Missing U.S. tanks were broken, stranded in desert (8 MIA Marines Found)

McClatchy News Service via Fresno Bee ^ | April 1, 2003, 5:43 AM | Sharon Schmickle

[TheLion]

"That's the Army's 4th Infantry Divisions M1A2 SEP *Borg Tanks* and Bradley M3 SEP Infantry vehicles, which can transmit LocStats digitally, based on GPS readings. The Marine M1A1s aren't quite that far along Yet."

Thanks....didn't know that.

[archy]

Different languages... Yes, I know: You speak "the King's English," and we Yanks slaughter it with "embellishment"... Yadda-yadda-yadda.

Good God, Man! I'm not a Pommie Bahstuhd!!! Howzit!

But come now, sir, be fair--London "cocknee" (sp?) is not exactly the model of gramatic prose! And reading "the Barb" generally inflicts a severe case of frustration... sort of similar to doing "literary" calculus! Ouch!!!

Cockney-speak from *within the sound of 'Bow Bells’ in London's East Endcan can be a bit hard to take. The trick is to take it from a voice that's easier on the ears than most. :-) And instead of "the Barb" just stick with *The Sun* paying particularly close attention to Page Three.

And as far as the English birds are concerned: What's the matter? Y'all don't much like a little competition? At least English girls are loyal to principle... I sure would not opine that of the French... and I'm French!

You can have the French and most of the British birds, so far as I'm concerned. But I try to keep an eye out for a couple of the brighter lights in the sky. I do miss Vivien Neves, who passed away last year, though.

[Robert A Cook PE]

They probably tried impressing them into the Queen's service for all the trouble they went to, until they found out just how much young American Marines can eat. ..

From further below .... A British air-naval unit was camped nearby. For three days, the Marines helped guard the camp while British mechanics patched their tanks.

See?

The Brit's DID IMPRESS the Marines into standing guard duty (while they got some sleep)! Whether the Brits were impressed when the Marines stood guard duty remains to be determined....8>)

This could definitely be a "war story" except it did not begin with the key words and tricky phrase, "Now , this is no-sh*t. A guy once told me ..." The only real discrepancy I see is the unit CO (that night, after they stopped and were refueling) didn't DO SOMETHING after he noticed that 2 tanks were missing. Nobody real commander is going to leave troops unaccounted for.

[archy]

This could definitely be a "war story" except it did not begin with the key words and tricky phrase, "Now , this is no-sh*t. A guy once told me ..." The only real discrepancy I see is the unit CO (that night, after they stopped and were refueling) didn't DO SOMETHING after he noticed that 2 tanks were missing. Nobody real commander is going to leave troops unaccounted for.

During the 1960s I was a tank gunner with the headquarters company tank section of a tank battalion supporting an Infantry division. Our three M60A1s were the newest and best of the battalion, the line companies being equipped with 17 of the earlier M60 version at the time. And if you were a tanker assigned to one of the three *Cadillacs,* you were good.

Very politely, our battalion commander, a Lt Colonel who knew and called every man in the unit except his Sergeant Major by their first names, took me aside and asked a favour of me, not phrased as an order at all: our medic section was about to be equipped with M113A1 personnel carrier-based ambulances to replace their less-capable jeep wheeled frontline ambulance. Would I be willing to transfer to the medic section for a couple of months, and teach the medics tracked vehicle driving and more importantly, maintenance? Our boss was deeply concerned that one of more of them would get hert, very possibly fatally, during the changeover, and was willing to sacrifice the talents of his own personal driver and gunner to minimize the odds a bit. I hedged for a couple of deals, including his order that I keep my tanker's M3A1 *greasegun* submachinegun, not a usual medic's personal weapon, but agreed. And so I showed the medics how their new rides worked, and taught them to drive so the tracked side stayed down.

One morning the battalion surgeon who was then my new boss grabbed me out of the chow line and told me I was driving for him in one of the medic tracks. It seemed one of our tanks returning from a night gunnery range had run over a road guard, though we didn't seem to have anyone unaccounted for. We grabbed a load of sandwiches and headed for the scene, fighting a buildup of snowdrifts on the Bavarian roadways that likely would have stopped one of the jeeps. Getting through the snow was not a problem in the tracked vehicle; stopping and turning was. But we got to the scene, to find out what had happenned. The tanks coming back had a crewman out in front with a flashlight as a ground guide, just like they were supposed to; problem was that the ground guide for the first tank was walking in the path of the righthand side track and the guy was laying in his sleeping bag on the left track's path. The second groundguide found him, but only after the first fifty-ton tank had run over him, a wee bit too late.

We'd put out a radio call to all units in the division asking if any them had anyone unaccounted for, but noone had claimed him. Doc certified him as dead, a legal technicality and formality, but a necessary one, unzipped the bag, and started coming out with uniform parts and human remains, intermixed with a pinkish goo consisting of blood, the feathers fronm the down-filled bag, and just-freezing ice crystals. Eventually, he came out with a wallet with ID, and finally, a bent dogtag.

It eventually turned out that the guy had been dropped off by his unit as a road guard, and told they'd send a truck with someone to relieve him and take him to chow. When the sun went down and the snow started falling, he put on his sleeping bag and poncho, and found a cleared path he could lie down on well away from the intersecting road, where he might get run over. Unfortunately that *path* was one track's side of a tank trail, and if it hadn't been covered with snow and dark, he might have recognized it for what it was.

He must have been really tired not to have woken up from the sound of five tanks in low gear coming up the trail, but hopefully, it was over before he woke up to figure out what was happening. When we finally turned his name into Division HQ and they told us what unit he was with, we contacted them and were told it wasn't possible- he'd been on a detail the previous night, but had come in for evening chow with others so assigned. When we read off the name and service number of the one we'd found, the first concern the First Sergeant of the unit had was as to what had happened to the guy's rifle- there was definately some CYA going on.

So now, some 35 years later, in very different circumstances and conditions, I can too-easily imagine that a unit, particularly Marines, might misplace a few men and a couple of vehicles, and not be overly concerned about their ability to take care of themselves. And I can also imagine commanders and administrators holding out to the last minute to report such an overdue detail as Missing In Action, with possible consequences from on high and resulting impact on their future careers.

I hope that's not the case in this instance. But I certainly can see it as a possibility.

-archy-/-

[Darksheare]

No, as far as I know.
If they can, it probably isn't encrypted.
Never personally had a problem with time sync being off, but HQ Battery did.
That is another thing that could happen besides the fill being outdated.

So, those boys would've been very alone either way.

On advance party in my old unit, I kept telling the higher ups that we needed small radios so that we could warn them in real time of opfor contact.
I got told I was smoking crack, we don't need radios.
Sure enough, we ran into the opfor for the mission (42nd Inf guys) and what's the first words the captain says, "Why didn't you wanr us before?"
I'd have killed for some of those personal radios the Brits use...

[Robert A Cook PE]

Sobering loss.

We never "lost" anybody in the shipyards, nor at sea from the submarines, though Rickover grounded several careers arbitraily.

The carriers, unfortunately, always returned from a six-months cruise with several deaths - even in peacetime.

[archy]

Happened to my artillery unit during AT at Fort Drum.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but one of the 3rd Infantry's units, the 1/39 Field Artillery, has moved to within 19 miles of Baghdad, well within range of that outfit's MLRS rocket launchers.

Kindly note the discussion on the closing ring around the enemy capital at the FReeppost and response thread *here*, and add any observations or comments from an artillerist's point of view worth noting.

-archy-/-

[Darksheare]

MLRS, Paladins, and M198 155's to soften things up a bit.
Too long a range for my old unit to be doing much.
The M119A1 only had a max range of 12 miles, and that's with a RAP round.
That, and it's only a 105.
Wouldn't do much against the 'Raqis.

[archy]

The M119A1 only had a max range of 12 miles, and that's with a RAP round.
That, and it's only a 105.
Wouldn't do much against the 'Raqis.
Awfully handy to hava a helo-transportable gun around, though, particularly as they come to river crossings, had the bridges been blown. The loss of the one Abrams crew during the Euphrates crossing was tragedy enough.

I'm not certain if the Brits brought along any of their L118 105mm Light Guns, at present in service with the para and Commando F.A. Regiments, and which can be slung under a Puma or $hithook helo for transport. But they've recently been retrofitted with a touch screen digital sight that's said to provide greatly superior accuracy than the previous dial sights, as well as an Auto-Pointing System with built-in inertial navigation system that allows the gun to be unhokked from a tow and set up and in action within 30 seconds.

