Infanteer said:
...and, quite on time, the Journal of Military Operations delivers an article concerned with the future of British artillery. (Sign up is free)
https://www.tjomo.com/article/8/Down_The_Tubes_A_View_on_the_Future_of_Field_Guns_Using_United_Kingdom_Artillery_as_the_Example/
The author essentially states:
1. Everything the 105mm can do the 155mm can do better;
2. The 155mm howitzer like the M777 is the best "middle-ground" weapon - more deployable than a SPH but more effective than a 105mm ULWPH.
3. Old artillery structures (3 Batteries with Gun Troop, HQ, and Observation elements) may be obsolete. FOOs may be concentrated in their own regiment and may not consist of exclusively gunners.
Interesting read.
Statement 1 is pretty bold. I guess he must be excluding rate of fire, reaction to near ground targets, simplicity, air mobility, etc.
Statement 2 also seems too convenient. Comparing in 2 categories, but to 2 different systems. One could as easily say that the 777 is less deployable than a 105, and less effective than a SPH (autoloader).
Statement 3 I can get on board with. Having experienced eyes everywhere would be very valuable, but I doubt our current regimental system would allow for too many postings outside the trades. We do this already to some extent. FACs can be any cbt arm, and the current OP batteries have Os from other trades. I would argue that there should be more NCMs though, because Os only use that skill for a few years whereas an NCM can use it for several.
Bruce Monkhouse said:
I would venture as far as saying that except for large battle plans no FOO parties are required and the Infantry/Armoured folk should all be fluid in this skill...........no matter what the old guard might say it really isn't that hard.
I guess it depends on your definition of large. I'll make an assumption that you mean at least BG, but I would argue that Cbt Tms need them too. I think most SACs would say the same, and if they don't, they probably had a crappy FOO. Your absolutely right that calling a fire mission is not hard. The only thing wrong with that statement is, calling in the mission is the smallest and easiest part of being a FOO. The simple shooting is only about 1/10 of the training. One could easily say that, shooting is easy, just like kicking doors, crew drills, and digging tank ditches, but if you don't do it all the time, you won't be very good at it. I've seen our army's elite call in fire missions after being trained. It's not pretty. As well as some of the junior Os that I have trained that don't think they need drills, or have a better way of doing something they know nothing about, or "what is this bracketing thing"? Attitudes like that are why the wrong people get killed.
ArmyRick said:
The aussies are going with a single and large gun battery in each regiment, plus 2-3 OP/FOO batteries. Whats everybody's take on this? Gunners, your thoughts?
I do like the FOO Bty concept, and we are doing it somewhat, although half arsed IMO. I think if we did one battery properly, it would produce good results. 2-3 per Regt i.e per Bde seems a little overkill, and by what Bruce has said above, I think he would agree. Some more recent conversation on this is at
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108115.0.html
You will get many mixed opinions within the Arty about this topic. Simply put, the FOO guys think it's good and everyone else can't see why its good.
George Wallace said:
Agreed. Part of TQ3 (really dating myself) Armour was to call in Fire Missions. It was also part of Armour Officer Phase Trg. The use of puff tables (and later their new fangled electronic big screen imagery version) in the Arty School was always part of those courses.
At the same time, FAC trg was also introduced on Officer Phase Trg, with the acknowledgement that a more formal crse and qualification would be necessary to be a FAC. There is no need for a FAC to be Arty or Pilot.
Again, calling in fire missions is easy, and we put gunners on this as long they have a comms course. There suppose to have a PLQ, but that is waived more than not. FACs aren't just Arty or Pilot. Every cbt arm can be a FAC, and there is a representation within the school and the FOO btys. Too bad it's not a good career move for them.
Bruce Monkhouse said:
My thoughts?? We only talk about others doing more with less [positions], when it comes time for us to walk the walk...........I can't see it.
EDIT: I should state "we" implies to any trade/ job/ etc.
I agree here. In order for us to have the multitude of capabilities that higher echelon wants of us, we have had to water them all down.