C3 Howitzer Replacement

[FJAG]

You had 12 techs for your battery? That must be nice

12 - 14. It varied over the three years I was BK. They were great folks too - my favourite people and not just because they kept stuff moving. One summer we ran into a strange problem on our spring exercise. Shilo has lots of poplar trees and they throw out fluff during the spring. The M109s air intake filters ingested it and no one noticed until it was too late and between J and G Bty we lost, I think, it was five engines due to overheating. It got to the point where we'd have to stop every few kilometres and clean out the filters. Long story short, all the guns were back on the road within a week. Yup five engines pulled and changed. We had VOR rates close to zero most of the time I was there. - Except G11 - an M113 - which kept running real weird and would frequently lose power. After almost a year of going into and out of the shop they finally found a small ball of gun tape in the fuel tank which, every once in the while, bobbed against the fuel line and choked the flow making the engine sputter and surge.

When Ops tasked we had a vehicle tech with 5/4 ton full of parts and tools. He restored old army vehicles as a hobby and was quite talented and we were able to maintain our fleet of trucks quite well. I will argue that the Reserve goal should be 1 vehicle tech per unit with a basic tool setup and parts. Have some of them on Class B and you have enough techs to keep the fleets in much better shape.
Clearly this will not work everywhere, but should be encouraged and supported.

Class B or a civilian contractor full time. Either or.

It's hard to do maintenance on a Class A concept unless you have "that guy" who can take time off during the week. I find that a full-time Class B is just another term for a RegF soldier who can't be posted or deployed. Personally I think that the ResF must be equipped and that means there need to be full-time maintainers there and a proper logistics system behind them. That means a proper RegF establishment. Where there's a will, there's a way.

This is also part of why I don’t like the way we spread out units, reserve service Bns are a terrible way to organize maintenance for Bdes dispersed across a province. I digress though.

Totally agree. BUT. We have to get away from the notion that service support comes from the closest army base because those bases are no where near where the largest reserve force population is - the bigger cities. We need to bolster the service support to those.

I don't think this is a digression at all. If we're talking about replacing the ResF C3s, we better have a solid logistics plan in place for that. Even back in the 70s when I was an RSSO in Brandon, we had troubles getting work done by base maintenance on our C1s or trucks in a timely manner because we were number 5 on a scale of 1- 5 priority list. Base maintenance - who supported 26 Fd - were a whole different kettle of fish from 3 RCHA's maintenance troop.

 

[KevinB]

When I was in 30FD (almost 40 years ago at this point) we had 3-4 VTech’s, 1 former RegF Sgt on Class B, a Cpl (RegF) and two Cpl/Pte (one was a diesel mechanic in his civilian job)
With a near exact mirror for the WTech’s. When it went 10/90 there were more RegF personnel.
It wasn’t much different from a RegF Bty in terms of personnel — and actually had more than 7 person per gun.

One summer concentration I had 11 gun numbers in my Det, a RegF Driver, a RegF gunner and 8 Gnr/Bdr from 30FD (half way through I was sent back to the OP’s when they realized I wasn’t qualified to be a #1).

As a FOOTech I got to do a legit FMRegiment during one Trillium Thunder with 4 6gun Bty for a Fireplan. (7 Tor, 11RCA, 49Fd, and 56Fd had gun Bty’s as well — 7 Tor 6, the other three had 4 guns each and got divided somehow to make 4 6 gun Bty’s.

Reminiscent aside, my point is there is no reason that PRes Arty units cannot work with pretty much any field artillery equipment (outside of STA and CB Radar systems). With equipment and a mission they will attract personnel- and based on my experiences in both the PRes and RegF and the hybrid system works much better in the Artillery than the Infantry. I went to Cyprus with E Bty Para, taught at the RCR BSL and was later PPCLI — I don’t know if it’s a common cap badge thing, but by and large the Artillery did 10/90 way better than the Infantry.

 

[FJAG]

Reminiscent aside, my point is there is no reason that PRes Arty units cannot work with pretty much any field artillery equipment (outside of STA and CB Radar systems). With equipment and a mission they will attract personnel- and based on my experiences in both the PRes and RegF and the hybrid system works much better in the Artillery than the Infantry. I went to Cyprus with E Bty Para, taught at the RCR BSL and was later PPCLI — I don’t know if it’s a common cap badge thing, but by and large the Artillery did 10/90 way better than the Infantry.

10/90 worked for the arty and failed the infantry. The only reason it worked, however, was because there was a surplus of RegF pers floating around when 4 CMBG shut down. That glut soon disappeared and bit by bit the RegF assigned to 10/90 were pulled back into RegF regiments. The infantry 10/90 battalions all became the light battalions you have now. That left a high level of carnage behind in the ResF units.

I can't speak for the infantry in Afghanistan but the ARes augmentation with the guns went well. There were large numbers of gunner reservists spread throughout TFK - including the PRT and NSE. Within the gun batteries the percentage varied from 15 to 20% throughout the mission. Conversion to the M777 was fairly easy and most of the other tasks - except driving TLAVs or Bisons - were very similar to the ARes systems. FOOing is still different. The courses needed to run a LAV OPV are demanding and not offered generally.

 

[KevinB]

I’d argue FOO’ing is FOO’ing, despite the tech differences. The limitations on PRes are time and equipment- other than that there is no reason they couldn’t get qualified on the LAV-OPV.

I mean we have ARNG Units with the M3A4 BFIST’s…

It is more of a requirement than the LAV-OPV

 

[FJAG]

I’d argue FOO’ing is FOO’ing, despite the tech differences. The limitations on PRes are time and equipment- other than that there is no reason they couldn’t get qualified on the LAV-OPV.

I mean we have ARNG Units with the M3A4 BFIST’s…

It is more of a requirement than the LAV-OPV

Not familiar with the BFIST - and for that matter I've never been in a LAV OPV but was a FOO for two years with an M113.

I take the view that the OPV has a key flaw in that it's set up like a ISV with a functioning 25mm which a) takes up space, b) requires training and c) leads to fighting the vehicle rather than the guns.

Back in WW2 FOOs in armoured brigades had Shermans with dummy guns. I understand it was the same with Brit Warriors. We opted to go with full armament.

IMHO, if one went with a LAV (or ACSV) chassis, and let's say a .50 mocked up to look like a 25mm (so as to blend in as an ISV) then you could have a trained driver and a trained NCO crew commander (who also operates the MG) as the dedicated crew for the vehicle. The FOO, and the rest of the det (incl a JTAC, if present) would be more like passengers trained primarily for dismounted ops (of which there were lots in Afghanistan and I expect will be in Europe). One simply has to convert the FOO and some det members in the target acquisition gear on board the OPV which should, in any case, be very similar to the functioning of the dismounted gear. It would make adapting ResF FOOs to an OPV much easier so long as the driver and crew commander have had the requisite vehicle training. I know there were more than a few occasions in Afghaistan where the FOOs - and even the BC - fought their OPVs 25mm. I expect there will be more than a few folks who think my idea as problematic.

 

[PrairieFella]

Exactly. In my M109 battery I had between 12 and 14 or so technicians who were assigned to the battery. A weapons tech, a Rad tech, several veh techs and several heavy tracked techs. We had an M578 tracked light recovery vehicle that could tow an M109 or M113 as well as a 2 1/2 parts truck and several 5/4 tons for the wpn and rad tech and mobile repair teams. They would deploy with my battery as part of our A Echelon. When not in the field, all the various battery technicians would work pooled out of one facility back on base under the direction of the regt'l maint officer.

It's tougher for ResF units. They generally do not have techs on their establishment and need to get their equipment serviced at nearby bases where they are generally low on the priority list for attention. It's especially tough where there isn't an army base close by - like Toronto - and some other base support facility does the work. This is why civilian maintenance systems came into vogue. I don't have any experience as to how well they do their job, but as I said above they don't accompany you on an operation nor an exercise. You lose out on both service and training.

The thing is that when you have low levels of equipment in reserve units and the army is already short of technicians, it doesn't make much sense to have a full-time technician in a place where there isn't much work. If on the other hand Toronto had all the equipment that a brigade should have, then it would be absolutely proper to have a large full-time maintenance staff there. IMHO, much of their training could be done through local community colleges during the winter with military conversion training in the summer.

IMHO, we should stop investing in RMC and put the money into tech training at community colleges and officer training at civilian universities where we pay for tuition but not salaries during the winter months - only during the summer military training.

Not arty related but to speak to reserve maintenance, I belong to a reserve armoured unit in a city with a major air base. I wrote up 663s/managed ORLs for my squadron as a Cpl and submitted work orders to get our LUVWs fixed. Some of the trucks I submitted work orders for as a Cpl are still there pending maintenance and Im now a Sgt, 7 years later. We're so low priority to this airbase, that refuses to allow us to contract civilian Mercedes maintenance, that our VOR now over 3/4.

All that to say that we should be careful plotting grandiose new equipment for ARes guys if we won't reform the maintenance situation first, because if the Regs won't fix our green trucks at very least, they sure as shit aren't going to find time to fix F Ech, if they even have people qualified to fix F vehs to begin with. All reserve brigades should have full time maintenance depots in the major cities, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Vancouver, etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Class B for vehicle techs in the Reserve gives you an opportunity to build a capacity without robbing Peter to pay Paul. Also if you have someone ensuring basic preventive maintenance is done, the number of operational vehicles at any one time improves greatly. A mirror gets broken or torn off, the vehicle goes down. If you have a tech at the unit, the vehicle can be fixed in a night, same with oil changes, headlights, oddball little things. This reduces the low end load on your Reg Force vehicle techs. A 6 gun Battery as you know has 6 gun tractors, 2 ammo trucks, two CP's and two FOO parties. Along with a Sigs truck, BSM vehicle, survey party, etc. Armour and Artillery should be the focus of the Res Vehicle tech. Put some Reg Force guys in the Svc Battalion to support them and give depth to the level of service you can provide and parts authority.

 

[PrairieFella]

Class B for vehicle techs in the Reserve gives you an opportunity to build a capacity without robbing Peter to pay Paul. Also if you have someone ensuring basic preventive maintenance is done, the number of operational vehicles at any one time improves greatly. A mirror gets broken or torn off, the vehicle goes down. If you have a tech at the unit, the vehicle can be fixed in a night, same with oil changes, headlights, oddball little things. This reduces the low end load on your Reg Force vehicle techs. A 6 gun Battery as you know has 6 gun tractors, 2 ammo trucks, two CP's and two FOO parties. Along with a Sigs truck, BSM vehicle, survey party, etc. Armour and Artillery should be the focus of the Res Vehicle tech. Put some Reg Force guys in the Svc Battalion to support them and give depth to the level of service you can provide and parts authority.

I agree wholeheartedly. There used to be an augmentee echelon of reservist CSS posted to ARes Armour units, cooks, techs, sigs, medics, etc. That's been gone institutionally for a long time and never should have gone away.

 

[KevinB]

Not familiar with the BFIST - and for that matter I've never been in a LAV OPV but was a FOO for two years with an M113.

I take the view that the OPV has a key flaw in that it's set up like a ISV with a functioning 25mm which a) takes up space, b) requires training and c) leads to fighting the vehicle rather than the guns.

Back in WW2 FOOs in armoured brigades had Shermans with dummy guns. I understand it was the same with Brit Warriors. We opted to go with full armament.

IMHO, if one went with a LAV (or ACSV) chassis, and let's say a .50 mocked up to look like a 25mm (so as to blend in as an ISV) then you could have a trained driver and a trained NCO crew commander (who also operates the MG) as the dedicated crew for the vehicle. The FOO, and the rest of the det (incl a JTAC, if present) would be more like passengers trained primarily for dismounted ops (of which there were lots in Afghanistan and I expect will be in Europe). One simply has to convert the FOO and some det members in the target acquisition gear on board the OPV which should, in any case, be very similar to the functioning of the dismounted gear. It would make adapting ResF FOOs to an OPV much easier so long as the driver and crew commander have had the requisite vehicle training. I know there were more than a few occasions in Afghaistan where the FOOs - and even the BC - fought their OPVs 25mm. I expect there will be more than a few folks who think my idea as problematic.

The space issue is real - but honestly it’s just a few more buttons than the standard turret.
The BFIST is pretty much the same idea as the LAV-OPV but it has the TOW launcher too.

I’ve not been in a LAV-OPV but have been in an A4 BFIST
Digital Fire Management was a major space saver for the turrets - you are not needing to get out your grease pencil and write down timing and targets - they are just point and click - everything is then on screens - you can dry register everything with a few clicks and then thumb to there you want stuff.

TBH I was quite impressed (granted my last FOO time was 1994 and the integration was limited to PLGR GPS and Vector LRF the room taken in a vehicle or trench was significantly larger than now.

I view the weapons (be it solely 25mm on the LAV or 25 and TOW on the Bradley) to be akin to one’s personal weapon ‘back in the day’ they are there for defensive purposes only.

It doesn’t take that much to get qualified on a LAV or Bradley Turret as gunner/CC, and while it’s 6-8 weeks there is overlap from what a FOO or FOOTech already knows and could be condensed.

 

[FJAG]

Class B for vehicle techs in the Reserve gives you an opportunity to build a capacity without robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I actually agree with that to an extent. When I think of - say Toronto - as an equipped brigade, I think of having a svc bn such as the US Bde Support Bn. The key difference is that the Bde Sp Bn own all the logistic support including much of the manoeuvre and arty and engr A echs which are concentrated in forward support companies assigned to those units but still under the command and technical supervision of the Bde Sp Bn. IMHO this allows for balancing workloads in garrison across the brigade rather than having one company sit idle while another is working flat out.

My model for the Bde Sp Bn would be to have a pool of mostly MCpls and Sgt maintainers who are RegF and who serve as the floor supervisors and trainers. ResF maintainers would go through Community colleges learning the fundamentals of veh mechanics in year one and diesel mechanics in year two - the govt pays the tuition, but no salary nor rations and quarters during the winter months. They live at home or wherever. During the summer before they do the first semester they do BMQ on Class B and thereafter each summer they do conversion courses to bde specific military vehs - gas in the first summer, diesel the next - on Class B pay. In year three they go on a one year Class B callout and become the apprentices/workers within the brigade's maintenance company. They get a full year of work under supervision by RegF mechanics, pay and experience. At the end of three years they are fully qualified mechanics with both a civilian ticket and a military DP1 completed. At that point they go on Class A with, let's say, two or three years of obligatory Class A service to do. They will undoubtedly get a job at any civilian garage because they have both the civilian ticket and a year's worth of experience. You have a continuous stream of personnel coming into the system and providing the work force to maintain gear. It's important, however, to view this as both a training system as well as a service provided and not simply one or the other.

A system like that should be fairly attractive to high schoolers. Tuition paid and guaranteed summer employment and a year's paid experience at the end. The summer military courses can be tailored brigade to brigade to concentrate on the vehicles they actually operate. Similar programs can be tailored for logisticians, medical personnel, food services, engineers, electronics techs etc. Everyone wins.

 

[markppcli]

LAV OPV TOFCAS is literally just a wired in tablet, it’s not a whole lot since the LAV already has most of what you need.m to do adjustments, just need to compute the data differently.

If it makes you feel better @PrairieFella 1 RCHA has the same VOR rate.

 

[quadrapiper]

Regiments have their weapons and EO shops.

In a purely Reserve context, that seems like it could keep things ticking along (to a greater or lesser extent, but maybe work) somewhere where the regiment is under one roof, or the batteries are close enough that the regiment's techs can reasonably do their work without needing to be put up overnight. Just looking around locally, it seems borderline for Vancouver Island (allegedly 100 minutes from Victoria to the battery in Nanaimo, but good luck getting up there in under two hours). Don't know how many regiments are even more spread out.

Definitely something that would need a good full-time core to work, so Cpl Bloggins can spend the necessary time to chase and fix a fault.

Looking at the other end of things from FJAG's shiny new wrench-turners, might be worth ditching current age cutoffs and examining retention options for older techs and other specialists in the PRes: get them out of career-progression billets and allow some sort of "beyond standard establishment" list, both to keep their expertise around at whatever unit and as a pool for "in case of war" backfilling of younger, fitter, deployable people.

 

[FJAG]

The space issue is real - but honestly it’s just a few more buttons than the standard turret.
The BFIST is pretty much the same idea as the LAV-OPV but it has the TOW launcher too.

I’ve not been in a LAV-OPV but have been in an A4 BFIST
Digital Fire Management was a major space saver for the turrets - you are not needing to get out your grease pencil and write down timing and targets - they are just point and click - everything is then on screens - you can dry register everything with a few clicks and then thumb to there you want stuff.

TBH I was quite impressed (granted my last FOO time was 1994 and the integration was limited to PLGR GPS and Vector LRF the room taken in a vehicle or trench was significantly larger than now.

I view the weapons (be it solely 25mm on the LAV or 25 and TOW on the Bradley) to be akin to one’s personal weapon ‘back in the day’ they are there for defensive purposes only.

I think that in the LAV OPV there is a lot of space in the turret taken up by the 25 and the coax and their feed mechanism which wouldn't be necessary if a sole .50 system went in there for self defence. The space is a minor matter however. My aim is to simplify the training for the FOO and leave her free to concentrate on the indirect fire fight while leaving the local defence fight and manoeuvring the vehicle to the driver and NCO crew commander.

I FOOed from a Leo 1 once on a Black Bear battle run. Even without the need - or for that matter any training at all - to fight the Leo it is very difficult to do the normal procedures involved in having the FOO, the tech and sig work as a team because you are separated by the hatches with only an IC to tie you together. In fact I had none of those. There was a German crew commanding and all I took along was a sig to sit in the hull and keep the sigs log. The double checks that you normally have to ensure rounds are safe are weakened. Even in the M113 it becomes tricky if the FOO is crew commanding to communicate with your det who are in the crew hatch - unless you're fully buttoned up which is a whole different problem. Crew commanding - especially when the range becomes a two-way one - takes a FOOs focus off your primary job. JTACing gets even more complex.

It doesn’t take that much to get qualified on a LAV or Bradley Turret as gunner/CC, and while it’s 6-8 weeks there is overlap from what a FOO or FOOTech already knows and could be condensed.

Yeah. I always wonder how they manage to do that. I know they have a great advantage in that field because the FSO stream is separate from the gun and CP streams. In other words their NCMs go directly from BCT (i.e. recruit) to AIT (i.e. advanced individual training) as fire support team members and officers to FSO positions immediately their Field Artillery Officer Basic course without going through the gun line first. It speeds up and simplifies training but narrows their focus and experience.

I can't recall the timing involved for the Canadian OPV training now. I just remember when I was told what the training was a few years back, I said "holly crap." It was not what you could expect to teach your average ResF lt with a job and just a few weeks off in the summer unless stretched over far too many years.

Again, this is a valid consideration for discussion on this thread.

We've really upped the requirements for FOO dets in the regiment from 4 or 6 to 9. You yourself know how hard it is for the regiment to not only force generate trained FOO dets but to career stream enough lts to qualify for FOO vacancies. It becomes an interesting question then when a C3 replacement is decided on as to what extent there needs to be an adjustment to the rest of the gun batteries structure. As it is, ARes regiments do not have the OP Battery structure that RegF ones do. In my model 30/70 regt, there is a full 100/0 gun battery (no FSCC or FOOs) and a 50/50 to 70/30 Tac bty which has a high ratio of RegF FSCCs and FOO dets and a high ResF STA component (I'm grouping radars and UAVs with FSCCs and FOOs in the Tac Bty and merging the separate OP and STA batteries)

I think any discussion as to replacing the gun, must be had within the framework of the organization and functioning of the total system.

 

[FJAG]

Just as an info piece further to US Fd Artillery and the location and number and type of US Active, USAR and ARNG field artillery units, here's a link to a handbook for junior officers that explains things in general terms. Not sure how up to date it is but it seems within the last decade, at least.

https://tradocfcoeccafcoepfwprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/fapo/cadets/doc/fa-handbook.pdf

 

[markppcli]

Training in the OPV is pretty quick, a couple weeks. It’s built into the crew commander course that artillery units do.

 

[Rifleman62]

Not arty related but to speak to reserve maintenance, I belong to a reserve armoured unit in a city with a major air base. I wrote up 663s/managed ORLs for my squadron as a Cpl and submitted work orders to get our LUVWs fixed. Some of the trucks I submitted work orders for as a Cpl are still there pending maintenance and Im now a Sgt, 7 years later. We're so low priority to this airbase, that refuses to allow us to contract civilian Mercedes maintenance, that our VOR now over 3/4.

Things never change.
1. Early 2000's, 38 CBG G4 (who knew of course the PRes VOR problem) was posted to 17 Wing as WingMaint O. Did things change? No.

2. 17 Svc Bn sent qualified MCpl and two Cpl's to 17 Wing for four months as a priority to fix PRes Vehs. Casual Cl B. Spent most of their time on other priorities.

There used to be an augmentee echelon of reservist CSS posted to ARes Armour units, cooks, techs, sigs, medics, etc.

3. 17 Svc Bn had a Sgt cook and three trained Cpl/Ptes Cooks with a working Kitchen Truck. An ad moc MRT, plus a brand new refueling tailer and 3 five tons. Offered specifically to all Bde units, especially the FGH to operate running replns. Offered to the Arty to haul ammo.

Crickets.

 

[GR66]

The problem with this thread (and virtually all other CA related threads) is that how do you select equipment when you don't have a clear concept of operations and structure for the Army? Are we deploying Battle Groups? Brigades? Divisions?

Does the RRCA provide Close Support? General Support? Loitering Munitions? Long Range Precision Fires? C-UAS and C-RAM? SHORAD? MRAD? LRAD? BMD? Some of the above? All of the above?

Are the Reserves Artillery units used as individual augmentees? Individual gun augmentation of existing Batteries? Battery augmentation of existing Regiments? The 70%ers in 30/70 units? Stand-alone units?

Without any of these high level decisions made how do you select the right equipment to replace the C3? That's why we have 8 years of circular discussions about what weapon the Reserve Artillery units should have.

 

[markppcli]

The problem with this thread (and virtually all other CA related threads) is that how do you select equipment when you don't have a clear concept of operations and structure for the Army? Are we deploying Battle Groups? Brigades? Divisions?

We have a brigade commitment in Latvia, and an understanding of being able to commit a Bde.

Does the RRCA provide Close Support? General Support? Loitering Munitions? Long Range Precision Fires? C-UAS and C-RAM? SHORAD? MRAD? LRAD? BMD? Some of the above? All of the above?

We actually have doctrine to define this as well.

Are the Reserves Artillery units used as individual augmentees? Individual gun augmentation of existing Batteries? Battery augmentation of existing Regiments? The 70%ers in 30/70 units? Stand-alone units?

This is the most important question. The reserves is the same size, or near enough, to the field army. Leaving it mired in its absurd organization is insanity.

Without any of these high level decisions made how do you select the right equipment to replace the C3? That's why we have 8 years of circular discussions about what weapon the Reserve Artillery units should have.

The idea that the reserves should have a different weapon system than the regular army is already a poor one.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The idea that the reserves should have a different weapon system than the regular army is already a poor one.

The Reserves do not have the same:

Personal
Budget
Buildings
Maintenance support
Access to artillery ranges
Vehicles

You need to make a lot of changes to the above to have the same guns as the Regs will have.

One great thing about the C1/C2 was that the gun required so little maintenance and most could be done by the gun crew on a evening parade.

Check tire pressure and lug nuts, correct as required

Check sight mount and alignment - Any fixes or adjustments had to be done by gun plumbers from the base support

Exercise recoil system - Done by gun crew with special plate and come along

Top up oil in recoil cylinder - Done by gun crew

Check gas in recoil system - Done by gun plumbers from the base support one to two times a year.

At most we had gun plumber come by 1-2 times a year to do checks and maintenance on the guns and they could do all 6 in a day, including driving to and from CFB Chilliwack. It was the gun crews job to keep up with the TLC of the gun and minor repairs. If your Tannoy failed, you took it off and swapped it with one held by our inhouse Sigs, who would try (generally successfully) to repair it.

We regularly towed those guns 450km each way to the gun camps behind our Deuces. There was just so little to break and they were very well built.

 

[KevinB]

The Reserves do not have the same:

Personal
Budget
Buildings
Maintenance support
Access to artillery ranges
Vehicles

You need to make a lot of changes to the above to have the same guns as the Regs will have.

Or make a Bde Arty TC
It really is not that hard - simulators at the local units, and a Training Center at the Ranges.

One great thing about the C1/C2 was that the gun required so little maintenance and most could be done by the gun crew on a evening parade.

Check tire pressure and lug nuts, correct as required

Check sight mount and alignment - Any fixes or adjustments had to be done by gun plumbers from the base support

Exercise recoil system - Done by gun crew with special plate and come along

Top up oil in recoil cylinder - Done by gun crew

Check gas in recoil system - Done by gun plumbers from the base support one to two times a year.

At most we had gun plumber come by 1-2 times a year to do checks and maintenance on the guns and they could do all 6 in a day, including driving to and from CFB Chilliwack. It was the gun crews job to keep up with the TLC of the gun and minor repairs. If your Tannoy failed, you took it off and swapped it with one held by our inhouse Sigs, who would try (generally successfully) to repair it.

We regularly towed those guns 450km each way to the gun camps behind our Deuces. There was just so little to break and they were very well built.

Also less range than a 120mm Mortar

There is little point bemoaning how good the PRes Arty had it with the C1 as it isn't a viable gun in this time period.

Other than BC, pretty much every other province has ranges that can shoot Arty. While Yakima WA is relatively close it isn't reasonable to expect that a BC unit goes to the US to train every month 9 months of the year.

Having Suffield, Wainwright, Shilo, Petawawa, Valcartier, and Gagetown available (can you shoot arty in Dundurn?) means those bases could hold equipment for Res units - and have a maintenance cadre to ensure they are operational.