[Darksheare]

Yup, that's my howitzer.
Five years working that system.
And it's being phased out here in the states.
Picatinny Arsenal came up with some digital tech like what the Brits have on theirs.
Never got off the ground here, though.
The PC crowd went nuts and killed the project as far as I know.
'Course, that was under Clinton.
So anything like that was killed before it even hit the drawing board! *Evil Chuckle*

The M119(Our designation for it, we traded the Brits MLRS for it because we couldn't build anything as accurate ourselves in a 105, at the time.) is perfect for helo transport behind enemy lines for artillery raids.
A scenario with one would go like this:
The battery is helo lifted behind enemy lines, with or without prime movers, and fires a quick mission at pre-designated targets. Then they bugout either by brazenly driving out or helo'd out. The gutsy, and crazy, move would be to remain behind enemy lines for a few missions and repositions before being retrieved.

But the helo support would have to be massive, and would have to exploit a hole in the lines.

[archy]

The battery is helo lifted behind enemy lines, with or without prime movers, and fires a quick mission at pre-designated targets. Then they bugout either by brazenly driving out or helo'd out. The gutsy, and crazy, move would be to remain behind enemy lines for a few missions and repositions before being retrieved.

But the helo support would have to be massive, and would have to exploit a hole in the lines.

Wow. Clear out a LZ for a couple of klicks, drop a batttery of those sweeties in, and it's instant headache for anything within a 10-12 mile circle, something like 400 square miles. I imagine ammo resupply would be a problem, but I could imagine grabbing an airfield and wanting that sort of package at the very top of your want list. I don't think the velocity of most 105 artillery would work with a APFSDS sabot round for direct fire, [and there are problems with using a sabot with a muzzle-mounted blast deflector] but even with all the bolt-on ERA around, the 105 would be usable with HEAT rounds in direct fire too.

Ya know, that's what REALLY ought to be in those Striker armored cars...the Germans worked up something sililar using a tracked SP M113 and an M101 105, kinda looked like a WWII assault gun, but had a full range of elevation like a regular artillery piece. And of course it could carry at least some ammo on board or in a trailer, could ford rivers and offered CBR and shell fragment protection.

I wonder if something along those lines could be worked into a turret, maybe off one of those now scrapped-out Sheridans, and maybe fitted on an M2 Bradley chassis....

-archy-/-

[LibKill]

The next morning, the crew went to work with rope, wire and duct tape.

Down, but not out! You have to love these marines. They never give up.

[Darksheare]

Ammo resupply would be done by helo.
Or, at least, one helo designated as the flying ammo crate... the 'one shot matchstick' if you will.

True enough about instant headache for the opfor.
especially since a battery usually consists of 8 to 12 guns.
(My old unit, due to budget cuts as well as mismanagement of troops, ended up a three gun unit for awhile.)
If I remember correctly, our chronometer clocked rounds coming out of one of our new barrels going 1800 meter/s or higher. Not sure if sabot rounds would like that or not.
we did have apers-t rounds available for us, but I've never seen one.
Kinda like the chem rounds for the 105. they exist, but they're rare.
The Stryker would have to be tracked instead for that to work. The dynamics of teh artillery piece working against teh supension would make mincemeat out of the Stryker's suspension. (The m119 sits on a circular baseplate with it's suspension sloughed down by cable stays. It doesn't move anywhere during firing.)
A tracked vehicle would survive that better.
Unless the Stryker's suspension is really super-tough.
The M-60MBT's turret could be necked out for an artillery piece of the M119'er class.
The cannon mounting would need to be rebuilt and redesigned.
Picatinney Arsenal would be the guys to talk to on that. Not sure if they'd take it seriously.
After all, it's be an SP light howitzer during a time where any SP howitzer is 155 or larger (South Africa's SP for example..)
The thinking would be that if it's an SP howitzer, it should have the farthest range available. And that would be a 155.
But, having a helo transportable raid scenario howitzer system available would be an asset worth having.

A quote from my old unit whenever we did something crazy that worked, "I know a bad idea when I see one. And THIS, is a bad idea."
Usually said with a grin, meaning that we were going to do it anyway.
Not sure who to pitch the idea to, or if anyone would take us seriously on this. Prolly they'd look and see that I was just a little lowly SPC4 and go, "He can't be serious."
*chuckle*
Heck, I'd volunteer to help work the bugs out of it.
Just as long as they get rid of those D@mned external fuel tanks on the Stryker before sticking a howitzer in it.

[archy]

The Stryker would have to be tracked instead for that to work. The dynamics of teh artillery piece working against teh supension would make mincemeat out of the Stryker's suspension. (The m119 sits on a circular baseplate with it's suspension sloughed down by cable stays. It doesn't move anywhere during firing.)
A tracked vehicle would survive that better.
Unless the Stryker's suspension is really super-tough.

Possibly why the Germans went with the much-modified M113 for their prototype. I know they've been used with 120 and 160mm mortars....

The M-60MBT's turret could be necked out for an artillery piece of the M119'er class.
The cannon mounting would need to be rebuilt and redesigned.
Picatinney Arsenal would be the guys to talk to on that. Not sure if they'd take it seriously.
After all, it's be an SP light howitzer during a time where any SP howitzer is 155 or larger (South Africa's SP for example..)
The thinking would be that if it's an SP howitzer, it should have the farthest range available. And that would be a 155.

Yeah, but the 155, even wheeled, isn't much more air transportable [or air droppable/LAPES-able than a M109A5 or the cancelled Crusader. The point with the wheelies is to get in fast, and then to have the big dawgs join in on the fight they start.

The Afrikaaner G-5 is about as much of a load in bulk, if not weight as a M109, but it's throw weiight of the ammunition that could kill the idea just as easily. But the Scout section tracks were out front with the tankers, not in back with the supply trucks and support vehicles with M2s. And the tanks then carried M85 .50s, which used the same round, but a different belt. I suggested that it'd be worthwhile to have an alternate fitting for the M85 so the scouts could crosslevel ammo from the tank crews. And the guys in the scout teams thought it was a great idea- the M85 had a high rate- low rate gun setting, high spewed out .50s at 1000 rounds per minute. You needed a BIG ammo can....

And since that M114 gun mount was made for the weight of a 20mm, it was also possible to fit two M85s on it, side by side- the guns had selectable left or right-hand feed. That was right close to the firepower of the quad fifty with four M2s, and the M85s had quick-change barrels that didn't have to be headspaced. Before I was done, I had it set up as a 3-gun arrangement, turned in the paperwork, and my battalion commander sent me down to the welder's shop to build one. 7th Army was interested too, and we built 3 more, enough for all the battalion's tracks. They tested them at Grafenwohr, and everybody who saw the difference between a M114 with single .50 and the triple-gun setup came away a believer, particularly after they ran one of the scout tracks through a gunnery course so set up.

I was levied for a visit to the health spas and resorts of Southeast Asia, but got an ARCOM out of the deal. The M551 Sheridan eventually replaced any of the M114s that hadn't had their jobs taken over by M113s, and that was pretty much the end of it.

But an idea worth developing is worth pursuing, and if the Stryker doesn't work out as a tank replacement, maybe it can be made tp do in a less demanding role as a support vehicle. It doesn't hurt to have the idea in mind, and a couple of models or a mockup shouldn't be too tough to manage.

Heck, I'd volunteer to help work the bugs out of it.
Just as long as they get rid of those D@mned external fuel tanks on the Stryker before sticking a howitzer in it.

Yeah, but it beats the heck out of having them inside with the crew. Not that the 85-gallon bladder *BRA* blivets for the M1A1 is any improvemment slung across the hull and rear deck.

-archy-/-

[Darksheare]

I was thinking mainly to use either the bradley or stryker frame to make the m119 into a mini-helo transportable raider SP.
The barrel of the m119 weighs in at 1389 pounds, not all that heavy the way barrels go.
But switching out the wheels with treads would be a wise decision, unless the suspension on the stryker can take the abuse...
A tracked stryker shouldn't be all that hard to make, considering the orginal design called for it and the engine had been built already.
Like I said, pirating the turret off of an old M60 should do just fine, I think the stryker has enough deck space for it. And the turret should do just fine necked out for the 119'ers barrel.
Like I said, not sure who to pitch the idea to or how to get it to the person I'd need to pitch it to.
Picatinney would be the place, but who there would I need to talk to is the question.
A stryker (or bradley for that matter) with the 119'er in it would still be helo transportable, and as a mini SP would have the raid ability of the 119'er.
Got my old data sheet here in front of me for the 119A1.
Elevation range -100 to +1244 mils
Max side slope 90 mils (Our SOP. Other units specified a diff number.)
max ROF 6 rounds per/m for 2 minutes. (We fired 16 in 2.. oops)
Sustained ROF 3 rounds per/m for 30 minutes.
Max range (Charge 7) 11,500 meters.
Max range (Charge 8[rare]) 14,000 meters.
Max range (RAP round) 19,000 meters.
Recoil at 0 mils elevation 42"
Recoil at 1244 mils elevation 14.5"

Anything using this howitzer as a base for a mini raid SP would have ot take into account the recoil.
Going to troll around Picatinney's website and see if there is an info e-mail addy to be-bother.
Won't hurt to look and ask.
Have their paper here called the Voice.
It's website is http://w4.pica.army.mil/voice
Makes for some interesting reading.

[archy]

I was thinking mainly to use either the bradley or stryker frame to make the m119 into a mini-helo transportable raider SP.
The barrel of the m119 weighs in at 1389 pounds, not all that heavy the way barrels go.

I don't think tube weight is going to be much of a problem; there's a 105mm M68 tank gun version proposed as a heavy fire support vehicle. But this would have to be a fighting vehicle, with capabilities close to those of a Bradley or Stryker, at least, not *just* a gun platform. Some serious armour protection would be required.

But switching out the wheels with treads would be a wise decision, unless the suspension on the stryker can take the abuse...

If going to tracks, a turretless Bradley chassis would be the way to go, offering commonality of existing automotive spares and a maintenance support knowledge base. No sense reinventing the wheel. But I know the Stryker turrets were designed to be easily removable so that the vehicles could be air-transported with four of the vehicles in two aircraft and their four turrets in a third C17 load. There was an article in ARMOR magazine a while back with a reference to the things; I'll see if I can dig that out. And I'll check on the turret ring diameters of the Bradley, Stryker, Sheridan and M60A1.

A tracked stryker shouldn't be all that hard to make, considering the orginal design called for it and the engine had been built already.
Like I said, pirating the turret off of an old M60 should do just fine, I think the stryker has enough deck space for it. And the turret should do just fine necked out for the 119'ers barrel.

An 18-ton M60A1 turret is a bit too heavy, I'd expect, and that of the earlier M60 might be too short for the recoil travel of the M119. But I bet that of a Sheridan could be made to work. And if all else fails, a protected open gun could be used.

Like I said, not sure who to pitch the idea to or how to get it to the person I'd need to pitch it to.

I've got a couple of ideas. But the real question may be whether they keep the Stryker at all after the stunning success of the Abrams in this recent showing. I hate to think of the crew casualties we'd have taken had the RPG hits and 23mm ZSU AA fire that's knocked out some Abrams, but without crew fatalities, been on the wheeled Strykers instead.

[Darksheare]

Didn't think of a Sheridan turret.
Hadn't seen one in years.

The Stryker's armor is much too light for taking a ZSU hit.
RPG.. forget it.
The basic platform that the Stryker was plagiarized from is the LAV. But even compared to the LAV, the Stryker is inferior.
(Part of the reason I was saying that Shinseki should be tried for treason and dereliction of duty. Putting soldiers in harm's way in vehicles that are incapable of the missions assigned to them.)

But as SP's go, the armor on it is fine.
The Bradley chasis would be perfect too, but the interiro would need to be rethought.
The engine and driver positions would need to be engineered around.

Sheridan turret would likely be better, in view of weight concerns.
I'm thinking largely on keeping the end result light enough for helo-bourne raids behind enemy lines. (The un-utilized capability of having the light 105's around.)
But with at least a modicum of protection for the crew since they'd be without engineer support and couldn't dig in the way they normally would.
(HUGE hole in the ground with berms and bunkers making a firebase. Normal ops. Quick strikes are different in the effect that one isn't expecting to stick around that spot long enough to dig. Key word: Expecting.)
Tube weight shouldn't be a problem, no.
But it is something to keep in mind when adding any extra protection to the gun like a turret. The end product ends up higher in weight. (Chasis, weapon, turret, fuel, ammo loadout.)

Kinda hard for me to figure in my head since I was just an artillery puke. :-)
I have the stats on the 119 stuck at random in my skull, but almost nothing on any other items like the Bradley or the Stryker besides it's external tanks..
None of the important info in there, like weight and width.
Makes it a little more difficult for me to imagine, but hey, this is where such ideas are born.
Bunch of guys get together, blue sky idea something and then set about thinking of how to make it.
"And if all else fails, a protected open gun could be used."
Kinda like the open turret on the M48 duster (Or similar looking vehicle)?
Hmm.

"But the real question may be whether they keep the Stryker at all.."
If I know anything about the guys in charge of that, they're Shinseki kiss-ups and will push onward with it no matter what.
But even if they do decide to dump it, that'll make open some chasis for experimentation.

Sorry about this being a confusion of back and forth jumps in response to your post.
It's snowing here at the moment (AGAIN!?) and I have to go find som ecoffee.
Ugh, it's going to be weaker than what I normally make.
(12 cup pot? Hey, no problem, six scoups of coffee in the filter, pinch of salt in filter, half a pot of water. Recycle water through filter after first run through, if needed. Usually not.)

That 42" recoil at zero mills is a bit of a killer.
Had a guy in C battery get his knee in the way.
The breechblock acted like a battering ram and knocked him clean out of the trails. (12 foot distance on the toss, a new record.)
Inside an armored vehicle... there's nowhere to go.
Gonna have to think on this a bit.
*chin scratch.*

[archy]

Didn't think of a Sheridan turret.
Hadn't seen one in years.

The Stryker's armor is much too light for taking a ZSU hit. RPG.. forget it.

So is a Sheridan's. A .50 will chew one up, other than *maybe* frontally. But they will swim, once floatation screens and collars are up, if the water's not moving too fast, about like a Bradley.

The basic platform that the Stryker was plagiarized from is the LAV. But even compared to the LAV, the Stryker is inferior.

Well, actually, the 8-wheel Stryker owes more to the Swiss MOWAG Pirahna III, used by the Danes with the NATO IFOR forces in Kosovo.MOWAG engineering claims that a vehicle in that size/weight range won't stand up as a platform for a 105mm M68 tank gun, but the smaller/lighter arty piece might work out.

(Part of the reason I was saying that Shinseki should be tried for treason and dereliction of duty. Putting soldiers in harm's way in vehicles that are incapable of the missions assigned to them.)

But as SP's go, the armor on it is fine.
The Bradley chasis would be perfect too, but the interiro would need to be rethought.
The engine and driver positions would need to be engineered around.

It might be possible to mount driver and engine up front, as in an M113 or Israeli Merkava, and mount the gun at the very rear of the vehicle in what would have formerly been the engine compartment. That might alleviate air transport problems arising from the length of the gun tube. I'd expect that with a wheeled platform, you'd want the weight of the gun/mount dead center; that's far less critical with a tracked vehicle.

Sheridan turret would likely be better, in view of weight concerns.

I'm not certain enough elevation is available with the existing Sheridan gun tube mantlet, so that might require some major reengineering. But the arrangement of the twin 40mm SP AA M42 duster would certainly elevate high enough, though the carriage travel in recoil becomes problematic again. But if there's no turret basket, or if a portion could be sectioned away for clearance it might work.

The Sheridan has also been identified as a possible launch platform for the ground launched version of the 178mm AGM-114 Hellfire missile, whose launch platform as now stands is a HUMVEE. A Sheridan/Bradley combo would offer a little more protection than that, and at $100,000 each for Hellfires, the space for the mounting of a slightly cheaper missile system, likely TOW or Javelin, for targhets less threatening and deserving of a tenth-million dollar Hellfire would seem a good idea. But the 178mm Hellfire isn't that much of a step up from the M551s 152mm Shillaleigh missile system, and might even be adapted to launch from inside the turret and reloads with an autoloader- those missiles run around 100 pounds each.

And the laser guided Hellfire's 8KM range dovetails nicely with that 12km range of the M119: Mr. Short and Mr. Far....

I'm thinking largely on keeping the end result light enough for helo-bourne raids behind enemy lines. (The un-utilized capability of having the light 105's around.)
But with at least a modicum of protection for the crew since they'd be without engineer support and couldn't dig in the way they normally would.
(HUGE hole in the ground with berms and bunkers making a firebase. Normal ops. Quick strikes are different in the effect that one isn't expecting to stick around that spot long enough to dig. Key word: Expecting.)
Tube weight shouldn't be a problem, no.
But it is something to keep in mind when adding any extra protection to the gun like a turret. The end product ends up higher in weight. (Chasis, weapon, turret, fuel, ammo loadout.)

Kinda hard for me to figure in my head since I was just an artillery puke. :-)
I have the stats on the 119 stuck at random in my skull, but almost nothing on any other items like the Bradley or the Stryker besides it's external tanks..
None of the important info in there, like weight and width. Makes it a little more difficult for me to imagine, but hey, this is where such ideas are born.
Bunch of guys get together, blue sky idea something and then set about thinking of how to make it.
"And if all else fails, a protected open gun could be used."

Kinda like the open turret on the M48 duster (Or similar looking vehicle)?

Yep, or the earlier M19 twin 40. Or even the old airborne M56 *Scorpion* 90mm SPAT antitank gun, a real sporty proposition.

Hmmm.

"But the real question may be whether they keep the Stryker at all.."
If I know anything about the guys in charge of that, they're Shinseki kiss-ups and will push onward with it no matter what.
But even if they do decide to dump it, that'll make open some chasis for experimentation.

My thought exactly. And the things have some real possibilities, if not as a one-for-one Abrams replacement.

Sorry about this being a confusion of back and forth jumps in response to your post. It's snowing here at the moment (AGAIN!?) and I have to go find som ecoffee. Ugh, it's going to be weaker than what I normally make. (12 cup pot? Hey, no problem, six scoups of coffee in the filter, pinch of salt in filter, half a pot of water. Recycle water through filter after first run through, if needed. Usually not.)

That 42" recoil at zero mills is a bit of a killer.
Had a guy in C battery get his knee in the way.
The breechblock acted like a battering ram and knocked him clean out of the trails. (12 foot distance on the toss, a new record.)
Inside an armored vehicle... there's nowhere to go.
Gonna have to think on this a bit.
*chin scratch.*

See *here* for an .mpeg video of the main gun in recoil and operation of the autoloader inside a French LeClerc tank. Tank crews have to keep out of the way of the things, too, and they can show the cannon cockers how it's done.

[SirAllen]

The Marine M1A1s aren't quite that far along. Yet.

Actually, I heard that about 1 out of 15 of them have had the electronic upgrades. Not sure if that makes them M1A2s or just M1A1s w/ new electronics.

[Darksheare]

Never had anyone in my battery get in the way of the breech, B/Battery 1/156.
We only heard of stuff like that from C battery.
It was a standing joke.
Didn't the Sheridan have something like aluminum armor?
(Digging in black hole I call a brain for that.)
The Sheridan turret can be necked out for the 119'er, I think. Didn't it have an odd sized maingun, something in size close to a 155? Already answered myself. 152mm.
That'd fit nicely. The 119 is a 105 size howitzer...
*Again, chin scratch. Wheels turn.*

To get more elevation out of the Sheridan turret for an artillery piece, the mantle area could be necked out. (Easy mod, in theory.)
Just getting it to work would be the hard part.
The choices seem to be a Stryker/ Sheridan turret chasis, or a Bradley/ Sheridan turret.
Unless there's a turret that can accomodate 42' of recoil at zero mils safely. (I'm thinking of C battery and their habit of getting people hurt.*Chuckle*)

My old section chief used to be a tanker before he joined the darkside. The mk 117 pantel was pirated from the M1 Abrams gunner's sight. Controls and all. Modified just enough to work.
Picatinny recently (1998) had a digital conversion like what the Brits had on theirs. Never saw it on an actual artillery piece though.
Would be useful in the miniSP.
Even if unattached to the framerails... kinda like a Paladin lite.

You know, we'll be stepping on ALOT of toes if someone takes us up on this idea. The Stryker is a huge pet project for some, and they'd get really upset about us 'mucking up a fine project' by turning it into an artillery platform.
*CHUCKLE*
The Bradley, well, quite a few have said the platform can be used elsewhere for more roles.
Kinda a toss of the coin there.
I do miss my 'gunbunny' days.
(I thought that term was funny. Others didn't, no sense of humor.)

If it can be modeled out, it might actually work.
Trick would be getting someone to listen.