1. Currently in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery we use in the Regular Force the M109A3/A4, the LG1, and the C3 (Reserve Force primarily). The Army's vision for 2020 sees the Artillery developing a rocket (MLRS type) capability.

a. Is this a good thing for the Canadian Artillery?

b. Where should the capability lie? In the Regular Force or the Reserves. It would fit in well for the Regular Force to concentrate on a close support task and the Reserve Force would concentrate on general support and reinforcing tasks. Is this an option?

2. Air Defence Artillery. Is it time to admit that we've destroyed whatever capability that we once had in Air Defence. When 1 CMBG was augmented by gunners from 4 AD Regt and 18 AD Regt, there was a general consensus that the gunners had lost their combined arms skills and we not equiped to take part in a "modern" Battle Group. Where do we go from here?

3. Finally, who should provide the mortar platoon in an infantry battalion? The Artillery or the Infantry as a secondary skill?

1. How do rocket artillery compare to Guns in terms of a) accuracy, b) cost, c) ease of training, d) deployability (ie do you need a crane to emplace your launchers, or can you whip em around with an ML like you can a 105?)

a. Accuracy - with rockets you sacrifice accuracy for an extremely large footprint (MLRS Battery covers approx 1.2 Km sq). As well you are maximizing the shock action of the artillery. The MLRS salvos are fire and forget ... same as current tube artillery so I would have to say its not a large difference.

b. Cost - one MLRS launcher packs the same punch as a complete battery of artillery. I'd have to say that MLRS is more expensive then tube artillery.

c. ease of training - hmm...as I'm not an expert, I'll have to deduce that the number of gunners that are required is less, however, there is a longer logistical tail required for MLRS.

d) deployability - the MLRS being looked at is the type (name escapes me right now) is a MLRS launcher on a wheeled truck. Hence it would be deployable just about anywhere.

As for financial sense - if the medium mortar is only found in infantry mortar platoons, you're going to have to train x number of men on them, whether they come from the RCA or the infantry, so I'm not sure where the burden comes in. Can you explain?

Gunners are experts at indirect fire - but they are not the only ones who use it. Infantry are the "experts" at digging slit trenches, but everyone in the battle zone does it, yes? Tank drivers are the best - but the infantry has Bison and Grizzly drivers - should we turn their vehicles over to the Armoured Corps? No. We have a regimental system, for good or for bad - and I think it is for good. Personally, I HATE wearing the paper clips (Log branch) badge because I am a clerk - I belong to an infantry regiment, and I wore the regimental badge for 8 years as a musician. I think morale issues are as important as questions like training time.

Thus, we should have a battery of Regulars in each Army Area as the training cadre, RHQ/etc. at the arty school or CTC - said batteries could quickly be amalgamated to form a regiment if one were needed "overnight", while the reserves would gear up for hostilities.

However, I know my suggestion will never happen in Canada - it would entail "trusting" the reserves, and actually respecting the fact they would be needed in wartime - something our peacetime Regular mentality steadfastly refuses to accept.

a. The mortar platoon does provide an infantry CO with his own dedicated fire support and because of that I don't think the mortar platoon should ever be taken away from him. However, I've never been one for the hat badge arguement and I don't know if gunners would not work as hard at sending rounds down range if their battalion is being attacked...remember that the mortar baseplate will be set up somewhere in the battalion lines. With regard to responding to calls of fire the mortar platoon is capable of fighting in the indirect battle, however, it is not its role. My financial arguement was if gunners have the indirect fire role as their primary role, why cross train grunts to do it if they're only going to do it for a couple of years.

b. Yes, that's it...the rocket artillery being considered is HIMARS...brain fart on me...sorry.

c. The idea of scrapping the Regular Force Artillery has been bandied around for awhile and happily discarded. I think you will see the Reg F artillery reduced by one battery in the near to mid future. Unfortunately we are in a situation with all types of new gear coming in that require alot of FCS Techs, etc. The Bns/Regts don't have the technical manpower to properly service the Coyotes and LAVs entering service. Take 2 PPCLI (an M113 Bn)How much of their fire control systems can go wrong? Hint..M113s don't have a fire control system. With LAV III it is a different ball of wax entirely.

The role of the 81mm Mortar Pl, is to provide indirect fire support to the Btl Gp Commander in all phases of war. Note it is Bde Commander. Very rarely will the FSCC order a Mor Gp to fire a brigade target, with the possible exception of illumination. Furthermore the Bn Comd/Btl Gp commander has a trained staff that is able to advise him on indirect fire support, through the Pl Comd and FSCC from an infantry perspective.

1.b) As with everything, a regular-reserve mix best compromises between readiness and cost. A single regular battery would ensure the capability is available at relatively short notice on a scale sufficient to support a brigade group.

2) ADA needs to be revisited. It would be useful to have MANPADs at the battalion level. This doesn't necessarily mean another infantry trade (see below).

Indeed the mortars provide a battle group commander with his own limited indirect fire resource. Mortars by there very nature are not a flexible weapon with the logistical tail to sustain devastating amount of firepower upon the modern battlefield. To insinuate that the pl comd of the mortar pl is only capable of providing the rudimentary ideas of how indirect fire can play a key role in accomplishing the battle group commanders mission. The artillery FSCC gives the Battle Group Commander access to a wide range of artillery, air defence, rockets, atk aviation, naval gun fire, close air support and support from flanking and allied artillery resources. The artillery is capable of coordinating all these assets and delivering it as a "orchestra of fire".

Good points, however:

1. Never forget that with 1 armd regt per bde. (Which in all reality is 1 sqn of tanks), all Btl Gp's the Canadian Army fields in the forseable future will be Infanrty heavy.

2. Most taskings by which the Army participate in will be UN taksings and as such 105mm Artillery will not be allowed in the mission area (judging on most UN mandates). Which leads me to ask why are the artillery interested in Mortars? Because the Artilley needs to justify it's existence in the kinder gentler army of the 21st Century. Let's face it here folk's no artillery regt has been deployed overseas (as a whole) on a UN/operations other than war mission since Cyprus.

3. What I said is that a Mor Pl Comd, being an Infantry
Officer, has a background of experience that and Artillery FOO or Bty Comd does not, the Mor Pl Comd has been a rifle Pl Comd, and understands the facts of life when it comes to the infantry pl and company in battle (or at least to a higher degree than an artillery officer.

Mortars are not inherently inflexible; we just don't employ them to the same degree as some armies.

Artillery is vital in battle. That's why it should be
kept as a Regular and Reserve Force element. Artillery is
a integral part of the Cbt Arms. Are we so brain-washed that
anyone would seriously consider getting rid of Arty because
"UN missions don't reqr it"? I hope to God that you are
kidding.

Militiamen in Canada, of which I am one, can not be sent
overseas without their permission, and can only be sent
to war by way of legislation. Without Regular Artillery
we'll be so hamstrung we'll never get into a war.

You said "Artillery is vital in battle. That's why it should be
kept as a Regular and Reserve Force element..."
(and, my proposal would do so)

However, you were off-target with "... anyone would seriously consider getting rid of Arty because 'UN missions don't reqr it'?".
(the day we cease to have artillery is the day we cease to be an army - however, if they're looking at peace-time cost-saving, then it makes perfect sense to scale back on wartime-only units such as artillery)

By the way, why on Earth would you want Canada to get into a war, and why do you have such a poor opinion of artillery reservists? (you said "Without Regular Artillery we'll be so hamstrung we'll never get into a war.") The Regular batteries distributed amongst the Areas would be the basis upon which we would "immediately" react, augmented by reserves (as always), with full war-time mobilisation reinforcing in due course.

