Am I opening a can of worms here? I think I am...M113...

[Targan]

Paul, Paul, Paul. You gotta think bigger man! One of Bull's super guns mounted on an 8x8 grid of 113s. That's the way to go.

[bobcat]

Paul, Paul, Paul. You gotta think bigger man! One of Bull's super guns mounted on an 8x8 grid of 113s. That's the way to go.

and an 8x16 grid of 113's as caissons for the nuclear ammo

what go big or go home.

[Targan]

and an 8x16 grid of 113's as caissons for the nuclear ammo

Exactly! I like the cut of your jib, BC!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well I can't offer an M113 mounting a battleship turret or even an M113 mounting a tank turret but what about the M113 as a 105mm assault gun/howitzer Known as the FSCV (Fire Support Combat Vehicle), it was a proposed German M113 variant and that's about all the info I have.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Awesome, an M113 STG-III



(seriously if we don't stop Sparks is gonna show up)

[ArmySGT.]

Wow the M113 Sturmgeschutz.

I really like it. In fact I think it seriously could play a role today as an assault gun.

I feel on a Brad Chassis would be better with a ROWS for self defense, target spotting, and directing artillery support.

[Webstral]

Well I can't offer an M113 mounting a battleship turret or even an M113 mounting a tank turret but what about the M113 as a 105mm assault gun/howitzer Known as the FSCV (Fire Support Combat Vehicle), it was a proposed German M113 variant and that's about all the info I have.

Me likee!

[HorseSoldier]

Looks like a pretty low cost way to punch up an infantry formation with some additional firepower. Was it supposed to be a 105mm high velocity gun or a 105mm howitzer I wouldn't fancy doing anti-tank work in a 113 that couldn't engage from a hull down position, but for HE blasting power to smash strong points and bunkers it'd be a nice rig.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

M113 FSCV was armed with a 105mm gun. I haven't found anything specifically stating it was a howitzer or not but this image shows the tube at various stages of elevation, so it's certainly possible.



As for being hull down, the 'trench' where the gun lays also allows it to be depressed so it can make use of hull down positions to some extent. Not as good as a turreted SPG but not too shabby never-the-less.



Some data sourced from various sites - reliability is unknown: -
Proposal from 1977 by Krauss Maffei and Rheinmetall
Length with tube: 6.04m
Width: 2.91m
Height, hull: 1.76m
Height, commander's cupola: 1.92m
I think it had a crew of three; Commander, Loader and Driver/Gunner
Ammunition: 42 rounds
Loaded weight: approx 14,000kg

It could also carry 4 troops if necessary although some sites stated that the 4 troops were part of the crew (but I suspect if this was a permanent arrangement you would have to lose some ammo capacity just to make room - for example, some of the turreted M113 FSVs carry less than 35 rounds for smaller calibre guns and they have a full height hull for storage)

The 105mm was from Rheinmetall and could fire single and multi-part ammunition. NBC protected and amphibious.
Protection from 14.5mm on frontal armour and 7.62mm NATO on side armour.

[Raellus]

Wow, I thought I'd seen them all (M113 variants).

That's an interesting vehicle. A couple of years ago, Chalkline posted schematics of a German vehicle he'd dreamt up- an assault gun based on the Jagdpanzer Kanone upgunned with former E. German D30 123mm howitzer in place of the 90mm AT gun.

I could see the Germans mounting D30 123mm guns in a few M113s to create a similar vehicle

[Panther Al]

Now this is something I would love to stats for: a StuH-113. I agree that it's a howitzer of some sort (hence StuH and not StuG) and a earlier poster was right, these are excellent ways to Punch up the fire power cheaply for infantry units. Was the original reasoning for the design concept, though it morphed into an anti-tank role soon enough. It even followed the original rule that was applied hard and fast to all the WW2 StuG/StuH designs: no taller than a man.

[Webstral]

I love this idea so much I'm thinking about ways to include it in my Twilight: 2000 work. Surely this isn't an especially new idea. Surely once the need for a dedicated assault gun became clear, somebody with brains would have done this. I'm fine with the Germans being the ones to have the good sense. Of course, getting one or more of these into the hands of a cantonment defense force in CONUS will take a bit more explaining...

[Panther Al]

bear in mind; there is a reason for the concept to go the way of the dodo. Its not terribly effective in a fluid environment. Attacking fixed positions, or defending same from prepared locations. Once the battle becomes a battle of maneuver, StuG's and StuH's are toast. The reason the Germans bought into them at first was because there was no other way to deliver precision HE firepower at the company and platoon level to take out gun positions (MG, Cannon, Etc) that leg infantry would have a hard time dealing with before the introduction of the handheld rocket launcher coupled with the armour protection to survive those positions defenses (where as infantry could at least hide).

They got big in the midwar because they was the only chassis available to mount the larger more effective guns needed to take on the T34, and as the situation worsened, it was a lot cheaper to rebuild old Pz3's into StuG's than it was to build more Pz4's.

[Webstral]

I agree that there are reasons why assault guns arent generally included in the lineup of the major powers AFV park, just as there are reasons why the assault gun joined the lineups of the Wehrmacht and Red Army. Cost is a factor for the emergence of the assault gun; without a gun turret, the fighting vehicle is cheaper and less complex. Also, a heavier gun can be mounted for the same weight of vehicle. Cheapness and ease of maintenance are important factors, after all.

Another reason for the emergence of the assault gun is the tendency for the tanks to fight each other instead of supporting the infantry. The British (and perhaps the French"I cant remember anymore) distinguished between cavalry and infantry tanks. The former were light, fast machines meant to exploit breakthroughs and beat up rear-area units. The M4 Sherman with its 75mm gun is a splendid example of such a tank. Infantry tanks were slower and heavier with better armor and (sometimes) better guns than their cavalry counterparts. The infantry tank was intended to fight in direct support of the infantry, although obviously a big heavy mike foxtrot is going to get drawn into tank-on-tank combat as the opportunity arises. The assault gun is a natural evolutionary development of the infantry tank concept. In my opinion, the assault gun is a good marriage of economy and specialization. (Take my opinion on such things with a grain of salt"Im no tanker.)

There are some arguments against assault guns, and many of these arguments have merit. On a fast-moving battlefield, the assault gun with its limited traverse is at a distinct disadvantage against MBT that can shoot on the move. If the Soviets are to be believed, and if Operation Desert Storm is any indicator, meeting engagements are sufficiently common to be as normal as deliberate attacks and defenses. The jurys still out on what a really large-scale mechanized war between comparable armies would look like. A howitzer on an assault gun, which will have a fairly limited direct fire range (1,500 meters) is at a very distinct disadvantage against a wide variety of ATGM. Although the frontal armor of an assault gun can be thickened vis--vis the frontal armor of a tank with the same chassis, it may or may not be practical to provide sufficient protection against all or most ATGM. A tank certainly can provide direct fire support to the infantry. IFV can provide direct fire support, though I dont know how a 25mm autocannon stacks up against a 105mm piece in terms of servicing hardened targets. How many rounds of 25mm does one have to fire at a hardened target to achieve a knockout blow that could be achieved with a single round of 105mm HE or HESH

The Soviets included HE in the basic load for their MBT. When I was Regular Army in the 1990s, the question was being asked whether the combat load for the M1 wasnt a bit too specialized. At the time, the M1 carried sabot rounds and HEAT. There were three machine guns for AP, but there were no rounds specifically for infantry support. I know that in the interim more attention has been paid to providing the infantry with direct support that extends beyond beating up the enemys AFV (the value of which is never to be underestimated). However, the US would have entered the Twilight War with an MBT incapable of providing exactly the kind of fire for which the assault gun is intended.

One of the problems with the fast-moving modern battlefield is that it leaves behind pockets of enemy resistance. If all goes well, the next echelon or the echelon after that deals with the problem. This is an ideal circumstance under which to use an assault gun. Behind the front, the assault gun shouldnt have to deal with enemy tanks"at least not in the same numbers one would expect to find them at the front. AT guns and ATGM probably will be present in bypassed enemy units, although obviously the size and composition of bypassed enemy units will vary considerably. Still, mopping up pockets of resistance is a job for the infantry and fire support vehicles. Theres no need for a high-performance fighting vehicle like the M1 to operate in direct support of dismounted infantry. Id argue that detailing an M1 for this job is wasteful, though the US Army certainly has done enough of it over the past decade. By the same token, detailing an SP gun for this job is wasteful. A 155mm cannon certainly can deliver effective fire against enemy strong points, but the field artillery has plenty of other work to do during an offensive. Man portable weapons lack the range to go after targets that an assault gun with a 105mm howitzer can tackle. Also, man portable weapons like the AT-4 tend to be specialized for the anti-armor role. HEAT warheads are less effective in the bunker busting role than an HE or HESH round of equal diameter because much of the rounds energy goes into creating a plasma bolt. A plasma bolt has lesser effects inside a bunker than inside an MBT for a couple of reasons. The first is that there is lot less combustible material (fuel and ammunition) inside a hardened infantry fighting position than inside an AFV. The second is that while the plasma bolt will create spalling on the interior of a concrete or wooden bunker, the overall impact is lesser. When one is tackling a small cinder block structure, this doesnt matter so much. But the Israelis have noted that a HEAT round from an MBT doesnt always do the job against enemy combatants inside ordinary civilian dwellings, although the plasma bolt may penetrate multiple walls. HE or HESH in 105mm, on the other hand, is well-suited for tackling hardened structures and killing or disabling the troops inside. This is a good job for an assault gun.

[Panther Al]

All very good points, though the M4 was meant as an infantry support tank: as originally planned, under no circumstances was it to get into a gun fight with another tank.

I think that yes, Assualt guns would come back into play: But not as factory made machines prior to the war: I think what would happen is as vehicles are beat up, and damaged beyond repair into the original shape and form, they would be cannibalized into AG's to be given to second echelon units to free up better machines for the first line units.

The remote weapons turret (Such as the MPGS's and others as experimented with over the past decade) mounting a large calibre weapon mounted on a light vehicle (Be a brad version or something else) though is something worth looking at.