• 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

From what I have read and heard the C3 mod was to much for the old 1960's gun, cracking cradle, cracks near the muzzle, wheel rim failures, carriage cracks as well I think. We started out with 367 C1's, now we might have 70 guns that can be fired? We should have moved to the M119 when the US was buying them.
I'd estimate less than 70, but that's a best guess without going deep into VOR rates for the C3. The cradle cracking is the most common thing grounding guns, and without new barrels, some are being designated drill/blank fire only.
 
From what I have read and heard the C3 mod was to much for the old 1960's gun, cracking cradle, cracks near the muzzle, wheel rim failures, carriage cracks as well I think. We started out with 367 C1's, now we might have 70 guns that can be fired? We should have moved to the M119 when the US was buying them.
60's gun? Back in my 30th Field days some of the C1 breaches where 1940 era where the M1 was overstamped.

To me the issue popped up with the Acquisition of the LG-1 for 2 Horse [D and E Bty (No Longer Para) and F troop-correction now Bty guns] - plus the extras for the W Bty guns at the school. There was zero thought put into it - as the two contenders where the L118 Brit Light gun (which is the basis for the M119) - and the French GIAT LG-1, and the worse gun won.
Buying the M119 in 1994 (-ish) would have solved the issue - and honestly should have been the choice back then, but heaven forbid the CF look south
 
Compared to how many 155mm? The 82nd jumps 155mm's - and they are slung under BlackHawks, and Chinooks - given the CF doesn't sling C3's from the Griffons (correct me if I am wrong) but that leaves the only sling load option in the CF the Hooks - and they can do the 777.
The 105mm doesn't have precision munitions - or the range of the 155mm.
I'll stay out of the bunfight you're having with Maxman1 except to confirm that the Griffon does not have the capability to sling a C3.

With some effort, on a cool day and with little wind, the Griffon can sling load the LG1 105 mm howitzer that is still in service with our reserve artillery units in Atlantic Canada. 5 RALC did a trial of this in the fall of 2004 before deploying on Athena 1 Roto 1. It could be done if the helicopter reduced its fuel load and the gun was stripped of all removable parts. Obviously the distance travelled was relatively short. It would have been impossible to do in the higher altitude mountain conditions around Kabul. 5 RALC and 2 RCHA did do airmobile exercise moving the LG1s using German CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters like in this photo of a D Bty 2 RCHA gun being lifted.

Airmobile.JPG

🍻
 
60's gun? Back in my 30th Field days some of the C1 breaches where 1940 era where the M1 was overstamped.

To me the issue popped up with the Acquisition of the LG-1 for 2 Horse [D and E Bty (No Longer Para) and F troop-correction now Bty guns] - plus the extras for the W Bty guns at the school. There was zero thought put into it - as the two contenders where the L118 Brit Light gun (which is the basis for the M119) - and the French GIAT LG-1, and the worse gun won.
Buying the M119 in 1994 (-ish) would have solved the issue - and honestly should have been the choice back then, but heaven forbid the CF look south
We leased US M101A1 guns for a bit. The easiest telltale is the muzzle swell as the guns we leased did not have the muzzle swell. It's possible what you saw was a 202 workshop repair of a C1-C2 gun using spare parts from the US. I know one of our guns had a US M101 sight mount acquired by less than conventional means to replace one in a roll over.
 
And then there's the 'jump and shoot'!

It was a Sad Day in Freezenburg House, Cyprus when we, 2 Troop City Bty (E Bty Para) (*I was the token Militia Leg attached to them, as I didn't go thru CABC until I became a Patricia) got the news that the Para Bty was no more, and everyone started looking at PPCLI remusters. Nothing the CF did in the last 50 years compares to a 82nd Div jump - sky full of jumpers - but not nearly as tight as CF double door mass...
 
The CA has an ATGM problem - lack of modern capabilities on our side, and increasing threats from adversary systems.

