from the Canadian Gunner show both the 40mm and Oerlikons during 1987.
Note that live firing for 4 AD (and prior air defenders) was carried on in Canada - particularly Gagetown although there were Boffins at other arty bases. The 1988 Canadian Gunner states that the last live fire exercise involving Boffins took place in Gagetown in October 1988.
I believe that the Boffins were first stood up in training during the winter 1975 and 76 and 128 and 129 AD Batteries officially stood up in Germany on 22 January 1976.
Interesting little side fact, the initial Acting Commanding Officer of 129 AD Battery in Lahr was Master Gunner (CWO) Sutherland, who had been a detachment commander on a 40mm Bofors during WW2.
Last edited:
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 437
- Points
- 760
Unless any of those designs can be made to fit on a MILCOT or Gwagon no way is the Canadian Army getting any of them.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,467
- Points
- 1,260
4 AD Regt was stood up in Germany on 27 Nov 1987. It had three batteries, two of which--128 and 129 AD--were designated airfield defence batteries and were equipped with the new equipment coming off the Low Level AD project which had run during the mid 1980s. I would expect then that the phase over would have happened during the 1986/7 timeframe. Photos from the Canadian Gunner show both the 40mm and Oerlikons during 1987.
Note that live firing for 4 AD (and prior air defenders) was carried on in Canada - particularly Gagetown although there were Boffins at other arty bases. The 1988 Canadian Gunner states that the last live fire exercise involving Boffins took place in Gagetown in October 1988.
I believe that the Boffins were first deployed in Germany in 1975.
Did we have AD for our RCAF fields in Canada as well ?
- Reaction score
- 8,330
- Points
- 1,160
Swap some or all of the turrets for lighterweight turrets and you can retain the same command and control principles although the target sets will shrink and training deltas increase if larger calibres are employed.
The 30mm seems to becoming a middling sort of compromise.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,903
- Points
- 1,160
During the 1970-90s - No.
Canada had a very different air defence structure during the post WW2 period.
There were ground based mobile air defence units using both the 40mm Bofors and 90mm and fire control equipment in both the Reg and ResF. Those slowly petered out with the last RegF unit going to nil strength in 1957 and the last ResF units several years later.
The RCAF really bore the brunt of air defence in Canada from 1951 to 1975 with Air Defence Command which in the early years had a substantial ResF component. They flew a variety of aircraft over the years and also had the nuclear capable Bomarc missile. Like all good things, it too petered out.
