C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Maxman1]

With the M1129, there's a 60 or 81mm mortar stowed for dismounted use.

In any case, it seems like an unnecessary limit of capabilities to use an 81 when a 120 will fit.

 

[FJAG]

saw an indirect fires modernization slides popping up on the internet
highlights
60-84 155mm systems
wheeled platform
automation to be determined
maybe 40-90 light systems

self propelled howitzers likely 81 mm over 120
manually operated
8x8 or LTV

Link???

 

[FJAG]

Interesting article on recent artillery exercises in Finland.

How NATO make-believe artillerists get comfy with a real-world foe

“At times, the cold and Arctic-like conditions found here can be more threatening to soldiers than combat situations,” said one Finnish officer.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Kirkhill]

With the M1129, there's a 60 or 81mm mortar stowed for dismounted use.

In any case, it seems like an unnecessary limit of capabilities to use an 81 when a 120 will fit.

Maybe thinking of those systems that bolt onto the back of a pickup or ISV?

 

[KevinB]

Maybe thinking of those systems that bolt onto the back of a pickup or ISV?

While those systems are neat and offer great into and out of action speeds, they really don’t make great setups for fixed defensive work.

You can’t really make a mortar pit with them, and their shoot and scoot ability is lost if you build a giant fortification around them.


While they would be a nice add for Light Forces, there is still a requirement for a dismounted mortar.

The same reason our mounted Mortar units down here have dismount systems as well as the vehicle system.

 

[PrairieFella]

While those systems are neat and offer great into and out of action speeds, they really don’t make great setups for fixed defensive work.

You can’t really make a mortar pit with them, and their shoot and scoot ability is lost if you build a giant fortification around them.


While they would be a nice add for Light Forces, there is still a requirement for a dismounted mortar.

The same reason our mounted Mortar units down here have dismount systems as well as the vehicle system.

If anything these bolt-on only mortars should go to armoured units as part of the SHQ. Ideally there would be 81s at the Squadron level and 120s at the Regimental level, but I digress. You're 100% correct that a hybrid solution is needed in infantry battalions.

 

[Kirkhill]

If anything these bolt-on only mortars should go to armoured units as part of the SHQ. Ideally there would be 81s at the Squadron level and 120s at the Regimental level, but I digress. You're 100% correct that a hybrid solution is needed in infantry battalions.

Which brings back the distinction between the mounted warrior who fights mounted (and can benefit from turreted systems) and the foot borne warrior who can be limited by having their weapons permanently attached to a vehicle.

Maybe infantry should concentrate on the dismounted fight and cavalry on the mounted fight.

 

[PrairieFella]

Which brings back the distinction between the mounted warrior who fights mounted (and can benefit from turreted systems) and the foot borne warrior who can be limited by having their weapons permanently attached to a vehicle.

Maybe infantry should concentrate on the dismounted fight and cavalry on the mounted fight.

There's nothing inherently wrong the infantry having vehicles. Just like there's nothing inherently wrong with the armoured units have dismounts/assault troopers. It's how they are employed and less the platform (within reason). Tank vehicle tactics are different from Cav vehicle tactics which are different from infantry vehicle tactics.

 

[Kirkhill]

There's nothing inherently wrong the infantry having vehicles. Just like there's nothing inherently wrong with the armoured units have dismounts/assault troopers. It's how they are employed and less the platform (within reason). Tank vehicle tactics are different from Cav vehicle tactics which are different from infantry vehicle tactics.

But we have an inherent specialization between the two arms. Why do we try and complicate things?

What is wrong with attaching a Cavalry (or Tank) Troop/Squadron to an Infantry Battalion/Brigade, or an Infantry Platoon/Company to a Cavalry Squadron/Regiment?

It's not as if we lack doctrine for that type of cross-attachment. We do seem to lack exercise of that doctrine.

 

[ueo]

But we have an inherent specialization between the two arms. Why do we try and complicate things?

What is wrong with attaching a Cavalry (or Tank) Troop/Squadron to an Infantry Battalion/Brigade, or an Infantry Platoon/Company to a Cavalry Squadron/Regiment?

It's not as if we lack doctrine for that type of cross-attachment. We do seem to lack exercise of that doctrine.

Yup, did thia alot in Germany in the early 70s. Spent more time with RCD than 3 Mech (almost)

 

[suffolkowner]

Link???

no link but here are the screenshots

 

[markppcli]

But we have an inherent specialization between the two arms. Why do we try and complicate things?

We don’t complicated it. We have a system that works well.

What is wrong with attaching a Cavalry (or Tank) Troop/Squadron to an Infantry Battalion/Brigade, or an Infantry Platoon/Company to a Cavalry Squadron/Regiment?

We do that.

It's not as if we lack doctrine for that type of cross-attachment. We do seem to lack exercise of that doctrine.

We consistently exercise combat teams and battle groups. I’d probably suggest it’s done annually

What we don’t do is maintain APC / IFV units to attach to units, because it makes more sense for them to be organic. This allows an organic CSS element, ensures crews are cross trained, and all elements are intimately familiar with each other.

