Blackhawk Down Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff White

New member
John,
Sorry for carrying on a technical conversation on a public forum, should have taken it to private e-mail.

The 8" SP was replaced by the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS). 155mm is the biggest artillery currently fielded by US forces. (excluding naval guns).

George Hill: Who called Rangers wimps? I never got that impression from the book or any posts in the thread.

Jeff
 
Please do continue the tech conversations on the board. I am soaking up some good knowledge from folks who seem to be real. Beats hell out of SOF.

------------------
When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; IT IS that they shall be destroyed forever...Psalms 92.7
 
Jeff,

It's fine by me. I'm interested in such things, I just got lost after the third or fourth acronym :) MLRS delivers packages a little bit faster, doesn't it? :D
 
It was a very bad descion when the Army got rid of the 8 inch (203MM) howitzer It was the finest, most accurate artillery piece that the US Army ever had!

Hard Ball (an old artillery man)
 
The day the M110A2 left the inventory was a gray day indeed. Was a damn accurate weapon, extremely heavy projo that was minimally effected by met conditions. Combine that with an extremely stable firing platform, you were talking the proverbial pickle in a barrel. The MLRS is a great piece of gear, but the biggest problem, it currently has 1 munition, M77 DPICM and the min safe distance to employ the weapon is about 1 KM. Each launcher can saturate a grid square with DPICM and what is great about DPICM is that it doesn't produce ECRs it produces kill zone were everything not under about 18" of cover is destroyed (The current unclass data for it the M42, M46 and M77 DPICM bomblet compare the frag to that of a hand grenade and penetrate about 3" of solid steel)

An additional unfortunate item is that 155mm (6.1") is largest indirect fire system out there in the US. In the naval gunfire area (or Naval Surface Fire Support as the new vague term goes) the 5" x 54 is the only remaining weapon system, there were experimental systems based on the a 8" tube, but those were rejected. The navy will be upgrading to a longer tube 62 caliber in next several years as money becomes avialable.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
STLRN,
Doesn't the department of your branch that hauls you guys around still have four Iowa class battleships in mothballs? :) You might break them out if the shooting really started. One of my first company commanders had the experience of receiving supporting fire from one during Vietnam. Don't remember which one was the first one out of mothballs (New Jersey maybe?). And he still was raving about it years later.

I'm still trying to figure out why we are still using towed 155 artillery like the M198. Now you old redlegs have to cut me some slack, four years ago all I knew about artillery was what to say into the handset to make it land where I needed it to :). But it seems to me that with all of the possible enemy systems that range ours, deploying M198s in an environment with any kind of a counter battery threat would be suicide. It seems to me like a wheeled SP system like the South African (G5 or is it G6?) would be light enough to be air transportable and able to displace fast enough to shoot and scoot.

Also, I just saw in Janes Defense Weekly that we are going to spend like 165 million dollars to figure out how to put the MLRS launcher on a truck body instead of a track. It seems to me a good General Support Maintenance unit should be able to figure that out and make it work. This seems to be almost as good a scam as when the Ordnance Department declared several thousand rifled muskets obsolete at the start of the Civil War and sold them for $2.00 each. And then several months later bought them back to equip the rapidly expanding Union Army; at $22.00 each!

All you Navy vets out there...nothing personal just a little good natured humor, feel free to shoot back at the Army :)

Jeff
 
There were 4 battleships in mothballs, I think the Navy has sent 1 over to be made into a muesuem. The current estimate for the remaining ship is it willl take 6 month per ship to get them on line.

The truck mounted MLRS is HIMARS (HIgh Mobility Assualt Rocket System) The 18th Airborne Corps has already started to adapted the system. It is a six pack of rockets on a FMTV. Because it is newer it is much faster than the M270, but since it only has 1 vice 2 six packes its ROF will drop off after the rounds are fired.

The M198 is outranged by about everything out there, with RAP the 30KM (not to mention that the standard M483 DPICM only gives you 22.3 and its improved Base Bleed M864 gives you 28.2 KM) is still 8 K less than the Base Bleed rounds on the 45 caliber G-5 and G-6, the new 52 caliber tube version can almost get 50K.

True the M198 is air mobile, but it still is 16,000 with BII. Combine this with a prime mover (M900 series truck) that is extremely difficult to move by air, you make that ability less real than perceived (In the Army the FMTV will shortly replace the M923/M925 and will allow a degree of airmobility). Also if you haven't got FMTV your prime mover really isn't rated to tow the weapon system. Current road speed limites are only about 45 MPH.

