• 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

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,771
Points
1,060
I've never seen any AAM on an Apache - it's more of a theory than a reality.

It's not a conversion per say - its a new seeker unit.
Older ones are not being converted - new ones are being made as JAGM
The head is very similar and allows the same target after launch as Brimstone -- I wouldn't read too much into Brimstones press releases beyond that.



And I re-iterated that tank hunting (or Anti Armor Defense) isn't the same things as Air Defense, and it should not be housed in the same system, as each is a primary task.

And I don't care if there are separate Air Defence and Anti-Tank, or even Close Support crews. I'd be happy enough with one vehicle issued to three units each with their own specialized load outs.

At least then you have one set of nuts and bolts for all of them.

And, in the event that you are eating AD variants faster than CS variants then you can always transfer the CS vehicles, and some/all of their crews to the AD role, with a bit of Ukrainian conversion training.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,771
Points
1,060
And while strolling the interwebs I came across this:

C3s and MSVSs at Yakima

 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,029
Points
1,040
Just an interesting little article about Ex NORDIC STRIKE 22 which was a HIRAIN exercise. (HIMARS Rapid Aerial Insertion) In this case 56th Artillery Command rapidly deployed elements of the 2nd Multi Domain Task Force as well as of 41st Artillery Brigade to Sweden by Hercules.



Ordinarily the 41st has two MLRS battalions full time, however in Mar it was reinforced by a flyover high readiness HIMARS battalion from Fort Bragg which picked up prepositioned launchers in Grafenwoehr.


So that gets me thinking about the need to be able to deal with incursions in the North without using some Militia Arctic Response Company being sent in as a human sacrifice.

Maybe an air liftable Multi Domain Task Force and artillery regiment with long range missiles, anti-ship missiles, long range air defence and drones with a few Arctic Response Infantry for security tied in with NORAD. Make it a 30/70 organization with a rapid response capability and a sustainment capability.

I'm starting to think of 2 CMBG in a different way now.

:unsure:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,196
Points
1,090
Just a thought but we seem to always use conventional rounds for our arguments. RAP rounds for a 105mm can reach 155mm ranges, and carry more in a 105mm SPG vs a 155 SPG. The question we have to ask though is hoe close do we want our arty support to the A echelon? Does it need to be 28km away or is 12-18km good enough if they can shoot and scoot quickly?
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
14,982
Points
1,160
So that gets me thinking about the need to be able to deal with incursions in the North without using some Militia Arctic Response Company being sent in as a human sacrifice.

The locals would be better equipped, trained and armed for that environment, based on the scales of issue of arctic warfare kit and (rarely delivered) training we do in the reserves.

Might as wll just draw up a contract to enlist all those in the high arctic as 'Canadian Gurkhas' ;)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
Just a thought but we seem to always use conventional rounds for our arguments. RAP rounds for a 105mm can reach 155mm ranges, and carry more in a 105mm SPG vs a 155 SPG. The question we have to ask though is hoe close do we want our arty support to the A echelon? Does it need to be 28km away or is 12-18km good enough if they can shoot and scoot quickly?
Artillery needs to be based on the formation it supports.
105mm RAP have almost the range of a 155mm Base Bleed, not 155mm RAP.
Putting a 105mm on a SP Chassis makes little to no sense for Canada. Please consider the rest of NATO has gone pretty much exclusively 155mm and even the
Light/Airborne units down here are going to be phasing out the M119A3 over the next decade.

For Arty units, range is life both for them (and their supported units in a CS tasking).

You don’t want to be only able to support a few hundred meters passed your friendly forward units, and you really don’t want to be inside 10km (25+ even better) of the FEBA.
With UAS, the ability to strike into enemy positions increase the depth CS Arty is able to be employed — but also conversely requires more depth behind for safety.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,771
Points
1,060
Just an interesting little article about Ex NORDIC STRIKE 22 which was a HIRAIN exercise. (HIMARS Rapid Aerial Insertion) In this case 56th Artillery Command rapidly deployed elements of the 2nd Multi Domain Task Force as well as of 41st Artillery Brigade to Sweden by Hercules.





Ordinarily the 41st has two MLRS battalions full time, however in Mar it was reinforced by a flyover high readiness HIMARS battalion from Fort Bragg which picked up prepositioned launchers in Grafenwoehr.



So that gets me thinking about the need to be able to deal with incursions in the North without using some Militia Arctic Response Company being sent in as a human sacrifice.

Maybe an air liftable Multi Domain Task Force and artillery regiment with long range missiles, anti-ship missiles, long range air defence and drones with a few Arctic Response Infantry for security tied in with NORAD. Make it a 30/70 organization with a rapid response capability and a sustainment capability.

