Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire

[DG-41]

As part of my planning for various Recce tasks, I like to get out representative callsigns (dinky cars, blocks of wood, pinecones) and physically move them around on a sand table, Iltis hood, or other convienent flat surface to see how well the plan flows.

I figured I'd get really keen, and find some wargaming models of the actual vehicles we use or expect to contact, and use those instead of my blocks of wood. So I ordred a bunch of 1/285 scale "Micro Armour" vehicles from GHQ. When they showed up, I discovered that I had made a Spinal Tap-esque miscalculation in scale, as a 1/285 scale Iltis is about the size of a dime, and a 1/285 scale Coyote is maybe the size of a quarter. Whoops.

OK, so maybe I can salvage this somehow.... I have access to a CNC milling machine, and GIS survey data (the data used to make contour maps with) It would be possible for me to program the mill with the GIS contour data of the actual ground over which we would be operating, and then I could cut a 1/285 scale relief map out of chunks of wood, and we could move these tiny little vehicles over the actual scale contours that we'd see in real life. The tiny size of the vehicles is still a problem, but maybe having scale terrain to move them over offsets that.

So out comes the napkin, and I discover that 1000m in 1/285 works out to 3.5m - which is a pretty big chunk of wood - and we can cover 1000m in two or three bounds. As amazing as it sounds, 1/285 is too big a scale to be able to represent the kind of distances we deal with on a regular basis - and yet it is too small to make the vehicles a reasonable size for a training aid. Oh well, so much for that plan.

So what does this have to do with artillery?

Well, at this scale, 100m is 35cm, or a little longer than a foot. Place two pieces of letter-sized paper next to each other to form a 11" X 17" square, and you have a reasonable approximation of the size of ground in a change of 1 digit in a 6-figure grid reference. Now place a quarter on the paper - that's the size of the "lone BMP" we always encounter as the typical enemy position in a Recce trace, more or less to scale.

We are always calling arty in on lone vehicles or dug-in OPs that really need a direct hit or very near to it in order to actually take out the vehicle or position. Hitting the 100m box isn't going to cut it; we need to hit a toonie-sized space (at 1/285 scale) to actually kill the target.

An 8 figure grid is 10m - a 3.5cm box at this scale - which is about right. If the guns can hit an 8-figure grid and keep most of the rounds in the FFE in that box, we'll get him.

Now *accuracy* in choosing the initial grid on the call for fire is always pounded into us as being important, and having directed live arty fire, I've seen that in practice. But the question I have for the guns is this - is there any benefit to increased *precision* in the initial grid? If I give you an 8 or even a 10 figure grid in the call for fire (probably because I registered the ground with my GPS ahead of time) will that be reflected in greater accuracy in the fire mission itself? Can your software handle the increased precision? How much dispersion do you expect out of the battery when shooting at an 8 figure grid?

DG

 

[on guard for thee]

Good day,

1) IFCCS (our software) is 10 figure grid capable. If an 8 figure grid is given, the software adds the zeros too make a 10 figure grid.

2) Dispersion - unless a different request is made (ie linear), the following would be calculated: 105 mm bty, 30 m circle radius for fall of shot.
                                                                                                                                  155 mm bty, 50 m circle radius for fall of shot.

So the grid you send will be the center of this radius. That's what the software pumps out.

Cheers!

 

[FOO TECH G11]

Being a Forward Observer in a LAV OPV, I can honestly say that when the equipment is working correctly (all of the on-board systems), we can have a first round hit within 50m of the target, then re-calculating where that round just landed, we can have a FFE for a second round hit.  If we do a Registration mission prior to the engagement of a target, we can have a first round hit with the LAV OPV, or even with the dismounted laser. So to answer your question, the more accurate your grid to the target, the more accurate our rounds when they impact.

 

[horsegunner353]

As I am staff-trained I will give the appropriate staff answer.... it depends.

My learned colleagues above quite correctly point out that the IFCCS is capable of inputing ten figure grids and calculating the ballistic solution to hit those grids.  G11 is also quite correct that with the LAV OPV, we can get reasonably accurate target locations to ten figure grids (keeping in mind of course that there is a 9 mil tolerance in the TOFCS so at a range to target of 2000 m you could have a target grid that is 18 m from the target... not catastrophic in and of itself given the kill radius of a 81 mm, 105 mm and 155 mm round.)

The key element is actually the meteorological data.  Sixty percent of the error in a round not landing where we want it to can be attributed to met.  There are several reasons for this, met is a single snapshot in time, from a single location.  It has tolerances in some cases of 40 km, however, you cannot be guaranteed that the air pressure, density, wind etc is exactly the same at one point as it is at another point, say the gun position, which is 40 km away and 2 hrs later. 

In response therefore to your question... if we have accurate met, we can almost guarantee a first round hit.  As G11 points out, if we carry out a registration mission prior to engaging that target, that will compensate for all non-standard conditions.  The only problem is that registration missions are onerous and are subject to certain limitations which may not necessarily jive with the tactical plan.

Of course the Arty is trying to compensate for this through the acquisition of things like the Excalibur round which will provide excellent precision and negate those non-standard conditions.  At $35,000 a round, though, the target may have to be a little more high-payoff than an OP or single BMP.

 

[Old Sweat]

Having hung up my red hat band many years ago, this discussion has been deja vu all over again. I guess I would sum it up by first agreeing that it depends, but ultimately if the observer can come up with an accurate grid, then the mission will be effective by putting rounds on the target that much sooner. We gunners have been shooting close to things since the Battle of Crecy, and the state of technology is such that in wartime conditions and using non-guided rounds, we should be able to put the opening round within 100m of the grid at least fifty percent of the time.

In other words, the more accurate the grid (and it does not need to be ten figures, eight will do), the more accurate the opening round. Some people are better at it than others, and practice helps. There are hopeless cases, of course, and this just reminded me of an OP officer in 1 RCHA many, many years ago who was known as Captain Grid Square because it was a cause for celebration on those rare occasions when the grid he ordered was in the same square as the target.

 

[sjm]

Firstly, the Artillery will never shoot at 1 vehicle unless it has custom plates like "Rommel 1".  If you really need to take out an OP we have snipers for that...  for the sake of this discussion we will assume that the gunners will put down their coffee cups for a moment to engage a target of limited tactical importance.

If you are sending a grid and not polar coords (either with a laser or simply interpolated) then the better the grid the better the results and a second round hit is possible but not likely.  After a few missions in a given area you can get a feel for how the guns are shooting and you can amend the grid that you send after reducing a few missions to the sum of all your previous corrections.  If you just shook your head and said "Wha?" dont' worry about it I've had IGs trip over that one.  The guns will always fire off the same amount until someone decides its time to adopt Met or a Registration Point.  If you can't get a decent grid and aren't sure where the rounds are falling then it is often faster to send an initial grid in an area where you are not likely to loose it in dead ground.  Once you can see that first round simply follow your target grid procedure and you'll get it eventually.

If you are using the laser the accuracy of the mission will depend on the accuaracy of the grid of the OP.  We use the same GPS as the CP and hopefully we will be within a reasonable tolerance gridwise.  Using the laser and doing all the drills properly at the OP and the CP will guarantee (19 times out of 20) a second round hit.  The definition of a "hit" depends on the target but at least that second round will land within the probable error in range in relation to the target.  Artillery pieces have substantial beaten zones.  It is imperative that you laze the target and the initial rounds of adjustment accurately for this to work.

Met is nice if you get it adopted before the first round goes down range and you always have current data.  It goes a long way to keeping all the guns of a Regt or higher on the same "grid" same with Registration Points as long as everyone gets to fire and adopt the data.  Kind of costly and time consuming.

Given your scenario; you're out on Recce so you haven't been watching the bullets come in all day and haven't had a chance to establish a bias as to where the rounds are landing.  You don't know if Met is adopted and odds are that any Registration missions that have been fired are probably not valid for your piece of real estate given the limitations of Registration missions.

I would have to say that at the end of the day you should attempt to send the most accurate grid possible but keep in mind that sometimes it won't really matter all that much.

 

[Gobsmacked]

As I am staff-trained I will give the appropriate staff answer.... it depends.

Of course the Arty is trying to compensate for this through the acquisition of things like the Excalibur round which will provide excellent precision and negate those non-standard conditions.  At $35,000 a round, though, the target may have to be a little more high-payoff than an OP or single BMP.

Not necessarily Capt,

Keep in mind that a recent US$90M US Army contract for over 1,200 Hellfire II missiles (both: MAC - metal augmented charge; and HEAT warheads; plus trg rounds) averages some US$75K per missile - a 114% increase from 26 March 2003 average of US$35K, and this is one of the weapons proposed for NLOS component of the 'all singing all dancing' MMEV-ADATS as so eloquently put forth by MarkC.

A 23 Aug 04 Presentation 'Multi Missions Effects Vehicle - The Air Defence Anti Tank System [ADATS] in Transition' notes:
"MMEV-ADATS v1  NLOS capability, fire and forget Hellfire missile out to (Maximum) 8km [or Spike-ER, using a fibre optic link]."
[The SPIKE-ER is the Israeli counterpart to proven Hellfire long range anti-tank missile.]
Yet the 27 Jul 04 'TAM 804 - ADATS - DFS INSERT' (PER Annex B to 11000-1(Adjt) specifically notes under 'TARGET ENGAGEMENT PRIORITIES' that:
"a. Normal Priorities [Case of ADATS Det used for covering a KZ or an enemy armoured approach in a blocking or attack by fire role]: (3) Recce vehicles, . . . (5) APC/IFVs.  (Or as part of a covering force) ALL enemy recce vehicles will usually be priority targets." 
And these can all be Single Veh Targets.
Also, keeping in mind that the ADATS XM5250 is a "Cdn$360K" missile.

The 155mm XM982 Excalibur PGMs have an expected US$29K unit cost once in full production from 2007 (~=Cdn$35K as you noted) and are typically twice the cost of 120mm PGMM at approximately US$15K each.  Although the December 2005 'National Defence' magazine notes, "In June, the Army awarded Raytheon Company Missile Systems of Tucson, Ariz., which is building the Excalibur in cooperation with Bofors Defence, of Sweden, a US$22.1M contract to supply 165 rounds beginning this month."  That works out to US$133.3K per LRIP Excalibur, US$75K for Hellfire II or a Whopping Cdn$360K for ADATS vs mere US$15K for PGMM.

Meanwhile, a 3 June 2004 MGS 'BN for the Minister',
Confirms an SCIP approved (post-'SCIP Capital Equipment Annex 2004 Update') increase of Cdn$2.929M over the previously stated Cdn$691M (BY) Publicly-released MGS cost, and a further Cdn$63.929M increase over the Project Charter full-up cost (Cdn$630M +10.14%), to "total indicative full-up cost of the project is Cdn$693,929,000 [Budget Year] less GST."


So, is a turreted twin-120mm LAV-III mounted mortar like the AMOS, that can fire both DF HEAT (to ~ 1K) and US$15K PGMM for IF out to 10-12km looking like a better solution?   
Especially as a costed (using 2004$ AMOS turret cost provided by AAI Corp) for just over 33x Overall AMOS MMEV-FSV (Fire Support Veh) ROM project cost (using 50% of all the MGS 'Program Cost and Cash Phasing'  [2003-04 dollars] variables per a ATI RELEASED Recent 2003 SECRET level ANALYSIS 'Whether to acquire the Mobile Gun System for the CF'), using the LAV-IIIs designated for MMEV-ADATS, gives a mere Cdn$254M ROM Full-up total.

But that would actually make sense now, wouldn't it?

 

[Gobsmacked]

Further to yesterdays note re: AMOS & HEAT,
(and, in the Spirit of the Holidays,
this is quite fun if you hum it to refrain ptn of the tune of 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer'  ;D )
DO YOU RECALL, ONE OF THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS FIBBERS OF ALL, THE Mobile Gun System IS OVERRATED, IT REALLY ISN'T UP TO SPEC, ... (you make up the rest).

Associated with LCol Summerfield's 'The Integrated Fire Support Capability - an Opportunity for Innovation'.  Faulty Rebuttal attempt,  'Letter to Canadian Army Journal Editor' excerpt
by LCol Luc Petit (MGS Authority within DLR as A/DLR & MGS PD)
from 'Canadian Army Journal' (CAJ - the revamped Army Bulletin) Vol 7, No 1.

"Given that I was one of the officers closely involved with the staffing of the Mobile Gun System [MGS] project, it is with interest that I read the 'Fire Suport Capability' article.  Given that the Army is committed to a medium weight force, it is very important to develop new force employment concepts and to acquire the right equipment if the Canadian Army is to remain operationally relevant.  I would like to highlight some of the factors that lead to the decision to acquire the MGS and some of the limitations of a 120mm turreted SP mortar.

In his article, LCol Summerfield recommends the acquisition of a LAV-III 120mm turreted SP mortar and using it in direct fire roles.  LCol Summerfield asserts that this system would be more capable against MBTs than the Leopard I and that it would have an extended-range anti-armour system with more capability than the LAV-TOW and projected LAV-ADATS systems.  The Directorate of Land Requirements [DLR] is closely monitoring the development of these mortar systems.
[Unlike the MGS or hellfire-armed MMEV-ADATS, the AMOS MMEV-FSV retains the ability to support VCPs remote from its location and BLOS with Precison IF to 10-12km through use of TGMs or PGMMs.]

The most mature 120mm turreted SP mortars are the Patria-Hagglunds SSG120 (Swedish SSG 120 project in PDP - Product Definition Phase) Advanced Mortar System [AMOS] [twin-barreled] and the GDLS 120mm Armoured Mortar System [AMS] [single barrelled].  Neither system has been fully type classified.
[Yet, unlike the MGS, both AMS and AMOS are already in service or in full production / final development with: Saudi Arabia; Finland and Sweden.  Acquisition of a 120mm turreted mortar system is discounted by LCol Petit, who inadvertently manages to trash MGS acquisition - even though MGS is being acquired under same circumstances, as MGS still developmental! until completion of LRIP build 2 and final testing by US Army! The first MGS-equipped SBCT was originally scheduled for April 05, but LRIP 2 (58x MGS - After which CF would finally receive its first 14x MGS) was only recently approved in Q4 FY2005, with limitations on 'No Fielding until Testing Complete without DoD approval', and full rate production decision (remaining 128x MGS - after which the majority of Cdn vehs would be delivered) is not scheduled until late-FY2007.]

Both systems are optimized for indirect fire [IF] support and are very good at it.  They will have access to extended range rounds as well as precision-guided mortar ammunition (PGMM) .  They have a direct fire [DF] capability, being fitted with a fire control system with laser range finder, but this capability is very limited.  These systems have much lower hit and kill probability than what is suggested in LCol Summerfield's article:  direct fire engagements are limited to 1000m as rounds have muzzle velocity of only 410 to 480 m/s [dispersion], they have no stabilization for firing on the move and cannot calculate lead angles to engage moving targets.

[ The AMOS MMEV-FSV is not intended to be fired while on the move, or for DF engagements exceeding 1000m as IF is it's forte, while moving targets would be accurately engaged through IF to 10km using PGMM or TGM.
The assertion that "120mm turreted SP mortars . . . have no stabilization for firing on the move" is also highly suspect.
Especially as LCol Petit was in receipt of information that specifically noted . . .
the "MGS - this system is not designed as a medium tank or a tank replacement vehicle.  It will be unable to shoot (and possibly reload) from the move and it's primary role will be direct support of the Infantry [bunker busting, etc]."   The proposed AMOS MMEV-FSV is much more suited for the fire support role where "it's primary role will be direct support of the Infantry [bunker busting, etc]. "   The 120mm SP mortar HE shells have a much greater 'bunker busting' capability than 105mm shells - especially with AMOS capability to simultaneously DF/IF, two/twelve (through MRSI) respectively, 120mm shells at a target.]

In addition, there is no high explosive antitank [HEAT] round developed for these systems.  They can fire standard HE rounds at LAV and tanks in self-defence, and damage should result, but this ammo is not expected to defeat tanks.
[ LCol Petit is Extremely Ill-informed by claiming "there is no high explosive antitank [HEAT] round developed for these systems" as HEAT rounds for 120mm turreted SPM are available from at least 2 sources, CIS and China, and likely under development by western manufacturers.
A quick reference check reveals a 120mm HEAT round for the 8x8 BTR-8 2S23 NONA turreted 120mm SPM, with Minimum 300m DF capability (similar to TOWs 200m Min and ADATS 370m Min per sec 2) to potential Max 13,000m IF capability, is available from CIS sources.

The 11 August 2004 'JDW' also notes 'New ammunition for Chinese 120mm mortar'.  "To engage armoured targets in the direct-fire mode, a fin-stabilised HEAT [high-explosive anti-tank] projectile has been developed with a claimed range of up to 1,500m.  Its HEAT warhead will penetrate up to 600mm of conventional steel armour.  It is much less effective against more advanced armour systems.  (Plus,) there is also an HE projectile containing 5kg of TNT (vs standard 1.8kg) with a maximum range of 9,500m," which would pack quite a wallop against any armoured vehicle.
Meanwhile,  the informed 'Chinese Defence Today' website (http://www.sinodefence.com) confirms, "NORINCO has started export marketing the new 120mm mortar-howitzer (with a) new all-welded steel turret that is similar to that on the Russian 120mm 2S23 NONA-SVK self-propelled mortar, based on a modified WZ-551 6X6 chassis.  The ordnance fires three types of ammunition: Mortar Bomb, High Explosive [HE], and High Explosive Anti-Tank [HEAT].  The fin-stablised HEAT would be used to engage light armour vehicles, with an effective range of 1.5km." ]

LCol Petit also states SPM can "fire standard HE rounds at LAV and tanks in self-defence, and damage should result, but this ammo is not expected to defeat tanks". 
[ Yet, two-120mm HE mortar rounds direct-fired simultaneously from AMOS MMEV-FSV at close range (300m-1,000m in an emergency) should prove extremely potent (especially when fitted with a point detonating fuse) - as two 1.5kg variety warheads would pack a massive tank-disabling wallop.  Although the provision of PGMM or TGM such as Strix (effective top-attack vs armoured vehicles) should mean that only in rare cases would AMOS MMEV-FSV have to resort to DF against MBTs using HEAT as its' 'raison-d'etre' is IF and DF bunker-busting, and would operate as a 'system of systems' in conjunction with DFS (Missile) Troops of MMEV-ADATS and LAV-TUA.
This "not expected to defeat tanks" mention also contradicts LCol Petit's earlier note that "Doctrine and tactics of the US Interim Force clearly specify that the MGS is not an anti-tank platform but rather an Infantry support vehicle [ it will Not carry APFSDS ammunition ]."

Additionally, even the respected Christopher F Foss notes in a 2 April 2003 'JDW BRIEFING' on 'Self-Propelled Mortars [SPMs]': "firing a 120mm mortar bomb in the direct-fire mode from a turret-mounted mortar will neutralise any light armoured vehicle or truck or inflict severe damage on a more heavily armoured vehicle, (while new IF mortar projectiles include) cargo rounds that dispense small bomblets . . . normally fitted with a small HEAT warhead that can penetrate up to 50mm of conventional steel armour (as the tops of MBTs and armoured vehicles are usually lightly armoured) .  The direct-fire capability would be useful in military operations in urban terrain by neutralising buildings or bunkers.  SPMs could also punch holes in building walls so that infantry could quickly enter and clear buildings."
Meanwhile, as noted by LGen Caron, "ADATS will take a turret off the best-known tank today at 8km.  No tank can do that.  LAV-TUA will take the turret off of any known tank at 4km." ]

The direct firing capability for both systems is essentially for firing at fixed targets [bunker-busting] from a stationary position and for emergency self-defence.
[ Yet, this sounds exactly like the 'raison-d'etre' for MGS acquisition, and is well within the capabilities of the AMOS MMEV-FSV.
"The principle function of a MGS is to provide rapid and lethal direct fire to support assaulting infantry.  MGS must provide direct, supporting fires . . . in order to destroy hardened enemy bunkers, machine gun, and sniper positions.  To accomplish this the MGS primary armament must defeat a standard infantry bunker and create an opening in a double reinforced concrete wall, through which infantry can pass.  Primary armament must engage and defeat a dismounted Infantry squad in the open from a minimum of 50m to a maximum of 500m.  Primary armament must have the capability to deliver high explosive munitions in an anti-personnel mode.  (Meanwhile, 120mm Canister rounds can be easily adapted for mortar DF usage as reduced muzzle velocity would not impact anti-personnel performance. )    The main gun . . . will defeat hardened bunkers and armoured vehicles up to T-62 Tank" (level II armoured threat).]

Against moving targets or heavy armour attacks, these turreted 120mm SP mortars would have a low probability of success and survivability.  Upgrading these mortar systems to enable them to fire on the move and developing/qualifying a direct fire anti-armour round would take time and be very expensive.  The acquisition of 120mm turreted SP mortars would be very expensive and time consuming as vehicle/ammunition development and full type qualification must be completed prior to production."

[Yet some 72x AMS are in/entering Saudi service on LAV-II 8x8 chassis (sure sounds like type qualified), while (x24) twin-120mm AMOS, capable of 14 MRSI, are on order for Finnish Army with 17 Nov 2005 'JDW' noting "delivery of its first examples in early-2006", has already been integrated on: 6x6 XA-203 PC; Swedish CV-90 (with a couple dozen CV-90 chassis pre-ordered for AMOS integration); and combat boat 90.  "It has a DF range of up to 1,000m and IF range of 10km.  Ammunition supply depends on chassis type, but is typically 50 standard projectiles and six (TGM Strix) guided projectiles" (on AMV (8x8) chassis).  This is more than 3x ammo supply of a single MGS!
Not to mention all the HE/WP/Smoke/Illum/Cargo (AFV top-attack) ammo currently available for these mortars, incl: Strix TGM - precision IF capable of knocking out MBTs through use of top-attack munitions from 1,500m to 7,500m.  Additionally, the US XM-395 PGMM, effective to 10km with precision anti-tank capability, is expected to be available from 2007, while, as previously noted, DF HEAT rounds are available for point self-defence.  Assumming an APFSDS round could be made compatible for MGS firing, "the MGS is not an anti-tank platform but rather an Infantry support vehicle [it will Not carry APFSDS ammunition]", it also "would be very expensive and time consuming as vehicle/ammunition development and full type qualification must be completed prior to production," as LCol Petit is well aware of (since both quotes are his own). ]

[As noted by LCol Summerfield, "there is a system that the Army was contemplating acquiring that, although not originally envisioned as a multi-role system, could form the basis for conducting this type of MMEV system trial and still meet a number of current Army shortfalls and needs.  This system is a 120mm turreted SP mortar similar to the one the Army provided for the Battalion Level Indirect Fire [BLIFS] ORD Study" . . . Alvis-Hägglunds/Patria twin-120mm AMOS (Advanced MOrtar System) on LAV-III, offered by AAI Corporation in North America.] 

 

[STA Gunner]

Not necessarily Capt,

Keep in mind that a recent US$90M US Army contract for over 1,200 Hellfire II missiles (both: MAC - metal augmented charge; and HEAT warheads; plus trg rounds) averages some US$75K per missile - a 114% increase from 26 March 2003 average of US$35K, and this is one of the weapons proposed for NLOS component of the 'all singing all dancing' MMEV-ADATS as so eloquently put forth by MarkC...

Gobsmacked,

Just to clarify one thing.  Dollars don't mean payoff.  By payoff we are talking about an effect that will create a positive reaction for our commander's plan.  Using the BMP example, unless the destruction of that single BMP was necessary for the success of the Brigade Commander's plan, it's destruction is not called "high payoff".  So putting a battery's worth of artillery onto it would not be a valid use of resources.  However, if that BMP was identified as being the Command Observation Post of their artillery, then it would be a high payoff, and putting arty there would have more valued.

The systems you discuss, all with big price tags, are employed at a much lower level tactically.  The MMEV, for example, is employed at the combat team level.  So engaging that lone BMP is a high value target for the combat team commander's plan, and warrants the resources tasked.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

Just a question for you arty guys. i'm a sect comd going to afghanistan in the new yr and we are going to have attacted a few M777 to the coy , now all this talk of High Payoff here's my question now if our platoon is say pinned down by a sniper or bunker from a higher position that we can't reach on foot , would it be better to call for you guys or just set up our 60mm's . At our level its a High payout, but would it be a waste of resouces for you to lay rounds on to it. This is for me to know in case it happens and i am not rain 155 rnds all over the place. thxs

 

[Bomber]

SBD, when you call in your contact report, the company commander should be senidng a FOO into a decent position.  If I were you, I would be trying to do anything to get out fo there, so setting up the 60 before the FOO gets there would be a super good idea.  I don't know the rules you will be under, but I figure you wouldn;t be in direct contact with the Guns anyway to call for thier support.  Stuff like that would be going through higher means.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

thx Bomber, kinda knew that but wanted to make sure thx again

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, at this scale, 100m is 35cm, or a little longer than a foot. Place two pieces of letter-sized paper next to each other to form a 11" X 17" square,

Just a note from a professional secretary - 11x17 paper is common, it is called "ledger sized" paper and is a standard option in most photocopiers....in case you're interested.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Just a note from a professional secretary - 11x17 paper is common, it is called "ledger sized" paper and is a standard option in most photocopiers....in case you're interested.

And that would be a rectangle, not a square.

 

[GO!!!]

SBD, when you call in your contact report, the company commander should be senidng a FOO into a decent position.   If I were you, I would be trying to do anything to get out fo there, so setting up the 60 before the FOO gets there would be a super good idea.   I don't know the rules you will be under, but I figure you wouldn;t be in direct contact with the Guns anyway to call for thier support.   Stuff like that would be going through higher means.

IME, the FOOs are NEVER on the patrols that take place, which are usually at less than platoon level. If artillery is required/authorised, it will probably be the section comd or Pl WO calling in the fire.

Bomber, you seem to be assuming the classical Bn advance to contact scenario, in which all of the means will be manned and a clear axis of advance determined. Our allies who are using arty support in A-stan and Iraq right now sometimes find themselves calling for fire missions in which the guns must be turned about and re - laid several times over the course of the day. "higher" is not used , it is is the Sgts and WOs calling for fire, adjusting and ascertaining which type of round is required.

 

[Craig B]

IME, the FOOs are NEVER on the patrols that take place, which are usually at less than platoon level. If artillery is required/authorised, it will probably be the section comd or Pl WO calling in the fire.

Bomber, you seem to be assuming the classical Bn advance to contact scenario, in which all of the means will be manned and a clear axis of advance determined. Our allies who are using arty support in A-stan and Iraq right now sometimes find themselves calling for fire missions in which the guns must be turned about and re - laid several times over the course of the day. "higher" is not used , it is is the Sgts and WOs calling for fire, adjusting and ascertaining which type of round is required.

Other countries artillery may not use the same procedures as Canada does.

In the CF the supported arms do not call a arty CP direct, the call for fire is sent to the FOO that is attached to the supported arm.

I believe the "higher" Bomber is referring to is the FOO. The FOO is in direct contact with the guns and will edit the call for fire before sending it to the guns. The FOO is on the supported arms net so calling Golf-whatever will allow the section cmdr/Plt WO to pass the initial call for fire and subsequent adjustments through the FOO to the guns.

Craig

 

[STA Gunner]

In all likelihood, the section commander will not be in direct comms with the FOO either.  He will send up his report, with his requirement for fire and it will go up his company net to battalion.  At that point the FSCC at battalion will initiate the fire mission.

As much as most field gunners would love to have a FOO, there will only be three in theatre.  With an AOO the size of the one we will be operating in, there is no possible way to get FOO eyes on every target.  So, much like fights in Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Burma have been in the past, it is a section commander's battle.  So the section commander will likely have the hammer on any fire mission pinning him down.

 

[TCBF]

On any of the Armd Recce trg we did where we got to call for live mortars or arty, I was always amazed with just how far out the initial round was.   I accused a FOO of deliberately having the guns fire off just to give us practice.   He seemed insulted that I would accuse them of such, but an initial correction of right four hundred, drop eight hundred , on a target only 3 km away struck me as odd, especially considering how close the guns were to us.

No matter, the lessons I learned were:
1.   If the target is close, give a grid WAAAY out and walk it in.   Safer that way; and
2.   Call US Arty instead.

;D

On our side of the house, I am constantly jiving our guys for idiotic fire missions: "tank in woods- radiius 200"

"That's a definite high priority target", I tell them, " any tank as big as 400 meters across is bad news"

Then I get the "I said 200."

And I say "And you did learn in grade five that a radiius is one half of a diameter, right?"

The other one is "Enemy BMP company along road - radiius 300"

"Lordy" I say, " That's the widest road I have ever heard of, ya sure it ain't the Canadian Tire parking lot?   If it is along a road - tell the gun bunnies you have a linear target.   At least give him the grid, the length, and the FOO can have the Bdr who drives his Iltis measure the attitude on his map if you are to dumb to do it   in your OP or Coyote."

In our game, Recce, we will encounter far more linear targets along roads and treelines than we will radiius targets of leagers in the open.   We should practice both.   Why waste ammo?   We may need it later.

Tom

 

[silentbutdeadly]

yeah i was just thinkin that if i am under contact and i have to wait till its at btln , out comes the 60 forsure! but i think this mission is alittle different esp. if they are directly attacted to our coy. But like you said the FOO will likely be on our net when the shit goes down, so he could clear up any sh*ts and F**ks when the call for fire comes in.

 

[DG-41]

TCBF: ROFL!

OK, that raises another question - what is the smallest practical radias I can call for in a fire mission?

DG