The G-6 cann't be adapted for various reason, 1) designed by a South African weapon company. 2) It weighs more than a M109A6. Unlike many American systems its armor is steel, not aluminum. Additionally, the Regimetal COs I have heard speak (Brigade for the Army) all claim that our superior target acquisition and fire direction capabilities combined with air superiority will preclude the enemies use of their superior range. I just remember all the VN vets complaining when they were attacked by Soviet built 130mm howitzers, that were out of the range fans of our 105s and 155s and since were in "safe" zone couldn't attacked by anything but artillery. So you decide if you beleive their argument.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery

[This message has been edited by STLRN (edited February 03, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by STLRN (edited February 03, 2000).]
 
I thought there were only 3 Iowa class BBs? The fourth (Wisconsin) was never completed? Or maybe there was a fith one that wasn't. The Missouri (BB63) is now at Pearl to be a memorial, the New Jersey (BB62) was at Bremerton as of 1998 (I got photos of it somewhere) but has since been towed to the Phila. Navy Yard where it's in limbo. The state of New Jersey wants it as a tourist attraction, though I can't imagine why peace loving New Jerseyans would want an "assault battleship" where children could possibly get access to it. ;) The New Jersey saw the most action in Korea, Vietnam and a little shooting when we were in Beruit in the early '80s. I have no idea what became of the Iowa (BB61). Maybe it was scrapped, which would be a real shame. I can't believe that naval gunfire only consists of 5-inch shellfire. Wouldn't that expose ships to unecessary risk having to move close in for such support? In short, I think it was a mistake to get rid of the old BBs. They're a great gun platform and probably impervious most conventional weapons, given the right support. Speaking of the M110, has anyone here ever been to the museum at Ft. Lewis in Wash. state? They've got some nice displays.

[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited February 04, 2000).]
 
ditto on the subject material, I am very interested (and am thinking about starting an online BBS for military tactics and technology, since I cannot find an existing one). if any of you have some good URLs to look at, concerning arty or other fun things, please post!

I believe the Wisconsin is being considered for museum use in Norfolk, VA. there is a museum-type place there called "Nauticus". one hurdle is that condo owners are complaining that the BB will ruin their view. ye gods! I'd pay extra to look over my balcony and see an Iowa-class ship.

Gopher, I do not believe any of the Iowa-class ships that were completed have been scrapped. I suspect the SecNav that allowed that to happen would die under "mysterious circumstances". while the refurbished ships have served well even in the 1990s, its time to draw up plans for the next ship of the line. I envision a pocket battleship, with two triple-gun 16" turrets, a vertical-launch rack, layered self-defense system, and most importantly extra armor against mines and torpedoes.

Hard Ball and STLRN, I'd love to see an overview of modern artillery (both ours and threat types). one thing that I don't have a handle on, but STLRN has brushed upon, is what guns/chassis can be transported by what aircraft. another question is the logistics. I just finished reading "Crusade" which is about Desert Storm, and the author implies that arty and air-ground munitions at the forward edge of battle were the keys to success (which is the usual American formula, is it not?). but how many trucks are needed to feed those guns?
 
The Followings links are to the FAS, from what it a disarmament group. The first covers the land systems that are currently in the inventory, the latter covers specifically indirect fire weapon system to include a look at munitions and ballistics.
The info is pretty accurate but every now and again you will run into things that aren't up to the quality of the majority of the work. There are also links on the site that bring you here to the field artillery school.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/indirect.htm

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Okay Dang it!
I'm buying the book today!

Sheesh... Talk about Peer Presure!
"But honey, they made me!"
"They made YOU?"
"But they all had guns!"
:rolleyes:
:D

------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
 
STLRN,
I had no idea the G6 was that heavy. I've seen the G5 that the MI Detachment at Ft Irwin has. But I've only seen pictures of the G6. BTW send me your e-mail as I've lost the message you sent earlier, it's somewhere in 27K plus archived messages; most from the AR15 list) Is the MC going to FMTV for prime movers? As far as I know only the 82d and 101st Airborne are currently using them in the Army. M923/M925 5 tons are limited to 40 mph even when not towing the weapons system becuase they roll over so easily. The Army is upgrading them with anti lock brakes and some other mods to eliminate the roll over problem. Personally I think the Field Artillery School should be working on deveoping a light weight self propelled 155mm howitzer with a range that is at least equal to the G5/G6. Some tactical materials handling equipment so the "light 155 units can more efficiently move and distribute ammo. I don't think we should be playing with "smart" artillery rounds. Some of the ideas I've seen look really silly. Like the round that uses a steered parafoil. :D

So with no more BBs or cruisers with 8" guns and most DDs and cruisers mounting just one gun nowadays, does the Corps plan on using air exclusively for it's forced entry from the sea mission?

Ivanhoe: "Amatures study tactics, Professionals study logistics!" this quote has been around a long time, I don't even know who to attribute it to. But it's very true. The best soldiers in the world can't win if they don't have bullets, water and food. I believe Eisenhower stated that the most important inventions for winning WWII were the 2 1/2 ton truck and the C-47 transport plane. We don't spend a great amount of our defense budget on basics like this. trucks are in short supply throughout the Army and most after action reports from major exercises and combat cry out for more trucks. But trucks aren't glamorous like fighter planes or Trident submarines. Air and sealift are some other critical shortages. Our newest transport plane, the C17 is obscenely expensive and has capabilities built into it the Air Force will never use, because they are too expensive to replace if you happen to lose one in an accident. The modified table of organization and equipment for my battery authorizes 8 5 ton trucks and trailers for ammuntion. This is to carry ammo for 6 M198 howitzers. We have no materials handling equipment so the rounds are are handled totally by hand. An ammuntion truck with a crane would make resupplying the gun line a lot faster.

George: Read fast, we'll keep the thread going :)

Jeff
 
Jeff, I believe it was von Clausewitz, though I wouldn't bet a paycheck on that (early CRS disorder). I recently read "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen Ambrose (thumbs up on that book, especially as its in paperback now for $16) and two points made were that the Germans had a big advantage in machine guns, and the Americans had a big advantage in artillery (both in accuracy and volume of fire). plus, we were moving our supply train via truck, whereas the Germans were still moving much materiel with horse-and-cart.

I'm aware of the FAS thing, but I assumed they were inaccurate due to their agenda. I'm usually sceptical of anything coming from physicists outside of their curriculum; I'm an aerospace engineer, and the thing I fear most is hardware designed by physicists. some learn engineering and do good work, the rest never get past their ego and learn the material properly.

concerning logistics, I'm impressed with the Army's transition to the HUMMV, but I'd like to see a next-gen medium truck. what with the current level of mechanization and mobility, it seems like the capability of the sharp end is limited by the thruput of the supply train. I am going to guess that the 155s can go thru one truck-worth of ammo per day on a sustained basis? so you might need one truck per barrel to get the most from your guns? that's less than your 8 trucks for 6 guns, but it sounds like that system needs more "strong back/weak mind" types to hump ammo.

as an aside, in the "Crusade" book, there's a description of an M1A1 that was "scuttled" because it got mired in an irrigation ditch in Iraq. wouldn't it be cool if the armor squadrons had engineer vehicles with 'em so they could keep rolling? :(

Jeff, I'll disagree with you partially w.r.t. "smart rounds." I really like the idea of gun-launched anti-tank missiles (what was the name of the gun-launched anti-tank missile fired from that old tank chassis?). gives you arty people the ability to really soften up enemy armor from a distance. though there is the IFF problem of course. we shouldn't assume we'll always have air superiority for deep-field air/ground work.

the C-17 is a wonderful aircraft. unfortunately, it is like a Formula 1 racer entered into a demolition derby. the sealift issue is THE issue, but nobody ever made flag rank by "hauling trash." ditto for minesweepers. I found a web page that describes some high-speed transport ships that the Navy grabbed onto; they were German commercial cargo ships purchased and converted to military use, with something like 30 kts cruise speed. unfortunately, we only have a few of them (maybe 5 or 6 total).



[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited February 04, 2000).]
 
Well that is a whole lot to discuss. The FMTV is being used by all the 18th Airborne Corps, it is “suppose” to eventually be fielded in the whole army, but couldn’t tell you when. From the several times I have seen the vehicle it is an extremely good vehicle family, there is both a 2.5 ton and an 8 ton variant, the 8 ton of course is the prime mover for the M198 in the Corps Arty. The Marine Corps on the other hand has decided to develop a truck based upon the 900 series chassis. The Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) has a 425 HP diesel vice the 225 HP diesel of the older tuck. This will finally give the Corps an 8 ton truck to move its 8 ton gun. The current plan for fielding is the next couple of years. However at the same time we will be start taking delivery of the M777 howitzer that is a 4.5-ton gun with a 39-caliber tube, it gives the current capabilities of the M198 at approximately 60% of the weight. The carriage of the M777 also has the capability to accept a 52-caliber tube. This will in theory put it on par with the current threat weapon systems. However they are currently having problems with the shock involved in firing such a light weapon system with high charges and that the current spade design doesn’t work adequately and you have a tremendous displacement problem. This weapon system will also field the towed howitzer digitization system. This will give each gun a direction and self-locating ability, no need to lay the gun or subtend angles to compute the weapons location. The gun will also compute its own firing data, so the FDC will only issue fire orders there is no need for technical fire direction in the FDC anymore. However these systems cost several million per gun, this is above the projected 2 million dollars per M777 howitzer.

A standard load out in piece time for a ammo 5-ton is 96 HE rounds (these can be mixed with other rounds, but not with WP, M825 or Illum). Each 155 He rounds nominal weight is 95 lbs., a DPICM round is 103.5 lbs. and a Copperhead weigh a heavy 135 lbs. being separate loaded ammunition powder, primer, and fuze is not included in the weight. A low zone charge like green bag is around 6 lbs. and a high zone charge like red bag is 29 lbs, that doesn’t include the dunnage they are packed in. Also, each gun truck normally will carry 16 ready rounds. Additional ammo is carried by the Logistics Vehicle System (LVS). The LVS with a palletized loading system can carry about 3 times as much ammo as a 5-ton. A single gun can fire several LVS worth of ammunition in a single day’s fight. If a large volume of fire is anticipated (a prep or counterprep) normally the BN or Regt must provide lift support in order to drop the ammo required for at each gun.

The current TO/E for a Marine firing battery is 16 5-ton trucks. Those (if everything is working) normally are broke down as follows. 6 truck for the guns, 1 for the Advanced party, 1 for the Supply, 1 for the Comm and the remainder normally are used to carry ammunition, so the battery doesn’t normally have the lift for the ammo that would be needed in a fight, so as previously mentioned, higher echelon will need to support.

We currently have the WT 4000 fork lift in every firing battery, but they often don’t work and in rough terrain they have problems keeping up to the rest of the battery. It would be great if they would field some additional type of engineering vehicle it would sure help on moving ammo, position improvements and entrenchment.

We do really heavily on air to provide initial fire support. Although the Marine Corps retains a considerable “forcible entry” capability that is not its primary mission anymore, it is much better to land the forces were the enemy isn’t than try to take a defended beachhead. Unlike several decades ago when the landing craft were limited to certain beaches, today with the LCAC, LVTP (Hopefully replaced by the Advanced Amphibious Armored Vehicle in the near future), and various types of helicopters there are very few beaches that can’t be landing sites or by passed.

The smart munitions technology for artillery has yet to mature to a sufficient level. The current available rounds the copperhead laser guided projo can have 80 plus percent hit rate, if everything is done right, but it requires a lot of training and coordination to ensure the target is properly designated. The second munition available SADARM if they fix it will be a great weapon. But as it stands each of the 2 “skeet” in each 155 round don’t provide adequate coverage of the target area. Simple put the search pattern for each munition is way too small to be effective. If the submission however sees a target, it will shoot a penetrator that can go through all know armor. The next several munition types are having trouble, example all the GPS guided rounds (ERGM, LCCM, etc) are having shock proofing problems. Unlike most air delivered ordnance a artillery round can undergo up to 30,000 Gs of acceleration, and current GPS sensors aren’t “shock proofed” to that level yet. Even without smart munitions, armor vehicles can be killed by artillery fire. Massed HE or DPICM will eliminate anything above ground. The former Soviet Union planned to kill a lot of armor by using a lot of artillery ammunition. Their firing "norms" were several times that of the west. For examle we classify duppressive fire as having the effect of degrading the enemies activity, the classified it as 30 percent casualties, that is what we consider destruction. The determine destruction is over 50 percent casualties.

The old M60A2 and Sheridan light tank fired a 152mm Shilleighly (Sp?) round



------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Regarding the gun-launched AT missle question:

(all info IIRC - corrections welcomed)

The M551 light tank had the Shillelagh missle system. This was an ATGM fired from a short unrifled tube. I forget what the guidance system was, but it wasn't wire guided. There was also a version of the M60 MBT with this gun. The missle had a pretty significant minimum range, like 800 or 1000m. For shorter ranges, there was a HESH round.

A friend's father who was a senior armor officer (O-6) at the time (early- to mid- 70's) had a very low opinion of this system. His attitude was that the 750-1000m engagement range was where the HESH round was losing accuracy due to the unrifled tube, and the missle was still getting stabilized and on target, so it wasn't that accurate either. This range was also where Soviet doctrine expected tank engagements in Germany to occur. It's obviously not good to have your main gun system have accuracy concerns in the range where your expected opponent intends to engage you.

Glad to see there are a lot of military hardware junkies floating around the group. Some links of interest: http://www.dtic.mil/soldiers/jan1999/majequip.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/index.html
 
On the subject of historical employment of artillery, here's a link to a good article on the employment of arty during WWII.

Artillery Practices by the Major Combatants of WWII

The author makes the point that the real advantage that the US had was superior fire control, such that a single controller could obtain the fires of many, many batteries (div, corp, army level) if a worthy target presented itself.
 
thanx for the data dumps and URLs. more than one 15-ton truckload per day is just unreal. can arty fodder be airdropped, or does it have to be slung under a helicopter?

JimR, as an example of the US artillery effectiveness in the ETO, the artillery spotters in light aircraft were usually able to fly around unmolested, because if anyone started taking potshots at them, the incoming artillery rounds would take the Germans out before they could get the range and azimuth on the little plane. now that's service!

the Sheridan/Shillelagh system is what I was thinking about. it may not have worked well compared to MBTs, but it could be airlifted. and it was quite innovative for that timeframe.

that FMTV critter looks neat, except for the driveshaft; looks vulnerable to a high-center situation (I high-centered one of my old man's sedans once, won't say where; statute of limitations may not have run out yet).



[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited February 04, 2000).]
 
STLRN:
Sounds like the Marines are a bit ahead of the Army with trucks and material handling equipment. I'd like to see a HEMTT in each battery for offloading ammo. You also have more 5 ton trucks then we do, but we still use 2 1/2 tons for supply, mess, and maintenance. We also have an obscene number of HMMWVs in our organization. 14 for the battery. I like your idea of using a 5 tom for advance party.

I also think that the recent reorganiztion of Army artillery (eliminating 8 gun batteries)was not a good idea. I just don't see the thinking behind saying that they can still have the same capability with fewer tubes.

Ivanhoe: The HMMWV hasn't lived up to it's expectations. They just aren't aging well. There are problems with glow plugs, glow plug controller boxes, the aluminum unibodies are developing cracks and the fiberglass front ends are fragile. They are a tremendous improvement over the commercial type Dodge and Chevy pickups and the old Gamma Goats though.

I think the C17 is a great airplane, but it's unit cost makes it impossible to have enough of them to do the mission. I just think it's better to buy something that we can afford.

I'm not so much against the concept of smart artillery rounds as I am against them because just as with the C17 we can never afford to buy enough of them to use effectively in a mid to high intensity conflict. And it's silly to develop doctrine around technology you are going to run out of. Most of my career was spent in the Infantry and I watched the development of the Dragon anti tank missle. The millions spent on development gave us a system that was too heavy, had a lot of limitations (you can't use it closer then 65 meters, it has a big firing signature, it flies slowly and requires the gunner to remain exposed for 10 seconds if you are shooting it at maximum range. You can't shoot it over water or even real wet grass as the moisture will short out the control wires.) When we first got them, McDonnell Douglas sent tech reps out to mount the trackers to the missile every time we live fired one. I asked a tech rep one time if McDonnell Douglas had a tech rep for each rifle squad in case of war. That didn't go over very well :( I agree with STLRN that we should concentrate on putting high explosive and steel on target in large quantities.

I think that in a mid to high intensity conflict all the high speed low drag weapons on both sides would be expended in about 30-45 days, then we'd be back to shooting conventional artillery and dropping dumb bombs. No nations economy can afford to by these munitions in the quantities they would be needed to sustain a conflict of any intensity for very long. We were running out of some of this stuff during the Kosovo air campaign.

Jeff
 
The writer of the article has some salient points as he states most of the information came from a “gaming convention.” I suggest anyone that is interested read two books the first called “Steel Wind, George Bruechmuller and the invention of Modern Artillery.” And second “The Age of Great Guns.” Both books discuss the evolution of artillery. There are numerous inaccuracy in his discussion of fire direction for all sides in the Second World War. First, until the invention of functional self-locating pieces in the late 1980’s all artillery (US, English, German, etc) relied upon survey. Without common survey it is next to impossible for a unit to mass its fires with other units. The least preferred method of determining battery location is the “map spot” method. This would only be down when conducting “Hip Shoots” or survey was not available, Additionally survey is normally necessary to provide directional control, the most factor in battery accuracy (Without good direction your errors will become proportional to the range to target). Second, Forward Observers (or Forward Observation Officers in the English systems) under the European system have always been the most senior officers the battery or the battery commander himself. They were selected, as the ones for the job because their decision as to whom was to receive the high value asset, of fire support, required a senior experienced officer. The US system had very junior officers as FO’s, the reason for this was the anticipation that the US could provide fires just about everywhere, also there was a certain air of the junior man should risk his life vice the more senior. Third, all artillery, no matter the nation, started to take into account meteorological factors and took into account “calibration” of the guns during the First World War. So either special data for each gun could be computed or guns were moved from unit to unit to ensure they had “a standard Muzzle Velocity Variable.” If guns were moved from battery to battery to establish weapons with similar capabilities only one set of data was necessary. Fourth, the artillery TOT was developed in the 1930’s at Ft Sill. The Time on Target was a technique in which all firing units fire their rounds at different times to ensure the rounds impact in +/- 3 seconds of the TOT, at that time it was still very hard to accomplish because of a minimal amount of radios. However, when the US went into the Second World War the use of the FDC and vast quantities of radios assured that it was quite possible to mass 30 or more Bn on a single target. Contrary to the others piece, it was not unusual to mass several BN on a target at any one time. But unlike the European model, the American model had the Fire Direction Officers in the FDC determine when massing was necessary, they would send the “request for reinforcing fire” to the higher echelon for approval or denial. Fifth, “drift” as the author mentioned is not what he is talking about. Drift is a function of time of flight and all weapons with a rifled bore will cause drift to occur. Offsetting the “aim” compensates for inertia of the projo “drifting”. (In western howitzers the rifling is to the right, so drift is always to the right. We “aim” to the left in order to compensate. Sixth, the use of airbursting is almost always preferred to quick fuzes. When using fuze quick over 70 percent of the fragmentation created goes into the ground. With airbursts most of the frag is “sprayed” over the target area. (A real good book that covers this material is “The Deadly Fuze, how the VT fuzed helped win the Second Wold Wars”) Even against entrenched troops airbursts were often effective. Against armor, it was not uncommon for the shrapnel to penetrate the thinner tops of even the best tanks. Those not destroyed by actual effects are often rendered combat incapable. It is not unusual for the frag to break tracks, strip off antennas, crack weapons sights, damage TC machineguns and main guns. Seven, all artillery, to one extent or another, used maps for target location. Although some nations may have better maps than other, coordinates obtain from maps would be compared to the coordinates of the units. Then either mathematically, through the Pythagorean theorem, a range and azimuth to target were determined. (German and Russian artillery would use the range and apply this to a calibrated range drum on the howitzer to obtain a elevation to attack the target. American would add Site to standard elevation [compensation for altitude difference between target and guns] to produce a quadrant that was applied to a level type sight to elevate the piece). The azimuth was translated into “deflection (Horizontal clockwise angle measured from the rearward extension of the line of fire). Gunners apply deflection, combined with quadrant (or range in some armies) combine with other fire commands to attack the target. The US method was the use of a “firing chart,” a Range Deflection Protractor (RDP) and either a Graphics Firing Table (GFT) or a Tabular Firing Table (TFT). The RDP provided range and azimuth (converted to deflection) off of the firing chart. This data was used to enter the TFT or GFT to come up with data. Met conditions were combined and other non-standards conditions were applied to this data to produce data to be fired.

JW we have the same problem with the HMVEE, we only have 11 in a battery, but they are often dead lined, I wish I would have invested in the company that makes glow plugs and GP controls it seems those are always going out. The front main differental also seem to go out.

The Shillelagh was an IR Beam riding missile, there were two “beams projected “ on the target and the missile would fly between the two beams until it hit something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top