Author Topic: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS  (Read 6740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,839
  • All your base are belong to us.
FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« on: December 15, 2004, 18:42:07 »
Does anyone here have experience working with the fire support assets of other nations (particularily our potential coalition partners)?  If a Canadian FOO was attached to a deployed Canadian Recce Sqn that lacked Canadian guns/mortars could he bring in fire support from Coalition resources (ie would he need additional radios and nets to call in fire from a US Artillery Battery/Battalion?)  Would a Canadian FSCC be required to make this happen?   My apologies if this seems like a dumb question, but I hate taking things for granted.

Cheers,

2B
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,368
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,824
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2004, 18:48:11 »
Excellent question, Sir.

If I can add on, does this apply for CAS as well? And do our Canadian radios work with coalition nets?
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline CTD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 507
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2004, 23:30:31 »
as far as i can remember their is a NATO standard, their are slight differences in calling for firebetween the countrys but they can be ironed out by the peopel on the ground. hope fully one of the FOO/FAC's will chime in. Real good would be one of the Guys that was in Kosovo, or Afganistan as a FOO/ FAC.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 217,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,009
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2004, 11:19:52 »
Quote
as far as i can remember their is a NATO standard, their are slight differences in calling for fire between the countrys but they can be ironed out by the peopel on the ground.

I am not sure your faith in NATO standards is justified CTD.  AFAIK the US has had a great deal of difficulty organizing themselves so that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Special Forces could all talk to each other.  They have been working at it since the 1980s with SINCGARs (Single Channel Ground to Air Radios) but from public reports it would seem that they are still having problems and are being forced to iron them out now on the fly.

I think you will find that this is the rationale for the Air Force deploying its own SF Communicators as attachments to Army SF operators in Afghanistan (and probably elsewhere) as well as the US Marines (Navy?) deploying ANGLICO (Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company) dets as attachments to Royal Marines in Southern Iraq.  If you think about it, it is consistent with the pattern that has your MFCs detached from the Mortar Platoon  or a FOO det chopped from its parent battery and attached to a Rifle Company. 

I think 2Bravo's question still stands. Because part of the greatness of the WW2 artillery strategy in the Canadian Army, amongst others, was the common training within the National forces, and occasionally across National forces that allowed a Canadian FOO from one particular battery to issue comprehensible fire orders to direct the fire of all assets, up to Army Group level on one particular target.  Does that capability still exist today?

It should be noted that Air Ground support was not as well coordinated, especially when dealing with heavy air assets.  A lot of Canadians died because of poorly dropped bombs from American, British and Canadian aircraft.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 286,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,503
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2004, 21:39:25 »
I know that in the early 80's when "D" bty was part of the AMF I was on exercise with the OP in England and Norway and we brought down fire from other countries guns,and I remember we brought down somebody's fast air in Norway.
[hey, I was just the communicator ;D]
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Observer23

  • New Member
  • **
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2004, 19:41:55 »
Gathering Data

When using assets other than our own there are some considerations to take in account.   You should get this data before you hit ground.

1.   Method of Fixation.   What kind of map system are they using (Just look at any GPS and it will have in the set up menu the type of grid system, ie LONG/LAT, MGRS, UTM, etc)
2.   Common mapping.   There are issues with maps.   Are they Metric /Imperial /Other?   Are you using the same map?
3.   Method of Orientation.   True North? Grid North? Ad hoc Magnetic North?
4.   Method of reporting direction.   Are they using degrees & minutes (360), Mils (6400), DC (6000, like a wristwatch if you have never used it, you find this on former Warsaw pact gear).
5.   Method of measurement (for distances).   Metric or Imperial.  

Ask this question for each type if fire support resource. Guns might use Grid North with Mils and aircraft might use Magnetic North with Degrees within the same nation.

Also ask if fire missions are offered or given.   With commonwealth guns, the FEO has the ability designate what he needs and the volume of fire required to complete his aim.   With US FO s, they offer fire missions to the FSCC and the FSCC will delegate the mission to which c/s is available and impose whatever restrictions are required depending on the current situation in the battle.

If you get the chance to do a coordinating meeting, ask for a copy of the orders format for their radio procedure.   The principles for calling in a mission are the same.   Using their procedure reduces any confusion on their part as they expect (through training and practice) to hear orders to come down in a certain format.   This is no different than receiving hasty attack orders out of sequence and the confusion it can lead to.   It is easier for you to convert data to get the desired results than have someone try to interrupt you intent.
 
Radio Gear

Many nations operate on different wavelengths than ourselves (ha).   Heck different elements operate off of different equipment.   This can be a nightmare trying to find compatibility in means of transmission.   There can be a lot of relaying through other commands to pass on a simple Fire Mission.   To make matters more interesting they can throw in crypto (which is nation specific).   I remember when working with the Dutch and the Brits we simply communicated in clear to coordinate our efforts.

Language

Even when there is a common operating language, you may run into problems.   One story relayed to me dealt with a country's guns whose first language was not English.   Their communicator was using English to receive orders but the intent did not come across.   The order was given to verify that they have â Å“Check Firingâ ? (for the laymen this means the guns will not fire but all other actions such as calculating data, laying on the target, preparing ammunition, etc still continues).   I can only imagine the actual conversation between the signaler and his superior but the reply came back, â Å“we have Checked and Yes we are Firing.â ?

In answering the question: I If a Canadian FOO was attached to a deployed Canadian Recce Sqn that lacked Canadian guns/mortars could he bring in fire support from Coalition resources?   The answer is yes.   In most cases the homework involved in gathering data about the differences between the Canadian and US system has already been done.   Your FEO will have (I am assuming here at this point) familuarize himself with the US methodology.   The radio procedure is very similar (they use word azimuth and we use direct but the intent is understood).   As for equipment, I believe Kirkhill presents this best.
The three pillars are Initiative, Ingenuity and Integrity

Offline Gunner78

  • Guest
  • *
  • 380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2004, 04:23:51 »
Well typically EVERYONE has the same things as in the GPO's sequence of initial orders.....just not everyone does it in the same order....so I'm sure peoiple would work together on the things mentioned before. After a little bit you would get used to it.
Ubique

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,471
    • Desert Rat
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2004, 10:48:37 »
Quote
After a little bit you would get used to it

Hopefully the people needing the support will be understanding. while we are "working the bugs out".  Remember "... strictly in accordance with the intention of the originator, and with a minimum of delay"? As Observer23 has demonstrated, both of those principles can be compromised, when calling down fire from another nation's resources.

As far as everyone having the same thing as the GPO's initial orders, I'm wondering what your experiences are, with other countries' artillery.....? Besides, in this case, the GPOs orders are moot, as they between the CP and the guns. We are discussing in this thread the interoperability between OUR observers, and other peoples' CPs/Guns.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2004, 11:34:00 by muskrat89 »
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Offline 45B

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
  • Facta non Verba
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2004, 19:54:17 »
During the last sniper competition at Gagetown, I was not at the OP, but people told me sometimes it was a little hard to understand, but not that much. The real problem seems to be with non-nato nations. With French they used a francophone and experienced bdr to 'translate'.
By the way some Js were here. The technique was bracketing. It took generally only 3 rounds to adjust. Each team had 5 rounds. At the beginning it was a little long and at many occasions 5 rounds were wasted on adjustment. That was just a practice shooting. At the end, everybody took their 3 rounds to adjust, plus 2 rounds in FFE. Few teams even took just 2 rounds to adjust and 3 rounds in FFE.
FACTA NON VERBA

Offline Rocky 88

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 51
  • Rocky 88
    • CMTC
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2005, 13:07:18 »
Well i hope this will help you out... i was in both Kosovo and Afghanistan and a FOO/FAC and we had a comdander that was Canadian, but if required we could shoot the British Guns AS-90 due to the fact there was no FOO's but then we are under Brigade asset so thats why we can do it, we have had FOO party call in Navel Gun fire from the Americans, and as for the FAC part we had all Countries that were there in Kosovo, but its any country that is in the air and on that tasking and the language is English, so you can see how that is hard for all Countries, and no we don't need an FSCC that is Canadian but it does help, because there is always a Bge FSCC and they all work the same control Guns and Air, as for the radio its not really a problem its the fills thats and issue, all countries have UHF and VHF so they can talk to the Planes. hopefully that helps you out.
 :rocket:

Biernacki

  • Guest
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2005, 20:04:22 »
I don't have any experience with working with other nations.   But don't the  russians have 6000 mils in  their aiming circle. Imagine calling in fire and wondering why they're all wingers.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 286,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,503
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: FIRE SUPPORT COORD QUESTION FOR THE GUNNERS
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2005, 07:50:33 »
Posted by: Biernacki  

I don't have any experience with working with other nations.     But don't the   russians have 6000 mils in   their aiming circle. Imagine calling in fire and wondering why they're all wingers.

Thats why you have superior beings working in the CP. ;D

I remember doing an excercise in Fort Bragg and we had a similar problem[something to do with the gun's sights] but we just incorparated that info into our fire orders to the guns.

....and to MWO Paul, I figured out years later [yes I can be anal] how we screwed up that one shot. ;)
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.