C3 105 - Future Replacement?

[el_wiersema]

If we ever need to find a new gun for the PriRes in the future what would that gun be? We just got the C3's a few years ago and they work great, but what lies ahead in the future of the Res Arty?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Hmmm... I would say "Watch and Shoot, Watch and Shoot" probably you guys would still keep the C3-105, if they are still new why replace something that ain't broke?

Just take my 2 cents for what its worth.

 

[CBH99]

I know I haven't posted in a while, and its been a while since I've worn the uniform - but I'd venture to say this is kind of a broad-based thread.  The LG1 guns are still pretty damn new, and with the purchase of the 6 155mm systems, I'd say the artillery is in pretty good shape.  (By all means, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) 

My question, and not trying to steal the thread at all, is more along the lines of mortars.  It seems the guns are in pretty good shape, with a lot of them being new/upgraded.  Whats the take on our mortar situation, as in their condition, sufficient quantity, etc, etc.  I know the M203 was purchased to offset the use of traditional mortars, but I'd like to hear an artillery guy on his views on our mortar situation more than the gun situation. 

(Not trying to steal the thread, sorry - just saw it as an opportunity to get that question out there.)

 

[Craig B]

I know I haven't posted in a while, and its been a while since I've worn the uniform - but I'd venture to say this is kind of a broad-based thread.  The LG1 guns are still pretty damn new, and with the purchase of the 6 155mm systems, I'd say the artillery is in pretty good shape.  (By all means, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)   

The LG1 is not well regarded by the gunners serving them. Stuff  breaks too easy on them. Not sure what the situation is at 1 and 2 Horse, but AFAIK 5 RALC has 1 bty of LG1, 1 of mortars and 1 of C2's ( The nonconvertible C1's) plus they frequently borrow C3's from the Militia batteries( 2 fr. each ) in the province of Quebec.

I don't think anyone here has to worry about what will replace the C3 ........ that's a job for our grandchildren  ;D

Craig

 

[dapaterson]

I'd look for increased digitization of the C3s, making their operation more similar to the M777s.  That makes the transition from training guns (C3s) to operational guns (M777s) easier for all.  Of course, the cost of modernizing all the systems may be significant; a reduction in the total holdings of C3s may be necessary.

(And for those of you looking for such items for personal use, may I suggest you look to:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmssc/ddsal/weapons_e.asp - C1s, TOW launchers, 106mm Recoilless Rifles and .50 MGs are all available - subject to certain restrictions)

 

[ArmyRick]

I think it is a shame to see 50s and TOW systems for sale. The reserves could use these weapons.  :threat:

 

[dapaterson]

Army Rick:  And what ammo would they fire?  What parts would they use to maintain them?  Which wepaons techs and FCS techs would use those non-existent parts to maintain them?

Shiny kit is nice.  Being able to train effectively with it is even better.

 

[ArmyRick]

WHAT? Where have you been? From the infantry side, let me fill you in.

The LdSH have all the remaining TUA (TOW Under Armour) and the .50s are still in use with light infantry battalion battalion DFS platoons as well as they have been used overseas mounted on the G-wagons (They don't just have C6s on them).

So the fact that the systems are still in use (The very two I referrred to) implies that their ammo in service as well (I actually know there is)

So the ammo is there, spare parts? I couldn't comment.

 

[Craig B]

A 106 RR would look pretty cool on my balcony  8) ......... and its not even a firearm according to Canadian law , no PAL required  ;D

Craig

 

[dapaterson]

Army Rick:  Spares and ammo for, say, 100 TOW launchers costs more than spares and ammo for, say, 50 TOW launchers.  (Arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point)  And the same for the HMGs.  Do we cut the allocations to LdSH?  Give less .50 link to operations?  Hope that there are no equipment failures?  Issue kit and then tell units "Sorry, the firing pin broke.  No replacement."?

Oh, we should just purchase more ammo and parts.  But we don't have the money to do so.  We have too much army for our money.  We can't keep everything we'd like to keep if we want to keep everything we have to keep.  So we discard equipment (usually cherry-picking so the sets in best condition are retained); sometimes just after expensive refits (HMCS Bonnie ring a bell?)

Whatever choices are made on the keep/scrap list, someone is going to complain.

 

[ArmyRick]

dapaterson, by your reply I am not wasting any more time with this discussion. Did you look at the web site mentioned?

Do you know what the TOW ATGM is and what the .50 HMG is? Do the research before you comment please. If you had first hand expirience with either systems, you would have thought about your remarks.

Basically the the LdSH are using the TUA (maybe they will also keep TOW ground mounts handy?) and TOW is a missile system.

.50 Cal Heavy Machine Gun is just that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The C3 is the latest update of the same gun we have had since the 60’s (longer?) I worked on the C1, C2 versions and they had sent some off for C3 upgrades when I left. This gun (unless some unforeseen problem arises) will likely be soldiering on in the reserves for another 20 years. It’s just so dam simple and robust (the first riveted version came out in 1919)

I do however see the regs and the reserves slowly going over to Mortars. The various 120mm ones on the market gives a good punch and range. It’s also mobile and light compared to a howitzer/ gun. They should give the 81mm back to the infantry and issue 120mm mortars to the Arty boys. I believe there is a prototype turret for the LAV and the Swedish IFV mounting twin tubed 120mm mortars, that’s a lot of firepower in a small package, coupled with the C3 and the new 155mm. We have a very flexible artillery arm. I still think a battery of M109 in support of tanks and IFV’s are required. 

 

[Old Sweat]

The C3 is an upgrade of the gun Canadian troops took ashore on Juno Beach on D Day. While these were borrowed from the US Army, we adopted the towed version circa 1950, but did not really reequip our regiments until 1958. (I trained on the C1 in the RCA Depot that year and then served the guns in 4 RCHA until it became apparent I would never make a soldier. At that point I was sent away to become an officer, but that's another story.) The 105 will be blowing holes in people for decades to come; it is a simple, effective piece of kit.

 

[Armymatters]

I believe there is a prototype turret for the LAV and the Swedish IFV mounting twin tubed 120mm mortars, that’s a lot of firepower in a small package, coupled with the C3 and the new 155mm. We have a very flexible artillery arm. I still think a battery of M109 in support of tanks and IFV’s are required. 

Colin, meet AMOS (Advanced Mortar System):
http://www.patriahagglunds.fi/amos.html

Also, there is the Strix anti-tank mortar round, which is specially developed for AMOS in mind.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/strix.htm

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thanks, that what I was referring to. Wonder if it is two piece ammo or semi-fixed like the 105?

Wonder what the loadout would be in a LAV type vehicle, the turret and basket would take up a fair bit of room, so likely similar to the MGS’s 18 rds.

Knowing our military, they would spend a fortune to develop this to “Canadian standards” on a LAV chassis and then put the spare ammo and Command Post into a MILCOT vehicle.  :

 

[Armymatters]

Thanks, that what I was referring to. Wonder if it is two piece ammo or semi-fixed like the 105?

Wonder what the loadout would be in a LAV type vehicle, the turret and basket would take up a fair bit of room, so likely similar to the MGS’s 18 rds.

Knowing our military, they would spend a fortune to develop this to “Canadian standards” on a LAV chassis and then put the spare ammo and Command Post into a MILCOT vehicle.  :

It should be standard 120mm mortar ammo, according to the information I have on it:
http://defence-data.com/eurosatory2000/pagees04.htm

Don't think it was fitted to a LAV III yet... but the similar BAE AMS II 120mm mortar turret has been fitted to a LAV III and also fits on a M113 or MTVL:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1850

 

[1feral1]

The good old C3, an up-gunned M2A2 105! Good gun. I did a total of 6+ yrs in the RAA, and we had Hamels, the L118/119. An English designed easy to break - maintenace nightmare all rolled up into one. Its not too well recieved by the GNRs, and anyone who has time on the M2A2 - we (RAA) still use them here on a limited basis (splintex) wishes they were still around as much as they once were.

Stick with the C3, a proven design going on 70+ yrs.


Ubique!


Wes

 

[1feral1]

I think it is a shame to see 50s and TOW systems for sale. The reserves could use these weapons.  :threat:

The Browning M2 12.7mm MG has earned an excellent reputation, and it truly bridges the gap between 7.62mm and 20mm/25mm weapons.

I would be sorry to see a bunch of pencil necked safety geeks making such silly decisons.

Regards,

Wes