I am acutely aware "... We've lost our aircraft carrier[s], our heavy bombers, our heavy lift helos, soon our tanks,...".
It is exactly for this reason I'm proposing to protect our artillery from being "pissed away" (which you incorrectly attributed to the suggestion of economising during peacetime by reducing Regular artillery and increasing reserve artillery).

More casualties are caused over the Net on bulletin boards by misunderstandings than by nose-to-nose slugfests.

Face facts:

a) the M-109 is aging and IIRC they are only issued on a basis of 1Bty per regt. It is most likely the last SP gun the Canadian Army will own

b) the majority of guns in the artillery are C-3 howitzers. This is a 50 year old gun. Despite the modernization project that took place in the mid 90's, I find it hard to believe (as an infantryman mind you) that artillery technology has not changed that much in 50 years as to render the gun obsolete

c) the LG1 is a great piece of kit (so I've heard) but, it can't be effectivley slung under a helocopter. and the fact that theve been peicemealed out at 1Bty per Regt instead of having 1 light artillery regt leads one to question the great plan for the LG1

d) The reg. force artillery is structured so to provide one GS regt per Bde. Most of our allies have supplanted 105 with 155mm guns.

I do, however, agree that regimental politics have gone too far in the army and is preventing the proper allocation of resources. Every one wants the shiny new kit but this is not really a realistic prospect. The Canadian Army should be structured with and Square Armd Brigade in Wainwright (2 Armd Regts, 2 Mech Infantry Bn's, 1 SP Regt, an Armoured Engineer Sqn and assorted attachments), a light infantry brigade in Petawawa and a motorized brigade in Valcartier with 2 RCR supported CTC. But this will never happen as regimental politics will not allow it.

Without Regular guns we might as well have a nice parade and
properly close out the Canadian Military. We'll be a simple
gendarmerie. No Army should be configured only for peacetime
purposes.

Fighting the guns is a complex thing involving use of ground
and airspace. To be done at its best, today, requires full-time
practitioners. With the proper lead-up training Reservists
can do a great job at the levels required for war, that is
above battery level.

Without Regular guns who's going to write the service papers?
Man the schools? Study the foreign armies, equipment and
tactics? Design the tactics for us? Liaise with our allies?
Test, purchase, or even make others aware of the requirement for
new guns? If you think the Arty is poorly off now, wait til
there are no Regular gunners.

The artillery is the only purely military technical service in the military. I am not suggesting that the infantry and armour don't have technical issues but, in the final analysis, their focus is almost entirely tactical. It's been a while, but I recall that it takes nearly a dozen specialized skilled technicians, both commissioned and otherwise, to fire a gun when you include not only the gun and its detachments, but also the survey parties, command post, computer people, FOOs and so on.

Moving from the battery to the regimental level enters into a whole new world of complexity. Stepping even further up to the DivArty level, the complexity is even more increased. Any gunner out there with any experience of these levels knows exactly what I am talking about.

One of the things that attracted me to the artillery was that their problems had finite answers: either your guns are located exactly that 10-figure grid reference or they aren't; your rounds hit that lone pine on the hill or they didn't. As most of us have experienced, the correct solution for the infantry and armour is the opinion of the senior officer present. This make the artillery the only branch of the army to train in peacetime exactly as they will operate in wartime.

Although I spent more that 20 years as a reserve gunner, I have to say that there is a critical need to keep the regular regiments. The reality of reserve service is that it is an uphill battle to maintain any degree of competency at the battery level let alone the very different requirements of the regimental level.

If extremely drastic cuts had to be made, I would rather see the regular infantry/armoured bns/regts reduced to coy/sqn and to preserve the artillery regiments as a critical military resource. I could even support the increase of reserve infantry/armoured and decrease of reserve artillery to support this.

I am certain that the non-gunners will have a lot to say about my closing comment. Keep in mind that my aim is to preserve military skills for later expansion and not to produce a rapid deployment force for the UN.