Goober said:
The LG1 is for training purposes, it won't see another deployment. We have new 777's coming enough to outfit a bty, hopefully they will be here soon.
As a note, the M777 does use the M776 cannon tube, however, the A6 paladin, does not. The M776 cannon tube is actually, a slightly shaved down version of the A6 paladin's tube. They are basically the same tube, but not exactly.
I didn't say they did, actually the Paladin, officially, has an M284 barrel, but it depends on who you talk to, for example there is also a hybrid M109A5 UK version which has an M185 barrel with a modified forcing cone to allow it to somewhat fire the higher range of charges. I do recall clearly during a recent tour in Watervliet the Paladins' barrel being described as an M777 barrel, and the M777 gun having an M776 barrel.
But this doesn't really matter
As for the accuracy at the expense of the safety of the gun dets, I would agree to a point that a risk is being taken for when the gun groups move by road, but...
One of the assumptions that had to be made in the early summer of 05 for the Afghanistan deployment was that a high degree of operational mobility would be required. What do you do? If you're going to put more weight, somewhat literally, into protection then what you end up with is something more like a tank, sometimes that's what needed, but in this case it could not be done without sacrificing operational mobility. Not only that but it was expected that the Artillery was going to be required to support dismounted Ops, sometimes with mortars, but other times with guns, and still be able to shift locations over very long distances, sometimes requiring Helops. The Canadian M109 was not going to be able to do that very well, and it still won't in that type of theatre, this is for the simple reason it doesn't move very fast, and there isn't anything that's going to carry it there faster to where its needed. We wouldn't be helping any supported arm if we couldn't get there as fast as they do. The main risk is with the HLVW, and it will soon be going, but in the mean while, yes we roll the dice with them for the sake of operational mobility.
There are places where an SP gun is better, IMO Afghanistan is not one of them. That is unless you intend to "hole up" in a very small AO, or you have a capability to dominate a lot of terrain. I don't think we're there yet.
But I say this because, IMO, some of so-called advantages of systems such as PzH 2000 with its multiple round impact and shoot and scoot capability are hindrances in a theatre were you're going to have to rely on an NSE, sometimes many many Kms away.
Ammunition can be at a premium, and most missions do not require that many rounds to be fired anyway, especially if the target location is accurately known. This scoot capability? From what? The best gun position is one where you can see next week's weather coming. For all their bells and whistles, most SP guns are very heavy and scooting anywhere might be a problem if they breakdown and recovery is needed.
Precision is needed to minimize collateral damage and permit very close, danger close, and you don't need that many rounds when they're that close because you have a pretty good idea where the enemy is then, but you do need confidence in the accuracy of the weapon system to achieve that, the M777 has it, the Canadian M109 does not.
So I would say, so far, the assumptions were correct, and that a towed gun does meet, with some risk, the Canadian capability requirements better than a self-propelled gun does for what was and is going on in Afghanistan.
As for more M777's coming to outfit a Bty, you know someone high up in ADMMat do you goober?
