• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

I don’t know why falling back on a definition which lost all meaning in the mid 1700s is at all relevant. The last time the difference between a dragoon and anything else matter was when the British Army realized they could save money by renaming all their cavalry dragoons so they’d get paid less.

You don't disappoint anyway. ;)

I admit that there are other descriptors out there and that choosing names is a bit of a mug's game. But the point I am making is pretty much the ancient one of the distinction between equipping the man and manning the equipment.

In my mind, regardless of the name, there is a major distinction between those two mindsets.
Does the vehicle serve the man or does the man serve the vehicle?
Who is in charge? The Platoon Commander mounted in the vehicle or the Leader on the ground with the troops? And what is the vehicle doing when the troops are engaged on the ground?

All rhetorical questions with none of them requiring an answer because I accept that it depends. And maybe no choice is necessary.
 
And here I thought this was the C3 Howitzer Replacement thread

:unsure:
As you can see it has evolved into and Dress and Deportment thread.

Who authorized fleece toques? Toque itchy scratchy not good enough for you, eh?

Confused El Salvador GIF by BDHCollective


Maybe marchin up and down the square would sort you lot out.....
 
I suspect that you wouldn't push a LAV 6 as far forwards for as long as might those that have more confidence in their vehicles or just see a greater necessity to giterdone with what is available. Frankly I'm with you. I'd go one bound further. I prefer to keep a hill between me and the other guy rather than relying on tin plates, broken tea cups and fireworks to keep me safe.

But that is just me. Although no expert it is an opinion I formed the first time I was locked in the back of a tin box.

Keeping a hill between you is great until the other guy comes over the hill and has direct fire on you…
The enemy gets a vote too, which is why protection is a thing ;)
 
Say what you will about the French but they stood their ground in Afghanistan and Africa. Now the Chinese in the other hand…
Note to self -
Must remember people can't see sardonic grin.
Cheers :D
 
Proposal -

WW1 saw 3 gun batteries and 1 howitzer battery per regiment
WW2 saw 3 gun-howitzer batteries with 8 gun-howitzers per battery
The Cold War saw 3 to 4 howitzer plus or minus an air-defence battery.

What happens if

The Regiment becomes 2 AD Batteries, 1 large 12 tube howitzer battery and 1x 8 launcher HIMARS battery?

The AD Batteries could be responsible for UAS and overall situational awareness and make the targeting of the howitzers more effective. The HIMARS battery would be under the Brigade Commander's direct control and informed by the Recce Regiment's inputs.

The real plus I see is that it changes the focus to defence from attack while retaining the systems to conduct attacks. In a country where we aren't allowed to buy "Attack Helicopters" and "Peace Keeping" is our thing, then having artillery regiments whose first priority is to Defend might make them an easier sell. It would certainly result in a justification for the Artillery to lead the way on even benign Peace Keeping missions. And GBAD seems to be the flavour of the month.

The GBAD batteries would also take all the C2 into the field with them so that they could be accompanied by a troop of howitzers and/or a section of HIMARs if the situation warranted.

It would also leave the Reserves free to focus on supplying firing troops for the howitzers and the HIMARS.

Money could be spent on stocks of ammunition and spare turrets.....

Thought: If the GBAD system can co-ordinate multiple remote gun and missile turrets in operation against multiple targets could the turret array include fixed remote 155mm and GMRLS turrets?

1690130084426.png1690130124631.png


Your GBAD battery, with 2 watchkeepers could now comprise 6x 35mm, 2x NASAMs with 12 total AIM9s/AIM120s/AIM7s/ESSMs.... a pair of 155s and a couple of MRLS pods.

On September 3rd, 2020, a Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) fired from an U.S. Army 155mm M109A6 “Paladin” tracked SPH successfully intercepted a BQM-167 target drone simulating a cruise missile. This is “Game Changing” significant because M109s are more available and common in the field than dedicated and specialized LBASM trucks, and a HVP artillery shell’s glide body, often used for supporting ground fire, hit a small moving aerial target. Thus, a 155mm SPH firing precision-guided HVP rounds can engage and destroy incoming cruise and tactical ballistic missiles ordinary reserved for specialized, expensive, and rare Air Defense missile assets.

In this drone-intercept test, the 155mm HVP used can fire out to 58 miles (93 km or 50 nautical miles) and the HVP munition weighs in at 68 lb (31 kg) with a 46 lb (21 kg) flight body containing a warhead and guidance.


Thus, with the HVP round, not only can 155mm tube artillery engage land and sea targets, they can also intercept certain missile and aerial targets as well when teamed with remotely-located sensors such as unmanned aerial drones, Airborne Warning and Command System (AWACS) planes, and ground or ship radars that can detect enemy warships over the horizon, and send firing coordinates via secure network data-linking for Integrated Warfare (IW) operations in the U.S. Army’s “Multi-Domain Operations” (MDO) and the U.S. Navy’s “Distributed Lethality” battlefield concepts. This networking creates a “Force Multiplier Kill Chain” and the new precision-guided munitions could produce new multi-mission firepower assets for the Army and Marines to keep littoral threats at bay than just providing artillery ground fire support to advancing ground units. A new kind of “Shooter” is born.


Nammo’s most ambitious project is a Ramjet-powered, guided artillery shell with a range of up to 150km. The 155MM HE-ExR (extreme range), as it is called, is scheduled for its first live fire tests in 2019.

– In practice, this is a mix of a missile and an artillery shell. We are talking about a range that is five to eight times greater than conventional artillery. With the guidance system, we believe we can consistently hit an area as small as the center of a football field. And even though the payload is somewhat smaller, the destructive force will likely be greater because of the accuracy, Danbolt says.

The Ramjet shell can be fired from every modern 155mm L52 artillery gun – a trait it shares with all of Nammos other long range shells.

Rocket assist and base bleed

Nammo is working on two other projects as well: One is the 155MM HE-LR (long range): A rocket-assisted, guided projectile that can reach 70-85km. The first prototypes have recently been test fired, and development is in its final stages.

The last product is the 155MM HE-ER (extended range). This is an artillery with a 40km+ range. In contrast to its siblings, it is built on conventional technology, only with an added base bleed part that vastly reduces drag and therefore enhances range.

While less spectacular than the others, it could still have a great impact on modern armies, effectively doubling the distance from which they can strike.

– The 40km capable 155MM HE-ER is already available. We did the final testing at Ravlunda in Sweden in 2018. The projectile got to over 40 kilometers every time.

Norway recently approved it for use in their armed forces, and Finland has chosen it for its new K9 Thunder system.

Danbolt sees the 155MM HE-ER (extended range) as a candidate for replacing standard 20km-capable ammunition.

Our two longest range products going out to 80km or 150km are very specialized tools. Their cost could probably be considered high in an artillery context. Our 40km+ capable shell is different: Maybe it’s the least ambitious product, but it could still have the greatest impact. Western armies can now double their range, without any fuss or system changes. I believe that’s a major change – for the better.


The static turrets could also be deployed from the backs of vehicles as well to supply manoeuvre support.



1690131021991.png1690131099719.png1690131195846.png
 
The Cold War saw 3 to 4 howitzer plus or minus an air-defence battery.
That's actually misleading. We had air defence batteries attached to the field regiments in the mid seventies to mid eighties time frame because we were caught up in our bde centric organization. (and many of us are still convinced we would never have had air defence at all if there hadn't been a deal with NATO which required ad protection of our air fields.) Once we really started thinking about it and went into air defence in a proper way we canned the air defence batteries with the regiments and formed a single air defence regiment. For very many reasons we need to go that way again. Integrating an AD battery into a brigade structure can be made to work but the reality is field artillery is an essential part of the bde's combined arms team while air defence is part of a theatre wide network that shields the total force.

Regardless of the weapon system, or the platform its mounted on, its the integrated AD network that makes them effective. That's best accomplished through an independent regiment which in our force structure fits logically into 6 CCSB. One can always parcel out a detachment for a smaller mission.

Sorry, mate. Your system seems Frankenteinian without any real advantage. In any event, there is no sense designing an artillery organization until you establish what the structure and mission of the brigade it's supporting is to be.

🍻
 
Sorry, mate. Your system seems Frankenteinian without any real advantage. In any event, there is no sense designing an artillery organization until you establish what the structure and mission of the brigade it's supporting is to be.

🍻
If that's the case, will Canada ever have artillery again?
 
That's actually misleading. We had air defence batteries attached to the field regiments in the mid seventies to mid eighties time frame because we were caught up in our bde centric organization. (and many of us are still convinced we would never have had air defence at all if there hadn't been a deal with NATO which required ad protection of our air fields.) Once we really started thinking about it and went into air defence in a proper way we canned the air defence batteries with the regiments and formed a single air defence regiment. For very many reasons we need to go that way again. Integrating an AD battery into a brigade structure can be made to work but the reality is field artillery is an essential part of the bde's combined arms team while air defence is part of a theatre wide network that shields the total force.

Regardless of the weapon system, or the platform its mounted on, its the integrated AD network that makes them effective. That's best accomplished through an independent regiment which in our force structure fits logically into 6 CCSB. One can always parcel out a detachment for a smaller mission.

Sorry, mate. Your system seems Frankenteinian without any real advantage. In any event, there is no sense designing an artillery organization until you establish what the structure and mission of the brigade it's supporting is to be.

🍻

You are starting from a Field Artillery perspective. I'm starting from a Garrison Artillery perspective.

I want to defend a place as the first priority, not a brigade in motion.
 
An expeditionary base? A safe haven? A foreign town?
So we're spending a bunch of money on Gucci kit so we can run around and deploy to set up defensive positions around towns? But can't do anything else. That's someone else's job?

And this is to make JT feel warm and fuzzy? And give the military a few crumbs?

That's pretty much the equivalent of rolling onto your back so that some one can pat your belly.

Don't get me totally wrong. I think that there is a real role for a fixed base defensive system - AD and anti-ship systems for defending our vital coastal installations is the primary, if not the sole, one. (Those don't need a twelve tube battery or even HIMARS unless HIMARS gets a viable anti-ship missile.) There's a lot of other things we need before we spend money on that type of system.

🍻
 
You could likley get the South Koreans to spring some of their M1A1 howitzers (along with refitting them) so your basic gunners course can actually teach people on artillery, just pull out the old firing tables and away you go.

As to this: In any event, there is no sense designing an artillery organization until you establish what the structure and mission of the brigade it's supporting is to be.

That will be an excellent excuse to do nothing for another decade.
 
So we're spending a bunch of money on Gucci kit so we can run around and deploy to set up defensive positions around towns? But can't do anything else. That's someone else's job?

And this is to make JT feel warm and fuzzy? And give the military a few crumbs?

That's pretty much the equivalent of rolling onto your back so that some one can pat your belly.

Don't get me totally wrong. I think that there is a real role for a fixed base defensive system - AD and anti-ship systems for defending our vital coastal installations is the primary, if not the sole, one. (Those don't need a twelve tube battery or even HIMARS unless HIMARS gets a viable anti-ship missile.) There's a lot of other things we need before we spend money on that type of system.

🍻

So we're spending a bunch of money on Gucci kit so we can run around and deploy to run around the country side looking for a punch up? But can't do anything else. That's someone else's job?

Give it a rest.

We need to be able to do both things. And we need a firm base from which to operate. Otherwise you are relying on the good graces of our American brethren to get us to the fight and keep us in the ring.

With a firm base then you can sally out to your heart's content. Keeping the "other" at bay. You might even, with two AD batteries, be able to pick up your base and walk just like a pair of mortar groups - keeping an umbrella over you as you advance.

And if we have to be political about things then we have to be political. I can't believe that you have reached this stage in your life without having to make the odd compromise to get most of what you want/need. If you have achieved that worthy state I congratulate you. Politicking is just another word for trading and trading comes as natural to humans as breathing.

Slainte my friend.
 
That's actually misleading. We had air defence batteries attached to the field regiments in the mid seventies to mid eighties time frame because we were caught up in our bde centric organization. (and many of us are still convinced we would never have had air defence at all if there hadn't been a deal with NATO which required ad protection of our air fields.) Once we really started thinking about it and went into air defence in a proper way we canned the air defence batteries with the regiments and formed a single air defence regiment. For very many reasons we need to go that way again. Integrating an AD battery into a brigade structure can be made to work but the reality is field artillery is an essential part of the bde's combined arms team while air defence is part of a theatre wide network that shields the total force.

Regardless of the weapon system, or the platform its mounted on, its the integrated AD network that makes them effective. That's best accomplished through an independent regiment which in our force structure fits logically into 6 CCSB. One can always parcel out a detachment for a smaller mission.

Sorry, mate. Your system seems Frankenteinian without any real advantage. In any event, there is no sense designing an artillery organization until you establish what the structure and mission of the brigade it's supporting is to be.

🍻

Didn't the Arty folks get some old 40mm bofors off the Bonnie for use as AFAD in Germany ?
 
Back
Top