Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Coordinated Map Directed Fire Support (CMDFS)

Coordinated Map Directed Fire Support (CMDFS)

un0me2 - 30-8-2010 at 04:55

I know this is, maybe, just barely within the bounds of this forum, but I'm thinking about it...

One of the major problems with the current war in Afghanistan is the number of units involved, the sheer volume of requests for support from the limited High-Value, Fire-Support Assets and the fact that these competing demands necessitate a degree of prioritization, meaning that units from some Battalions miss out, or do not receive "timely" Fire-Support. I've been thinking about that, the destructive capacity of every Infantry Battalion is massive, 10,000 7.62mm rounds will essentially collapse a building, as has been demonstrated time and time again with the minigun.

The Royal Australian Army, in the guise of the 1st AIF (under Lt.Gen Monash) was one of the earliest exponents of Map Directed Fire Support (MDFS), wherein Companies, and later Battalions, of Heavy Machine Guns would open fire on predetermined targets, using their weapons, essentially, as light-weight artillery. The effects were outstanding, the volume of fire, coupled with the indirect angle (which defeated the purpose of breastworks/trenches insofar as bullets arriving at a 45' angle ended up INSIDE the trench/breastwork) were extremely effective.

Given what I can see of the current situation in Afghanistan, coupled with my first-hand knowledge of the demise of the "Sustained Fire Machine-Gun" section within the Battalion(s), this skill/art has been lost.

This is somewhat suprising as the number of machine guns in each Company/Battalion is higher than that of the 1st AIF and the enemy is almost invariably utilizing prepared defensive positions (sangars) to ambush patrols. Not only do the modern Infantry Battalions have better firepower, they are also accompanied/carried by heavy vehicles with "Remote Machine Guns", which apart from the fact that they double the firepower of the small units involved, could also be used in the proposed idea.

Now, given the existence of the GPS, the burst-transmission radio, the laser-rangefinder, etc. it should be very easy to work out a target designation device to be attached to a rifle, which can communicate directly to the Btn's Fire Control Officer's Computer Network. Point the unit at the target, it lases the range and works out the bearing, & transmits that with the units own GPS coordinates and the target can be designated to the nearest 10 sq. meters.

Now... Here is the tricky bit, if every GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun, in the Australian Army the 7.62mm MAG-58) in the unit (and attached transport squadron(s)) were capable of being coordinated - ie. the crew-served weapons crew had a small unit, which received the fire-mission signal, then computed (based upon the GPS-derived position of that weapon) the bearing & elevation to the designated target, then that would provide a serious level of Organic Indirect Fire Support to the Infantry Battalion.

Say 1-GPMG / section, 3 sections to the platoon, 3 carriers per platoon (another GPMG or better, each), firing 200 rounds = 1200 rounds on the ground per platoon. Given that sort of result (and given a dedicated GPMG Support Platoon/Battalion), upwards of 100K rounds could be dedicated to that part of a grid within moments of the target being designated. That exceeds the firepower that could be expected from several High-Value Fire-Support Assets, and given that it is Organic to the Infantry Battalion that requires the support, there is no difficulty with prioritization, the Fire-Support request is generated & provided within the Battalion (remember 81mm mortars are also an Organic, Indirect, Fire-Support Asset of the Infantry Battalion as well).

The only real difficulty that I foresee is the need to come up with a lighter/more portable tripod/C2 sight combination. What jumps to mind immediately, is to build a second "remote firing station" onto the back (cargo) area of the Bushranger (AFV), allowing the sections GPMG to be mounted in the vehicle and automatically fired on the same bearing by the vehicle's gunner.

Any ideas?

I realize that this is not "chemistry" but it is interesting and involves "energetic material". It would also, if the kinks are worked out, reduce the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan by ensuring that no soldier is EVER left without timely, indirect fire-support due to a lack of assets in theater.

hissingnoise - 30-8-2010 at 06:23

Quote:

Any ideas?

It's interesting, but it has very little to do with amateur science. . .

grndpndr - 30-8-2010 at 13:48

1, that method while effective in certain situations 100 yrs ago was coupled with
liquid cooled bbls on maxims etc that were equipped with the nescessary sights for indirect fire.Moreover the cartridges they used also employed effective long range boat tail heavy ball that would carry many kilometers and still be lethal which only means to penetrate a 1/2 in pine board and they didnt have the trajectory to enter a fighting position in any event.
Troops in the open was the prefferred mission not dug in to fighting positions and this was ww1 with thousands of massed troops shoulder to shoulder in the open not maybe a dozen.That size target area would be nigh unto impossible to connect with 3 to a dozen insurgents covering maybe 200to 300 sguare meters versus several thousand square meters and a battalion of unprotected troops.
Using HMGs as an indirect fire weapon as a tactic didnt outlast first yrs ww1
with its massed attacks and trenchlines from the north sea to south of france it certainly wouldnt work against an often unseen, elusive enemy with an alway available abundance of cover.If the 40mm automatic GL and .50cal MG is inneffective the troops need far more than indirect fire from 7.62MGs.The problem doesnt lie with our troops with far superior firepower loosing firefights to the insurgents but the problem Of IEDs and obliterated Humvees/men inside.

[Edited on 30-8-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 30-8-2010 by grndpndr]

un0me2 - 30-8-2010 at 19:19

Quote: Originally posted by grndpndr

1, that method while effective in certain situations 100 yrs ago was coupled with
liquid cooled bbls on maxims etc that were equipped with the nescessary sights for indirect fire.Moreover the cartridges they used also employed effective long range boat tail heavy ball that would carry many kilometers and still be lethal which only means to penetrate a 1/2 in pine board and they didnt have the trajectory to enter a fighting position in any event.
Troops in the open was the prefferred mission not dug in to fighting positions and this was ww1 with thousands of massed troops shoulder to shoulder in the open not maybe a dozen.That size target area would be nigh unto impossible to connect with 3 to a dozen insurgents covering maybe 200to 300 sguare meters versus several thousand square meters and a battalion of unprotected troops.
Using HMGs as an indirect fire weapon as a tactic didnt outlast first yrs ww1
with its massed attacks and trenchlines from the north sea to south of france it certainly wouldnt work against an often unseen, elusive enemy with an alway available abundance of cover.If the 40mm automatic GL and .50cal MG is inneffective the troops need far more than indirect fire from 7.62MGs.The problem doesnt lie with our troops with far superior firepower loosing firefights to the insurgents but the problem Of IEDs and obliterated Humvees/men inside.

[Edited on 30-8-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 30-8-2010 by grndpndr]

Using GPMG's as indirect fire-support not only outlasted the first years of WWI, it was one of the tactics which directly led to the successes of the last 6 months of the war. A 7.62mm round can (and has been) used for indirect harrassing fire at anything up to 3.5-5km. The inbuilt inaccuracy over that distance is at the base of the idea. It was utilized to great effect by both the 1st Australian Army Corps and the 1st Canadian Army Corps, which were the spearpoint of the assaults from 8/8/18 to October 1918. The 7.62mm round has VERY similar ballistics to the .303" round that was used by the Allies (the GPMG/L7/MAG-58/C6/etc. & the M60 are both derived from the WWII-era MG-42).

An absolute hail of medium caliber machine gun rounds saturating a 100m2 area, with real time adjustment, etc. would, at the very least, keep the bad guys heads down (I suspect it would cause massive casualties as well).

The reason indirect machine gun fire is useful is that there is no effective defence to it other than heavy duty overhead protection. People under serious OHP are not taking part in the battle, full stop, unless they are in reinforced concrete bunkers.

Does nobody else remember the old days? The 10,000 round burst (absolutely boring as shit, with an incredible number of burned hands, wrists, etc. from barrel changes). That was "Sustained Fire Machine Guns". As the "remote firing positions" on the AFV's could easily be equipped with servo-connective level, bearing & elevation devices, the need for tripods & C2 sights (the ones used with 81mm mortars, three spirit-level bubbles) is gone. The section merely mounts its own GPMG on the vehicles 2nd "remote firing position" (slaved to the first), and simply remove it when they leave the vehicle.

When harboured up for the night, gun picket would entail securing the vehicle, while the vehicle crew would be required to ensure that the gunners position was manned 24/7.

Effectively the number of rounds on the ground would exceed that of a dual minigun equipped support aircraft. The 81mm mortars impacting on the same area would ensure greater destructive capacity. All utilizing the units endogenic, organic, firepower assets. The maximum range of the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round is ~3,000m/2 miles in the map predicted fire-support role (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army).

The concept is to ally that awesome amount of firepower with "real-time" adjustment and designation, providing infantry with the tools that have been given to armoured crews, the ability to communicate accurate, timely information effectively even in the heat of battle (face it, pressing a button on something attached to a rifle, pointed at the target is natural, using a compass, guessing a range, triangulating a position and then using voice to transmit in code is seriously antiquated and as unnatural as it gets, then comes the adjustment(s)).

[Edited on 31-8-2010 by un0me2]

un0me2 - 30-8-2010 at 19:51

As to the effectiveness of the concept against IED's, it would certainly work a charm as a method of clearing areas of IEDs/Mines. The increased expenditure in terms of ammunition certainly does not rate in my book against the losses of men.

As to the effectiveness of the technique, the losses suffered to date by the Australian & Canadian Army's have been approximately 1:1 ratio of firefights/IEDs. Australian Army losses due to destruction of vehicles are nil (well no deaths at any rate), due to the exclusive use of heavy AFV's (the humvee is well and truly out of it), which are designed to cope with mines/IED's. The difference is so large that a Dutch unit went on strike until the Dutch Gov't purchased Bushmaster AFV's (mixed it up, the "Bushranger Project" was the project which gave birth to it) to equip it (that units losses in lesser vehicles were horrendous).

The knowledge that overwhelming, effective and deadly accurate firepower WILL arrive within a minute of being contacted would be incredibly good for the morale of Australian/other troops and incredibly damaging to the morale of the insurgents. The only real change other than to the operations of the troops in harbour/patrol bases (who would have to be retrained to provide the organic support missions) would be the introduction of a no-fly zone within a certain distance of bases/positions, below 5,000 ft, without prearranged clearance.

But for the USMC & the US Army, the introduction of MINE/IED protected AFV's is the only answer (thankfully they are finally being introduced) in terms of manpower losses. The Australian Army, to its credit, has seen fit to properly protect its soldiers, the US hasn't. As far as the concept outlined, here is a paper by a US Graduate on the complexity of targeting by normal means.

grndpndr - 31-8-2010 at 01:19

Send your idea up the chain of command im sure it will attract attention maybe just not the kind you had in mind.You may have missed it but there have been many advances in timely massed fires in the last 100 yrs far exceeding rifle caliber lethality/accuracy at max rifle ranges
As to limited successes of axis forces during the last 6months of ww1 was the forerunner of blitkrieg in ww2,groups of specially trained german assault troops bypassing resistance while driving to the rear
and soft targets.For a time remarkably successful but with limited range being limited to footpower not vehicle horsepower success was self limiting.back to the history books and modern warfare tactics and modern weapons lethality.Massed MGs as modern indirect fire support vs limited insurgents! Genius!?

This topic might be better recieved at www.military.com, but I doubt it

[Edited on 31-8-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 31-8-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 31-8-2010 by grndpndr]

un0me2 - 1-9-2010 at 21:19

Limited insurgents? These are the crowd that are involved in Company-sized fire-fights from prepared defensive positions? LIMITED?

There are a number of threats in Afghanistan, the one that the Australian Army is taking the most casualties from is IED's (and there are methods being arrived at to deal with the same), the other, running a very close second, is stand-up firefights with comparatively sized units, with some military training who as stated before generally occupy prepared defensive positions at choke-points or on high ground.

I love the way clowns denigrate the Taliban whilst being unable to explain the casualties, they are effective fighters, some of whom are even skilled at fire and movement and all the rest. Added to that, the fact that the vast majority of them have over a decade's experience as light infantry, they know what they are doing and they know how to make the most of the terrain (they get in stand up fights with our SAS/Commando Regt's - that is almost unheard of, even the VC/NVA did NOT do that).

But the facts are that they are light infantry, the American approach to using only roads and light-wheeled vehicles instead of vigorous foot patrolling is why the IED's are causing so much havoc to US Units. The only way to beat light infantry is to resort to the role of infantry, "to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize ground and hold it, regardless of season, weather or terrain". The reason I'm suggesting it, is because until the American Forces stop sending up huge dust clouds racing around the countryside, telegraphing their position and intentions, they will continue to take massive casualties.

IF this war can be won, it will be because the Taliban are shown, conclusively, to be a spent force. The only way to do that is with boots on the ground, more especially, boots on the strategic high ground, the denial of which cripples the Taliban. Mobility, insofar as it relates to anything other than the delivery of stores/troops to strongpoints on such high-value assets (or removes casualties therefrom) is wasted in this war. The local people know the Taliban and know their weaknesses and will only stop supporting them when they are no longer a force to be reckoned with.

The upcoming famine will do a lot in that regard, the food crops from Pakistan (where the bulk of the jihadi fighters are supplied from) will cripple the Taliban, who will be forced to take further steps against the population in Afghanistan in order to remain effective. As both Russia & China have stated that they are not selling cereal crops (their crops have failed) the price of wheat/rice/etc. will rise. Selective assistance in terms of food aid from the US & Australian Armies to the villages will do a LOT to win over the hearts and minds (interdiction of the supply routes will do more).

But as for the limited range, the majority of contacts are within 2km of the patrol base, as are the IED's. That is well within the range of the patrol base GPMG's (and quite frankly, with some planning, well within the range of other patrol/Fire Support Bases - there is no chance that patrol bases would be out of range of the Battalions 81mm Mortars, which have essentially the same effective range as the GPMG's when they are used in the Indirect Support role).

PS Please, before spouting crap about the conduct of operations in WWI, between 8 August 1918-11 November 1918 especially, try and consult a decent source on the subject. Indirect fire support, intense & incredibly detailed artillery support plans (including the Machine Gun Btn's), creeping barrages, Armour (especially in a stores carrying role) and ground-air coordination by the Australians & Canadians, was written about by Col. (Bony) Fuller (who took part). He used it as the basis of the Experimental Mechanized Unit between the Wars in England.

It was ignored in England, however it was taken seriously in Deutscheland, where one Hans Guderian wrote a book on the subject titled "Achtung Panzer!" (there is some suggestion that this preoccupation came from the German Army's identification of the Tank as the "cause" of their defeats in 8/8-11/11 period caused Hitler's psychological identification of the Tank as a symbol of power). However, the use of aircraft as mobile artillery, Tanks and supporting infantry was first used effectively by the Australians at the Battle of Hamel (Lt. Gen. Monash's first battle as Corps Commander), then again at Amiens (on the 8/8 - Von Ludendorff's "Black Day")).

grndpndr - 1-9-2010 at 22:55

LMAO!! Indirect fire with MGs?!? Afraid that isnt the GD secret weapon you imagine ya fuckin yard bird! I love it when some Private jackass has the handle on warwinning tactics when if hes even been in service he was chief cook and bottle washer.Take your theorys of MGs as a relevant modern indirect fire weapon and put it where the sun dont shine the idea wont be missed,or over to military.com this be a chemistry forum General Troll.

FWIW General the Mag 58/M240 and M60 have bery little to do mechanically with the MG42.The M60 shares the feed cover of the Mg42 and gas system of the FG 42 completely different weapons! while both the m60 amd Mag are both gas operated the Mg 42 is recoil operated.Someone needs some lessons alright.
As far as the last few months of WW2 ther was far more to germanys defeat than that on the battlefield.The germans were suffereing from a sea blockade by the largest navy afloat, the nation was starving not to mention the fact the germans had the misfortune to be engaged against the foremost powers on earth,not really a recipe for success.But what really brought them down was massed MG fire and the brilliance of an aussie general is that about right there General Perth.The Idea SUCKS! I say that not in a vacuum
but with the general agreement of all the worlds armies judging by
the ideas popularity..Orf course vmaybe everones wrong and your a
military einstein!?LMAO Australia.Maybe its the water or a napoleon syndrome.
Finally given the tremendous penetration of the std 7.62ball at several kilometers if the IED is buried a\s many are good luck,the chance of hitting the detonator or for that matter penetrating deep enough to activate the detonator are slim to none.Detonating the explosive with the sheer power of the spent 7.62 FMJ ball projectile equally dismal.If by some equally strange chance the explosives is recovered arty rounds or even mortar rounds again the spent slug will not penetrate.Waste of expensive ammunition with no joy.
I for one doubt the missions likelyhood of success but not for lack of Indirect fire Via Medium MGs.Thes men grew up with AKs in thier hand and not for show.Most have beehn in combat before they were of age.Even w/o modern training a formidable likely fearless fighter is made who will die before he quits.I dont think its luck the afghanis have never been subjugated long.On paper the US is a world superpower but against illiterate tribesman willing to die and thier sons in turn to die in jihad bode ill for our misquided in my judgement attempt at nationbuilding.I recall winning hearts and minds.Rather NOT winning hearts and Minds instead looking for the lest dishonorable way to retreat w/o concedeing defeat in what would have been an endless war my sone would now be engaged in crippled or dead.Methinks with the corruption and history of the region time to cut our losses and fight not with boots on the ground
but bloody noses via tomohawks.As far as an opportunity to win by starvation thats another great ww1 Idea.The world would not have it.
Brutal allys starving the populace as well as fighters.NO WIN.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 2-9-2010 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 2-9-2010 by grndpndr]

un0me2 - 4-9-2010 at 04:32

Right - the Mg-42 had no influence on either the MAG-58 or the M-60? I call bullshit and [url=http://www.google.com.au/search?q=influence+mg-42+on+m60+mag58&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=7SX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US

fficial&ei=ATWCTPq0FIHCccWjnIkL&start=10&sa=N]here[/url] is why. As to mechanically, the MAG/M60 are realistically quite similar, both belt-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled weapons that fire from an open bolt, with exchangeable barrels. The only real difference is the fact that one is much better made than the other.

The only real difference in operation between them the the MG-42 is the fact that the latter was recoil operated - WITH GAS ASSIST. Other than that it was a belt-fed, gas & recoil operated, air cooled weapon that fired from an open bolt and it too had exchangeable barrels. Apart from that is the roller-locking mechanism which was discarded by everyone but Heckler-Koch IIRC.

I don't see anything in your diatribe that explains why you supposed a Battalions sub-unit/patrols would be placing themselves out of the range of indirect fire support?

Nor do I see any real refutation of my suggestion that the biggest part of the war will, in the very near future, come down to the lowest common denominator, FOOD. The conversion of local farmers production to opium has essentially made them reliant upon outside providers. The Pakistani crops are GONE, FUCKED, KAPUT.

The Chinese and Russian crops aren't much better (thus the refusal to provide grain/cereals to the world market). The clusterfuck in Burma is still being felt insofar as the price of rice.

As the International Aid Agencies ARE NOT WILLING TO OPERATE in the bitterly fought over areas, the only food distribution will be via the respective armed forces. As the Taliban has the unfortunate habit of beheading Aid Workers, I doubt the Aid Agencies will be falling over themselves to provide them with food to distribute.

That makes my scenario vis-a-vis the near future (ie. winter) very viable. Food distribution by the military will be determined in a large part (given the exposure of the troops involved), on the perceived threat in any given area. As the military has control of the food and a complete answer to charges of inhumane treatment from denial of access thereto, I'd be amazed if starvation/etc. were not the outcome. As it is, medical services are only provided to certain villages by the armed services, no aid agencies are willing to service the ones the military withhold medical services to. When that hits the news, I'll believe that anyone gives a fuck about the Taliban starving...

PS The German Army was decisively beaten in WWI, the fact that the Americans allowed them to "Surrender", means absolutely nothing. The Hindenburg Line had been reached and breached and the Australian & Canadian Corps were coming back into the line at the time of the armistice.

PPS I strongly doubt you have any relevant experience with Battalion Operations or Indirect Fire Support, you have the strangest ideas about what it is and is not capable of, even more tellingly, you have no conception of why sub-units patrol only within the range of their support. The "loss" of indirect Fire Support Capability by a Machine Gun unit within each Btn only came as a result of the draw-downs (post Glasnost) of the Armed Forces. As the operations in Afghanistan continue to increase in intensity, I strongly suspect they will return. A 7.62mm round fired at maximum range, 45'/3200mil arrives with not a lot less kinetic energy than it leaves the barrel with. It is not "tumbling" out of the sky, it is being fired along a parabolic curve, which can be predicted. The effect of the machine gun barrages as described by the recipients thereof, greatly outweighed that of the artillery preparation (except gas).

I've seen GPMG's used to basically cut a hole in the side of a breeze-block building, due solely to the kinetic energy of the rounds shattering the area surrounding the impact point. They are far from gentle and are possibly the most underrated piece of kit in the Btn. As the majority of IED's consist of ex-Soviet (and even pre-Soviet) munitions, which are unstable as fuck, I'd personally dislike standing anywhere fucking near where a half a ton of machine gun rounds fell out of the sky in a limited time frame. A large number of insurgents have been killed trying to emplace IED's, due to this inherent instability, or didn't you realise that?

PPPS Before you, in your clueless ranting stick your foot even more firmly into your mouth vis-a-vis WWI, Lt.Gen. Monash, was one of THE OUTSTANDING GENERALS of the war. His forces, the 1st Australian Corps, were the spearpoint of EVERY major assault by the "British Army" (along with the Canadians under Lt.Gen Currey). His plan is the one credited with being "the perfect battle" (Hamel) given the tying together of armor, artillery, indirect fire-support, infantry and airpower to take an important position in 93 minutes (Monash planned for 90).

The Battle of Amiens was a larger version of the Battle of Hamel, with entire Australian Corps attacking with the entire Canadian Corps on their right. So many guns and prisoners (and so much ground) was taken that Von Ludendorf called the 8th of August 1918 the "Black Day" of the German Army (which from that point could no longer "win" the war).

As Boney Fuller was in charge of designing Tank Operations in that period (as Chief of Staff of the Armoured Forces), and he and his deputy, Basil Liddel Hart were responsible for the "experimental force" in England, and was directly influenced by the Battles of Hamel & Amiens in designing therefore. These forces were ignored by the "British Establishment" but led Guderian to write 'Achtung Panzer!'.

Please, try and learn some history instead of spouting ill-informed crap.

[Edited on 4-9-2010 by un0me2]

grndpndr - 4-9-2010 at 16:11

I said the Mg42 has very little bearing on the mechanical operation of the mag 58 or M60 that is FACT,many of the MGs' preceding the MG42 had all the features your attributing to MG42 as being the first example,the MG 34 had all the features of MG42 but was replaced in german service because the MG42 was much simpler to make.WW1 Allied/german MG's were both belt fed/gas operated and recoil operated depending on model. Contrary to what you are READING and taking for gospel the MAG was not nescessarily better made than the M60 it simply was a better design and the fact is the US has not used the M60 as a general issue GPMG for 20years plus!The MAG 58 as you call it or in US nomenclature its the M240 GPMG adopted because it is a superior design. .Do not take what I said out of context in an attempt to prove an obsolete Idea.The use/capabilityof indirect fire by MGs was only lost after glassnost and the downsizing of the military?!There was never any training that Imaware of by US or any NATO countries to use MG indirect fire to counter soviet massed artillery fires.Anyone suggesting such a ridiculous notion would have been carefully watched as he would obvioussly be unstable or stupid.
Ive never seen any infantry unit/support unit use MG indirect fire.I was a paratroop in the 82abn and the 193 inf battalion in panama.
Combat support Company in the 82nd involved with mortars anti armor and recon, involved mostly with heavier crew served weapons in the 82nd.Ihave never seen nor heard of MG Indirect fire in the US military or any other modern military in recent history so wher does that tidbit about indirect fire only being abandoned after glassnost!?Insurgents killed by
unstable explosives,what a suprise,that has what to do w/indirect fire period.Everything youve spouted concerning indirect fire is BS.All anyone has to do is Google
for MG Indirect fire and youll find absolutely nothing about its current use.Nothing.Thers no more need for this discussion if anyones curious about Indirect fire do a search.It will be a ww1 and earlier history lesson with no currect applications/
uses in modern warfare.Starvation is completely irrelevant
with the OP statement,an attempt to distract from the original bullshit.Give us your qualifications and experience with MG indirect fire so we can research that! Or is that not possible because all you possess is book knowledge never having even served?Book knowledge is one thing but it doesnt teach everything thats relevant. :mad:

How ,many armys in the world use MG indirect fire?How many use light to heavy mortars and light howitzers for close to med range indirect fire.Those decisions are made by military proffessionals /ordnance folk whove spent lifetimes
studying the subject.But you as a civilian have read a few books and decided the worlds militarys would be better served by MG indirect fire circa ww1.
Finally there are many shooters on this forum let me remind them of your statement that the 7.62 nato projectile will lose very little kinetic energy @ several kilometers.Std 7.62 FMJBT
ball @2700/2750 fps will begin to lose stability AT 800meters,
its maximun effective range is 900m past which it will not penetrate the old GI steel pot'HELMET"/and will lose stability yet it loses very little kinetic energy at what ranges?3 to 5 clicks?LMAO.You obviously have no grasp of ballistics as it relates to firearms
etc.Yet you are lecturing as to a complicated a subject as indirect fire with rifle caliber MG's.I would suggest to go to library and read about firearms ballistics perhaps even find a manual from an old indirect MG firing table.

Im finished with this nonsense.

[Edited on 5-9-2010 by grndpndr]

un0me2 - 4-9-2010 at 21:59

The use of indirect Fire Support was "EMPHASIZED" in training as a means of stopping the "human wave" attacks, as encountered by the Australian Army in Korea and was also used as an area saturation weapon during the Vietnam war. It was never intended to counter the massed artillery of the Soviet Bloc, artillery batteries were tasked with that. There is a discussion on the topic elsewhere. From page 28/the PAM (Canadian Army - C6/C2 Sight - same weapon, check out the anti-aircraft position and imagine how it feels to be No.2). The fact that the PAM for the weapon gives the range as 2,500m (and it will go further) kind of makes a monkey out of your assertion above does it not?

Book knowledge is a wonderful thing, it is quite an interesting period from which a LOT of lessons remain unlearned to this day (certainly by the 27th Div AEF, which managed to get lost twice in WWI and then slaughtered on D-Day in WWII). That said, there is nothing like field experience and I have a lot more of that than you may expect, I also have a deepseated loathing of the fucking C2 sight, setting that up with the fucking aiming posts and what have you under fire would be a fucking nightmare. That is why I am suggesting a way around that, because if the weapons could be more easily and usefully employed, they would be. Put it this way, if my mates are in trouble, I'll quite fucking happily throw rocks if it will help.

I have less experience with indirect Fire Support with the GPMG's than I'd like, apart from the drawdowns, there was also the idiotic move to 5.56mm rounds (which immediately gave the bad guys the range on us). I do have serious experience with mortars and indirect fire support, including target designation, calling for and adjusting fires. I'm actually looking at returning to it, there is a shortage of Fire Support Coordinators in the Australian Army at present, so even by joining the reserves they are pretty much assured of an operational posting "attached" to another unit.

It may be of interest to you, or not, that several batteries of the Royal Australian Artillery have changed over to become full Batteries of Mortars, due to the nature of the current campaign. Quite simply, range is not the issue, elevation and the need for indirect fire support is. That is why the GPMG is coming back in a BIG way, as are 7.62mm assault weapons, the fact that they are making NEW C2 sights for the first time in decades should be something of an eye opener (even so, I cannot see the GPMG with Tripod & C2 sight being useful - a better way of employing the weapon in the fire support role would be a whole lot more effective - that tripod is an absolute bastard to carry, I shudder at the thought of ever having to set it up under fire, then run out aiming posts - steady, away from you a touch, steady, back to you a touch... FUCK THAT).

PS You seem to be struggling with the concept of ballistic performance as it relates to high-trajectory weapons, put simply, it is why howitzers can throw the same bomb with less charge than a direct fire weapon. If you have a chance, go check out an old Lee Enfield, their sights are graduated up to about 2,600 yards (with iron sights).

PPS The reason why the technique was so useful in WWI was due to the fact that the Heavy Machine Guns (water cooled Vickers) were mounted on Tripods 24/7. There was no need to set them up in order to utilize them in the Fire Support Role, they were already there, that coupled with the small gains meant that they could continue to be used right throughout the attack. The reason it was used again in Korea was basically similar, static positions, the weapons being mounted on tripods to better make use of cover, and the need for heavy duty Fire Support to break up human wave attacks.

The "SOLE" reason there is not more use of the weapon in the static role at present is the fact that the current weapon is normally on a bipod (with which the C2 sight cannot be used) and breaking out the tripod & C2 sight & aiming posts is too much fucking bother. If there was a better way of employing the weapon in the Indirect Fire Support Role, something like I've suggested, it would be jumped at. If my mates are in trouble, I'll happily use ANY weapon that can help. As the changeover of our Artillery Batteries shows, the ranges involved, being the range of the firefight from the Fire Support Bases, are short, however the need for hitting someone the other side of a fucking great hill is pressing.

As to which armies use the GPMG (whatever number is given to it), in a static role in Afghanistan? From what I've seen reported to date, the UK, the US, the Australian & Kiwi Armies. The Israeli Army uses it a LOT in the static positions facing Lebanon & Syria. It is fucking useful kit, trouble is, it is an absolute bastard to set up.

