|
|
| |
|
Message 21 - posted by U3280211
(U3280211)
, May 15, 2009
Urnungal, thanks for the example of the 'accuracy' problem. Trailape, thanks for the detail and clarification of 'what to use when'. Hollywood would have you believe that every CAS or Indirect Fire mission is 100% successful and leaves the enemy and their equipment scattered across the battlefield in a series of small (usually burning) bitsQuoted from
this message
Yes, I must confess that films such as "One Minute to Zero" and "Born on the 4th of July" gave me the impression that the artillery could place a round on a sixpence. There is a 'creeping barrage' scene in OMtZ in which a civilian column (infiltrated by communists) is moving forward down a deep cutting and must be stopped by the combined forces of Robert Mitchum and an unseen artillery battery. The shells (small ones, I recall) burst exactly where intended but the column keeps moving forward so Mitchum relays the command to "Down five" then "fire for effect", and hey presto, the forward edge of the civilian column 'dissolves' away. This next(from Washington Post, 28-3-2003, about the battle for Nasiriyah) contributed further to my exaggerated expectaions of the wonder of artillery. With bullets and shrapnel flying, the Marines eventually called in artillery on their own position -- and then jumped over a wall to take cover from their own guns.Quoted from
this message
I should have been alerted to the more complex reality of war since the same article (by Peter Baker) does note that earlier, Marines from the same unit, called in CAS and got marmalised by a friendly A-10 which had mistaken their Hummer for a nearby Iraqui tank. In the light of your comments, above, the tactic of calling in fire on one's own position (as it is about to be taken by the enemy), and then scarpering before the whizz-bangs arrive is at best 'chancey'? (Esp. if Urnungal's Navy bods are doing the shooting)
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 22 - posted by TrailApe
(U1701496)
, May 16, 2009
To be fair, artillery can be accurate - but it does have its limitations.
Lets imagine a football pitch, about 100 yards long. You are dug in at one end, the objective is at the other end. Now if the objective has already been registered (ie fired upon and the target data stored) I would rather have the guns give it 10 rounds Fire For Effect (every gun participating in the mission fires 10 rounds at it - so a 6 gun battery would put down 60 rounds on the target) and then get up and assualt the position than assualt the position without the gunfire. As the target has already been fired, the data should be accurate and most of the rounds will fall within 25 metres ofthe target. As long as you keep your head down during the mission, you should be ok.
The media will portray all systems of war in the way that will give their story or movie more effect/drama, so its best not to take anything you see in the media as gospel.
One way to look at it is that the arty will do more damage to the enemy than you, so you pays your money and you makes your choice.
Like everything in life, its a matter of trade offs - lose two squaddies to 'friendly fire' or don't call for fire support and perhaps get decimated?
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 23 - posted by TrailApe
(U1701496)
, May 16, 2009
Lets make that football pitch 200 metres long - just to be a bit safer. 100 metres is a bit close for my liking and you could cover 200 metres before the enemy realise the barrage is finished.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 24 - posted by U3280211
(U3280211)
, May 25, 2009
Trailape (20)
I knew there was somethinmg else...
You mention the Arty having to avoid counter-battery fire by upping-sticks and moving to new ground, at short notice.
Was this done on a precautionary basis or only if the enemy possessed shell-tracking radar?
Did you use radar for your own counter-battery missions, to lob one back at the other side?
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 25 - posted by Urnungal
(U4068266)
, May 25, 2009
Radar must make the situation worse - but guns go bang, make a flash and a lot of smoke when they go off - and that tends to give away their position somewhat.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 26 - posted by laudian
(U13735323)
, May 31, 2009
Trail Ape!
You mention the Boer War?
I always understood that General Buller a most underated man and soldier was responsible for the first use of a creeping barrage at Pieters Hill in Natal March 1900! laudian.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 27 - posted by TrailApe
(U1701496)
, Jun 1, 2009
A few points to consider here.
Shoot and scoot - more of a third world war scenario as so far we have yet to come up against anyone with the artillery resources of the former Warsaw Pact. Obviously artillery is a wasted asset if the unit is trundling from A to B, but if its static and getting a hammering from the enemy, its evem more of a waste. Like everything else its a compromise - a judgment call and the deciscion to upsticks and scuttle to the next location would have been taken quite high up - probably at Brigade level. As far as I'm aware there was no 'if you fire more than 5 rounds you have to relocate' type rule - we just practiced coming in and out of action until it just wasn't funny and hoped if the balloon did go up that our gaffers valued our skins as much as we did.
As for how to locate the enemy artillery assets, well there are specific units in the artillery family set up just to do this job - Surveillance and Target Acquisition plays a big part in the artillery. Flash and sound all play a part, but remember when the jeep (GPO - Gun Position Officer) is reccying his site this is one of the factors he will take into account - ideally the guns will be sited behind a hill, so flash, smoke and sound are not as much of an issue, but you are right, a busy artillery unit has a big signature.
I didn't know that about General Buller, but as far as I'm aware, the artillery used by the Imperial Forces in S.Africa were direct fire weapons - of course this would not stop them from laying down a creeping barrage as long as the target was in their line of sight - but this exposure to the enemy must have made it a very uncomfortable mission as the Boers could conduct a counter battery shoot with their rifles - something they were no slouches with, I think you would soon run out of gunners.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 28 - posted by Urnungal
(U4068266)
, Jun 1, 2009
Most of the artillery used by the Imperial forces during the Boer War was indeed "direct fire line-of-sight" as the heavier guns were naval guns on improvised field carriages. Take a look at upload.wikimedia.org...These had relatively restricted elevation, and this was also a problem in WWI during the Dardanelles campaign - naval guns are remarkably poor at engaging targets behind a ridge line, though Cunningham (later Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndehope) did get a set of "half charge" ranging tables prepared for his ship's 4" (32-pdr) guns. The Turks had rearmed at least one of their geriatric ex-German predreadnoughts with howitzers (and RN river gunboats often had 3.7" howitzers as part of their armament for precisely this purpose)
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 29 - posted by TrailApe
(U1701496)
, Jun 8, 2009
Urnagal, yes, totally agree with you regarding the limited elevation. Our Drill Hall had one of the 'Elswick Guns' that were used in the Boer war, no elevation to speak of and what sights were there looked like they were there for 'line of sight' purposes only.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 30 - posted by ex4thhussar
(U520216)
, Jun 12, 2009
Creeping barrage ? While serving in in the 4th Queen's Own Hussars in wartime Italy I found myself under fire from my own brother's guns. I wrote about it here: www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peo...Ron
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
|