No Tuk, the standard arrangement is not like that. That construct was used during experiments only, as the IAR concept was worked through out At 29 Palms. Eby led that experimentation effort.
No Tuk, the standard arrangement is not like that. That construct was used during experiments only, as the IAR concept was worked through out At 29 Palms. Eby led that experimentation effort.
Say again last transmission. That's awfully high for a height-of-burst correction, over.Up 500.
Depends on the target array. I want maximum EMP
from that airburst.Originally Posted by Pete
I guess that's what they mean when they say you should stay flexible. I never went into the "Adjust Fire" mode with that type of round before.
Six inchers are okay but eight Inchers are great
As the Actress said to the Bishop -- she was a Howitzer fan.
The 155mm had a 100t yield IIRC. With the 203mm you had dial-a-yield. Or assemble a yield, actually and got from three kt to 40 kt. A 40kt airburst EMP would knock out every unprotected electronic device within a healthy radius with a 1,600' or more airburst. Make a few people sick, too...
Knew that, but thanks anyway.
Ok. So it was just a one off. I just wondered how the logistics of something along those lines would work. Very interesting implications though. Thanks again for the clarification. Although I do wonder wether it wouldn't have been a better idea to run an experiment with two platoons, one using the LMG/SAW mix as per Eby and another replacing the LMG section with a HE projector equipped section, say with M32s or some such. The percentages of hits for no. of rounds fired really opened my eyes (i.e., do soldiers really need to be carryign huge amounts of ammo for such miniscule hit rates- yes, I know, suppression isn't just about hitting the target- when surely SHOCK would be better, in which case HE is the way to go?)That construct was used during experiments only, as the IAR concept was worked through out At 29 Palms. Eby led that experimentation effort.
I don't think we had M32s in use back then, and certainly not any ELRP ammunition that would have made the experiment truly beneficial.
The majority opinion here seems to be that the only suppressive fire that really is effective is that which nearly kills the enemy, which is to say aimed fire that barely misses the mark. Spray-and-pray makes sense for the first minute or so of a meeting engagement, but after that fire control needs to be asserted, not always easy to do in the noise and confusion. The distinction is to shift to disciplined fire at known or suspected enemy locations, not to fire indiscriminately in a general direction.
During my day in the Field Artillery we had "Immediate Suppression" fire missions, High Explosive rounds with Variable Time fuzes (HE/VT) fired at enemy Anti-Tank Guided Missile positions. The idea was to make the ATGM gunner flinch during his aim. That was back in the DePuy FM 100-5 days of the Fulda Gap scenario.
Last edited by Pete; 12-13-2010 at 12:36 AM. Reason: Add HE/VT.
I don't even think we can realistically say that the first minute makes sense.Spray-and-pray makes sense for the first minute or so of a meeting engagement, but after that fire control needs to be asserted, not always easy to do in the noise and confusion.
I think one of the reasons why people are having a hard time getting their head around the concept of the IAR is due to our notion of not just suppressive fire, but how we see it factoring into our TTPs.
There's an exception.
A small unit might be suppressed and rise at command for a few mad seconds before one after another switch to normal suppressive fires (or run to next cover or whatever).
The sudden and probably unexpected volume of fire in combination with the acoustic effect (especially if the previous suppressive fire was quite ammunition-saving) can have a lot of psychological effect for a short time and break the previous suppression.
Such a response would likely not require the normal degree of accuracy for suppression.
Fuchs is IMO correct, there is a case for a mass of
rapid -- not necessarily automatic weapon -- fire in some ambush counteraction or surprise situation. However, in my observation, there's no 'rule of thumb' as to when and where to use the technique. Each situation and terrain set poses variables. For example, in a jungle setting, a turn into the ambush positions and rapid semi-aimed (never spray and pray -- so jcustis is also right IMO) and an assault will often be beneficial. If, however, you have a really competent enemy, they will have anticipated that if your forces use it as a technique of choice and will have mined or otherwise prepared to prove that's not always a smart choice.
Won't work too well in urban combat. Or in some cases in the mountains. Equally obviously, trying that in the desert or any open terrain -- or in deep snow -- will put you at some risk...
Immediate Suppression by Artillery can be still used, it isn't necessarily for ATGM crews alone. Conducting a good aerial, ground or just a map reconnaissance and establishing targets at likely enemy positions along a your movement route long predates ATGMs. It is really effective, particularly in those big open areas and the Arctic or heavy snow though not so much in Cities, Jungle or dense woods...
METT-TC...
Lets return to the basics and then move on from there, yes?
First we have the standard stuff where there is some distance between our troops and the enemy. Remember fieldcraft and fire control orders?
The type of fire variations are:
Deliberate. (1 shot every 6 seconds) used for long range or
sustained engagements.
Rapid. (1 shot every 2 seconds) most commonly used type of
fire. Ideal for keeping the enemies head down while not using
excessive ammunition.
Burst. (2-3 Round bursts on automatic) Used for close range
engagements or where a high volume of fire is necessary. (Probably issued to the LMG group only)
Watch and Shoot. Used when the commander wishes members
of the section to fire at any enemy they see at the given location
without further instruction.
The heavy firing would involve contacts at close to very close range (< 50m). Then actually you would be carrying out the applicable encounter action drill
But then if ambushed one does not go to ground in the killing ground but uses maximum fire together with movement to either assault the enemy or to get the hell out of Dodge.
If trapped in the open as it seems often happens in Afghanistan the use of smoke to cover yourselves from direct view may well be a better bet than emptying a magazine into the general direction of the enemy fire.
And remember... when in doubt check the manual.
Hmm...
Would you guys disapprove or approve the use of full-auto in rifles during Vietnam? Considering that that article quoted above states that the line of sight was often not much more than 5 meters in front of them, and that many engagements were around 15 meters.
Last edited by Blah; 12-14-2010 at 03:58 AM.
By the way, the inventor of the Civil War Spencer rifles and carbines, Christopher Spencer, took his tube-feed idea one step further circa 1880 when he invented the pump-action shotgun. Winchester wasted no time and came up with its own model a few years later. Spencer's invention is still with us.With a Spencer armed unit it may have happened ...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks