[centurion316]

Well, I'm a redleg, so color me very sceptical of replacing rifled tube artillery with a mortar.

The powers of reasoning and intellect that you have so ably demonstrated on many threads on this forum have convinced me to refute your conclusions at great risk. My own personal experiences are also biased toward your view. I once was the proud recepient of an unannounced visit by four rounds of 4.2" from my battalion's very own heavy mortar platoon. Not only was I unimpressed by the general lack of precision of mortars, the demonstrated lack of gunnery skills amongst this platoon, at least, left me less than impressed.

[Robert A Cook PE]

that's what I mean!

Direct fire with antipersonnel rounds (fleshettes, (or canister rounds any more, shotgun-style balls ?) isn't really possible over the troops heads against somebody assaulting the perimeter.

Direct fire seems advertised with this thing. And it's needed. Sometimes.

Sure, our recent wars have been "chases" across deserts inside trucks and APC's/M-2's against a retreating enemy.

The Vietnamese did use direct assault though, and just because no recent enemy has been good enough to attack camps and trenches doesn't mean we won't be attacked in the future.