Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Accuracy
Roman    5/25/2006 1:00:00 PM
I am just wondering, what is the accuracy of modern artillery pieces (for a given range and weather conditions) assuming the use of ordinary (non-guided) projectiles?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
ArtyEngineer    SP Artillery Unit   6/1/2006 2:30:40 AM
I would like to volunteer for the SP Artillery Unit, I can provide several M1 Gunneers Quadrants and an M2 Aiming circle. I also hsve a program called G-TRAJ on my computer which is the guts behind the current FDC software. I can be the Arty Mech, Battery Gunny and FDC bubba ;)
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:13FRET Reply   6/1/2006 2:54:02 AM
Sorry, no. But you're right. As I recall 6th I.D. and it's brigade precursor had the M101A1. Seems driving baseplate stakes for the M102 was kind of a no-go. No, after I left active duty, I commanded an M101A1 btry in the Oregon Army Guard. The DS battalion for a separate infantry brigade. Could never figure it out as we had a RACO mission for Korea, where 2ID used M102s. O.K. gun, but I hated the M-12 Panoramic Telescope. The slipping scale was damn dangerous compared to the M-100 series pantel. Looks like you're a retired FIST. Welcome. There are some cool shooters here who know their stuff.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:SP Artillery Unit-Arty Engineer   6/1/2006 3:12:53 AM
Yeah, but I want to shoot charts and darts. Screw the automated fire direction, unless you can dig up a FADAC. Now that would be fun, so we could race between FADAC and the check chart on initial data. Need a 3kw generator, though, and it'd probably conk all day long. Good HCO/VCOs (horizontal/vertical control operators) could often beat FADAC on initial firing data back in the day. Hey, AE! Was their any question about you? Volunteer? Dude, your draft notice is in the mail. You've no choice. Senior NCO on the gunline in the U.S. Army is usually a senior E-6/E-7. Chief of Firing Battery. Commonly called "Chief of Smoke" or, more often, just "Smoke". That's gotta be smokeWP unless he was commissioned. I was kinda thinking battery topkick. Feed the troops, senior beer control NCO, and all-around cannon stud. Actually don't know why we couldn't rotate around after each mission, unless somebody isn't comfortable in a certain area. Except for the grunts we draft to fill slots. Damn hard enough to train them to do one job right. Do I hear incoming?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:SP Artillery Unit-Arty Engineer   6/1/2006 6:26:14 AM
Unfortunately the copy is in a library! Not sure if it's 'partial' because pages have gone AWOL or because the source document was partial. However, IIRC it's a USAF translation. I won't be that way for few months but I'll try and remember to note the doc ref. Russian arty wasn't very advanced before the revolution. They adopted the Goertz sight about the same time as the Brits but in WW1 there's no suggestion in the most reliable English language source (Bellamy's 'Red God of War') that they ever corrected for non-standard conditions, although the Brit mission in 1917 (which included a technically competant arty MG) found them using registration points, although I read it as actually witness points. However, in the 1880s there was a Russian who worked out the method of indirect fire using a centre of arc and aiming points, but nothing was done with the concept. Then in the 1890s they introduced the 'lining plane' (uglomer), an opticless dial sight, which was the original German invention.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:SP History Lessons   6/1/2006 8:12:27 AM
IsoT...thanks for the translation. It is a small confirmation of one defect of Whermacht artillery I've long suspected from other, third hand, sources. I've run across claims that when shifting more than 400 meters from the batterys known target points to new targets 10 - 15 minutes was needed to find a new firing solution and get the rounds in the air, which is 3-4 times longer than Brit or US artillery. In the situation you describe the targets appear to have been preplanned, so there should have been the possibility of having the computations and other preperation accomplished before hand. There must have been something wrong with the methods of the German artillery unit, or it was not fully trained. Nuetralizer, your opinion? And I sympathize with the 'in the library' problem. I'm several thousand kilometers from the likely librarys & archives with the serious artillery documents. And the interlibrary loan system seems to only work for common books. Orginal document copys and old periodical are difficult to obtain. I've also discovered a serious problem with improperly indexed documents. If you cant actually lay hands on the paper your research moves at glacial speed.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:SP History Lessons   6/2/2006 6:33:28 AM
The Brits were (and are) the great exponents of speed in gunnery, and in the first half of the 20th century were willing to trade speed for accuracy when it was appropriate. This meant that they ranged (adjusted) on GT (ie BT) with a sect (2 guns), what this meant was that the correction ordered by the observer (a switch (ie deflection) and add or drop) went straight onto the sights (because of gun rules/calibrating sights they could order a new range to the guns without calculating a QE), the addition taking about 1 second. This meant that from the time observer ordered his correction you should have got the next ranging rds away in less than 30 secs. Of course the observer might take a few seconds longer to judge the switch than to judge a line correction on OT. I'm not clear on who used OT in WW2, or who ordered QEs not ranges to the guns. I know the US used QEs. Of course adjusting with 1 gun wasn't too bad, but calculating the QE for each when going to FFE obviously took a bit longer. Nevertheless what took the Germans so long has got me baffled. Perhaps they had a regulation that if the adjustment was 400m or more they had to re-predict, but even then that doesn't explain 15 minutes! Mind bogglingly stupid, no wonder they lost, they clearly hadn't found, never mind lost, the plot gunnery wise. For observed fire in WW2 the Brits only predicted if the observer explicitly ordered it, else they put map data on the sights, (or it was predicted fire), and he could always order an opening data based on experience and judgement of current conditions.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:SP History Lessons   6/2/2006 8:58:29 AM
I dont know about WWII but our practice with manual computations was to use the base piece QE for all battery pieces in the FFE for 'Imeadiate Missions'. We'd compute individual QE for planned missions, but very seldom for an 'When Ready' or Imeadiate mission. The battery followed the adjusting piece, so when the FFE order came the enitre battery was set for QE & Deflection. From annedoates of a few US arttilery officers I suspect that combat experinced battalions & groups were radically modifying the fire control procedures. One former battalion ops officer described writing up a report on the more effcient procedures they had developed during 1944 and sent the document to the artillery training/doctine center at FT Sill. A few months later a letter returned from Ft Sill telling the battaion commander he was out of line and should imeadiately revert to methods taught back in the US. I've only been able to think of two reasons for the claims for Wehrmacht mission time. One is that they were using a old system depending entirely on arithmitic for finding the gun target geometry. No protractors, gridded charts, whiz wheels or other geometric aids. This would explain part of the time needed but its difficult to believe. A second possiblity is that the refrence to "battery" is a mistranslation. I've noticed Brtitish writers of the 1940s usuall refer to a twelve gun unit as a battery, as that cooresponds to the early (1939-1941) 12 gun and post 41 eight gun battery in Brit terminology. In US terms the German twelve cannon units would be a battlaion. Ten to fifteeen minutes is still slow response for a battalion but not as bad as for a battery. This possiblity is contradicted by remarks, such as that posted by IsoT of Wehrmacht battalions/groups as slow. We really need to get hold of Wehrmacht training documents from the era & see what the training standards were and what their combat unit reports indicated. I've been searching the published literature for years now & found zilch. Even autobiographys by German artillerymen have had only the vaguest evidence. Beyond that I suspect the Wehrmacht artillery had not developed the procedures similar to the French, US, or Brits for massing multibattalion attacks. Again I have not seen solid evidence, just a large number of vague remarks that add up.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:SP History Lessons   6/2/2006 9:05:32 AM
"Of course the observer might take a few seconds longer to judge the switch than to judge a line correction on OT." I always thought it easier to find the deflection correction than the range. Maybe I'm odd.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:SP History Lessons-Carl S. Reply   6/2/2006 9:31:41 AM
"Maybe I'm odd." Hardly. Add/Drops along the O-T line were always harder. Flatter the turf, the tougher the estimation. With a good known point and solid O.P. location, using an OT factor to make lateral shifts left/right of the O-T line were, relatively speaking, a piece of cake. As for individual computation of QE per gun, I understand it's done all the time now. BCS did it easily enough as long as the individual gun positions are known and imputed. This assumes terrain emplacement of weapons instead of a line, diamond, or lazy W formation. If I recall, using an M-17 plotting board also allowed for the (relatively)rapid computation of individual piece corrections w/ the FDO issuing an FDC fire order of "Use Special Corrections". Carl, I've never fired out of any position anywhere in something other than a lazy W/line. Like you said, B.P adjusts until until FFE, everybody shot the same data. Only instance was the conduct of offset registrations that were being shot at the same time as the rest of the btry was engaging targets using old registration data. Really just shooting two missions simultaneously-no big deal.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE: IsoT Reply-Germans Lovin' the God of War!   6/2/2006 11:30:25 AM
"Gemans never thought much of soviet firecontroll, but liked the amount of fire soviets could hurl" Sorry IsoT, but I didn't read closely the first time. Upon further review, saw this and started laughing my ass off. Gotta separate professional admiration from "like". Somehow, I've a vision of two Germans hunkered down in a bunker under a two hour barrage- "God, don't you just LOVE the way those guys shoot?" "Yeah, they're soooo good. Hope they don't stop. I'm really enjoying this!"
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics