M777 US Artillery Impact on War in Ukraine

Video Sponsored by Ridge Wallet. Check them out here: ridge.com/taskandpurpose
Use Code “TASKANDPURPOSE” for 15% off your order.
The American Military sent their long range precision strike artillery called the M777 or better known as the Triple 7. The question is what capabilities does the M777 howitzer cannon have that aren't already present in Ukraine?
Inquiries: [e-mail]
business inquiries sponsorships: [e-mail]

[@Taskandpurpose]

Thanks for watching spare parts army and thank you to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video. Check them out here: ridge.com/taskandpurpose Use Code “TASKANDPURPOSE” for 15% off your order

[@yourtexthere1323]

Ukraine losing M777 Howitzers: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5fWhX2lbrieh5o

[@Biden_is_demented]

LOL the M777 the US sent were already destroyed! kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIbdhYFndrp5o7M

[@EburdeyGordei4]

Ukrainian defense in Donbass is already collapsing. All their "offensives" failed. But almost all Western media and bloggers tell that they are winning the war. What a joke. Ho all of you going to save your reputation after Ukraine lose? I know, you won't because your viewers are probably too stupid and don't even remember what you were saying yesterday. The feature of time. There are videos where Ukrainian military servicemen take over people right on the streets and by shops. Several forced mobilisation waves have gone. A dozen of videos where bunches of Ukrainian troops refuse to conduct suicide orders. They already have a lack of personnel due to large casualties and believe me, soon, Zelensky will lose the control over his military because they will just stop respecting him in any way. The President who's one sided policy brought his country to war with Russia to please US. Ukrainians start realizing it. This is what is really happening.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

Uh...warhead goes in the tube BEFORE the propellant

[@imagecollections6665]

I'm sure the Russian military will love all of this info.

[@egame1122]

"I already know what I´m getting my dad for fathers day this year". I would just like to point out how dissapointed I was when you didn´t say a M777 after that. :(

[@whosagreekgod4135]

Same...

[@Taskandpurpose]

lol he could really use a couple of M777's , everyone on long island needs at least one !

[@hebi1823]

@@Taskandpurpose True home defense weapon

[@chau6340]

is it a leatherman

[@VajrahahaShunyata]

No... The leatherman is to remove the machine gun from a russian tank. Its the only tool ya need👍

[@demomanchaos]

The point about NCOs is one that really should not be looked over, because a good NCO will change the entire battlefield. Having someone capable of making snap decisions and taking initiative rather than waiting for the chain of command to trickle upwards and back downwards before they do anything is an absolutely MASSIVE factor in reaction and exploitation. A strong NCO also means the troops fight better as individuals, move better, are better coordinated, and punch far above their weight compared to that same squad without a good NCO.

[@jasonsolis5416]

Well unfortunately good staff and ncos is fairly uncommon from my experience. There’s definitely some stand up ncos, but for the most part rank seems to be more of a reflection of time in service rather than character.

[@granatmof]

I heard about this one NCO who single handedly saved the human race and ended a galactic war between humanity and alien races. He was like a master chief petty officer or something.

[@jasonsolis5416]

@@granatmof thank you dude, actually made my day better, that was funny af

[@henry23223]

russian army has never used NCOs, it is just a different system. neither does ukrainian for that matter, outside of western trained special forces

[@sgriffin3248]

Most of the the good NCOs got out. That leaves the bottom of the barrel specialists that get promoted. Hence the toxic leadership everywhere in the military.

[@michaelbruce6190]

I was a 19K in the Army and the only thing that scared me more than artillery was the A-10, but that beast is on our side. The thought of being under a barrage of multiple artillery pieces such as the 777 is a friggen nightmare.

[@vputilov]

I trained on M198 first and then switched to M777. I loved it. I also got special course to be unit level maintenance for it. This gun can be towed by any truck with tow hook. It is WELL balanced. For example when gun in towing position you need only 4 soldiers to rotate or hold it. Two of those will be working on brakes for safety. Six guys can easily push it around flat ground. So track is preferred but really is there to carry ammo and charges. Ammo and charges are HEAVY! Regular HE round + full charge will weight about 150 pounds. 14 of those and you have metric ton of explosive to move around. That's why trucks are used with ratings of 5 tons and above.

[@carrolbrooks2143]

We had Pigs first, then I went to the last class at Los Pulgas (Camp Pendleton) for section chief school for the M198 in '85. They went to Fort Sill Oklahoma after that.

[@tabortollefson]

My dad was artillery survey during Vietnam. In 1972 he was introduced to a new fire control computer that did basic trig calculations. It was housed in three 40 foot trailers.

[@chrise842]

IT is the civilian version of military stuff released into the public. SillyCon Valley came out of early anti-aircraft tracking systems and is basically still merely an outlet and branch of DARPA. Just allow some of your techie eager nephew to make up a brand and act as if that spoiled brat was someone inventive coming up with that shit in a garage. Yeah, sure.

[@VajrahahaShunyata]

It got smaller...🤏

[@benjones4365]

If " It was housed in three 40 foot trailers", that must be the slimed down version! Wow, how times have changed. These days it's the size of a laptop.

[@frankmontez6853]

DAANNGG like the first computers they were massive then.. Likie vacuum bulb computers geez

[@dejectedfrogcat2840]

@@benjones4365 I'll even wager that a decent smart phone is capable of doing the same calculation.

[@BloPsy__]

As for the training on M777, the Ukrainian crews have stated that it is very straightforward to operate them and it doesn't differ from their older artillery pieces that much. As such, the re-training is quite fast and the crews can master the M777 rather quickly. Also, from what I have seen, the Ukrainian crews even say that the M777 is easier to operate than their old artilleries.

[@henry23223]

operating isnt the issue, it is maintaining it. that is where the training really makes a big difference

[@NickSteffen]

@@henry23223 true but the point is that the standard training time may assume zero knowledge of manning artillery (not sure if this is actually the case). An expert can learn everything including maintenance much faster than someone with no knowledge.

[@krisfrederick5001]

As long as the lime goes in the Coke.

[@dejectedfrogcat2840]

Ergonomics weren't a big concern in the Soviet Union.

[@tonyjoka2346]

And yet they ve mostly been captured and destroyed

[@ButtcheekOnaStick]

Artilleryman here: there are some corrections. First, the shell and Fuze are combined and then rammed. Only then can the powder be thrown in. 2nd, the rounds for the howitzer very greatly in weight. Illums and smokes are pretty light. HERAP and EXCAL not so much. And when you take older rounds like the M712CLGP (2 man lift) that weight can be close to 200 pounds

[@davidryan45]

I was a M777 Project member in charge of Fire Control both glass and iron and digital for the Canadian Army when we bought the M777 in 2005 and I can verify that only the breech and barrel are made in the USA the rest of the cannon is made in the Uk and then the pieces are shipped to the US for assembly and distribution.

[@davidryan45]

@@babochee tomoto tamato 6 of 1 half dozen of another. In other words you knew what I meant. You a Marine?

[@111076tom]

Can't wait to see this wonderweapon change the outcome of this fight! Oh. Wait. Turns out the M777 is trash...

[@unevenelephant469]

@@111076tom Trash is a little strong. It suffers the same problem as all towed artillery pieces. It can't shoot and scoot. Meaning as soon as it touches off, hellooooo counter battery fire. It also lacks the range of some rocket systems.

[@williambinkley8879]

My grandfather was a forward artillery observer during WW2. He was beyond the front lines. During the Battle of the Bulge he was wounded twice in one week, the second time so bad he was initially listed as killed. Modern drones make it much safer to get artillery their targets.

[@EricDaMAJ]

Much respect for your dad. Being an FO is rough. As soon as the enemy sees that radio antenna you become a lead magnet. Back in WW II the US didn't have drones but we used a lot of light observer airplanes. Even individual artillery battalions had them! (4 per, if I recall correctly.) One pilot even got bored merely directing artillery at the Germans and mounted bazookas on his plane to harass their convoys.

[@williambinkley8879]

@@EricDaMAJ I remember my first trip to the airport, sometime in the 70s. He set of the metal detector. He had a piece of German 88 shrapnel in his ankle.

[@haroldbell213]

Your grandfather is a national treasure

[@TQsilva96k]

Legendary story, thanks for sharing your grandfather history!

[@TheJackmilla]

I imagine them carrying him out on a litter, him spitting blood out and saying "Im not dead asshole!"

[@ShuntySK]

A video on the Ukrainian Military channel on the exact same topic appeared a couple of hours before this one. It is about the real-life experience of using M777 in a full-scale war in Ukraine. There is no English translation, but I can briefly tell you the conclusions. There were no Excaliber rounds provided. Some guns did have Fire Control systems, but mostly they were without them. To partly compensate for it and speed up calculations, Кропива (Nettle in Ukr.)system is used, which is a software provided by Ukrainian volunteers for a usual Android table. In real life, these howitzer has provided the rate of only 2-3 rounds per minute. This is 2 times worse than old soviet-era guns, but their accuracy is absolutely superior. However, accuracy doesn`t always compensate lack of fire rate. Ukraine doesn`t have many military drones to provide exact coordinates of the target, also there is a number of forest areas where targets can be masked out, so they usually have something like: the target is somewhere here in a radius of 300 meters in the woods. They usually fie as many rounds as they can per minute and leave the position to avoid enemy artillery fire. Lack of training has already caused some number of howitzers to be broken, but fortunately, they were mostly able to fix them in Ukraine and gained a lot of experience to avoid these mistakes in the future. The light weight of the M777 howitzers also doesn`t provide any advantages, because they are towed by trucks and there are also no heavy cargo helicopters in Ukraine capable to lift M777. In conclusion, Ukrainian soldiers are happy with any howitzers that are provided, but these howitzers are definitely not game-changers. New artillery from NATO countries compensates for huge artillery losses of the Ukrainian army, made not only by enemy fire but because their old howitzers are mostly 50+ years old and in terrible condition. Also, there is a huge deficit on soviet-era rounds, so sooner or later it will be no choice but to use NATO-standard calibers. FYI, information was provided by Taras Chmut, military expert and CEO of www.comebackalive.in.ua/ which is the biggest non-commercial fund that provides all Ukrainian units with everything they need, from helmets to NATO military UAVs. (source: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4GufaiCebuAqtU)

[@adrianradu2332]

This comment deserves to be pinned to the top. It showcases a reality in these weapon transfers, that a lot of people seem to be unaware of. You don't even need sources for these statements, because it just makes logical sense it was going to be this way. Everyone gets so wet whenever they hear X country delivers Y impressive weapon system, but everytime I hear this I always wonder "ah, and how far will they downgrade that weapon system to a point where it's juuuuust on par with the Russian counterpart?"

[@stefanfichtenhuegel5370]

Amen to that valuable piece of insight.

[@patbudge2929]

Canada sent Excalibur rounds they are older versions bought for the Afghanistan war.

[@ShuntySK]

They have mentioned that this information was on some news websites, but they can’t confirm that it was delivered. Maybe it will be delivered later or it is fake. In any case, only a small number of howitzers presumably have Fire Control System, so they are mostly not capable of firing that kind of ammo.

[@occamtherazor3201]

Speaking as an experience M777 crewman, that rate of fire will absolutely improve as the crews gain more experience. And the grim fact is that they will get a lot of practice. One crew I was part of got up to 6 rounds per minute, which, at the time, was actually considered TOO fast, beyond the safety standards. This was before the Digital Fire Control System. A well practiced and motivated crew with a DFCS equipped gun could ratchet it up to 7 or 8 rounds a minute.

[@cacwgm]

It has been controversial that the M777 was sent without the targeting electronics unit. There are many plausible reasons, and here are a couple more: 1) It was a trade-off, to shorten the training time, to get the M777s into action sooner. 2) The Ukrainian armed forces would prefer to use their own unit, which is already integrated into their fire control system. shortening the training time would help Thoughts?

[@BrownBabyJesus]

3) fear that they will be pointing back in the other direction in the not too distant future 4) fear technology would be open to imitation or reverse engineering for purposes of exploiting weakness Either way they have played an insignificant role in anything - they are literally blingy equivalents of Soviet era artillery, there has been little to advance about a big towable gun for some time.

[@seeker296]

Seems legit

[@Opsytron]

Answer is Polish Krab (Crab) self propeller tracked gun-howitzer with modern “Topaz" artillery fire control system . It can fire and disassemble to change position in 30s , hard to retarget by opponent . You could do video about it . Polish army gave 18 units for Ukraine and trained 100 personnel . Ukraine now ordered 54 additional units as they said those systems are what they need . it can use excalibur rounds as well .

[@FairladyS130]

They look to be a very capable unit

[@evilshews]

If your training seasoned crews, already familiar with 152mm towed guns, it make sense that training could be effectively quicker ,as they already have proficiency with the basics, and specific tasks in the team, and only need to learn familiarity with the particular gun.

[@maximak-murza6334]

Plus every Ukrainian soldier, trained by our instructors, becomes an instructor for the rest of Ukrainian crews.

[@williamgray9692]

i saw an interview of a ukrainian using one and he says it’s even easier to use than what they were using before

[@VajrahahaShunyata]

Ease of use is in the design...

[@QuantumMechanic_88]

Imagine having a handheld computer which receives GPS coordinates to a target and the computer has the firing solution in less than 30 seconds.

[@fintonmainz7845]

Unfortunately the Ukrainians must have lost a lot of experienced men. Let's hope they can prevent a major Russian breakthrough before the winter.

[@WulfgarOpenthroat]

I always liked how the M777's tow hook makes it look like the artillery has a bayonet attached.

[@bavtie1]

Japanese artillery

[@powkung45]

The Russian MSTA-S uses laser guided shells painted by UAV, but the vast majority of their forces use the old unguided systems, flattening entire areas

[@petermunk7919]

Quantity is a kind of quality.

[@bradyportwood9398]

@@petermunk7919 no just fuck no

[@Uncle_Smallett]

Really it is not true. Guided shells shipped also for 122mm artillery and for 120mm mortars, including airborne self-propelled Nona (howitzer-mortar bastard on kinda BMP chassis) since USSR. Its just not shipped in quantity to troops and lack of laser pointing on field, Ukraine lost most at 2015-16 in warehouse "incidents".

[@powkung45]

Nona is based on BMD chassis I'm pretty sure... but yes my point was that the laser painting is in limited supply so tha majority of artillery/mlrs can't use it anyway

[@Uncle_Smallett]

@@powkung45 to be pretty sure its BTR-D chassis. I call it "kinda BMP" to make the picture.

[@nokiot9]

One of my old family friends retired from ratheon last year. He worked on the Excalibur system as well as hellfire guidance. He said they’re planning on ramping up their manufacturing rate once the TSMC chip plant opens up near Yuma. The importing of all these chips absolutely effects our strike and defense capabilities

[@BillSmith-ut5li]

The fact is Munitions have a shelf life. A lot of guests munition was probably dated and scheduled for upgrading and replacement

[@christophpaessler8444]

yes, of course seems like UKR got first the older munition. Makes sense! I ve heard this also! And IMHO its not possible by a production of 1500/year 6k shells would cost 100k each and 30k shells 45k each. Does not make any sense to me (numbers from my memory). I don t have any idea bout the cost of munition, but was a purchaser of technical equipment of a big company once.

[@wolfecanada6726]

"Use it or lose it" is a real thing.

[@davidpalmer4184]

I wouldn't want to eat any munition whether it was fresh or expired!

[@gooseloose682]

@@christophpaessler8444 it is cheaper to make more at once than it is to have multiple small ones. You also get bulk discount because you order more that take longer to produce. Economy 101

[@anthonyhowrard526]

tnt last for a long time.

[@rochrich1223]

Training a new recruit to useful levels might take 14 weeks, training a crew who has long experience with 122mm or 152mm Soviet made howitzers would take much less. There is no firm number of how many Soviet caliber shells are left, there is little doubt that there are surplus crews available to move to the new NATO 155mm. (if there are surplus crews, there are surplus Ukraine made digital targeting systems.)

[@jaimevasquez5023]

Kinda true and they may need less time than a regular soldier starting from zero but they still lack practice in such system which is necessary to operate it effectively and in a reliable manner. The second part of the comment is just ridiculous, unless Ukraine was the richest country or the country that most spends in their military in the world there's no way they have surplus of digital targeting systems as no military does due to it's cost, actually most if not all militaries either don't have it at all or don't have enough for their entire artillery.

[@cactusjack1943]

Ruzzian saboteurs blew up a gigantic Ukrainian munitions depot in 2015ish. Ukraine actually had quite a bit of ammunition when the invasion started in 2014. What they lacked back then was the stuff the Obama administration sent them, night vision, uniforms, body armor, sleeping bags, rations, etc. all that stuff had been pilfered by Putinist oligarchs so the Ukrainian army while having a fair amount of weapons had a great deal of difficulty maintaining the army in the field. Republicans who attempted to belittle Obama for sending "pillows" were being incredibly disingenuous, naive, ignorant or deceitful. An army is useless if it freezes to death in the trenches.

[@edmundlively2840]

@@jaimevasquez5023 practice will be supplanted with OJT

[@tonysu8860]

Scuttlebutt is that Poland has incredibly large inventories of Soviet era "everything"... ammunition, MBT, aircraft, artillery, everything. Whatever Poland has already transferred to Ukraine, there is apparently a lot more where that came from and as long as the US is willing to backfill and modernize with American hardware, Poland can feel comfortable giving to Ukraine without endangering its own national security.

[@rochrich1223]

There are different levels of digital sophistication. The Ukrainians do have a good communication/target servicing system based on Uber algorithms. The request for fire is automatically directed to the closest unit with the necessary range. It's internet based, so it's cheap, comparatively. The guns don't have an integrated GPS/inertial positioning system, but commercial GPS units are cheap. Setting on an azimuth is a chore of a couple minutes.(Can commercial GPS show you the direction you are facing? I don't know.) If you have a shortage of systems, you put them on your most powerful weapons. Until ammo runs low, I'd expect them with rocket launcher units first, then the longer range 155mm canons and after that, 152mm and 122mm. I've seen some of this equipment with reserve units with 122mms, so there are units available.

[@erikdam8850]

10:03 You might want to load the shell FIRST and the Propellant charge SECOND (as they do in the video). Otherwise the propellant will be in front of the projectile, which is less than ideal :-D

[@edrd6257]

Exactly. I was laughing when the guy said it as it was totally illogical. He was lucky for you are much more diplomatic than me.

[@marcosdenizatrailhiker2037]

Caught it, lol

[@edrd6257]

@@marcosdenizatrailhiker2037 The guy clearly have no clue of what he was talking about.

[@hazonku]

I think, and I'm just basing this on my experiences in Iraq, The M777 isn't really going to be all too important until it is applied alongside the queen of battle in close proximity fighting. That's where these systems really shine. When it gets down to block to block, house to house, room to room, and the fog of war gets thick, that's when it'll outshine the Russian arty big time. The Russians will be forced to choose between not using their arty or risking fratricide while the M777 crews can still put a round just across the street or a couple buildings down from their guys. That's a game changer in MOUT.

[@frds4630]

What your should consider us that any war between the two powers directly will first lead to satellites being destroyed...this will greatly bring the battle to pre satellite days

[@user-hm8eh6be8c]

Вы привыкли воевать с папуасами. У России есть Краснополь - аналог Экскалибур. Кроме того десятки М777 уже уничтожены беспилотниками - камикадзе.

[@christopherbrown3443]

I was an FO in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also went to TMO, weaponeering, and other sensitive artillery courses. It’s pretty cool to see some of that stuff talked about here on this channel. The Excalibur round is amazing, during accuracy testing the fired 1600 mils off target and the round corrected in the area and still achieved the minimum CEP for precision guided munitions. The next thing we should send over is the 120mm mortar with the XM 395 pgm. That thing is insane too and fires much faster although at a much smaller range.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

I'm not familiar with CEP. For those who don't know mils, it's a higher precision direction system than degrees which is used for Artilery and mortars. Instead of 360 degrees in a circle, 6400 mils is used, so 1600 (verbally: one, six hundred) is the eqivalent of 90° A cannon fired guided munition that can do that is very impressive (and probably expensive). For the curious, a grunt unit in need of fire support can still call fire missions using degrees (or grid coordinates) and the supporting artillery/mortar sections make the conversions for them, but higher accuracy/responsiveness and overall improved coordination happens when a designated FO, forward observer calls the info in back to the guns.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

Also, what do you think about Ukrainian ingenuity maybe using drones and adjusting fire to get the accuracy they need?

[@stefandinu6389]

@@treebeardtheent2200 they've been doing that already so I'm pretty sure they'll keep doing it.

[@lemmiwinks3691]

I bet you had air superiority in Iraq. Ukraine does not

[@treebeardtheent2200]

@@stefandinu6389 Are you a combat experienced FO?

[@roberthunter6927]

No, the projectile is loaded FIRST, then the propellant. In the old days, they used to have five bags, stored in the shell. An artillery number would take the bags out of the shell, and adjust the charge according to the ballistic calculation. More bags for longer range, and less bags for high trajectory, shorter range fire missions. The same sort of thing happens in mortar shoots. Was not sure I heard correctly? 600 meters is "danger close" for modern munitions? In Vietnam, at least between 1965-66, "danger close" was 400 meters, unless the friendly infantry were dug in well with overhead protection. 400 meters was way too far, as many units had to bring fire missions within a 100 or even 50 meters. ANZAC troops often found that the quality of ammo varied greatly, according to batch. So US- supplied 105mm ammo was classified according to mission. Close fire support used the most accurate batches, but other ammo, less reliable, was used for harassment and interdiction, well away from friendly forces. In the Australian and New Zealand armies, the FOO was usually a Captain [and was regarded as a coveted assignment] , or very experienced 1st lieutenant, whereas US forces of the day used relatively junior officers as FOO's. At the Australian task force forward base at NuiDat, there was a composite regiment of artillery [24 guns]. There were two batteries [six guns each] of 105's [Aussies], a battery of New Zealand 105's, and an SP battery of six US 155's. The 155's of the day were even less reliable [CEP] than the 105's, so they were not used for close support missions. Of course, many things affect the idea of danger close. Supporting artillery from behind the defenders, tended to be more lethal to the enemy in front, because the force of the exploding rounds mainly went forward towards the enemy. This was often the case at both the Battle of Long Tan [1966] [Delta coy, 6 RAR, Major Smith, OC], and the Ia Trang battle of the US 1/7Cavalry in 1965, led by [then] Lt Col. Hal Moore. In Smith's case the battle was a meeting engagement between an Aussie infantry company and a VC Regiment, and in the case of Hal Moore's outfit they were pretty much expecting trouble, but were given miserly help lift support-only a 16-ship company of slicks to transport a whole battalion, albeit it a very understrength one. [About 450 men men out of an establishment of 767, according to Lt Gen Moore's [ret] book, "We Were Soldiers" ] Some generals must be insane if they think that artillery units are properly manned. Sustained artillery fire over days by a single crew per gun is just stupid. As was the often the requirement for the artillery unit to provide for their own security and defence. Fighting power is about keeping the same team together for as long as possible. So if given the opportunity, fresh units should go into battle over-strength. A company that trains together for a long time should not be subject to too many personnel changes. [Especially hastily trained individual replacements]. Even in peacetime, the fighting power of units degrade. Things like leave, specialist courses, end of service, injuries etc, etc. will mean a turnover in staff. In war you have to add attrition from KIA, WIA, MIA's, POW's etc. It takes time for new personnel to bond with the unit, acclimatise, etc. So this is best done out of battle, in reserve and in training. You pull a unit out before it drops in experienced personnel below the level of a viable cadre.

[@multipl3]

Yeh weird he would get that so wrong!

[@anthonykaiser974]

Yes, Danger Close is 600m today for FA weapons. Has been for all the 30 years I've been in.

[@armyfazer1410]

Yeah, I was wondering how you would put the projectile behind the propellant!

[@stevenjohnson4796]

Charge 3 green bag I see red to the rear , oops ‘check fire’ screams the section chief as they get ready to ram the joe. By now the Gunnery Sergeant and the Battery XO are running as the section falls to the rear of the piece. Been their, done that. Battery FDO and XO, M110A2, 8in SP Howitzer😅

[@roberthunter6927]

@@anthonykaiser974 But it is just silly bullshit. A commander is not going to say, "Oh, the enemy is now only at 600m from us, stop all DF tasks! A good way to get you and your command killed! It is just butt-covering legal bullshit. And it wastes time, because the battery commander will feel obligated to warn the FO of the "DC". It might be fine in some vast flat plain, but in close country you might not even see the enemy until he is MUCH closer than 600 metres!

[@john.rc.3274]

This video shows that artillery is very crucial in a war where neither side has air superiority. Very informative.

[@charlesrichardson8635]

I love it when Cappie is saying things like "Danger Close" and "Fire for Effect". Actually not being sarcastic.

[@caracallaavg]

The biggest advantage of 155mm for us is a steady supply of ammo. 152mm is mostly produced by Rossia and it's orbiters

[@longyu9336]

Does Ukraine's domestic industry still produce ammunition or are the logistic networks and the factories themselves unusable by now?

[@caracallaavg]

@@longyu9336 we didn't have large scale ammo production pre-war. Plus a lot of stockpiles of soviet ammo got obliterated in pre-war fires/cruise missle strikes. So moving to NATO standard is the only viable option for us

[@doorcf]

@@longyu9336 a significant part of the ukrainian heavy industry was either wrecked by the russians, bombed or at least was in the territories the fighting had been part of (and even some places the russians took) and even pre war the ukrainian armed forces were suffering from ammunition problems specially artillery ammunition. so while the ukrainian national industry does produce 122mm and 152mm it is really not at the rate it needs to so changing to nato standards would be much better in the long run

[@longyu9336]

@@caracallaavg Ouch. I thought Ukraine was a manufacturing hub during ussr days but probably most plants went bankrupt in the post ussr dissolution years.

[@caracallaavg]

@@longyu9336 ammo factories were deep inside russia

[@Crooked_Clown]

The problem with estimating the cost of each artillery round is that these companies overcharge the military for pretty much everything. A good example is a regular carpenter hammer that the military pay $75 for each hammer. The same hammer you buy at Home Depot for less than ten dollars

[@VajrahahaShunyata]

I blame Democrat's and Republicans.... We should get rid of them🤔🤺

[@kilianortmann9979]

That Hammer from Home Depot does not cost you 10$ either (assuming you need it for your work). The total cost is comprised of fuel and car maintenance cost, your hourly wage and opportunity cost (money you could have made if you didn't had to buy the damn hammer). Don't get me wrong, there is certainly overcharging and unnecessary bureaucracy, but even in the best case there are three, maybe four people involved in the buying decision.

[@Jcod_]

A lot of the cost in the higher tech things is really offset for what is spent on development. Also a lot of times the fancier the gizmo the fewer companies capable of producing it. As a for profit company with an effective monopoly, they charge as much as they can get away with.

[@gong1616]

Maybe that hammer was made from the core of a dying star!

[@donaldcarey114]

@@gong1616 Everything on Earth, including YOU is made of that.

[@shanehayes6048]

Cappy, you can't load the powder before the warhead. At 10:00 Love you man, and don't want folks to think you are dumb.

[@iLLeag7e]

Hey Cappy I appreciate the depth of the discussions & the research you do. It really does take a lot of time to pull these stats and facts, even today with all the tech we have. Good job sir

[@MrKbtor2]

Noticed that. Excellent research. Especially about the first use by Canadians. I thought I was the only one (other than those in theatre) that knew that after I did some research.

[@stanleytolle416]

If you have a trained experienced artillery crew you don't need much training for a new gun. For the most part you have a crew that knows how to load, aim, and hit targets. It's simply matter of learning the differences with the new system. Kind of like an experienced shooter learning how to shoot a new gun. The person already knows how to shoot, just needs to learn the quirks of the new gun .