[Edited on 5-9-2010 by un0me2]

franklyn - 6-9-2010 at 21:10

Using machine guns as substitute artilery gives new meaning to death from above.
Which is likely to only result in random casualties of bystanders. Not exactly the
way to win hearts and minds. The air ordnance equivalent of this tactic named
" Lazy dog " was a cluster bomb containing 11000 , 50 caliber slugs with fins.
This is only effective on densely populated targets. An occasional mujahadin
sniper hardly merits such overkill. Directed fire support using gatlings provided by
" Puff the magic dragon " and " Spooky " air support went out of favor long ago
bacause it's the equivalent of carpet bombing blind. If air support is unavailable
as needed that is the fault of command and control not of tactics.
When the only tool you have is a hammer you tend to view every job as a nail
you can't substitute a hammer for a screwdriver.
Precisely locating the source of incoming fire is key here , there is equipment
available actually already in use in some American cities that will immediately
indicate the projected source of a fired round by the sound it generates.

.

un0me2 - 9-9-2010 at 04:52

The "occasional sniper" doesn't warrant a mortar barrage either, but the simple fact is that our heavy artillery batteries are changing over to mortars so as to be more effective in theater. That and the fact that half our casualties come from stand up firefights engaging whole infantry companies or SAS patrols, says that the problem is NOT individual snipers, but medium sized, light infantry units which can and do stand up and fight when cornered (they even take the fight to these units, especially by means of ambushes).

Map directed machine gun fire is no less selective or heavy duty than a full-on mortar barrage, it just takes advantage of the existing assets that are not, presently, being fully utilized. Quite frankly, what is a legitimate target for one, is a legitimate target for the other, both are area weapons. The fact that the heavy mortar units are being attached to the infantry battalions says to me that there is a recognised need for organic, indirect fire-support of a greater extent than has been available to date. It is certainly not something that can be ignored, it is a major change in the way things have been conducted at present, bringing medium fire-support assets under the direct command of the Battalions Fire-Support Officer, instead of leaving Fire-Support to theater level commanders.

The additional fact, that medium-weight area-dominating fire support assets are being used, and not only used but expanded, suggests that the current situation is escalating insofar as distinct, trained, small-medium, light-infantry units are expected to be encountered more often.

It is amusing that people aren't "seeing" what is happening, obviously the training camps in Pakistan are having a major effect, the current (and obviously the prospected) enemy appear to be far more effective, are not "part-timers" from local villages, rather they appear to be full-time, trained combatants, with the capacity to engage entire Infantry Companies (how long before it escalates to Battalions) for hours/days on end.

The changeover in Fire-Support requirements suggests that the majority of contacts which require such support, take place within fairly short ranges from the Patrol/Fire-Support Bases, while the need for mortars may indicate the nature of the conflict (and the projected form) as it grows and the preferred tactics of the insurgents (mortars are very effective at slotting in behind ridgelines, artillery is not).

Tracking the source of fire, especially anything with a trajectory is old-hat. I've personally engaged in training exercises in which we'd fire, then endeavor to move within a seriously short period of time between firing and projected counter-battery fire, based upon the use of position fixing radar.

franklyn - 9-9-2010 at 10:14

Unless you know what you're shooting at ( with whatever you prefer or have available )
and you have the target located and in sight and have a reasonable chance of hiting
what you're aiming to hit , any other fire directed or not is just suppressive fire which
only serves to harrass. During the trench warfare of the first world war , the only time
anyone was gunned down by a machine gun was when troops rose out of the trench
advancing into the line of fire , a lesson not learned from the charge of the light brigade.
Artillery rounds had an equally random chance of scoring a lucky hit. The battle of the
Somme demonstrates that. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWsomme.htm
If you want assured anihillation of a target the FAE is the only thing that can do that ,
providing you accept collateral casualties. Hit and run ambush from a small militia is
not readily addressed by a shock and awe response.

.

un0me2 - 9-9-2010 at 13:41

Read what people write - the increase in the allocation of mortars to the Infantry Battalions by reequipping Artillery Batteries with Mortars and attaching them to the Infantry Battalions and the obvious perceived need therefore - directly indicates that organic, indirect fire-support from area weapons is necessary. This suggests that (a) the enemy is not individual "snipers"; (b) that troops on the ground are designating targets; but (c) that Theater Level Fire-Support Assets are not dealing with the calls for support in a timely manner (unlike organic Fire-Support Assets).

Organic Indirect Fire-Support is not precisely "shock & awe", it is the effective and timely provision of fairly accurate (within 20m), overwhelming saturation of an area-type target, with a high probability of reducing incoming fire from that area and allowing the Infantry to get into position (unsighted, WP is great for that) in order that they can do their job with minimal casualties.

The role of infantry is "to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, regardless of season, weather or terrain", the role of mortars is "to provide organic, indirect fire-support to the Infantry Battalion". The rebuilding of the Infantry Battalions Heavy Support elements is well overdue, the response times from units within, or attached to, an Infantry Battalion (and on the same net) will be a whole lot shorter than requests that have to be passed through multiple hands before being answered.

PS Indirect Machine Gun fire, from Heavy Machine Gun Battalions was used in WWI and in Korea. The benefit of it was that it did hit people inside trenches and kept their heads down long enough for the infantry to advance.

PPS We keep getting further off-topic, I'm still trying to see if anyone has any ideas on how to build a target-designating device with an inbuilt laser-rangefinder, GPS, compass and automatic radio, which when pointed at the target & the trigger pushed (somewhat intuitive compared to trying to establish your own position, the enemies position and radioing it in) and then a receiver for the same.

grndpndr - 16-9-2010 at 12:37

Like it or not indirect GPMG fire IS obsolete,thers no discussion in any reputable military forums or as far as any US/NATO procurement planning Not even obsolescent but completely obsolete.
In terms of wieght of delivered ordnance a single air cooled GPMG can deliver
perhaps 200rounds in the one minute and a bbl change is required.If you are proposing a sustained fire barrage changing bbls over hours were down to PERHAPs 60 to 80 RPM assuming we have half a dozen bbls.WW1 water cooled maxims and the vickers copy were capable of useful sustained fire because of the effectiveness/wieght of the water cooling and stability of a 40lb tripod but a 90 lb piece of ordnace with no more lethality than a rifle caliber @2.5clicks maybe 22 rf kinetic energy is w/o doubt obsolete!
10gram lead and cupronickel projectiles with very minimal kinetic energy left at the proposed ranges of 2.5k plus.This compared to 81/120mm mortars far more accurate fire raining HE and steel down within seconds of a call for fire.There is indeed a shortage of integral indirect fire weapons specifically mortars.Thier extreme light wieght of some 320lbs for a 120mm mortar/90lbs for the 81mm mortar makes them particularly suitable for mountain warfare as does the high angle hell that produces on target.The 120mm will deliver 10kilogram HE and steel, bombs from 200m to over 7000m makes them particularly desirable in mountainous terrain.The 81mm mortars
50meters min range and 6000m max ranges at rates of fire from 8to16rds sustained to 30rpm of 8/9lb HE and steel
for one minute followed by a cooling off period Amounts to lethality that no amount of 7.62rounds at 2to5lilometers can begin to match.

There is a misunderstanding here and lack of knowledge in fact ive lost track with
counting your mistaken notions of book read letahlity of small arms indirect fire effectiveness to weapon designs,tactics.Just one source please! advocating indirect fire as the answer to insufficient integral fire support.As long as you want to talk about small caliber indirect fire the 40mm AGL/.50M2 HMG turret combinations is quite capable of the indirect fire you advocate,both have direct fire ranges of 1800m and the 40mm is quite capable
of firing over interceding hills impacting the opposing slope and it is used in that role as is the Ma deuce M2 .50cal w/ 50gram raufoss HE/incediary rounds which are just a bit more lethal than a 10gram lead projectile with the remaining kinetic energy of a .22 RF.If you did have any training with the mag 58 you would have been taught it is not a modified or somehow copied MG42.The weapons locking system is taken from the US BAR of ww1/ww2/korea and ARVN fame and stgill a valued effective weapon in the less developed areas of the world,the feed system is the only salient feature copied from the MG42.The gas operated o mag 58/M60 is just that gas operated not recoil operated / gas assist MG42 which if you understood weapons ,gas assist is simply the gas pressure impacting the muzzle as it exits,AKA gas ASSIST.A far cry from gas operation vis a vis m60/mag 58.If you knew anything about weapons in general weapons designs are generally never unique!always they are a hodge podge of design elements that were successful on other weapons.Not to denigrate the MG 42 it was and is an excellent weapon but like all weapons it evolved it wasnt simply drawn up and put into manufacture in a vacum as a completely independent invention.It is and was a brilliant ww2 solution to increase production
using at the time advanced production methods cutting back as far as possible the use of machine tools while maximizing castings and steel pressingsThe resulting gun is still the German std GPMG with few modifications.conversion to NATO std 7.62 a heavier bolt and recoil spring to reduce rate of fire from 1100 RPM as a std w/ some examples of 1300 RPM to a more sedate and accurate burst rate of 700RPM.Reasoning for reduction of rate of fire was again tactics and how the MG was used/Initially in ww2 it was envisioned in a burst fire mode and given its high rate of fire so that a burst could be 12/15 rds minimum with the inevitable dispersion that could
cover a dispersed squad size area in 10ths of a second not allowing a squad/platoon any time to fire or manuever during the initial burst which was expected to cut through a platoon effectively decimating the platoon befor they could react.Obvious problem being ammunition consumption
if the gun isnt mechanized.I believe you need to learn a great deal OT ww1 history of What were then called HMGs ,water cooled rifle caliber maxims and vickers/ basically maxim copys that wieghed upwards of 90lbs with kit as you would refer to the accoutrements.Rifle caliber Indirect fire is fascinating history of improvisation when mortars were in thier infancy as was
trench warfare but that period of history is long over.The only need now is to put the proper weapons in the hands of the warfighters and the answer is not coordinated rifle caliber GPMGs with or without some queer gear for an automated call for fire.Im hoping there not kindergartners out there so even a PFC can effectively determine his position with a map and the wonder instrument a GPS/or I would hope even with a map and antique lensatic compass an infantryman out of AIT can accurately detremine his position and call for fire within seconds.Recall a few years back a map and compass in the hands of anyone but a cherry could call for fire and be on target within seconds in the jungle.Now some Roy rodgers deal is a new request on your dummed down dream list.learn to read a map and compass and how to call for fire.Basic training shit.Whoever you qouted stating a concentrated indirect MG barrage was more lethal etc than any
artillery or mortar fire barrage is a lunatic or has never been in combat under an artillery/mortar barrage.Accurately directed mortar/artillery fire particularly airburst rounds the only defense possible if you are tasked with holding a position is a very deep hole with very stout overhead cover or if ambushed by directed arty/mortar fires while patrolling is moving as fast as is humanly possible on your dual cadillacs or If gods sitting on your shoulder as fast as the vehicle your in will move.

Byda By Moderators,due to what I view as irresponsible conduct above and beyond, someone
has been
posting old theorys and formulas for a energetic that will emit phosgene
upon detonation.I would feel that even by my silence I would be advocating the postings, were something along this line to occur I beleive I would in some way at least feel a responsibility.Add to that gov is likely interested as well as Jhihad Johnny I respectfully request that my membership be terminated and if the staff is amenable removal of my posts on the forum.Thank you,pndr.

[Edited on 16-9-2010 by grndpndr]

hissingnoise - 17-9-2010 at 09:46

Quote:

What are you talking about grndpndr?

stevevb - 17-9-2010 at 23:39

The French used indirect fire from 4x.50 M2 anti-aircraft mounts ("quad fifties") to great effect, especially in the battle of the five hills. Of course it was not quite enough to get them out of that tough scrape. Most histories list the "quad fifties" as the most reliable fire bases available to the entrenched camp.
The gun mounts in this case were modified with elevation markers and fire was plotted like other indirect fire with correction from tracer.

Chainhit222 - 18-9-2010 at 15:10

make love not war :mad:

un0me2 - 20-9-2010 at 19:24

Hmmmm, maybe this article will shift the opinion? Aussie diggers pinned down, one dead & having to withdraw due to the ABSOLUTE lack of support? :mad:

All that is needed in order to get rounds on the ground, these weren't "isolated fucking snipers", is a modified C2 sight in the kit in every Bushranger for the infantry section in the back, pull up, everyone but the gun crew out in all round support & open up.

