Weakness.

This is coolbert:

More on an item as was discussed only obliquely by Colonel Reisner during his You Tube video as the subject of a very recent blog entry.

American M777 howitzer as used in the Ukraine Conflict not the game changer it was supposed to be. A weapon system too susceptible to Russian counter-battery artillery fire, shrapnel damage removing units from service only after one or two rounds fired?

From this article extracts an interview with Ukrainian Brig. Gen. Volodymyr Karpenko, Ukraine's land forces command logistics commander. Thanks to the National Defense magazine:

"Unfortunately, we don't have an opportunity today to have foreign supplied equipment sent back to a restoration facility [depot] simply because of time constraints. That is why we are discussing spare parts here so that we can maintain and repair that equipment right in the field."

"For example, the M777 artillery systems are really prone to being damaged by enemy artillery. For every battery of M777, there are six pieces."

Damaged by Russian artillery counter-battery fire.

"After every artillery contact, we have to take two artillery pieces and take them back to the rear to maintain them because some of the subsystems are damaged by shrapnel. This happens every day."

Brittleness not taken into consideration during design and manufacture. M777 excellent but having a weakness? M777 not robust enough?

"Equipment that has gone to the rear of the frontline is maintained solely by Ukrainian specialists that have been trained by different foreign companies for that specific purpose."

My comments:

* With regard to the M777 howitzer and particular susceptibility to counter-battery [Russian] fire, damage from shrapnel, when was the last time I wonder USA artillery was exposed to concerted and accurate counter-battery fire?

* Enemy counter-battery fire WW1, WW2, perhaps Korea and maybe even Vietnam. But in the wars since WW2 enemy counter-battery fire Korea and Vietnam not so much or so accurate? Those counter-insurgency wars as fought in Iraq and Afghan the danger probably nil.

* M777 never exposed to such counter-battery fire and the design not taking into consideration that possibility of such enemy action as damaging the units? Design not adequately robust?

* Similar to USA ground forces not being subjected to enemy aerial bombardment since WW2? Not ready for it.

Russian artillery and rocket artillery can out-range the M777. Counter-battery radars better than the American version. Russian also having sound-ranging location gear upgraded and providing further targeting data. 

M777 NOT up to par and again NOT the game-changer it was touted to be?

coolbert.