M777 is Dead On!

The past seven months of combat in Ukraine have demonstrated that the reign of artillery on the battlefield is far from over. When the West and NATO countries recognized that the war of Russian aggression in Ukraine has largely devolved into dueling artillery exchanges, they decided to send one of the best artillery pieces around today. Initially developed for the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army as their next generation Medium Force weapon, the M777 has become the benchmark for 155mm Lightweight Towed Artillery Systems. And, almost immediately after their arrival in Ukraine in May, reports of M777 systems destroying Russian targets began emerging on social media. M777 is a 155mm 39 caliber towed gun that, through proven technology and the innovative use of titanium and aluminum alloys, meets the requirement for rapidly deployable and accurate artillery fire support. With the aid of special ammunition the M777 can reach a target at 25 miles wit a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of 16 feet. The M982 Excalibur is one of the most heavily-used projectiles for the M777. This special munition probably has been used sparingly to surgically destroy Russian command posts and command-and-control centers as Ukraine troops engage in artillery duels with the invaders in the eastern regions.
Join our KZbin channel by clicking here: bit.ly/3asNo2n
Find us on Instagram: bit.ly/3PM21xW
Find us on Facebook: bit.ly/3t2Huvb
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/3wQfXzA
Find us on TikTok: bit.ly/3wNsBOu

[@Interestingengineeringofficial]

⚙ Want to know more about the latest tech and innovations? Don’t Miss Out! *SUBSCRIBE & HIT THE BELL* 👉bit.ly/SubscribeNowIE

[@MLGLMNTRIX]

It's a lot easier if you just call it the "M-Triple 7"

[@williamyoung9401]

TY! Beat me to it! lol.

[@vitruvianman7170]

agree, the amount of times he said M777 I think he was doing it to just piss people off.

[@finisher2024]

Some say M-Three- 7, now I'm totally confused!

[@hardwareful]

The voice synthesis network rejects your language experience and replaces it with its own.

[@yoshitaka3651]

M777-300ER

[@chaosXP3RT]

I've heard people claim the M777 is old and obsolete because it doesn't have tracks. It goes to show that those people don't know anything

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

More self propelled artillery wouldn't be a bad idea in fights against a near-peer adversary. But the M777 and other stationary guns are still effective.

[@dabda8510]

@The Bear actually m777 is very very expensive because it was made of titanium for lighter weight.

[@wida123]

ask north vietnamese

[@kokomo9764]

No towed artillery piece in the world has tracks. That would make no sense.

[@kokomo9764]

@@wida123 What does that mean?

[@michaelnelson9140]

I was in field artillery for twenty years. We used to think illumination rounds were going obsolete with night vision devices becoming more available. And we were wrong. Then we felt that artillery itself was going obsolete with smart bombs and mlrs systems. But Ukraine has changed the face of battle! Tanks are not so effective! And artillery is still king! Way to go, red leg!

[@JohnDoe-vy5hh]

Yeah. Artillery is ruling this battlefield for sure.

[@wakeupworld7673]

@@JohnDoe-vy5hh Just need to add crew member number 9 - the observation drone operator.

[@madhatten00]

what we learned here is artillery units are cheaper to create and far smaller targets than large slow moving tanks that essentially sitting ducks

[@laurenbish3116]

@@madhatten00 I don't know about that (certainly not that knowledgeable about artillery). Tanks in general are a lot more mobile than most artillery pieces (except those that are self-propelled); a tank can move almost instantly. Now if you just sit there in your tank (which some Russian tanks are doing because the Russians are running out of artillery ammo and are using the tanks as artillery pieces), then yes, you are literally a sitting duck, but if you are moving then probably not so easy to hit with unguided projectiles. Even those with GPS won't hit a moving tank unless you shoot the laser targeting variant?

[@madhatten00]

@laurenbish3116 I mean yes tanks are maneuverable but small cannons are just as maneuverable at this point and cost a lot less to maintain and produce. At the end of the day, fielding a troop of 5 soldiers with rocket launchers is easier than fielding one tank that requires 5 soldiers to drive it.

[@jplester9719]

The UK making two of the best artillery systems around 105mm field, L118 howitzer and M777 gotta love it

[@sergiychupryna2952]

Thank you very much for your supporting Ukraine! Thanks to M777 howitzers that were supplied to Ukraine, The Ukrainian Armed Forces kick russian fascists out of my city. You saved many lives of Ukrainians!

[@brianmead7556]

Your last victory was before these even arrived. Stop trying to imitate Goebbels you’ll never be as good a liar as he was even if you love the same Austrian. Z.

[@CCAGENT008]

There's quite a lot of discrepancies in the assignment of numerical figures, associated with the description of this weapon system. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to do some slight proofreading/speech checking, to help ensure that the information conveyed is accurate in accordance to the material specified.

[@ericconnor8419]

Perhaps it really does fire four pounds per minute.

[@dann9717]

The mistakes are so blatant, they could be intentional to generate comments and impress the algorithm…?

[@williamzk9083]

They're obvious typo errors that have been vocalized by the excellent text to speech system. They're not duplicated on the info-graphics.

[@grandlotus1]

Fascinating. Lots of detail. One nit to pick: at 1:29, seems to confuse 10,000 with 100,000 re: weight.

[@robertsride1498]

At 2:46 he says four "pounds" per minute. 😆 Just My Thoughts...

[@Craptastic760]

777 is "under 100,000 pounds" and fires "four pounds per minute." Got it.

[@johnsonlusmc]

Video states Excalibur is one of the most commonly used rounds for m777 and then later says it must be used sparingly. It can’t be both.

[@IMGreg..]

Used sparingly to hit hi value targets, like command centers, and strategic targets any thing else can be peppered with regular rounds.

[@crl122486]

I’ve used the Excalibur round before. In Iraq, we tested one out, and I was later told that we actually hit an abandoned car in the middle of the desert 😂

[@warjunky14]

This entire video is full of errors. It's like they didn't review anything prior to publishing.

[@williamzk9083]

Excalibur is a complex round that includes rocket assistance. The German/Italian developed Vulcano 155 has the same accuracy and a range of 70km as well (its said 100km by gliding) but uses a sub caliber round instead of rocket assistance. The absence of the rocket must make it cheaper and less complex. The round maybe slightly smaller but I think the payload on the Excalibur is also slightly less. Germany is or has supplied Vulcano rounds to Ukraine.

[@philmckenna5709]

@I.M. Greg OP is correct

[@TheHabsification]

When the M777 is used in conjunction with drones they become extremely deadly, expect to see this going forward for all militaries in the future. Artillery and drones working together.

[@menguardingtheirownwallets6791]

Out of every 3 Excalibur shells shot from the M777, two of them hit their target within 12 inches, totally erasing it from the planet. Ordinary shells cannot do that.

[@TheDa6781]

Ordinary shells dont cost 50k

[@murraycrichton2001]

Great peice of British engineering.

[@philmckenna5709]

PIECE. "i before e, except after c!" Elementary, my dear boy 🤤

[@niksandy7125]

I saw a video of a Ukrainian gun team firing one of these bad boys. I think they had 11 men I think. They took no time in setting it up, they fired 10- 12 rounds packed the thing up and drove off, they were so smooth. The best part was the guys who carried the shells over to the gun, there were two of them, big burly lads who ran back and forth carrying those shells like they weighed nothing. Another guy did the same with the powder bags, they were grinning. It was very impressive. Russian soldiers often complain about the accuracy of Ukrainian artillery fire during some of those intercepted phone calls. My tax dollars at work, nice! 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦

[@Mortablunt]

The phone calls are all fake; Ukraine blocked all phone traffic between itself and Russia from its territory less than a week after the war started.

[@herbertkeithmiller]

The use of titanium allows the M777 to be toed by its barrel. Normally manipulating the tip or the barrel of a weapon is a gigantic no no. And so traditional artillery is towed by a hitch to the main frame. Unfortunately this leaves the barrel to move around as it's towed and if it strikes something it's damaged. It also limits the inclines and declines you can move the artillery piece over. But by hooking the toe arm to the very tip of the barrel the barrel stays in line with the transport and doesn't dig itself into the ground or smash into anything. This allows superior mobility and quicker setups.

[@tavilabradog]

“Toed?”

[@chrissmith2114]

@tacfoley Toed means 'having toes'

[@NNYYLL]

Drink a glass when the narrator said M777

[@darnit1944]

We could die

[@yuriykrushnytskyi7742]

Ukrainians will be forever grateful, we wouldn't last nearly as long without your help.

[@pacettid]

What’s really making the difference is mating the M777 with state-of-the-art Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems provided by the U.S. and NATO. If you watch videos of Ukrainian artillery strikes you’ll notice rounds hitting intended targets on the 1st or 2nd shot. Those C4ISR systems, including drones, is what’s making the M777 the killer it is.

