Post New Topic  
Edit Profile | Register | Search | FAQ | Forum Home
    next newest topic
» The War Diary   » The Combat and Supporting Arms   » Artillery   » The new Arty

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The new Arty
RCA
Veteran
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 09 September 2021 13:56      Profile for RCA     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With the army restructure on the horizon, discussions are ongoing about the changing roles in the army. One of these is all indirect fire weapons move to the Artillery.

Now some officers are suggesting that some Res Arty Batteries/Regiments convert to 81mm mortars. The reasoning being that fire control, FSCC functions etc are the same. As well the 81 is easier to man and deploy. This again goes to prove that many officers (and some on this forum) don't have an understanding of the functions of the Artillery. Of all the combat arms, the Artillery is the most misused and least understood. Other than his sig, the Coy Comd is should always accompanied by his FOO, and the BC of the support Bty is always with the Bn Comd. Why is that?

As to converting to 81s, this would be short sighted and unwise. First, the infantry would lose their organic fire support, and secondly, the 81 doesn't have the range or power to fulfill the role and function mandated the Arty.


Ubique


Posts: 206 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
herbie
Recruit
Member # 451

Rate Member

posted 09 September 2021 14:20      Profile for herbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is better for some res arty units to convert to mortat than to lose the mortar capability from the reserves altogether. And that is very likely.
In the regs their is talk of the arty regts taking over the mortar as well. Many people believe the new arty regt will be 2 light gun batteries and 1 mortar battery. Reason being money. Money and a lack of understanding on the part of senior staff as to the role of the arty. Already we lose survey ( a birgade and div asset ) what next ?

Posts: 10 | From: canada | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jungle
Recruit
Member # 480

Rate Member

posted 09 September 2021 17:07      Profile for Jungle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about leaving the 81's to the infantry, and equipping some arty units and/or sub-units with 120's ?
Posts: 17 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gunner
Artillery Forum Moderator
Member # 39

Member Rated:

posted 09 September 2021 17:41      Profile for Gunner   Email Gunner   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As far as I'm aware there are no Res F Infantry units out there with an operational task/mission task to provide a mortar platoon. Am I wrong?

If I recall correctly, under the proposed restructure, Reg F Infantry Bns (3 PPCLI has already disbanded theirs) are losing their mortar platoons and pioneer. The Arty and Engrs will be tasked to provide these assets to the Battle Group Comd as required. Similar as the Bde Comd has always allocated a BC and FOO party, Armd Sqn, AD assets, etc.

IIRC, the Arty Regt is going to be converted into the following: 1 x M109 bty, 1 x Mor Bty (12 Mortars or 16?), 1 x TA Bty, 1 x HQ & Svcs Bty. It may have another bty that would be LG1, however, I seem to recall a discussion about the Regts losing this capability as well. Anyone know?

I haven't heard any Res F units being converted to 81 mm Mortar. In fact I've heard the Res F will be beefed up to provide a more robust artillery capability. This includes the provision of an M109 Bty/LFA for the Reserves to man. Does this sound familiar RCA?

I agree with RCA that the benefits of Artillery on the modern battlefield are not given their just due. However, from the CLS's (arty guy) standpoint the possibility of participating in a modern war is alot less than the possibility of participating in a peace support operations where the CF will be required to operate under specific ROEs and ever round fired by indirect fire weapons will be observed by a CNN reporter. Hence, a greater emphasis on TA capability and precision weapons. Missiles anyone?

It's an interesting discussion and I meant to post something a couple of days ago but 9er Domestic has me working my fingers to the bone.


Posts: 159 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
herbie
Recruit
Member # 451

Rate Member

posted 09 September 2021 20:01      Profile for herbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gunner what is TA ?
As for the reserve infantry, I believe that each militia infantry unit supports a reg battalion in a specific role i.e. rifle coy, recce, pioneer, mortar.
Hopefully the grunts will keep the 81 and the gunners will get 120's ( ever here of the LAV 120 ? Beautifull ) But if doesn't make much sense for 1 regt to field three differnt systems. Thats three different ammo types, position layouts, teching will be right confusing, three differnt conversion courses. etc

Posts: 10 | From: canada | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gunner
Artillery Forum Moderator
Member # 39

Member Rated:

posted 09 September 2021 21:03      Profile for Gunner   Email Gunner   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Herbie, TA = Target Acquisition (counter mortar radar, sound ranging, UAVs, etc)

There was some discussion many years ago with replacing the 81 mm mortars with the 120 mm but I only heard the rumours.

I agree with your comments about units becoming very clumbersome with the different batteries and each role they have. As an aside, I believe the CF missed an opportunity by only purchasing enough LG1 for the Reg F. It simply added another weapon delivery system to the overall weapon arsenal that gunners must train on. It would have been good to outfit all the Res F Arty Regiments, thereby allowing the use of Res F units for augmentation purposes.

Cheers,


Posts: 159 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
McG
Veteran
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 09 September 2021 22:03      Profile for McG   Email McG   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Be carefull Gunner, you are thinking common sense . . . the Army can't handle common sense.


Chimo!


Posts: 161 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
RCA
Veteran
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 09 September 2021 23:28      Profile for RCA     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason I started this thread was beacuse a certain Bde Comd floated a trail ballon to his Arty Unit with the possiblity of them taking over the 81s the infantry were losing. The tone of the letter was repalce the 105s

As to making a Res Bty a 109 bty, oh yes I 've heard that one before. It sounds nice and exotic to go SP, but for every rd fired would means hours of maintaince. Gunner, it seems somethings never change and we know which Res Regt would get the 109s , don't we. It'd be nice for recruiting, but the unit would end up like 30 Fd, looks pretty, but never fires live.

The thought of moving to 3 different type batteries is like being a jack of all trades and master of none. At least the Russians had it right when it came to standization. If we were to move to different waepon systems, it is better to do it at the Regt level as opposed to Bty level


Ubique


Posts: 206 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gunner
Artillery Forum Moderator
Member # 39

Member Rated:

posted 10 September 2021 09:22      Profile for Gunner   Email Gunner   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
RCA - the person you mention is an old mortar guy as his previous unit had the operational tasking to provide a mortar platoon. I'm not a fan of reserve units using mortars and believe that if the artillery requirement required for war fighting is not going to be maintained in the Reg F, it had better be maintained in the Res F.
Posts: 159 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Brad Sallows
Veteran
Member # 16

Member Rated:

posted 10 September 2021 21:03      Profile for Brad Sallows   Email Brad Sallows   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Egad, don't let this happen.

I think it's worth exploring the idea of dividing responsibilities along functional arm lines (black hats drive the tanks and LAVs; gunners run all types of tubes; engineers deal with all aspects of armoured, field, general support, and pioneer tasks, etc).

Using that as an excuse to downsize the traditional functional capabilities is a risk. Move things, don't replace them.



Posts: 86 | From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
McG
Veteran
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 10 September 2021 22:30      Profile for McG   Email McG   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't like that transfering of responsibilities concept at all. If you cut the Pioneer Pl from each Inf Bn in a CMBG that is almost a Coy. I cannot imagine the CERs being increased in size by a Sqn to accomodate this (especially considering how grossly undermaned the existing Sqns are). They will be required to perform the extra work with no extra man power. And were would all the armoured LAV drivers come from? It would deplet the entire corps to provide enough drivers for all the Infantry's APCs, and nobody would be left to performe Recce or crew tanks. The same fate would be true of the Arty. To man a mortar Bty, a real Arty Bty would have to be eliminated. In the end, the only benifit is to Infantry Rifle Coys which will then have more dissmountable soldiers.

I would also see such a move as a first step toward American style specialization. Armoured and Artillery trades would become collections of disticly different specialties. How long before we would see a Mortarman MOC or an APC Crewman MOC? This would be a step back, not forward.


Chimo!


Posts: 161 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 11 September 2021 08:45      Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
McG, I think you are being paranoid. Even still, I don't agree with the idea of transfering the responsibility of specialist jobs between trades. They could be shared however. Manning a Mortar requires a different skill set than is typical on a gunner or a grunt, an APC crewman requires different skills than a tanker or a typical Infantryman, and TUA requires different skills aswell. The ideal solution would be to leave these support platoons in the Infantry but open them up to more than one trade. Both Infantry and Armour could take TOW of LAV III course to fill these roles, and Infantry and Artiller could share the manning of Mortars. As for Pioneers . . . well, I think the Engineers could take over thier jobs. However, current Pioneers could be posted to CERs to help fill out their "grossly understregth squadrons." dispersed through the CER, there short fall in some skills could be learned OJT.

Yard Ape


Posts: 213 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are ET  

Post New Topic   Close Topic    Move Topic      next newest topic
Jump To:

Contact Us | CdnArmy.ca | Privacy Statement

2001 CdnArmy.ca. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0 Beta Release 2.2-pre1