C3 Grounding
- Thread starter TSM A
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I suspect this could be the last dance for the C3. Adding all the extra weight of a longer barrel without making any other structural modifications was not a recipe for long-term platform health.
The question is, if not the C3 what?
The LG 1 will not likely trickle down to the Reserves. (I don't think there is enough of them anyway)
So does this make the 81 mm mortar the only "artillery" for the Reserves?
In my opinion mortars are the future of the RCA. I am not saying I like it but I think it probable.
Training on the mortars is both less costly, and easier to manage. Mortars are easier to transport and can be brought into action quicker. A Reserve unit can pack up its mortars, deploy and come home in one evening much easier than moving C3's with all their transport restrictions.
(Moving a C3 with the new MSVS is a disaster waiting to happen and there is no way there will ever be anything less than a dispersed gun position with the turning radius of the new gun tractors.)
I think DND will look at the C3 replacement costs and conclude that mortars fit the bill and that will be the end of the C3, UNLESS the problems found are limited to one or two guns, then maybe for a little longer we will roll the guns.
I am pretty certain Western Defender is looking like a no show for the C3's
The question is, if not the C3 what?
The LG 1 will not likely trickle down to the Reserves. (I don't think there is enough of them anyway)
So does this make the 81 mm mortar the only "artillery" for the Reserves?
In my opinion mortars are the future of the RCA. I am not saying I like it but I think it probable.
Training on the mortars is both less costly, and easier to manage. Mortars are easier to transport and can be brought into action quicker. A Reserve unit can pack up its mortars, deploy and come home in one evening much easier than moving C3's with all their transport restrictions.
(Moving a C3 with the new MSVS is a disaster waiting to happen and there is no way there will ever be anything less than a dispersed gun position with the turning radius of the new gun tractors.)
I think DND will look at the C3 replacement costs and conclude that mortars fit the bill and that will be the end of the C3, UNLESS the problems found are limited to one or two guns, then maybe for a little longer we will roll the guns.
I am pretty certain Western Defender is looking like a no show for the C3's
- Reaction score
- 6,429
- Points
- 1,360
An old guy could always dream about retro fitting the L-5's.............................naw. :'(
- Reaction score
- 5,994
- Points
- 1,160
Cardstonkid said:
Not looking to get into the whole 'who should own' etc. However, do you seriously think that the arty, travelling behind and working with a FOO (or similar) would have the range or speed to do the same mortar mission as the Infantry, with the same training and equipment, in intimate contact? Unless of course they were attached to and opcom to said Infantry and moving with and in intimate support of said Corp as a weapons det.
I know I've put us back down the rabbit hole, but unless we're talking huge, vehicle mounted mortars, the idea of having a whole Corps ( Reserve Arty) retrain on a piece of equipment someone already has and knows how to use, makes about as much sense as telling Reserve Armoured Recce that we're truly part of the Armoured Corp and play an integral role in what they do.
It's all a political panacea and a way of keeping the reserves quiet. Fact is, they like the idea of a farm team that they can scavenge our best from for ops and CT. They don't have to spend a lot of money or make capital purchases. The rest of the time, we're nothing but the red headed stepchild (no offence to Vern
)
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 710
To the best of my knowledge, the L-5s have fairly much disappeared (or saved for the Army Gun Run), as have all the towed 155 that were in War Stock - all off to be monuments across the land.
As the topic of Mortars for the Reserves came up along with the arrival of the MSVS, I am wondering if this is a completely retarded line of thought. The Mortars in the back of a MSVS make no sense. Mortars in the back of the 5/4 ton was more sensible, but I can not see us putting mortars in the back of a MILCOT or a LSVW. What that means is that someone would have to then take all the MSVSs back from the Reserve Artillery units and give them smaller vehicles. I doubt any of this would happen, therefore, NO mortars for the Reserve Arty units.
[Edit to add Army Gun Run]
As the topic of Mortars for the Reserves came up along with the arrival of the MSVS, I am wondering if this is a completely retarded line of thought. The Mortars in the back of a MSVS make no sense. Mortars in the back of the 5/4 ton was more sensible, but I can not see us putting mortars in the back of a MILCOT or a LSVW. What that means is that someone would have to then take all the MSVSs back from the Reserve Artillery units and give them smaller vehicles. I doubt any of this would happen, therefore, NO mortars for the Reserve Arty units.
[Edit to add Army Gun Run]
L5's were sold off some time ago, there are a few left in Montreal, but they no longer belong to the G o C
As for the grounding of the C3, an inspection is still ongoing with the one gun that had the cradle failure; it could very well be a one of, but some time is required to make sure that it is not a systemic problem.
There is quite a bit of work going on to look at replacing the C3, and had been going on before this.
81mm Mortars will most likely continue to be manned by gunners for some time yet.
But the whole "why does the Artillery have the mortars?" discussion (whining) I think has been flogged enough on these boards
As for the grounding of the C3, an inspection is still ongoing with the one gun that had the cradle failure; it could very well be a one of, but some time is required to make sure that it is not a systemic problem.
There is quite a bit of work going on to look at replacing the C3, and had been going on before this.
81mm Mortars will most likely continue to be manned by gunners for some time yet.
But the whole "why does the Artillery have the mortars?" discussion (whining) I think has been flogged enough on these boards
Bruce Monkhouse said:
And we could bring back the horses, or in the case of the L-5's, mules . . . Nothing personal, Bruce, as you and I both served in L-5 batteries.* The gun had some quirks, but at the sharp end, its fall of shot was tight and consistent, which is a good thing.
Seriously, let's wait and see what happens with the C3. The basic design of the 105 mm is simple and robust, and save something like metal fatigue, the gun should be able to soldier on as a training device for decades more.
* I saw my first L-5 in 1968 when it arrived in the Gun Park (N-118) in Shilo on a late fall afternoon. We lifted it off the bed of the truck that had delivered it with the crane of our M-578 ARV and decided to let it warm up overnight before attempting to dis-assemble it. A few minutes later, we gathered around it again and begin to poke and wiggle the various bits. Suffice to say, by about 1930 it was lying on the Gun Park floor in pieces and we - Master Gunner Ray Pike, Gun Tech Sergeant John Collings, a few others and myself - were plastered in grease and very pleased with ourselves.
jeffb said:
If you want any information, PM me. I have some old pams with info on animal transport. At the risk of sounding as least as old as I am, in 1973 when I was BC D I did an attachment to an Italian mountain artillery regiment that used mules to carry their guns, ammo and CP stores.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,760
- Points
- 1,160
TSM and I were talking at a Mess dinner the other night (Sadly cut short by my sick daughter needing me).
There are quite a few wheeled 120mm mortar designs out there. these would be a good fit for the reserves and the costs would likely be fairly low to buy. It would mean a whole new ammo type for the CF though. If we didn't go for the more traditional design, you could make a trailer to fit something like this:
http://defense-update.com/products/b/bighorn.htm
The more Traditional style could be towed by a Milcot
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m120.htm
There are quite a few wheeled 120mm mortar designs out there. these would be a good fit for the reserves and the costs would likely be fairly low to buy. It would mean a whole new ammo type for the CF though. If we didn't go for the more traditional design, you could make a trailer to fit something like this:
http://defense-update.com/products/b/bighorn.htm
The more Traditional style could be towed by a Milcot
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m120.htm
- Reaction score
- 5,994
- Points
- 1,160
Colin P said:
What happened to all the Bisons they took from the Reserves? Weren't a bunch of them supposed to be converted to mortar plates?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,760
- Points
- 1,160
I was thinking about that as well, but decided not to stir that particular pot. Since they are redesigning the gun tractors, they might consider mounting the mortars on the rear. Might require some deployed stablisers.
- Reaction score
- 4,663
- Points
- 1,160
recceguy said:
I think they were stolen by the Land EW project, and to make more ambulances.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
For what I can gather, we are allowed to fire our 105's but they must be low-bedded into location moved by crane, fired, then rise and repeat....
Similar threads