 

[markppcli]

no link but here are the screenshotsView attachment 89418View attachment 89419

This has been out for a while I just didn’t think it was intended for public consumption.

 

[Kirkhill]

We don’t complicated it. We have a system that works well.



We do that.



We consistently exercise combat teams and battle groups. I’d probably suggest it’s done annually

What we don’t do is maintain APC / IFV units to attach to units, because it makes more sense for them to be organic. This allows an organic CSS element, ensures crews are cross trained, and all elements are intimately familiar with each other.

Any chance of the pair of us finding common ground some place in the middle Mark?

How about army reserve infantry concentrated on the dismounted company and the army reserve cavalry concentrated on mounted troops or squadrons?

And I'll shut up about the regs.

 

[markppcli]

Any chance of the pair of us finding common ground some place in the middle Mark?

How about army reserve infantry concentrated on the dismounted company and the army reserve cavalry concentrated on mounted troops or squadrons?

And I'll shut up about the regs.

I’ve made the point a few times that the RCAC reserves probably aren’t ever going to get tanks. At the same time the 34 day training calendar doesn’t give a lot of time for PCF courses. So a reserve structure built around motorized infantry with crewmen manning TAPVs in a dual mobility / cavalry role would be a viable way for the reserve maneuver elements to structure themselves. Bonus is we can just blanket rename them all as Canadian Mounted Rifles and piss off every regimental association equally thus avoiding favouritism.

 

[dapaterson]

I’ve made the point a few times that the RCAC reserves probably aren’t ever going to get tanks. At the same time the 34 day training calendar doesn’t give a lot of time for PCF courses. So a reserve structure built around motorized infantry with crewmen manning TAPVs in a dual mobility / cavalry role would be a viable way for the reserve maneuver elements to structure themselves. Bonus is we can just blanket rename them all as Canadian Mounted Rifles and piss off every regimental association equally thus avoiding favouritism.

Not all heroes wear capes.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’ve made the point a few times that the RCAC reserves probably aren’t ever going to get tanks. At the same time the 34 day training calendar doesn’t give a lot of time for PCF courses. So a reserve structure built around motorized infantry with crewmen manning TAPVs in a dual mobility / cavalry role would be a viable way for the reserve maneuver elements to structure themselves. Bonus is we can just blanket rename them all as Canadian Mounted Rifles and piss off every regimental association equally this avoiding favouritism.

Double Plus Good.

Only issue left is the shiver that runs through me every time somebody mentions TAPV. (And its not a pleasurable shiver).

So what would that be? 48 infantry companies (each with a pair of 81s?) and 16 Very Large Cavalry squadrons with a C-UAS suite (30mm and 70mm and maybe 4x81?)

PS further to badges and heraldry



We could always go that route.

 

[Kirkhill]

For Reference - A Very Large Squadron

The APC force in South Vietnam was expanded to a squadron in 1966; this force was initially designated the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron and was renamed A Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment in September 1967. At the time the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron was established, the M113 fleet in South Vietnam was increased, with M113A1 Fitters variants and M577A1 ACVs joining the force. The squadron was redesignated B Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment in mid-1969 and A Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment in April 1971. While infantry units rotated in and out of South Vietnam as formed bodies, RAAC personnel were posted individually.

The cavalry squadron usually comprised a squadron headquarters, three cavalry troops, a support troop and a light aid detachment. Each of the cavalry troops was equipped with thirteen M113A1s, and was organised into a headquarters with four APCs and three sections each with three APCs.

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[markppcli]

Double Plus Good.

Only issue left is the shiver that runs through me every time somebody mentions TAPV. (And its not a pleasurable shiver).

So what would that be? 48 infantry companies (each with a pair of 81s?) and 16 Very Large Cavalry squadrons with a C-UAS suite (30mm and 70mm and maybe 4x81?)

PS further to badges and heraldry

View attachment 89426

We could always go that route.

10 (ish) Bns in the same structure as any other with the addition of the TAPVs. We don’t need a like for like 1 Rgt = 1 Company or 1 Sqn for each Regiment. Id rather seen a Bn slightly overfilled than anemic but I don’t that’ll be an issue. TAPV isn’t ideal for anything but we have 500 of them so a task has to be found and it might be good enough for Bns who’s role would really be depth.


All of this aside we’re still talking in the most problematic way possible - this is for the regs and that’s the reserves. As opposed to thinking about the Army in totality.

 

[PrairieFella]

I’ve made the point a few times that the RCAC reserves probably aren’t ever going to get tanks. At the same time the 34 day training calendar doesn’t give a lot of time for PCF courses. So a reserve structure built around motorized infantry with crewmen manning TAPVs in a dual mobility / cavalry role would be a viable way for the reserve maneuver elements to structure themselves. Bonus is we can just blanket rename them all as Canadian Mounted Rifles and piss off every regimental association equally thus avoiding favouritism.

Oh God no. That's a helluva way to kill the RCAC's augmentee pool when the vastly outnumbered crewmen inevitably become battle taxi squadron. On tanks, if we really were serious about our Armoured Corps and about manoeuvre warfare we could absolutely have reserve tankers. If other countries can so can we. We're just too apathetic and unserious to do it.