Artillery Discussion Thread

[vic]

As per Import lobby who are against desi romance, India is super rich nation and money is easy. So let's say 155 M777 + 15 Chinooks cost USD 2500 million. Let's see what a poor nation would do with it:-

300 LFG 105mm
300 mortars 120mm
300 Nag- Helina launchers on light 4x4 trucks
300 stripped OFB 155/39 caliber howitzer
300 Pinaka single pod launchers on 4x4
300 Prahaar single tube launchers on 6x6
25 LCH
50 ALH
25 LOH
25 LCA
25 Rustom UCAV
50 HTT-40 etc for CAS

The import lobby now has a new bogus argument, it claims that it wants to create a fire base and fight in it's foot print. Now which will be more effective fire base? By 155 ULH plus 15 Chinooks or the above equipment?

[vic]

Now imagine import lobby is projecting a requirement of 100 chinooks +1000 ULH, so multiply the alternative equipment proposed by my by factor of 10 and decide what is in India's long term interest.

Now if we replace the import of C-17s, C-130s with roads, railways, bridges, MRTA etc then indigenous economy will get a flip but Swiss accounts may suffer.

[rohitvats]

Now imagine import lobby is projecting a requirement of 100 chinooks +1000 ULH, so multiply the alternative equipment proposed by my by factor of 10 and decide what is in India's long term interest. Now if we replace the import of C-17s, C-130s with roads, railways, bridges, MRTA etc then indigenous economy will get a flip but Swiss accounts may suffer.

Like how we have the ignore button on BRF, there should be a 'favorite' button as well!!!

[vic]

The import lobby has no argument except using a condescending, patronizing, superior tone as if talking to their inferiors and posting on BRF is beneath them. Some how they think it is given that We should all accept the rubbish spouted by them as pearls of wisdom or just because they posted a couple of graphics, they are correct. The import lobby whenever having difficulty on any issue will stoop to name calling, trolling or out right fabricated facts then run to admins when faced with tit for tat.

[member_23455]

Yet if some gora like the Shudh Desi Bromancers (TM) had described India (Defence Budget - is it the 3rd largest in the world?) as a country of "meager resources", and a "poor country" posters here on BR would have attacked that person as patronizing, condescending etc.

Or is this like a "black" thing where it is kosher for dyslexically named rappers to call members of their race the N-word, repeatedly?

Of course, like the above mentioned artists had posters here bothered to study some of the more positive vignettes from their history, in this case the revolutionary application of "vertical capability" by an impoverished Indian army in the East in the 1971 war, they might have contributed to this discussion in a more constructive way by trying to understand what the Army might be trying to achieve rather than project their entitled sense of victimhood on others.

[Victor]

Poor country should not buy game changing weaponry. Sounds familiar

(but spending money on NON game changing weapons is OK)

[vishvak]

[OT here.
Is Prahaar effective as guided missile because it will be less dependent on foren. Such an option should be considered irrespective of other options in huge numbers.
OT over.]

[abhik]

Yet if some gora like the Shudh Desi Bromancers (TM) had described India (Defence Budget - is it the 3rd largest in the world?) as a country of "meager resources", and a "poor country" posters here on BR would have attacked that person as patronizing, condescending etc.

Huh? Are the Shudh Desi Bromancers claiming that India's Defence budget is the is 3rd largest in the world or are you? Not very clear.

[member_23455]

Yet if some gora like the Shudh Desi Bromancers (TM) had described India (Defence Budget - is it the 3rd largest in the world?) as a country of "meager resources", and a "poor country" posters here on BR would have attacked that person as patronizing, condescending etc.

Huh? Are the Shudh Desi Bromancers claiming that India's Defence budget is the is 3rd largest in the world or are you? Not very clear.

It's a question I am asking. If you go by absolute dollar numbers it isn't, if you interpret it as per PPP, given the large non-forex expenditures done "internally" it may be a different story. Either way to think of India as a poor country with meager resources exhibits a poverty of thought in the context of what is being discussed.

[Victor]

RajitO, the SDBs(TM) don't have a problem with India spending a crapload of money on weapons. Only, the weapons should not be cutting-edge force multipliers or game changers. Thus, instead of C-17, C-130, Chinook, M777, Apache, they will suggest domestic systems (the SDB part) that are either not ready (OFB-Bofors copy, Rustom, HTT-40 etc) or are not powerful enough (105 vs 155) or don't have pinpoint accuracy (Prahar, mortars etc). The "poor country, no roads, no toilets, no food" stuff just slips in out of habit. Comprende?

[Karan M]

[OT here.
Is Prahaar effective as guided missile because it will be less dependent on foren. Such an option should be considered irrespective of other options in huge numbers.
OT over.]

155mm shells will be cheaper than Prahaar. Latter is likely to be more powerful than a shell though, but comes with more complex logistics as well. Tube artillery, remains the most cost effective way to take out mass targets.

[abhik]

Huh? Are the Shudh Desi Bromancers claiming that India's Defence budget is the is 3rd largest in the world or are you? Not very clear.

It's a question I am asking. If you go by absolute dollar numbers it isn't, if you interpret it as per PPP, given the large non-forex expenditures done "internally" it may be a different story. Either way to think of India as a poor country with meager resources exhibits a poverty of thought in the context of what is being discussed.

Goes to show how some people live in a bubble, disjoint from reality. The fact is that India is one of the poorest countries in the world. The only reason we can afford a nuclear program, space program etc without bankrupting ourselves is because of our size. If we were a much smaller country we would have be like the many African countries who no one gives a shit about. The PPP argument is BS. Yes, lower wages mean that we can have a larger number of personnel in our military. But the arms to equip this large military costs us about the same as it costs the developed countries. Even countries like France and UK have military budgets larger than ours but this goes into equipping a military which is 7-8 times smaller ours. Aping the west or blowing money on on some uber tech with mythical capabilities is not an option. For us the problem at hand is to get the most capability out of the money THAT IS LIMITED. For the money spent on just 145 M777 + the helicopters it would require could easily get us 10X the number of regular guns. If the former is chosen over the latter then it must be on very sound logic. If its not, our troops will have to pay the price.

[member_23455]

The PPP argument is BS. Yes, lower wages mean that we can have a larger number of personnel in our military.

Amazing how you acknowledge the fundamental point I am making and then without batting an eyelid go off on your usual ramble.

And yes Clearly without size we would be like an African country no one gives a shit about. The way you stereotype and generalize about Africa-- home to a fellow BRICS nation like South Africa and Nigeria (GDP growing at 6% currently) reveals one thing...

...I should have stuck to my original decision not to react to your conclusions disguised as questions. My bad!

[John]

[OT here.
Is Prahaar effective as guided missile because it will be less dependent on foren. Such an option should be considered irrespective of other options in huge numbers.
OT over.]

PLA is inducting vehicle mounted 30mm guns and point defense systems to protect bases and armor from battlefield missiles'. Not only would shell be much harder to intercept it won't be cost effective...

[KrishnaK]

Even countries like France and UK have military budgets larger than ours but this goes into equipping a military which is 7-8 times smaller ours. Aping the west or blowing money on on some uber tech with mythical capabilities is not an option. For us the problem at hand is to get the most capability out of the money THAT IS LIMITED. For the money spent on just 145 M777 + the helicopters it would require could easily get us 10X the number of regular guns. If the former is chosen over the latter then it must be on very sound logic. If its not, our troops will have to pay the price.

I guess I'll expend some more energy on countering the Shuddh Desi Bromancers (it's an excellent term BTW). The UK and France don't have the necessity of tackling China. For a good 65+ years our posture on that front has been one of restraint. This is the first damn time, we're talking of taking the fight to them, if forced to. So now the question becomes, how do we do it. Can 1000 statically positioned SDB guns do the job ? The SDB cartel was claiming that as an alternative a while ago, now it's the Prahaar. Won't the Prahaar have to be moved too to keep up with the troops ? Or will it fly itself on a magic carpet ?

BTW the Chinooks aren't just for the guns, a point you conveniently keep ignoring. They'll be some sort of a replacement for the Mi-26 which we operate already. Or were the Mi-26s uber tech with mythical capabilities too ?

Our troops will pay the price if we don't equip them with platforms that help them get to the goal set by the government. I'm willing to bet the IA knows how to go about achieving it's set goals.

[Victor]

...Aping the west or blowing money on on some uber tech with mythical capabilities is not an option....

Oh but it IS an option which is why we are taking it. Not by choice but by necessity. Our army has to protect our land, culture and way of life from the uncultured boors around us and we will eat grass do the needful. The upgrades that are taking place now lead me to believe that everyone who is anyone in India, starting with the army brass, have decided that we are done playing tiddlywinks. The M777 is merely the tip of the spear.

