Talk:M777 howitzer

USMC Only?
The servicemen in that last picture look to me to be wearing ACUs, an Army only uniform. Note the blocky color pattern, meaning they can't be Desert Combat Uniforms, and the lack of dark coloring means they cant be MARPAT uniforms. Thanks for the imput. (USMA2010 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
 * They are Marines in the MARPAT uniform.--Looper5920 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Weight Clarification
What is with the contradiction in mass? Also, external sources indicate titanium and NOT aluminium is used in construction of the M777.(Lok, 15/12/2006).

Yeah, I noticed that as well. Can someone check whether is weighs 7000 pounds or 9200 pounds? Feydakin 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this, the weight is 3,745kg or 8,256.3 lbs for those of us who are not of the metric persuasion.--Looper5920 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is possible the numbers differ due to associated equipment. The number is see most often quoted is 10,500 lbs, somewhat higher than these figures. However I know this includes the optical sights (which I doubt weight too much) and other basic firing equipment, it may even include a basic ammunition compliment that would move with the gun.
 * BTW the combat reports for the M777's in Afghanistan are extremely positive. Although the Leopards are the pointy end of the combat movements, it seems the M777 is the weapon that does most of the actual damage. The single section of guns has had a huge effect on battlefields around Khandahar, in one case leaving "body parts scattered throughout the fields". Leopards + M777 + drones seem to have ended attempts at company-sized battles on the part of the "Taliban". (famous last words, I know)
 * It's worth pointing out that until the arrival of the M777 practically every discussion was about downsizing the artillery to 105's again, discussions that were taking place in England, Canada and the US. Logistics are still tougher with a 155 due to ammo weights, but the M777 so dramatically reduces the scale of the delivery problem that the 5000 km² coverage apparently makes up for any problems of that sort. On battery well-located on a major hiway is covering the entire operational area, something that would require several 105 firebases and a dramatically tougher logistics problem.
 * Maury 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The M-777A1 Weighs 9,277lbs without BII (basic issue items), the m-777A2 weighs 9,840lbs without BII.*

Crew Clarification
The sidebox gives the crew as 5 yet the article states "there is also a reduction in the gun crew size required; from 9 to 7." Which is correct? GlobalSecurity states 5 several times. --Schwern 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Crew size is 5, however we use others to run powder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13BTR (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in Range
At one point we see that the range is stated as 40km with rocket assist, and 30 km furthur down, the Canadian Forces webpage states that it is 30 km, anyone find anything that says 40km? --SaroopD 22:41, 13 March 2008 (EST)

Legacy equipment
Is there any need for towed artillery in modern times? Many armies of the world decided to use self-propelled only, because you have to have a large truck for every towed howitzer anyhow to be able to relocate if something bad happens. So why not integrate the mobility chassis with the barrel and use SP howitzers?

I would appreciate if this article explained the american and canadian reasons for having this new tower howitzer. In fact I just heard the new light-weight american 155mm self-propelled project was ceased! Why? 91.83.13.153 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

they are light enough to be heliported (good in a mountainous country), easier to store, easier to transport in and out of the theatre of operations, probably a whole lot cheaper to buy than SPG...I dunno, just my 5 cents non-military view. About the american light weight SPG are you reffereing to NLOS-C (which is still being built, so far 25 or so are on order IIRC) or the Crusader (cancelled some years ago)? Daft, 11:00, 23 April 2008
 * both programs were cancelled due to cost, and in the case of crusader, its heavy weight would mean by the time it could reach the warzone, the fighting would be over. 86.33.15.31 (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Argument: These pieces fulfill an important, but limited, organic fire support role for mobile forces. However, their role is limited because towed guns are slower to reposition and their crews are more exposed to hostile fire than SPGs. I see the Afghanistan mission profile as the driving force behind using a limited number of these guns. If we ever use them in a war against a capable enemy with battlefield radars, good intelligence, and sophisticated fire-control systems, they will not survive very long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * to summarise : SPGs use their mobility ( they can rapidly redeploy to avoid return fire ) and armour to survive in a conventional war. BUT they are very slow to ship overseas and are very expensive and need more supplies. towed weapons are much easier to deploy and much cheaper to buy. note you can protect them by digging in, but this takes time. if, in an assymetric war, you do not expect heavy enemy artillary fire towed weapons make sense. many countries still use a mix of towed and spg artillary so they can fight both types of war. 86.33.15.31 (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Shoot move communicate" the unofficial motto for the US Artillery. Any light artillery unit traines to deploy shoot and move to avoid counterfire. In the current wars however there has been no need for "move." Most of the pieces are now employed at remote outposts in afghanistan. Yes self-propelled can evac a firing point much quicker,But like someone mentions they are slow to deploy to a conflict and due to thier size and weight are limited by terrain.In open flat country they are ideal. In mountainous regions where artillery pieces are constantly being airlifted from one firebase to another to cover operations. NO. light artillery as we in the army refer to it will still live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.212.132 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Another factor is that SPGs are usually only 39cal which are shorter ranged than all up towed artillery at 52cal. This adds something like 10km to the average range so towed tube artillery can be said to be longer ranged on average compared to SPGs even if they are not heli-mobile.

Points
The usual weight given for a gun is the in action weight, which includes essential stores, but no ammo. It's inconceivable that essential stores would amount to the better part of a ton. A lighter weight, the basic gun, is sometomes used because that is the weight being towed, and maximum 'trailer' weights for a giver vehicle are sometimes governed by national laws.

Technically M777 doesn't have a carriage, it has a mounting (ie the wheels are not on the ground when firing), I don't know if the US uses this nomenclature.

The biggest defect with this gun is that it does not comply with the 1963 MoU that the US signed for 39 calibre 155, the non-compliance is this guns biggest drawback, the MoU requires at least 3 rds in 15 secs and 6 rpm intense rate for at least 3 minutes. The MoU also specified the M549 RAP as the standard shape, it took the US several decades to adopt an HE shell of this type. Nfe (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Coverage Area Contradiction
"The M777 may be combined with the M982 Excalibur GPS-guided munition, which allows accurate fire at a range of up to 40 km (25 mi). This almost doubles the area covered by a single battery to about 1,250 km2 (480 sq mi)." A radius of 25 miles produces a 1,963 square mile coverage area, assuming pi X r-squared is still the formula for the area of a circle. Thus, I am puzzled by the statement in quotes above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.254.194 (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Tone
At present, the article stands to attention, fixes its gaze at a point above the reader's head and barks a series of military three-letter acronyms and alphabet soup. I'll try and make it more encyclopaedic. HLGallon (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is about a piece of military howtizer system, thus the amount of acronyms and military terms will directly coincide with the article. It is impossible not to, the article currently has the proper abbreviations as well as the spelled out term.  There is no jargon or slang used in the article. -Signaleer (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No Jargon? What is an Emplace? Displace is what ships do with the ocean- the average howitzer, even a howitzer "system" and accepting there may be non-military howitzers, would sink like a stone. Adding useless adjectives does not make an article more profound. Inventing new words to 'displace' perfectly good ones simply makes one sound like an advertising executive, an idiot, or both.DylanThomas (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Displace is standard army jargon and is not an invented term for this article. Not saying all use of jargon is OK or that it shouldn't be explained but....its not a made-up term here. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 12, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong.
"US Marine gunners test fire a M777 howitzer." -> "US Marine gunners test fire an M777 howitzer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.34.97 (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Trivial edits to grammar and spelling do not require talk page discussion. Next time, you can just change it yourself. TaintedMustard (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M777 howitzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012102151/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20120630/NEWS/206300308/Long-shot-Artillery-battery-sets-lethal-record to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20120630/NEWS/206300308/Long-shot-Artillery-battery-sets-lethal-record
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915115922/http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-78.pdf to http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-78.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622134530/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=5426 to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=5426

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M777 howitzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913140125/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007armaments/Goldman.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007armaments/Goldman.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413075652/http://www.ardec.army.mil/news/article.aspx?id=2508 to http://www.ardec.army.mil/news/article.aspx?id=2508

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ukraine
Kirby's slides from 4/19 press conference specify the weight and metallurgical composition of the howitzers being given to Ukraine. The dimensions exclude all other artillery other than the M777 howitzer as the possible piece of artillery being given to Ukraine. Is this conclusive enough to add the Ukraine conflict/Ukraine Army as usage of this weapon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.47.62 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

How many systems from US? It looks the total is actually 72+18=90 ("Also announced today was an additional $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine. This is the eighth "drawdown" security assistance package aimed at Ukraine. Included in this package are 72 M777 155 mm howitzers; ... This commitment, together with the 18 howitzers that were announced on the 13th of April ...") --Bbolker (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Old map
The user country map needs updating for Ukraine. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

users list should be updated to include Russia
https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1525008623901978625

206.176.156.214 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)z


 * How is that an operator? That's just a captured unit, which isn't the same as an operator. Especially, if there no supply of ammo -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
Change the map. 185.113.36.98 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Combat history - War in Ukraine
I wiped the section for a few reasons - firstly, most of it is simply not relevant and is definitely too much detail. I don't think this article should be drilling down into the details of specific pieces of equipment and their fates unless they are particularly noteworthy pieces of equipment. Secondly, all of it is just "Russia claims" and "Ukraine claims" nonsense. The combat performance of the weapon will become clear in time and nobody is coming to this article for a minute-by-minute account of that process. Even if they were, the Russian Ministry of Defence is certainly not a credible source and the Ukrainian one only arguably so. Thirdly, it was rife with basic grammar mistakes and I didn't think the substance was worth fixing them. There were some others as well but I forgot. I probably won't come back here so just revert it if you want but I think the version I trimmed it down to is concise and, although it contains less information, it certainly contains all of the known, credible, relevant information that was present in the version I wiped with none of the crap.

The section could be expanded with facts from reporting based on interviews with the soldiers who use the weapons to provide an immediate impression of how well or not they are performing if we decide such a thing is necessary and if such reporting exists, but the carefully manufactured statements of governments at war have very little place here I think. It would seem to me that "actual combat performance" and "how the government says it performs" are, in this instance, maybe not the same. 220.253.93.142 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your position 220.253.93.142. Seems the page was protected and some changes were made after the protection was made. However without entering in too much details, the is a clear complaint made the Ukrainian military regarding the performance of this gun, that must be considered since it was the Ukrainian Army that requested this type of weapon..Mr.User200 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine
I'm over my head on what to edit here, but the section that starts with "According to Shashank Joshi" needs references. Further, if you click on reference 97, "The fatal weaknesses of the American M777 howitzer in Ukraine battlefield" it is just a picture and no article. This paragraph really does need references. One I found is: "https://www.24talker.com/news/politics/ukraine-update-switching-to-nato-weapons-isnt-as-simple-as-people-think-it-is/". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.240.177 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I found the reference with article. It is here: https://military.news131daily.com/the-fatal-weaknesses-of-the-american-m777-howitzer-in-ukraine-battlefield/. As I don't know how to edit the references, I will watch and learn if someone else does it for me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.240.177 (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No reference to the caliber/calibre of the weapon
This is important for artillery pieces as the performance parameters change drastically if it is a 39cal or a 52cal. 121.7.21.249 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

BAE has new order for M777 production
New infos Jan. 4th 2024 details see: +. 80.187.112.193 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)