crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) (11/29/90)
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) An army divides the front it covers up among its units, smaller units covering a smaller front. A platoon might cover a front of 100 yards, while a division covers a front of 15 miles. The different types of artillery units are usually under the direct command of larger units corresponding to the range of the guns. The reason is fairly simple, commanders can concentrate the firepower where it is most needed, to the maximum range of the weapon. The problem when a weapon is commanded by a unit with a front much smaller than the range of the weapon is that commanders in one unit may concentrate on a marginal target (their top priority), while another unit within range desperately needs fire support. Negotiations between peer units in combat are notoriously unproductive. For example, in World War II, division commanders often had direct command of air units. There were several instances where air units were inappropriately used because division commanders kept the air unit for themselves. Should we apply the principle of commanding a weapon at a level corresponding to its range uniformly to all weapons systems? I've given one argument in favor, are there other arguments for and against? -- Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department ...!rutgers!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (12/06/90)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) > An army divides the front it covers up among its units, smaller units covering > a smaller front. A platoon might cover a front of 100 yards, while a division > covers a front of 15 miles. The different types of artillery units are > usually under the direct command of larger units corresponding to the range of > the guns. The reason is fairly simple, commanders can concentrate the > firepower where it is most needed, to the maximum range of the weapon. The > problem when a weapon is commanded by a unit with a front much smaller than > the range of the weapon is that commanders in one unit may concentrate on a > marginal target (their top priority), while another unit within range > desperately needs fire support. Negotiations between peer units in combat are > notoriously unproductive...................... > Should we apply the principle of commanding a weapon at a level corresponding > to its range uniformly to all weapons systems? I've given one argument in > favor, are there other arguments for and against? Well I'll give it a shot. (I hope there is a more knowledgeable artilleryman on the net) To give a oversimplified answer to your question - no - that principal that you present should not be applied since it may waste combat power. One of the most important principals of fire support is never keep artillery in reserve. Looking at a typical Mech Div's Artillery (DIVARTY - a brigade-size unit commanded by an artillery colonel) - it consists of three 155mm SP Battalions one MLRS Bn, and one 8" Bn. COMMAND of field artillery units is exercised by the division artillery commander and his subordinate battalion commanders. CONTROL of artillery fires is exercised by the major manuever elements of the division (division-level and brigade-level) commanders. CONTROL is accomplished through the tactical missions assigned to the FA battalions by the manuever (or supported) commanders. Direct Support (DS). DS means that the FA unit (usually a 155 SP Bn) will provide "close and continious fire support" to a single manuever unit - usually a brigade. It will respond to 'calls for fire' almost exclusively from the brigade and its battalions. The 155 SP Bn is habitually DS to a brigade to exercise a good working relationship between the units. 1st Bde, 1st Inf Div ALWAYS had 1-5 FA Bn (155 SP) in direct support. DS means artillery teams (FIST) are sent to companies, fire support coordinators (FSCOORD) are sent to battalion CPs and the brigade CP. Reinforcing (Reinf). Reinf causes one FA unit to augment the fires of another FA unit. The 8" Bn may be given the mission to Reinf the fires of the DS 155 Bn. A Corps-level FA Brigade may be given the mission to Reinf the fires of a Divarty. Reinf means an artillery liaison officer is sent from the Reinforcing unit to the reinforced unit. General Support-Reinf (GSR). GSR units support the entire division and augment fires of other another DS unit when not providing GS fires. GSR units are contolled by Divarty and are not committed to subordinate brigades. General Support (GS). GS units support the entire division and remain under control of Divarty. ------------------------------- "Normally" each brigade gets a 155 FA Bn in DS. The MLRS is given the mission of GSR (reinf the fires of the DS Bn in the main attack/defense). The 8" Bn is held in GS. Also "normally" Corps Artillery will consists of two or more FA Brigades with a mix of 155mm/8"/175mm/Lance Bns. Corps will send its' FA Brigades down to REINF divisional divarty - and keep the Lance Battalions in GS at Corps-level. (the 72d FA Brigade habitually supported the 3d Inf Div - once, the 72d FA commander became the 3ID Chief of Staff) ------------------------------- From a 'non-redleg' point of view - I see the technology of artillery as a science and the employment of artillery as an art. Though strict command lines for artillery may increase responsiveness - I think you'd sacrifice flexibilty and the capability to task organize to fit the mission. To give a manuever commander the COMMAND responsibility over artillery units would be to overtask an already overburdened commander with unnecessary responsibilities. All the commander really needs is to coordinate fire and manuever - "place steel on target" to suppress, neutralize, or destroy. He shouldn't care how or who. Remember: "Friendly Fire - Isn't" "Incoming Fire has the right of way" mike schmitt - some of my best friends are artillerymen.