Field Artillery isn't going to like this, but its going to have to move in close and direct fire engage targets whenever possible for the now big gun-less, light infantry. We had best develop a lightweight gunshield to protect exposed gunners from enemy fire to do this! This gunshield should be fitted to the M119 105mm, M198 and new VSEL UHF 155mm towed howitzers depicted above. While not sized to work within confined streets, tube artillery organic to Light Infantry Divisions can and must help in a city fight with direct, not indirect fire.

In WWII we were very desperate for a direct fire gun capability and mounted 75mm howitzers on M3 half-tracks.

A current U.S. Army LTC and weapons expert writes in:

"I still think that the 105mm Howitzer on a light tank chassis has merit, and the M113 with a turreted 120mm breach loading mortar could also carry a reasonable HE warhead. Both could be made with auto-loading automatic fire capability, too."

The future M113A3 120mm mortar system will have a turret for direct fire capability, but it has to be supplied to LIGHT/AIRBORNE units, not just heavy ones

"But wait, this is an old idea. In WW II, the tank battalion had a HHC howitzer section. First, we used the Howitzer Motor Carriage M8, an M5 Stuart tank with an open-topped turret armed with a 75mm howitzer. Later, we had M4 Shermans with 105mm howitzers. Too late for WW II, in Korea, we had the M45, a 105mm howitzer on an M26 Pershing.

Another approach would be to use large diameter (perhaps 18-24 inch), thin walled barrels to project thin skinned cannisters filled with proportionally tremendous volumes of HE filler. The launcher would look something like an MLRS, but with shorter barrels and perhaps twice as many of them. Oops, that sounds like WW I "Lewis Projectors" used for lobbing gas-filled canisters. Range was about 1 or 2 kms.

Darn, I just can't seem to think of anything that hasn't already been invented, tried, and proven successful."

What we have is in essence an Assault Gun under the control of Field Artillery Branch. However as the bitter lessons of Korea were forgotten in the mad rush to meet the tank maneuver armies of the Red Army at the Fulda Gap in Europe, artillery branch gravitated to indirect fire roles and "heavied up" their SP howitzers to the current M109A6 "Paladin" which is too big to accompany light troops in a city fight. There is no reason why we couldn't put a 120mm DF mortar turret on a M113A3 or create a SP howitzer/assault gun by cutting its chassis to accept a M119 105mm light howitzer. South Vietnamese Armor units used old M548 (M113s cut down) cargo carriers to roll-on/roll-off towed M102 105mm howitzers for a "hip shoot" artillery capability. Our enhanced M548A3 cargo carriers with clear cargo beds could be joined with M119 towed 105mm howitzers to create a "hip shoot" capability today.

2.75" Hydra-70 ROCKETS ON GROUND VEHICLES

Its been recently discovered by former marine, Carlton Meyer that 2.75" Hydra-70 rocket pods can be mounted in place of Stinger SAM pods on Air Defense Artillery Avenger HMMWVs. Its probable that rocket pods could be attached to Bradley Linebacker ADA vehicles though this 33-ton beast is hard to get to the battlefield as its M2/M3 brothers. There is no reason why ADA Avenger HMMWV units attached to U.S. Army Light Infantry Divisions couldn't be taken to the battlefield early on to provide the SHOCK ACTION we are missing. ADA weapons use in ground attack dates back to Rommel using 88mm flak guns against British tanks in 1940, and was used in Vietnam and Panama. Details of this are here. Other Allied Armies are mounting rockets on ground vehicles, most notably, South Africa.

"The TOW is a good long-range anti-tank system, but suffers from several limitations when employed at ranges of less than 1,500 meters. The weapon has a slow rate of fire, slow time of flight, a fire control system that can be countered...it cannot fire on the move; and most importantly, its of limited use in close or wooded terrain where targets will be fleeting in nature...it does not have the flexibility, rapid reaction, and capability to fire kinetic energy projectiles that an anti-tank gun possesses.."

--Col. Andrew R. Finlayson, McGazette, March 1989, page 15

"Within the urban area, anti-tank weapons are primarly used to defeat tanks.......In many cases, the best technique will be to keep the TOWs out of the city all together, employing them on the terrain on the outskirts. The minimum arming distances for TOWs/Dragons (65 meters) may restrict employment of these weapons. They cannot be used in a direct-fire role against the target that is closer than 65 meters; for example, across a city street...obstacles such as telephone wires and ruble must also be considered since they may restrict the flight of the wire guided missiles."

Each Light infantry Division has anti-armor units with TOW heavy ATGMS on HMMWV 4x4 vehicles, but are useless in a city fight due to a 65m minimum arming range and longer distances to track. The TOW IIB warhead is designed to explode downwards for fly-over top-attack and is completely ineffective against targets head-on. By improving the TOW's sight/firing system to a "point and shoot" capability and buying the TOW BLAM building/bunker missiles derived from old TOW missiles these units can contribute to the city fight---if these "exotic" ammunition types can reach the Soldiers in the field, which we doubt. Ever see that Multi-buckshot cannister round for the M203 GL? .50 cal SLAP rounds? This will cost more than the alternatives mentioned already. Another less expensive idea by Carlton Meyer is to create 150mm rockets that would shoot from TOW ATGM launchers. I concur, whatever we decide we have to DO. And do it NOW.

"....urban growth in all areas of the world has changed the face of the battlefield.........."

"The probability is great that United States forces will become engaged by enemy forces who are intermingled with the civilian population...."

"The increased population and accelerated growth of cities have made the problems of combat in built-up areas an urgent requirement for the U.S. Army. This type of combat cannot be avoided. The make-up and distribution of smaller built-up areas as part of an urban complex make the isolation of enemy fires occupying one or more of these smaller enclaves increasingly difficult. MOUT is expected to be the future battlefield in Europe and Asia.......

"Friendly and enemy doctrine reflect the fact that more attention must be given to urban combat.....

URBAN COMBAT CANNOT BE WISHED AWAY

People fight wars, and people live in cities.

If we want to WIN, and not get clobbered we will get a BIG GUN on a light vehicle NOW for infantry fire support in a city fight. The solutions described above are almost zero-cost and available to local unit commanders.

The BEST solution for both city fighting AND armored vehicle combat would be to buy the M8 Buford Armored Gun System and use it together with M113A3 Gavins. Mount Javelin and/or Follow-On-To Tow (FOTT) "fire & forget" ATGMs on every vehicle we have: HMMWVs, M113A3s, M8s, M2/3s, M1s realizing the day of the main gun is over in armor versus armor combat. Write your representative and senators insist that we one-time buy 50 x M8 Armored Gun Systems at $5 million each instead of one year's worth of navy/mc crashed $73 million so-called "Super Hornets" (4) and regular $28 million F/A-18 "Hornets" (10) that are useless in city fights.

FEEDBACK!!!!

itsg@hotmail.com