On the Inf side of the house, something like Javelin is a no-brainer. On the Arty side, I would suggest they should be looking at something like Spike NLOS, or another long range NLOS ATGM. It could be LAV or light tactical vehicle mounted, or towed in a trailer setup. It would give needed capability to both heavier and lighter formations, and be useful for peer conflicts as well as operations in whatever failed state they send soldiers to next.

While I realize the roles are different, I see this as a much better future-proofed investment than some new 105mm guns.
 
The CA has an ATGM problem - lack of modern capabilities on our side, and increasing threats from adversary systems.

On the Inf side of the house, something like Javelin is a no-brainer. On the Arty side, I would suggest they should be looking at something like Spike NLOS, or another long range NLOS ATGM. It could be LAV or light tactical vehicle mounted, or towed in a trailer setup. It would give needed capability to both heavier and lighter formations, and be useful for peer conflicts as well as operations in whatever failed state they send soldiers to next.

While I realize the roles are different, I see this as a much better future-proofed investment than some new 105mm guns.
Future proofing would be having both. Having "Heavy ATGM" perhaps at the artillery level would flesh out the firepower end. The 105mm battery is where people start their training, then the good/decent ones get to go into the ATGM/AD/UAV Troop/Battery. The reality is that any missile troop in the reserves will rarely get a chance to shoot anything other than simulators. You could rotate people through the different weapons on different exercises so they are not continuously doing nothing but dry heaves.
 
We don't use or produce precision munitions with the M777. Just the M107 HE, M485A2 ILL and MR103 trainer.

But the Americans have developed a new 105mm round, the M1130E1, that combines the M1, M760, M927 and M1130 rounds (we currently use the M1 HE round).
We had precision munitions for the M777 for use in Afghanistan right from the start but used them rarely. The go to round favoured by the infantry for precision work were things launched from Predators.

Even with more significant though is that the M777 is a fairly precise gun even with ordinary munitions. Much more precise than for the same ammo fired from our M109A4+.

It's more mobile, faster to emplace and displace and fires faster. Some situations call for the range of a 155, some call for greater mobility only offered by a 105. Hence why we used the LG1 in Afghanistan even after adopting the M777.

And reportedly, American gunners prefer the M119A3 over the M777 for that exact reason: it's lighter, faster, more mobile and easier to adjust azimuth.
The issue isn't whether gunners like the M119 more than the M777 but a) what is the desired effect on the ground, and b) does the weapon delivery system match the mobility requirements of the supported arm.

One of the typical uses of the M777 was to deliver a punch strong enough to blow down grape drying huts. 105 mm rounds used by the Brits did not have the same ability to pulverize the surprisingly strong structures that were typical in Afghanistan.

Range is another strong point for the 155mm. It outshoots the 105 mm requiring less need to redeploy in an environment like Afghanistan where any road move was fraught with risk.

There are some advantages to 105mm - easier air portability; significantly easier ammunition resupply and handling being chief amongst them

My bright line is survivability in a high intensity conflict. Afghanistan can teach many false lessons if one tries to apply them universally. Self propelled 155mm guns (either tracked or wheeled) with armoured cabs, long range and automated loaders have a much higher chance of survivability and effectiveness than any 105 mm in existence. On the other hand you can't Heli lift it. The key is being able to predict where you are going to need the guns and then buy and train accordingly.

Griffon should ever have been acquired in the first place - but it touches back to my point on it doesn't matter for 105mm v 155mm for lift - as a Hook needs to do it anyway.
Absolutely on both counts. We had L5s and C1s in the early 1970s (yup - in the Reg F). We did tons of airmobile stuff and the L5 was fine with Hueys but with the C1 we needed the Voyageurs (which for you young pups is like a Chinook only lighter with less lift)
*as for what gun line folks like -- of course they will like the lighter ammo, easier to maneuver gun - but I don't see anyone saying bring back the 75mm Pack How - or worse the old E Bty 105mm Spaghetti Gun - sure they where light - but at what sacrifice to down range capability?
My experience generally was the gun loved the most by our gunners was the M109. It was hard work but it was a piece of kit you were proud to work on. It was certainly my favourite gun by far (but then I never served in an M777 battery - so can't compare it other than theoretically)

I fired both the 75 and the L5. The 75mm pack howitzer for direct action shoots on avalanche control at Rogers Pass and the L5 - well pretty much for everything else. I wouldn't give the 75mm to anyone for any purpose. I won't bad mouth the L5. It was absolutely great for what it was designed for - hauling up into mountains on muleback and firing off tiny and unstable gun platforms. Range was not one of its attributes albeit the round it delivered was exactly the same as every other 105 mm round.

Quite frankly if you are looking for a light pack howitzer for air mobile and airborne use in extreme terrain you could do a lot worse than an L5.

Back in my 30th Field days
Do you go back as far as Colin Marmo?

🍻
 
But lets be frank, how many of our experts predicted correctly that we would be engaged in a long drawn out ground combat in Afghanistan, 5 years before it happened, even 6 months before the government said anything? We are forever going to be an expeditionary army who will never know for certain where, when, why or who we will be opposing. In my mind that calls for a lot of kit flexibility (and two amphibious landing ships, but that's a different thread).
 
The CA has an ATGM problem - lack of modern capabilities on our side, and increasing threats from adversary systems.

On the Inf side of the house, something like Javelin is a no-brainer. On the Arty side, I would suggest they should be looking at something like Spike NLOS, or another long range NLOS ATGM. It could be LAV or light tactical vehicle mounted, or towed in a trailer setup. It would give needed capability to both heavier and lighter formations, and be useful for peer conflicts as well as operations in whatever failed state they send soldiers to next.

While I realize the roles are different, I see this as a much better future-proofed investment than some new 105mm guns.
Personally I see the AT capability for the Inf and Armored - ideally ADP gets back to the Inf - and retained at the Armor level too -

There are a lot of missing capabilities - I'd rather have the guns focused on area effect systems as a primary - with a secondary precision role.
HiMars, MLRS, ATCACMS etc...
 
Absolutely on both counts. We had L5s and C1s in the early 1970s (yup - in the Reg F). We did tons of airmobile stuff and the L5 was fine with Hueys but with the C1 we needed the Voyageurs (which for you young pups is like a Chinook only lighter with less lift)
The Voyageurs where before my time...
My experience generally was the gun loved the most by our gunners was the M109. It was hard work but it was a piece of kit you were proud to work on. It was certainly my favourite gun by far (but then I never served in an M777 battery - so can't compare it other than theoretically)
Love hate - admittedly my only 109 experience was the summer of 88 in Gagetown on a Class B to W Bty. When they worked it seemed nice to ride to and fro -- but a ton of maintenance, and I was a little guy then and 155mm ammo sucked to move around.
I fired both the 75 and the L5. The 75mm pack howitzer for direct action shoots on avalanche control at Rogers Pass and the L5 - well pretty much for everything else. I wouldn't give the 75mm to anyone for any purpose. I won't bad mouth the L5. It was absolutely great for what it was designed for - hauling up into mountains on muleback and firing off tiny and unstable gun platforms. Range was not one of its attributes albeit the round it delivered was exactly the same as every other 105 mm round.

Quite frankly if you are looking for a light pack howitzer for air mobile and airborne use in extreme terrain you could do a lot worse than an L5.
My experience with the L5 wasn't nearly as pleasant - but that was the dying of the light on those - and they almost deadlined before I got to play with them.
Do you go back as far as Colin Marmo?

🍻
Yes, but he was going/gone for Lt Col Maher (sp) by the time I was done my TQ3 Arty. However he was still a fixture for years.
 
Personally I see the AT capability for the Inf and Armored - ideally ADP gets back to the Inf - and retained at the Armor level too -

There are a lot of missing capabilities - I'd rather have the guns focused on area effect systems as a primary - with a secondary precision role.
HiMars, MLRS, ATCACMS etc...
Fair enough - I could see longer range NLOS ATGMs fitting into some form of cavalry construct, supported by tactical UAS. Especially considering the fact that the CAF isn't getting any sort of AH.
 
