• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,401
Points
1,110
Thanks FJAG, I knew you’d w
Canada made extensive use of SPs during the latter phases of WW2 by way of the Sherman mounted 105mm Priest (There was also the 25 pdr Sexton. By the end of the war Canada employed 48 of each - based on eight-gun batteries with three per regiment so 4 regiments in total). 3rd Div had them for the landing at Normandy and the subsequent breakout. There were also 150 self propelled 17 pdr anti-tank guns and 75 armoured FOO vehicles in 4 and 5 Armd Div which had also received the SP guns after Normandy.

Self propelled guns stayed with the Militia (four regiments - 18th, 26th, 29th and 39th Fd Regt (SP) RCA) after the war until the Kennedy Board gutted the reserves in 1968 and M109s were bought for the RegF, initially for a regiment in each of Germany and Canada although that changed over time).

Effectively we've had one form of SP or another to support mechanized and armoured forces since 1944 until around 2004. TTPs for their use changed throughout this period based on the constant development of doctrine. During the majority of the Cold War we had two active concepts - high intensity mechanized warfare with SPs and light airmobile warfare with light towed guns. These share some TTPs but are essentially different and Canada kept up its knowledge on both for decades.

I think to say that SPs haven't had "modern testing" is inaccurate. Their use started in high intensity combat and was constantly updated and refined since then based on study and lessons learned from others who used them including in combat like the Israelis and Americans. The notion of "complacency" under armour is also a fallacy. TTPs for dispersion and rapid redeployment developed over time as communications and tactical capabilities developed to make that possible and in order to properly support the mechanized infantry and armour whose TTPs also developed over time.

2004 is the watershed, come-to-Jesus movement for Canadian artillery. Everything before that was geared to high intensity mechanized conflict (albeit anti-armour and STA were at a nadir) After 2004 STA had a revival, AD started to backslide into oblivion and high intensity warfare became a tertiary capability.

🍻
Thanks FJAG, I knew you’d weigh in with some good insight.

I’m not discounting lessons learned in WW2, but I think today there’s a major difference in the ability to locate the source of enemy fire while the first shell is in the air, and, tech and flexibility allowing, dispatch a counter-battery fire mission very quickly in reply. I was alluding partly to that.

I also think it’s fair to distinguish between professional and experienced artillery corps within western armies that have been playing with this for a while, and hastily raised and equipped Ukrainian forces that are still learning on the fly while culturally shifting (and it seems not always consistently or smoothly) from Soviet models to Western ones.

Though as I said, this is wild guesses from a dude who never shot anything indirect bigger than a 60mm mortar. I offer these thoughts mostly so I learn when you guys knock ‘em down. Thanks!
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,780
Points
1,040
Thanks FJAG, I knew you’d w

Thanks FJAG, I knew you’d weigh in with some good insight.

I’m not discounting lessons learned in WW2, but I think today there’s a major difference in the ability to locate the source of enemy fire while the first shell is in the air, and, tech and flexibility allowing, dispatch a counter-battery fire mission very quickly in reply. I was alluding partly to that.

I also think it’s fair to distinguish between professional and experienced artillery corps within western armies that have been playing with this for a while, and hastily raised and equipped Ukrainian forces that are still learning on the fly while culturally shifting (and it seems not always consistently or smoothly) from Soviet models to Western ones.

Though as I said, this is wild guesses from a dude who never shot anything indirect bigger than a 60mm mortar. I offer these thoughts mostly so I learn when you guys knock ‘em down. Thanks!
Not a problem. That what these forums are about. One thing to always remember is that there is virtually continuous re-evaluation and critical debate amongst the SMEs (and other not so SMEs) in every branch about how to do their job best.

I lived through the eight-gun, two-troop conversion to single six-gun bty fire unit, through embryonic computer use for producing firing data, to dispersed gun positions, through the death and rebirth of air defence, through tracked vs SP tactics, rudimentary FACing and a host of other things. I missed the abandonment of SPs, the revival of STA, the second destruction of AD, and the trivialization of the regiment as anything other than a force generator. Whatever it was there was always fierce debate within the artillery as to how these changes made a difference and what TTPs needed changing.

On the other hand, every change was met by a "Meh" from the supported arms who were having things to debate within their own organizations. I'm cynically of the belief that more often than not, these changes are driven by resource (both PY and equipment) limitations and a drive to remain relevant in the face of apathy and resource competition from the other corps/services etc rather than a sound doctrinal approach.

🍻
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
16,646
Points
1,160
Meanwhile, Canada doesn't even get an honourable mention... ;)

top-25-combat-tank-fleets-MAIN.jpg


 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,928
Points
1,140
Meanwhile, Canada doesn't even get an honourable mention... ;)

top-25-combat-tank-fleets-MAIN.jpg


I'm surprised that Syria is still rated that high with the issues they've had over the last number of years.
Surprised that Morocco feels the need to have that many. Who are they that worried about?
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,814
Points
1,160
I'm surprised that Syria is still rated that high with the issues they've had over the last number of years.
Surprised that Morocco feels the need to have that many. Who are they that worried about?
Morocco is facing an ongoing insurgency since the early 1970's in the Western Sahara by Polisario (backed by Algeria)
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,599
Points
1,160
Meanwhile, Canada doesn't even get an honourable mention... ;)

top-25-combat-tank-fleets-MAIN.jpg



Quite a few NATO members didn't make the cut. Beside the USA, the only ones from the alliance on the list are Greece and Turkey (one can only imagine which direction a part of their respective fleets are pointed).
 
Top