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: Time on Target Questions
apoorexcuse    9/18/2007 11:47:27 AM
I am a bit confused regarding TOT and its use. My first understanding is that it was/is simply the precise timing of artillery fires on a target. Now, I have since then seen it applied to more specific and detailed uses such as: Precise and timed fires beginning at one point and then moving to a new (predetermined) point and so and so forth, so that as the intended recipient (such as infantry or armor) attempts to escape they continue to receive precise fires. Or in other cases it is described as a precursor to armor (or infantry or other forces) moving into a position. In one case it would seem to more a part of a defending force, in the latter an attacking force. My guess is that my original understanding is closer to what pure TOT is, and the subsequent examples are uses of TOT as a part of other action. And one other related question, who and when first formalized the concept of TOT (at least since modern artillery)? Thanks
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Carl S       9/27/2007 12:31:34 PM
It depends on the era & army.  In the US it was possible for the WWII FO to dial in each battery individually.  The faster method was for the battalion fire direction center and the battery fire control team to plot the targets of the other batterys in the battalion and compute the range, direction, and time of flight themselves.  The Brits followed the same method, although their procedures were different.

So lets assume the FO of battery A calls for a fire mission on target 1.  The other batterys in that battalion can monitoring the same circut.  If the battalion CO or officer on watch in the CP decides the target rates fires from the entire battalion he gives the following order over the comm  circut: "Battalion;  Target 1; Adjust Fire Battery A;  Battalion  Six Rounds in Effect.   This alerts the other batterys, confirms that battery A is to continue to fire adjusting rounds, that the other batterys are to follow the adjustments on their charts, and the others should have computations for the FFE ready.  When the adjustment is complete the order "Battalion; FFE Target 1; Time on Target 08:32" is given.

To save time standard items like projectile, fuze, ect.. can be established previous and included in the fire order only when a deviation from the standaard is called for.

There is of course the option of skipping the adjusting rounds and call for a FFE directly.  This is commonly done for prelanned targets, or when speed is necessary.  It is fairly common for each battery to follow the adjustments of the others on registration points and preplanned targets.

This all can be reproduced at the next levels.  Each battalion CP passes locations of critical targets to the regiment/brigade and higher which would be passed to the other battalions.  It was also fairly common to have a conduct of fire communications circut for a regiment or a group of brigades, So that when a battery FO spotted a appropriate target several battalions could join the mission.  With these methods it was possible to mass group of 3-4 battalions on a target of opportunity nearly as fast as a single battery.   
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       9/27/2007 10:59:34 PM
"
And how close is the timing by a good FO, 1 second, 100ms?
"

It varys by situation.  In the case I refered to the circumstances allowed very tight timing.  The rounds that were five seconds off were quite obvious.  In other situations that much precision would be unobtainable or irrelevant.

With 105mm howitzers the effctive casualty radius is roughly 15 to 25 meters.  The typical probable error for point of impact falls between ten and thirty meters depending on the range & other conditions.  I vaguely recall from the artillery school days the student Lts had to get the adjusting rounds within 25 meters of the target.
 
Quote    Reply

apoorexcuse       9/28/2007 8:21:10 AM
With 105mm howitzers the effctive casualty radius is roughly 15 to 25 meters.  The typical probable error for point of impact falls between ten and thirty meters depending on the range & other conditions.  I vaguely recall from the artillery school days the student Lts had to get the adjusting rounds within 25 meters of the target.

What range was 25 meter accuracy acceptable, and is the 25 meters the maximum radius?  82 feet seems like an awful large error, but I really have no idea of what the damage done by 105mm is at that distance, though obviously is must be enough. 
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       9/28/2007 6:37:44 PM
"have no idea of what the damage done by 105mm is at that distance, though obviously is must be enough. "

Effective Casualty Radius meant to us: the radius within which 50% of exposed soldiers would become casualties from shell fragments or overpressure.

Against entrenchments: a 105mm projectile must hit less than two meters away to collapse a trench wall.   Three or possiblly four meters for our 155mm projectiles.

Air bursts are generally desired as they have more effcient fragmentation patterns than graze or surface detonating.  Soldiers under cover in ditches & the other micro terrain are not protected from air bursts as they are from surface bursts.  

We usually went for Suppresion or a bit less often Nuetralization results.  Those terma vary in use in different armys & eras.  In our case suppresion could be defined as: Unable to effectively fire or manuver until the attack ceases.  Casualtys are 0 to 2%.  Our concept of nuetralization was: Unable to fire or manuver effectively after the attack ceases long enough to manuver past or to the target.  Casualties would range fro 3% to approaching 15%.  Obviously the volume of fire to 'Nuetralize a company is going to be different from that for a rifle squad or MG team.   And, the time of nuetralization after the attack will vary.   A squad can rush past a 'nuetralized' MG position in a minute or two.  A nuetralized company has to stay that way for a quarter hour or more to get another company into or past its position.

A third term we seldom used was the Destruction mission.  Casualtys necessary for Destruction started at 20% and upwards from 50% might be required for some target types.  Destruction missions required vast quantities of ammunition and we only contemplated them vs very high priority targets, a senior HQ or a nuclear/chemical weapons site.  Even in those cases a artillery nuetralization attack followed by a airstrike or ground assualt was prefered to shooting off many tons of ammo.

Our concepts and techniques of fire were very different from WWI and reflect entirely different tactical and logisitcs conditions.







































 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/28/2007 7:17:23 PM
I don't know how much truth lies in this, but the tale I heard was that American artillery was based around destroying a given target, while British artillery was based around fixing a given target while the infantry/armour advanced to destroy it.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       9/28/2007 7:27:24 PM

I don't know how much truth lies in this, but the tale I heard was that American artillery was based around destroying a given target, while British artillery was based around fixing a given target while the infantry/armour advanced to destroy it.

Some may disagree but in my experiance you are not far off the mark.  There are certain "philosophical" differences on how certain militaries utilise artillery
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       9/29/2007 6:21:11 AM
"
I don't know how much truth lies in this, but the tale I heard was that American artillery was based around destroying a given target, while British artillery was based around fixing a given target while the infantry/armour advanced to destroy it.
 
"

There are large  difference of language and definition of those terms.   In the past two years I've been collecting and comparing fragments of the effects refrences for the combatans of WWII, and found little common ground it what was meant.  Furthermore the practice of the ground commanders who were largely ignorant of actuall artillery effects, and the technique of artillery commanders in combat were different from the official 'refrences'. 

Just the english term "nuetralization" had very different meanings in the US & the Brit  artillery.  Two nations divided by a common language....

The terms I use are my simplifications of the book terms we used in the 1980s & 1990s.  However other USMC & US Army officers usage often deviated from the book.  It depended on how much time they actually spent in fire planning.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       10/13/2007 5:06:55 AM
Yes, non-gunners tend to be a bit cavalier with terms that have a fairly precise arty meaning, and the US evolved its own terminology tht was differrnt to that used by UK, although the ABCA procedures agreements from the mid 60s started to change this and subsequently NATO has standardised a lot more (the NATO Glossary AAP-6 is available on line).
 
TOT is not without problems, furthermore it probably only became necessary with the very large opportunity concentrations developed in WW2.  In WW1 it was generally the firing time for the opening line of a barrage that was ordered.  Subsequently planned fires were always ordered to mean TOT, this is OK.  The problems start with opportunity targets.  The issue is that the fire controller has to set a time that he's confident all batteries can achieve, inevitably he plays safe which  means fire is delivered later than it could have been.  The alternative is for the controller to order At My Command and then order Fire when a reasonable numberr of btys have reported ready.  This works fine if all batteries are in reasonably close proximity to each other (ie all their ToFs are about the same).
 
For Carl S - I've been touring around for a few weeks, careful examination of Swedish arty instruments reveals that they use a circle of 6300 'mils', the also used a strange form of Degree but I've yet to get to the bottom of this one.  The Russians were using a circle of 600 units in 1904.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       10/13/2007 10:10:12 AM
Interesting info. Since there are about 6283 miliradians in a circle this give a very close aproximation to the miliradian. It also means that the equivalent to the mil relationship using that system would be much more precise. The actual relation is a 1 miliradian angle at 1000m = 1m. With a 6400 mil circle there is a bit more of an error, but not enough to make a huge difference compared to other non-standard conditions. The tradeoff for much easier mil-degree conversions and more intuitive division of the circle (a quarter circle would be 1575 mils in a 6300 mil circle, instead of 1600mils in a 6400mil circle, for example) is in my opinion well worth it.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       10/13/2007 10:30:38 AM

Just the english term "nuetralization" had very different meanings in the US & the Brit  artillery.  Two nations divided by a common language....

Whats the American meaning then?  "Neutralise" in English speak is just a formal word for "suppress", so that the enemy is pinned and unable to fight back.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics