Not having paid much attention to M777 I had to do a bit of digging. Most of the pics available are unhelpful and its impossible to see any useful detail, I even think some of them are reversed! No sign of a loading tray in any pic, but onbe did show a rammer with a tastefully curved 'pole'. Turned up that the objective rate of fire is 5 rds in a minute but it's not clear for how many minutes or if this is the first minute (ie 15 secs apart) or later minutes (12 secs). Can't find anything about limited or unlimited loading angles, the latter would imply non-manual ramming. Reduced detachment is 5 men and that the US was using 2 man laying (with the optical sights) although the gun is designed in accordance with UK practice for a single layer. 2 man laying and 5 men doesn't compute for 2 men and a loading tray plus one or two more to ram, remembering that someone also has to load the propellant and operate the breech. However, it does have a 10 rd primer magazine. Eventually I found this statement "A Powered Rammer to reduce crew fatigue and support higher rates of fire." I'd guess this is re-generative driven by recoil. (similar things have been around for over 100 years) Not clear if the first round after coming into action has to be hand rammed or if the rammer has to be pumped. Note that there are hand pumps on the trails to lower and raise the carriage. From all this I think its reasonable to assume the US is expecting soldiers to carry a shell and put it onto some form of loading tray that's part of the elevating mass from where it is power rammed. Fortunately the short trails mean the ammo can be closer than M198.

There is a surprising amount of misconception about Abbot and Lt Gun, I realise that some of the popular secondary sources are not entirely correct, their authors sometimes playing a bit fast and loose with some of the facts. The Abbot barrel is longer and heavier (no surprise for SP) and the rest of the elevating mass is completely different (ie recoil system) to Lt Gun. However, they do fire the same ammo. I'd put money on the first Lt Gun barrel not being a re-machined Abbot barrel or somesuch, it's just not sensible engineering. I'd also be reasonbly confident that they use different grades of steel, engineering common sense suggests that 'lightness' needs higher grade steel to give a barrel with adequate strength. However, I admit that I've not found anything in the UHBs about steel, not unexpected since its not relevant to them. Originally Abbot was deployed with the 105mm Fd Mk 1 ammo while stocks of the Mk 2 were produced. Mk 1 ammo used the M1 shell and its own cart (electrical not percussion primer), it was limited to 15 km max range. Lt Gun only used Mk 2 ammo although there's not reason why a cheapskate army couldn't use Mk 1 although I don't think the Brits ever produced firing tables for it. Basically both Abbot and Lt Gun have a 37 cal barrel, the length differince (when you read the UHBs carefully) is only a couple of inches or or so. The barrel in the L20 ordnance (ie M1 ammo family) is noticeably shorter. To suggest that Lt Gun is derived from Abbot is a bit like saying that a L5 Pack How is derived from a M2A2, they both use the same ammo but that's the end of any similarity. Interestingly there is a least one supplier of a BB shell for 105mm Fd ammo, it seems this gives a max range of close to 22 km, its not clear if anyone's using them.

The M777 has a scavenge system which upon recoil forces oil into a pressure vessel against a nitrogen precharge, this energy resevoir is then used to upon and close the breech and raise/lower the loading tray, which is attached to the elevating mass. One crewman sets the round on the tray, which then moves down and forward to present the round to the breech. It is then manually rammed by two men. A powered rammer was designed, however the requirement for it was removed very early in the program in order to save weight. The reason for the curved ramming staff is the geometry of the weapon, with the breech so far forward, at above 300 mils a straight ramming staff would not work as it would hit the base of the saddle. Maximum specified load angle is 800 mils. However at night when darkness hides all I have seen loading angles of between 900 and 1000 mils!!! The 5rds per minute can be maintained for 4 minutes, sustained rate of fire requirement is for 2 rds per minutte. However I have seen an 80 rd fire mission carried out in 24 minutes. Reduced detachment crew positions are as follows: Gunner: Sets Elevation and Deflection on left side of weapon No 1 man: Opens/Closes Breech, Swabs Chamber, Loads Charge and Actuate the primer Feed Mechanism (Swaps out magazines as required. Busiest man on the crew during reduced detachemnt operations. No 2 Man: Raises/Lowers Loading tray, Fires weapon using remote Firing Mechanism on right side of weapon. Assists Gunner to elevate or depress as required if having to depress to loading angle each round. No 3 Man: Fetches Projectile and places on Loading Tray. No 4 Man: fetches charge and presents to No 1 man. Both 3 and 4 then ram.

Are you in the 76 eSB?

A quad bike with a 120 mm mortar and one for the ammo. Simple, cheap, difficult to spot and very effective.

Certainly, a quick WWW search of both "official looking" and "secondary sources" reveals that not everybody has the same corresponding information on any given subject. As for the argument/debate "Light Gun didn't come from Abbot, nor is M119 an Americanized version of the L118..." http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m119.htm "...The M119A1 was originally designed, developed, and produced by Royal Ordnance, Nottingham, England as the L118/L119 British Light Gun. In the L118 configuration, the weapon uses separate loading 105mm Abbott type ammunition. The L118 served with distinction during the Falklands Islands conflict. The L119 is identical to the L118 except for the cannon tube which is reconfigured to fire all NATO standard 105mm semi-fixed ammunition." So then, is FAS lying in its data presentation where they suggest the US M119 was a derivative of the British L118? http://tri.army.mil/LC/Cf/Cft/Cftl/m119ston.htm This site has a wide variety of data on the guns, and some of it is verbatim (see "Who Designed The M119A1?") from fas.org. So technically, do these guys further the lie initially started by fas.org that the US M119 is derived from the British L118? http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m119/ This site is supposed to be from the official US Army website. Under "Description and Specifications", it states "Based on the L118 British Light Gun,.." Certainly, the US government, including the DoD, is guilty of suppressing the truth at times. Could this be one more example? If so, then how can anyone, even voluntary service members, ever trust the US govt for anything? (since they're obviously lying to us about our own weapons!) http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/artillery/bae_systems/ "105mm Light Gun ...available as the L118 and L119 versions,.." There is also a link to BAe (who absorbed Royal Ordnance into their corporation years ago.) http://www.baesystems.com But perhaps even the prime contractor is presenting us false information as well? Jane's Armour and Artillery also suggests the same lineage, but since obvious BAe themselves must be suppressing the true story of the gun, then Jane's can't be trusted either (or anything else Christopher Foss presides over?) And what about guys like Ian Hogg and Christopher Chant? Is their information to be trusted on military matters? Because I've spent years acquiring many of their publications, and the guys came off as "official looking enough" for me. I guess my judge of character must be pretty flawed. The "secondary source" book I directly quoted as suggesting "The Light Gun ordnance was developed using the Abbot barrel as the basis-.." was Greenhill Military Manuals Artillery Guns and Rocket Systems, by T.J. O'Malley and illustrated by Ray Hutchins, ISBN 1-85367-188-6, c1994, London. If this second-hand info is so flawed, then perhaps all the illustrations are incorrect as well? Seeing as the Abbot's range is given as between 17,100-17,300m, and firing separate loading ammo, suggesting the Light Gun, which in L118 form fires the same separate loading ammo and can reach app 17,200m, it certainly appears that "using the Abbot barrel as the basis" meant using the same inventory of ammo (how much still in stock?) and reaching about the same range performances, albeit with a lighter ordnance. And finally, --...I was NOT implying "the Brits ripped the guns out of the Abbots, put them on wheels, and called them L118s, then the Americans painted their US Army logo on them and called them M119s."-- The facts support that the design of the L118 was brought about by the requirement to use Abbot-type ammo and reach Abbot-type range performances certainly justifies saying "the Abbot barrel was used as the basis." The Brits wanted to achieve Abbot-type results with a lighter weapon, and decided the best course of action was to take the hardware responsible, the Abbot gun, and see what features were necessary to maintain the performance levels in a new piece. If it was interpreted that they used the actual Abbot gun in the L118, then that interpretation is flawed. But then again, since I obviously don't have the proper accurate information regardless of how "official looking" my sources were, and since there must be flaws in my judgment of character as to who I refer to as authorities on this subject, people can just disregard this entire post as one more fool's rant. Pardon me for wrongfully assuming my "official-looking" sources were actually official sources that could be trusted to provide official, accurate information..

It's a good concept, lennard. A very good idea on what capabilities are suggested for 120mm systems: http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/advanced-mortar-munition.htm (and the other Relevant Links on the left side.) We don't necessary have to up-scale to larger tubes in order to utilize PGM rounds, because as electronics get smaller, so will PGMs (although a smaller PGM means less effective payload. But you won't always need 5-10kg of explosive or 4 dozen + submunitions to destroy a target.) There are a number of ATVs that US SFs and other groups used in Afghanistan, both 4x4 and 6x6 vehicles, like the Gator: http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/HO_GATORHO.html And the British have their lightweight favorite, the Supacat 6x6: http://www.supacat.com/ These have been fitted out with various fits, including an ammo-handling system, fuel pod and reels, even firefighting and light engineering equipment. A pair of these could easily accomodate 4-6 men and their gear, a towed 120mm, and a useful-sized crate of ammo. (notice the ATMP 6x6 towing the ammo limber AND 105 Light Gun, in addition to the pallet on its back!) Set-ups ike this may well be the most ideal kits for the light troops, way out ahead of any large maintenance facilities needed for larger vehicles. Going back to the very first post of this topic, suggesting the "original requirements" 1) these ARE air-transportable by even medium-lift helos. 2)being small and not very fuel thirsty or maintenance-intensive, they are easily resuppliable. 3)obviously by past experience, light troops have no problem incorporating such vehicles, and the vehicles adapt quite well to being the pack mules of light troops. and to add a number 4) there's no telling how many various systems you can mount, carry, or pull with these vehicles. .

