SP M777

[Kirkhill]

I'm guessing that it would be faster just to hook the gun up to the hitch on the rear bumper - also provided.

The portee capability is apparently to reduce the amount of space that the gun and tractor take up on ships and aircraft, to make road moves easier and faster, and to save those itsy-bitsy wheels on the gun when towing at high speed.

Besides I don't think I would want to be the Number I contemplating the paper work as the driver tries to back up to the gun on a dark and stormy night in a muddy field while waiting for counter-battery fire to arrive.  ;D

 

[zanshin]

Yep, agreed... I thought it over a bit more this morning and came to the conclusion that to get out of action in a timely manner I 'spect we'd probably just throw the tow hook on the lunette and yoink the gun out of action.  We could then determine whether we want to portee it or not as we're moving along.

I can't imagine winching to be something that could be accomplished in a minute or two...  Any time I've ever seen anything winched, it took quite awhile.

 

[Gnr_Harrison]

Sorry to jump in to your conversation but this gun tractor is all good for towing the gun but what about the rounds? How many rounds can this truck carry along with the gun?

 

[Kirkhill]

Welcome to the conversation Gunner.

From what I can gather with the Gun in Portee the truck carries "some" ready rounds on board.  When the Gun is in Trail then you are looking at 3 containers(pallets?) of ready rounds for a total of more than 70 ready rounds.

In the traveling mode the M777 is carried in the rear part of the chassis, while the ammunition is stowed at the front, between the armored, NBC protected split cab. On reaching the combat area the howitzer is quickly dismounted an onboard mechanical handling system, allowing it to be towed rapidly into and out of action and up to 3 ammunition containers can be carried in its place allowing a total of over 70 readily available rounds.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/portee.htm

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Maybe I'm a dumbass, but what advantages does this have over a normal towed arrangement?

It just seems like a more expensive and complicated transportation system....

Seriously, it's odd they they would go to all that hassle and not deliver a vehicle with configuration of the FH-77B Archer or the Giat Caesar which are true SPH's.


Matthew.   ???

Edit for addition - Some Interesting Pics of the new Archer SPH: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?s=c6b199ecd56aab91c0ab115082978341&t=63823

 

[Kirkhill]

Matt, while I was looking over those references I stumbled across a couple of other boards that were talking about the same stuff -

As I remember it the arguments given were:

FH-77B and Caesar - not transportable by CH-47
Supacat - M777 - can be transported as a split load by 2x CH-47

More technically, apparently the large gun firing off the back of a light truck has traverse restrictions or the whole rig can tip over.  The M777 firing off its trails doesn't have that problem.

With the narrow traverse (+-17 degrees for the Caesar IIRC) then it makes it harder for an emplaced system to answer an out-of-arc fire call.  You have to lift a set of spades, move the truck, then reset the spades.

As noted previously the value of the portee system vs a conventional trailer system is in compactness when shipping by air and sea as well as in increased road move speeds because of not having to worry about the gun flopping around behind you.

Those are the arguments I remember - I'll try to find the board where I saw this stuff.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Matt, while I was looking over those references I stumbled across a couple of other boards that were talking about the same stuff -

As I remember it the arguments given were:

FH-77B and Caesar - not transportable by CH-47
Supacat - M777 - can be transported as a split load by 2x CH-47

More technically, apparently the large gun firing off the back of a light truck has traverse restrictions or the whole rig can tip over.   The M777 firing off its trails doesn't have that problem.

With the narrow traverse (+-17 degrees for the Caesar IIRC) then it makes it harder for an emplaced system to answer an out-of-arc fire call.  You have to lift a set of spades, move the truck, then reset the spades.

As noted previously the value of the portee system vs a conventional trailer system is in compactness when shipping by air and sea as well as in increased road move speeds because of not having to worry about the gun flopping around behind you.

Those are the arguments I remember - I'll try to find the board where I saw this stuff.

Cheers, Chris.

Ohhhh.......CH-47.....now that makes sense then.

Thanks Chris.


Matthew. 

 

[Petard]

These portee designs are an old idea, personally I think they are too limited. The Supacat idea, maybe, it does improve the operational mobility, we'll see what comes out of the trials. In the case of Caesar and FH77, it ties the gun to the vehicle and if the vehicle goes down so too does that gun. In addition, considering the contemporary operating environment, you lose a good chunk of payload when you consider the up-armouring that will have to be done to the truck part.
There is still a bias attached to artillery that it is somehow mostly operating in low risk areas, and some people are having a hard time shaking that idea, hence you still have these ideas like this wheeled self-propelled design that are best employed "behind our own lines". This is quite false, there is no one operating well behind a FEBA anymore.

One more point about Caesar, it's made by Giat, and Canadian gunners still have a very bad taste in their mouth from the last Giat LG1 experience.

 

[Gnr_Harrison]

The portee is a great idea for the M777 to make the road convoys smaller because right now with the HL and gun are a large target being about 70 feet long. I am sorry some people feel that they say they artillery is still not helping out but there are alot of people saying thank you for being there and that we are saving lives. I would just like to know know about the 70 ready rounds because there are so many different charges that can be used that i can't see 70 rounds plus all the charges needed fitting on that truck!!

 

[Petard]

I would just like to know know about the 70 ready rounds because there are so many different charges that can be used that i can't see 70 rounds plus all the charges needed fitting on that truck!!

I hear ya. There's still a lot of the legacy stuff, white bag, green bag, red bag 7 to go through yet. But the light at the end of the tunnel is the Modular Artillery Charge system (MAC) that'll cut down the overall basic load required, for whatever vehicle we end up with. With MACS the 70 rounds might fit, don't know what kind of mobility the whole rig will have with a load like that on, but I think it would fit.

As for those you run into, ignorant "brothers in arms", not appreciating how much the guns have contributed, they are getting fewer and fewer but I still run into the odd one too, in any case why not direct them to this site, and in particular this link
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51144.0.html
Might help educate them on a lot of things.

 

[geo]

Petard,
With respect to those who don't appreceate the presence of the GUNS, give em time.  It's been a long time since we have done a real deployment where we need the firepower they afford.

Shoot far, shoot straight, shoot on target and on schedule.

Thank you!

CHIMO!

 

[Petard]

Roger that GEO
Like I said they are getting fewer and fewer, its just very irksome when you run into one of these contemptuous types, but just one read of Boondocksaint's comments in his Infantry LL section I think would shut-up the most cynical of them that still think the guns are not relevant anymore.

 

[geo]

Petard....
For a long time, people didn't pay much attention to that tired looking sapper.

Between the incessant threat of mines, old Soviet era ordonance and IEDs, lots of people are real happy to have a section of Sappers tagging along.

On operation, other than the FOO, you don't see the guns at your side AND, unless you're in deep DOO DOO, you won't even hear from them........

Ubique!

 

[GUNS]

Thats why they are called " Long Range Snipers"

 

[geo]

( just make sure your defenition of Ubique does not mean: All oveer the place )

 

[Gnr_Harrison]

The guys i have talk to in kaf on my short time in there all have nothing but good things to say about the guns and how happy they are to have us there!! They say we have saved alot of lives with our rounds and it is nice to be appreciated. And for having the Sappers is a great asset also with the IED's and old mines sits!!  Everyone on the roads moving place to place are happy to have the sappers!!

 

[Gunnerlove]

With the narrow traverse (+-17 degrees for the Caesar IIRC) then it makes it harder for an emplaced system to answer an out-of-arc fire call.  You have to lift a set of spades, move the truck, then reset the spades.

Just like with the M777. You have to do all of the above but manually. On the Caesar you flick a switch to retract the spades,  crank the wheel and give it some gas to re-lay the gun. If you think the triple seven is as quick or easy you need to give your head a shake.

For how we are using the M777 we could be using any towed gun (M198) or wheeled SP howitzer. 
As far as fire power the Bofors Archer packs far more per unit (read faster rate of fire and less response time) in a far less labour intensive system.

 

[Petard]

Just like with the M777. You have to do all of the above but manually. On the Caesar you flick a switch to retract the spades,  crank the wheel and give it some gas to re-lay the gun. If you think the triple seven is as quick or easy you need to give your head a shake.

For how we are using the M777 we could be using any towed gun (M198) or wheeled SP howitzer. 
As far as fire power the Bofors Archer packs far more per unit (read faster rate of fire and less response time) in a far less labour intensive system.

have you ever worked with Giat?

OK, I gave my head a shake, and I still don't rate the Archer and especially not the Ceasar very high.
Let's see, asymmetric threat, small gun det on the FH77 and Caesar who's providing force protection?
Both are complex vehicle designs requiring their own integrated logistic support, none of which exists right now in the CF inventory, nor has any other country commited to deploying either type in any significant quantity. Need another for instance? How many countries bought the LG1? And how're we doing for sustainability with that?
The basic concept ties the ordnance to the vehicle, can you dismount the gun from the truck and have any kind of operational mobility?
It's still a truck, what kind of tactical mobility and survivability do you have as opposed to a truly armoured SP gun? Think a heavily loaded Ceasar or Archer is very maneuverable in bad terrain? Air-portable off of ships? Air-dropable? These are capabilities that are being considered right now.
As for the Archer's multiple round impact, this is a capability in many designs, the Archer is not the only holder of that.
There are a lot of factors that must be weighed before committing to a system.

For what the M777 is being used for right now, it's doing the job much better than something like the Archer would. The gun was bought as part of a UOR, and this means it is mission specific, there is also a considerable logistic support infrastructure behind it and it's growing, unlike Archer or Ceasar, what does this tell you? This does not mean the entire fleet is going M777, but a truck mounted gun would give us the disadvantages of a towed gun and few of the advantages of a truly self-propelled one, besides being almost impossible to sustain.
In my view a mix is need, a few self-proplled, some towed, I'm not sure what kind of self-propelled, but I would hate to see it on a truck.
In my view the truck mounted self-propelled gun is a throw-back design for a time when artillery supposedly could operate somewhat behind a FEBA, this condition does not exist anymore and is unlikely to again.

 

[Gunnerlove]

Towed guns were intended to operate behind the front lines where their unprotected tow vehicles and crew would be at less risk.
I believe Towed guns should only be towed while on base. There I said it, people will read it and scream that I am a heathen. The Biggest advantage towed guns have is that they can be moved into position by choppers, period. If you are going to drive to the gun position it should be in a self propelled gun. Just like Mortars. If you are going to be inserted by helicopter take the tubes. If you are driving along with the infantry you are in a Bison mortar carrier. If you are making due with what you have you drag a triple seven around behind a HLVW.

I also believe in a mixed fleet of artillery systems. If you think I would sell my soul for the Archer you are mistaken it was only an example. What we have right now is a fleet of beat up towed guns. Sure we are getting a dozen new guns but they will be getting worked over in the Stan while being towed around.

As for the small crew size reducing troops on position. That would be classic military thinking "How do we turn a good thing into a problem?" , Or we could keep the manning high and not burn/ run out of troops on position. Look at the M109, how many people were not needed while the gun was in action? On a towed gun fire power is degraded as your gunners get bagged humping and ramming ammo in +50 heat and as you lose people to other non gun related tasks.

 

[Petard]

Towed guns were intended to operate behind the front lines where their unprotected tow vehicles and crew would be at less risk.
I believe Towed guns should only be towed while on base. There I said it, people will read it and scream that I am a heathen. The Biggest advantage towed guns have is that they can be moved into position by choppers, period. If you are going to drive to the gun position it should be in a self propelled gun. Just like Mortars. If you are going to be inserted by helicopter take the tubes. If you are driving along with the infantry you are in a Bison mortar carrier. If you are making due with what you have you drag a triple seven around behind a HLVW.

You are making statements here as if they are dirty little secrets the Artillery don't want out, I'm not buying it.
Towed artillery has the advantage of operational mobility, some self-propelled artillery, but not all, has the advantage of tactical mobility. IMO mortars belong back in the infantry battalions.
There's a lot more I could go on about, but why bother? Not so veiled in you comments is your contempt for towed artillery. Well consider this.
Today I was fortunate enough to attend a PD session presented by recently returned members from A Bty, two were from the OP end (one of whom is the author of the much read adventures of a FOO, or Battle of Panjawi and beyond e-mail thread going 'round), and a TSM from one of the gun Tps.
The gun line acquitted itself very well outside the wire (well outside the confines of any base), including being in close contact with the enemy.
The towed guns have been doing an outstanding job and are deserving of a lot more respect for their professionalism to deal with life outside the wire than what you have implied in your broad statements.
But hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but a lot more respect is due for the gunners serving towed guns than you have offered.