I'm starting to think of 2 CMBG in a different way now.

:unsure:

And with a bit of effort the same complex of missiles (in seacans/connex containers) could find homes on the after deck of the AOPS.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
151
Points
430
Just a thought but we seem to always use conventional rounds for our arguments. RAP rounds for a 105mm can reach 155mm ranges, and carry more in a 105mm SPG vs a 155 SPG. The question we have to ask though is hoe close do we want our arty support to the A echelon? Does it need to be 28km away or is 12-18km good enough if they can shoot and scoot quickly?
Ukraine is using their Tanks for Indirect fire. They have have a max range of 9000ish meters, They are effectively employing them., makes me wonder why all the rush to only 155 systems by the western nations.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,029
Points
1,040
Ukraine is using their Tanks for Indirect fire. They have have a max range of 9000ish meters, They are effectively employing them., makes me wonder why all the rush to only 155 systems by the western nations.
Tank rounds, even the HE ones which come in limited numbers, have significantly lower terminal effects than artillery. On top of that their fire control systems are not optimized for indirect fire. Tanks make excellent anti-tank platforms - indirect fire - not so much.

155mm is a long standing calibre 1917 French Schneider C17S howitzers in WW1. What you're seeing is more about standardization on a very versatile calibre suitable for numerous types of effects. As an interesting aside, the 155 mm Schneider was a development of the 1910 152mm gun which Schneider sold to Russia. 152mm is still the Russian medium howitzer standard while the 155mm calibre was adopted by a number of western countries including the US which bought 1,503 of them during WW1.

🍻
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
151
Points
430
Tank rounds, even the HE ones which come in limited numbers, have significantly lower terminal effects than artillery. On top of that their fire control systems are not optimized for indirect fire. Tanks make excellent anti-tank platforms - indirect fire - not so much.

155mm is a long standing calibre 1917 French Schneider C17S howitzers in WW1. What you're seeing is more about standardization on a very versatile calibre suitable for numerous types of effects. As an interesting aside, the 155 mm Schneider was a development of the 1910 152mm gun which Schneider sold to Russia. 152mm is still the Russian medium howitzer standard while the 155mm calibre was adopted by a number of western countries including the US which bought 1,503 of them during WW1.

🍻
Your missing a key point though. The Ukrainian Army in particular their Armored is set up and being used effectively to be used in a indirect role. Not all but some/ enough, they are messing with the Russians in doing so. To me that means it is effective.
Are they as effective as a 155PGM launched from a PZH2000 shooting into the hatch of a russian t55 80km away. No, more then likely as accurate as a 120mm mortar way more effective considering the Tank doesn't have 120mm mortar.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
14,982
Points
1,160
Your missing a key point though. The Ukrainian Army in particular their Armored is set up and being used effectively to be used in a indirect role. Not all but some/ enough, they are messing with the Russians in doing so. To me that means it is effective.

Viz: BMP 1 used in the indirect fire role

 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
151
Points
430
I wonder what peoples opinions are of the 76MM SHIPBOARD GUN in a ground role.
It can serve as a multi purpose gun system with a range out to 40,000m with PGM.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,029
Points
1,040
Your missing a key point though. The Ukrainian Army in particular their Armored is set up and being used effectively to be used in a indirect role. Not all but some/ enough, they are messing with the Russians in doing so. To me that means it is effective.
Are they as effective as a 155PGM launched from a PZH2000 shooting into the hatch of a russian t55 80km away. No, more then likely as accurate as a 120mm mortar way more effective considering the Tank doesn't have 120mm mortar.
You are being told it is happening and are led to conclude it is effective by a highly capable propaganda machine.

The use of tanks for indirect fire is not new. It was used in WW2 and Korea to bolster fire plans when there were already plentiful assaulting tanks (or the objective was not suitable for tank action) and not enough artillery was available. There is no magic in it, much less Ukrainian magic, its a matter of physics.

Here's a little blurb on the use of Russian anti-tank guns (basically similar to the tank gun) that explains it:

Anti-tank guns are always going to be less optimal in indirect fire than dedicated field artillery because their role as anti-tank guns requires much higher muzzle velocities. The 2A19 even with its slowest HE-FRAG ammunition has a muzzle velocity of about 700 m/s while the approximate US equivalent of its generation (M102 105mm gun) has a max muzzle velocity of 492 m/s. Antitank guns have flatter firing arcs than howitzers because they're supposed to, as their primary role is direct fire. It complicates their firing tables and means that terrain shadows (areas behind obstructing terrain where the gun cannot hit due to insufficiently steep arc) will be longer and the dispersion pattern will be a longer oval (can be seen here ) because the rounds will be coming in at a shallower angle. Antitank guns also usually have lower maximum elevations which further complicates their use as indirect fire weapons.

