Author Topic: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire  (Read 34419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RecceDG

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 493
  • Carpe terram inferam!
    • Far North Racing
Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« on: November 23, 2005, 09:25:34 »
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
D. Grant

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

Offline on guard for thee

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 36
  • Glorious and Free
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2005, 10:27:14 »
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!

Offline FOO TECH G11

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 25
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2005, 09:36:39 »
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.
 :cdn:
There is a philosophical element to it all too: a bullet may or may not have your number on it, but I am sure shells are merely engraved with â Ëœto whom it may concernâ Ëœ.

Offline horsegunner353

  • New Member
  • **
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
  • Guinness for strength
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2005, 08:34:07 »
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.
DWG

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,770
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2005, 10:59:01 »
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.


Offline sjm

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 46
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2005, 09:09:36 »
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.
If it ain't broke, break it!

Offline Gobsmacked

  • browbeaten but unbroken CF Advocate
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 82
  • Disillusioned Defence/Geopolitical Analyst
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2005, 01:32:04 »
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'[/i],
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."
 :salute:

So, is a turreted twin-120mm LAV-III mounted mortar like the AMOS, that can fire both DF HEAT (to ~ 1K) and US$15K PGMM for IF out to 10-12km looking like a better solution?   :cdn:   ;)
Especially as a costed (using 2004$ 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?
Don't bother with ATI, by time u finally get redacted info its way out of date.
Dedicated to providing Verified Accurate Information.
But whats the point?
You get screwed in the end by GoC.
Tired of Disengeneous, Incompetent and UnEthical Procurement Officials and Military Officers involved in Major Equipment Procurement at PWGSC and DND.

Offline Gobsmacked

  • browbeaten but unbroken CF Advocate
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 82
  • Disillusioned Defence/Geopolitical Analyst
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2005, 14:55:08 »
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 relevantI 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) .[/u]  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 [/i] (and possibly reload) from the move and it's primary role will be direct support of the Infantry [bunker busting, etc]." [/i]  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]. " [/i]  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"[/i]. 
[ 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 ].[/b]"

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,[/b] (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.]   :salute:
Don't bother with ATI, by time u finally get redacted info its way out of date.
Dedicated to providing Verified Accurate Information.
But whats the point?
You get screwed in the end by GoC.
Tired of Disengeneous, Incompetent and UnEthical Procurement Officials and Military Officers involved in Major Equipment Procurement at PWGSC and DND.

Offline STA Gunner

  • The Smartest Man in NDHQ
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 61
  • In Parvo Magnum
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2005, 10:52:25 »
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.
The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.   Douglas MacArthur

Offline silentbutdeadly

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 95
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2005, 13:54:44 »
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

Offline Bomber

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 422
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2005, 14:18:04 »
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.

Offline silentbutdeadly

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 95
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2005, 14:27:34 »
thx Bomber, kinda knew that but wanted to make sure thx again

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,770
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2005, 16:50:44 »
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.
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,770
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2005, 16:51:34 »
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. ;)
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline GO!!!

  • Fallen Comrade
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 0
  • Posts: 1,856
  • Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2005, 18:51:43 »
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.
No leader was ever hated for being too hard, but a great many were for attempting to appear that way.

Offline Craig B

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 85
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2005, 19:39:06 »
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

Offline STA Gunner

  • The Smartest Man in NDHQ
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 61
  • In Parvo Magnum
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2005, 19:59:08 »
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.
The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.   Douglas MacArthur

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,941
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2005, 20:37:35 »
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
« Last Edit: December 19, 2005, 21:09:26 by TCBF »
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline silentbutdeadly

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 95
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2005, 21:56:04 »
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 crap goes down, so he could clear up any sh*ts and F**ks when the call for fire comes in.

Offline RecceDG

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 493
  • Carpe terram inferam!
    • Far North Racing
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2005, 22:30:57 »
TCBF: ROFL!

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

DG
D. Grant

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,941
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2005, 22:40:42 »
"Concentrate"?  :)

One of the gun bunnies here will know, but I have always called it as I saw it.  Give a decent description and they can work it out.

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Craig B

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 85
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2005, 21:37:38 »
"Concentrate"?   :)

Converge.

We'll try to put all the rounds in the same crater  ;)


One of the gun bunnies here will know, but I have always called it as I saw it.   Give a decent description and they can work it out.

Tom

Excellent advice.

Craig

Offline Goober

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2005, 22:23:32 »
Even though radius is half a diameter, when the FOO uses it, s/he means the size of the oval all the rounds should land in.

30 meters is the smallest practical radius for a 105mm howitzer.

For targets like convoys along roads, the FOO just orders a Linear fire mission, with "length" given instead of radius.

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2011, 16:00:04 »
Did some searching with no desired results.  This was the closest topic to what I am about to ask. 

What I am looking for is any info on the history of artillery orientation.  I am well versed in any orientation device that has been used in the last 20 years and the likely future technologies, but I am having difficulty finding documents that describe past orientation methods.

I am aware of most magnetic compasses i.e T-16, C2 aiming circle, prismatic compass etc. Also, I am familiar with the gyro used by surveyors in the late 90s, that was re-engineered into the GLPS.

The questions I have and the history I am looking for are:

When did true indirect fire start and who invented it? i.e. the use of orientation and fixation to hit non line of sight (NLOS) or indirect targets.

What methods have been used for gun aiming for NLOS targets throughout history?  I am aware of using aiming points in between the gun and the target in order to line them up; I am looking for more modern  battery survey type methods i.e compasses.

Assuming the first type of battery survey was done with magnetic compass or sextant type devices, what were the types and accuracies of them?

General McNaughton (General Leslie's grandfather) invented sound ranging in WWI.  What did he use for orientation of the microphones?

When did gyrocompasses first get used?

I know that's a lot but any help would be appreciated.  No need to paraphrase or explain any documents or external links, just the link will be sufficient.

Thanks in advance.



« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 16:10:04 by GnyHwy »

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 333,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2011, 17:08:11 »
You might try the Great War Forum to find someone with applicable First World War references.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,770
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2011, 17:12:28 »
I think indirect fire predates the First World War, but a lot of the evidence is spare. I have a 1910 Book which discusses it (it also talks about air defence) but not in a lot of detail. Perhaps you should do some digging into coastal artillery systems as it evolved into something approaching indirect by the early years of the 20th century. If you get up to the Ottawa area, I will let you dig in my library, which is fairly extensive.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 333,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2011, 17:37:20 »
Here's the Chapter on Laying from the 1928 Artillery Training, Vol II, Gunnery:

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 333,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2011, 17:37:53 »
.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 333,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2011, 17:38:14 »
.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 333,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2011, 17:45:57 »
And the first few pages from Chapter V - Lines of Fire and the Angle of Sight




Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,254
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2011, 17:55:48 »
I have a 1914 copy of "Handbook of Artillery Instruments".  This book is a description of the various peices of observation, orientation and fixation devices in service at that time in the British Empire.  The book doesn't tell you how to use the devices tactically, but reading between the lines, it is clear (to me anyway) that the point of all these devices was so that a distant observer could direct the fire of a particular Battery of guns (note- no mention is made of any unit of Guns above Battery.  I  would infer that that development came sometime in the next 12-24 months) at a target not observable from the gun position.

FWIW.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,770
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2011, 18:06:34 »
I suspect you are correct. In the Great War the British gunners did well, but the command and control was rudimentary, at least in the early years. An example with an interesting twist. At Second Ypres in April 1917 a battery commander realized that the 8th Battalion CEF was going to be attacked by overwhelming German forces and no Canadian guns were within range. So this officer on his own moved his battery forward and supported the Little Black Devils during their epic defence of Gravenstafel Ridge. The battery commander was Major Henry Crerar.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,796
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2011, 19:11:06 »
My readings indicate that a Russian fellow wrote a manual on indirect fire in 1882, and the Germans produced a similar manual afterwards. The Russian manual used terms such as "aiming points", "crest clearance" and corrections to be used by observers. Indirect fire was used on a fairly large scale by both sides in the Russo-Japanese War (1904/05). One of the major technological breakthroughts that permitted indirect fire was so-called "quick firing" artillery. These were guns with recoil systems that we all take for granted but were quite revolutionary at the time. Recoil systems meant that the gun stayed in the same position after firing, which meant that you could actually predict with some reasonable hope of hitting the same place again with your next shot. This made accuracy and adjustments possible over distances.

Despite observing this during the Russo-Japanese War the major armies entered the First World War planning to fire their artillery direct. They quickly had to adapt to the fire-swept modern battlefield and employ indirect fire.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,770
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2011, 19:35:59 »
You are spot in with most of your post. The only place where I would dispute you was in the term "quick firing." This did not refer to the presence of a recoil system. Instead it referred to the use of a one piece round with the means of obturation (the prevention of gas escaping backwards out of the breech) by the use of a cartridge case that also held the projectile. The other main method was termed breech loading which had the projectile and charge loaded separately.

Good job, T2B.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 20:49:28 by Infanteer »

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,796
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2011, 19:47:36 »
From what I am reading, at the time of their introduction guns equipped with recoil systems were given the name "quick firing" with the axial recoil being the major breakthrough that led to that term being given (Ian Hogg's "The Guns 1914-18" is the closest book to hand right now). My readings indicate that they were called "quick firing" because the crew didn't have to get clear of the gun before firing and the gun would not need to be pushed back into place.

I note, however, that these guns (the French 75mm being the first and most famous) also had one piece ammunition with the features you describe. Perhaps the term "QF" has slightly different meanings depending on the period and nationality?
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2011, 20:45:23 »
Thanks everyone for the replies so far.  The pieces are starting to come together and all the posts are matching with what I have found.  All the info I am getting is mostly from Wiki. 

The earliest mention of indirect fire is, and was invented by an Italian mathematician/surveyor named Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia (1550-1557) that aligned cannons and targets with intermediate pickets.  This seemed to be the method that stayed in use until the early 1900s.

As Tango has said, I found Russian Lt Col KG Guk, that in 1882 introduced the use of geometry and measurement of angles compared to the target, but he still didn't have the device (goniometer) to measure the angles.  This device was invented by the Germans in 1890, a device they called a lining-plate (never heard it called that before).

SeaKing's book for the beginning of WWI maybe the first mention of magnetic compasses used for orientation.  SeaKing, is there a section titled "orientation of director" or something along those lines and does it mention magnetic compass?

This would be in line with General McNaughton's use of sound ranging, which I am assuming that he used magnetic compasses.  He could have used map coordinates and with a little math and intervisibility between microphones, could have oriented them that way.  Still not sure.

Michael's gunnery manuals from 1928 talk about directors on the last two pages and it seems that the compass was still separate from the director, unlike modern survey instruments that it is built in.

Next step, gyrocompasses. 

Thanks again everyone.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 20:48:19 by GnyHwy »

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2011, 21:00:08 »
Found some stuff on gyrocompasses.  Originally used in the Navy in WWI, and eventually used by the Airforce in WWII.  Still looking for the first time it was used for artillery orientation.

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2011, 21:42:50 »
After some advice from Old Sweat to look for coast artillery stuff I found this.  It's a US coast artillery book from 1918 that maybe the first publication that goes into detail about modern survey and orientation methods.  It has all the stuff that we have used up until the 90s and could still potentially use in the future, as long as we keep a few dinosaurs in.  These skills have certainly fell of the table in recent years.  Only a small handful of guys can still do this kind of stuff.

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/utils/getfile/collection/p15040coll1/id/467/filename/465.pdf
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 21:47:21 by GnyHwy »

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,254
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2011, 22:31:18 »
GnyHwy-
My book specifically mentions a compass as part of the No 3 Director, Mark 1.

Also, the Observation of Fire Apparatus shows a magnetic compass.

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2011, 22:41:54 »
Thanks SeaKing.  I have been searching on the below website which I wasn't even aware until this evening.

Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/

It's a pretty awesome site for American pubs.  You can search pretty much anything.  Found some stuff on the Positional Azimuth Determing System (PADS), which is a system I was aware of.  The US Army introduced it in 1985.  This maybe the first use of gyros for Arty orientation.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 23:20:32 by GnyHwy »

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 168,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,170
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2011, 22:57:52 »
Found some stuff on gyrocompasses.  Originally used in the Navy in WWI, and eventually used by the Airforce in WWII.  Still looking for the first time it was used for artillery orientation.

It'd be interesting seeing the link between the Navy and the Artillery on this one (thesis topic!) - with the later-Dreadnoughts having 15-inch guns, there has to be some science to shooting that caught the Artillery's attention when they started getting real range.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,770
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2011, 05:57:59 »
It'd be interesting seeing the link between the Navy and the Artillery on this one (thesis topic!) - with the later-Dreadnoughts having 15-inch guns, there has to be some science to shooting that caught the Artillery's attention when they started getting real range.
Which is why I suggested checking for coastal artillery material. All the problems of naval gunnery except for a moving platform had to be solved. It is interesting that as the range of guns increased, the number used decreased but the effectiveness increased. The same point could be made for naval weapons.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,796
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2011, 10:59:29 »
Going through some of my notes, I found a few passages making references to the equipment useed for indirect artillery fire in the Russo-Japanese War. A British observer noted that the Russian batteries were equipped with telephones by which the observing post could communicate with the guns. The British reports go on to suggest that "this method (indirect fire) ought to be largely practiced by field artillery." Similar observations were made regarding Japanese artillery employing telephones.

Another book makes reference to "gonimetric sights" being developed shortly after "quick-firing" guns appeared (but perhaps it was at the same time, or the technology was married up to the new guns). I think that these are panoramic sights.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,611
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2011, 12:01:00 »
It'd be interesting seeing the link between the Navy and the Artillery on this one (thesis topic!) - with the later-Dreadnoughts having 15-inch guns, there has to be some science to shooting that caught the Artillery's attention when they started getting real range.

I think Infanteer may be on to something there.  The RN's battleship gunners, in four separate gun positions, all fought blind.   They were all given individual laying instructions from a Gunnery/Direction/Control?? Officer positioned high on a mast above the Bridge and equipped with a mechanical computer.  Instructions,  I believe,  were passed internally by sound telephones.   For fleet actions the communications were either by wireless (the RN was an early adopter) or by Aldis Lamp.

It might also be interesting to check on the role of the Heliograph, which permitted long range communications in the pre-wireless days (ca 1850-1914).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2011, 16:13:11 »
Going through some of my notes, I found a few passages making references to the equipment useed for indirect artillery fire in the Russo-Japanese War. A British observer noted that the Russian batteries were equipped with telephones by which the observing post could communicate with the guns. The British reports go on to suggest that "this method (indirect fire) ought to be largely practiced by field artillery." Similar observations were made regarding Japanese artillery employing telephones.

Another book makes reference to "gonimetric sights" being developed shortly after "quick-firing" guns appeared (but perhaps it was at the same time, or the technology was married up to the new guns). I think that these are panoramic sights.

Wiki mentions the invention of the lining-plate in 1890 by the Germans. This in my mind is the first goniometer, which eventually evolved into current survey intruments and panoramics.

Wiki also mentions' "The earliest example of indirect fire adjusted by an observer seems to be during the defence of Hougoumont in the Battle of Waterloo where a battery of the Royal Horse Artillery fired an indirect Shrapnel barrage against advancing French troops using corrections given by the commander of an adjacent battery with a direct line of sight.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire#History
From this reference.  Against All Odds!: Dramatic Last Stand Actions; Perret, Brian; Cassell 2000; ISBN13: 9780304354566: discussed during the account of the Hougoumont action.

Still looking for field artillery gyros, prior to the US Army PADS in 85.

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2011, 16:23:46 »
The Navy gyrocompass discussion is interesting.  The first use of gyros by them was for WWI, but I am quite certain it was just for navigation (just because a magnetic compass doesn't work too well in a metal ship).  Just like the Airforce using them in WWII, they were just for navigation.

Not sure when the Navy started using them for firing solutions.  It may not have been necessary if the observer in the crow's nest had good visibility.  Even over long ranges, it could still be considered a direct fire mission and the elevation would be much, much more difficult to determine than the orientation.  The orientation would be easy. In line? Check.  Guessing range for correction at 10 NM plus would be unbelievably hard; and without the help of any recognizable features to help judge distance.

Edited to Add:  The best way to judge distance would likely have been to know the length or width of the ship you were up against.  By determining the FOV that it fit into within your telescope, you could probably be fairly accurate with distance.  Range=length or width of target/mils or degrees in the telescope.  Judging the corrections after that would still be very difficult.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 16:34:57 by GnyHwy »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,611
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2011, 17:39:50 »
Sorry about Wiki but I was wondering if it might lead you somewhere:

Ship Gun Fire Control System  Especially RN Systems from 1910
Dreyer Table Pre-1915
Pollen's Argo Clock From about 1905 with integral Gyroscope

And now I'll go back to listening...
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,770
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #47 on: November 28, 2011, 18:06:01 »
I have a book in my library that I spent 20 bucks on in the early seventies when a nice house went for 40 grand called Guns at Sea by Peter Padfield. It has a very good explanation of solving the various parts of the gunnery problem. Around 1905 the RN had got a lot of it right, but it still was pretty basic. You might be able to get it through the library system.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,124
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #48 on: November 28, 2011, 18:57:07 »
To add on, Guns At Sea is available from various sources including here: http://www.abebooks.com/9780238789458/Guns-Sea-Padfield-Peter-0238789454/plp
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2012, 01:48:15 »
Looking for opinions.  Where do you draw the line that defines accuracy in FOO locating devices?

