Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 8/18/2004 6:06:33 PM EST
Canadian Military to sell off M109's

First the leopard's now the next hammer blow for the Canadian heavies.

"The Canadian Army plans to upgrade and mount its light artillery pieces on trucks to increase their mobility while selling off its larger self-propelled howitzers as part of a shakeup in how the service provides indirect fire on the battlefield.

The Army wants to install its 105mm artillery pieces on a new fleet of medium-weight tactical trucks while digitizing the fire-control system. In addition, the Army will remove from service its 155mm, M109 self-propelled howitzers and likely sell off the armored vehicles and related ammunition if buyers can be found, officers said.

The truck-mounted artillery is seen as an interim step until the Army can acquire an indirect fire capability, potentially from the U.S. Army’s Future Combat Systems family, said Canadian Army Brig.-Gen. Peter Holt, head of land equipment program management.

The Army expects to purchase its new fleet of medium tactical trucks in 2008, but some Army officials have suggested that deliveries might not occur until after 2010. In total the Army wants to purchase about 1,500 trucks for its various transport needs, but it still has to determine its procurement strategy for that 1.4 billion Canadian dollar program.

In preparation for the eventual elimination of the M109s from the Canadian inventory, units have been told that exercises and training involving the self-propelled howitzers are considered a low priority.

Gunn acknowledged that the Army is taking a risk in getting rid of the 155mm guns but noted that “it is a capability we are less likely to use, therefore the risk is worth accepting.” He said there is not much resale potential for the Army’s 76 M109s, but noted that Canada’s allies might be interested in purchasing surplus 155mm ammunition."

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3116800&C=landwar
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:08:19 PM EST
Group buy? lol
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:16:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:

"The Canadian Army plans to upgrade and mount its light artillery pieces on trucks to increase their mobility while selling off its larger self-propelled howitzers as part of a shakeup in how the service provides indirect fire on the battlefield.

The Army wants to install its 105mm artillery pieces on a new fleet of medium-weight tactical trucks while digitizing the fire-control system. In addition, the Army will remove from service its 155mm, M109 self-propelled howitzers and likely sell off the armored vehicles and related ammunition if buyers can be found, officers said.

The truck-mounted artillery is seen as an interim step until the Army can acquire an indirect fire capability, potentially from the U.S. Army’s Future Combat Systems family, said Canadian Army Brig.-Gen. Peter Holt, head of land equipment program management.

.....

In preparation for the eventual elimination of the M109s from the Canadian inventory, units have been told that exercises and training involving the self-propelled howitzers are considered a low priority.




Sell off your self-propelled artillery, then make new ones by rigging up towed howitzers on the back of trucks? How the hell does that make any sense?
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:17:03 PM EST
I was looking at fas.org recently, and was suprised to find that the U.S. has phased out the M110 SP 8 inch Howitzer. What was the reasoning behind that? The 8 inch could put some heavy steel on target.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:19:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 6:21:45 PM EST by The_Neutral_Observer]
^^^^^^^^

Between the MLRS, M109, the light 105s, and the new Crusader that was coming online but got canceled, they probably just don't need it.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:21:07 PM EST
Ski areas in the US could buy them.

Wouldn't it be cool to own one even if the gun was spiked?
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:21:21 PM EST
The 'heavy' role in US Artillery is now provided by MLRS.

Standby to see M777 towed lightweight howitzer spell the end for most US SP artillery.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:29:41 PM EST
Not like Canada uses it's military.

What did they do to their Leopard tanks?

CRC
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:36:22 PM EST
The 8 inch gun was the most accurate artillery piece the Army had and could put some serious hurt on a target with its 3 foot long 200+ lb projo with about ~ 36lbs of HE filler. It will do a number to a bunker or building, something submunitions from a MLRS doesn't do to well on.

The Army tested the 8 inch howitzer at Yakima Training Center back in the 50's. They fired approximately 70,000 projectiles there to create the Artillery tables for them. Most of these rounds were tar or concrete filled, I said most! Every spring thaw, we would get calls from the units training down range that they found a "155" round. On rare occasion when we would spank one with a block of C-4, a big fire ball with shit load of steel, rock, and dirt would be flying in all directions and thats why we would sit back on them about a 1000 meters away.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:39:07 PM EST
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003

In a move toward making the Canadian land forces more nimble and responsive, Defence Minister John McCallum announced $600 million for 66 new fighting vehicles meant to replace Canada's fleet of Leopard battle tanks.

Mobile Gun System

The eight-wheel-drive Mobile Gun System is based on the LAV III platform, already in extensive use by the Canadian Forces (there are currently 651 LAV variants in operation). The Mobile Gun System is also used by the U.S. military, which ordered 2,131 of the vehicles in November 2000.
U.S. tests have proven the Mobile Gun System is able to fit inside a C-130 Hercules aircraft – the Canadian Forces' main air transport.





Originally Posted By CRC:
What did they do to their Leopard tanks?

Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:51:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003

In a move toward making the Canadian land forces more nimble and responsive, Defence Minister John McCallum announced $600 million for 66 new fighting vehicles meant to replace Canada's fleet of Leopard battle tanks.

Mobile Gun System

The eight-wheel-drive Mobile Gun System is based on the LAV III platform, already in extensive use by the Canadian Forces (there are currently 651 LAV variants in operation). The Mobile Gun System is also used by the U.S. military, which ordered 2,131 of the vehicles in November 2000.
U.S. tests have proven the Mobile Gun System is able to fit inside a C-130 Hercules aircraft – the Canadian Forces' main air transport.

www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/gfx/mgs.jpg



Originally Posted By CRC:
What did they do to their Leopard tanks?





Yeah, nimble is great.....fact is Canada isn't deploying anywhere anytime soon. They can hold their noses while the United States protects their confused asses.

BTW, how much is 1.4 billion Canadian dollars? What is that, $8.50 US?
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 7:31:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
The Canadian Army plans to upgrade and mount its light artillery pieces on trucks

Make way for the Canadian 'Technicals'.
Poor Bastards. Been living under the safety the USA provides for so long that their sick government is completely gutting their military.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 7:36:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By andrew:
I was looking at fas.org recently, and was suprised to find that the U.S. has phased out the M110 SP 8 inch Howitzer. What was the reasoning behind that? The 8 inch could put some heavy steel on target.

They were old as hell and breaking down all the time when I was using them 13-14yrs ago.
They desperately needed a SLEP upgrade.
All the major arty development has been going on in 155mm for a long time, an the range of specialty munitions was so large, and the proportion of 155mm vs 203mm was so large, that phasing them out was an easy decision.
IIRC, lots of them got left behind after GW1. Somebody decided it was easier to give them away to the Kuwaitis and Saudis, than ship them home.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:07:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 8:10:34 PM EST by Rabid_Coyote]

Originally Posted By hepcat85:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003

In a move toward making the Canadian land forces more nimble and responsive, Defence Minister John McCallum announced $600 million for 66 new fighting vehicles meant to replace Canada's fleet of Leopard battle tanks.

Mobile Gun System

The eight-wheel-drive Mobile Gun System is based on the LAV III platform, already in extensive use by the Canadian Forces (there are currently 651 LAV variants in operation). The Mobile Gun System is also used by the U.S. military, which ordered 2,131 of the vehicles in November 2000.
U.S. tests have proven the Mobile Gun System is able to fit inside a C-130 Hercules aircraft – the Canadian Forces' main air transport.

www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/gfx/mgs.jpg



Originally Posted By CRC:
What did they do to their Leopard tanks?





Yeah, nimble is great.....fact is Canada isn't deploying anywhere anytime soon. They can hold their noses while the United States protects their confused asses.

BTW, how much is 1.4 billion Canadian dollars? What is that, $8.50 US?



I think Canada is in Afghanistan right now. If not, they've been there very recently. IIRC there is an ARfcommer who is a Canadian NCO who was awarded a Bronze Star for meritorious service while attached to the US Army in Afghanistan. Canada's Armed Forces deploy to various shitholes quite often. I've had the chance to work with Canadian soldiers overseas before and they are a good bunch. I suspect that they will in fact, be deployed somewhere soon.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:12:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By stoner63a:
Group buy? lol

Why not? The cannons would be considered a Destructive Device subject to the $200 tax. Beyond the paperwork, I can't think of a reason we shouldn't buy one or more of these oversized popguns and invite Dianne & Co to rethink their Anti gun thinking.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:12:43 PM EST
Looks to me that they traded Tactical mobility for Strategic mobility. Definatly a tradeoff with potential negative consequences.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:17:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By andrew:
I was looking at fas.org recently, and was suprised to find that the U.S. has phased out the M110 SP 8 inch Howitzer. What was the reasoning behind that? The 8 inch could put some heavy steel on target.




Probably something allong the line of 'If 155mm can't do it, JUST CALL THE AIR FORCE'...
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:21:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By GiggleSmith:

Originally Posted By stoner63a:
Group buy? lol

Why not? The cannons would be considered a Destructive Device subject to the $200 tax. Beyond the paperwork, I can't think of a reason we shouldn't buy one or more of these oversized popguns and invite Dianne & Co to rethink their Anti gun thinking.



Shells -> $200 tax ea, too...

Unless you want to make it into a muzzle-loader...
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:28:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By hepcat85:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003


Yeah, nimble is great.....fact is Canada isn't deploying anywhere anytime soon. They can hold their noses while the United States protects their confused asses.




Yeah... it's confusng when your allies in Afghanistan drop bombs on your ass...hinking.gif
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:37:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By hepcat85:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003


Yeah, nimble is great.....fact is Canada isn't deploying anywhere anytime soon. They can hold their noses while the United States protects their confused asses.




Yeah... it's confusng when your allies in Afghanistan drop bombs on your ass...



jackass
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:49:10 PM EST
Actually, its only Iraq that hasn't seen a Canadian Armed forces deployment. Just about every other hotspot world wide has seen Canadians deployed.

The changes are reflecting the need to have a force that can be deployed quickly anywhere. The big guns and tanks were oriented around NATO defenses against the Warsaw pact.

Its true that the Canadian Armed forces is undersized for its role, and underfunded for it size, and way underfunded for the operations it has been tasked with. It does look its forcing some better bang for the buck decisions.

Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:49:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 9:52:07 PM EST by Charging_Handle]

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By hepcat85:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003


Yeah, nimble is great.....fact is Canada isn't deploying anywhere anytime soon. They can hold their noses while the United States protects their confused asses.




Yeah... it's confusng when your allies in Afghanistan drop bombs on your ass...



We've had incidents where we lost guys on the ground to our own bombs as well. It's called friendly fire. It's sad and unfortunate, but it happens from time to time under the best of conditions. Of course people who actually engage in warfare once every century or two know this, so fuck off.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:13:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By hepcat85:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003


Yeah, nimble is great.....fact is Canada isn't deploying anywhere anytime soon. They can hold their noses while the United States protects their confused asses.




Yeah... it's confusng when your allies in Afghanistan drop bombs on your ass...hinking.gif



We've had incidents where we lost guys on the ground to our own bombs as well. It's called friendly fire. It's sad and unfortunate, but it happens from time to time under the best of conditions. Of course people who actually engage in warfare once every century or two know this, so fuck off.



"Fuck off"? Ouch....
As for warfare.... oh nevermind.....
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:23:44 PM EST
Ithink one would look outstanding sitting in front of my flagpole
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:49:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 10:54:28 PM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
The 8 inch gun was the most accurate artillery piece the Army had and could put some serious hurt on a target with its 3 foot long 200+ lb projo with about ~ 36lbs of HE filler. It will do a number to a bunker or building, something submunitions from a MLRS doesn't do to well on.

The Army tested the 8 inch howitzer at Yakima Training Center back in the 50's. They fired approximately 70,000 projectiles there to create the Artillery tables for them. Most of these rounds were tar or concrete filled, I said most! Every spring thaw, we would get calls from the units training down range that they found a "155" round. On rare occasion when we would spank one with a block of C-4, a big fire ball with shit load of steel, rock, and dirt would be flying in all directions and thats why we would sit back on them about a 1000 meters away.





Heavy Metal…

This beast could fire nuclear shells!

"The M-33 shell was standard fission and had four different yields, ranging from less than 1 kiloton to less than 20 kilotons. Detonation was by mechanical time-delay airburst.

The W-79 shell was intended to replace the M-33 in the early 1980's, but the M-33 was still kept in service. The characteristics of the two shells complimented each other. Fielded in 1981, the M-79 was dual capable in Mode 0 as either a pure fission weapon (plutonium linear implosion) or in enhanced radiation mode (ER or "neutron bomb"). In Mode 1, it was standard fission only. Its yield range was variable: 100 tons to 1.1 kiloton in Mode 0 and 0.8 kiloton in Mode 1. Detonation was by proximity airburst or contact."

ANdy
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 2:27:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:

Sell off your self-propelled artillery, then make new ones by rigging up towed howitzers on the back of trucks? How the hell does that make any sense?



It's Canadian. It's crap.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 2:31:34 AM EST
From what I understand, the US is cutting back its artillery as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing from us pretty soon. With our planes being at all places at once, I think we're relying on them for most big bangs.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 5:54:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2004 5:57:28 PM EST by hepcat85]

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By hepcat85:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank
CBC News Online | October 29, 2003
Updated Oct. 30, 2003


Yeah, nimble is great.....fact is Canada isn't deploying anywhere anytime soon. They can hold their noses while the United States protects their confused asses.




Yeah... it's confusng when your allies in Afghanistan drop bombs on your ass...



Oh, that's right...it was on purpose. Right?

Friendly fire is a nasty reality of war and very regretable. But it certainly isn't friendly. Do take a moment and consider that the American aviators involved are most likely not toasting their "Canadian sorty" in the O Club. I think it's safe to say they are carrying that day as long as they breath.

Furthermore, my comments are directed at the Canadian government, not the stalwart men and women of the Canadia armed forces. I expect they aren't too happy with the government at times as well.

"...Paul Cellucci, the US Ambassador to Canada, has not been silent either. He has delivered several up-front messages concerning the state of our armed forces. At a recent business conference in Banff, he stated "Canada's lack of strategic lift left it unable to move the military force to crisis areas.8 He then added, "Obviously, we've provided lift for Canadian troops in the past and we'd certainly do it again in the future … but we look at the post-September 11 world recognizing how dangerous it is, and recognizing that despite the huge military capability of the United States, we can't do it alone.9 In an October 11th article, the National Post reported Mr. Cellucci as drawing Ottawa's attention to the fact that "Canadian soldiers risk being left on the sidelines in future wars and peacekeeping missions because the logistics of including them would be too daunting," and then chiding Canada for thinking it can simply hitch a ride into theatres of operation.10 The MND had better take note of the aforementioned comments if and when he contemplates sending Canadian troops to Iraq..."



The entire article can be
found here.

My comment about "not deploying anytime soon" is still valid based upon Canada's withering lift and tactical capability. A true shame considering the quality soldier that hails from there.

I wish them luck....
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:11:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By andrew:
I was looking at fas.org recently, and was suprised to find that the U.S. has phased out the M110 SP 8 inch Howitzer. What was the reasoning behind that? The 8 inch could put some heavy steel on target.




Probably something allong the line of 'If 155mm can't do it, JUST CALL THE AIR FORCE'...



Actually the thinking was, if 155 cant do it MLRS will.
Top Top