L118 is well balanced and easy to traverse on the platform.  It may be that use of L119 with its shorter barrel has coloured perceptions, even the heavier muzzle brake doesn't fully compensate for a shorter barrel. 

 UK finished converting all their Light Guns to digital, etc, sights in 2002 (this was the first such system on towed guns), including those in the TA and University OTCs (only a handful used to teach the basics to recruits retain optical sights (4 guns)). In essence this seems to have made them the first artillery to abandon optical sights.  The digital laying system has recently been upgraded to integrate with the MVR (on every gun), store MVs and give direct fire thru the telescope to 6km.

 If you were always towing with barrel reversed then your guns were out of date.  That's no longer needed, the A frame has been strengthened (long overdue in my view).

 My understanding of M777 is if you want to traverse beyond top traverse it involves quite a lot of work compared to any split trail gun.  I'd observe that one of the fortunate features of CORAL was that the M2A2 were pointing in the required direction not centre of arc, if they been in the latter the outcome could have been seriously nasty.  That said the one disadvantage of L118 is that if you use the platform then you need a fairly large diameter gun pit.  However, UK units in Afg seem to have pretty well stopped using the platform as was the case in Iraq where the actually fired from hardtop roads.  Something that hitherto I'd only associated with the better SPs. 

 Just going back to why UK abandoned their M777/Caesar acquisition.  I too have worked for more than one govt, and while cost is often an issue process is critical.  What's more both options probably had lower operating costs than AS90 and the quantities involved were actually peanut money.  The justification for M777/Caesar always seemed a bit
flaky to me, numbers seemed about 3 btys inviting the question why bother.  It's useful to note that M777/Caesar were in the Assessment Phase, the next step in the process is Initial Gate then Development, etc.  There's been no report that it actually got to Initial Gate.  This seems to mean that the Assessment concluded that basically they had
nothing useful to offer or capabilities they provided could be obtained by other more cost effective means or the capabilities weren't required.   Still, no doubt the assessment teams had lots of fun.

I actually think that M777 has potential, but it needs considerable rework and would increase in weight, although this doesn't matter in the real world.  It's attraction is that its compact.  Add a flick rammer and sliding block breech (for guaranteed burst fire), give a power option (for laying), which also helps the power supply challenge of the
electronics, enable it to traverse rapidly through 6400 on a sole plate (hydraulically assisted and could allow you to reduce top traverse) and you're starting to get something that might be worth having.  The extra weight would need better wheels unless you think portee is the way to go.

 Finally, 105mm Fd Mk 2 ammo, the reliable story seems to be that when USSR invaded Afg there was realisation in Canberra that Aust ammo stocks were unacceptably low, but L118 was too late to be added to the list of restoration stock building and the project was directed to insert it in parallel with gun production.  However, by 1983 the ammo pressure was off and the Fd Mk 2 ammo local prodcution was slipped a year.  In 1986 it would have cost $860,000 to start producing HE, smk and WP (which UK has never produced for themselves).  Several events in the project team coupled with tightening of defence expenditure because of no foreseen deployments, move of ammo manufacturing to Albury and US introduction of assisted 105mm put production into the infinite future.  (All rumours of royalty issues, etc are just that.) 

Credit goes where it is due.

 Herald