There are many devices out there that all do much of the same thing, but the general relation is, the more accurate, the more cumbersome.  i.e. The GLPS is the most accurate survey/locating device we own, but not practical for FOO/FAC use.

Devices with digital magnetic compasses (DMC) and built in laser range finders (LRF) offer better accuracy than a prismatic or Silva in a highly mobile device, but will be unreliable in highly magnetic areas like modern cities.

Potential solutions are gyros and diff GPS systems that provide <1 mil accuracy.  They are not as mobile as the Vectors or Coral CRC, but will provide guaranteed accuracy as they are not influenced by magnetic interference. 

Gyros have virtually no limitations in accuracy, but size, weight and the fact they have to be tripod mounted is a hindrance; smaller gyro systems that calibrate on the tripod and then switch to DMC for mobility are available.  Diff GPS has the same size and mounting issues, as well as dealing with a GPS denied environment, but they will continue to improve in size as well.  Digital mapping is another solution, but they are also somewhat combersome as you will be hauling around a small laptop, and they don't help in areas that don't have a lot of close proximity reference objects.

So, when trying to engage with GPS guided munitions where do we draw the line for accuracy in the attempts to narrow down the amount of systems we have?  Will a somewhat guaranteed +/- 5 mil work i.e Vectors or Coral CRC?  Do we need < 1 mil accuracy?

For some framework, if targets are within 1km an instrument like the Vectors and giving up a few mils may not be a big deal, assuming your calibration is good, but out beyond that dropping a GPS guided bomb could be a waste.

Thoughts?

« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 01:52:10 by GnyHwy »

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,770
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2012, 07:10:32 »
I guess the first question is what kind of accuracy does the FOO need?

I am not going to state the obvious about his own orientation and fixation, but without accuracy here, everything else is pointless. For whatever it is worth, I had a conversation yesterday with a friend who had been in the Airborne Battery when it exercised in the High Arctic. They were subject to large changes in magnetic variation over short distances and used to use devices/techniques such as a gyro, azimuth by polaris and a sun compass. This was in the bad old pre-GPS days, but there may be a hint there. If you wish to explore this, PM me and I will put you in touch.

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2012, 13:25:43 »
I guess the first question is what kind of accuracy does the FOO need?

That is a good question, and as simple as it may sound, is a very complex question.  Situation to situation will dictate and the standard answer of "it depends" does apply, but until we define this, the status quo of digital magnetic compasses (DMC) may have to suffice.

I believe there is somewhat of a blind faith that DMCs are giving correct orientation; "it's digital it must be accurate".  Persons who have done research know this is not true.  When an observer uses a bad direction, even off by 100mils (which is not unlikely), the initial round is off by 100m at 1km.  100mils is very easy to be off, and can easily go unnoticed, until the round hits the ground of course.  Simple magnetic forces such as vehicles, buildings and power lines etc. will make this happen, and with the potential for urban operations ever growing, this becomes even more likely; 100m in a built up area with close proximity friendlies can be a very big deal.

Maybe a better question may be "at what accuracy do we need orientation to be guaranteed"?  If you were to say 20mils, which is the standard arty double check, I would argue that DMCs can't even guarantee that; below 5 mils is barely attainable even in perfect environments.

Gyros and GPS can guarantee less than 5 mil, but they also have their limitations; bulk, vibrations, GPS signal and power requirements are just a few.

Digital mapping is another solution, but again, there are plenty of limitations there as well.

Up north is another can of worms all together.  It would be back to pirate days and sextants for accuracy up there, not to mention that your map is just a sheet of white paper with grid lines on it.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 13:30:32 by GnyHwy »

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Precision and Accuracy in the call for fire
« Reply #52 on: May 07, 2015, 07:29:08 »
For the naysayers that believe that the Arty is just an area weapon and that our double checks and "minuscule" calculations are a waste of time or not necessary, tell that to these guys.

Of course the naysayers will chalk it up as a bad target location and dismiss it, but for those of us who know, there are plenty more things that could make this happen. 

Thank goodness those naysayers are a dying breed.

https://www.facebook.com/FUNKER530/videos/932595823458721/?fref=nf