I think I heard somewhere that it is the Ordnance from the M102 that is used in the AC 130 gunship, does anyone know if this is true? If this is so does it also use the cradle and recoil system or something else entirely

Interesting that the tight weight parameters, driven by the need for UH60 lift I assume led to abandoning power ramming. It'll be interesting to see if another army adopts UFH/M777 and doesn't have the extreme weight requirement adopts the power rammer and a 4 man reduced detachment (or better still leaves the det comd to supervise/independently check without having to do things himself). Also interesting that the inherent round to round variations in manual ramming can be accomodated within the PER dispersion budget. Interesting decision project manager. Some interesting ergonomics as well, although these seem to be consistent with US practice? For example why doesn't the gunner operate the firing mechanism? I guess it's because No 2 finishes the laying because 2 man laying is required (at least with optical sights, perhaps E1 is different)? Nos 3 and 4 are also going to be working their little tails off having to finish loading before laying can be completed during burst fire. Also intersting tht the breech has to be swabbed, I'd have thought this wasn't needed with modular charges, it doesn't seem to be necessary with the L8/10 charges used with FH70/AS90/PzH2000, and they're not even modular. Actually the more I think about it the more it looks to me as if the design is somewhat inefficient in the way the crew works. Why not one man laying and firing, one man operating the breech and power rammer, and as many as you want alternately placing a shell on the loading tray and a charge in the breech. 3 man operation if push came to shove.

The word 'derivative' seems to be the problem, to me it has connotations of coming later, the dictionary (Oxford of course) defines it as 'come or descend from'. Lt Gun in any form is not descended from Abbot, L119 is not descended from L118. There is not basis for asserting that the L13 barrel was the basis for the L19 (or 20 come to that). If you use the same ammo then there is seldom much benefit in using a barrel with a radically different length, chamber size etc. However, if you want it lighter then you have to use stronger steel. I haven't checked but IIRC the barrels differ in the rifling twist as well, probably to reduce the loading, etc, on the L118 cradle, sadle, etc. This is also probably the reason L118's barrel is a bit shorter and loses 200 metres in FT max range. The FAS statement is broadly correct (and does not use the term 'derive') but has two other errors of fact. First while ROF Nottingham manufactured both L118 and 119, ROF did not design them (In Govt ownership no ROF ever had a gun design capability), this was done by RARDE at Fort Halstead in Kent (as successors to the Design Dept at Woolwich). Second, I think it's stretching the facts beyond breaking point to state "the cannon tube which is reconfigured to fire all NATO standard 105mm semi-fixed ammunition". The barrels are different not 'reconfigured' (reconfigure has connotations of being reversible), the chambers have different lengths as do the bores, and IIRC one of them has increasing not constant twist rifling. Some 're-configuration'! I'd also query whether M1 is officially a NATO standard, I don't think it was the subject of a STANAG or MoU, which is what enabled UK to develop 105mm Fd for Abbot without breaking any agreements, perhaps FAS means 'de facto standard', not quite the same thing, but the type of sloppy English we expect from 'marketing' people. It's no surprise that the US DoD doesn't really know the full background to L119/119, why should they? They didn't get interestd until a decade or more after the guns had entered UK service. BAe's statement is almost precisely correct, there are 'two versions of the light gun' as far as they are concerned. They're forgetting that before they owned RoF a third version was developed that fired Swiss type 105mm ammo, but I guess no one is going to resurrect this one! I suspect the Lt Gun GST and GSR haven't reached the National Archives in Kew yet, but I'd put a bet on that both L118 and L119 were part of the original requirement, so no 'derivation' there either, they were developed in parallel and entered service simultaneously. Ie 'two versions'. I can only be boring and repeat myself, the L118 requirement was for a gun that fired 105mm Fd ammo (for all the obvious reasons), the gun is no more derived from Abbot than the L119 is derived from the M101 (or whatever) of pre WW2 that first used M1 ammo. Using the same ammo does not constitute 'derivation' of a gun. Of the top of my head I can't think of any component shared by Abbot and L118, the one possible exception might be the electrical firing pin, but I wouldn't bank on it and it'll be some months before I can next put the UHBs side by side to check (and check on the rifling twist). The firing mechanisms are different because Abbot mech relies on external power whereas L118's produces its own. As I said in my post that started this dialogue, I was being pedantic in picking up the words used because they conveyed an erroneous impression.