New 130mm MBT gun

[Monash]

On a more serious note.

Not to mention the specialized equipment need to be added to those tanks for accurate indirect fire. Or the support elements required to allow them to shoot accurate fire. And the cost of redesigning those PGMs so that they fire out of a high velocity system.

Sir, all of your points are quite valid and I'm not suggesting anyone could wave a magic wand and introduce such a vehicle now. My thoughts were leaning more towards what could be done given the (ever increasing) levels of computerization in the field of artillery. If there is serious debate now about taking manned aircraft out of air to air combat scenarios why couldn't the same processes simplify the mechanics of setting up static firing positions for mechanized artillery to the point where an armored fighting vehicle could handle both roles?

[citanon]

The army doesn't look to be going that route but IS considering how to get fires from more platforms using a concept called cross domain fires. I've been looking around for details. Best I can tell, it seems to mean any pgm on any target, blurring the roles between mortars, guns and missiles.

[Stitch]

I thought that's what a combat engineer's job was. In order of importance, first install the latrines, then the showers and then barbecue pits, portable freezers, lighting and other combat essentials. I mean what else do they do??

Don't forget the volleyball court and the bar.

[Albany Rifles]

Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.

Yes, I know they did it in Korea...and again in Viet Nam on a very small scale. And they played with it on the M48s. From the M60A3s onward it was dropped.

That is in the past. They even prepared firing tables and plotting boards. Hell, we had the M10 Plotting Board at one time for indirect fire of the M2 .50 Caliber when set on a tripod.

That said with todays weapons it is not operationally...trajectory is flatter and there are no firing tables and plotting boards.

[citanon]

Yes, I know they did it in Korea...and again in Viet Nam on a very small scale. And they played with it on the M48s. From the M60A3s onward it was dropped.

That is in the past. They even prepared firing tables and plotting boards. Hell, we had the M10 Plotting Board at one time for indirect fire of the M2 .50 Caliber when set on a tripod.

That said with todays weapons it is not operationally...trajectory is flatter and there are no firing tables and plotting boards.

Couldn't you just get the kids to make an app for that today? :D

[jlvfr]

That is in the past. They even prepared firing tables and plotting boards. Hell, we had the M10 Plotting Board at one time for indirect fire of the M2 .50 Caliber when set on a tripod.

If I remember correctly, the british did this in WWI, with their Vickers Mk 1.

[Monash]

Don't forget the volleyball court and the bar.

I prefer to get professionals in for the important stuff!

[Tankersteve]

I believe gunner's quadrants went away with the M1. However, I have also been told that the British version of what we call the Master Gunner's Course was still teaching indirect fire techniques for tanks, as recently as the mid 90s. I'd like to hear if anyone could confirm or deny that.

The problem with doing this has been mentioned - very different roles and mindsets/cultures. When needed/in extremis, it has been done in the past. Our modern ammunition would not work well nowadays. Other bits are too specialized as well.

A better mix would be a turreted mortar system employed when needed in a direct fire mode as a breaching system. A 120mm turreted mortar in a company-level Stryker formation, with a coax 7.62 and CROWS up top, would be much more useful than the MGS ever was. But you probably can't load it into a C-130.

Tankersteve