Artillery in the 70's - A Flashback Video

[FJAG]

Attached is a link to a training video produced to show the organization and operations of the close support medium artillery regiment under the Corps 86 concept.

With the exception of the RPV (remotely piloted vehicle) and the rocket battery and to an extent the counter mortar radars, the video is a pretty good representation of how we did our business back in the day.

The RPVs were trialled but never adapted. The MLRS's were never adopted and were more notional than anything else. Counter mortar radars existed but not at the regimental level.

The only regiment with four batteries was 1 RCHA with A, B, and C batteries permanently in Germany and with Z Bty's equipment prepositioned in Germany with a maintenance element while the rest of the battery's personnel came as fly-over troops from 3 RCHA in Shilo. 2 and 3 RCHA and 5 RALC were established at two gun batteries each.

I still passionately hate the folks that scrapped the M109s.  :clubinhand:

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9LVxGnGxd8&fbclid=IwAR0cKKZi7iupaPJTN5gJpl4raArbbv_KQNEcvzn_oHaYpbUMJIOLGj8K-jE

:cheers:

 

[Cloud Cover]

Interesting range of small arms and support weapons. Clearly an army that was transitioning to what should have been better days.
Crazy that the Iltis looked old and worn out even in the mid 80's.

 

[Ralph]

The prismatics are still the same, at least...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ah yes the flying peanut, did it ever get issued or was it always on trial?

 

[FJAG]

Ah yes the flying peanut, did it ever get issued or was it always on trial?

Never issued.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-227_Sentinel

:cheers:

 

[ArmyRick]

Love the old cheese ball videos.

 

[CT57]

Attached is a link to a training video produced to show the organization and operations of the close support medium artillery regiment under the Corps 86 concept.

With the exception of the RPV (remotely piloted vehicle) and the rocket battery and to an extent the counter mortar radars, the video is a pretty good representation of how we did our business back in the day.

The RPVs were trialled but never adapted. The MLRS's were never adopted and were more notional than anything else. Counter mortar radars existed but not at the regimental level.

The only regiment with four batteries was 1 RCHA with A, B, and C batteries permanently in Germany and with Z Bty's equipment prepositioned in Germany with a maintenance element while the rest of the battery's personnel came as fly-over troops from 3 RCHA in Shilo. 2 and 3 RCHA and 5 RALC were established at two gun batteries each.

I still passionately hate the folks that scrapped the M109s. :clubinhand:

Enjoy.

:cheers:

Hi, if I am not mistaken 5 RALC had a third battery (V Bty) which was air defence. They used to have two Boffin guns, the last time I had any dealings with 5 RALC, Maj. Dallaire was the BC of V Bty.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Never issued.

Canadair CL-227 Sentinel - Wikipedia

:cheers:

I recall a CAX I attended where the RPV was much touted as the saviour of the artillery.

One of the gunners was pretty clear they'd still be able to do their job when the RPV couldn't, like during bad weather etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It was neat to be part of the artillery RPV trials in Suffield in the 80's. Canada should have pursued that with vigour and then perhaps people would be buying our drones/RPV/UAV's.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ergonomically I still think the Peanut was one of the best designs out there (Kind of like the Brador, the Arrow and the Buffalo ... and come to that the Iroquois, the Beartrap and the VDS). Oh Canadaaa!

 

[Weinie]

Ergonomically I still think the Peanut was one of the best designs out there (Kind of like the Brador, the Arrow and the Buffalo ... and come to that the Iroquois, the Beartrap and the VDS). Oh Canadaaa!

Yeah, but how survivable was it? It seems to me that it would have been targetable even by small arms fire, and that countermeasures would not have been that hard? Am I missing something here?

 

[FJAG]

Yeah, but how survivable was it? It seems to me that it would have been targetable even by small arms fire, and that countermeasures would not have been that hard? Am I missing something here?

When it came out in the late 70s the artillery had switched its L19 Air OP pilots over to RCAF Kiowa helicopter ones with the armoured corps recce flights. The drone was looked at as a more survivable surveillance system and not really designed to overfly the enemy, just look down at them from a distance. Never sure why we really didn't go for them except the usual: where will the money come from? where do the crews come from? what will these do the loaches won't do? there's other stuff we need more! the optics aren't really all that good! etc etc I think this was more a solution looking for a problem than an operational requirement at the time.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yeah, but how survivable was it? It seems to me that it would have been targetable even by small arms fire, and that countermeasures would not have been that hard? Am I missing something here?

Sorry for the time lapse.

Anything that flies is vulnerable to golden BBs. As is anything up a tree or on top of a hill. The advantage of any "drone" (apologies Loachman and Dimsum) is that it can elevate itself high enough to see far enough so it doesn't have to close in to small arms range. Also it can fly below the horizon so as to pop up at an offset from both the target and the launch point, not giving either away.

The Peanut, being vertical lift could launch from a confined space like a clearing in the bush, or the deck of a ship. With its contra-rotating props it had a relatively small foot print, and was relatively quiet, and relatively stable, and relatively fast compared to either a conventional helicopter (Griffon), twin rotor (Chinook) or Quadcopters. It could be launched from a small boat or a trailer towed by an LUV.

The 1990s version - Built by Bombardier rather than Canadair - the CL-327 Guardian vs the CL-227 Sentinel was described as

The CL-327 "Guardian" is powered by a 125shp Williams WTS117-5 turboshaft engine, which drives 3.96m diameter counter-rotating rotors. Gross takeoff weight is 350kg, with an empty weight of 150kg. Maximum endurance is reported at 6.25 hours, and the maximum cruise speed is given as 155km/h.

It seems to me like a credible platform that was at least at Beta stage and could have been the basis of a successful UAV industry - scaleable up and down, modifiable payloads, modifiable powerpack, modifiable materials.

And while we are at it Canadair also produced the CL-89/289 AN/USD-502 drone

Although the drone looked and flew like a missile and was launched from truck-mounted rails, it cruised under jet power. Takeoff was achieved by a booster rocket, which was jettisoned when flight speed was attained. A small turbojet then took over for the rest of the flight

The flight pattern was programmed and allowed for the flight to the target areas, a run while the cameras or sensors recorded, and the return to the recovery site. On arrival at this calculated position, the motor cut and a drogue parachute was deployed. This slowed the drone down sufficiently to alter its attitude and allow a parachute to be released from the underside of the drone causing it to invert. Before reaching the ground a pair of pneumatic landing bags were released from the top of the drone (now facing the ground). The retrieval crew would then remove the cameras etc., and return the drone to be ready for its next flight. A camera or sensor, dependent on the mission, could be fitted to the CL-89, and multiple units to the CL-289.

Being a drone meant that it flew a programmed course and was not under any form of external control.

General characteristics

• Length: 12 ft 2 in (3.71 m) (with booster)
• Wingspan: 3 ft 1 in (0.94 m)
• Diameter: 1 ft 1 in (0.33 m) (body diameter)
• Empty weight: 172.4 lb (78 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 343 lb (156 kg) (with booster)
• Powerplant: 1 × Williams International WR2-6 turbojet, 125 lbf (0.56 kN) thrust
• Powerplant: 1 × BAJ Vickers Wagtail rocket booster, 5,000 lbf (22 kN) thrust

Performance

• Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h, 400 kn)
• Range: 37 mi (60 km, 32 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,000 m)

CL-89[edit]​

Cl-89 NATO AN USD-501
In June 1963, a sponsorship by Canada and Britain[1][2] agreed to have Canadair design, evaluate and test the CL-89 drone. The concept had been developed at Canadair from the CL-85, a study for the carriage of dispatches. West Germany later joined the group,[3] and although the United States was invited to join, they declined.[citation needed]

The first, less than successful flight was made at Yuma, Arizona in March 1964. The British wanted changes in the system (consisting of the drone, the launcher, the retrieval equipment and the support) to be "Soldier Proof". They sent an army officer to Canadair and with his help set up a maintenance advisory group which had excellent results. CL-89 had a difficult development and was almost abandoned.[citation needed]

The first complete CL-89 system was supplied to the West Germans in 1969. During the 1970s, Both France and Italy joined the British and West Germans in operating the CL-89. NATO gave the entire system the designation AN/USD-501 (Army Navy Unmanned Surveillance Drone type 501); in UK service it was known as the Midge (Military Intelligence & Data Gathering Equipment). The system was designed for information collecting at a divisional level.

In Royal Artillery service Midge was operated by a troop in a divisional locating battery. This troop had two launchers, all the facilities for processing and analysing imagery and for repair and servicing of the aircraft. The troop comprised two officers and about 70 soldiers. Tasking was through the artillery intelligence cell at divisional HQ and the primary use was to confirm suspected enemy locations, particularly hostile artillery. In UK service Midge replaced the Northrop Radioplane SD-1, known in service as "Observer", and was replaced in turn by Phoenix. Midge was used operationally in Kuwait in 1991, with some effect especially when combined with artillery raids.

In German Army service, CL-89 was operated by a battery in the divisional observation battalion. The organisation was similar to the British but had six officers and about 120 soldiers.

Logistic support for CL-89 was provided to user nations through NAMSA.

CL-289[edit]​

CL-289 NATO AN USD 502
In November 1987, an agreement was signed between Canada, West Germany and France for the production of the CL-289 system. The design of this was started in 1974. It was a larger drone with better range and payload than the CL-89. It was intended to obtain corps level intelligence for the armies of NATO. Although similar in appearance to the CL-89, many changes in design were necessary. The CL-289 entered service in November 1990, the entire system being designated AN/USD-502.

Poached from Wikipedia

Canadair CL-89 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[daftandbarmy]

It's all in the FM, of course


FMI 3-04.155 ARMY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM OPERATIONS

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-04-155.pdf