[@t4ngen7]

Too bad the trained, experienced Ukrainian artillery crews are all dead.

[@eeri3673]

@@t4ngen7 mad cus bad cry russian bot. How much and where do you.pay for these ?

[@itsyaboiwan6416]

@@t4ngen7 replacements are a thing

[@Quondom]

@@t4ngen7 The trained, experienced Ukrainian artillery crews are pushing back the Russians near Kharkiv and Kherson, and recently drove them out of Sievierodonetsk.

[@t4ngen7]

@@itsyaboiwan6416 with time, sure. time is not on Ukraine's side.

[@HAL_9001]

There have been Ukrainian troops interviewed who said their training was only 5 days and that was more than enough for basic operation. Some of the details they figured out on the battlefield. That doesn't mean US/NATO troops are slow learners [Crayon joke goes here], it just means the guys Ukraine is sending are already experienced artillerymen who have potentially been operating a variety of artillery systems for several years. They don't need taught terminology, theory, etc. just how to use a different tool.

[@Jcod_]

There is also the effect of after a certain point there is diminishing returns on more training. US/NATO haven't been in a full hands on deck extended war in a long time. It makes sense to spend more time training if you have the time. Ukraine is in the thick of it right now and getting their people in the field after enough to be proficient is probably more important than making sure they are all excellent when good will do wonders for them right now.

[@elmascapo6588]

@@fraskf6765 that happens when you have artillery crew that already know how to aperate a gun

[@derbigpr500]

Operating artillery is like riding a bike. Once you learn how to ride one bike, you can ride any.

[@singular9]

5 days because that's the current average time of a living soldier in Ukraine. Ukraine alone is losing 1000+ per day.

[@elmascapo6588]

@@singular9 according to putin himself

[@massengineer7582]

15:09 I love the artillery man jumping up on the howitzer to reload it, real enthusiasm for his job, or maybe just too many cups of coffee ;-)

[@PataPannu]

It still baffles me how one single round manages to cost 47 - 115 thousand dollars to manufacture. Something like a selfguiding missile I might still understand the costs, but this makes you wonder what in earth do they put into them to make them that expensive.

[@stefanfichtenhuegel5370]

Seems he talks about the Excalibur ones, which are kind of guided gliders. Conventinal Rounds with proxy or contact fuse and without all these shiny smart GPS guidiance stuff should come way cheaper. Downside they are certainly not the 16feet Cep breed. Btw. Back in the 90ies I remember terminal guided rounds for 155mm Howitzers under the abreviation SMART (SuchzuenderMunitionARTillerie). But such stuff is common tech now and Russia/Ukrain has similar stuff too.

[@powkung45]

Welcome to the Pentagon grift, everything is about siphoning the maximum amount of cash from taxpayers

[@zee9709]

its maximum profit, cost of labor and manufacturing probbaly under 50%.

[@powkung45]

@@zee9709 Try under 20%

[@zee9709]

@@powkung45 oof

[@Vash_Budanow]

777 are not more complicated than other similar russian artillery. Training takes much less time since the most important thing Ukrainian specialists need is the ballistic tables.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

And hopefully a few really smart guys to do things like taking tube diameter measurements, ensuring accurate meteorological data and calculating discrepancies between ammo table predictions and actual usage (hopefully really small)

[@treebeardtheent2200]

Artillery capabilities, especially coordinated with drones can do lots more things than most people realize.

[@JustinHunnicutt]

The guy who does like a bunny hop at 15:09 is just amazing

[@1caseyk]

My compliments to your grand dad. My father broke down 75mm howitzers and rode them around on mules, on snow and with snowshoes on, while the infantry skied around like Hans Schneider on holiday. All that insane training at altitude and in the cold made his unit extra tough when they arrived in Italy. Hoaoh. I'll never forget how Bush/Rumsfeld decided (recall they were aviators) to leave the artillery behind some of the time in the MidEast wars recently fought. That was a "slaps head" moment because no infantryman (I was one) ever wants to leave the artillery behind. Ever. As in: never. All of that to say, combined arms is the secret sauce. One time the vaunted 101st had one brigade of helicopters go on their own in Iraq, and got shot up for doing it wrong. They left behind: the combined arms concept. All this to say (takes deep breath) where is the armor, Ukraine? FGS, my friends. Ukraine, I'm waiting to see some good armored thrusts into the Rooskie lines - then I'll know you're trying for a decisive blow. Alas, the Ukrainian army is the offspring of the Soviet Russian era, and they suck at armor deployment. They have sukt at it since WWII, and very few nations actually know how to deploy tanks properly. If I went to war with things missing, and as an infantryman had to choose between having infantry and artillery, but no tanks, or infantry and tanks, but no artillery, I'd choose the former. But, dayum. I'm wishing the Yooks would crank up some tank warfare and speed to the end of the war. Out here. Great reporting!

[@aesopsaintours4491]

Really loving the more clean and professional style of the newer videos. This is great, you're becoming like a more contemporary, US focused Military History Visualized

[@craighaldane3596]

When you really think about these distances even the standard rounds is crazy and I think we can see the accuracy is better than thought from what we are seeing coming out of Ukraine. There are many shots of tanks being hit with these munitions.

[@stevebuckley7788]

Thankfully you don't see the KA-52 squadron responding to the position or counterfire artillary kiling the entire battery after about 5 minutes of firing the first shell. The M777 is inferior to the Ukraine guns it's replacing. Just because it's made in the USA doesn't overcome the fact it's shitty second hand TOWED artillary in a war being largely fought by SELF PROPELLED 152mm and 203mm guns.

[@-PlayMaker-]

@@stevebuckley7788 you didn't listen very well did you?

[@lorenzamccoy7512]

@@-PlayMaker- he only listens to Big brother Putin. He's not even allowed to believe his own eyes and ears just trust Big brother Putin!

[@tubthump]

Tanks are being hit by rounds from a howitzer? I beg to differ

[@couchrider6228]

@@tubthump they is hitting em with a houerser

[@bbones504]

13B the King of Battle 💪. Gun bunnies are never mentioned in conflicts or combat.

[@user-wj7bu9zv7i]

as others said, it's much faster to train a soldier on a new system rather then from scratch. When I was in the military, it took us about 6 months to do the crew training for the tanks, and learn our roles. those 6 months include everything from classes to company live fire and maneuver exercises that took a few days straight. When I started the tank commander's course, we had to learn the other two positions, we had about 10 days to learn both. The reason is that most of the stuff like maintenance is already covered, and you just have to learn the operating specifics, and that is not super hard. I imagine that a towed gun would be much simpler to operate, especially if they already have the fire control systems figured out.

[@bedlambreakfast5548]

"How high?" Too damn high! I've always loved artillery. Who needs fancy wheels and special armor when you can just have more gun?

[@bjkarana]

haha, I love that phrasing! _Who needs fancy wheels and special armor when you can just have more gun?_

[@FOVoid]

Fun fact: Germany trained Ukrain Soldiers on the PzH2000 and the people who wrote the code for the computers translated the language to Ukrain. Now the Ukrain Artillery forces are able to respond within a short time whenever enemy positions are spotted.

[@user-fb9sm7nn2x]

B-b-but Germany want Ukraine to lose the war and sent nothing at all

[@FOVoid]

@@user-fb9sm7nn2x listen mate. We trained them. That doesn't mean that our socialist leader will send weapon systems. And yes Chancellor Scholz is a member of the Socialist Party Germany.

[@horrorfan117]

If memory serves recently there was a Russian propagandist trying to get footage of one of their thermoberic launchers. Within a minute of launching a single round Ukrainians were already returning fire and were hitting close by.

[@hermanaaftink7730]

@@FOVoid Germany trained them to use Dutch PzH 2000. And just like de US cannons without te high-tec computer equiment.

[@user-fb9sm7nn2x]

@@FOVoid well Poland is ruled by conservative right that is against abortion and they sent hundreds of weapons ( and have trashtalking Germany as hobby), that doesn't make them saints or exemples

[@donaldhawkins9173]

This is the best program covering military matters on KZbin it's very instructive and your entertaining what more can you ask for

[@josephkarl7080]

Btw.. the projectile goes in first... the the propellant 🙄. Great content. The Marines fielded the M777 back in 2005. The Army in 2006. We broke the heck out of those howitzers...

[@bengtmowitz5012]

The Excalibur system is actually developed by Raytheon Missile Systems and BAE Systems Bofors AB in combination with Swedish Archer is capable of shoot-and-scoot at 30s.

[@jasons.863]

No, because 3 out of 4 Excalibur rounds will either be duds or fly off course, so it usually takes 30 minutes to an hour to actually have it accomplish something, or just shoot M107 and get the job done a bit more efficiently and a helluva lot cheaper

[@Talishar]

@@jasons.863 What the hell are you talking about? Excalibur has had far better records than what you're saying. All of the arty folks in the Marines and Army love it but they aren't issued a lot of those shells so they don't use them as often.

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

This video is ridiculous propaganda full of contradictions! First! Other NATO countries have supplied Ukraine with self-propelled howitzers and Russia does not feel provoked into WW3. Then this guy actually says that the M777 howitzers are actually obsolete but still useful to the US Marines. Are the Marines fighting in the Ukarine? Ridiculous like the entire video! By the way, Ukraine doesn't have enough transport helicopters at all to transport the M777 howitzers. In fact, Ukraine does not transport anything by air lift, so it makes absolutely no sense to broach the subject at all. Why is he talking about helicopter transports anyway! Completely nonsensical! The fact is that the Americans only supplied obsolete british M777 towed howitzers. Australia and Canada also supplied some such obsolete M777 howitzers. The self-propelled howitzers are significantly better than the towed howitzer because it is self-propelled. Greater mobility has always been important in warfare. Just like armor protection for soldiers as is the case with self-propelled armored howitzers. Also, the crew operating these self-propelled howitzers is only half the size of the crew of towed howitzers, mainly because of the autoloader. Because of this autoloader, a self-propelled howitzer can also fire much faster than a M777 towed howitzer! By the way, why the USA doesn't supply such US M109 turreted self-propelled tracked howitzers to the Ukraine is a mystery to me! By the way, the Americans only supplied to Ukraine only simplified version of the M777 howitzers from which the FCS digital fire control system was removed. So in the Armed Forces of Ukraine version, aiming is carried out in the old fashioned way, using optical sights. With the FCS digital fire control system, of course, much more precise and easier aiming is possible! It means also the M777 version delivered to Ukraine can’t fire the M982 Excalibur. If the Ukrainians had these M982 Excalibur shells it would double the firing range of the M777 howitzers to 50 km and greatly increase accuracy as it is a guided artillery shell. So tt is also a mystery why the USA only delivered this simplified version of the M777 howitzers to the Ukraine without FCS digital fire control system and without the possibility to fire the M982 Excalibur shells! Just as it is a mystery why the Americans didn't supply modern US M109 turreted self-propelled tracked howitzers instead of the outdated M777 towed howitzers.That I didn't come up with this can be read in this Indian link on the simplified version of the M777 howitzers in the Ukrainian army! frontierindia.com/why-are-u-s-weapons-failing-in-ukraine/ "Why are U.S. weapons failing in Ukraine?" Also in this Austrian video, where the situation in the Kramatorsk pocket is explained very well by a real expert, one can see the simplified version of the M777 howitzers in action by the Ukrainian army. Unfortunately it is in German without English subtitles, but from Time 10:41 one can see how the subject of the M777 howitzers and the M982 Excalibur shells is discussed. Video images of Ukrainian deployments of the M777 are also shown, with circles marking the missing parts showing that it is the simplified version of the M777 howitzers. Time 10:41 kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5S0amCXqMxrnck "Kesselschlacht im Donbass" The Americans could supply self-propelled tracked howitzers instead of the outdated M109! Also Belgium didn't want to supply M109 self-propelled tracked howitzers but Ukraine bought M109 howitzers from a private Belgian company. Italy has also not yet delivered any M109 self-propelled tracked howitzers and only supplied obsolete FH70 towed howitzer. In addition, Estonia has supplied a few like the british M777 obsolete 122-mm D-30 Soviet towed howitzers. But Estonia can't blame because Estonia doesn't have self-propelled tracked howitzers! Estalnd is doing what it can to help Ukraine, the others certainly aren't! By the way, it is a mystery why the Czechs, Solvaks, Poles, French and Norwegians are able to supply these very useful self-propelled howitzers but the Americans and other NATO states as well as the Germans cannot do that! In fact, one of the factors why the Russians are victorious is that they have far more self-propelled tracked howitzers, as these howitzers are very effective in supporting infantry. But the fact is that Ukrainians have held out until now because of NATO support. There is no real Russian air superiority because the only weapons Ukrainians have in abundance are anti-aircraft weapons. That's why the Russians don't have total air supremacy. Poland actually delivered the most Anti-Aircraft Missiles with the Polish Piorun man-portable air defense missiles system so these are the most commonly used by the Ukrainian army anti-aircraft missiles. This man-portable air-defense system of Polish production is designed to destroy low-flying attack aircraft, helicopters and drones. Already before the war Poland supplied many of these Piorun anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine. Other states have also supplied man-portable air defense missile systems to destroy low-flying attack aircraft, helicopters and drones. So the French supplied Mistral, the Germans Soviet 9K32 Strela-2, Slovaks Soviet 9K38 Igla and the United Kingdom british Starstreak. US man-portable air-defense system Stinger supplied Italians, Dutch, Germans and Americans. Czechs also supplies not specified number of Strela 10M mobile armored Vehicle with short-range surface-to-air missile system. The system is primarily intended to engage low-altitude threats, such as helicopters, drones and low flying attack aircraft. Slovakia also supplied one S-300MU Soviet long range surface-to-air missile system. The system is fully automated, though manual observation and operation are also possible. Components may be near the central command post, or as distant as 40 km. Each radar provides target designation for the central command post. The command post compares the data received from the targeting radars , filtering false targets. The central command post features both active and passive target detection modes. The missiles have a range of up to 90km. The Ukrainians also have missiles to engage fighter jets at greater distances, but the man-portable air defense missile systems I mentioned above are much more important because they prevent air support for russian infantry. However, if the Ukrians are not only supposed to hold out somehow, but also to be able to push back the Russians, other weapons must also be supplied in similar numbers like the large number of anti-aircraft missiles. So in large number important weapons like self-propelled howitzers to support of infantry for example.

[@bengtmowitz5012]

@@GreatPolishWingedHussars You are absolutely right 👍

[@GreatPolishWingedHussars]

@@bengtmowitz5012 Thanks!

[@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195]

Some channels have already been reporting successful use of the 777 and interviews with Ukrainian military personnel that say they are glad to have it and successfully using it.

[@flare9866]

probably extremely bias. western media sources are desperate to show any ukraine victories as they are taking huge loses every single day.

[@Rhaspun]

Yes. The Ukrainian soldiers seem to catch on quickly with the newer equipment they've been receiving.

[@infodawg]

One of your best pieces yet Mister Chris.

[@kdeuler]

Great vid. I for sure like the shoot and scoot of the wheeled M777s, what with enemies radar targeting, etc.

[@michaellehman1549]

Note that the warhead is loaded first, then the propellant charge(s) - behind the shell/warhead in order to propel it.

[@lesczu45]

Hmn... this video is incomplete. The thing about M777 is that they were supplied as a first step of transitioning Ukrainian artillery into NATO standard 155mm. Following that other artillery pieces came, such as French CEASAR, M109 from Norway, AHS Krab from Poland, Dana from Czech Republic, FH 70 from Italy and so on. The reason for supplying 155mm guns to Ukraine is actually a lot simpler than "We give it to them because it is better and more accurate". Ukraine was simply running out of ammunition for 152mm guns.They were in a situation where intense artillery barrage is required every single day to continue fighting, but their stocks depleted to so much so they would need to stop fighting and start withdrawing from certain positions. From 2014 Ukraine was looking to buy 152mm ammo from Eastern European countries. They even managed to get some, but Russia blew up stockpile in Czech Republic (bellingcat made an article about GRU involvement, dated - 2021/04/20). There are 3 known manufacturers of 152 ammo in eastern europe that are willing to sell to Urkaine, one in Kraśnik Poland, one in Bulgaria and the third one I am unsure but might be Slovakia. These operate 24/7 at 100% capacity - I read an article, that the Polish manufacturer from Kraśnik was so desperate to increase production, they went back to workers who were caught drinking on the job last year and made job offers for them granted they dont drink anymore. Ukraine simply needed to continue fighting and it was not possible just with 152mm guns, the supply was not able to keep up with the intense conflict. So USA provided whatever gun was easiest and fastest to transport and use. Similar case with other guns (Pz 2000. is a a different case here). Ukraine had no other choice than learn whatever was being offered to them. And the M777 does not even have greater range than the Russian 2S19 Msta (25km base range), BM-21 (45km) or BM-27 Uragan (35km). The only thing which makes M777 good here is better accuracy and the Excalibur rounds (which Russians also have - Krasnopol rounds). And the number of M777 provided is smaller than the Ukrainian loses of their own pieces of artillery.

[@steadmanuhlich6734]

Very good comment. Thanks for writing about the 152mm sources and issues. :)

[@benjones4365]

Thank you, that is grate information.

[@fallinginthed33p]

Accuracy is the real deal here. Combined with drones and FOs, Ukraine artillery has been targeting convoys and emplaced tanks. They're not shooting like Russian artillery to wipe out a town.

[@willw8011]

The M777 is the longest range artillery the USA has in service. The USMC also reduced their artillery forces due to their restructuring. This is why the M777 was sent... a lot of them were already in storage. 152mm and 152mm shells can be made by companies making the 155mm shells for the USA. An artillery shell is not complicated.

[@WereScrib]

@@willw8011 While US companies do make limited 'foreign arms', these are not mass supplies, it actually takes a lot to re-gear manufacture. As in, an absurd amount of gear. Just 'making 152mm' is a lot more complicated as it'd require the complete conversion of assembly of a factory. We may have brought back lend lease, but we're not nationalized like we were in WW2. If we go hard enough to start near-nationalizing and socializing business like we did in WW2, we may see this kind of move, but it's a lot more practical to just lease what we already make in bulk.

[@ricardoamendoeira3800]

The constant switching between imperial and metric units made this episode harder to follow, may I suggest either showing both for every measurement or sticking to just one?

[@ruthnoya8424]

Too much work for a KZbin channel

[@Journeyman53]

The M777 is manufactured by BAE Systems' Global Combat Systems division. Prime contract management is based in Barrow-in-Furness in the United Kingdom as well as manufacture and assembly of the titanium structures and associated recoil components. Final integration and testing of the weapon is undertaken at BAE's facility in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

[@NilesHansen]

Canadian triple 7’s supported us in Afghanistan absolute beautiful piece of weaponry

[@crinklecut3790]

Sure, but nobody had artillery to shoot back at the triple 7’s in Afghanistan. This is a different war. The Russian army is not a bunch of peasants in flip flops.

[@justmeandmeonly2501]

Now use one when there are hundreds of enemy artillery fixing on your position (I think the actual ratio is around 15 to 1.) Shoot fast!

[@-TheLynx-]

Great video Cappy! Thanks for including both imperial and metric!

[@chrislong3938]

The thing about towed vs tracked vehicles to me is that tracked cannons are easily moved around a battlefield in a tactical sense. For them to be redeployed to a different part of a front; say a couple hundred miles, a good rail system is required. Towed pieces are not so easily moved quickly in a tactical scenario, but they can be towed hundreds of miles if necessary by almost any duece, and I expect that the 777 might get away with even smaller vehicles. Chinooks used to haul the old 155mm howitzers all over the battlefield back in the '70s and if the gun needs to get there in a hurry, prime movers can catch up pretty quickly while the gun crews go along in the helicopter. Of course, stellar logistics is always key!

[@stockholm3976]

So interesting! and you do everything alone....Great job!

[@peterdaspit5790]

I'm not sure loading the propellant before the projectile (10:02) does much for the advertised range, but other than that, a fascinating video! Thanks for the great education as always!

[@greenwave819]

It's called the "Kiss of Death"

[@vallanor]

ye he got it backwards lol

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, Clearly, this time-expired "Grunt" is a US Civil Waaauugh Veteran, trained on muzzle-loaded Cannons... ;-p

[@dcmbb3]

Yeah it wasn't just me that caught that. Good.

[@vigigamehacker123]

Watch it again carefully. 9:58 - you can see the projectile is loaded BEFORE he adds the propellant. 10:02 is the SAME clip, but from a different angle....you can see the guy pushing in the propellant again after the round is loaded for a very short period

[@recoilrob324]

Artillery that changes direction after apogee could perhaps foil some counter-battery fire along with hitting the target.

[@jake4194]

So are you saying it will confuse the enemy's ballistic computers with a strange trajectory?

[@tonysu8860]

My understanding is that return fire weapons don't necessarily wait for the apogee to track the origin of fire.

[@recoilrob324]

@@jake4194 I know the counter-battery radar watches the ballistic trajectory then back-tracks it to the origin...but don't know what kind of range and sensitivity they have and when the shells can be seen. Someone was saying that the Russian CB radars don't work well at all with single shells coming in from whatever direction and rely on a whole bunch coming from the same location to be able to compute where they're coming from. Any shell that can change direction could mess with this system if it hasn't already gotten a fix on the source before it alters course. Maybe.

[@recoilrob324]

@@tonysu8860 I'm sure if the radar can spot the shell going up...that would make it easier to predict from whence it came, but at maximum range when can the radar actually see the shell well enough to locate it? I'm sure they're not going to be disclosing this info to the general public but tracking it on the way down would be a LOT easier as it's so much closer. That's why I just mentioned the directional change as a possible foil to CB fire.

[@Christoph1888]

Thanks for the chapters.

[@iainmcevoy1762]

Thanks Cappie nice info update !! 👍

[@patriciawingate6423]

It is my understanding that Ukraine has 3 schools of artillery. They seem to have remarkably competent individuals and teams in their army. As Zelinsky said, They already have the gunners, they need the equipment.

[@pat0652]

They have done crazy well with their arty and had home grown laser guided 152mm and 122mm rounds.

[@croikeymatesthrowashrimpon8130]

totally, thats why he needs civilians to take up the fight

[@achair7265]

@@croikeymatesthrowashrimpon8130 I mean would any nation do the same thing? Of course. In this case when you're fighting the worlds biggest nation. Who threatens your entire nation as a whole. Definitely.

[@croikeymatesthrowashrimpon8130]

​@@achair7265 russia is only the largest by size, not population and ukraine is comparable to russia in terms of military if you ask civilians to take up the fight, you cant turn around and then cry that the russians are hitting "civilian" targets ukraine is going to lose, they need to get over it

[@achair7265]

@@croikeymatesthrowashrimpon8130 Then Russia needs to get over it with the sanctions. Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Ukraine in it's final stand managing to do more damage to it's military than any other conflict since the fall of the USSR.

[@Krieghandt]

You forgot one Ukrainian advantage. Tractors. WAY more power than needed to tow a howitzer, and can drag it through mud and sand no truck would dare to cross. Also, tractors don't stand out when in farmland, unlike military trucks that just scream "I'M HEEREE"

[@steadmanuhlich6734]

Those are good points. That is one advantage of a towed piece, if light enough, it can go places, and be towed by a variety of vehicles.

[@badou111]

y ou still beleive this shit?

[@hermanaaftink7730]

@@steadmanuhlich6734 But a tractor can not move the crew and the ammunition needed.

[@AGMI9]

go back to reddit with these stupid comments

[@davidty2006]

oh yeah. Tractors can move the guns. And with them being in high numbers quite easy to get hold of....

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

dude the recoil compensation system to make the cannon not move while firing is something that was invented over 100 years ago, it's not exactly "new".

[@KPSully]

Forward observers don't walk in round towards the target they attempt to bracket the target. They generally don't call for FFE until they get rounds both long and short of the target. It is much easier to accurately correct rounds for left and right adjustments and range error tends to be much greater than deflection, consequently, it usually takes more adjust fire rounds to correct the range. When adjusting artillery fire from an aircraft sometimes an observer will request "ranging rounds" to establish the gun-target line and make the correction in reference to the G-T line. Ground observer will have a known location and adjustments are made from the FO to target line.

[@johnknapp952]

The training can be a lot shorter if you're dealing with troops that are already in Ukrainian artillery units and trained as such. Just a matter to train on new system. It would also be interesting to know if Ukraine's digital FC system is being adapted to the 777 as they already know how that works.

[@aitorbleda8267]

While technology could be adapted, pretty sure they lack the ballistic information to do that quickly, and they can use the system for existing artillery.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

Artillery has the beauty of being useable in a high tech manner (further, faster more accurate, but worthless if not understood) OR in a lower tech manner (wasteful, trial and error, but effective if time and ammo allows).

[@gjohnson4758]

This channel is so amazingly informative. Thank you!

[@fantinilukasz]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@HughMcBrideDonegalFlyer]

Great work Chris, an everymans guide to the conflict

[@ghostnappa3421]

Hey Chris love the content, you should cover the new arctic airborne division in Alaska and how they could play a role in future conflicts

[@Puddlef1sh]

Didn't he do one on that? Or am I messing up channels?

[@TexasNationalist1836]

If I was a father I would want an M777 not some stupid wallet

[@patriciawingate6423]

Don't bring it to Canada or it will be confiscated at the border. Yes, people have tried to bring all kinds into the country!

[@fmayer1507]

YES! Artillery NCOs make the difference. A great NCO can make a suboptimal system better than the enemy's technically superior system by being able to get the most out of the weapon and the crew. It is not just about technology; the element of superior NCO leadership can make a huge difference.

[@brianfoley4328]

Great presentation....well done Sir, well done indeed.

[@davedixon2068]

The video clip you showed of the M777 being attacked by the Russian drone and purporting to show destruction of other weapons in woods was later proved to be a mishmash of clips from different places it actually didn't show any damage to any M777's other than some artillerymen's trousers when the drone dropped a grenade. As to mobility the FH70 Howitzer has an integral motor unit which allows it to be moved easily to new positions, without the need for a prime mover, to avoid counterbattery fire should be an easy fix if its considered a requirement.

[@Taskandpurpose]

Glad to hear it , thanks for the details

[@badou111]

@@Taskandpurpose haaaaahaaaahaaaa

[@derbigpr500]

Plenty of footage and pics of destroyed M777's on various telegram channels.

[@garyp3472]

Russians lie like they breath except more frequently

[@geneharrison6625]

It would be Nieve to think that a fair number of these systems haven’t been damaged or destroyed along with their crews , with russias air dominance in these parts of Ukraine , it would be extremely difficult to hide and supply these systems

[@Sightbain.]

Anyone saying that the M777 is lacking on mobility is trying to sell you a product from a company that they and their family are board members of. You can tow the M777 behind any civilian vehicle, it is able to be air lifted onto mountains or remote regions that you couldn't otherwise drive up to and has no tradeoffs in terms of range or lethality vs other 155mm artillery. Self propelled systems sound good but even in Ukraine we haven't seen them offer significant advantages and the smaller footprint of the towed versions lets them be setup in smaller concealment areas and you can use one vehicle doing multiple trips to bring them into position.

[@charlescourtwright2229]

You missed the part where he said the Marines are an offensive force, used in other countries, the Ukraines are fighting a defensive war, where the ability the shoot n scoot in quick order is less necessary

[@georgemartin1383]

I missed the part where I support the military industrial complex.

[@granatmof]

Honestly when he mentioned airborne used them in air drops my mind went to vehicles also used in air drops. Isn't there like an completely unarmored tact-cool atv made by Polaris used by special forces/airborn specifically so it could be deployed via air resources? And barring that, it's America, an NCO gives a farmer a receipt for his truck and they roll out. The farmer can get money for the truck later when the airborn is resupplied.

[@utah20gflyer76]

My understanding is the Russians have a system like we do that immediately locates the position of artillery seconds after the first shot. As a result you can only safely fire a few rounds before needing to move. This is a major reason towed artillery is antiquated unless you are fighting a force without it's own artillery or air force. Russia is not such a force. All of these artillery pieces are going to be destroyed in short order with no affect on Russias advancing forces.

[@Winters004]

@@utah20gflyer76 That’s kind of the reason why Excalibur shells were developed, so NATO 155s could outrange their peer equivalents. Also, deployment matters. If your artillery is defensively oriented so only the actual combat zone is covered in their range, attacking artillery may not even be in a position to retaliate. Not to mention, a large portion of Russia’s artillery is towed howitzers as well.

[@martinsnell253]

Another great video Chris. Listening to another experienced commentator (Dom Nicholls of the Telegraph - a former British officer) the problems highlighted in that report on the shortcomings of the M777 may well be a problem. Artillery analysts estimate that return of fire on a gun position can be less than three minutes. While this is less of a problem in unconventional theatres it's hard not to worry that, against well trained, well equipped Russian batteries the gun crews may well run into trouble pdq. Nonetheless, I am pretty sure that the Ukrainian army are more than grateful for such a capable system.

[@gordonferrar7782]

It's won praise in with Ukrainian forces. They nickname it the scalpel.

[@martinsnell253]

@@gordonferrar7782 Very true - the five months since I made this comment have proven the worth of the kit - helped of course by the amazing abilities of the Ukrainian gunners who have got displacement times to less than 3 min 30 in some cases. And a healthy dose of Russian ineptitude helps too!

[@echohunter4199]

Retired Army 11B here, back in the late 1980’s we had the 155mm Copperhead rounds expected to be fielded but it got shelved after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[@carrolbrooks2143]

It got shelved once the Military realized ( After blowing the Laser Designator up) it was Dangerous to the FO's.... they found out the hard way the round could bead on the Laser Designator and turn towards the FO if they were within the Aiming Sheaf of the Round. We Blew Up A Hummer, with the Designator mounted on a scissor Lift, Driven Remotely into the Zulu Impact Area of Camp Pendleton Ca. The collapse of the Soviet Union Didn't Help Either!?!!

[@echohunter4199]

@@carrolbrooks2143 Oh shit! I say that with respect and shock. I never heard what happened to the project. Around the same time we were looking to replace the TOW system (I was an 11H back then) with the LSAT system but as you mentioned, it was shelved when the Soviets crumbled, the Javelin had some of its tech folded into its system though. At the end of the 80’s we had some INCREDIBLE weapons technology that was about to be fielded that got shelved. While in Iraq I painted a couple targets for CAS but had no idea it used to be so hazardous to one’s health, lol.

[@carrolbrooks2143]

@@echohunter4199 Yeah, we got to do some really cool shit back then, we were the first Artillery Unit to ride the LCAC's out to and back from the Ship. We Blew The Fans Out of Three When They Sucked The Canvas Of Of The 5 Tons And Gun Sight Covers!?!! One LCAC Blew Out Its Skirt Trying To Climb Up A Sand Dune & Over A Cliff !?!! Good Times

[@dougrye3020]

On a European news channel they interviewed a Ukrainian artilleryman and he claimed that they were trained for five days but he had previous artillery experience with the Russian guns. He claimed that it wasn’t that difficult to learn how to operate them M- 777

[@Dimetropteryx]

As an artilleryman, I'm inclined to believe that. They have the foundation, they can skip everything except how to actually operate the gun. That's 1 day of training plus 4 days of drills. That's how we did it when we eg. switched from the D-30 to the M-46.

[@colobossable]

Great British design! I'm not sure it's a total game-changer for Ukraine though, they don't have the helicopters to move them around like the US does and I'm not sure 100/150 is enough to have a huge impact. They need more, of almost everything.

[@anthonykelly1368]

As long as gravity is a thing, artillery will never be obsolete. This old 11B has nothing but respect for Redlegs.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

Now that it's been another year I'd love to hear an update on how the 777s, HIMARS and other weapon systems are doing, along with the people who are using them.

[@AHalz]

The significant issue is that the Ukrainians are literally outnumbered 7 to 1 in the artillery fight. The US really needs to up the number of artillery pieces it sends, along with a large number of Excalibur shells, drones, etc. to make a full stop of the Russian onslaught. Is that going to happen? Not sure.

[@YeeLeeHaw]

@Jamesp wickstrom Indirectly the west will lose way more if this war is allowed to go on for over a year.

[@bubbasbigblast8563]

It's not that simple: Russia doesn't have air superiority over Ukraine, so the amount of equipment Russia can safely commit is limited. Russia would need to dedicate more and more defenses to protect the artillery (and it's requisite supply chain,) from air/tank strikes, and that in turn limits Russia's ability to respond or attack elsewhere. Whether Ukraine is willing or able to exploit that is an open question, but it's very much a possibility.

[@kennethwickey3661]

@Jamesp wickstrom its worth it if each excalibur takes out a piece of Russian equipment.

[@specialnewb9821]

@Jamesp wickstrom they have sent at least a few of those

[@Seafox0011]

This war is going to be decided on accuracy - even at 7 to 1 if each of those 7 is taken out by just one shell - Russia will run out of combat people and materiel before Ukraine runs out of shells.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

The fire control system only adds accuracy to one of the FIVE (5) requirements for accurate predicted (artillery fire). It is extremely misleading to imply that having that one system will ensure high accuracy. By itself, it does not. Every element of fire support has the possibility of serious accuracy errors. - Target Location accuracy - Gun location accuracy (for every gun) - Computational accuracy - Meteorlogical Data accuracy - Gun data / Ammunition data accuracy Other details included within the bigger elements include propellant temperature, gun tube wear (internal diameter), air temperature and pressure at multiple elevation layers, and curvature/rotation of the earth (longer range shots especially). It has been some years for me, so any recently experienced cannon cockers are welcome to correct any errors I have made. Check or Hold?

[@carrolbrooks2143]

I Had to explain to my Dad once, "you know how a compass has 360 degrees, well we use 6400 Mils, and we're only allowed to be 2 mills out", Hell, that was in 1990!?!!

[@treebeardtheent2200]

@@carrolbrooks2143With all the ferro-metalic wrecks out on the Ukrainan battlefields probably creating additional magnetic anomolies, it's more important than ever I reckon to be able to hit the enemy at long range, from gun locations that are well layed out and fairly secure, so while 2 mils is ok, it basically means that trenches and bunkers can still be tough targets. I for one hope to see Ukrainian forces just punch through the gaps making most of the Russian defense efforts useless. However, logistics centers, airfields and key rolling assets are not hard targets so much with the right munitions. I have not heard much about copperheads being used yet, but maybe in the upcoming weeks, idk. Lots of 80s and 90s state of the art stuff is still really capable of doing serious damage.

[@sueannoquinn6788]

I'm using my wife's tablet. Back in the 80s the M-198 Battery had a ground guide when towing it behind the 5 ton. For those that don't know, you have the lowest ranking guy walking in front of the 5 ton. For safety. They had to start putting ground guides at the wheels of the 198. One of the Units 13Bs was having a bad life so he decided to end it. While the 5 ton was towing the 198, the GI walked over and laid down and let the wheel of the 198 run over his head. It wasn't pretty.

[@leokelly359]

what is wild for me . is the fact that i was one of the artillery units that tested all of the things that you talked about. multiple times from 89-95 i spent tdy time at white sands NM and up in alaska and ft sill okla

[@iffracem]

I've had a ridge wallet for over a year now, and love it... except for one thing... Sliding a credit card in and out under the pressure required to keep it in place tends to destroy the plastic protective film on the card. This means it starts to de-laminate and fall apart sooner than I've noticed before. That said, the latest replacement card is lasting a lot longer than the others... better card technology, or the elastic in the ridge wallet is starting to ease up a bit? dunno...

[@smokeypuppy417]

Its like every wargame match online, as soon as it turns into a stalemate with no one wanting to advance, it turns into an artillery slugfest with cluster rockets and artillery spam. The side with the better artillery wins the stalemate especially in terrain like eastern Ukraine where its almost entirely flat with agriculture fields, small villages, and few patches of trees.

[@airpods3198]

Lmao, so glad I found a wargame comment

[@bobo-cc1xw]

I get all my news on the conflict through warchat

[@mynameisben123]

How does one learn more about these? Eg watch them etc

[@comlitbeta7532]

Ok but if the terrain is flat and open what drags a stalemate? I though artillery were more useful to pick defense in entrenched position, because if there is no cover a regular tank can do the trick anyway no ?

[@CountKibblesNBits]

@@comlitbeta7532 cus everyone on the otherside can see you coming, and there's no where to hide once they start shooting.

[@phtevenmolz5030]

I would say the abbreviated training is not a large issue, depending on the MOS of the troops that were sent. For example, reclassing to a different MOS within your same series may only require 2-4 weeks worth of school with the US Army, even for some pretty demanding support jobs. It’s a matter of transferrable skills and competency.

[@lukasschrauber]

Another great video! As a non US citzen I really appreciate you using the global metric system, and not the confusing puzzle you call a system over there ;-) Love your channel. Thanks

[@donnbyrne1971]

Great report! Possible correction: Projectile goes in first, the propellant second.

[@tonysu8860]

Was wondering about that odd order in the video... for anything that is breech loaded.

[@CanadianLegionaire]

I'm a gunner in the RCAS and just have a few points I'd like to add to this video, I'll be writing this as I watch the video so if I mention something that comes up later then that is why: I'll preface this by saying that the 777 is a great weapons platform, but it does have drawbacks. 1) Sure, on paper the minimum crew for a 777 is 5 men, but believe me you will hate your life if you have to operate this thing with only 5 people. 7 is probably the best minimum amount to have but you want a full crew whenever possible. Each round is 100 pounds which isn't all that much on its own, until you get large fire missions. Also the thing itself is heavy (obviously), so if you had to move it in rough terrain with only 5 people, well you can imagine how much of a pain that would be. For reference, we once had to move a smaller and lighter LG1 105 gun during one ex through mud and water, mind you only about ten meters or so, and we did it but it wasn't easy so imagine having to do that with something much larger and heavier. Also, there is a lot of pumping involved due to the hydraulics so if you're doing a lot of shoot and scoots with only 5 people then RIP. edit 1: yeah should of watched ten more seconds before writing this as you mentioned most of what I talked about here right after about having 7 + 1 operating the gun, but I guess it adds context as to why. 2) This kind of goes with what I mentioned earlier but yeah, the 777's mobility is pretty bad as even with a good crew, it take longer to set then smaller artillery pieces and I'll wager SPG's as well (we don't use SPG's in the CAF anymore so I can't tell), and equally as long to get her back up and moving again. If mobility is key to your operation, I would say get SPG's or MLRS instead of this gun because it isn't quick. Didn't really find any other points to bring up, but I will conclude by saying that the 777 is a beast of a gun and a great piece of equipment in the right circumstance, I seriously doubt however that it will be what makes the Russians turn and run. I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised however.

[@lordmustaine3972]

Posted to RCAS? I'm sorry to hear that.

[@georgerobert4709]

10:00 You got iot wrong The projectile is loaded before the bag charge , Otherwise the round would be propelled backwards . The projectile has copper drive bands around their base which engage with the rifling in the barrel to form a seal and prevent the propellant gases from escaping past the projectile . The rifling also imparts a spin to the round as it travels up the barrel which keeps it stable in flight and improves accuracy.

[@pinyaposka9671]

Russia is by far the world's largest field artillery army possessing the most artillery guns and MLRS systems including currently the world's most powerful artillery gun the 2S7M Malka and since the Donbas is a battle of artillery attritional slog,its no wonder Moscow is having the upper hand here gaining territory with each passing day.The West will have to send massive amounts of artillery systems if they hope to turn the tide but they are sending too few too late

[@terskataneli6457]

And i wonder why... I'm not a guy who believes in conspiracy theories but seems to me they are just waiting and waiting to prolong this war until Russia goes bankrupt and Putin is no more. I hope it's not the case thou. Would be everyone's best intrest in the west to send in as much firepower as possible for free since it pays off 10x in the long run

[@ericpowell7547]

I think everybody is watching a different war, Russia could level Ukraine in a week. A lot of things have to go right for zelensky, I don't see that happening. Zelensky is going to get lead poisoning, in my humble opinion. It was over when it started, pure American folly.

[@lilripsta911]

Nothing the west sends will stop Russia

[@slyrooster1241]

Artillery remains king of the battlefield

[@pinyaposka9671]

@@ericpowell7547 Russia may win phase 2 of the conventional battle with Ukrainian forces since they have an overwhelming numerical superiority of artillery which I highly doubt Western supplies to Ukraine can match one for one.But thats just phase 2.At some point maybe Russia may chose to venture into Western Ukraine where the vast majority are ethnic Ukrainians resentful of the Russian war.Its one thing for Moscow to beat the conventional Ukrainian forces in the East and South of Ukraine where the majority are ethnic Russians friendly to Moscow's troops.Quite another to venture into the West where tens of millions of ethnic Ukrainians bitter with the Russians reside and that can be fertile ground for an endless insurgency which Russia cannot prevail over long term and could degenerate into the mess of guerilla warfare that the US experienced in Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan where US "lost" the broader political strategic objective of these wars

[@southronjr1570]

My dad's best friend when I was growing up had served in a 105 howitzer crew in Vietnam. He told me numerous stories but one that stood out was when he was almost over run on the hill they were on. They were attacked at night and had broken through on the other side of their camp. They were ordered to turn their guns into the camp and fire flachette rounds into it. They did so and he said the attack was stopped immediately after the first salvo, they fired 3 more to make sure. When the sun came up, they went through the camp and found enemy soldiers riddled with thousands of tiny holes, even found one literally pinned to a tree about 10 feet off the ground just outside the wire. He was really impressed with that round

[@Mortablunt]

Just like the Ukrainians did to their own at Bucha!

[@dinonuggiesguy4847]

@@Mortablunt bro aren't the Russians did that?

[@daliborbenes5025]

@@dinonuggiesguy4847 Lol, of course the Russians are just sitting nearby, watching the outnumbered Ukrainians bombard their own cities, OBVIOUSLY! Because ThE uKrAiNiAnS aRe NaZiS, you can suspend all disbelief.

[@Mortablunt]

@@dinonuggiesguy4847 Why the hell would the Russians, during night (lull in the fighting) order a fire mission against their own of anti infantry shells? Ukraine has killed tens of thousands of its own people over the last decade.

[@live_free_or_perish]

I used to work for Hughes Ground Systems where a variety of military equipment was designed and I always wondered if we sent people out to war zones to find out how our products performed in the field under actual battle conditions. I suppose we will never know but it wouldn't surprise me if there were hundreds of engineers out there taking notes 😏

[@slimjimnyc270]

@David Glickman. Some DOD civilian engineers do volunteer to go the warzone to keep an eye out on new fielded equipment. The engineer is usually located a the repair depot/ main base so when the soldiers come back from a patrol or battle, they can find out how well the equipment work. Had an good friend who did 3 month tour during Desert Storm with piece of new hardware.

[@live_free_or_perish]

@@slimjimnyc270 interesting. I worked on phased array radar for air defense and our systems were far from the front lines so we did have reps on site. But most of the stuff that cappy talks about it on this channel are specifically meant for front line use which is completely different.

[@martindice5424]

First THE SHELL Cappy! THEN the propellant charges. Jeeez dude… You are a TOTAL grunt… 😂😂👍👍

[@ak-1271]

The capabilities are good and all But have they got enough ammunition? I saw some estimates some time ago which put the amount of rounds fired by each gun at about 14 per day, around 3 full minutes if operated at max fire rate

[@maximak-murza6334]

They need a lot. At least 200 units more. And Ukrainian artillery men learn to man a M777 mighty fast.

[@nickkerr8775]

We are not giving them the good ammo , and Russia has been destroying an capturing the taxpayer gifts we've gave them.

[@DominikPinkas]

The thing is, they are not green rookies. They probably sent experienced artilerymen to just familiarize with new system, not to learn to walk.

[@maximak-murza6334]

@@nickkerr8775 We give'em every kind of ammo they need. And I wouldn't believe russian "info" about destroyed M777's much. If a russian stops lying, poke hum with a stick - he's probably bead.

[@Notthetimeforit]

@@adamc6371 sorry but they are pushing back Russia in several places. What do you expect? Victory in a few weeks, I think Russia thought that was possible. Looked what happened there.

[@panan7777]

20 sec per round.

[@ryanthorne5432]

US Army artillery soldiers are trained on the M777A2, the M109A6/7, and the M119A2 in those 14 weeks. That’s for guys coming straight out of basic training. I can see 5 busy days being enough time to get experienced artillerymen up to speed on just one system.

[@MagicalGrass]

The army only trains to shoot with the DFCS though, they don’t learn how to shoot the old-fashion way.

[@ryanthorne5432]

@@MagicalGrass they have been brushing up on the old school methods in the last few years.

[@Raz.C]

You dun it, Cappy!!! You've provided the first images (that I'm aware of) that show more than just a single wrecked vehicle. The number of wrecks and their close proximity suggests that whatever happened here turned into a costly debacle. Ps: As always, thanks for providing a wonderfully impartial overview of events. It's great to see that good reporting is still possible, even if it isn't a reporter doing the reporting. The network news seems RIDICULOUSLY biased and have been telling us since day 1 that the Russian forces are on the verge of collapse and that Ukraine is poised to march on Moscow!! Ok, so the second half of that sentence was an exaggeration, but the first half really wasn't and it's woefully disappointing to see how little the integrity of the media sells for. Thanks for keeping your integrity and for disseminating objectively real and verifiable information, rather than delivering opinionated aspirations and calling it 'The Nightly News,' etc... Ps: Al Jazeera (strangely enough*) seems to be the ONLY major news network that still seems to value honest reporting rather than creating opinionated-echo-chambers. * = I say 'strangely enough,' though I don't really know if this is strange. I've never been overly familiar with Al-Jazeera's work, however, their handling of the news during this war has earned my respect. But even if it isn't strange for this kind of integrity-driven journalism to be coming from Al-Jazeera, it's strange that there's only this ONE major news network that's doing honest work.

[@samy7013]

I remember starting to watch the original Arabic Al-Jazeera since before 2001, and they have always been a phenomenal news network. I trust them over any Western news network, any day, forever. There’s just no comparison. Al-Jazeera isn’t perfect, but it’s a giant among pygmies.