C3 Howitzer Replacement

[KevinB]

It is if the gun works in both roles.

Can work, doesn’t mean optimal.

The major problem with dual role things for Canada, is also the CA would only get half of what was needed saying that they could do both jobs at one.

The Jerries get beaten up because of the logistical noghtmare resulting from their myriad of constantly changing tanks.

The 88 was used by AD, Anti-Tank, Field Arty, Coastal, and Home regiments as well as the Navy (subs and E-boats) not to mention tanks themselves.

They also had different types of 88’s

The Germans didn’t get beat up because of changing tanks, they got beaten up because the 8th Army Air Force laid a beating on them, and the Luftwaffe couldn’t hold them back.

Wouldn’t have mattered if they had only stuck with PzIV variants - they fought a two front war, and just as importantly against the Arsenal of Democracy.

But Henry Ford can’t crank out B-24’s out of an old automobile factory anymore.

If if they did, they would not last for much.

 

[Maxman1]

Can work, doesn’t mean optimal.

The major problem with dual role things for Canada, is also the CA would only get half of what was needed saying that they could do both jobs at one.



They also had different types of 88’s

The Germans didn’t get beat up because of changing tanks, they got beaten up because the 8th Army Air Force laid a beating on them, and the Luftwaffe couldn’t hold them back.

Wouldn’t have mattered if they had only stuck with PzIV variants - they fought a two front war, and just as importantly against the Arsenal of Democracy.

But Henry Ford can’t crank out B-24’s out of an old automobile factory anymore.

If if they did, they would not last for much.

To be fair, the B-24 wasn't particularly good in the first place, it was just what was available in massive numbers (the C-87 cargo conversion was even worse, but what the only thing that could make the Hump until enough C-54s were available).

 

[daftandbarmy]

155mm is the popular kid on the block...

Arms Manufacturers Catching Up with World's Insatiable Need for 155mm Rounds​

It’s the shell everybody seems to want.

Since the war began in Ukraine the demand for the relatively low-tech 155mm ammunition has skyrocketed, with the nation firing as many as 8,000 rounds per day, according to some published estimates.

From Asia to Europe to the United States, arms manufacturers are building new facilities to boost the capacity to produce the shell, not only to supply Ukraine but also to replenish domestic stocks.

But the captains of the defense industry wonder how long the demand will last and if they risk overbuilding production capacity.

In the United States, the Army is looking to significantly ramp up 155mm production, with a stated goal of producing 100,000 rounds per month by 2025. As of February, the Army was “manufacturing 30,000 155mm rounds per month, doubling its previous output of 14,000 rounds prior to the conflict,” according to a service release.

Doug Bush, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said the Army is now “on a path” to producing 70,000 to 80,000 rounds per month by the end of 2024 or early 2025.

“That will do a couple things: it will allow us to support Ukraine more fully, it will also allow us to restock ourselves and also restock our allies, all of whom have now recognized the need for a deeper well of munitions on the shelf but also more production capacity,” he said during a roundtable discussion hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/9/11/arms-manufacturers-catching-up-with-worlds-insatiable-need-for-155mm-rounds

 

[suffolkowner]

155mm is the popular kid on the block...

Arms Manufacturers Catching Up with World's Insatiable Need for 155mm Rounds​

It’s the shell everybody seems to want.

Since the war began in Ukraine the demand for the relatively low-tech 155mm ammunition has skyrocketed, with the nation firing as many as 8,000 rounds per day, according to some published estimates.

From Asia to Europe to the United States, arms manufacturers are building new facilities to boost the capacity to produce the shell, not only to supply Ukraine but also to replenish domestic stocks.

But the captains of the defense industry wonder how long the demand will last and if they risk overbuilding production capacity.

In the United States, the Army is looking to significantly ramp up 155mm production, with a stated goal of producing 100,000 rounds per month by 2025. As of February, the Army was “manufacturing 30,000 155mm rounds per month, doubling its previous output of 14,000 rounds prior to the conflict,” according to a service release.

Doug Bush, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said the Army is now “on a path” to producing 70,000 to 80,000 rounds per month by the end of 2024 or early 2025.

“That will do a couple things: it will allow us to support Ukraine more fully, it will also allow us to restock ourselves and also restock our allies, all of whom have now recognized the need for a deeper well of munitions on the shelf but also more production capacity,” he said during a roundtable discussion hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/9/11/arms-manufacturers-catching-up-with-worlds-insatiable-need-for-155mm-rounds

seems like there's a couple years of production just to replace all the stock used up in Ukraine so far. If the US is just producing 1/3 of Ukraines needs also seems like theres still room for more production. At 8000 a day for 3 years thats 8.76 million rounds needed for the next time

 

[KevinB]

I believe domestic production is slight north of 3,200 rounds a day (24/7) at ~97,000/month for HE, with the plan is to be over 150k a month before Q3 this year.

But IMHO it probably needs to be capable of at least 5x that to be able to support a larger conflict at the infancy, which would then need significant ramp up.

Ukraine has suggested that 14-18k rounds per day would be required for significant offensive action so let’s say 20k for safety margin and that is ~600k/month just in expenditure, without building up a stockpile.

 

[MilEME09]

I believe domestic production is slight north of 3,200 rounds a day (24/7) at ~97,000/month for HE, with the plan is to be over 150k a month before Q3 this year.

But IMHO it probably needs to be capable of at least 5x that to be able to support a larger conflict at the infancy, which would then need significant ramp up.

Ukraine has suggested that 14-18k rounds per day would be required for significant offensive action so let’s say 20k for safety margin and that is ~600k/month just in expenditure, without building up a stockpile.

Really need to get back to the cold war era of US production alone being a million rounds a month. Our own production should massively expand to be the safe bunker to supply Europe. We have the resources and space, just need political will

 

[FJAG]

Really need to get back to the cold war era of US production alone being a million rounds a month. Our own production should massively expand to be the safe bunker to supply Europe. We have the resources and space, just need political will

Besides that we need direction. A quick reminder, the weapon of the artillery is the projectile and not the gun. Since WW2 to the turn of the century, there has not been much advancement in the development of indirect fire munitions. There has, however, been a major revolution for the last twenty or so where the range and terminal effects, both precision and mass, has been rapidly changing.

IMHO, it's not just the 155mm projectiles we need to interest ourselves in but also loitering munitions, rockets and missiles and the countermeasures against enemy systems and their respective delivery systems both air and ground. It needs to be a balanced industry capable of building a wide variety of our own and various allies stocks and being able to surge production when required.

Currently the CAF has no plan and what's worse, the army, and joint agencies where relevant, have no apparent vision to provide to government as to what needs to be done. The CAF has a long history of thinking small and in discrete projects rather than as large-scale systems of systems. That needs to change first.

$0.02

 

[daftandbarmy]

Besides that we need direction. A quick reminder, the weapon of the artillery is the projectile and not the gun. Since WW2 to the turn of the century, there has not been much advancement in the development of indirect fire munitions. There has, however, been a major revolution for the last twenty or so where the range and terminal effects, both precision and mass, has been rapidly changing.

IMHO, it's not just the 155mm projectiles we need to interest ourselves in but also loitering munitions, rockets and missiles and the countermeasures against enemy systems and their respective delivery systems both air and ground. It needs to be a balanced industry capable of building a wide variety of our own and various allies stocks and being able to surge production when required.

Currently the CAF has no plan and what's worse, the army, and joint agencies where relevant, have no apparent vision to provide to government as to what needs to be done. The CAF has a long history of thinking small and in discrete projects rather than as large-scale systems of systems. That needs to change first.

$0.02

Right now, the CAF is clearly in survival mode. The fact that anything gets done at all is astonishing...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-canadian-armed-forces-europe-1.7135390

 

[KevinB]

Right now, the CAF is clearly in survival mode. The fact that anything gets done at all is astonishing...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-canadian-armed-forces-europe-1.7135390

And that was from March of 2024 -- things have not gotten better...

 

[MilEME09]

Besides that we need direction. A quick reminder, the weapon of the artillery is the projectile and not the gun. Since WW2 to the turn of the century, there has not been much advancement in the development of indirect fire munitions. There has, however, been a major revolution for the last twenty or so where the range and terminal effects, both precision and mass, has been rapidly changing.

IMHO, it's not just the 155mm projectiles we need to interest ourselves in but also loitering munitions, rockets and missiles and the countermeasures against enemy systems and their respective delivery systems both air and ground. It needs to be a balanced industry capable of building a wide variety of our own and various allies stocks and being able to surge production when required.

Currently the CAF has no plan and what's worse, the army, and joint agencies where relevant, have no apparent vision to provide to government as to what needs to be done. The CAF has a long history of thinking small and in discrete projects rather than as large-scale systems of systems. That needs to change first.

$0.02

another over looked item is barrel production, Ukraine has shown you'll blow through a barrel in a week or less in offensive operations, so we really need an excessive production of them

 

[FJAG]

another over looked item is barrel production, Ukraine has shown you'll blow through a barrel in a week or less in offensive operations, so we really need an excessive production of them

Very true. A factor in producing further range is higher chamber pressure and faster acceleration. We've developed better metallurgy but in short wear increases with range regardless. With MV measuring, we can compensate somewhat but not fully over time.

Barrel manufacture is more complex than when Sorel Industries built our 105mm C1 but I think we had the capability to do it while I don't think we've done much of anything in that respect since Gerald Bull's research.