Com-Central.net

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

question for the old tankers out there that crewed or served with any of the Patton series.
how often did you practice/perform indirect fire?
shawn

Doug_Kibbey

Trained on it in AIT (M-48's) and never practiced it again.

SFC_Jeff_Button

I thought "indirect fire" was mainly practiced in Korea during the 50's. M4's and M26's. I believe training was carried out on them but the actual practice of useing them that way died out with the advances in artillery and esspecially those wonderful Mortars. Four-Duece baby!, not that I'm partial or anything.

C_Sherman · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 590

Hi all,

Shawn: Never. We all knew it was possible, but nobody had ever done it. I seriously question the accuracy of any indirect fires that were shot according to the instructions in the TM, and I equally question if any circumstance would ever be dire enough to require it.

C

Joe_D

Howdy,
The nearest thing we did regularly to indirect fire with the M60A1's was the Range Card engagement during table 8. Used the azimuth indicator and QE. In a sense it was indirect because the concept was to be able to engage a target at night without seeing it. Indirect isn't taught any more, not even in the Master Gunner Course as far as I know. Jeff said it all, indirect has comme a long way and mortars was what you got if you called for it in a tank platoon. That's if you had priority for it.

Joe D

Neil_Baumgardner

Keep in mind indirect fire will come back once and if the 120mm "Medium Range Munition" (MRM, formerly known as the Tank Extended Range Munition - TERM) is fielded for FCS and to Abrams.

www.defense-update.com...120MRM.htm

Although the Army likes to call this "Beyond Line of Sight," as opposed to "Line of Sight" (generally direct fire) and "Non Line of Sight" (generally indirect fire).

Neil

Sabot

Served on M48A5 and M60A3TTS, never trained indirect fire.

JeffStringer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 637

Was the M48A5 a rebuilt version for the South Koreans or am I way off the mark with that question?

I remember reading somewhere that they used them and even had side armored skirts that resembled the Centurion but never got the story straight on if they were a purpose built version for them or what.

Confused.

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

i was just curious. it seemed peculiar to me, considering the direction that tank development was going post-WW2. and to see it for the starship...

Sabot

- JeffStringer

Was the M48A5 a rebuilt version for the South Koreans or am I way off the mark with that question?

I remember reading somewhere that they used them and even had side armored skirts that resembled the Centurion but never got the story straight on if they were a purpose built version for them or what.

Confused.

The M48A5 was an attempt to bring the M48-series up to M60A1 standards due to medium tank shortages. They were used by the Army National Guard and the US Army (2ID) tank battalions in Korea.

Many were exported to Korea, Turkey and other friendly nations.

All M48A5 tanks were rebuilt from earlier M48/A1/A2/A3 tanks.

I learned how to use a coincidence range finder on that peppy little tank.

Doug_Kibbey

- Sabot

I learned how to use a coincidence range finder on that peppy little tank.

Rob,
Ex-Coincidence RF users are getting to be rare these days. I was on the test project for the first LRF for U.S. AFV use & it was a definite step in the right direction, but I also fondly recall the "old fashioned" way (basically a scaled up version of the same apparatus found on my families' old Polaroid camera). Now, it seems really weird to me when I peak in the turret of an M60A3 and there's ALL THAT HEADROOM that we didn't have (cuz A3's hadn't been introduced yet when I ETS'd).

Those monthly opthalmograms we had early on were a pain in the butt, though (but good for the rest of the day off at least).

C_Sherman · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 590

Geez, maybe I DO qualify for the CIA! I'm old enough to remember using the old coinkydink range finders on our M60/M60A1s. Man, was I glad to leave them behind with the M60A3s.

C

JeffStringer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 637

Thanks Rob for the answer. I really do appreciate experienced information from those who actually served on them.

Jeff

Sabot

- JeffStringer

Thanks Rob for the answer. I really do appreciate experienced information from those who actually served on them.

Jeff

No problem. The G3 CSM (who retired last year) and I were talking about the M48A5 and no one around us thought either of us were old enough to have crewed an M48. They thought you had to have been a Vietnam vet to have crewed one last.

bsmart

Sabot wrote:
JeffStringer wrote:
Thanks Rob for the answer. I really do appreciate experienced information from those who actually served on them.

Jeff
No problem. The G3 CSM (who retired last year) and I were talking about the M48A5 and no one around us thought either of us were old enough to have crewed an M48. They thought you had to have been a Vietnam vet to have crewed one last.

What about the gasser M48s? Did anyone here ever crew one of them? My (very limited) actual experience was on the M48A1s of the VMI tanker platoon in '72-'73.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big