Talk:M777 howitzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

USMC Only?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 07:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in Range[edit]

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[edit]

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? (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. (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 (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. (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 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


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)


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[edit]

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)

M777 howitzer
An M777 Light Towed Howitzer in service with the U.S. Army 10th Mountain Division in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Logar Province, Charkh District, Afghanistan. Manufactured by BAE Systems, it is lighter, has a greater firing range, and requires fewer people to operate than the M198 it replaces.Photo: Jonathan Mallard


"US Marine gunners test fire a M777 howitzer." -> "US Marine gunners test fire an M777 howitzer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]

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:

    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b 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)

 Resolved 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)