Artillery

[Airborne]

Hey idiot, the moron over here called you stupid... or maybe you called him that, whatevah...

I'm struggling with why a guy named Gyrene and a guy named Airborne seem to have entirely different understandings of artillery best practices.

I think it's time for a credential check.

Gyrene, Airborne, what is the source of your understanding of artillery best practices, both modern-day and historical (yes, very funny, I know)?

Put up or shut up. I'm into the sheet stirring thing today.

I also note that neither of you are doing much sourcing here... hmmm.

Well, let's see, I am the Fire Support NCO (13F, Fire Support Specialist. MOS 13F) for the company to which I am assigned, JFO and JFCC qualified, a 10 year veteran, military history major at American Military University, last 12.5 months executed over 2000 rnds IDF from a manual gunnery system, roughly 1200 IDF from digital gunnery system... 0 colalteral damage incidents, all mission fired using map, range estimation and compass for target location, only missions fired with pre-processed data through available channels are training missions.

And maybe I didn't make myself clear about the NGF, so my fault. Only an idiot tries to put an AP round from NGF into a tank, and yes, when ship-on-ship takes place, I'm sure they used AP rounds to get past the heavy "armored belts" at/near waterline. HE, HE/Q is the preferred method for hitting LAND targets. Because regardless of equipment used to get target location, when met data comes into play you are not going to be able to put an AP round into a tank at any distance.

To give you an example, I have used a digital gun system, land based, self-locates itself up to 1 meter and relocates itself after every round fired. Using some of the most accurate precision target location equipment available to the military, even that system- stable, on land, was close, but not a hit on the target. AP has to hit the target to be effective. HE, HE/Q, even HE/VT or HE/ET can get effects on target for the FFE phase if the last adjusted round was within 50 meters; however, HE/ET and HE/VT would only really be used to pop supporting infantry but you might get lucky and get the tank CDR..

^^ Firing data for corrections, effective munitions are pulled from JFire and FM 6-30 which is being redrafted into FM 6.09-30


The fact of the matter is everyone makes this appear to be such a difficult process, and while I would never say "anyone can do it," with training and practice it is, or does, become a simple process. There are, of course, some things I can't exactly put up here to really paint the picture; obviously I have to be careful with what I post. But hopefully people will get the picture. This is not a difficult process!

[Airborne]

I would add, for anyone who's done simple parabolic motion problems - usually covered in basic physics - if you have LOS on a target, you often have more than one firing solution. I'd note, though, that max range is single-valued.

I would also note that, for example, a 155 battery can effectively saturate an "area" in a relatively small amount of time using IF. Thus, how accurate do they really need to be? Consider that a battery of six 155mm can put six 150m kill-radius (soft human targets only) big-ayused shells on target in the span of some seconds, depending on how distant. How far can a tank move in that amount of time? Also note that ROF on the M114 Long Tom, max, is around 4/min. If you've got an observer, concevably, instead of firing all six at once, they'd walk 'em on to your tank by firing sequentially. Big guns work. Don't believe it? The US Army does - and has developed IF to a sick level - especially in terms of ROF, given that some of the new SP guns can have multiple shells airborne at once.

 

[321BAR]

Whats with the m18

every single thing that goes on in my head has that strange voice whispering to me like a psycho's voice saying "kill them...kill them... In...an... M-18...."

[gyrene81]

The fact of the matter is everyone makes this appear to be such a difficult process, and while I would never say "anyone can do it," with training and practice it is, or does, become a simple process. There are, of course, some things I can't exactly put up here to really paint the picture; obviously I have to be careful with what I post. But hopefully people will get the picture. This is not a difficult process!

On that we finally agree, not anyone can do it and it takes training and practice. For a guy with 6 weeks of boot and 2 to 4 weeks of added training before being shipped to the front lines...there were a lot of difficult processes.

Well, let's see, I am the Fire Support NCO (13F, Fire Support Specialist. MOS 13F) for the company to which I am assigned, JFO and JFCC qualified, a 10 year veteran, military history major at American Military University, last 12.5 months executed over 2000 rnds IDF from a manual gunnery system, roughly 1200 IDF from digital gunnery system... 0 colalteral damage incidents, all mission fired using map, range estimation and compass for target location, only missions fired with pre-processed data through available channels are training missions.

And maybe I didn't make myself clear about the NGF, so my fault. Only an idiot tries to put an AP round from NGF into a tank, and yes, when ship-on-ship takes place, I'm sure they used AP rounds to get past the heavy "armored belts" at/near waterline. HE, HE/Q is the preferred method for hitting LAND targets. Because regardless of equipment used to get target location, when met data comes into play you are not going to be able to put an AP round into a tank at any distance.

To give you an example, I have used a digital gun system, land based, self-locates itself up to 1 meter and relocates itself after every round fired. Using some of the most accurate precision target location equipment available to the military, even that system- stable, on land, was close, but not a hit on the target. AP has to hit the target to be effective. HE, HE/Q, even HE/VT or HE/ET can get effects on target for the FFE phase if the last adjusted round was within 50 meters; however, HE/ET and HE/VT would only really be used to pop supporting infantry but you might get lucky and get the tank CDR..

You're a lucky dog...if I had that stuff I could have made better impressions on the officers. As it was, sketchy copied topo map, binoculars, radio and windage and elevation...practice, practice, practice. Tanks were easier...LOS. The big BBs in WWII fire primarily AP to penetrate reinforced concrete fortifications...not just other ships.

[IronDog]

The SU 152 was a powerful weapon,but it didn't do all the killing of Ferdinands or Elephants as they were called.Nashorns were in the same category.Good guns,thin armor,and no weaponry to keep the legs from over running them.They didn't make very many of them as they just weren't worth the effort put into them,and the Germans used more mobile types of anti tank measures.Seems like everything the Ruski's made was heavily armored with a big gun.The infantry were pawns,and slain in large numbers.When the enemy captured some territory from the Germans,they were about to get hit with a accurately plotted artillery barrage.The Germans were masters of defensive warfare.One of the reasons the war lasted so long in the ETO.If Hitler would have kept his nose out of the planning the Germans would have been better off for it.That they couldn't bother Hitler on D-Day while he was sleeping was simply pathetic.Several large German Units were waiting for the word to counter attack,like Rommel wanted to do,right at the beaches.While Hitler snoozed enough troops got ashore and it was too late at that point.
Great Grandpa Dobe

[PJ_Godzilla]

Yes, but tell me that it wouldn't be neat to  use a Nashorn out at range, plinking away at T-34s from a hilltop somewhere...

[IronDog]

I have a Game and I prefer the Nashorn if I can get one.I don't use Elephants to large and their movement is really restricted in game.My Favorite is the 88 non AAA model.It takes out anything the Ruski's have.I set it up in ambush mode,and if any unsuspecting vehicle,tank,etc get caught in the web it's obliterated.The Game I play is nearly ten years old,Panzer General III,a Russian front type of game.Extremely addictive.It's always nice to run in to people that study vehicles,tanks,etc,of WWII.The Military Channel has a program that shows people restoring old WWII tanks,vehicles.Its a must watch program for me.I watched the one where a Elephant was restored,and it was really neat.It's located in the USA,and I think the Russians have one as well..I think everyone will agree with me that restoring the P-38,, Glacier Girl,has to be one of the top restores ever.The is a guy south of me in Utah,that restores WWII Tanks and vehicles and he has a bunch.He also has a bunch of money!!!
Nice blog here,as I like WWII history,with a real interest in German equipment.I have forgotten the K/D ratio for Germans verse Russian tank,but it was like one lost to ten killed in favor of Germans,but you can't fight the numbers.Kind of like you kill one,and two pop up.Hitler was a fool to attack Russia.
Great Grandpa Dobe