• 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

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
669
Points
1,060

the 105mm replacement is the 105mm?
lots of ideas in there
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,352
Points
1,040

I really wish that our army would get its head out of its butt. We have a strong history of using artillery in war and learned our lessons well under fire. Even when we fought COIN battles we rediscovered artillery.

Despite all this properly equipping our army with a viable indirect fire capability we give priority to hundreds of armoured and thousand of other support vehicles. Not that I have anything against support vehicles but what are they actually supporting?

🍻
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,296
Points
1,160
I really wish that our army would get its head out of its butt. We have a strong history of using artillery in war and learned our lessons well under fire. Even when we fought COIN battles we rediscovered artillery.

Despite all this properly equipping our army with a viable indirect fire capability we give priority to hundreds of armoured and thousand of other support vehicles. Not that I have anything against support vehicles but what are they actually supporting?

🍻

People who don't like to walk ;)
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
830
Points
1,040
The Boxer RCH 155 seems to be learning new tricks.

🍻
The Boxer and LAV 6.0 chassis are very similar in size and weight, so might a GDLS version be possible? The LAV is taller though (3.16m vs 2.37m from what I can tell, so might that cause tipping issues?

Also, are the advantages of a common chassis with the LAV worth it compared to having commonality with our largest military partner? Would we be better off going with either the newest version of the M109 that the US Army ends up with for their ABCTs or the 8x8 wheeled SPG that they end up selecting for their Stryker Brigades rather than a bespoke fleet?

That being said, the Boxer RCH 155 sure does look cool and overall, the modularity of the Boxer system is sweet!
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,526
Points
1,090
The Boxer and LAV 6.0 chassis are very similar in size and weight, so might a GDLS version be possible? The LAV is taller though (3.16m vs 2.37m from what I can tell, so might that cause tipping issues?

Also, are the advantages of a common chassis with the LAV worth it compared to having commonality with our largest military partner? Would we be better off going with either the newest version of the M109 that the US Army ends up with for their ABCTs or the 8x8 wheeled SPG that they end up selecting for their Stryker Brigades rather than a bespoke fleet?

That being said, the Boxer RCH 155 sure does look cool and overall, the modularity of the Boxer system is sweet!
There is s SPG LAV varient GDLS tested, it was a 105 though so a redesign would be needed to accommodate a 155. That said the feeling I am getting is that 3 div will become our geavy brigade, meaning they will likely want tracked SPGs.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,526
Points
1,090
Looks like we get to see the static vs mobile artillery debate roll out in Ukraine right now. I hope papers get written on the effectiveness of the two in a modern war. My guess is SPG are better suited as we are seeing more confirmed casualties from towed batteries.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,352
Points
1,040
Looks like we get to see the static vs mobile artillery debate roll out in Ukraine right now. I hope papers get written on the effectiveness of the two in a modern war. My guess is SPG are better suited as we are seeing more confirmed casualties from towed batteries.
I don't think it will be quite as distinct as we might think on the Russian side considering all the anti-armour weaponry, Bayraktars etc the Ukrainians are using and the significant mobility issues which limit dispersion and rapid redeployments to alternate positions. The Russians don't seem to be masters at disbursed artillery TTPs.

We might get a better understanding if and when we get Ukrainian loss figures as they are being subjected to a more conventional type of attack and seemed to have a fairly large mix of both towed and SP equipment. Mobility and TTPs would be a factor with them too though.

Edited to add this link just posted on another thread.


🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,159
Points
1,060
Quick and Dirty

Assumption that Destroyed and Damage are reflective of Weaponry while Abandoned is reflective of Morale

1 Tank Killed/Damaged
2 Surviving Tank Crews in the Platoon Quit



DestroyedDamagedAbandonedCapturedTotal LossesDestroyedDamagedAbandonedCaptured
T-64BV
3​
1​
2​
6​
6​
50%17%0%33%
T-72A
2​
5​
7​
T-72AV
2​
1​
3​
T-72B
9​
3​
5​
21​
38​
T-72B-89
2​
2​
3​
7​
T-72B3
6​
1​
5​
6​
18​
T-72B3-16
24​
5​
29​
58​
Total T-72
45​
4​
17​
65​
131​
131​
34%3%13%50%
T-80V
4​
2​
5​
11​
T-80U
5​
15​
23​
43​
T-80UK
1​
1​
T-80BVM
6​
1​
10​
17​
Total T-80
15​
0​
19​
38​
72​
72​
21%0%26%53%
T-90A
6​
4​
6​
16​
16​
38%0%25%38%
Unknown
13​
2​
2​
17​
17​
76%12%12%0%
82​
7​
42​
111​
242​
242​
34%3%17%46%
WeaponsMorale
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAP

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,352
Points
1,040
While it's always fun to look at pictures of bolt-on armour, what really interests me is what's going on in the turret and the powerpack under the hood.

23 rounds at up to ten rounds per minute leads to the need to bomb up frequently. Quite interested in how that is all managed. It's always been a weak point of modern artillery system that's supposed to give 24/7 uptime.

It strikes me, unless there is a remote management function, that a part of the crew is still in the turret. I think that's a part of the M109 heritage that should have been left behind for a full automated system. From other pictures and diagrams I've seen, the forward hull still only has room for the driver and the powerpack. Personally I'd prefer the turret and rear hull given over completely to the autoloader and ammo.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,159
Points
1,060
Polish Artillery Programs

500 HIMARS Launchers

(Could be interesting it the Saab-NAMMO-Boeing Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb with all aspect 150km range were referenced here as: “we also want to obtain the technology of a selected missile” as part of the deal - together with a high degree of polonization. The Scandinavian countries already have tight manufacturing relations with Poland in the commercial sector).

2+6 Patriot LTAMDS Pac 3 MRAD Batteries
2+21 CAMM-ER SHORAD Batteries and 3 sets for 3 new Type 31 frigates being bought by the Poles
77 individual indigenous Poprad VSHORAD launchers
12 NASAMS-3 based launchers on indigenous trucks equipped with a total of 48 NSM missiles from Kongsberg for Coastal Defence

(NSMs also to be used on the Polish Type 31s)

In June 2013 Poland completed the Coastal Missile Division equipped with 12 NSMs and 23 vehicles on Jelcz chassis (including 6 launchers, 2 TRS-15C radars, 6 fire control vehicles, and 3 command vehicles).[11] Ultimately, the Coastal Missile Division will be equipped with 12 launchers carrying 4 missiles each for a total of 48 missiles. In December 2014 Poland ordered a second batch of launchers and missiles to equip a Naval Strike Missile battalion.[12]








 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,796
Points
1,110
While it's always fun to look at pictures of bolt-on armour, what really interests me is what's going on in the turret and the powerpack under the hood.
IMO - not that it counts - is that once you purchase a vehicle and start and bolting shit on it then you start taxing the power train, which then burns out........I am sure you get the point.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,159
Points
1,060
Thinking more about those 500 HIMARS launchers and the Polish success with adapting the NASAMS and NSMs system into a home grown Coastal Defence system.

500 launchers. 3000 missiles in 6 packs in a single volley. Assuming multiple volleys. And thinking about the Eastern artillery practice of swamping the area.

I don't think the 150 km GLSDB is likely to be the primary weapon of choice. It may very well figure in the future arsenal if they can't get ahold of the new PrSM missiles with their >499 km ranges.

Even the 80 km M31A is likely to be a specialty round.

Unless ... they can polonize it to mass produce it at Eastern European prices. Perhaps with Norwegian, Swedish, Turkish, Israeli help? Perhaps even Korean, Japanese and Brit help?
 
Top