It definitely happens, and the 2A19 has ammunition specifically for it, but it isn't a great tool for the job. Soviet equivalent for the 105mm howitzer is actually the 122mm. It's heavier, but still lighter than their medium 152mm artillery which is the direct equivalent of western 155s.

Add barrel wear to that when you start using it in quantities. The probable error range from an anti-tank type gun greatly exceeds that of a howitzer. It is simply not the highest and best use for a tank.

🍻
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
151
Points
430
You are being told it is happening and are led to conclude it is effective by a highly capable propaganda machine.

The use of tanks for indirect fire is not new. It was used in WW2 and Korea to bolster fire plans when there were already plentiful assaulting tanks (or the objective was not suitable for tank action) and not enough artillery was available. There is no magic in it, much less Ukrainian magic, its a matter of physics.

Here's a little blurb on the use of Russian anti-tank guns (basically similar to the tank gun) that explains it:



Add barrel wear to that when you start using it in quantities. The probable error range from an anti-tank type gun greatly exceeds that of a howitzer. It is simply not the highest and best use for a tank.

🍻
Does that mean a 105mm howitzer is more accurate then the 120mm smooth bore mortar. Therfore more effective, or does that only apply to tank guns.

I could say the sky looks blue today at this moment while standing there. You would say not really it's actually light blue with more redish traits.

Are they using tank guns in the indirect role. Yes or no? I am saying yes.
How about their clapped out wore out artillery barrels they are using, are they as effective? Can they still be used effectively or do they have to say oh wait check fire, pack it up and wait for the new barrel install.
Overall I would say their entire Army is working pretty well, especially considering they are blended with so much old school new school tech.
I would have to ask the guys on the ground how effective indirect tank fire is. Or do they wait for the Artillery.

Think outside the box. Many on this site have a extremely hard time doing so. If they did not do it themselves or have a SME friend do it, then it did not happen or can't happen or not as good so it won't happen.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,478
Points
1,140
Does that mean a 105mm howitzer is more accurate then the 120mm smooth bore mortar. Therfore more effective, or does that only apply to tank guns.
Depends on range, trajectory and atmospherics.
I could say the sky looks blue today at this moment while standing there. You would say not really it's actually light blue with more redish traits.

Are they using tank guns in the indirect role. Yes or no? I am saying yes.
How about their clapped out wore out artillery barrels they are using, are they as effective? Can they still be used effectively or do they have to say oh wait check fire, pack it up and wait for the new barrel install.
Overall I would say their entire Army is working pretty well, especially considering they are blended with so much old school new school tech.
I would have to ask the guys on the ground how effective indirect tank fire is. Or do they wait for the Artillery.
When one only has a hammer things begging to look like nails.
Just because someone posted something on Twitter doesn’t mean it’s effective or widespread.
Think outside the box. Many on this site have a extremely hard time doing so. If they did not do it themselves or have a SME friend do it, then it did not happen or can't happen or not as good so it won't happen.
You have several SME’s on this site telling you that those aren’t optimal configurations.

Canada is effectively starting with a new sheet of paper when it comes to Arty, I would hope it would pick the optimal choices for the various roles.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,771
Points
1,060
The use of tanks for indirect fire is not new. It was used in WW2 and Korea to bolster fire plans when there were already plentiful assaulting tanks (or the objective was not suitable for tank action) and not enough artillery was available. There is no magic in it, much less Ukrainian magic, its a matter of physics.

Blackburn's "Guns of Victory" account of crossing the Rhine comes to mind.

All available guns were included in the fire plan - including tank guns, especially Sherman 76s, Bofors 40s, and Vickers MMGs - along with all available mortars.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
151
Points
430
You have several SME’s on this site telling you that those aren’t optimal configurations.
There are only two SME s telling that with a definitive no with no other chance.
NATO all went to a 5.56 general service rifle round because a SME said so.
Was it the most effective, efficient or just more convenient?
As many NATO countries adopted the 5.56 they also continued to devolop and or use other Calibers of rifle and MG rounds depending on the actual mission specs.

It is interesting what the 76mm from Leonardo can actually do and is a impressive system, multi role gun platform that is something to look at as a secondary gun system. That meets Air defence, drone defence, missile defence, anti personal, long range to name a few. But will we ever look at it? Probably not even if it was a decent system to fill many roles. Just because those in charge can not and will not look outside of the 155mm/120mm program.
 
Top