• 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

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,826
Points
1,160
Have you all decided what will replace the c3?
The good news is they are going for a bigger calibre, the bad news is......

60f31c3db71c3c430d48f3fa_60-pounder-BL-Gun--Valcartier--Quebec--1914---MIKAN-No--3337050.jpeg
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
593
Points
760
Take that chassis and put the G7 105mm on it and we would have a winner for mech light Artillery.
And it's not like the Brits aren't going to be using the Trojan for at least another 25 years.
(The abbot is based on parts of FV 434 , I think.)
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,834
Points
1,040
I bet these would be popular with the Ukrainians right about now
abbot.jpg
They already have 300 2S1s in 122mm and 250 2S3s in 152 mm which equate quite well to Abbott. What's missing is large quantities of the 122 and 152 ammunition. Abbott used different 105mm ammo from the American series and which is what is used in the L118 (again which is different from the M119 ammo series. (Brits being Brits). Not sure how much of it is still in inventory but I doubt its enough to stop the Russian hordes.

Not sure what the Brits did with them in the 90s but there are still a handful of regiments worth in India.

🍻
And it's not like the Brits aren't going to be using the Trojan for at least another 25 years.
(The abbot is based on parts of FV 434 , I think.)
The Abbott (or FV433) was part of the FV 430 family which included several vehicles with common components.

🍻
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
The point of ‘Light Mech Artillery” being?
The US Military has stated they need artillery to keep up with Stryker Brigades, this setup would do well in that role, or they could mount the G7 on the Stryker platform and have similar wheels. Either way it would be a good piece of kit to have.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,834
Points
1,040
... or they could mount the G7 on the Stryker platform and have similar wheels. Either way it would be a good piece of kit to have.
The G7 has been around since the mid 90s and no one has bought them. It's hard to conclude that it would be a "good piece of kit". Sometimes manufacturers hype is just hype.

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,696
Points
1,260
The US Military has stated they need artillery to keep up with Stryker Brigades, this setup would do well in that role, or they could mount the G7 on the Stryker platform and have similar wheels. Either way it would be a good piece of kit to have.
The Stryker brigades have shown themselves to be a lot less practical than original thought.
They are however looking at a WSPA 155mm

There is zero reason to put a 105mm into a SPA as that role is better done by 155mm

I really don’t get your infatuation with 105mm
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
The G7 has been around since the mid 90s and no one has bought them. It's hard to conclude that it would be a "good piece of kit". Sometimes manufacturers hype is just hype.

🍻
The G7 Came out at a bad time. Defence budgets were being cut the majors were looking for inhouse procurement system which they already had. SO there was not much interest for a new 105. Canada upgraded their M101s with a new barrel, longer trails and overhauled Hydraulic system. Worked well until all the chassis failures happened, the gun never did reach the 30km mark that I know of.

The LG1 was bought and that was suppose to be a good piece of kit, been a interesting adventure. Lightweight, high speed, low drag, lots of teething issues.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
The Stryker brigades have shown themselves to be a lot less practical than original thought.
They are however looking at a WSPA 155mm

There is zero reason to put a 105mm into a SPA as that role is better done by 155mm

I really don’t get your infatuation with 105mm
I don't get your hate for the 105mm.
105 can be lighter weight, as or more mobile, more rounds carried, higher rates of sustained fire and better at limiting collateral damage if required.
There have been lots of papers written about the use of 105, 155 and 120 systems. Many agree that have the flexibility is what is needed to continue forward where neither system was the best use all the time and having the options was great to have when available. A few Commanders even stated they would rather had their 105mm with them on the forward bases then the 120mm because the rates of fire and distance was limited against the underestimated Taliban artillery. They stated the 155mms were busy elsewhere and Aircover was limited due to weather.
I know I would like to have my 3 guns of 105 in direct support at all times, along with 155 on call. Thats just me.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,391
Points
1,160
The Stryker brigades have shown themselves to be a lot less practical than original thought.
They are however looking at a WSPA 155mm

There is zero reason to put a 105mm into a SPA as that role is better done by 155mm

I really don’t get your infatuation with 105mm

Kevin

The artillery likes their 105s. We have already (I think) agreed that the 105 delivers comparable effects to the 120mm mortars. The 105s are heavier but have somewhat longer ranges.

If the Gunners are willing to ensure that they deliver a Direct Support effort to the infantry battalion, in the same manner that 7(Para) and 29 Cdo do for the Brits, then there is less justification for the 120s in the light battalions. That means RRCA PYs instead of RCIC PYs. The RCIC PYs saved can go to 81s and UAVs. (No need for ATGM specialists anymore than there is a need for MG specialists - those should all be pushed down to the section/platoon/coy).

Short form. If they can find the money for them, and are willing to find the PYs, let them have at it. You want two light brigades in any case and I am a fan of a light reserve. Your LAV brigade has enough M777s even after donations to Ukraine. That means finding SPHs for one Heavy Brigade. The rest of the PYs and bucks can go to GBAD and LRPFs.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,834
Points
1,040
The artillery likes their 105s
I think that's too broad a statement. The artillery, as an institution, likes the 105 mm only because it can give it to the ResF without incurring significant expenses. Some ResF gunners probably like the gun as well as it makes a decent training aide.

On the other hand, no one in the artillery is looking at either the LG1 or the C3 as a viable combat weapon in general. There might be a niche use for the TG1. And, I've said above, If I had nothing else I'd go to war with the damn things rather than not provide indirect fire support at all.

The artillery likes, needs and wants a variety of weapon systems. The M777 will suffice nicely as a niche gun for operations of limited mobility. That fits in with what we did in Bosnia (albeit with LG1s) and Afghanistan. Add in limited air mobile operations and you are close to exhausting the M777s repertoire notwithstanding the way they are being used in Ukraine. We have enough M777s for those roles.

The CA needs an armoured 155mm SP (I prefer tracked but will accept wheeled as long as we keep using LAVs instead of tracked IFVs) and a HIMARS type of system for manoeuvre ops and should also build a capability with medium to long range UCAVs.

IMHO, no infantry battalion should be without its own organic 120mm mortars (and 81mm in the case of light and medium bns who may be expected to do dismounted ops at some point in time), ATGMs and a short range UCAV.

🍻
 

AmmoTech90

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
390
Points
880
They already have 300 2S1s in 122mm and 250 2S3s in 152 mm which equate quite well to Abbott. What's missing is large quantities of the 122 and 152 ammunition. Abbott used different 105mm ammo from the American series and which is what is used in the L118 (again which is different from the M119 ammo series. (Brits being Brits).
Useless ammo trivia follows.

L119 uses 105mm Field (Fd) as opposed to 105mm How(itzer) or even 105mm. T(an)k. Mk 2 Field specifically

Field uses an electric primer and a completly different charge system from the How as well as a different shell profile. It is also separate loading but quickfire (primer in rigid cart case). This is because change 5 and supercharge extend beyond the mouth of the cart case so they can't be mated together.

The Brits did buy some L119 which used the How system to use up stocks of 105mm How the had from the L5 light howitzer, which the L118 replaced....
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,696
Points
1,260
@Kirkhill - in the land of the blind the one eyed man is King --
I suspect that those suggesting the 105 is a good idea probably haven't seen Artillery in Combat.
You shouldn't equate the 120mm Mortar to the 105mm, for a few reasons, 1 as @FJAG pointed out, that the Mortar is an ORGANIC Infantry system, 2 the payload on the 120mm is significantly more useful than the 105mm, the 105 looses a lot of effect due to the heavier casing so the 120mm actually has a larger area of effect.

Honestly the 81mm Mortar gives the 105mm How a run for its money on downrange effect.

I would never recommend anyone intentionally bring a less effective combat tool to war -- hence I think the LG and the C3 should be thrown from the highest peak - I would dump them from Ceremonial too - as the 9lb'er is significantly more "showy" and the uniforms are bad ass too, so significantly higher CDI factor ;) .
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
@Kirkhill - in the land of the blind the one eyed man is King --
I suspect that those suggesting the 105 is a good idea probably haven't seen Artillery in Combat.
Ypu are correct I have not, I have seen effects on target, it is interesting to say the least. I guess through the wars the old Mortor makes the 105mm take a back seat.
You shouldn't equate the 120mm Mortar to the 105mm, for a few reasons, 1 as @FJAG pointed out, that the Mortar is an ORGANIC Infantry system, 2 the payload on the 120mm is significantly more useful than the 105mm, the 105 looses a lot of effect due to the heavier casing so the 120mm actually has a larger area of effect.

Honestly the 81mm Mortar gives the 105mm How a run for its money on downrange effect.
Lacks range and usually is packed by the Troops, must suck carrying all that ammo.
I would never recommend anyone intentionally bring a less effective combat tool to war -- hence I think the LG and the C3 should be thrown from the highest peak
The LG1 and C3 are a disaster, neither one was bought/ modified with any intention to actually use them outside of training/ Peace trainig n Missions.
Both of them were deployed in Afghanistan and saved a few soldiers butts, not sure where the 81mms were. The old 105 did some good.
- I would dump them from Ceremonial too - as the 9lb'er is significantly more "showy" and the uniforms are bad ass too, so significantly higher CDI factor ;) .
Meeeh c few 25lbrs would look pretty shiny with chrome muzzle breaks.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,834
Points
1,040
The LG1 and C3 are a disaster, neither one was bought/ modified with any intention to actually use them outside of training/ Peace trainig n Missions.
Both of them were deployed in Afghanistan and saved a few soldiers butts, not sure where the 81mms were. The old 105 did some good.
The original C1 (M2A1) plus the 155mm M114 were our standard war gun for a good bit of the cold war until the M109 came on stream in the late '60s. We switched to the 105mm L5 pack howitzer around the same time to complement our "light" force concept in Canada. Range was a problem for the L5 so we went to the LG1 as their replacement. The LG1 wasn't all that bad until the barrels started cracking from manufacturing issues and wearing out due to ammunition issues. The C1 (now C3) is a darned fine gun for teaching basic gunnery skills at a reasonable cost. I personally never understood why we converted barrels because the range of a "training gun" is not a big issue.

We deployed the LG1 to Kabul in 2003/04 for two rotos but never deployed the C3 there. The LG1 never fired any HE in anger while in Kabul but sent a few illuminating rounds downrange during the first roto but not during the second. 81mm mortars accompanied the guns on all rotos and were used by the same crews that manned the M777. They were used on close-in targets to FOBs and quite a few rounds were fired during the 2006 to 2008 rotos - fewer after that.

🍻
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
The original C1 (M2A1) plus the 155mm M114 were our standard war gun for a good bit of the cold war until the M109 came on stream in the late '60s. We switched to the 105mm L5 pack howitzer around the same time to complement our "light" force concept in Canada. Range was a problem for the L5 so we went to the LG1 as their replacement. The LG1 wasn't all that bad until the barrels started cracking from manufacturing issues and wearing out due to ammunition issues. The C1 (now C3) is a darned fine gun for teaching basic gunnery skills at a reasonable cost. I personally never understood why we converted barrels because the range of a "training gun" is not a big issue.

We deployed the LG1 to Kabul in 2003/04 for two rotos but never deployed the C3 there. The LG1 never fired any HE in anger while in Kabul but sent a few illuminating rounds downrange during the first roto but not during the second. 81mm mortars accompanied the guns on all rotos and were used by the same crews that manned the M777. They were used on close-in targets to FOBs and quite a few rounds were fired during the 2006 to 2008 rotos - fewer after that.

🍻
There was something about the LG1s couldn't shoot the ERA due to suspected cracking ,so they sent a couple C3's as backup just incase they may not have left the sea containers. I might wrong on that but I got that info from a decent source or so I thought.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
16,782
Points
1,160
The original C1 (M2A1) plus the 155mm M114 were our standard war gun for a good bit of the cold war until the M109 came on stream in the late '60s. We switched to the 105mm L5 pack howitzer around the same time to complement our "light" force concept in Canada. Range was a problem for the L5 so we went to the LG1 as their replacement. The LG1 wasn't all that bad until the barrels started cracking from manufacturing issues and wearing out due to ammunition issues. The C1 (now C3) is a darned fine gun for teaching basic gunnery skills at a reasonable cost. I personally never understood why we converted barrels because the range of a "training gun" is not a big issue.

We deployed the LG1 to Kabul in 2003/04 for two rotos but never deployed the C3 there. The LG1 never fired any HE in anger while in Kabul but sent a few illuminating rounds downrange during the first roto but not during the second. 81mm mortars accompanied the guns on all rotos and were used by the same crews that manned the M777. They were used on close-in targets to FOBs and quite a few rounds were fired during the 2006 to 2008 rotos - fewer after that.

🍻

500-1000 units worth of any kind of gun is a great idea, plus some rockets. Just sayin'...
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,834
Points
1,040
There was something about the LG1s couldn't shoot the ERA due to suspected cracking ,so they sent a couple C3's as backup just incase they may not have left the sea containers. I might wrong on that but I got that info from a decent source or so I thought.
The issues with the LG1 barrels did not come out until just after Kabul. In fact it was the inspection of the repatriated LG1s that led to the discovery of the cracking at the muzzle keyways.

F Battery did fire some of the C132 HEER (High Explosive Extended Range) ammo during training in Kabul.

The issue of wear in both the LG1 and C3 caused by these rounds was already underway and was distinct from the LG1s cracking issues at that time.

No C3s were ever sent to Afghanistan.

🍻
 
Top