M777 Portee DVD 2016

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by leonard »

Russian M.O.D video of targeting the M777A2 howitzer. When you go very close to the frontlines you expose yourself to danger

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by leonard »

Not only in the eastern front of Ukraine the M777A2 howitzer is also in combat in the south front in the Kerson direction

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by leonard »

A very close up video of a M777A2 howitzer somewhere in the frontlines of Ukraine

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by leonard »

Very diverse ammo that you find in a Ukrainian Army M777A2 battery

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by leonard »

We have the first confirmed photo of the use of the Excalibur 155mm round in combat in Ukraine with the M777A2.
These users liked the author leonard for the post:
Lord Jim

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by leonard »

And now we have the first video confirming the use of the Excalibur 155mm round in combat with the M777A2 howitzer by the Ukrainian Army . We have to mention that awaiting the arrival of the German donated Vulcano 155mm ammunition there's nothing more modern that this system in the Ukrainian theater

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting video but should all this talk of Ukrainian use of the M777 be in the War in Ukraine thread?

Regarding the M777, I still think we need a number of these to give our lighter forces greater fire support than the existing 105mm Light Guns. The latter are falling behind in the capability stakes through lack of investment in advanced ammunition types for example. The Guns are roughly the same weight and yes the formers ammunition is far heavier but you can get away with using less and still achieving a greater result at a greater range. WE also would need to carry out local improvements like fitting skis to the wheels like we already do with the Light Gun when towed in winter conditions. WE could also modify a BVs10 Viking to act as an ammunition carrier.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Sep 2022, 04:12 The Guns are roughly the same weight and yes the formers ammunition is far heavier but you can get away with using less and still achieving a greater result at a greater range.
They are not roughly the same weight. M777 is more than twice heavier. Not to mention that it would require bigger and stronger vehicle for towing, ammunition and crew, considering that it needs 1 to 2 more crew members. Currently one Chinook can transport L118 and it vehicle at once, with M777 that would require at least two.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes we need to keep this real

105 mm = 1850 kg's and has a range of 17 km's or 20 km's with base bleed

M777 = 4200 Kg's and has a range of 21 km's or 30 with base bleed or 40 using Excalibur

the real effect is that it will take 3 to 4 time the logistics to bring the M777A2 to the battle field. To bring the M777A2 and its rounds to the battle field we would need to use a MAN 4x4 truck with the truck and the gun both needing there own Chinook

What we need is a extended round for the 105mm to give it a 35 to 40 km range

also to be noted is the 122mm D30 it has a range of 15.5 km's or 21 km's with rocket assisted rounds

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Sep 2022, 04:12 The Guns are roughly the same weight
On which planet?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Lord Jim »

My mistake, off the top of my head I didn't think the M777 was as heavy as it is. Make one wonder how heavy guns like the FH-70 and M198 weighed? Anyhow my mistake shouldn't cause people to loose their cool, and I appreciated the clarification made by some.

I still personally think the 105mm Light Gun is becoming a dead end, falling between 120mm Mortars and guns like the M777. Both of these are still be heavily invested in by numerous manufacturers as well as the militaries of other nations. this combination would be far better for providing our light high readiness forces with indirect fire support with their ability to fire precision and cargo rounds (mainly the 155mm for the latter), and ranges beginning to exceed the range of current weapons. The effectiveness of a 105mm shell is less than that of both a 120mm Mortar Bombs and obviously a 155mm shell.

It is simply not worth the UK truing to develop improved shells for the 105mm Light Gun when both the other weapon systems. The current dumb HE shells are not capable of achieving the end results required without a longer fire mission that would leave the Guns vulnerable to counter battery fire. If 105mm Guns were so effective, why are less and less countries using this calibre instead using the alternative combination I have suggested. I would not want to be facing hostile 122mm Guns and Grad MLRS, which are used by a large number of nations and include those we may end up being on the opposing side in a future conflict.

As a bear minimum we should look at adopting the Brandt 120mm Rifled Mortar which is lighter then the Light Gun, still has a useful range and has accesses to more advanced ammunition, plus it can be towed vy a light 4x4, needs less crew and the ammunition is lighter then the 104mm. The French use these at Brigade level with 155mm held at divisional. 16 AA BCT could have both the Mortar and its towing vehicle carried internally by one or two Chinooks, as well as an ample supply of Bombs. The Viking could easily toe the Mortar as well as carrying the required crew and ammunition.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 10 Sep 2022, 00:40 The French use these at Brigade level with 155mm held at divisional.
That is not true. French artillery regiments at brigade level use combination of 155mm guns, 120mm mortals and Martel missiles, usually one battery of each. At divisional level they, 1st Division is having MLRS regiment, while 3rd Division only has light AA systems.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 10 Sep 2022, 00:40 My mistake, off the top of my head I didn't think the M777 was as heavy as it is. Make one wonder how heavy guns like the FH-70 and M198 weighed? Anyhow my mistake shouldn't cause people to loose their cool, and I appreciated the clarification made by some.

I still personally think the 105mm Light Gun is becoming a dead end, falling between 120mm Mortars and guns like the M777. Both of these are still be heavily invested in by numerous manufacturers as well as the militaries of other nations. this combination would be far better for providing our light high readiness forces with indirect fire support with their ability to fire precision and cargo rounds (mainly the 155mm for the latter), and ranges beginning to exceed the range of current weapons. The effectiveness of a 105mm shell is less than that of both a 120mm Mortar Bombs and obviously a 155mm shell.

It is simply not worth the UK truing to develop improved shells for the 105mm Light Gun when both the other weapon systems. The current dumb HE shells are not capable of achieving the end results required without a longer fire mission that would leave the Guns vulnerable to counter battery fire. If 105mm Guns were so effective, why are less and less countries using this calibre instead using the alternative combination I have suggested. I would not want to be facing hostile 122mm Guns and Grad MLRS, which are used by a large number of nations and include those we may end up being on the opposing side in a future conflict.

As a bear minimum we should look at adopting the Brandt 120mm Rifled Mortar which is lighter then the Light Gun, still has a useful range and has accesses to more advanced ammunition, plus it can be towed vy a light 4x4, needs less crew and the ammunition is lighter then the 104mm. The French use these at Brigade level with 155mm held at divisional. 16 AA BCT could have both the Mortar and its towing vehicle carried internally by one or two Chinooks, as well as an ample supply of Bombs. The Viking could easily toe the Mortar as well as carrying the required crew and ammunition.
As said the 105mm matches the 122mm D30 for range and I am sure that no one wants to be on the wrong end of a 105 shell as for the GRAD we could use Hero 120 so if 16 AA BCT had a regiment of 105mm and each battalion had a over watch company with Hero 120 on ATMP's they would be in a good place

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Lord Jim »

That might work in some circumstances, but the number of GRADs along with artillery form 122mm to 130mm to 152mm available to even los tier opposition is likely to out numebr to number of guns available to oner of our lighter formation. The 130mm out ranged the 105 by a considerable margin in addition to its larger shell and good accuracy and is a common weapon. The GRAD has access to numerous warheads form unitary HE to submunitions to chemical options. 16AA needs far greater support to enable it to fight a pier level opponent, not just those that were faced in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the level its weapon systems need to be capable of dealing with. Vehicles currently tasked with towing the 105mm Light Gun could also tow the M777, and the Chinook and Merlin can easily carry the M77 as an underslung load as will the successor to the Puma in all likelihood. Yes there will still be a need for a precision weapon system to support the M777 even is the latter is married to a precision round such as Excaliber. A lightweight version of whatever may be chosen for the heavier Army units would be the simplest solution.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 07:58 Vehicles currently tasked with towing the 105mm Light Gun could also tow the M777, ...
I doubt that Pinzgauer could tow an artillery peace almost twice its weight, and crew and ammo on top of it. Especially outside roads. Any vehicle that US is using for towing M777 is usually 6x6 and over 10 tons, so questionable could it be transported with Chinook and definitely don't with Merlin.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 07:58 ... and the Chinook and Merlin can easily carry the M77 as an underslung load as will the successor to the Puma in all likelihood.
Chinook - yes, Merlin - maybe, Puma successor - L118 yes, M777 no chance. For example AW149 can carry 2.7t external sling load which is way bellow 4.2t of M777. Even S-70 external payload of 4t would probably not suffice as it is less than gun weight and would be very risky to do it.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 07:58 Vehicles currently tasked with towing the 105mm Light Gun could also tow the M777
I'm not sure why you insist on making such false statements about the M777 capability. If you're not sure, or making assumptions then please say. There's also the impracticality of towing the M777, carrying the crew and the maintenance equipment in a vehicle. And that's without having a minimum number of rounds on platform.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Lord Jim »

Well, if you want the Towing platform the carry the crew and everything up to and including the Kitchen Sink you may need a larger vehicle. But such a vehicle doesn't exist for the Light Gun either. The medium weight vehicles used by the Royal Artillery could also tow a M777. A Viking certainly could, as could a Bushmaster fi that platform was taken into general use by the Army. A separate vehicle would be needed for ammunition carriage and a support variant available to provide engineering support, but as long as they can be carrier in an Atlas, they can do the job. The M777 is easily redeployed by helicopter as are its ammunition as the reduced number of rounds carried at one time is balanced by the need to use less rounds to achieve as similar or greater result.

Our units are already out gunned by any possible tier one opponent by a considerable margin, including our heavy units. The Light Gun simply cannot compete against such a foe and that it what we need to be thinking about. Loitering attack UAVs have their uses but cannot carry out the role a 155mm Artillery does. Of course, I am a Cheerleader or 120mm Mortars being attached to Infantry Battalions and in order to provide close ranged but still heavy fire support, have a Royal Artillery Regiment equipped with this weapon with an all-terrain vehicle included as its limber could be considered. This could provide complimentary firepower to light Infantry detachments up tp Battalion level, who need greater fire power than their integral 81mm Mortars. The M777 equipped Regiment would provide batteries to support larger deployments, especially where the maximum artillery support is needed.

These are my OWN opinions, as all my posts are unless otherwise stated. I am happy if other disagree as long as they are posting their own opinions, but any definitive criticism needs to be backed up by evidence for all to see and critique. For example, I would be very interested in where I have been wrong about the capabilities for the M77 and what are the correct ones. I know the US Army uses by default their version of the four tonner to tow their M777 in the Stryker BCTs and other units. It fits how they use the Gun, and I am sure if, like they seem they intend to, replace their Light Guns in their light Infantry formation with the M77 they will adopt an appropriate limber platform of a size and weight more applicable for the overall capabilities those units require.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Tempest414 »

so what we know is the 105mm L50 ROWANEX HE round has the same effect as a 155mm HE M107 round

For me we need to think how we will use any new gun and how we will get it about the battle field as said with 2 times the weight come 2 times the logistics or in real terms half the guns and rounds

at this time I can't see what will replace the 118 LG in the Air Assault & Commando role
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Lord Jim

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 06:00 Well, if you want the Towing platform the carry the crew and everything up to and including the Kitchen Sink you may need a larger vehicle.
How do you expect to operate the system without a crew and basic kit?
Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 06:00 But such a vehicle doesn't exist for the Light Gun either.
Eh? The Pinz has performed the role admirably. Despite it's age.
Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 06:00 The medium weight vehicles used by the Royal Artillery could also tow a M777.
Which one, specifically?
Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 06:00 The M777 is easily redeployed by helicopter as are its ammunition as the reduced number of rounds carried at one time is balanced by the need to use less rounds to achieve as similar or greater result.
M777 is easily deployed by some helicopters. In UK service that would almost exclusively be Chinook.
Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 06:00 These are my OWN opinions, as all my posts are unless otherwise stated.
We're aware they're not the opinions of any established authority.
Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 06:00 I am happy if other disagree as long as they are posting their own opinions, but any definitive criticism needs to be backed up by evidence for all to see and critique.
No. Posting false information without reference and then requiring others to prove it is false is not a good foundation to discussion or debate. You want to state something as fact (as you have done several times) then you provide the reference material.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
Lord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Lord Jim »

At6 this rate we are going to have to have legal support in case someone states something to the best of their knowledge but is found to be false. If one has to hold a Doctorate to be permitted to post on here and even then, be afraid of being dragged over the coals if something is not based or the absolute facts.

People who post on here come from all walks of life with varying levels of knowledge. As far as I am concerned unless someone positively states that the point, they are making is the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then it should be taken as an opinion made with hte best knowledge that person may have. If proven in correct then great, everybody ends up learning something which is one of the aims of a Forum such as this. Case in point Tempest414's reply was constructive and informative, providing additional dara and maintaining the flow of the thread.

Tempest414 did not put another's post under a microscope and demand evidence to support a point of view he or she (no offence meant), disagree with, without providing the information that would support an alternative point of view.

AS fir replacing the L118, maybe we should look at reintroducing the Pack Howitzer and develop kit of parachuting mules on to the battlefield to faacilitae the mobility such weapons could provide. :D

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Tempest414 »

I think what we need to do is work out what would work under different thinking

So for as I have said I would like to see the army's Infantry move to

3 x Heavy Mechanised BCTs
3 x Light Mechanised BCT's
1 x Air Assault BCT
1 x Ranger Regiment
1 x Security force Assistance brigade

now if this was to happen would we need the M777 for me no given that 6 BCT's would be mechanised they would need a SP gun like Archer this would leave 16XX with the L118 LG which would give them good cover remember if 16XX can take a landing strip we could also bring in M270. As for the Rangers and SFA units a mix of L118 and Hero 70 or 120 should work well

given all this for me what we need is a new extended range round for the L118 something that could make 40km with the effect of a 120mm round

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 23:32 At6 this rate we are going to have to have legal support in case someone states something to the best of their knowledge but is found to be false.
I don't think that anyone has a problem with somebody being mistaken, being corrected and moving on, possibly modifying their views as a result.
It gets more of a problem when a particular person makes statements that are incorrect, is informed that these statements are incorrect, with sources, then comes back some time later making exactly the same incorrect statements and gets huffy when corrected again. Especially when the facts in question are seemingly key to the opinions expressed.

It's not like some of the points addressed are esoteric information, either. A cursory search turns up that the L118 can be towed behind a Land Rover or an ATMP while the M777 requires a vehicle weighing 2.5tonnes and with air brakes.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
RunningStrong

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 23:32 As far as I am concerned unless someone positively states that the point, they are making is the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then it should be taken as an opinion made with hte best knowledge that person may have.
Stating false information that is easily fact checked isn't "an opinion". That's literally the Donald Trump defence when lying.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by Timmymagic »

sol wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 09:56
I doubt that Pinzgauer could tow an artillery peace almost twice its weight
Ahem...


mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: M777 Portee DVD 2016

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote: 19 Sep 2022, 12:40

Ahem...
Scroll down to see what you can do with the light gun:


Post Reply