Artilery question

[Ravage]

Always wondered how this works. I mean when you call for an artilery strike, you call in the coordinates, and .... what does the big gun crew do ?

Do they put it on one of these ?

http://i44.tinypic.com/ja7scx.jpg

or with mortars, a guy always looks into that little thing-a-magic on the side of the tube - how does it work ?

[The Dane]

Haha.. no, it's a bit more complicated :)

[pekka elo]

At the battery there is a plotting team which calculates the aiming values for the guns. The values are traverse and elevation which are presented in mils. The mil is an angle unit which varies by country, but it's roughly the top angle of an isosceles triangle with 1 km long sides and a 1 meter base.

The guns are then aimed by setting the desired values in the sight and then traversing and elevating until the tube is on target.

edit: Thus the required information are the coordinates and elevation of the battery and the target plus the properties and trajectory of the ammunition used. Weather data is also important to achieve good accuracy.

[Basillicus]

http://i44.tinypic.com/ja7scx.jpg

I suppose this is some Soviet artilliery piece? The D-30 we used had one just like that, but we never used it. As far as I know it's a simple mechanical calculator that could be used to calculate values for indirect fire in a case of emergency. The accuracy with that cannot be very good since as pointed out by the others, there are a lot of parameters that affect the outcome and a simple mistake easily throws the rounds off for tens or hundreds of meters.

[Ravage]

Yes it's a soviet build artilery piece. Made a pic during a show lat summer.

[Basillicus]

Some more details from the picture:
- the uppermost wheel is where you set the relative altitude/height difference between the target area and the gun.
- the silver wheel in the lower right corner of the device is where you set the elevation
- the traverse would be set with a wheel in panoramic telescope which is missing in here but would be placed in that "tube" on the upper right corner of the device

In the FDF these values would be calculated by two NCO's and the battery commander (either by hand or with a computer), and given to the gun crews. There is also fourth value, which is added or subtracted from the traverse by the gun crews depending on which gun they are using. When the guns are deployed, they are dispersed so that there's some 50-100 meters between the guns. This dispersion would be present also in the target area if all the guns would be using the same values, therefore there is this fourth value which enables that the guns can be pointing the same area. The first and fourth gun add this value to their traverse and third and sixth subtract it while second and fifth don't do anything with it. (could be also the other way around, it's been five years since I last fired a gun...)

When the values are set, it's time to use the cranks to turn the barrel where it's supposed to point. The cranks are seen in the lower right corner, they are those that have been painted green. The elevation is easy, just turn the crank until the bubble seen in the middle in the picture is balanced. Other gun models could have some markers that show when the barrel has correct elevation. Traverse is more complicated to explain. In 8 o'clock position some 8-10 meters away there is a device called collimator. It consists of magnifying glass and an internal matrix of characters. When looking trough the panoramic telescope towards the lens of the collimator it shows one of these characters, and the gun is traversed so that same characters on the reticule and the collimator are vertically aligned. E.g. if there's an A showing in collimator then the A in the reticule has to be vertically exactly in the same spot. Simpler but more inaccurate way to do this used e.g. by mortar crews is with a stick and a plate with some balls painted on it, but I don't remember exactly anymore how that was used.

Here's a picture of a collimator seen through panoramic telescope, in this case they are aligned correctly:
http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/40256/2002847897385095973_rs.jpg

Collimator from the side:
http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/39097/2005369220708123332_rs.jpg

Picture of a panoramic telescope, the wheel in the middle is where you set the traverse:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2134/1943modd1152mmhowitzerpzn1.png

[paracrusader]

I'm not too familiar with that particular artillery equipment, or most any for that matter, but I am very familiar with the procedures for requesting fires from artillery. You, as the observer (requester) do not speak with the gun crews themselves, but the FDC, or Fire Direction Center, who are a bunch of guys whose job it is to calculate, based on the data you send them, how best to make the rounds fired impact at the desired location, at the desired time, with the desired effect as specified in the call for fire. They are trained to do this with minimal equipment, but have computers to figure it all out for them. In the case of mortars, they do not technically have an FDC at battalion or company level, but are familiar with the same procedures, and they have a small, palm-pilot sized piece of gear that does all the same things that an FDC does. Their section leader or gun team leader works out the data and directs the actual tube. Generally, it will come out to an elevation and direction for the gunnners themselves, who simply orient their weapon accordingly. Hope that helps.

[Ravage]

Thanks guys - you just reminded me how much I hate math :cantbeli:

[Lerch]

Ah I love the collimater :)

[gnrbaileyd]

some countries use different techniques for calculating and aiming, as well, it depends on the system on the howitzer itself...but i'm quite impressed with the artillery knowledge in this thread!

[paracrusader]

Thanks guys - you just reminded me how much I hate math :cantbeli:

x2- thank god for the FDC nerds!

Anyways, as it was stated, every country has their own technique. I would assume that NATO has a standard procedure, but I can't say for certain. Pretty positive the english-speaking members, plus Australia, use the same format and techniques for this.

EDIT: I may not have answered, but I dig your avatar. Just sayin'

[digrar]

x2- thank god for the FDC nerds!

Anyways, as it was stated, every country has their own technique. I would assume that NATO has a standard procedure, but I can't say for certain. Pretty positive the english-speaking members, plus Australia, use the same format and techniques for this.

EDIT: I may not have answered, but I dig your avatar. Just sayin'

That's a low blow. :-(

[Erik2a4]

I believe NATO FDCs use a similar method to this, since all high-explosives are generally similar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk)

[paracrusader]

That's a low blow. :-(

Just speaking from experience, and I honestly just do not know outside of US, Canadian and British. No offense intended.

[digrar]

I was on a wrong tangent. Now that I've read it right, I'll pull my head in. I thought you were saying we didn't speak English. ;)

[paracrusader]

Ahhh... OK, just a miscommunication.

Anyways, yeah, just saying what I know, although I'm sure everyone has a standardized format, and I'm sure, as far as NATO goes, at the height of the cold war, if not now, that most NATO FSOs (fire support officers, or whatever the equivalent is), were familiar with the basic techniques in English. I'm curious to know for sure. Were American, Canadian, ect taught this in, say, German, for example?

[StuRat]

Ah I love the collimater :)

Collimator Infinity!

[gnrbaileyd]

its great! when it doesnt fog up...lol

[StuRat]

Or the detachment 'tard doesn't kick it over p-)

For the other Arty guys here, does the CP send this down the line to the guns?

Fire Mission, followed by guns to engage
High Angle
Ammunition
Load
Line
Fuse Setting
AMC
Elevation
Method of Adj/ Method of FFE
Description of target

[tercio67]

The FDC focus is on missionmanagement/deconfliction and logistics but remains capable to calculate trajectory for the gun(s) if needed.

In the Netherlands we use PzH2000 and this gun calculates the trajectory for itself.
No external aiming devises such as collimator or aiming posts ase used, the gun alaigns itself automatically to within 0.2 mils with the aid of the on board navigation system and ring-laser-gyro's mounted on the barrel.

The gun can still be manually aligned in a emergency, this however means that the gun will become stationary and the time needed to execute a firemission will exeed 30 seconds.

[Basillicus]

For the other Arty guys here, does the CP send this down the line to the guns?

--

I digged up my notes since I don't remember anymore, and the format for the fire mission in FDF is following although I don't know the correct English terms:
- fire mission
- name of target (I guess this is optional, and present only for preplanned targets)
- altitude difference setting
- traverse/deflection
- the value used for controlling dispersion
- elevation
- type of fire mission (how many shots etc.)
- type of ammunition (amount of propellant, type of projectile, type and settings of fuze)
- loading command
- firing command

Some of these can be occationally skipped if they are obvious.

[StuRat]

- altitude difference setting

Is that whether its high or low angle?


- the value used for controlling dispersion
Can you explain this one a bit better?

[Basillicus]

Is that whether its high or low angle?

What do you mean with high and low angle, elevation of the barrel? Well, it's not directly related to that. It's an additional value which is set in the sight when the target and the gun are not on the same altitude above sea level. If the target is for example on a hill 200 meters higher than the battery, this has to be taken into account. Of course in the end it does affect the elevation of the barrel, but I don't know why it's a separate setting and not just added somehow to the elevation setting during calculations.

My theory is that it could be a separate setting because the calculations are done mostly in two dimensions for historical reasons (=simplicity). Adding the third dimension, height, to all calculations would have required too complex precalculated tables, and doing the calculations would have taken significantly more time. So it was simpler to just add one additional knob to the sight that could be used to compensate the error in situation where one additional dimension is required, and calculate a simple table of values for it. But I don't know if this is true, I didn't receive much any training to this calculation stuff.


Can you explain this one a bit better?

Check the post #6 in this thread, it's the "fourth value" I'm talking about in there.

[tercio67]

What do you mean with high and low angle, elevation of the barrel? Well, it's not directly related to that. It's an additional value which is set in the sight when the target and the gun are not on the same altitude above sea level. If the target is for example on a hill 200 meters higher than the battery, this has to be taken into account. Of course in the end it does affect the elevation of the barrel, but I don't know why it's a separate setting and not just added somehow to the elevation setting during calculations.

My theory is that it could be a separate setting because the calculations are done mostly in two dimensions for historical reasons (=simplicity). Adding the third dimension, height, to all calculations would have required too complex precalculated tables, and doing the calculations would have taken significantly more time. So it was simpler to just add one additional knob to the sight that could be used to compensate the error in situation where one additional dimension is required, and calculate a simple table of values for it. But I don't know if this is true, I didn't receive much any training to this calculation stuff.



Check the post #6 in this thread, it's the "fourth value" I'm talking about in there.

For the basic calculation you measure the distance from the firing unit to the target. To overcome this distance you translate this into elevation.
This is a two-dimensional calculation, in reality you will fire in a three-dimensional environment. If the target is not at the same height as the firing unit you have to compensate for this.
If you take the distance and visualise this as the radius of a circle you will notice that if you lift the firing-ark in order to fire at a target that is on a hill and 200m above your position there is a gap between the edge of the circle and the target. The distance between the edge of the circle and the target needs to be added to the radius (the measured distance) this new 'corrected' distance than translates into a new 'corrected' elevation.

In a stationary firing unit most calculations are based from the center of the unit area to the center of the target area.
All gun tubes are parralel to each other, the impact points of the firing unit will resemble the positions of the guns in the firing unit, in order to achieve a disired pattern in the target area you can order individual guns to set an extra value in order to get the disired pattern, this can be a lineair, w , point or circular pattern. Together with the right ammunition and fuze settings this creates the desired effect on the target area.

High- and Low-anle simply means above or below 800 mils elevation, a high-angle will give you the possibility to fire over objects/obstacles and low-angle will give you greater range. Flight time and angle of fall will be effected accordingly. The effectiveness of each method may vary with ammunition used and effect desired.
The use of 'high-angle' in a fire order can mean for some gun types that a small adjustmant needs to be made before the fire mission can be executed.

[StuRat]

Just checking, our computer systems must account for the differences in height about sea level because we only apply a bearing and an elevation to the sight.

The second thing to come down from the CP is whether its high angle or not, just to give us time to get the barrel up to 800mils, most of the time we just use low angle.

[tercio67]

The computer replaced the slide rule and in the future smart rounds wil make our job even more easy.
In 2011 we will get course correction fuzes and laser guided projectiles, too late for Afghanistan but perhaps in time for a African deployment.

[breki]

For those interested, the GPO/CPO's sequence of orders to the guns in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery;

Warning Order
Type of Engagement
Trajectory
Ammunition
Converge
Bearing
Quadrant Laying
Gun Correction
Fuze Correction
Fuze Setting
Load
At My Command
Elevation
Method of Adjustment or Order for FFE
Description of Target


Some of these orders are not used too often anymore, they only apply to MAPS (Manual Arty Plotting System) thank God we don't do that anymore.

The orders in bold must be included, the rest are as required.

The Canadian system I imagine is very similar to other Commonwealth countries with minor differences, for example, 'Line' in Austalia must mean bearing?

The American system is completly different so don't ask me about that, it seems messed up.

And as far as that photo of some ancient Russian Gun, who cares how it works? Welcome to the 21st century. While Canada still has sights and survey gear, our guns in theatre are digitized.

Oh yeah, and we also do Fire Discipline in French.

Bonjour.

[paracrusader]

Odd, I could have sworn that I've heard Canadians on the net calling for fire from US indirect fire, using standard US format. Is this something you're taught, say, if you are operating where you might recieve support from US assets? Maybe they had a "cheat sheet". I've recieved air support on numerous occasions from non-US aircraft, and there seemed to be a standard format for directing CAS. I know first hand that the Canadian version of MEDEVAC request is different, unfortunately in one incident that difference nearly had terrible consequences.

Anyways, the US CFF (call for fire) seems a bit simpler. However, does anyone else feel like describing the actual procedures may be a bit dangerous? I attended some training with non-US personnel that included a portion on CFF, and during the CFF, the non-US personel did not attend. I assumed that it was because it was sensitive in nature, considering US and allied radio systems have gone missing in the past.

By the way, I'm an infantryman, so I don't know first hand what the gun bunnies do with the data, but I've recieved quite a bit of training on the subject. In other armies, how is CFF taught? We always have an FO (forward observer) with us at the platoon level, often times a 2-man team, and many times we have an air force guy, possibly two, to direct CAS. But every man in any platoon I've been in was able to request and direct fires from artillery and mortars, and most of us were familiar with CAS and rotary wing procedures. Is this common?

[gnrbaileyd]

Odd, I could have sworn that I've heard Canadians on the net calling for fire from US indirect fire, using standard US format. Is this something you're taught, say, if you are operating where you might recieve support from US assets? Maybe they had a "cheat sheet". I've recieved air support on numerous occasions from non-US aircraft, and there seemed to be a standard format for directing CAS. I know first hand that the Canadian version of MEDEVAC request is different, unfortunately in one incident that difference nearly had terrible consequences.

Anyways, the US CFF (call for fire) seems a bit simpler. However, does anyone else feel like describing the actual procedures may be a bit dangerous? I attended some training with non-US personnel that included a portion on CFF, and during the CFF, the non-US personel did not attend. I assumed that it was because it was sensitive in nature, considering US and allied radio systems have gone missing in the past.

By the way, I'm an infantryman, so I don't know first hand what the gun bunnies do with the data, but I've recieved quite a bit of training on the subject. In other armies, how is CFF taught? We always have an FO (forward observer) with us at the platoon level, often times a 2-man team, and many times we have an air force guy, possibly two, to direct CAS. But every man in any platoon I've been in was able to request and direct fires from artillery and mortars, and most of us were familiar with CAS and rotary wing procedures. Is this common?

The American and Canadian systems for calling in fire are completely different. Canadian's use a Fire Effects Officer (formerly called a Forward Observation Officer) who has complete control over nature of ammunition, ammount of guns to fire, number of rounds in effect, etc. A Canadian FEO will send a Warning ORDER, whereas the Americans REQUEST a fire mission. From my understanding when I was deployed in Afghanistan and we received some missions from an American FEO, The FEO for an American call sign is typically a SGT who has received a course to be able to adjust fire onto a position. Everything else is done by the Command Post at the Gun Line. I remember for these missons that the American was directing he was getting coached by one of our Canadian FEO's. It worked out well and the aim was achieved, however, NATO should probably think about possibly making Artillery Fire Discipline standard across the board, for all NATO countries. As for the FAC, I know that Canadian FAC's go to the States for a lot of their course, I believe that NATO HAS made this a standard format. Hope this helps!

[StuRat]

The Canadian system I imagine is very similar to other Commonwealth countries with minor differences, for example, 'Line' in Austalia must mean bearing?

Yeah, line is bearing. We seem to have the same Essential Orders

Fire Mission
Ammunition
Line (Bearing)
Elevation
Method of Adj/Method of FFE

In Australia, the forward observer orders in a fire mission and relays all the data to the CP, and can then adjust after the rounds start to land. AFAIK we use a system like the Canadians do, attach a couple of FOs to the infantry, and then allow them to call in the fire mission.

[paracrusader]

Thanks! Really, I was just curious. I definitely agree, CFF should be standardized, as well as MEDEVAC. I would have thought that since we've been operating together for so long, it would have been done by now. I worked a bit with CF in 2005-06 in southern A'stan.

You are absolutely right, even the company FSO, which is an officer, as opposed the the platoon-level NCOs, requests fire, as opposed to ordering it. They are, or should be, able to request specific ammunition, dispersal and number of rounds, method of engagement, ect. It's actually their entire job, technically, and they do attend formal schooling and should be extremely knowledgeable on all matters relating to indirect fires and effects. They are supposed to be able to do alot more, but the way we train is for a very brief message, leaving the details up to the gunners. Do you have FO/FEO at the platoon level?

I guess I was mistaken about CF using US-style CFF.:cantbeli:

[N-G-F-O]

Fire Mission.
Grid.
Bearing.
Description.
Ammunition.
Fuse.
Height.
ToT.
Salvo.
FFE.

[The Dane]

This is a great tread. Lots of good information. 7 years in the Danish artillery as M109 and M113(observerteam) driver.

[gnrbaileyd]

Thanks! Really, I was just curious. I definitely agree, CFF should be standardized, as well as MEDEVAC. I would have thought that since we've been operating together for so long, it would have been done by now. I worked a bit with CF in 2005-06 in southern A'stan.

You are absolutely right, even the company FSO, which is an officer, as opposed the the platoon-level NCOs, requests fire, as opposed to ordering it. They are, or should be, able to request specific ammunition, dispersal and number of rounds, method of engagement, ect. It's actually their entire job, technically, and they do attend formal schooling and should be extremely knowledgeable on all matters relating to indirect fires and effects. They are supposed to be able to do alot more, but the way we train is for a very brief message, leaving the details up to the gunners. Do you have FO/FEO at the platoon level?

I guess I was mistaken about CF using US-style CFF.:cantbeli:


As for the CASEVAC, when I was in A'Stan last, we used the American 9 liner to call in a CASEVAC since, well, it was the Americans evacing us! lol. As for who's attached where, typically we have one Fire Effects Detachment attached to a company... The FED consists of the FEO, FAC, Fire Effects Technitian (the "double check" for the FEO), a sig, gunner and driver. All Master Corporals and above in the infantry and armoured recce are also trained on how to call in fire, however it is a bit different as they typically contact the FEO and the FEO relays in proper Fire Discipline to the gunline.

I've got to agree that this is an excellent thread. I'm lovin hearing about how all the different countries call in fire and the differences and similarities. Thanks all!

[paracrusader]

As for the CASEVAC, when I was in A'Stan last, we used the American 9 liner to call in a CASEVAC since, well, it was the Americans evacing us!

I've got to agree that this is an excellent thread. I'm lovin hearing about how all the different countries call in fire and the differences and similarities. Thanks all!

Did that CASEVAC by any chance involve a LAV that had rolled over? We were on a patrol not far from Kandahar a few years back and came upon some Canadians in a bad way and gave them a hand.

Additionally, in most US infantry units, there's a FSO (fire support officer), typically a LT or maybe a CPT, and an FSNCO, typically a SSG or SFC, plus an RTO for them, who plan and coordinate fires at the company level. On mission, they accompany the HQ, while the platoon FO and his RTO accompany their platoons. There's a seperate schooling, which from my experience, most FOs do attend, to coordinate CAS, but the air force prefers that their own guys do it.

Definitely an awesome thread, BTW.

[breki]

Yeah, line is bearing. We seem to have the same Essential Orders

Fire Mission
Ammunition
Line (Bearing)
Elevation
Method of Adj/Method of FFE

In Australia, the forward observer orders in a fire mission and relays all the data to the CP, and can then adjust after the rounds start to land. AFAIK we use a system like the Canadians do, attach a couple of FOs to the infantry, and then allow them to call in the fire mission.


Sounds pretty familliar. Imagine, you are half way across the world and we conduct business the same way.

Ubique, my friend.

[breki]

Fire Mission.
Grid.
Bearing.
Description.
Ammunition.
Fuse.
Height.
ToT.
Salvo.
FFE.

This naval gunfire?

[StuRat]

This naval gunfire?

Looks like what the FO would send to the CP

[Gunge]

aiming circles (surveying equipment)
wiz wheels (plotting boards)
firing tables,TFT's (elevation based on range/elev to tgt)
plus good old compass
i miss the old days (late 80's mortar gunnery)

thanks for great thread gents

[breki]

Looks like what the FO would send to the CP

That's exactly what it is. The term 'salvo' I have only heard applied to naval gunfire with American ships.

In Canada, the elements of the observer's call for fire;

Observer's Identification
Warning Order
Location of Target
Direction
Description of Target
Type of Engagement
Trajectory
Ammunition
Distribution of Fire
At My Command
Method of Adjustment or Order for FFE

Again, the must orders are in boldface. It is worth noting that these are in fact orders, from an authorized observer (ie: a FOO in his own Battery.) Anyone who is not authorized requests.

[StuRat]

Observer's Identification
Warning Order
Location of Target
Direction
Description of Target
Type of Engagement
Trajectory
Ammunition
Distribution of Fire
At My Command
Method of Adjustment or Order for FFE


These look similar to what ours are, but I think we have a few less. I didn't really look at them on course because we'd learn it when we went through FO training.

[tercio67]

Re: 'SALVO'

The term 'SALVO' is used by the FO in order to ask for two guns while adjusting fire.
He wil do this if the angle between the Direction (bearing from FO to target) and the Gun Firing Line (bearing from gun to target) becomes greater than 500mils. If this angle is greater than 500mils the FO will look at the Probable Error in Length (only about 50% of rounds will fall as calculated, the other 50% will fall short or far; 25%-16%-7%-2%) and it will be difficult to give good adjustments. When he asks for SALVO he can use the average of two impacts in order to give a good adjustment.

[paracrusader]

That's exactly what it is. The term 'salvo' I have only heard applied to naval gunfire with American ships.

In Canada, the elements of the observer's call for fire;

Observer's Identification
Warning Order
Location of Target
Direction
Description of Target
Type of Engagement
Trajectory
Ammunition
Distribution of Fire
At My Command
Method of Adjustment or Order for FFE

Again, the must orders are in boldface. It is worth noting that these are in fact orders, from an authorized observer (ie: a FOO in his own Battery.) Anyone who is not authorized requests.

Now that I see it put like that, the American technique is really nearly identical. The method of adjustment, however, is not required. Target location can be expressed as a grid, a distance and direction from the observer, or in realtion to a point that is known to the observer and the FDC. Generally, the description of the target, i.e. "troops in fighting positions", will dictate the type and distribution of rounds, and so is not usually specified by the observer, but decided by the FDC. Trajectory is also dictated by the FDC. "At my command", is not always used, and may be replaced by "time on target", to specify a specific time that it is desired for the rounds to impact, or "when ready", meaning the guns will fire as soon as they are ready. Each technique, obviously, has different applications.

Never heard the term "salvo", but then again, I've never trained to work with naval gunfire.

[breki]

These look similar to what ours are, but I think we have a few less. I didn't really look at them on course because we'd learn it when we went through FO training.

Do you guys have the same terms for the people who work on the gunline? Like CPO, GPO, BSM, TSM, BK and all that?

[breki]

Re: 'SALVO'

The term 'SALVO' is used by the FO in order to ask for two guns while adjusting fire.
He wil do this if the angle between the Direction (bearing from FO to target) and the Gun Firing Line (bearing from gun to target) becomes greater than 500mils. If this angle is greater than 500mils the FO will look at the Probable Error in Length (only about 50% of rounds will fall as calculated, the other 50% will fall short or far; 25%-16%-7%-2%) and it will be difficult to give good adjustments. When he asks for SALVO he can use the average of two impacts in order to give a good adjustment.

What you are discribing here is what we call 'lane' in Canada. Rather than fire two guns, however, the observer calculates the lane in mils left and right and so he just knows that all the rounds falling within his lane are good to go. This is especially important when firing full-zone (more than 500 mils.)

Again, the salvo business, all I know about that is that to fire guns from American ships you have to say '3 Salvos FFE' rather than '3 rounds.'

[breki]

Now that I see it put like that, the American technique is really nearly identical. The method of adjustment, however, is not required. Target location can be expressed as a grid, a distance and direction from the observer, or in realtion to a point that is known to the observer and the FDC. Generally, the description of the target, i.e. "troops in fighting positions", will dictate the type and distribution of rounds, and so is not usually specified by the observer, but decided by the FDC. Trajectory is also dictated by the FDC. "At my command", is not always used, and may be replaced by "time on target", to specify a specific time that it is desired for the rounds to impact, or "when ready", meaning the guns will fire as soon as they are ready. Each technique, obviously, has different applications.

Never heard the term "salvo", but then again, I've never trained to work with naval gunfire.

What your talking about here seems more like what we would consider to be an all arms call for fire, like an infantry guy calling for a mission. However, it is always a Canadian FOO who deciedes what orders will be sent to the guns, therefore the guns are always ordered what to do. What is this FDC? Is that at the guns or somewhere else? On our gunline we have a command post, they take their orders from the FOO and then order the guns what to do. We have a Fire Support Coordination Centre, but I don't think it is the same.

[paracrusader]

What your talking about here seems more like what we would consider to be an all arms call for fire, like an infantry guy calling for a mission. However, it is always a Canadian FOO who deciedes what orders will be sent to the guns, therefore the guns are always ordered what to do. What is this FDC? Is that at the guns or somewhere else? On our gunline we have a command post, they take their orders from the FOO and then order the guns what to do. We have a Fire Support Coordination Centre, but I don't think it is the same.

FDC, or "Fire Control Center" is the command post for the guns. The FO speaks directly with them, not through the FSO (Fire Support Officer). IT's less streamlined that way, with the intent of being able to recieve fires quickly. The FSO primarly coordinated fires prior to operations, and keeps the individual FOs abreast of any changes to available assets, and plans and coordinates fires prior to operations.

Although I am an infantry guy, whose knowledge is limited. We're given the authority to request fires, at any time, but I've yet to see someone not recieve fires when needed.

[StuRat]

Do you guys have the same terms for the people who work on the gunline? Like CPO, GPO, BSM, TSM, BK and all that?

We have BC, BK, BSM, BG, Sig SGT etc. the CP is where it all happens, fire is called in by the FO's and relayed to the guns in the format that I've written about.

[breki]

We have BC, BK, BSM, BG, Sig SGT etc. the CP is where it all happens, fire is called in by the FO's and relayed to the guns in the format that I've written about.

What is the BG?

[StuRat]

Battery guide, goes to scope out the new positions WO if I remember correctly

[breki]

Battery guide, goes to scope out the new positions WO if I remember correctly

Oh. This is what we call the BRO. Battery Recce Officer.

[breki]

Tell me more about the artillery in other countries.

Do you celebrate St Barbara's Day?

[StuRat]

Yeah, we do but didn't do too much this year as we have a few guys missing (deployments, courses etc)

We do a 21 gun salute on Australia day and the Queens birthday, as well as a mounted parade on ANZAC Day

[Basillicus]

Tell me more about the artillery in other countries.

Do you celebrate St Barbara's Day?

I remember she was mentioned in many occations, but we didn't have any specific celebrations, maybe because St Barbara's Day is so close to our independence day.

Edit:
One thing I've always wanted to know is how much do people train with live ammunition in artillery forces around the world? I remember someone claiming that in many countries it's actually quite rare and there aren't many suitable firing areas. We were almost always practicing with real ammunitions without restrictions (though we were using mostly 105, 122, and 152mm howitzers that have pretty limited range anyway). I was dealing with the guns only during the reserve NCO school, and even during that I think I fired some 100-200 live rounds.

[breki]

Yes, Canadians fire live rounds in training. The contry is large, no prob to find impact area.

[StuRat]

We fire live rounds all the time, as a reservist 2-3 times a year is common. Australia has **** loads of space to fire artillery, even Tasmania (The little island down the bottom) has a range where we practice.

We are limited to charge 4 though because the range is too short, we used to shoot onto an offshore rock, but had to stop because apparently we were taking out too many seals