[Singha]

I would be more happy if they sewed up the 155/52 trials and placed confirmed orders for all items towed, truck and SP(K9 panther) before going for the uber expensive M777/Chinook combo.
the 155/52 thing started way before the 777 fms thing emerged.

[Victor]

I would be more happy if they sewed up the 155/52 trials and placed confirmed orders for all items towed, truck and SP(K9 panther).

That's the hope. In the meantime we have to deal with "barrel came off" type scenarios in testing. I'd be happy if they simply began producing the original 155/39 to blueprint in quantity but that too is a hope only and therein lies the problem.

[ramana]

Victor, the barrel coming off could be due to defective shell. Another case where OFB's poor QA has bit them in their own rear!!!!

[member_23455]

The planned induction of the M777 does not stop the army from pursuing any of the other 155mm avenues. But the fact that we are pursuing other avenues should not stop the M777 buy.

One should not ape the west, in fact one should learn from how the west makes the same mistakes as us.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/86 ... -tradition

Extract:

When Canadians deployed to Kabul in 2003, their main vehicle for transportation was the Iltis jeep. These worn-out, lightweight utility vehicles had been earmarked for urgent replacement 10 years earlier, but when Chretien was elected in 1993, he scrapped the procurement project. It was only after three soldiers died in two separate incidents involving the Iltis that the government moved hastily toward acquiring the heavier, better-protected Mercedes-Benz Gelandewagens.

In 1992, as part of their post-Cold War cost-cutting, the Mulroney Conservative government decided that rather than upgrade the Royal Canadian Air Force’s six Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, we would simply give the choppers away to the Netherlands.

Fast-forward to 2006: the newly elected Harper Conservatives find they have inherited a worsening combat mission in southern Afghanistan. With road travel becoming increasingly dangerous, the military’s suggested solution is to acquire Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. While Boeing was contracted to produce 15 of the latest F-model Chinooks, the wait list precluded Canada from taking delivery until long after our projected Kandahar pullout date. The stopgap solution was to spend $300 million to acquire six used D-model United States air force Chinooks.

For the Canadian Battle Group to be equipped with modern howitzers in Afghanistan, the army had to beg the U.S. Marines for a battery of M777 artillery pieces. Canada then paid the manufacturer to have new gun systems delivered as replacements to the marines. We pay for new, but deploy with used.

A similar arrangement was made to borrow Leopard 2 tanks that were in service with the German army. In theory, as long as we returned them to the Germans in the same condition as we borrowed them, there would be no charge. Of course, in reality, Canada had to pay for the complete overhaul and upgrades to fully replace those now-battered tanks, which were taken on loan. In other words, Canadian soldiers may have hastily acquired some of the best equipment for use in Afghanistan, but it was not drawn from our own inventory.

We have seen this happen to us in Kargil. Yet we seem to be penny-wise pound foolish.

[Pratyush]

Before one agrees to the purchase of the M 777, one has to see what are its real advantages, other then just light weight. As it is not a game changer in context of the Indian scenario. i.e, if one takes airlift out of the equation.

Cause any place the M77& can be towed, a FH77 be towed as well. Moreover, the APU of the FH77 allowed the gun to be slaved to the powertrain of the FAT, therby negating any disadvantage its weight has over the M777.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haubits_FH77

The dedicated towing vehicle for the FH77 was the Scania SBA111 (Tgb 40). The truck was equipped with a crew compartment behind the driving cab and a HIAB-crane for ammunition handling. The Howitzer's APU can be started and controlled by the driver of the towing vehicle to give an extra boost during off road driving. The maximum towing speed is 70 km/h (45 mph).

Having said so the weight advantages of the M777, further disappears, when you have a gun, that is capable of literally pulling its own weight.

[Pratyush]

AL FAT,,

A vehicle designed to replace the SCANIA tractor of the FH 77. No reason to believe that it, cannot do every thing the Scania tractor can do.

[pankajs]

Just came across this new item on the self-propelled FH77 for Sweden and Norway.
Sweden receives first Archer artillery system

Sweden will receive its first pre-serial production BAE Systems FH-77 BW L52 Archer 155 mm self-propelled (6x6) artillery system on 23 September, the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) announced on 20 September.

Lena Erixon, Director General of the FMV, stated that "we have faced both successes and setbacks, but now, finally, the first guns will be delivered". After the units' formal delivery on the 23 September, the Archers will be transported to Boden, Sweden, where the FMV and its Norwegian counterpart, the FLO, will conduct trials and training on the system.

BAE Systems received a GBP135 million (USD216 million) bi-national production contract for the Archer system in March 2010, covering delivery of 24 systems to Sweden and a further 24 for Norway.

Given the interest in FH77 and its proposed variants, let us review the development timelines associated with the truck mounted FH77, a simple sounding proposition.

Archer Artillery System - Wiki

The Howitzer was developed for the Swedish armed forces following a contract awarded to Bofors (now BAE Systems Bofors) in 2003 by Försvarets Materielverk (FMV), the Swedish defence acquisition agency to build two demonstrator howitzers. The prototype FH77 BW L52 self-propelled howitzers entered firing trials in Sweden in 2005 and 2006. In September 2006, the FMV placed a contract for detailed design work on Archer and, in January 2007, a contract for the next development phase. The Swedish Army has a requirement for 24 systems (two battalions). Following In September 2008, the Swedish government approved the final development and procurement of the Archer artillery system.

In November 2008, Sweden and Norway signed a co-operative agreement for the development of the Archer system and, in January 2009, awarded BAE Systems a contract to complete development of the artillery system with the exception of the remote weapon system which is made by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. A final prototype is scheduled for completion by September 2009, which is expected to be followed by a contract for 48 systems – 24 for Sweden and 24 for Norway. Archer was planned to enter service in 2011 but has now been delayed until October 2013. This because of unforeseen technical problems.[6]

Contract for prototype/demonstrator : 2003
Prototype/demonstrator 1st trial : 2005/6
Detailed design : 2007
Development approval : 2008
Final Development contract : 2009
Final prototype : 2009 (Planned > Does not state when this was achieved)
Production contract : March 2010 (from the current news item)
Production : 2011 (Planned > Delayed)

As per the news item, first pre-serial gun is due September 2013 to conduct trials and training. This for the guns country of origin and from its original manufacturer.

I would urge folks here to keep the above timeline in mind when discussing the FH77 derivatives and the DRDO 155/52 Gun. IMHO the OFB FH77 155/39 gun without the OEM's help, even with the tot, will take longer than most folks here believe.

[rohitvats]

How come no one has has proposed man portable Prahaar missile for mango infantryman? It will turn him into Iron Man and all problem solved, no? All this talk about howitzers and helicopters will be redundant...

[Pratyush]

How come no one has has proposed man portable Prahaar missile for mango infantryman? It will turn him into Iron Man and all problem solved, no? All this talk about howitzers and helicopters will be redundant...

???


One a serios note why not have a discussion on the Swithcblade. Or its UK counterpart, the Fire Shadow. A better discussion may be regarding the merits of the IMI jumper or the canceled NLOS-M.

[member_23455]

How come no one has has proposed man portable Prahaar missile for mango infantryman? It will turn him into Iron Man and all problem solved, no? All this talk about howitzers and helicopters will be redundant...

???


One a serios note why not have a discussion on the Swithcblade. Or its UK counterpart, the Fire Shadow. A better discussion may be regarding the merits of the IMI jumper or the canceled NLOS-M.

Who's stopping you?

Just a caveat, don't muddle it up by advocating it as a replacement for tube artillery, which is where the angst alternating with amusement begins for those of us who have a slightly "non-brochureware" understanding of warfare.

[Pratyush]

Please explain "non brochureware" understanding of warfare.

The whole objective is to explore, if a new way of doing things has an advantage over the way things have happened till date. If it brings no advantages over the present, then it ought to be abandoned.

Having said so, lets me explain the constraints of mountain warfare as I understand in the Indian context.

1) Poor infra, resulting in poor logistics capability.
2) This results in limitation on what can be moved and in what quantity.
3) The above makes, saving every kg of weight important.
4) This may make certain approaches and weapons very attractive to the war fighter, as they save a lot of weight.

If my understanding above is correct.

Then regardless of the amount of weight you save in one arena, you have to substitute that weight elsewhere. e.g Shell & gun.

But I am sure that to you the above is just Brochureware.

[abhik]

The UK and France don't have the necessity of tackling China.

So India which has both lesser resources and faces greater security threats than these countries can afford to spend callously?

Can 1000 statically positioned SDB guns do the job ? The SDB cartel was claiming that as an alternative a while ago, now it's the Prahaar. Won't the Prahaar have to be moved too to keep up with the troops ? Or will it fly itself on a magic carpet ?

You find that preposterous? If you think that thousands of men and their ammo, air defense systems, vehicles, engineering equipment, comms, generators, food etc can move on flying carpets then why not the Prahaar?

BTW the Chinooks aren't just for the guns, a point you conveniently keep ignoring. They'll be some sort of a replacement for the Mi-26 which we operate already. Or were the Mi-26s uber tech with mythical capabilities too ?

That the Chinook currently on order(or at least going to be) aren't just for the guns is a point I have made myself earlier. But a lot more Chinooks are required to exclusively transport and supply the M777s. This makes each M777 more expensive than regular gun by an order of a magnitude.

[abhik]

Oh but it IS an option which is why we are taking it. Not by choice but by necessity. Our army has to protect our land, culture and way of life from the uncultured boors around us and we will eat grass do the needful. The upgrades that are taking place now lead me to believe that everyone who is anyone in India, starting with the army brass, have decided that we are done playing tiddlywinks. The M777 is merely the tip of the spear.

Who is we by the way? Does it include the democratically elected Government of this country? The same one that is going to spend tens of thousands(possibly lacs) of crores giving food grains to a majority of our population @1/2/3 Rs? The same one that asked if China was really a threat on being asked for funds for the MSC? The same one that truncated DRDO budget, asked the IAF and IA to cut training and exercises when the financial crunch hit?

[Victor]

I would urge folks here to keep the above timeline in mind when discussing the FH77 derivatives and the DRDO 155/52 Gun. IMHO the OFB FH77 155/39 gun without the OEM's help, even with the tot, will take longer than most folks here believe.

This should bother the heck out of us. OFB is tripping over its toes even to get out of the door with ToT and blueprints in hand. I fully expect some serious issues to crop up unexpectedly with a typical "oops!" from OFB even without any modifications to the design, forget 45, 52 versions. One hopes that the Tata and Kalyani guns are not being sabotaged by the babus. It would be tragicomic in the extreme if we had to go back to bofors/bae to urgently buy the stock 155/39 after having hidden the blueprints in our mushys for 30 years and sabotaged Indian companies' efforts.

[member_23455]

Having said so, lets me explain the constraints of mountain warfare as I understand in the Indian context.

1) Poor infra, resulting in poor logistics capability.
2) This results in limitation on what can be moved and in what quantity.
3) The above makes, saving every kg of weight important.
4) This may make certain approaches and weapons very attractive to the war fighter, as they save a lot of weight.

Yet your previous post goes:

Before one agrees to the purchase of the M 777, one has to see what are its real advantages, other then just light weight.

But I am sure that to you the above is just Brochureware.

To me, it reveals some confusion...but why don't you go ahead and initiate a discussion on the weapon systems that you wanted to...and we'll take it from there.

[Pratyush]

You seem to have missed the sentence below, as the conclusion to the post.

Then regardless of the amount of weight you save in one arena, you have to substitute that weight elsewhere. e.g Shell & gun.

I am making two separate points.

1) The sole advantage of the M 777 is its weight.
2) This is not a game changer when compared to the Fh77, cause of its APU which can be controlled from the its FAT. Which means that any where the M 777 can be towed to, the FH 77 be towed to as well.

The shell weight and volume related issue will be common to both the weapons.

Now for the weapon I have in mind, I don't care if its is OFB Fh77 or a pvt sector solution. As long as its domestic and sanctions free, and is not subject to EUMA and other alphabet soup treaties.

[abhik]

I would urge folks here to keep the above timeline in mind when discussing the FH77 derivatives and the DRDO 155/52 Gun. IMHO the OFB FH77 155/39 gun without the OEM's help, even with the tot, will take longer than most folks here believe.

I think its unfair to compare Archer systems development timelines with the OFB FH77 155/45(I think it's 45 cal not 39). Three points, one for all practical purposes the Archer was a completely new system. Secondly, because of very low threat perception faced by some european countries money for new systems is hard to come by. With reduced pressure to deploy new systems and the necessity to subsist the domestic industry can lead to protracted development cycles. Thirdly the OFB has earlier worked on the upgrade of the the original gun to 45cal and have been displaying it for quite a few years(No idea as what happened this upgrade program though). I think its absurd to think that OFB suddenly dusted off the original blueprints and was ready with a test model in almost no time. This is been in the works for many years else it wouldn't have been in the trial stage now. Of course with these thing there are really no guarantees.
But that still doesn't mean that the M777 will come before the OFB gun, simply because for us to start getting them the government has to actually sign on the dotted line first, which it has failed to do up for many years now. Every few months we get to hear about how the Army is going to get its first guns in 2-3 decades but a actual deal for them has never materialized. Even in the last cabinet meeting no decision was made. This would have been a great time to seal the deal considering MMS's US visit and the impending closing of the M777 production line. So why hasn't this happened? Is AKA dithering? I think it has something to do with the M777 trial report leaking incident where the gun is said to have failed in multiple parameters(including in air deployment).

[member_23455]

You seem to have missed the sentence below, as the conclusion to the post.

Then regardless of the amount of weight you save in one arena, you have to substitute that weight elsewhere. e.g Shell & gun.

I am making two separate points.

1) The sole advantage of the M 777 is its weight.

How do you know the sole advantage of the M777 is weight? Are you basing this on what posters have told you on BR? Personal experience?

Suggest you dig a bit deeper.

Still waiting for you to initiate discussions on the weapon systems that you wanted to talk about...

[pankajs]

Let me start with my own post.

I would urge folks here to keep the above timeline in mind when discussing the FH77 derivatives and the DRDO 155/52 Gun.

Referring only to FH77 derivative projects being suggested like Light/Superlight/UltraLight(ULH was my suggestion). I also meant it for Wheeled/Tracked and any other derivatives that would requires change to the original gun.

IMHO the OFB FH77 155/39 gun without the OEM's help, even with the tot, will take longer than most folks here believe.

OFB on its own working from just the tot documents has to recreate the gun of equal performance. Like most other project this too will go through multiple cycle of testing and re-work. How many cycles or how much time is anyone's guess.

Thirdly the OFB has earlier worked on the upgrade of the the original gun to 45cal and have been displaying it for quite a few years(No idea as what happened this upgrade program though). I think its absurd to think that OFB suddenly dusted off the original blueprints and was ready with a test model in almost no time. This is been in the works for many years else it wouldn't have been in the trial stage now. Of course with these thing there are really no guarantees.

That was exactly what I meant and what I have stressed above.

On the OFB's effort on 39 to 45 cal conversion, I don't know but seem to remember that the tech for conversion was being imported. OFB is just a production agency here. Again, if the tech was imported expect them to have the document/tot but to translate it to 1st rate product will take the usual grind.

Linking it to operational plans of the IA is talking a big risk IMO.


Edited: Multiple times for clarity

[abhik]

^^^
IIRC OFB was actually competing against BAE for the upgrade contract. The M777 may never come so lets hope there are no delays in the OFB/DRDO/Bharat Forge programmes.

[John]

How do you know the sole advantage of the M777 is weight? Are you basing this on what posters have told you on BR? Personal experience?

For what it is worth there are few more advantages M777 also requires much smaller crew of 5 to operate versus 10-14 for FH77 and can put into action in couple minutes versus more than 10 minutes for typical Howitzer.

[Pratyush]

How do you know the sole advantage of the M777 is weight? Are you basing this on what posters have told you on BR? Personal experience?

Suggest you dig a bit deeper.

Your advice goes both ways, I suggest that you follow it.

1) if it is not weight then there is no reason why it ought to be bought. As that, is its sole usp.

2) a post madein half jest as a response to some one else has got your goat. Amazing.

Ps I am still waitinh for you definition of brochurware.

[Pratyush]

For what it is worth there are few more advantages M777 also requires much smaller crew of 5 to operate versus 10-14 for FH77 and can put into action in couple minutes versus more than 10 minutes for typical Howitzer.

The fh 77 can be operated by a crew of 5 as well. I suggest that you study the IA video of m 46 emplacement available on the you tube. You will me amazes to learn that it can be emplaced in 90 second s flat. Which is a totally manual gun.

[member_23455]

How do you know the sole advantage of the M777 is weight? Are you basing this on what posters have told you on BR? Personal experience?

Suggest you dig a bit deeper.

Your advice goes both ways, I suggest that you follow it.

1) if it is not weight then there is no reason why it ought to be bought. As that, is its sole usp.

2) a post madein half jest as a response to some one else has got your goat. Amazing.

Ps I am still waitinh for you definition of brochurware.

From sole advantage you have now gone to sole USP. A Unique Selling Proposition by definition is "sole". The M777's USP is light weight but its sole advantage is not light weight. There are multiple advantages.

How do I know? Because I did some homework not involving brochures (hence the term brochure-ware), as have some other posters...who have posted information here for everyone's benefit!

As for posts made half in jest, with the word serious discussion in it, yeah that can get a little confusing.

Note: Edited for further clarity