A GPS Receiver would replace any need for aiming posts, just adjust the elevation & bearing, line up the bubbles by moving the gun on the mount, lock it and fire. GPS isn't precisely new fucking technology, a GPS receiver would fit inside the body of the sight and every gunner in the Btn would be supporting the platoon in contact. From what I can see of the place a jungle sight wouldn't be needed (not on top of the Bushranger it wouldn't).

franklyn - 24-9-2010 at 12:28

Battle of Derapet involved by what I understand a 20 Aussie platoon + 20 Government Afghan troops
in support and perhaps another 40 in armor support engaging a Taliban guerilla force estimated at 100
- 30 of those were killed , there was one unlucky Aussie fatality. Not exactly the battle for Tarawa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarawa

.

grndpndr - 14-10-2010 at 21:53

Those are all fine objectives but to be wasted on largely innefective indirect massed MG fire?Not what the designers had in mind at all.
This massed MG indirect fire relic of an idea should have collapsed long ago.

franklyn - 14-10-2010 at 22:13

These projects seem to hint at what un0me2 is salivating for.

PHYSICAL OPTICS CORP.
Information Technologies Division, 20600 Gramercy
Torrance, CA 90501
Phone: (310) 320-3088
PI: Dr. Alexander Naumov
Topic#: Army 06-041 Awarded: 07NOV06

Title: Stabilized Laser Rangefinder Built into a Binocular
Abstract: To address the Army need for simultaneous accurate measurement of distance
and imaging of targets, Physical Optics Corporation (POC) proposes to develop a new
Stabilized Laser rangefinder built into a Binocular (SLABIN) system with tilt compensation
by a feedback loop. The SLABIN system is a fully integrated device that will accurately
locate targets over long distances regardless of operator movement. The SLABIN system
consists of a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) mirror, position sensitive detector
(PSD), and miniature optics. SLABIN will be eye-safe, accurate, and compact, so a
soldier calling in air strikes or artillery will have an extremely high hit probability, even at
long distances despite jitter. In Phase I POC will demonstrate the SLABIN feasibility by
fabricating and testing a prototype. In Phase II we plan to fabricate a miniature SLABIN,
and test it to demonstrate proof-of-concept at an Army facility.

AMERICAN GNC CORP.
888 Easy Street
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Phone: (805) 582-0582
PI: Dr. Ching-Fang Lin
Topic#: Army 06-043 Awarded: 02NOV06

Title: Intelligent Remotely Controlled Weapon Station with Automated Target Hand-off
Abstract: The objective of this project is to demonstrate an innovative Intelligent
Remotely Controlled Weapon Station with automated target hand-off. The purpose of
the Remotely Controlled Weapon Station is to get the gunner out of the turret where
he is exposed to enemy fire and fragments, and position him inside the vehicle for
protection. A Shooter Detection System is used with the Weapon Station which can
determine the position of the shooter and hand off the target to the fire control system
by reporting the shooter's position to the local Intelligent Remotely Controlled Weapon
Station. This is an automated hand-off situation for an individual unit of the Intelligent
Remotely Controlled Weapon Station with a Shooter Detection System. Furthermore,
multiple units of the Intelligent Remotely Controlled Weapon Station with a Shooter
Detection System can be networked by an RF data link and they can also be linked to
the CDAS and/or other C3/C4 systems centers for battlefield awareness enhancements,
decision aiding and coordinated fire control. The target acquired by a unit can be
handed off to other units or C3/C4 systems centers. In this way a powerful distributed
fire control system is established.

TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
1845 Northwestern, Suite B
El Paso, TX 79912
Phone: (915) 877-3366
PI: Mr. Benjamin Tirabassi
Topic#: Army 06-043 Awarded: 03NOV06

Title: Automated Target Hand-Off for Future Force Operations
Abstract: Deploying a world wide force that is strategically responsive and dominant at
every point on the spectrum of conflict involves the cooperative system development
and use of advanced technologies that yield revolutionary capabilities to support the
war fighters needs. One of the advanced concepts being developed and deployed to our
Future Forces is the ability to remotely locate, track and predict the movement of
enemy targets on the battlefield using unmanned sensor systems and advanced tracking
algorithms. This research proposes to advance these technologies and take them one
step further by automating the hand-off of these tracked targets to the Unit of Action
(UA) that provides fire support for the unit. Future Forces will possess a wide range of
organic and highly deployable fire support systems than can deliver advanced and fused
fire support effects out to operational distances. Capabilities outlined in this proposed
work will allow our Forces to harness the balance of these Fire Support Assets. This will
ensure mission success, improve Situational Awareness, and greatly increase the
Soldiers lethality and survivability. These capabilities will support the unit's success of
early entry, forced entry, shaping decisive offense/defense, and SASO operations.

.

aliced25 - 2-2-2011 at 00:05

According to the latest issue of RAInf Magazine, the Australian Infantry Battalion Support Company will now be equipped with both fast-barrel change 50.cal and GPMG/MAG-58's designed for both direct and indirect fire support, as used by both the Royal Army and the Canadian Army. They have carried out the investigations and concluded that the impact of rounds several kilometers from the fire-base, which saturate the target, while being indirect also safeguard the firer, is more useful than light artillery. This combined with the resurgence in Organic Indirect Fire Support is coupled with the resurgence of the 81mm Mortar.

Seems like the argument is over boys and girls, the effectiveness of NON-Artillery weapons is also coupled with the fact that while firing heavy artillery into a built-up area is a no-no, firing several dozen MAG-58s and Browning .50's is not.

The next innovation, I can see it now, is that some bright spark will realise that given the relatively steady positions of the Support Company Positions (which have not been overrun since FB Corral in Vietnam), why not put a water jacket over the barrel and get rid of the need for barrel changes... Hey, we might even get a 7.62, disintegrating belt variant of the Vickers...

hissingnoise - 2-2-2011 at 05:18

I'm surprised that Michael Dwyer's metal storm hasn't had a mention . . . yet?

vulture - 2-2-2011 at 07:39

As this thread is going nowhere and is not within the scope of energetic materials, it's being closed.

More importantly, aliced25 and unome are the same person. Therefore your unome useraccount is now banned. No sockpuppeting here fella.