"Three Axes" - isn't the content overrated?
It is clear that on our pages, speaking of the “Three Axes”, we mean by no means a well-known drink of the past and not a parody of it today.
We are talking about the American M777 howitzer.
"The highly maneuverable and powerful M777 should overcome Russia's significant heavy artillery"
It has already become customary for us to discuss everything that is supplied by NATO countries to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is no less interesting when those who supply weapons themselves look at how their equipment works in real combat conditions.
This is such a normal military analytics, if, of course, it is done normally.
For example, back in (or not so) 2019, eight researchers from the Pentagon-paid Rand Corporation research group published a report detailing a frightening scenario that seemed increasingly likely: a Russian invasion of countries NATO's Baltics - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - which escalates into a major war as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provokes a full military response from the US and other partner countries. Ground losses in such a confrontation would be devastating, the authors wrote, and NATO victory is far from certain, at least not without unacceptable losses.
Today, this alignment looks like a rather creepy fairy tale for the night, and even then ... Although nothing threatened these countries, it does not threaten. But is there anything to be afraid of?
Now, central to the report's findings was the grim respect enjoyed by Russian artillery, from the BM-300 Smerch 30mm multiple launch rocket system to Russia's impressive and numerous 152S2 Msta-S 19mm howitzers.
On this battlefield, U.S. Army artillery will need to outnumber the Russians by at least two to one to ensure that the allies gain systemic, positional, and force advantages that can enable them to defeat Russian ground forces and win the conflict.
But these are calculations, and it is not forecasts that are fighting, but guns. One of the best American opponents of Russian guns is the M777 howitzer. While it can't match the range of its competitors, it makes up for it with agility, precision and reliability. This is what the American specialized media say, but today there is something to object to them precisely on the fact of application.
Yes, with almost two decades of service in war zones around the world, the M777 proves the relevance of mobile artillery on the modern battlefield. And in this regard, "Three Axes" is impressive.
As for the range, or rather, the total superiority of Russian artillery systems in this regard, the Americans are not only exaggerating, but cunning: they need to be shown what a formidable enemy they can fight against. In fact, the Msta-S shoots at the same 30 km as the M777. Yes, ours is an ordinary projectile, and the Three Axes is an aerodynamically improved ERFB. And Excalibur flies for all 40 km, significantly ahead of the Russian Krasnopol in this regard.
The Americans admit that artillery played a significant role in the attack on Mariupol, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine could not oppose the Russian artillerymen who were setting up fire shafts. Ukrainian artillery, which was mainly represented by Soviet systems, significantly inferior both in quality and quantity to the Russian side, could not offer significant resistance.
Great hopes in the Armed Forces of Ukraine were placed on the supply of Western artillery systems, including the American M777. In the first tranche, 126 M777 howitzers were delivered to Ukraine from the United States, along with approximately 200 rounds, in two separate aid packages worth $000 million.
"Three axes" hit Ukraine. In May of this year, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Reznikov wrote on his Facebook that he had a lot of feedback on the use of the M777 and "... the lion's share of these reviews are extremely positive".
At the forefront of all who praise the M777, put the maneuverability caused by the frankly low weight of the howitzer. Indeed, 4 kg versus 200 for Msta-B is a lot. "Three sevens" is really easier to be towed and transported by planes and helicopters if necessary. Of course, getting stuck with a four-ton howitzer on a trailer in the conditions of the Ukrainian autumn is much more difficult than with a howitzer that weighs seven tons. But there are some nuances here, which are discussed below.
The American gun has another important advantage: in addition to its low weight, it has a short deployment time and, of course, folding. Well-trained calculations can complete these processes in about three minutes of deployment and two minutes of collapse.
In counter-battery combat, where cannon crews work to “shoot and run,” that is, send projectiles at a target and then race to a new location before enemy radars determine their targeting position, mobility and speed are critical. Three minutes is a very good time.
"Artillery is calculations, speed and racing with everyone else", says Philip Ety, a former member of the M777 crew of the Marine Corps.
Indeed, the key to success is precisely to quickly move into position, quickly turn around, shoot at targets as quickly as possible, curl up and leave before the enemy reacts.
Plus, another important fact: an artillery gun is capable of firing much more shells than MLRS. This path will require the return of all the forces of the calculation, but unlike the MLRS, the gun does not have such a long reload. And in some cases, it is the ability to fire 200 or more shells at the enemy that plays a very important role.
The battle for artillery supremacy between the M777 and its Russian adversaries is shaping the face of the war in Ukraine. Almost exactly as the Rand researchers predicted. And their gloomy warnings proved prophetic: Russia's heavy artillery, with its large number of guns and range, is a formidable adversary.
CBO has shown that modern combat, in which there are Robots, homing missiles, UAVs with artificial intelligence, network-centric control techniques - a complex process. In this regard, the artillery looks somewhat archaic. More precisely, she is trying to get away from the canons of the Middle Ages with all her might, but changes in artillery are not so fast.
At least in terms of meaning, a modern howitzer and a cannon differ in much the same way as their predecessors 200 years ago. Cannons still shoot mainly direct fire, howitzers (the name comes from the German word Haubitze - slingshot) shoot from closed positions in a high arc. The range of the howitzer allows you to shoot at targets that are far beyond the line of sight.
Of course, since their appearance, howitzers have gone through a pretty decent evolutionary path, and if we take the same USA, then from the first army howitzer, which is recognized as a 12-pound mountain howitzer, to the M777, the path was long and very fruitful.
Increasing the size, range, and mobility of field artillery has not significantly altered its value on the battlefield: these large guns remain most effective when enemies are fighting behind clear front lines, or when forces are launching a combat campaign or "shock and awe" invasion. Those who want to pinpoint the recent pinnacle of US field artillery may look to February 1991, during Operation Desert Storm, when more than 350 pieces of artillery weapons US armies pounded Iraqi positions, frustrating counterattacks and helping to secure a quick victory. And finally provided.
In the two decades that followed these battles, howitzers took a backseat as the US shifted its focus to counter-insurgency efforts during the protracted war in Afghanistan and ongoing fighting in Iraqi cities. There, such weapons were not particularly needed.
Between 2003 and 2016, according to the authors of the Rand report, Army field artillery training and readiness atrophied as the service reduced its active field artillery battalions by almost half, from 96 to 50. It was at the beginning of this reduction, in 2005, that the US Army used the M777 in combat for the first time, and it will be another ten years before the artillery can prove its full combat value.
Russia, on the other hand, has never reduced its investment in artillery.
The armies of today's Russia have history the use of artillery in combat, which dates back to the fourteenth century. For several hundred years, Russian artillery has turned into just a wonderful percussion instrument of the Second World War, which provides infantry and tanks, allowed Soviet troops to break through any enemy defense.
"The trademark Soviet step for a large-scale offensive in the Great Patriotic War was a massive artillery shelling"
, says Scott Boston, Senior Defense Analyst at Rand Corporation and co-author of the 2019 Russian Aggression Report. Boston is a former US Army field artillery officer whose research includes an analysis of the capabilities of Russian artillery."When the Soviet Union launched a successful attack on Berlin in 1945, it deployed about 375 guns and mortars for every kilometer of the front."
The start of the JMD in Ukraine frankly shocked Western observers and highlighted the power of Russian artillery weapons, which are said to have accounted for 80 percent of casualties in combat.
“The Russian army has deployed a large number of guns and rocket launchers at the level of brigade and battalion tactical groups. Combined with growing, multifaceted targeting and reconnaissance capabilities, Russian artillery is a formidable potential adversary.”
Countering this adversary is a challenge for the M777 and its crews. But there is evidence that the howitzer can succeed due to its speed, accuracy and maneuverability. After years of firing mostly flare rounds in Afghanistan to eliminate insurgents in the mountains, the M777 has taken on a prominent combat role in the fight against ISIS for the first time. In 2017, US troops fought a battle to retake the city of Raqqa, one of the terrorist group's last remaining strongholds.
U.S. Marine Corps artillery was stationed there, the main task of which was to provide fire support to ground forces that entered the city for close combat. For five months, one Marine battery fired indirect fire at ISIS positions in and around the city, firing more than 35 rounds. Two of the six barrels were completely disabled due to overuse.
By comparison, the Marine Corps Times reported that during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the entire US military fired about 34 000mm shells. The battle proved what a tremendous effect a small artillery contingent can have if it is well supplied and skillfully led.
Actually - not so much. Just use a calculator and divide 35 shots by 000 months. It turns out 5 shots per month. Next, 7 shots are divided into 000 battery barrels. 7 rounds per barrel. Per month. Well, then everything is simple: 000 shots per day, 6 shots per hour. Well, or 1 shots in 167 hours.
Honestly - well, don't sweat it. Even with changes in positions. It is clear that the battery did not shoot so evenly, but nevertheless. In general, the M777 is recommended precisely in order not to “shoot” the barrels, to fire no more than 5 rounds per minute, followed by a break for cooling.
By the way, Canada in June 2022 undertook to supply Ukraine with 10 replacement barrels for M777 howitzers instead of worn ones. That is, they shoot from the heart. In general, according to the specification, the barrel of the M777 should be replaced after 2500 shots have been fired. However, cases of accelerated barrel wear have already been recorded in Ukraine - four barrel replacements for 6 shots.
Not a very pleasant figure, which indicates that instead of the declared 2 shots at an accelerated pace, the M500 fires no more than 777. A big minus against the background of pluses is that the gun should fire when it is necessary, and not according to the instructions.
Cases of barrel rupture and breakage of other parts and mechanisms of howitzers were also recorded. Moreover, it took on a rather massive character, and in order to repair the damage, it was necessary to create a repair base in Poland, which indicates a decent amount of these damages.
"Crystal Hammer"? Quite possible.
And this, sorry, for barrels made of Ti6AI4V alloy. The barrels must last at least 20 years and, according to the standards, fire at least 900 rounds in a day's operation.
The howitzers originally had full-metal barrels, but were upgraded with full-barrel chrome tubes in the mid-2010s. These tubes limited the build-up of residual combustion charge inside the gun, and this upgrade is said to have extended their life by as much as 300 percent. Then the question arises as to how intensive use, for example, in a protracted artillery duel in Ukraine, can render the gun barrel unusable?
In fact, 900 shots a day is again not so much! This is 37,5 shots per hour or 1 shot in a minute and a half!
Well, God knows what a load, right? So, in the hands of Ukrainian calculations, the M777 fired significantly more shells than the documentation recommended?
Yes!
And the Americans themselves admit it!
In general, M777 howitzers use a digital fire control system, which allows you to accurately aim at the target using computer tablets. But the howitzers sent from the United States to Ukraine did not include these computer systems due to fears that they would fall into the hands of the Russian military.
According to American instructors, the guns delivered to Ukraine were equipped only with a manual artillery guidance system, which requires crews to calculate distance using small steps marked on the weapon's sights, known as milliradians or mils.
Of course, the pill was slightly sweetened. Say, even without computer target designation, the M777 has an advantage. American gunsights measure 6 mils all around, while Soviet guns only mark 400, giving American guns greater accuracy when using manual aiming.
Well, of course. And such guidance provides simply fantastic accuracy! Yes, Canada provided the Armed Forces of Ukraine with as many as FOUR guns, equipped with everything necessary, for firing Excaliburs. And the rest? And the rest, in the best traditions of the Second World War, began to flood the Russian side with shells, directing them with the help of manual aiming and artillery compass.
Now, probably, there will be no questions regarding the accelerated consumption of the barrel resource?
Especially since the most common M777 projectiles are high-explosive fragmentation projectiles, which have a radius of destruction of approximately 70 meters. This makes talking about accuracy somewhat relative. But when high accuracy is required, then there are other options.
Ukraine has received a number of Raytheon-made M982 "Excalibur" rounds, which increase the range to 40 km thanks to stabilizers and use built-in GPS to reduce the error at this distance to five meters or less. But Excaliburs cost about $70 apiece, which, compared to less than $000 for a standard high-explosive shell, looks just awful.
In addition, the lack of accurate adjustment and aiming systems puts the luxurious M777 on a par with the Msta-B. It's like a sniper who has a rifle with a sector sight at 400 meters. And the reproaches that are put forward by both sides, which refers to the defeat of civilians, are justified by both sides.
Hundreds of civilians died from M777 shells back in Raqqa, so why did American shells launched “from hand” suddenly start flying past the civilian population of the Kherson and Donetsk regions?
You can describe the losses of the Russian army from M777 shells for as long as you like, in this respect the press service of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine knows no equal, this is undeniable. But at the same time, it is absolutely clear that the “Three Axes” is not a guarantee of success in general, and a hundred trunks will not reverse the Russian army. Operators drones, spotters, signalmen - they all make every effort to ensure that the use of the M777 is maximum. As far as it is at all possible.
The Americans praise their howitzer. Ukrainians praise with might and main, if you don’t praise them, you will scold them, tomorrow they won’t give shells. Everything is clear here. However, simply using a calculator in our case by the Russian side makes it easy and simple to understand that the M777 is a good weapon, but not a guarantee of victory.
Based on:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a40589916/m777-howitzer-russia-ukraine-war/
Information