[@yuckfoutube6245]

Look up M1156 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK). There is an aftermarket guidance kit that turns any standard 155 mm artillery round into a precision guided round similar to the Excalibur for less than $10,000/round. These kits include a guidance system in the fuze (nose cone) and fin stabilizers. Most of these info videos have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Northrup Grumman has produced more than 100,000 of these add-on kits as of 28 or 29 September, 2022 when they did a press release on the system, and these weapons have been sent to Ukraine, so they are already in service in an actual wartime situation. This information is readily verifiable with just a 2 minute internet search.

[@autoclearanceuk7191]

@@yuckfoutube6245 - You expect the Ukrainians to be adding things into the nose cone and onto fins of shells. DIY in the field ?

[@Crusty_Camper]

Another great example of British design and engineering. Funny how that wasn't mentioned in the video.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

It's never really seems to get mentioned. I'm guessing because the US army is terrified of using stuff designed elsewhere so its kept quiet. Strangely enough the british army dont use it.

[@raywhitehead730]

When BAE bought out Vickers, they switched to Mostly American made parts. For the triple seven.

[@Crusty_Camper]

@@raywhitehead730 Yes, that's right. About 40% is made here in Cumbria and the rest, which has been adapted to suit the American system is made in the USA. The UK still makes them for everyone else who uses them. It's still British design and engineering.

[@bartman7144]

British/American cooperation has produced iconic weapons. Remember the P-51 Mustang. NATO is much stronger when we all work together. 😎

[@Crusty_Camper]

@@bartman7144 Absolutely. We are the closest of allies. British engineers worked on the first atomic bombs and British computer chips have been used extensively in all US space vehicles since Apollo. Now we are using the latest F22s and will get the fantastic F35s next year. Stronger together.

[@williamyoung9401]

Instead of the M-777, we should start sending Ukraine M-270s with MGM-140 ATACMS ammunition (300 km range).

[@williamzk9083]

Send both

[@pault5947]

The word 'triple' is grossly underused in this video.

[@michaeldailey7103]

I live less than a mile from the gates of Camp Pendleton , they play music often !!! Slava Ukraini 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇦

[@blabla9845]

This is like a military version of "Top Gear".

[@BlondieSuperdog]

quantity is important for sure Mr Hirsch. That is why I mentioned 4 units given by Canada. The Vietnamese had longer range guns that the US 155 mm so it is an advantage. The only advantage of un protected guns is you may be able to hide them better from observation; but once they are fired the opportunity for counter battery is high and these days you don't likely have time to move, so you better be well dug in.

[@philonetic321]

Lots of video out of Ukraine and Russia lately. Russian conscripts in a huge mutiny. Russian conscripts talking about their artillery, how they operate differently. Russian artillery fires all the time, doesn't hit much, stays in one place. Ukraine artillery shows up, fires a few Excalibur shells, kills everything and leaves.

[@ScienceChap]

Counter battery is somewhat more complex than that. These guns can be into action, 2 rounds fired and back out of action in less than 4 minutes. You can even fire 3 rounds at different ballistic arcs in order to land all 3 rounds at the same time. Counter-battery fire on something like an M777 is actually very hard, requiring well-trained observation teams and very good coordination with your own gun batteries. It also relies on accurate return fire as well as some blind luck. The Russians have not shown much capability in any of these aspects of counter-battery fire control. Ex British Army Royal Artillery.

[@BlondieSuperdog]

@@ScienceChap Yes I agree with that but a modern military should have radar that can identify the source in seconds from the first round; so given a modern military counter battery should be capable of near immediate response. Of course then a counter to that counter battery fire is possible, so the range of the weapons is very significant.

[@chrissmith2114]

@@BlondieSuperdog Because the arc or trajectory can be adjusted the M777 /Excaliber rounds are hard to track, because the counter-battery radar ( which the Ukraine forces keep destroying ) extrapolates the arc back to source, if the arc is not a natural parabola it is almost impossible to track.

[@brealistic3542]

The Ukrainian people deserve every piece of high tech weapons that we can give them. These wonderful people are the leading edge of the sword to protect democracy god bless them !

[@vonMohl]

Triple 7 reminds me of Triple H - A Motorhead song.

[@bluevelvet2438]

Its lot easier when you say “HOLD MY BEER” instead of saying M...7...7...7...

[@trainman9119]

I really can’t figure out why these sites don’t review / edit their content for errors in speech recognition. “M177… fire rate of four “POUNDS” per minute”. Really?

[@tombristowe846]

It's just a bullshit robot voice reading from script. They're just after clicks. They're not remotely interested in accuracy or insight.

[@BrilliantDesignOnline]

$112,000 per round? WOW, I had no idea they were that spendy. Great informative vid. ( 2:46 ROUNDS, not pounds)

[@vlaDVille]

The Excalibur GPS-guided ones yes; A regular M107 shell typically costs anywhere from $400-$1,000. M777 is still deadly accurate without the expensive ammunition. Cheers!

[@yuckfoutube6245]

Look up M1156 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK). There is an aftermarket guidance kit that turns any standard 155 mm artillery round into a precision guided round similar to the Excalibur for less than $10,000/round. These kits include a guidance system in the fuze (nose cone) and fin stabilizers. Most of these info videos have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Northrup Grumman has produced more than 100,000 of these add-on kits as of 28 or 29 September, 2022 when they did a press release on the system, and these weapons have been sent to Ukraine, so they are already in service in an actual wartime situation. This information is readily verifiable with just a 2 minute internet search.

[@williamzk9083]

@@yuckfoutube6245 The limitation of the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) is apart from range 9(it doesn't add a rocket) is that it lacks the Inertial Navigation of Excalibur so can in theory be jammed easier.

[@yuckfoutube6245]

@@williamzk9083 You are actually wrong on all accounts. The M1156 works on any 155 mm artillery shell so there is no issue with range. The range of an artillery shell is more a product of the barrel length of the gun. A standard 39 caliber gun has a range of approximately 27 km but with a longer barrel (say 52 cal, or 58 caliber), the range can go out to 40 km (or further). Rocket assisted artillery is something completely different than guidance but on a standard 155 mm artillery shell, performance out to 40 km is virtually identical. The range is also comparable when fired from the the same caliber guns. They both use the same GPS guidance system and therefore they both will have the same approximate accuracy. By 2015, the M1156 accuracy was being tested to within a 5 meter CEP out to the maximum firing range of 40 km. Bottom line is that the M1156 PGK will give the exact same performance as a M982 Excalibur with virtually ZERO difference if both are used in comparable guns of the same caliber. Any range beyond 40 km is because you are using longer caliber barrels. The major difference between the M1156 PGK and the Excalibur is the major cost savings of the M1156.

[@williamzk9083]

@@yuckfoutube6245 You didn't even read my post and are busy responding to a straw man of your own creation. Excalibur has a range of 70km when fired from Certain guns such as Archer well in excess of standard artillery. The main point was that M1156 does not work in a GPS denied environment. Excalibur does.

[@LordOrdnance]

My favorite artillery piece

[@galesams4205]

My unit in vietnam fired 155mm---- 175mm ahd 8" HOW with He and my favorite canister round. LZ X-RAY, LZ Oasis, FB Blackhawk. Camp Radcliff. 4th div.

[@julianmorgan6875]

13 Bravos call this not the M777. We just call it the Triple 7.

[@nmelkhunter1]

The real question is can you still hear?

[@williamzk9083]

American military keyboards must have worn out "M" on them.

[@mixeduptv2268]

Not only the first "weighing less than 100,000lbs", rhe M seven seven seven fires "four pounds per minute". Impressive pounding from the M seven seven seven. The M seven seven seven seven seven variant, the M seven seven seven seven seven A advances upon the base M seven seven seven seven.... it's like AI content creation & voiceover drawing out a video with barely any material content.

[@anslogarrick3816]

Order the mass production of 5 million shells for the USA in case we need it

[@Musmanjaved007]

Can you please tell me, which software you use for the animation with blue graph chart background. That will help me creating my content too thanks.

[@andrewblack7852]

The shells blow humans into little bits. It’s so wonderful said no one ever.

[@edreusser4741]

What is the destruction range for the projectiles?

[@swatterbirdwatts6680]

I couldn't think of a better place to test our weapons under actual war conditions. Aginst one of our biggest enemies.

[@raywhitehead730]

Should have detailed the Performance of a Marine detachment of M777 in Syria A few years ago. They devastated ISIS .

[@davidvavra9113]

No home should be without one.

[@Gucci_Membrane]

I use it as a home defense weapon

[@ScienceChap]

Less than 100000lb? I should bloody hope so...

[@andyives5640]

Grafenwohr has some great training ranges.... just saying..... Bet you will hear some Ukranian being spoken there.

[@nmelkhunter1]

I hope you’re right…

[@JubJub117]

Fucking love that they named the numerical designation of this piece "JACKPOT"

[@squatchpnw2331]

It's astonishing how accurate the Ukrainians are with the M777 the Russians know this and it's a huge psychological effect on them which makes it even better

[@2ndcomingofFritz]

Russian soldiers are humans too….

[@qqqsfdf1232]

Good video but some of the sound effects are louder than the commentary, so I missed what was being said.

[@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145]

Dialogue near the trenches. Commander: "Tow this tripple seven to those coordinates and set it up." Soldier: "Sir, I surely like and would but the soldier has to inform the commander that he has only vehicles with no air brake, Sir!" Commander: "Oh damn, that is sad. So we will fight another day. Stay alert." They'd pull it with their bare hands to position as I watch those UKR guys fight!

[@JohnDoe-vy5hh]

Yeah, I don't think UA guys would give a rats ass about brakes.

[@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145]

@@JohnDoe-vy5hh think so, too. In the product sheet last statement should be "In case of battle don't give a fuck and beat the hell out of the gun. Load, fire, reload, fire again."

[@valamaas]

2:46 "4 pounds per minute" What's for dinner?

[@paulcoverdale8312]

I’m just interested, how often dose a 155 barrel last an how often do they change them? Thanks Paul

[@williamzk9083]

It would depend on how much charge they use. Repeated high charge long range shots wear out the barrels quicker. I would say 10000 at most. I know the German PzH 2000 had a daily limit of 100 rounds when firing ultra long range ammunition in the 40km range and this lead to premature maintenance. These are thermal limits. Battleship main guns might last only 300 rounds at most.

[@paulcoverdale8312]

@@williamzk9083 thanks for getting back William Paul

[@devildog1073]

As of right now of all the M777 howitzers that were given to Ukraine, only 30% are usable because of barrel wear. This has become a problem, so the US is building a shop on the Polish border so the barrels can be fixed. It takes about a month to fix the barrels.

[@anslogarrick3816]

Find a way to increase the range to 32 miles

[@billrosenstein]

They might have few left. The real challenge is extremely low ammunition reserves.

[@gilbertroberttuahuru4715]

Yes I remember a while back about the M777 howitzers before the mighty Hi-Mass. Yeah 😊👌 that is them now. Glory to Ukraine

[@fightingblind]

Hears the price of each round as several are being fired. "So this is a multi million dollar video then"

[@Andrey_Moto83]

Наші Хлопці у відро з неї можуть покласти, Слава Героям!!!💪

[@user-sq2hg7nh9u]

Норм видео с дронов где уничтожают эти 777

[@Andrey_Moto83]

@@user-sq2hg7nh9u Посмотри лучше как с Дронов в люки Пидарских бронемашин влетают!!!)

[@nick281972]

£100,000 per round, war is insanely expensive, financially, physically and emotionally.

[@Greg-yi5re]

Russia relies on heavy use of artillery and tanks just like Stalin and Hitler did. That's why Ukraine needs it too for adequate counter pressure. Maybe wars in the future will be less dependent on artillery. China has hi-tech army, for example

[@tedlebon2276]

Give them hell boys, fight fight fight

[@GrigoriZhukov]

The only fault of the M777 is that it is towed and not an SP gun.

[@anslogarrick3816]

Is it possible to make a 375 mm self-propelled howitzer with a range of 52 miles for the project I’ll wait of 375 pounds

[@gregwarner3753]

That is the Devil's very own shooting iron.

[@thegiggler2]

3:31 it's got fins! (shows round with no fins at all)

[@douglasjones2570]

Thank you.

[@marcajustice]

The Russian equivalent costs about $30,000 in comparison. I don’t think it has as much accuracy, called the Krasnopol I believe.

[@giuseppeamato9159]

the m777 howitzer is essentially a mountain howitzer in the sense that it is very light and easy to carry but in a pitched battle like the ones in ukraine it is at best mediocre due to an insufficient range when compared to howitzer with a low barrel of 52. the truth is that the Americans thought they were only waging low-intensity wars and now much of their material is outdated or unsuitable. only aeronautics is up to the task.

[@user-iz3gv5vo6b]

1:26. Correction. That's TEN Thousand pounds, and I can tow it with my F250. 😄

[@georgepantazis141]

Australia 🇦🇺🇺🇦 was the first to seed m777 howitzers to Ukraine 🇺🇦

[@m.m.7511]

That howitzer can do a lot more rounds per minute then what your saying...lol. I tested that thing...Its specs are way better then then what the book says...lol.

[@lmyrski8385]

The navies need to wake up. Imagine how useful big guns offshore could be. Yes, missiles are great, but not when you need to saturate an area. You'll run out or go broke.

[@jamesvandemark2086]

C'mon....... just say M-triple-seven!

[@kwhp1507]

Was that a pintle hitch on the muzzle break?

[@alex4alexn]

yes, they are towed from that barrel for less chance of damage while transporting

[@kwhp1507]

@@alex4alexn that’s interesting. I guess the barrels don’t pick up any bends from being towed?

[@hansischischa6055]

Its not King of Battles it is God of War👍✌

[@sirrodneyffing1]

British weapons at work.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Please say 'triple seven'. Instead of 'seven seven seven'. Dozens of times. Yeezes.

[@yatendraupadhyay2208]

" I THINK MISSILES NEED TO BE MORE POWERFUL"!!!

[@jemzbundzdobo7310]

it was design like that to limit civilian casualties, thats why u.s go for precision over powerful, u.s always prefer precision with there weapons while the russians prefer powerful cause russian weapons arnt that precise..so a bigger blast radius by russian missiles is needed to make up if it miss its target 100yds away.

[@fjb4932]

@@jemzbundzdobo7310 In addition, the Russians deliberately target civilians. Different mindset. . . .

[@edseward1299]

It is the M triple 7, if you had of talk to anybody who’s ever used one as part of your research you would know that.

[@philmckenna5709]

"...if you had of talk to anybody ..." Is this "ebonics" or summat? It's not English. 🤡

[@xray86delta]

Artillery has always been referred to as the king of battle.

[@funfacttrivias2121]

Im amazed when one Russian soldiers call intercepted he says to his wife that the Ukrainians artillery is superio to thiers he claims Ukrainian artillery makes the forest almost jump up i think hes not lying😅

[@paulgarrod1066]

Inappropriate to call it a toy, silly in fact!

[@anslogarrick3816]

Laser guided Or millimeter wave length

[@nicm3155]

Its indeed powerful for ground targets but not flexible. They are easy targets from air attack drone. Its more realible if you use mobile self propelled howitzer for your land support. It will be much more flexible and more mobile.

[@delavan9141]

It always fascinates me how channels can assemble stock footage and read off a system's specifications and voila, a video that gets 100s of thousands of views with minimal effort or creative value added.

[@williambrady1192]

It is not a gun. The M107 was a gun.

[@chuckdales5605]

What a video!

[@Kenneth_James]

omg just say M triple 7 like a normal person

[@dave1096]

I have to Google how those things are aimed

[@brianalsum7706]

Numbers are hard!

[@edgarperezlfwl]

This was a photo when I was in Artillery School . I sent a spy to 29 palms , Where he was caught . Summer of 79 . USMC

[@ricklayeux5688]

I've always heard artillery is the Queen of the battlefield, not King.

[@michaelnelson9140]

Not if you were ever in artillery!

[@williamzk9083]

Its a chess analogy. Artillery is the King of Battlefield. The King Piece is critical, powerful but can't be moved fast. Infantry is the Queen of Battle.

[@jamesmacatangay8360]

100k+ for each round? Lol wtf someone is definitely getting rich at this war

[@JerryDaBes]

The m795 is the most common projectile. Thats worth ~6k

[@tracyshoemake9686]

The triple 7 suffered a quick death in Ukraine by the Russians.

[@David-fj5lz]

Imagine these loaded onto ships in the Black Sea and targeting that Kerch Bridge supports

[@jessejamez5985]

I can tow this behind my RV? 😏

[@vonMohl]

Insanely expensive unit by the way.

[@darnit1944]

Cost is never an issue for the US military

[@smilingbadger6209]

0844 USMC. Hot steel on target.

[@indiana146]

What different ammo and what distance

[@importantname]

artillery and drones are or have become as accurate as the sniper of old. Except bigger, can destroy tanks and builiding, more lethal, longer ranged and more expensive.

[@philippesails4973]

Why so such video lasts 10 minutes when half the time would do the job?

[@southshoresurvey6415]

It's "Queen of Battle"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not King!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@jamesbrady2156]

The announcer stated the 777 was lighter than 100 thousand pounds. I an sure he meant lighter than 10 thousand pounds. It weighs less than 9000lbs.

[@DavidRLentz]

At 2:47, the narrator states, "four pounds per minute". That typographical error results in a nonsensical assertion that basic reasoning from knowing the material under discussion would have caught. It correctly would be "four rounds per minute". (Rounds, not pounds.)

[@philmckenna5709]

Computer voice