this is in relation to the recent philippine SAF operation wherein the police commandos nailed their target (the bali bomber) but lost 44 of their own when one blocking force was left encircled by rebel forces and was eventually decimated. one american adviser was said to have urged the CG, a filipino, to order an artillery barrage to relieve the trapped commandos. the commandos took up a spot in a corn field, backed up by a shallow river. they couldn't have occupied an area bigger than half a hectare. the rebel troops simply stayed a comfortable distance (200m?) waited for the commandos to run out of ammo, while picking them off with sniper rifles. assuming the commandos were able to give accurate coordinates, the army artillery units couldn't have approached any nearer than 3 kilometers from the nearest dirt road. could an artillery barrage have worked? *** the trouble with the operation was it was a philippine police show, not army or marine. previous operations to catch the bomber involved the other armed services but in doing so, operation security suffered, there were the inevitable leaks, and the bomber bolted. it has happened twice in the past. so this time they tried to use only stealth, using their best men, without support from the army or the marines. an unsupported commando unit deep inside rebel-held territory is near-suicide, especially if they're caught in the day time. the police commandos went in at night, some sea-borne, some over land. 330 went in, hoping their numbers and training could fight off any number of rebels that could sortie from the various camps. from the official report, the striking unit of 36 commnados killed the bomber and around 14 rebels who put up a fight, but lost 14 of their own. only one blocking force of 36 commandos managed to take up their designated position on time. they held their position to the end, expecting to be relieved by the other units. only one commando survived, he managed to kill 4 rebels.
well, i'm guessing here that the police commandos weren't trained to direct heavy guns. another guess of mine is there were neither artillery units nor attack helicopters standing by to help out when SHTF. as the planners kept insisting, it was a black operation, with semi-sealed orders. involving the army and marines also had to consider the ongoing ceasefire and peace talks at the time.
I think that applies to both ends of the radio. I've read of cases where someone called in a strike or barrage on their own coordinates.
you can walk the rounds in danger close...I thought the arty sights had 6400 mils, just like our mortar sights--IIRC...so you can make very minute adjustments....where the guns are located is a factor...if behind friendlies, you have to watch for shorts..if to the side, shorts are not a problem......as Jug says, the FO, FDC, and gunners are a factor...experienced gunners can hit their target with the correct data........I'm finding danger close for 105mm is about 400m...that is just for warning.....you can get closer....and if you only fire one gun, you can be more accurate and call it even closer ...isn't the kill radius about 40m for 105mm?...... arty range is well more than 3KM... if you're about to be over run/killed, the arty can come down right on top of you! .....especially if you are dug in.. ...your story sounds like arty could've/should've kicked some a$$ McCabe, do you mean arty or air?? I know the SF in Afghanistan entered the wrong numbers, and it was their own position...air blew the crap out of them......I take it they use digital FDC now? yes, there always can be mistakes.... and as macbolan says, did they know how to call in arty?? why would the advisor tell the CG to call it in, if they didn't know where to drop it??? 200 meters is danger close
I remember reading about the incident in Afghanistan you mentioned. But a friend of mine was in the 82nd and I remember him telling me a story about them working in '05 or '06 with some other unit in Afghanistan (American) that was not shall we say 100% combat effective, just to be polite, and he recalled at least incident where they accidentally called in artillery on their own position. Might have "just" been mortar-fire, though.
There are around 14 factors which determine the trajectory of an artillery round in flight. Some of these can be predicted, given the scientific instruments and the time to do so. (target location, altitude difference between gun and target, wind speed and direction at different altitudes, charge temperature, muzzle velocity, rotation of the earth, shell weight, etc ) Most of the comments on "accuracy" on this thread have referred to one of these factors which can be calculated by a modern well equipped and trained field artillery unit. Unless you have access to terminally guided munitions, there will be cigar shaped variation in the fall of shot, usually attributed to inconsistencies in propellent manufacture or moment to moment variations in wind shear. The same is true of small arms wjhich will not land in the same bullet hole when fired while clamped to a bench. . This varies with the (fractional) charge and range and is referred to as zone.and usually expressed in the form of 50% Zone. I.e half of the rounds will land within this distance of the mean point of impact, typically 50-100m. Some guns have a smaller zone than others. The 203mm (8") US M110 was particularly accurate with IIRC 50% of rounds landing within 16metres of the target at 10,000m range.
Sheldrake, so some of the rounds might land farther than 100m? wow, that 203mm is accurate!....you don't want the rounds landing to close to each other, correct?? you want a pattern , generally, ... did arty use a 6400 mil sight?...thanks for all replies with ShelD's info here, it does look like arty would've been danger close, but accurate enough to help the commandos, especially if it was decimated anyway
Accuracy? This is with a 155, but during Fallujah a Marine reserve 155 battery actually scored a direct hit with one round on a terrorist swimming across the Euphrates River trying to escape the city. Very impressive shooting. "Battery M, 3/14 (formally 4/14) fired more rounds in Fallujah during the siege than any US battery since Vietnam. The Artillery was so accurate and fast that Mike battery was known to Marines and Soldiers in Fallujah as the "Sniper Battery."(check it out in No True Glory) It was also known as having the fastest guns in the Marines Corps during OIF II."
I urge any who haven't read the 'battle of Long Tan' - to give it a quick read...shows the difference good artillery makes...
For the really big guns (battleship guns) I recall reading somewhere that they considered it pretty good to keep the error under 3% of range. A test shoot well after WWII from an Iowa class BB demonstrated signficantly better though. A write up is at: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
That was after the program to improve the 16-inch gun accuracy after the USS New Jersey's poor shooting during her Lebanon/Beirut deployment.
Yes, that was pretty much the limit with everything at the time working in their favor. With todays better sensors and coputers one might be able to shave a little off that but not much. I seem to recall reading that powder problems were behind the previous accuracy problem, though I'm a bit hazy on it.