Fair enough - I could see longer range NLOS ATGMs fitting into some form of cavalry construct, supported by tactical UAS. Especially considering the fact that the CAF isn't getting any sort of AH.
I think the Gunner role in ADP stops at ADATS, I think the trade has enough issues with diversity that another tool in the toolbox will get underused or discarded.

I always wanted to strip the LAV's out fo the Inf Bn's and make "non denominational" CAV units with them -
Is there an 051 MOC in use already?
That way anyone can be a GIB - and the CAV can deploy as needed for bus driving - but also have secondary roles.
5 man crew - Driver, CC, Gunner, 2xTech (UAV, whatever) - and 4 Dismounts / vehicle -- sure it drives up the vehicles needed for an Inf Platoon - but it also allows for a lot of flexibility with the vehicles.

Plus for the Arty - 1 LAV Gun Tractor - 1 LAV Ammo schlepper - and 8 gun bunnies.
 
I think the Gunner role in ADP stops at ADATS, I think the trade has enough issues with diversity that another tool in the toolbox will get underused or discarded.

I always wanted to strip the LAV's out fo the Inf Bn's and make "non denominational" CAV units with them -
Is there an 051 MOC in use already?
That way anyone can be a GIB - and the CAV can deploy as needed for bus driving - but also have secondary roles.
5 man crew - Driver, CC, Gunner, 2xTech (UAV, whatever) - and 4 Dismounts / vehicle -- sure it drives up the vehicles needed for an Inf Platoon - but it also allows for a lot of flexibility with the vehicles.

Plus for the Arty - 1 LAV Gun Tractor - 1 LAV Ammo schlepper - and 8 gun bunnies.

I was reading somewhere, can't find the link, that the UK is considering re-roling Warrior into a 'Cavalry' role to make up for the Ajax disaster.

Fun fact: I'm so old I recall the first Warriors being trialled at Warmonster in '83....
 
Don't forget the 1963 FV 432. Recently rebranded as the Bulldog.

We'll all have start taking lessons from the Israelis. They don't throw anything away.
 
I was reading somewhere, can't find the link, that the UK is considering re-roling Warrior into a 'Cavalry' role to make up for the Ajax disaster.

Fun fact: I'm so old I recall the first Warriors being trialled at Warmonster in '83....

Found it....

Replacing Ajax with Warrior – A short-term fix for a long-term problem​



In the latest ongoing saga regarding the British Army’s plagued Ajax armoured vehicle draws yet more parliamentary scrutiny, it appears as though further delays will likely lead to the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) to be used to cover these capability gaps.

As Warrior is both an ageing platform in its current guise (due to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) scrapping the Capability Sustainment Programme this year) and an infantry fighting vehicle, not a purposefully designed recognisance vehicle, this will in fact leave a significant capability gap for the British Army’s armoured reconnaissance regiments.


 
I was in 30th Field under LCol Marmo, probably the funest time I had in the Army. When I went to E Bty Para I got to play with the L5s and did the last Ex with them before the Bty changed to M109. At the time Maj Cotten was boss of D Bty and he had been an LT in 30th Field.
 
I was in 30th Field under LCol Marmo, probably the funest time I had in the Army. When I went to E Bty Para I got to play with the L5s and did the last Ex with them before the Bty changed to M109. At the time Maj Cotten was boss of D Bty and he had been an LT in 30th Field.
I kinda liked Colin. I spent way too much time standing in snowbanks looking at Behnke Wood and trying to teach him how to shoot. Crazy as a loon but lot's of fun.

I first ran into him as a gunner with 7th Tor during Milcons in the late sixties but later when I was posted to 2 RCHA in 1972 for four years we were working with the various Ontario Militia gunner regiments pretty much every second weekend, nine months a year.

🍻
 
Back
Top