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: Organization of Artillery
Roman    10/14/2004 8:48:45 AM
How is artillery organized? I have heard of artillery batteries, battalions, brigades and divisions (Russia has them or at leat had them - I am not sure about other countries, though, perhaps countries like Poland that used to be part of the Warsaw Pact might have them - I have never heard of a NATO artillery division, nonetheless I assume this is the largest artillery unit, correct?), but not much else and even for these I do not know how many guns they have to what they are attached, whether all guns in each of the units are the same type, how many men serve in each of the units, etc. Would it be possible to enlighten me on this subject? Also, what is the smallest amount of artillery worth having? If you were creating an army from scratch, what is the minimum amount of artillery you would consider worthwhile?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Roman    RE:Organization of Artillery    10/20/2004 7:08:45 AM
Interesting... so how many artillery pieces would there be in an artillery brigade (I assume three battalions, right?) and how many in an artillery division (I assume three brigades, right?)? Were larger artillery formations than a division ever fielded? Also, how many people per gun or howitzer are there in the logistics and other support (e.g. forward observers) tails? Also, are mortars considered artillery or not? It would makes sense, since they share many similarities with guns and howitzers, but I am not certain about this.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Organization of Artillery    10/21/2004 6:45:52 AM
It all depends. On how many guns in a battery, how many batteries in a battalion, etc. There is no universal standard, different armies have organised in different ways at differnt times. In the Vistula-Oder operation in Jan 1945 the Red Army used at least one 'Breakthrough Artillery Corps' plus many additional artillery brigades and rocket brigades. There were 7600 guns and mortars on the breakthough sector 33 km wide, and their total artillery involved was 33,500 guns, mortars and MRLs. Re mortars, it depends, but if they are operated by artillery and therefore part of the artillery C2 system then yes.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Organization of Artillery: Roman    11/10/2004 8:37:45 PM
Sam and others have given good info. Just to summarize: (1) An arty battery or company (US and NATO standard, ignore the exceptions for the moment) will have 6 guns of 105mm - 155mm caliber. The battery is usually affiliated with an infantry or armor battalion. The battery commander, a Major (or Captain) is the senior artillery advisor to the battalion he is supporting; the battery commander will travel with the combat unit commander in the combat unit's tactical headquarters. (2) The battery is part of the arty battalion which is part of the regiment/brigade formation. The Lt Colonel commanding is the chief artillery advisor to the Regiment/Brigade Commander. The arty battalion will have as many gun batteries as there are combat units (infantry & armor battalions) in the regiment/brigade; typically 3 batteries for 3 combat units, the arty battalion will have 3 x 6 guns = 18 guns. The arty battalion will also have a battery of fire controllers plus survey, radar and other locating/ranging equipment. The arty battalion may also include a SAM or AAA battery with various SAM or guns to provide anti-air protection for the brigade area of responsibility. For example, if a brigade has 2 infantry battalions and a tank battalion, the brigade will have an arty battalion with 3 gun batteries (one for each combat unit), an observer/survey/ranging battery and HQ; plus an anti-air battery. (3) Each artillery battalion, while still under command of the brigade, will also be administratively grouped into the artillery brigade whose commander, a Colonel or Brigadier, is the chief artillery advisor to the Division commander. For example: 3 regiments/brigades in the division will give you 3 arty battalions with 3 x 18 guns = 54 guns in the "Divisional artillery brigade". BUT, at division level, the arty brigade commander will also have other heavier assets, for example a battalion of 175mm (4 per battery = 12 total) or 8.2 inch (4 per battery = 12 total) or MLRS (4-6 per battery = 12-16 total). These are considered "divisional assets" and are concentrated where they are most needed. For example, they may be tasked as counter-battery (destroy enemy arty) or "given" to one of the brigades to support a specific operation. Total arty brigade guns will be 54-66+ and various missile systems including heavier SAM. (4) Logically, (if you've got this far!), you will guess that at Army Corps level, there is often an artillery division. This is the major general artillery commander of all artillery troops in the Corps and is the chief artillery advisor to the 3 star lieutenant general. Other combat support arms are organized in a similar fashion - e.g. engineers, signals, medical, logistics. Combat Unit or formation.....affiliated units Infantry/armor batt....arty battery, engr platoon Infantry/armor regt/brig...arty batt, engr comp, signals comp, aviation comp, logistics batt, workshop comp, medical comp. NOTE: having a bit of everything explains why the brigade is so important. Inf/armor division...arty brigade, engr battalion, signals batt, aviation batt, logistics brigade, workshop batt, medical batt, provost comp. Inf/armor corps...arty division, engr brigade, signals brigade, aviation brigade, logistics division, workshop brigade (heavy), medical brigade.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Organization of Artillery    11/11/2004 4:12:10 AM
I'm not sure that that summary can be described as 'typical'. However, it seems a fair description of the German Army today. But they have some quaint practices, starting with putting the arty battalion under command of the brigade. Independent brigades being the obvious exception in any army. It's interesting to note that last year UK put 3 arty 'bttns' into GW2, one had 4 btys and 32 guns, one 3 btys and 18 guns, one 2 btys and 16 guns. Moral, never make assumptions about how arty is organised in any particular army at any particular time. That said it is true that in the last 60 years many armies have changed from 4 to 6 guns as the standard bty.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Organization of Artillery-neutralizer   11/11/2004 7:36:23 PM
Thankyou for your "moral". The structure described holds good, certainly in principle, for US and UK forces over the last 35 years - from my personal, professional experience. Any exceptions are just that, exceptions, because the arty structure is a matrix organization like the rest of any army. Roman is looking for structured answers; when he gets it, then we can introduce the exceptions. The essential point for Roman was that each combat unit will normally have an affiliated arty battery with additional batteries added if needed. FYI every arty battalion is under the command of whichever brigade it is supporting, German, US or UK, certainly in wartime and usually in peacetime because its easier to learn this in peace; each arty battalion is also part of an arty admin organization which may be called an arty brigade if part of a full division or an admin chain if an independent brigade. Since we in the US are moving (back) toward the brigade structure (the ghastly phrase Units of Action) it would be well to recognize this as our sructure going forward. The whole point of using brigades is to force the combat and combat support arms to greater horizontal integration, but without breaking the certical links.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Organization of Artillery - UK in GW2   11/11/2004 8:15:46 PM
"3 arty battalions..., one 4 batteries and 32 guns, one 3 batteries and 18 guns, one 2 batteries and 16 guns." I presume you mean gun batteries. Let us see if we can deduce the force size:- Battalion 1: 4 batteries implies it supported 4 combat units. This would be EITHER the 2 Para battalions, 1 Royal Irish battalion and the Household Cavalry Regiment in 16 Air Assault Brigade, OR the 3 (+ 1 added for war) combat units in 7th Armored Brigade. 8 gun batteries MAY indicate 105mm Light Gun. Was this, perhaps, 7 Regt RHA, the "battalion" under command 16 AA Bde? Battalion 2: 3 batteries implies it supports 3 combat units. EITHER the 3+ in 7th Armored Brigade or the 3 + HCR in 16 AA Bde. 6 guns per battery may indicate 155mm SP. Was this perhaps 1 Regt RHA, the battalion under command 7th Armd Bde? Normally a 3 battery regiment I am aware they did add another gun battery for the action. Battalion 3: 2 batteries implies it supports 2 combat units. I.e. 2 of the 3 RM Cdos under 3 Cdo Bde. 8 gun batteries again suggests 105mm Light Gun. Could these be part of 29 Cdo Regt RA under command of 3 Cdo Bde? The absence of the 3rd gun battery is because it was elsewhere with its affiliated combat unit the 3rd Cdo "battalion". Normally, as you may be aware, there are 3 combat units and 3 gun batteries supporting them in 3 Cdo Bde; plus Meiktila, etc. It is quite clear that 3 arty battalions (1 RHA, 7 RHA and 29 Cdo Regt) were involved under command 7th Armd Bde, 16 AA Bde and 3 Cdo Bde. The whole was under 1st Armd Division and you will find that thee was a "Commander Artillery" (either full Colonel or Brigadier) as the chief arty advisor in the Division HQ just as the Lt Col of each arty battalion is the chief arty advisor to each brigade and the Major commanding each battery is the arty advisor to each combat unit commander. Given that this was a composite division (4th Armd and 20th Armd Bdes with their 155mm arty battalions were left behind in Germany and 16 AA and 3 Cdo Bdes with their 105mm battalions were added from the UK) they may not have formed "another" formal arty brigade, like in Germany, just for this operation. It is equally clear that each battery worked with its affiliated combat unit. That some combat units may not be present or may be added, merely shows how arty batteries follow their combat units.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Organization of Artillery - UK in GW2   11/11/2004 10:13:44 PM
I think the UK currently has 2 arty bdes, 1 and 7, while these are field deployable HQs they have never had to deploy on operations, basically 1 commands all non-divisional field arty and 7 all non divisional AD arty. UK divisions do not have arty bdes, HQRA, which is part of the divisional HQ commands all arty regts under command of the division. The Comd Arty is the Div Comd's advisor on all arty matters, both field, STA/UAV and AD. UK does not operate fixed org divisions in anything short of General War (ie full mobilisation) and even then there would be all sorts of atts & dets, basically the notion of fixed UK div orgs in war died in about 1945. The 3 year readiness cycle for armd and inf bdes means that any UK division committed to ops (other than General War) will have bdes from different fmns. In crude org terms 1 Div is 72 guns, 3 Div 96, excluding general support regts with MLRS that might be assigned from 1 Arty Bde. Also ignoring the AD regt under div comd. Basically, in GW2 all UK arty was under comd HQRA 1 (UK) Armd Div. 7 Armd Bde was re-grouped to a fully square bde (8 tk sqns, 4 field btys, 8 armd inf coys, recce sqn, AD bty) and its DS regt's Gun Gp had 4 fd btys and much enlarged Tac Gp. 16 AA Bde was somewhat reduced because not all its AAC units deployed but seems to have been under div comd throughout. The DS regt, normal Gun Gp, enlarged Tac Gp, was under div comd, except that at the start of the war its Gun Gp were detached to Gen Spt 1 (US) Mar Div. UK routinely sends arty Tac Gps in one direction and Gun Gps in another, this flexibility probably doesn't happen in other armies, the idea of sending the guns of a battalion into action without the CO, BCs, etc, probably frightens most armies witless. 3 Cdo Bde seems to have been somewhat more complicated. Initally it was under 1 MEF with 15 MEU under tac comd (15 MEU includes S Bty USMC), when the initial action on AFP was completed 3 Cdo Bde (less 15 MEU) seems to have reverted to under comd 1 (UK) Div and its DS regt was under comd HQRA. Basically all of the cdo regt RA deployed, but they went as 2 btys with 16 guns in action. (UK FC computers are designed for 8 gun btys and the new automated pointing systems mean that it's much easier to deploy fast as a single fire unit - many gun positions were nose to tail along tracks because of the terrain and mine threat) UAV and STA btys under 2 regt HQs were under div comd and assigned as necessary.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Organization of Artillery: Worcester & Roman   11/12/2004 9:28:13 AM
The US does not, except on extrememly rare situations, affiliate a firing battery with a maneuver unit. The US doctrine is to mass battalion fires on a target and then move on to the next target. The DS artillery battalion in a maneuver brigade (or UA) will provide fire to the battalion/task force which has priority of fires. It is backed up by corps artillery brigades which provide reinforcing fires to the maneuver unit based on priorities. You may split fires within abattalion to allow a battery to fire on a secondary target, but that is all in line with the brigade fire plan. The instance when you see a battery providing support to specific battalion is called dedicated battery and is used in only extremely rare situations. That may be how the Royal Artillery works, but is not how the artillery of the US Army works.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Organization of Artillery: Worcester & Roman   11/12/2004 10:25:32 PM
One of the most common failings in understanding artillery (including within armies to quite senior levels, at least in the past) is to confuse command and control, to this you can throw in 'tactical missions', to use the US term. Command and control are defined in the standard military glossaries and as we all know split into tac and op and also for comd 'full' or 'national'. For arty comd is basically about resource allocation, units and ammo but also the right to order deployment area. Control is about the use of firepower. Comd arrangements don't vary that much between armies, differences are more superficial than substance. Some armies centralise comd some decentralise. A good example of the latter is the Bundeswehr, they place a arty battalion under permanent comd of the Pz, PzG, Jaeger, etc, bde comd, and then have a large div arty regt with several bns (the plan at Cold War end was 5 bns (M110A2, FH70, LARS, MLRS, STA), with nothing above div level. Most otehr western armies don't put bns under bde comd (except independents and orgs like USMC MEUs, and IIRC the US para group in Vicenza during the cold war). That leads to tactical missions (US DS, GS, R GSR, also adopted by UK in about 1990). From after WW2 most commonwealth armies adopted Direct Support, Support and At Priority Call. Generally a regt (ie bn) was assigned in Direct Sp to a bde and the bde normally gives a battery in DS to each inf, tk, etc, bn. This regt and its btys were also normally In Support to anyone else in range. Corps arty was generally In Support to everybody but regts could also be detached to under comd of divs and could be placed 'At Pri Call', usually to CB staff. During WW2 the Brits sometimes put a DS regt under bde comd, typically in an advance when they decentralised. After WW2 they generally stopped this doctrinally and instead introduced terms such as 'Under Comd for Movement', 'Under Comd for Admin' and other limited scope command types. Some commonwealth armies, notably Australia, have very strong views about 'guaranteed' fire support. To them a bty in DS to an inf bn means guaranteed fire. The Brits have never taken this view, to them where firepower is applied is a control matter in accordance with tactical priorities. In higher intensity war concentrations of massed firepower in fire missions by regts, divisions, etc have been the rule since about 1915 (with the means continuously improving). In lower intensity ops there is less or little need for large concentrations so the majority of tgts are likely to be engaged by a battery or less. However, the Brits and other commonwealth armies started to take 'affiliation' fairly seriously from about 1942. This meant that as far as possible regts of a div arty are affiliaited to a particular bde for Direct Support, and the regt's btys are affiliated to a particular inf or armd 'bn'. The key point of affiliation is not so much a bty's Gun Group but the Tac Gp (ie BC, FOs). The reasons for affiliation are obvious, operations work more smoothly if 'all-arms' teams are used to working with each other, in other words 'cohesion', the god of manouvre war is better served. So, the point is that worrying about Org Charts that only reflect 'Under Command' status can lead to a very misguided understanding of artillery. The real issues are the 'Scale' of artillery (ie the normal allocation to different levels of command, but can be varied as circumstances require), 'Tactical missions' that give priority relationships between arty units and other types of unit and HQ for the use of firepower, and control (ie where tactical decision making about what units engage what tgts when and with what - 'allotting' guns to tgts). When arty is in DS then tac msns also mean where 'Tac Gps' in UK terms go. In many armies 'affiliation' means that as far as the situation allows the pairing of DS arty and close combat units is alway the same. Apart from the Aust infantry hangup about 'guaranteed fire', the key arty doctrine is concentration (of firepower) and flexibility (in all things). Another interesting point that doesn't seem to be often recognised is that 'fire plan' seems to have different meanings in different armies. For example, it may be that what the US calls a 'fire plan' the UK calls a 'resource allocation plan'. A UK 'fireplan' is a tgt list with a firing schedule and method of engagement. In other words it is control plan not a command plan. Hope I haven't confused everybody, this subject is a wee bit complicated and the 'two peoples divided by a common language' applies.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Organization of Artillery: Albany   11/15/2004 1:46:17 PM
"The US does not afffiliate a firing battery with a maneuver unit. US doctrine is to mass fire..and then move on." I believe you are over-emphasizing the word "affiliate" and, frankly, you are being too literal about the concept of massed fire. Affiliated does not mean "belonging to" but merely the available battery for any fire support. If you have served in a combat unit HQ you will know that there second order of business (after siting positions) is to register DF (Direct Fire) artillery tasks to protect those postions and this is done by speaking with the arty rep who is usualy the battery commander who also usually spends a lot of his time in the combat unit HQ. The idea that infanty or armor are left unsupported while the arty are off doing their thing is utterly wrong. It contravenes the "Fire & Maneuver Doctrine" and the principles of Mutual Support and All Arms policy. Massed fire does have an effect out of proportion to the sum of the parts, but equally, artillery does not win battles on its own - the concept is called "Fire & Maneuver". All US doctrine is designed to facilitate maneuver units with support fire. In a theoretical sense this is planned (allocated if you will) as part of the divisional or higher formation plan. In practice, this means fire support on specific objectives to allow maneuver combat units to seize their objectives - otherwise, what's the point? And in reality, we have discovered - and are increasingly moving toward - the need to delegate more and more authority directly to lower levels which is why we are converting from division structures to brigades (or Units of Action if you prefer.) The idea that the artillery fire plan exists in some form of tactical vacuum is wrong. Equally, the improved precision of fire makes "Fire Tasks Battalion" an increasingly rare order. Given the availability of Precision Efects there is less need for Massed Fire; given the speed of maneuver there is greater need for tactical delegation. This is why our artillery command is being delegated lower and lower, down to brigad/regimental and all arms battlegroup level. This is one of the key lessons we learned from Vietnam - the need for speed of reaction. It is something we worked hard to extend in Germany in the 1980s with the all arms battle group and was used in GW1 to great effect. Massed Fire has a role in preparation of enemy positions, but once engaged by Maneuver Units, it is speed of reaction and precision which matter, and that means delegation and dedication of fire to individual maneuver Units. This is something the Brits do particulary well - whether you call it delegation, affiliation or "mix n match". The experience in Afghanistan and Iraq has merely reinforced this trend with individual guns or sections firing in support of specific patrols or company/battalion actions. Notwithstanding the theory, I think we can safely leave the idea of massed fire in the realm of "Total War"; irrelevant to the current or expected missions of our military. Which, at the risk of appearing circuitous, is part of the reason why we are adopting Brigade structures - to get the combat support closer to the combat.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics