Sublime Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Correct me if Im wrong but in real life cant commanders not order arty and air into the same area (low level CAS or helos) because arty rounds can hit aircraft? how is this all worked out in a full on chaotic war? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currahee150 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yeah, that's how it's suppose to work. It's called "Deconflicting the airspace". I think it's handled by timing artillery and air support missions seperatly, but I feel like on the battlefield that becomes more of a wish than reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It's not just timing. It can also be accomplished by making a variety of measures. Easiest to describe is simply keeping aviation higher than the flight path of indirect fires, or offsetting the aviation approach and exfil from target area to not enter artillery occupied air space. It's something that requires some work but aviation and artillery is not mutually exclusive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 ah so when in game you see helos or aircraft doing strafing runs while 155mm fire is coming in this is really actually unrealistic? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAZ NZ Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Good question. Depending on comms , they made no know regardless. So they wouldnt know to consider aborting. They dont know about enemy fire coming in so its a risk they take. There strafe attack alttitude may be high enough to not consider it a risk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 ah so when in game you see helos or aircraft doing strafing runs while 155mm fire is coming in this is really actually unrealistic? It depends. You can deconflict in such a way that aircraft are employing their weapons safely while rounds are impacting. As long as they aren't crossing the G-T line, they're OK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 ah so when in game you see helos or aircraft doing strafing runs while 155mm fire is coming in this is really actually unrealistic? As Apocal points out, nah. It's a big part of the Fire Support Officer's job at Brigade/Battalion levels. Basically you want to be able to mass as much fire on a target at once. By separating the air and the artillery by elevation or terrain/graphic control measures/etc you can have both assets in operation. These are things that basically are part of the minutes leading up to the strike, it's the fires cell or something hashing out who's where, the aviation approaching whatever safe attack by fire position via an air corridor etc etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 f it. Im gonna throw this on here. As Nidan stated he was a Marine clmbat engineer in Vietnam 66-67. I was lucky enough for him to share a declassified Ops order for an op and AAR at the battalion level. Obviously it covers everything. Verbal passwords, ROE, weights ammo loads passengers for helos, call signs, etc. Two interesting things. One I just thought you guys would find interesting was the line that (im paraphrasing) a four man VC anti tank team fired an RPG at Sgt. So and So.s tank. The damage was minor. The tank fired canister and the enemy team disintegrated. (funny how dry writing can descriptive) But my question is this - in the pre order for battle theres a line that mentions VT fuzes ARE NOT to be fired where the trajectory would take them over friendlies. Why? Would the high canopy elevation in spots cause random airbursts? Were VTs that unreliable 23 years after invention? Did the heat do something to them...? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currahee150 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) My guess is that VT would inadvertently act as primitive radar guided AA fire, with the radar detecting a aircraft in it's flight path thus trigging it's fuse. Just my 2 cents. Wait. You never said "aircraft." Ok so nevermind. Yeah I'm not sure why they'd say that. The canopy theory is the best I can figure. Edited June 18, 2015 by Currahee150 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 no helos and aircraft are as good a guess as any. the bttn aar from an op late in 67 I corps Marines is bery revealing. the guy who was there said most ied or boiny traps were vc related but I corps was DMZ area and they fought NVA a lot. Honestly i was shocked that aboiut 70% of casualties were gunfire 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Artillery still occasionally drops short for a variety of reasons (water-compromised powder, idiot FDC, etc). Could be they were willing to risk having PD type shells falling short but not VT. Also howitzer fire is still fairly low angle, higher trees might trip some of the lower flying shells. Really in principal you try to avoid shells going over friendly troops. Likely no VT is just a way to reduce the risk a bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) well its an awesome doc if anyone wants to see it pm me and ill ask the owner if its cool you particularly panzer i could see having an interest. especially since armor was attached. Edited June 18, 2015 by Sublime 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 But my question is this - in the pre order for battle theres a line that mentions VT fuzes ARE NOT to be fired where the trajectory would take them over friendlies. Why? Would the high canopy elevation in spots cause random airbursts? Were VTs that unreliable 23 years after invention? Did the heat do something to them...? A low trajectory round might fuze much earlier than expected and detonate over your troop's head. And back in Vietnam they still had a bunch of long-range gun-type field artillery units and naval gunfire that flew at particularly low angles compared to howitzers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 19, 2015 Author Share Posted June 19, 2015 ok males sense especially since they did have naval gun support in this op. I have to recheck for the howitzers.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Apocal, The Vietnam era M107 175 mm SPG could elevate as high as 65 deg, which is basically half of the elevation coverage for a mortar. An IOWA class BB (16") could fire at max range with elevation of 45 deg, a BALTIMORE class CA (8") to 41 deg, a Brooklyn class CL (6") could elevate to 46 deg, and a destroyer could fire pretty much straight up. The M107 data is in the M107 Wiki, and the rest at www.navweaps.com, specifically here, with links to the appropriate naval rifles. Consequently, if attempting deconfliction, it is vital to specify what weapon's being fired, from how far away and on what axis relative to the planned altitudes and flight paths. That's coordination in space only, but such coordination must be addressed temporally as well. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.