Cancel ongoing artillery mission when the FO i KO

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Lookin' at you @The_Capt and others

Heh, hey I am an Engineer - combat type with specialties in assault and armored...so infantry who can do math at a grade 9 level and read without their lips moving too much.  And even all that was some time ago, my current specialties lie in other military arenas even less applicable here.

Now that said, I think the question is "how does maneuver actually work in RL"?  Bottled-freakin-chaos from my experience.  Once you get that much steel moving in one direction you had better have your drills down pat because forces with that much weight can only retain about 3 ideas in their collective heads while being shot at - not a lot of time or bandwidth for a creative commons once you are in motion so sort it out beforehand.

[Ultradave]

40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Heh, hey I am an Engineer - combat type with specialties in assault and armored...so infantry who can do math at a grade 9 level and read without their lips moving too much.  And even all that was some time ago, my current specialties lie in other military arenas even less applicable here.

Now that said, I think the question is "how does maneuver actually work in RL"?  Bottled-freakin-chaos from my experience.  Once you get that much steel moving in one direction you had better have your drills down pat because forces with that much weight can only retain about 3 ideas in their collective heads while being shot at - not a lot of time or bandwidth for a creative commons once you are in motion so sort it out beforehand.

Closer than me to the pointy end:-)

 

[DougPhresh]

@Ultradave, I really appreciate your posts. Thanks for the insight. My Old Man and mentors were Cold Warriors, but I joined up after Bosnia and my only NATO time in Europe was in Norway. It’s great hearing from someone who was around for those days.
 

When I got out, we were just starting to practice firing by Regiment again, as opposed to trying to teach the ANA how to … well do much of anything really. Besides OP Medusa, and before my time Anaconda, there was not much need for that skillset, and now in the Baltic everybody is trying to re-learn it. 
 

If you have as much time to read in your retirement I do, and you’re curious about how and why the Commonwealth developed our approach, you might like reading

On Commonwealth Military Culture:

Military Identities: The Regimental System

Monty’s Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe,

Monty and the Canadian Army,

Crerar’s Lietenants: Inventing the Canadian Junior Officer,

The Madman and the Butcher: Sam Hughes and Arthur Currie,

Politics of Command: McNaughton and the Canadian Army,

On Commonwealth Artillery:

British Artillery on the Western Front: The infantry cannot do with a gun less,  

Gunfire: British Artillery in WW2,

Battle Tactics on the Western Front: British Army Art of Attack, 

British Artillery Between World Wars,

Field Artillery and Firepower

The Best Overall Book, Which Puts It All Together:

Fire-Power: The British Army Weapons and Theories of War

If I could summarize what sets us apart, and I’m curious about your input, it's this:  

Commonwealth soldiers serve in (traditionally locally recruited) Regiments for life. This is an incredibly close bond. It’s also an elite and prestigious social club for officers, who are expected to have a paternalistic attitude towards their men due to how rigid class was in English-Speaking countries besides America until very, very recently. Networks of officers from the same Regiment have an informal “Regimental Mafia”, identical with the “Old Boys Network” of elite British schools c. 1900 (down to being identified by striped ties). They are expected to advance the interests of their Regiment, and the careers of their chums, even when they are senior policy makers.

 

When there was still a British Empire, over half of the Army, in fact one battalion of every Regiment would be serving overseas at any given time (mostly in India). This meant that the field army available for continental war was small, much smaller than other major nations. Canada, Australia and New Zealand had (and have) small armies by virtue of small populations. South Africa had a small Army because it excluded black people, and Boers did not want to join after being enemies in the Boer War. Similarly, in Canada French Canadians were discriminated against, the Army was entirely English, the Militia (much more  posh culture than National Guard, hard to explain) even in Quebec was English, and the French were not eager to serve the British Empire either.

 

Right so, in the Great War, I can’t really explain to Americans how deeply it shaped all of our countries. Much more than yours. These small armies went through the grinder at the Somme and Gallipoli, I don’t think Americans have had anything like it in their history. Almost the entire peacetime establishment of professional soldiers who started the war in August 1914 was killed or wounded by the following summer - and the war went on for 3 more years!

 

In 1916-17, a Way of War was developed that traded time (planning), firepower (sheer size of the artillery arm) and logistics (shells) for lives. This was required because when those locally recruited regiments went into action on the Western Front, whole communities lost their military age men in an afternoon. There were Pals Battalions, where people would be encouraged to enlist together, so you can imagine how devastating this was.  In Britain imposing Conscription caused a crisis, but in Canada it almost caused civil war. French Canada saw themselves getting sent to their doom for a cause and country that didn’t care about them. 
 

Using Firepower to preserve Manpower, using staffwork and cautious planning to reduce casualties, you can see how important this became. These societies, and of course armies, could not endure a war of attrition. Morale was shot, civil society was splintering. The closest I can think is maybe what I’ve heard the US Army was like in the 1970’s, and how it also had to change the way it did things and service culture.

 

After the war, all of those conditions remained true: Britain still had to maintain a global empire, Canada, AUS, NZ, ZA, still had tiny recruiting pools, only on top of that there were fewer men to recruit after those devastating losses, and  civil society was not going to support anything like it again. Again, it’s hard to explain how much the Great War shaped our culture and politics.

 

When the Second World War started not only was the public memory dead set against heavy losses, the institutional memory remembered them and the Firepower and Planning focus, but also the personal memory of every notable senior officer in the Commonwealth. They had all seen their companies wiped out in an afternoon as subalterns. Monty in particular was, what we would say today, deeply traumatized by this experience. 
 

So - all effort went into keeping losses low. Even then, in late 44-45 manpower ran low again, there was another Conscription Crisis in Canada. Monty kept 21st Army Group in the war by all of the things Americans criticize him for: being cautious, premeditated, waiting for support and logistics to build up, executing a detailed plan. We could not have stomached the Hurtgen Forest. 
 

I hope this wasn’t too digressive, only Americans sometimes wonder why our militaries are so different. The short version is because of The Somme.

Edited December 13, 2021 by DougPhresh

[Ultradave]

I’m on my phone right now so I’ll respond with a bit more detail later but, yes, I’m aware of the regimental system and have read quite a bit on WW1. We have not had anything similar since the Civil War, really. Thanks for the references. Those look interesting and yes, I’m enjoying plenty of time to read. 
 

[edit] back on the laptop.  

During the American Civil War, there were a LOT of regiments that were raised locally, and tended to have a fair number of people who even knew each other in civilian life. During WW1, I think there were units, even some whole divisions, that came at least from a specific state, but many did not. In fact the 82d is nicknamed the "All Americans" (the AA in the logo) because when it was formed as the 82d Infantry Div in WW1 it was found there were soldiers in it from every state. We've lost that "neighborhood" cohesion, but we still keep the old regimental designations for each battalion, even though we don't use regiments any more. WW2 it was regiments. In the Cold War era, we had brigades. Today it's Brigade Combat Team (BCT), which is more permanently integrated support arms, rather than attached, although in practice previously, we always attached to the same units, to promote cohesion. But the battalions still have their regimental designations, and some even show up right in CM - the TF 3-69 is a great example.  3-69 is 3rd Bn, 69th Armored Regiment. A TF is cross attached armor and infantry, and TF-3-69 would be commanded by the armor Bn commander. You can tell that from the name.

Artillery too, has its regimental designations. Today, the 82d has the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the 319th FA Regiment. But each of those battalions is attached to one of the BCTs. When I was there it was 1st Bn/320th FA, 1st Bn/319th FA, and 2d Bn/321st FA (not too confusing eh?) The sister battalions were at the 101st Abn - Airmobile, and the two independent Airborne Brigades. Thing is, the names are there for history, but in reality, they don't mean that much. Soldiers identify with their battalion. Although there is some esprit about some of the famous infantry regiments in the 82d like the 508th, for example.  Other units are the same, it's just that the 82d ones I actually know the designations without having to look it up. It's really very different from the UK regimental system.

The 82d is in one way the oddball here though, because enlisted soldiers sometimes DO spend many years, sometimes even careers there, working their way up. Officers however, are rotated, but unlike a lot of US Army units, they tend to keep coming back. A lot of training and unique expertise gets invested in paratroopers, both enlisted and officers, so bringing back officers who were LTs, then come back as CPTs or Majors, then again as LtCol Bn commanders, tends to happen quite a bit. And an infantry Bn Commander may get promoted to COL and command one of the Brigades, then return as commanding general (two star Major General) or one of the two assistant division commanders (Brigadiers).

Canada would be different from the UK too, I think. The Parachute Regiment was THE airborne regiment, and therefore had soldiers from all over. The whole Canadian army was about the size of the 82d Airborne when I went there. We had more artillery officers in the 82d than they had in their army. So I believe there units are much more like ours that way, being more taken from across the country, and not locally. Very British in how they operate though. And who can argue with tea on the drop zone after a jump (non-tactical jump to get our Canadian jump wings)

Hope this isn't all too much.

Dave 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Ultradave

[civdiv]

On 12/12/2021 at 5:32 PM, DougPhresh said:

I can’t speak to WWII, but for at least the last 30 years the above isn’t entirely accurate. And the devil is in the details.

So you have organic artillery (usually mortars), Direct Support (DS) artillery, and General Support (GS) artillery. DS artillery is dedicated to your unit, and thus almost always has a Liaison Element with the infantry Bn HQ. So the Company Cmdr could call Bn and have the artillery shut off because the Liaison Element is on the right nets. It would be fairly quick

For GS artillery, it can work a couple of different ways, depending on what unit the FO is with. An FO from a DS artillery unit can get GS fires but it will take longer. This call, say a juicy target like an infantry battalion in the open, will go from the FO, to the artillery battery, then to the artillery Bn HQ, and then to the GS artillery unit. So it can still be turned off by the infantry company Cmdr calling the Infantry Bn HQ. But shutting the fire mission off will take longer.

You might also have a GS FO. And once he takes his dirt nap, turning off the fire mission is harder because as you said, no one is on the right net.

it’s been a while since I did this stuff so please correct the above as appropriate.

Edited December 13, 2021 by civdiv

[DougPhresh]

4 minutes ago, civdiv said:

I can’t speak to WWII, but for at least the last 30 years the above isn’t entirely accurate. And the devil is in the details.

like @Ultradave I’m on my phone so I left a lot of detail out. For sure, we’ve gotten more flexible. With CM spanning 1943 to the present date, there are all sorts of details there. On top of that, how things were done in Task Force Kandahar is not how they’d work in a full-strength Brigade Group in the Baltic, so you can see there’s a wide range of ways fires might be organized. 
 

Even in ww2 we’d liaise closely, and you’re right about organization  of Under Command and Support. It’s by no means impossible to end a mission, only much more complex than the Inf Co radioing the Bty directly. It still needs to be processed and then passed along. 
 

For a little write up on the system in theory This puts it in game terms , and there’s also a gameified Description of the Cold War Canadian Army.

[chuckdyke]

21st warfare is science fiction to me. Buddy aid, we all could have jackets which monitor blood pressure and heartbeat all relayed by GPS and uploaded. We know then instantly if key personnel like observers become casualties. Anyway I stop arguing or missions could be canceled then. All of our lives are run by hardworking committees. Play today H&H hope you all could be a fly on the wall.  

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

21st warfare is science fiction to me.

Little secret, no one has it figured out.  I think I have gained more perspective on pre WW1 and even between the world wars based on where we are today; they were in the dark too.

Edited December 13, 2021 by The_Capt

[chuckdyke]

44 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

they were in the dark too.

They had drummer boys and bugles the Scots were the exception their stealthy raids were signaled by bagpipes.

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by chuckdyke

[womble]

11 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

21st warfare is science fiction to me. Buddy aid, we all could have jackets which monitor blood pressure and heartbeat all relayed by GPS and uploaded. We know then instantly if key personnel like observers become casualties.

From what I gather about the EWar capabilities of both sides, we'll be back to bugles, drums, whistles, pipes and signal flags and flares for battlefield comms if the "balloon goes up" between major combatants. That fire mission request won't even have got through the jamming in the first place to need to be stopped, and the "biomonitor" signals would have fritzed out even sooner, so it probably shouldn't be included in the authentication process, even if voice comms gear has enough oomph to remain heard where PAN tech doesn't.

[Fizou]

Thanks for the replies @DougPhresh, @Ultradave and others. Often amazed by the knowledge in these forums - this time as well. 

The scenario Im playing is in CMCW as the Americans and I have several FO that are able to use the artillery asset in question but with the FO calling the current mission KO the others are no able to call for these guns - and its much easier to understand that to be a plausible outcome now. Would the situation be any different If there was a team with an FO and a radio operator with only the former being out of action? As it stands now I believe the situation would be the same and the mission could not be interrupted.

If Im not mistaken in earlier builds missions could get stuck in the spotting phase forever if the FO was KO. Now I see that after a few - several minutes the mission would end. Which I think is nice at least from a game play perspective.       

[DougPhresh]

5 hours ago, womble said:

From what I gather about the EWar capabilities of both sides, we'll be back to bugles, drums, whistles, pipes and signal flags and flares for battlefield comms if the "balloon goes up" between major combatants. That fire mission request won't even have got through the jamming in the first place to need to be stopped, and the "biomonitor" signals would have fritzed out even sooner, so it probably shouldn't be included in the authentication process, even if voice comms gear has enough oomph to remain heard where PAN tech doesn't.

I can't comment on this, but field phones and pen and paper Artillery Command Post operations are back in a big way. I learned how to use honest-to-God signal flags for the first time in 2018. Having said that - this is why planning in advance is useful, and field phones allow most of what radios do, as long as the wire can be run out. 

We in NATO are so used to having CAS, MEDEVAC and everything else a five minute radio call away, but that's  not the only way to fight a war. I think in a lot of ways Afghanistan and Iraq have lowered effectiveness because having all of those things uncontested was taken for granted. I disagree that we'd go back to bugles and drums, but visual signals are a very reasonable tool, and like reading a map instead of using a GPS - we probably shouldn't have let that atrophy in the first place. 

2 hours ago, Fizou said:

If there was a team with an FO and a radio operator with only the former being out of action? As it stands now I believe the situation would be the same and the mission could not be interrupted.

The signaller would have all of the skills and tools to end that mission, for sure. I think someone would need to order it, but if they were near another officer who could direct them to call it off, that would seem reasonable to me. That's an interesting problem, I'll give it some more thought. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by DougPhresh

[Combatintman]

33 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

I can't comment on this, but field phones and pen and paper Artillery Command Post operations are back in a big way. I learned how to use honest-to-God signal flags for the first time in 2018. Having said that - this is why planning in advance is useful, and field phones allow most of what radios do, as long as the wire can be run out. 

We in NATO are so used to having CAS, MEDEVAC and everything else a five minute radio call away, but that's  not the only way to fight a war. I think in a lot of ways Afghanistan and Iraq have lowered effectiveness because having all of those things uncontested was taken for granted. I disagree that we'd go back to bugles and drums, but visual signals are a very reasonable tool, and like reading a map instead of using a GPS - we probably shouldn't have let that atrophy in the first place. 

The signaller would have all of the skills and tools to end that mission, for sure. I think someone would need to order it, but if they were near another officer who could direct them to call it off, that would seem reasonable to me. That's an interesting problem, I'll give it some more thought. 

Can we have the response in Semaphore please ... 

[Ultradave]

6 hours ago, Fizou said:

Thanks for the replies @DougPhresh, @Ultradave and others. Often amazed by the knowledge in these forums - this time as well. 

The scenario Im playing is in CMCW as the Americans and I have several FO that are able to use the artillery asset in question but with the FO calling the current mission KO the others are no able to call for these guns - and its much easier to understand that to be a plausible outcome now. Would the situation be any different If there was a team with an FO and a radio operator with only the former being out of action? As it stands now I believe the situation would be the same and the mission could not be interrupted.

If Im not mistaken in earlier builds missions could get stuck in the spotting phase forever if the FO was KO. Now I see that after a few - several minutes the mission would end. Which I think is nice at least from a game play perspective.       

In the US, extended Cold War time frame (the 10 years that I was there) that radio operator would theoretically be able to step in and do the FO's job. Eventually he's going to be promoted into it, and when we trained as a FIST everyone got trained on and had live fire practice on calling and adjusting fire missions. We also had a "video" trainer that gave good experience too. (Think virtual golf). So yes, in theory, that RTO could do the job almost as well. We trained together as a team. Just a question of how much experience, really.

Dave

[DougPhresh]

19 hours ago, Ultradave said:

We trained together as a team. Just a question of how much experience, really.

This takes me back to being the Safety Officer’s assistant and realizing the mortar course we were supervising had one tube on a reverse bearing as was about to drop rounds on Ontario Highway 7, which runs between the training areas. 
 

I was a 22 year old Bombardier and turning “oh **** oh **** oh ****” into “in theory could do the job almost as well” was probably the first time I earned those chevrons. Even then, I was glad Range Control was able to ask me the right questions so I could calm down and do my drills.
 

Just funny to think about when you see your little CM team and think “well, the Corporal should just take over from the FOO in the middle of this situation”. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by DougPhresh

[Ultradave]

59 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

This takes me back to being the Safety Officer’s assistant and realizing the mortar course we were supervising had one tube on a reverse bearing as was about to drop rounds on Ontario Highway 7, which runs between the training areas. 
 

I was a 22 year old Bombardier and turning “oh **** oh **** oh ****” into “in theory could do the job almost as well” was probably the first time I earned those chevrons. Even then, I was glad Range Control was able to ask me the right questions so I could calm down and do my drills.
 

Just funny to think about when you see your little CM team and think “well, the Corporal should just take over from the FOO in the middle of this situation”. 

I exactly why I included the word “theoreticallly”