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.