Old Sweat said:
... we need a relatively inexpensive, simple, and reliable system that will see a lot of time being bounced around in the field as people are learning to master their craft. I did my initial gunner training on the 105mm howitzer in Shilo in May and June 1958, and can still remember how to lay, load and all the rest on one. In fact, I just stripped the breech and firing lock in my head. I'll bet FJAG can as well. Leave the fancy, long range stuff for a few specialized fire units that will operate under the direction of "higher", and learn to fight and win fire fights with indirect fire.
We came close to declaring that sort of thing was obsolete, as precision weapons was the wave of the future. Tell that to the infantry who fought at close quarters in the sandbox. There certainly was a place for precision weaponry, but there also was a place for tons of dumb rounds crashing in at Danger Close. Maybe I'm a gunosaurus, but I still feel several rounds of fire for effect from a troop or battery, or for that matter a regiment or even every gun in range can tip the balance in favour of our side pdq.
So, let's find a good, practical field gun of 1no more than 155mm calibre, and use it both to train gunners, some of whom can move on to the more fancy stuff, and to take into battle when the next call comes.
Must admit I frequently have flashbacks of leaping over the tailgate of a deuce and a half on "halt action right" and using the panoramic to lay on the director.
I've got to diverge a bit though. I'm very much a "break glass in case of emergency" kind of guy when it comes to a role for the reserves. Basically train and equip them for those situations which the RegF doesn't have to deal with every day but only in extreme circumstances. Lets face it, the RegF rarely has to do artillery stuff every day. In the last 60 years, Afghanistan was an aberration.
There is always a need for
some RegF artillery if for no other reason then as a centre of excellence and knowledge to help develop doctrine and train the deployable force, but quite frankly we could save large sums of money on full-time personnel costs and divert those funds to fully equipping and training a predominantly ResF artillery. That way you do create the mass that you need but reduce the day-to-day costs associated with it.
I still can't see why the reserves shouldn't have the "esoteric" equipment that we will fight with for their training. If the US Army National Guard can operate Paladins, MLRS, HIMARS, Avengers and drones, so can our people.
I'll be the first guy to admit that under the way our reserves are organized and led these days it would be impractical BUT, the fixes are moderately easy and just require some vision and cohones on the part of our leadership.
Is there a role for light and simple guns - absolutely and we should have at least one brigade in Canada equipped as a light air transportable quick reaction force. BUT, there's also a pressing need for long range mechanized artillery, long range rockets, air defence at multiple levels, radars, attack drones and numerous other skills which have limited application in the Army's day-to-day life but are essential in times of actual conflict.
For me the big overarching problem is that a predominantly expensive full-time force which sits around most days and does nothing but train and administer itself, is the biggest obstacle to having a large properly equipped force when the unthinkable finally happens. Fully half of the Army is reservists and at present it is capable of contributing very little without a major mobilization effort which requires not only a lengthy training cycle but also the acquisition of large amounts of equipment. Personally, I think that's a luxury we won't have which means that, as usual, the military will have few options to offer our politicians when the time comes.
:brickwall:
