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
neutralizer       10/14/2007 7:06:57 AM
Actually UK changed to 'suppress' and a different meaning of neutralise about 10 - 15 yrs ago.  Google AAP-6 then look for the definitions (having chosen English or French).
 
Off the top of my head I can't think of any gunnery procedure that relies on real precision use of the subtension rule, so the accuracy of the approximation of mil representing milliradian doesn't really matter. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       10/14/2007 8:40:33 PM

Actually UK changed to 'suppress' and a different meaning of neutralise about 10 - 15 yrs ago.  Google AAP-6 then look for the definitions (having chosen English or French).
Thats weird, "suppress" wasn't taught to me as a type of fire.  Perhaps different types of support weapons use different terminology?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       10/15/2007 6:45:35 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.



Actually UK changed to 'suppress' and a different meaning of neutralise about 10 - 15 yrs ago.  Google AAP-6 then look for the definitions (having chosen English or French).

Thats weird, "suppress" wasn't taught to me as a type of fire.  Perhaps different types of support weapons use different terminology?"

Yes different groups use different terms.  Then there are the officers who do not pay atention to the doctrine book and toss jargon about to cover their ignorance

That AAP-6 arrived just as I was departing service.  Must go earn the vulgar lucre now so I'll have to read the current 2005 version later.  As we used the term 'Nuetralized' meant the enemy remained unable to fire or manuver effectively for some time after fires on them ceased.  vs Suppresion where the recovery occured as soon as the fires ceased.  While a FO & as a fire planner I found nonartillerists used the terms haphazzardly and interchanged them with meaningless (to us) terms like 'barrage' and 'prep'.

Trying to interprete Brit & US meanings of suppres & nuetralize of the 1940s back & forth is as slippery as interpreting the Brit use of the term 'battery'' in that era.  :)

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics