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: Digitization and firing table
FD    3/22/2007 10:46:24 AM
If I can get a CEP reduction from 230m to 75m at the same range, how would that affect the number of rounds I might fire? For example, if I would fire a battery of 8 (105mm) at a target could I reduce the number of rounds to just 2? Any ideas?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
FD       3/23/2007 9:32:07 AM
Thanks, as you can tell I'm not an artillery guy:) Any other advantages?
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       3/23/2007 7:09:18 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       3/23/2007 7:26:54 PM
"Thanks for the good information. So, if all this factors in, why would you want to digitize an artillery system like the 105mm? What benefit would you hope to gain? It appears it would only help in the setup and disperse times and only marginally help with the number of rounds to fire at a target."

My career (1974 - 1997) spanned the conversion of the USMC from manual artillery control to computerized.  It was instantly obvious where the advantages were above the battery level.  Early on I was the Target Information Officer for a five battalion artillery group in a army scale exercise.  Imagine trying to track six days (or even just one days) accumulation of targets fired & not fired with a couple maps & acetate sheets, a handfull of grease pencils, and a box of 5x8 cards.  A decade later I again held that billet, with a networked computer system to work from.  With that the task was managable for two men (24/7).  Target searches of the data base could be run with over a dozen different criteria, targets planned could be downloaded in a minute from the operations data base, targets fired were automaticlly uploaded from the battery/battalion FDC as the were shot.  The Fire Direction Centers & Liasion teams could write up multibattalion fire plans with complex scheduling and ammo distribution in less than a hour, and update them on the fly.  

Digital equipment is a usefull tool for the battery.  But the artillery usually does not fight in independant batterys.  Networked computers & terminals were a godsend for the battalion, brigade & group artillery leaders & staff.

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       3/23/2007 10:51:20 PM
It depends what you mean by digitization.
 
Using a computer to calculate firing data emerged in the 1960s and by the mid ot late 70s was pervasive in at least western amies, this was not 'computerisation' of manual methods and FTs, it used new mathematical models and new data.  There were several benefits, even with the first generation machines that had unbelievably little processing power by modern standards.  In no particular order I'd say the benefits were faster computation of more complex fire missions, eg Linear Smoke, particularly if you wanted to move its position (something no sane gunner attempted with manual calculations), improved accuracy in the calculations, the manual methods were riddled with simplified and approximate data, including the deduction of map data (bearing and distance from the map references), and fianlly avoidance of mistakes in calculations, which were almost always found before shooting (assuming proper procedures were used) but did waste time.  The next step in 'digitisation', again in the early 70s, was data transmission (instead of voice) of firing data from the CP doing the arithmetic to its guns.  This again was faster and removed another source of possible mistakes.
 
In parallel with this over the decades you have to thank 'digitization' for better quality meteor data (further improving the accuracy of fire).  Add laser range finders also from the mid 70s which improved target acquisition accuracy.  From the late 70s we got PADS which provided accurate fixation and orientation almost instantly (ie eliminated time consuming survey) to guns and target acquisition systems, although near instant accurate orientation had been introduced in the 60s with the first 'gyroscopic orienters'.
 
The adoption in the 90s of autonomous sights (ie providing self-orientation) has opened up a new tactical options.  Most notably widely dispersed gun positions with frequent movement (if faced by a serious CB threat) but also the ability to come into action very fast from the line of march (eg coming down from a quick action taking 5 - 10 mins by day) to 2 or 3 mins or less by day or night.  It's also speeded up normal deployments, but its the tactical benefits of fast and accurate quick actions that is having the real tactical impact on artillery employment.
 
The matter of calculating the amount of ammo to fire is a different issue altogether.   I think it remains true that some armies still think its nonsense, and prefer to rely on established norms and or an observer controlling fire to achieve the required effects.  As far as I know nobody has created a good mathematical model using realistically available data.  All that is available are models of varying degrees of sophistication and roughness of approximation.  The reality is that there are a lot of potential variables and getting good data for some of them is impractical - starting with the protective value of the terrain where the target is and how much damage/number of casualties are needed to achieve 'neutralisation'!  The best that can be said for the existing models is that they give an indication of the amount of ammo required, perhaps within 10% or so in ideal conditions.  This can useful at the tactical level, and possibly for wider planning purposes at the operational level.  The idea that you can calculate exactly how many rounds to fire to achieve a particular number of casualties is in pixy land.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       3/24/2007 7:47:47 AM
Aside from the lack of accurate guides for 'ammo quantity-effect on target' a larger failure of the electronic gunnery network was the lack of improvement in the coffee available to the artillery.  Yes I know we should have been gratefull we had coffee at all.  But, one had the feeling that the cold swill in the cup before you represented a failure of the expensive electronics stacked about.
 
Quote    Reply

FD       3/26/2007 8:40:56 AM
 

Thanks everyone for the responses. I have been researching this topic for two weeks mainly to find a connection between the digitization of the artillery and the reduction in the munitions required to service various targets. I have not found a documented case or a strong link and don't believe there is one, despite the improved CEP. I can see the contributions of digitization on the firing process, logistics and management. I can see where the improved accuracy helps with the fire missions, especially with the increasing use of fire missions that are close to troops. I have talked with several people and while you might intuitively think there would be a reduction in the number rounds fired because of the increased accuracy, it was not one of the major selling points of digitization. One point that did come out in my research was that you need to have a digitized system to fire the new precision guided munitions that they are testing and the 105mm is not digitized yet.

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       3/27/2007 6:16:50 AM
I don't think that 'digitization' has had any effect whatsoever on 'CEP' (or more precisely PEr, PEl and PEh).  There is no reason for it to have any effect because these PE are innate characteristics of the gun.  There is one way that this can be affected by 'digitization' and that's by muzzle velocity prediction.  This was developed some 15 yrs ago (at least) and reduced the round to round variation in MV by about 50%, this means it reduced PEr. However, as far as I know it has never been deployed.
 
Nevetheless, improvements in technology of various types has decreased the Target Location Error, and the use of computers, improved ballistic models and other electronics enabled technologies have improved accuracy (meaning the distance between the aimpoint and the mean point of impact).
 
It is, of course, total nonsense to assert that 105mm has not been affected by 'digitization'.  I suggest more and better research. 
 
Improvements in target acquisition and ballistic calculations have both benefited 105mm as much as any other calibre.  What's more 105mm have been fitted with electronic orientation and laying to replace their optical sight and 'spirit level' bubbles.  The UK completed the conversion of their 105mm L118 in late 2002 (making them the first army to be 'all digital' with their artillery laying) and have used them in Iraq and currently in Afghanistan.  You can find details of the equipment on the Selex site (they call it LINAPS).  Several other countries are also using it with their 105mm. UK is currently undertaking a further stage of development of LINAPS (officially called APS), and there are indications that this will include MV prediction. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics