Artillery Delays

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by 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!"

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.]

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

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.]

Originally Posted by 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"

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.]

Originally Posted by 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?

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.]

Originally Posted by kota1342000

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.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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/027...Fencoding=UTF8

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.