Artillery Delays

[CStock88]

This actually might come up in my campaign, as the PCs are still apart of a functioning infrastructure (at least, so far!). The PCs have been assigned the role of acting as FOs for the rearguard that's in place to cover the retreat of the larger organization they're apart of, due to the fact that normally they are in the role of a scout unit. All other things being equal, and the division's actual FO crews dead by this point, the PCs might be able to pull it off... (of course, it won't be as easy as "just" waiting to call in the fire mission; enemy infantry seeping through the thinly held line, ahoy!)

Artillery. Assuming a company commander requests a fire mission, and assuming that he has, say, a couple of gun tubes allocated to him, and he calls in a fire mission (or the FO calls it in, or whomever)... is it likely that said fire mission will take a long time? And if so, what would a long time possibly be? A half hour? Twenty minutes? I'm kind of wondering to see how much suspense I can fit in, as they watch the five surviving Soviet tanks advance, effectively unopposed, as the rest of the unit's immediately available anti-armor ammunition is already considered expended at this point.

I'm assuming that if the place he wants the shells dropped is pre-planned and approved by the FDIC (or whatever makeshift organization is there to take its place!), the time would be significantly cut down. I'm also assuming that once the artillery makes a fire mission, it's going to pull up stakes and run like hell, probably because their shells are rather limited, not to mention wanting to avoid any return fire. (I actually might have them run out of rounds, forcing the PCs later on to haggle at a friendly depot, or something, to get some more).

[LAW0306]

Hope this helps..
Your call for fire goes to your parent unit (Higher) to there Fire support cordination center. they then make sure its not a friend unit. then they call Arty or your own bn 81mm section then they fire the mission. this takes at most 90 to 120 seconds in war time with a trained unit. so the miniute they call for fire it takes 90 to 120 seconds. now from your company 60 mm mortor's. it's your call to your own FDC (the Mortor secton leader) and he fire's that second. so for your own assets its on time on target.

[CStock88]

Thank you for the quick response! That's rather illuminating, actually. I'm not sure where I got the "half hour" idea from... probably some rather erroneous data, combined with the fact that I don't actually know much about it.

[LAW0306]

mail me any time

[chico20854]

A longer answer is, it depends.

It depends on whether there are reliable comms with the guns. Land lines get run over by trucks. Radios (and field phones) have batteries fail. Radios get jammed or can't reach the guns.

The guns may have other missions they are firing. They may be out of service for maintenance (only a portion of the battery at a time, resulting in fewer guns, but in 2000 many batteries are probably only one gun). They may be out of ammo. The crew may be asleep, possibly after having a little too much ethanol from the fuel tank.

But in the situation you describe, with a company commander allocated fire support and a specific mission, it is likely to be quick, especially if some target areas were pre-registered. (And pre-registering fire is routinely done when the time is available - a map and visual recon of the operational area will likely locate several target areas to have the gunners do the calculations on.)

And as for the group not being the regular FO crew, no big deal. Calling for fire is routinely taught to all officers and all combat-arms NCOs - the US Army considers it a basic military skill. A FO is a luxury that most don't expect to have.

If you want a good idea on how an artillery unit functions in combat, read Raellus's father's book Able on the Way http://www.amazon.com/Able-Way-David-E-Bergesen/dp/1425765858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228358771&sr=1-1 . It's about an artillery unit in the Korean War, but precious little has changed between the period described there and my experience in an artillery unit in the 1990s.

[CStock88]

Thank you as well, Chico. The longer answer you gave certainly has some interesting points to use in the future. Also, the book reference is much appreciated! When I get the cash together, I'll certainly give it a good look. I'm always looking for new and cool books to read!

[Targan]

This is really good info. Thanks Law and Chico.

[Graebarde]

Now if you REALLY want to throw some slop around, considering this is 2000 and at least 30 months AFTER supplies more less stopped flowing, those gun barrels might NOT be in the best shape, which means even if all the computations etc are correct, and the gunners put in the right elevation and azmuth, and nobody botches the mission, the weak link is the barrel. SO accuracy will come in. The mission of at least one of the barrels could go to never-never land, never know where it went and where it landed. (happened to my Dad in WW2, though that was defective barrel not one shot out). Something to think about before calling danger close eh?

As for FO's. As stated every combat arms NCO is taught calling fire as are the orficers. And even lower than the NCO chain can do it in most grunt units. As for all the FO's being dead, which is entirely possible and HoG call, there would be 'replacements'. In our battery, the FIST was agumented by Survey. We could function as a FIST after completeing our mission as survey, and spent a LOT of time observing and calling fire. But that was 20 years before the Twilight war.

[Jason Weiser]

A longer answer is, it depends.
If you want a good idea on how an artillery unit functions in combat, read Raellus's father's book Able on the Way http://www.amazon.com/Able-Way-David-E-Bergesen/dp/1425765858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228358771&sr=1-1 . It's about an artillery unit in the Korean War, but precious little has changed between the period described there and my experience in an artillery unit in the 1990s.

I'd say a lot of those FDC methods..if not older ones would come back into vogue in the latter parts of the Twilight War..my thinking (based on my wargaming research, not on much reality mind you...so anyone with some reality...PLEASE INTERJECT!) is that WWII and WWI methods (preplanned barrages, rolling barrages etc.) might also see a reappearance. I understand response time isn't just the shell flight time..but the time taken for the fire mission to get to the battalion FDC, the FDC to process the request and assign the fire mission?

[Graebarde]

I'd say a lot of those FDC methods..if not older ones would come back into vogue in the latter parts of the Twilight War..my thinking (based on my wargaming research, not on much reality mind you...so anyone with some reality...PLEASE INTERJECT!) is that WWII and WWI methods (preplanned barrages, rolling barrages etc.) might also see a reappearance. I understand response time isn't just the shell flight time..but the time taken for the fire mission to get to the battalion FDC, the FDC to process the request and assign the fire mission?

This is true. Without computers, the computers in FDC will be back the their manual methods, which take more time than just punching numbers into a computer. But preplanned fire is common. SO you direct from a preplanned know target. It works well in defense, but is more difficult on the offensive and in a fluid battle field even worse.


More on accuracy. IF they don't have good meterological data tables etc, well the computations will be off, and if survey is inaccurate, talking stick and chain here, since the GPS is probably non-operation or off so much as to be worthless. There are a numerous variables. Then you have HUMAN ERROR in doing the math, "Damn Jack you forgot to carry the one!"

(In the good ole days, the first TWO weeks of the eight week Artillery Survey course was Trigonometry. IF you failed the trig block, you were either recycled to do it again OR were reassigned to a less mathematical MOS (got to be a gun bunny). We started the course with 32 in class, by end of course there were 11. And the funny thing is all we had to do is add and subtract because we used logs and tables. AND NO calculators. Think of doing trig for eight hours a day for two weeks! :( )

Grae

[Jason Weiser]

Good thing I never was interested in branching arty...my math stank.. I'd have taken one look at the trig and ran screaming from the room!

[Graebarde]

Good thing I never was interested in branching arty...my math stank.. I'd have taken one look at the trig and ran screaming from the room!

LOL. But the two weeks was worth 3 credits of college trig:confused:

[chico20854]

More on accuracy. IF they don't have good meterological data tables etc, well the computations will be off, and if survey is inaccurate, talking stick and chain here, since the GPS is probably non-operation or off so much as to be worthless. There are a numerous variables. Then you have HUMAN ERROR in doing the math, "Damn Jack you forgot to carry the one!"

And to keep things fun, then you have human error even if the numbers are done right. We had an E-6 show up as a new truck driver in our ammo platoon after he entered the wrong settings into the gun itself. That round was off by over a mile. Those sort of errors get people killed, luckily that particular one didn't.

And as far as things being worn out and not working, another unit on post had an 8-inch HE round explode in the barrel. I forget what the cause was, but I think it was also human error. One less M110 in service, luckily no funerals...

[Grimace]

My best friend was FDC for the Marines. He told me from the moment the first call went out for a fire mission, it took (using computers) 90 seconds to have a round impact. If adjustments were made, depending on the FO, it could take up to 30 more seconds before the Fire For Effect was called. Then all the barrells opened up.

They also practiced "cold", meaning without computers and were allowed 30 seconds longer to get the first round on target. He said most times they could usually beat that by a few seconds. Now, considering it's Twilight, you're probably not working with a lot of people who know FDC and can do the trig so quickly, so you might be looking at 2 minutes, maybe more, before the first round hits and the FO can adjust or call FFE.

"Called" is when an FO calls in a request for artillery. Spotting round is fired, corrections made (depending on accuracy of FO and FDC) and then FFE is called when "close enough". Called missions have to have the fire mission type set by the FO. If he wants WP or ICM or HE, he needs to state it.

For "Time on Target", the location is determined, the fire mission type set, and the time for the mission to take place is set. Thus the name "time on target". It's not necessarily super accurate this way, but it's good for a barrage on something like a town or other large-ish location.

And "Preplotted" is where the tubes are zeroed in on an area long before the action there begins. The location is marked. When an enemy unit enters the preplotted area, the FO calls it in, the tubes go right to the setting they need to be at (since it was all zeroed in before hand) and the barrage can begin. No need for spotting rounds for preplotted artillery. Usually the fire mission type is also preset for this, but could be changed if need be.

Hope this helps.

[ChalkLine]

Fuzes are an art and science in themselves, and its likely WW3 fuzes may range from prewar techno-wonders to wartime rough-and-readys.

A fuze error killed an entire gun crew in Spike Milligan's war memoirs. The guns were in a box layout and a rear gun's round exploded about five yards from the muzzle, right over another crew. Evidently defective fuzes aren't too rare.

(By the way, weapons use 'fuzes' and electricals use 'fuses')

There's a lot of data on fuzes available on the net, I encourage any GM to look them up and see how many options the fuze gives a gunner. Also, go over to GlobalSecurity and look for 'big bullets for beginners (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2.htm)'.

[fightingflamingo]

At this point, basically anyone in the infantry that's been a month or two out of OSUT should be able to call for fire. it is a skill level 2 task in the US army, and like Chico posted previously it's universally taught starting at the WLC (PLDC) level (which is the first level NCO course). However, it is taught and drilled into PFC's & SPC's so that they can do it should a team leader go down...

As for what happens when the computers break... Hope people know how to use slide rules as a back up in the FDC because they'll be needed... possibly use pocket calculators too, but that requires some knowledge of how the calculation equations work...

[Targan]

All Australian infantrymen are trained to call in arty but its been a LOOOONG time since I did that training so I am way rusty on it. I can still read a map and work out a grid reference though.

[Marc]

"Called" is when an FO calls in a request for artillery. Spotting round is fired, corrections made (depending on accuracy of FO and FDC) and then FFE is called when "close enough". Called missions have to have the fire mission type set by the FO. If he wants WP or ICM or HE, he needs to state it.


Bona nit!
About the spotting shot (in war time), would be used any special type of round? Or the same type of round used when FFE is called?

[Grimace]

Spotting rounds are usually WP (White Phosphorous) as they show up the best. At least that's what I've heard. I don't know if it's possible to request a particular type of spotting round. I think other types of rounds would just be too difficult to actually notice when they impact. WP works at night (with the burning light) and during the day (white smoke).

[copeab]

Spotting rounds are usually WP (White Phosphorous) as they show up the best. At least that's what I've heard. I don't know if it's possible to request a particular type of spotting round. I think other types of rounds would just be too difficult to actually notice when they impact. WP works at night (with the burning light) and during the day (white smoke).

It seems to me that a problem with a smoke-generating shell is that if it lands between the target and observer it's going to obscure his view and make it harder to correct fire.

[Grimace]

WP doesn't generate a large amount of smoke, so it's not really capable of obscuring a target...or so I'm told. So I don't think that's so much of a problem.

[CStock88]

Thanks for all the info, guys! I didn't think the thread would generate so many responses, but I'm certainly appreciating it!

[bobcat]

seems time of flight got overlooked. when calling for fire after the FO's request gets forwarded up once the round is fires it will have a time of flight. that may vary from 5-50 seconds depending on the range between the guns and the target.

also while every NCO in the US army(don't know how they do it in others) gets a 1-2 hour class on call for fire in WLC very few even consider it after that. the only exception to that is when the infantry guys wanna try for their EIB. then they come beg us fisters for a class.

granted some units will mandate CFF training regularly for more than just the FO's and some fist teams will invite the troopers they support to ranges and training and the like.

then theres one way in a SHTF situation when the FO can bypass the FDC entirely. its generally refered to as black magic, its rarely taught anymore and half that chapter of the FM is warnings about how the slightest mistake can kill you when useing it. basicly the FO talks to the gun line directly and directly tells them what adjustments to make(while praying that he remembered to carry the one).

[dragoon500ly]

A trick that the artillery use to control the time in flight problem is the 1/3-2/3 rule.

Whenever the front line retreats to within 1/3 of the artillery's range, they relocate the batteries back. If the front lines advance to outside 2/3 of the range, the batteries relocate forward.

Sounds silly, I know, but it minimizes the time in flight across the gun's most useful range.

[bobcat]

yup. so in training(in the sandbox brigade always makes it take longer) it takes about 120 seconds from me finishing my request to me adjusting the first round.

granted back when i was in a good unit(big training budget) my first adjustment was generally fire for effect:D

[dragoon500ly]

It was always more fun to watch the Air Farce do its CAS mission...it was always an article of faith, among the Army at least, that once you gave them the grid....you pulled back at least 5 kilometers....just in case!

Remember! The Air Force has a 100% accuracy rating...whatever goes up will hit the ground...somewhere!

[Sanjuro]

WWII and WWI methods (preplanned barrages, rolling barrages etc.) might also see a reappearance.
I can't remember where I saw this, but I always rather liked the name for the regular morning barrage on the trenches in an otherwise quiet sector in WW1- "the Morning Hate." A useful little piece of colour for a campaign?

[Raellus]

I can't remember where I saw this, but I always rather liked the name for the regular morning barrage on the trenches in an otherwise quiet sector in WW1- "the Morning Hate." A useful little piece of colour for a campaign?

It would make for a cool band name. :cool:

[Graebarde]

I can't remember where I saw this, but I always rather liked the name for the regular morning barrage on the trenches in an otherwise quiet sector in WW1- "the Morning Hate." A useful little piece of colour for a campaign?

Sort of like the "Mad Minute" at dawn when every swingin'g dk was on the line and fired up ungodly amount of ammo... it got the adrenaline going, but don't know if it ever twarted a surprise dawn attack.. FB

[Legbreaker]

The mad minute certainly announces to all and sundry exactly where you are, and that you're probably now out of ammo and ripe for an attack!
I always saw that practise as just plain suicidal. Give me the Australian way of sending out clearing patrols to a few hundred metres to sweep the immediate area at both first and last light (and whenever else seems appropriate) over declaring to the world, "here we are, come kill us!"

[Ronin]

The mad minute certainly announces to all and sundry exactly where you are, and that you're probably now out of ammo and ripe for an attack!
I always saw that practise as just plain suicidal. Give me the Australian way of sending out clearing patrols to a few hundred metres to sweep the immediate area at both first and last light (and whenever else seems appropriate) over declaring to the world, "here we are, come kill us!"

Yeah, but we're talking WWI here. Even in a mad minute, so your guns load is exhausted. Are you telling my a german attacker, is gonna climb out of his trench, run a 100+ meters and kill you before you can reload a 5 round stripper clip into your enfield? I think not. As for Australian tactics, I have one word for you, Gallipoli. All the armies back then compared to now were ignorant, and wasteful. Sending men to die for no reason.

[ArmySGT.]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/FireMissionPolarPlot.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/FireMissionGrid.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/FireMissionShiftfromKnownpoint.jpg

[Legbreaker]

As for Australian tactics, I have one word for you, Gallipoli. All the armies back then compared to now were ignorant, and wasteful. Sending men to die for no reason.

That was British tactics.
During WWI it was the Australians who first developed "fire and movement", which almost everyone who wants to survive on a battlefield in the last century now uses in some variation or another. Australians were the first to apply common sense and get down on their bellies and crawl across the field. They also started to use small unit tactics such as breaking down sections and platoons to provide supporting fires while the remainder of the unit moved (instead of relying on external support from machinegun and artillery units).

[kota1342000]

Beat me to it ArmySgt. I was wondering if anyone else had the polar and shift missions in mind.
I also notice no one has mentioned "immediate suppression"... which in my day was giving a grid and providing an answer to authentication when the FDC asks for it. Then the default is for a FFE mission. The idea was for units calling for it to get quick help from the Arty when they were in deep trouble. I was told that using those two words will put you at the front of the line for fire support, and doing it when you didnt need to might get you a trip to go make gravel at Leavenworth. :p

I used to use HE for spotting rounds, that was the default for what the gun line was going to throw in any case. But we could request smoke, illumination (different fire request...i cant remember how to call for it), WP, and during wartime ICM, ICM-DP, and Copperhead. For Copperhead you had to let the FDC know you were "painting"...but all the Copperheads I saw fired missed.

If you ever read "Cauldron" by Larry Bond, there was also a SADARM (Search And Destroy ARMor) round that dropped parachute smart submunitions that fired self forging penetrators into the tops of armor. Sweet..but I think it was cancelled.

And theres also FASCAM rounds; RAAM for antitank mines and ADAM for antipersonnel mines, but you arent going to get those as a request. Might as well as for a tactical nuclear weapon while youre at it.

[ArmySGT.]

Beat me to it ArmySgt. I was wondering if anyone else had the polar and shift missions in mind.
I also notice no one has mentioned "immediate suppression" :p

Excerpted from FM 7-92 Infantry Reconnaissance Platoon.

b. The reconnaissance platoon may be required to call for and adjust
indirect fire support IAW the battalion fire support matrix. The platoon
may have designated target reference points (TRPs). TRPs are preplanned
artillery targets that the platoon uses to call for and adjust
indirect fire. The use of TRPs and proper procedures to call for fire is
critical in order to receive immediate indirect fire. If available, the use of
global positioning systems and laser range finders assist the platoon in
calling for fire. Unless FOs are supporting the reconnaissance platoon,
the platoon is responsible for calling and adjusting indirect fire. The call
for fire is a message prepared by an observer. Any soldier in the platoon
can request indirect fire support by calling for fire. (For additional
information, see FM 6-30.)

(1) Calls for fire must include–
(a) Observer identification and warning order.

Adjust fire-uncertain of target location.
Fire for effect —rounds on target; no adjustment.
Suppress—used to obtain fire quickly.


Immediate suppression—used when being engaged by enemy;
must give target identification.


(b) Target location methods. Target location is sent in six digits. The
direction is given in mils and is sent before the first adjusting rounds are
shot. The direction is the location of the observer to the target (observertarget
[OT] line). The FDC must know the observer’s exact location. The
observer sends OT line and distance (to the nearest 100 meters) from his
position to the target.

Grid (Figure 7-2).
Polar (Figure 7-3, page 7-6).
Shift from a known point (Figure 7-4, page 7-7).
Range shifts and lateral shifts (Figure 7-5, page 7-8).

(c) Target description. Give a brief description of the target using the
acronym “SNAP.”

Size/shape.
Nature/nomenclature.
Activity.
Protection/posture.

(2) A call for fire may also include the following information (optional
elements):

(a) Method of engagement. The method of engagement consists of
the type of adjustments, danger close, trajectory, ammunition, and distribution.
(b) Method of fire and control.

At my command—fired at observer’s command.
Cannot observe-fire will not be observed.
Time on target—rounds land at specified time.
Continuous illumination—FDC will determine when to fire.
Coordinated illumination-observer determines when to fire.
Cease loading—used when two or more rounds in effect (causes
loader to stop loading).
Check firing-temporary halt in firing.
Continuous fire-will continue to fire unless told to stop.
Repeat—will repeat last mission.

(c) Refinement and end of mission.

Correct any adjustments.
Record as target.
Report battle damage assessment.

(d) Danger close (announced when applicable).

FA mortars-danger-close target is within 600 meters of any
friendly troops.


Naval gunfire-danger-close target is within 750 meters when
using 5-inch or smaller guns (1,000 meters for larger naval guns).


Creeping method of adjustment—the FO uses the creeping
method of adjustment (corrections of no more than 100 meters)
exclusively during danger-close missions.

[kota1342000]

Range shift and lateral shift? New ones on me...can you (or another colleague) give a quick explanation? And do you have the figures from the FM for them?

[ArmySGT.]

Beat me to it ArmySgt. I was wondering if anyone else had the polar and shift missions in mind.
I also notice no one has mentioned "immediate suppression"... which in my day was giving a grid and providing an answer to authentication when the FDC asks for it. Then the default is for a FFE mission. The idea was for units calling for it to get quick help from the Arty when they were in deep trouble. I was told that using those two words will put you at the front of the line for fire support, and doing it when you didnt need to might get you a trip to go make gravel at Leavenworth. :p

That is a pre-planned fire used in the defense.

Your unit (In Defense) has a pre plotted Target Reference point at danger close range to its front. This could be the name for their part of the line of one in a series. Example might be "Dog 40" Dog = Delta Company. 40 = 4th Platoons piece of the line.

A call for Immediate suppression might be (without callsigns).

"Dog 40 immediate suppression, over. Dog 40, authenticate Golf Victor, over. I authenticate, Romeo. Shot, over. Shot, out."

[ArmySGT.]

Range shift and lateral shift? New ones on me...can you (or another colleague) give a quick explanation? And do you have the figures from the FM for them?

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/RangeandLateralShift.jpg

[Ronin]

That was British tactics.
During WWI it was the Australians who first developed "fire and movement", which almost everyone who wants to survive on a battlefield in the last century now uses in some variation or another. Australians were the first to apply common sense and get down on their bellies and crawl across the field. They also started to use small unit tactics such as breaking down sections and platoons to provide supporting fires while the remainder of the unit moved (instead of relying on external support from machinegun and artillery units).

My point was that WWI was a fucked situation, run by people not seeing the future of warfare. What your talking about didn't really come into effect until WWII. Maneuver and fire. They may have thought of it first. But not till WWII that it because a realistic strategy.

[ArmySGT.]

My point was that WWI was a fucked situation, run by people not seeing the future of warfare. What your talking about didn't really come into effect until WWII. Maneuver and fire. They may have thought of it first. But not till WWII that it because a realistic strategy.

Actually German SturmTruppen used it quite effectively under coordination with Artillery fire. Germany could not produce the manpower to take full effect of this "Modern Method" so late in the Great War.

[Ronin]

Everyone used walking artillery fire at the end of the war. It was the Allies using concentrated armor, that really pushed things, and gained ground. (Even if they couldn't really capitalize on it, because of the shortsightedness of commanders, and extending the lines beyond what could be supported.)

[ArmySGT.]

Two different land warfare concept. Red apples compared to Granny Smith's.

I am not talking about the Allied Tactic of the Rolling Barrage.

I am talking about Coordinated fires, with shifting of fire requested by the supported troops in the attack.

Sturmtruppen strung field phone wire along with them, as man pack radio weren't developed yet.

The would order the shifting of fire to the next trench line, identified strong points, dumps, and CPs.

The would also pull the fire back with them, a rolling barrage in reverse to cover their retreat.

Guderian seized on this adding tanks, and planes thus Combined Arms warfare was born.

Tanks were a radical new idea, however their shortcomings were evident in their first operational test. Tanks must be supported by infantry, and require Artillery fire to suppress the enemy AT forces.

[kota1342000]

That is a pre-planned fire used in the defense.

Your unit (In Defense) has a pre plotted Target Reference point at danger close range to its front. This could be the name for their part of the line of one in a series. Example might be "Dog 40" Dog = Delta Company. 40 = 4th Platoons piece of the line.

A call for Immediate suppression might be (without callsigns).

"Dog 40 immediate suppression, over. Dog 40, authenticate Golf Victor, over. I authenticate, Romeo. Shot, over. Shot, out."

We were also taught that it could be run as a grid mission as well. Though if this has changed in the last 15 years I can understand why. LAW mentioned that fire requests for 81s and above now go through a fire support coordination center to verify that somebody isnt calling steel onto a friendly unit. Making immediate suppression missions pre-plotted targets makes sense to keep the friendly fire down if the grid is wrong!

[Legbreaker]

But not till WWII that it because a realistic strategy.

Actually....
An Australian engineer section (9 men) acting as infantry managed to take a position using the "newly developed" (ie common sense) techniques which had held up an entire British company for several hours. They then went on to teach the British unit how they did it.
This example is in the Australian PAM (FM to Americans) on infantry tactics.
And they continued to use these tactics with success while other nations persisted on the whole with the whole suicidal walking bayonet advance...

By the time the Americans entered the war, most nations had adapted to these techniques. It took the Americans a bit longer to realise what everyone else already knew.

With regard to calling fire, over here every infantryman is taught the basics and told that if the shit hits the fan, don't worry about getting it "right", just get some information back to the supporting unit and keep answering their questions to the best of your ability. It may take a little longer to get rounds onto the intended target than it would a properly trained MFO, etc, but they will get there and possibly even save your backside.

[ArmySGT.]

We were also taught that it could be run as a grid mission as well. Though if this has changed in the last 15 years I can understand why. LAW mentioned that fire requests for 81s and above now go through a fire support coordination center to verify that somebody isnt calling steel onto a friendly unit. Making immediate suppression missions pre-plotted targets makes sense to keep the friendly fire down if the grid is wrong!

Immediate suppression is a warning order. It lets the FDC know what is coming next. It is always a pre-planned Target Reference Point, as there will not be any spotting rounds.

FDC, this is Reconm fire mission, over.

Recon, this is FDC, over.

FDC, this is Recon, immediate suppression AA7733, Legs and Bimps in the open., Out.

Recon, this is FDC, shot, over.

FDC, this is Recon, Shot, Out.

FDC, this is Recon, Splash, Over.

Recon, this is FDC, splash, Out.

FDC, this is Recon, Repeat, Over.

Recon, this is FDC, Roger, Out.

FDC, this is Recon, Cease Loading, Over.

Recon, this is FDC, Roger, Out.

[ArmySGT.]

With regard to calling fire, over here every infantryman is taught the basics and told that if the shit hits the fan, don't worry about getting it "right", just get some information back to the supporting unit and keep answering their questions to the best of your ability. It may take a little longer to get rounds onto the intended target than it would a properly trained MFO, etc, but they will get there and possibly even save your backside.

It is the same here.

[ArmySGT.]

FIRE MISSION (SUPPRESSION)

Observer
H18 THIS IS H24 SUPPRESS AB3104 OVER.

FDC
THIS IS H18, SUPPRESS AB3104, AUTHENTICATE DELTA JULIET, OVER.

Observer
I AUTHENTICATE DELTA, OUT.

FIRE MISSION (IMMEDIATE SUPPRESSION)

Observer
H18 THIS IS H24, IMMEDIATE SUPPRESSION GRID 211432 AUTHENTICATION IS TANGO UNIFORM OVER.

FDC
THIS IS H18, IMMEDIATE SUPPRESSION, GRID 211432, OUT.

[Fusilier]

During WWI it was the Australians who first developed "fire and movement", which almost everyone who wants to survive on a battlefield in the last century now uses in some variation or another. Australians were the first to apply common sense and get down on their bellies and crawl across the field.

This was preceded by the Germans. As ArmySgt mentioned about the Sturmtruppen, they were the real designers of employing fire and movement tactics - doing so from the onset of the war and well ahead of the allies.

It took some time to recall the name, but I remember this book is fairly decent in giving detailed perspective of the evolution of modern infantry tactics, including exerts from original German publications. I'd recommend it for fans of WW1 history.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275933288/ref=ed_oe_h/102-5537282-5232933?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[Legbreaker]

This was preceded by the Germans. As ArmySgt mentioned about the Sturmtruppen, they were the real designers of employing fire and movement tactics - doing so from the onset of the war and well ahead of the allies.

A quick google search does not seem to bear this statement out. All references I can find indicate it wasn't until later in 1915 that the Germans finally put those techniques into practice and it was in fact the French (Captain Andre Laffargue) who first publicly proposed their use through a pamphlet he published. Sure the germans organised a unit prior to this, but they didn't see combat as intended until October 1915.

Even so, those units had more in common with "heavy" infantry, than using fire and movement, staying close to the ground, using cover and concealment and direct fire support from intergrated elements. The originally organised unit were actually equiped with heavy shields and body armour - hard to crawl in that!

Meanwhile the Australians were putting these things into practise.

[Fusilier]

A quick google search does not seem to bear this statement out. All references I can find indicate it wasn't until later in 1915 that the Germans finally put those techniques into practice and it was in fact the French (Captain Andre Laffargue) who first publicly proposed their use through a pamphlet he published. Sure the germans organised a unit prior to this, but they didn't see combat as intended until October 1915.

Even so, those units had more in common with "heavy" infantry, than using fire and movement, staying close to the ground, using cover and concealment and direct fire support from intergrated elements. The originally organised unit were actually equiped with heavy shields and body armour - hard to crawl in that!

Meanwhile the Australians were putting these things into practise.

They did in fact use it much earlier than that in combat, but you have to keep in mind that the Germany of the time was not as cohesive as the western nations, being made up of unified umm... states. They didn't all follow one doctrine and all experimented with their own in some cases. It was as early as 1914 in the opening campaigns that German formations were utilizing the fire and movement tactics that were later adopted by the rest of the German forces and allies alike.

[bobcat]

and since oddly it hasn't been mentioned yet. the FPF(final protective fires AKA "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die")

a pre-planned linear target. always fired as and immediate suppression with the caviate that they keep firing until the mission is canceled, they run out of ammo, or the barrels melt. granted while a good FO always has one planned for every position they plan to hold for any period of time, if they actually wind up using it there normally are medals handed out after.

for more information consult FM 6-30 Observed Fires

[Targan]

As for Australian tactics, I have one word for you, Gallipoli. All the armies back then compared to now were ignorant, and wasteful. Sending men to die for no reason.

Ouch. Although to be fair Gallipoli wasn't our show. The British planned it, executed it and f*cked it up. They landed the Allied forces in the wrong place just for starters. We learned our lesson long ago. For a long time now when Australian soldiers die in wars they do so under Australian command. We're no longer so willing to be used as cannon fodder by British generals.