Posted on 07/18/2019 4:22:09 AM PDT by tlozo
The U.S. Army Field artillery going back again to manual methods of fire direction and gunnery after lessons of Russian intervention in Ukraine.
The U.S. Army has not had to contend with electronic warfare during the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the conflict in eastern Ukraine’s Donbass region showed an increase of electronic attack threat levels.
With the growing threat of cyberattacks, the U.S. Army Field Artillery School has placed a renewed emphasis on learning manual methods.
“Bringing back the charts is a big deal,” said Staff Sgt. Chad Payne, an instructor for the 13J fire control specialist course. “If you don’t understand the chart, you won’t actually understand what the automated system is doing for you.”
About a decade ago, the school began reducing its emphasis on teaching manual methods, said Col. Samuel Saine, assistant commandant. That’s because improvements to the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System enabled AFATADS to be used effectively in all situations, he said, and it dramatically sped up the firing process.
Then electronic warfare in Crimea and Ukraine shut systems down there, and at the same time, cyberattacks began disabling automation systems at civilian firms. These attacks “woke some people up,” Saine said.
Over the past year, the Field Artillery School commandant has made it a priority to reinsert manual or degraded operations back into the program of instruction for all courses, Saine said.
The renewed emphasis is not only in advanced individual training for new Soldiers, he said, but also in all of the officer courses from basic up to the pre-command course for colonels.
Now students begin AIT using maps to plot and they learn the math behind firing solutions.
“They’ll do manual operations until we know they fully understand the basics,” Payne said, explaining only then do students move on to the automated system.
This method provides students with a better appreciation of the concepts, he said, enabling them to “hit the ground running” at their first units.
They are also better prepared when electronic warfare takes the AFATADS system offline, he said, and degraded operations are now part of the scenario during AIT field exercises.
When systems go down, Soldiers are now trained on how to transition between the automated and manual methods, confirmed Pvt. Cynthia Antaya, a 13J student at the school.
EW can affect communications, automated systems and access to GPS. So 13J Soldiers break out their charts, pencils, plotting pins and protractors for degraded operations.
“It’s going to be important to know your charts and darts and how to go manual and still be able to continue on with your job, even when everything’s down,” Antaya said.
It’s essential that artillery sections “never sway from our No. 1 task,” Saine emphasized, “and that No. 1 task is to provide uninterrupted fires to the maneuver elements of our Army — the infantry and armor.”
Manual or degraded operations for firing howitzers are actually a 20-level task for the gunner and primarily only 10-level tasks are taught at AIT, said Staff Sgt. Rodrick Stone, an instructor for the 13B cannon crewmember course.
Some instructors, however, still demonstrate manual sighting for the students, Stone said.
“I believe it’s very important that they learn both ways, because in the event that the digital goes down, you have to have a failsafe — a backup plan,” he said.
The Field Artillery School has helped work degraded operations into the program of instruction for the Advanced Leadership Course, Saine said. Since howitzer gunners are by doctrine sergeants, learning how to manually sight howitzers is emphasized in ALC, he said.
With degraded operations, the gunner switches to a panoramic telescopic sight, Stone said. Aiming poles and firing stakes are used. “We already have an additional primary aiming reference that’s set up; he instantly sights in off of that,” Stone said.
Then the traverse hand wheel is spun manually to raise or lower elevation of the howitzer tube, he explained.
“When I was coming in, degraded operations was the only thing that was going on,” Stone said. “There was no digital systems at the time.”
Now the threat of cyber warfare once again makes degraded operations of paramount importance, he said.
“We have more capacity and capability than they do,” Saine said of the enemy, “so they’re going to try to find creative ways to degrade and deny some of our systems.”
The emphasis on degraded operations is not only happening in the schoolhouse, it’s in the field as well, Saine said. Doctrine has been updated and so have performance standards.
Training Circular 3-09.8 for fire support was recently updated with increased performance standards for manual gunnery and degraded operations.
The chief of field artillery emphasizes degraded operations at fires conferences and at quarterly meetings with division artillery commanders, Saine said.
“It’s not just a Fort Sill thing,” Saine said. “He believes very strongly it needs to be informed by the operational force.”
Preparing for EW is not only practical, he said, but it also creates a more well-rounded force.
“What we found along the way is that we actually were increasing the proficiency of our Soldiers and our leaders,” Saine said, “because it helped them understand to a higher degree how everything worked together.”
Yes. The M-2 uses the mil scale. 17 + mils to a degree. Accurate to 10 mils.
Much more accurate than a lensatic compass.
I guess in today’s thinking one would consider the TACFIRE as a server for all the unit’s VFMED and BCS systems at the batteries and the maneuver units’ fire support elements.
You and I (I'm guessing) had the M198. I have to say I had old man skepticism towards the M777 when I first heard about it. But I've got to see it up close a few times, and it's a beautiful gun. The weight reduction is incredible, and it was kind of funny seeing that curved ramming staff.
I haven't heard about it being more difficult to emplace and displace, but it seems the much lighter weight should make it easier to manhandle on awkward ground, etc...
I do miss fire direction -- loved that job, and the sharp Marines that were in the 0844/0848 MOS's.
I agree with the sentiment on all the posts here. I personally carry paper maps at all times and multiple dissimilar electronic nav devices.
...but lets just play devils advocate for a second. The military has a matter of weeks/months to train someone with barely a highschool education to be able to do their task accurately/reliably/consistently in such a way that they will be able to do that job under fire. They don’t have a lot of time to teach several ways of doing the same thing. Hence it makes sense that they might a bit over eager about simplifying training and not teach old school methods. And even if they do cover old school methods, if they don’t constantly retrain them personnel will quickly forget how those methods worked. Hence the military (the largest educational institution in the country) has to continually evaluate what their people need to know and also what methods they are using to teach those things. It is no surprise that they often have to re-evaluate and change course.
Without the information about upper air wind direction and strength, as well as upper air densities, Artillery loses a lot of potential accuracy, especially first strike accuracy.
Those radiosondes can be jammed with a gps jamming system.
There are a couple of work arounds...
I do not know how widely deployed they are.
Last I heard, the manual methods were no longer being taught for combat support meteorology types.
My boss’s dad was an artillery spotter in Korea. He told me about this one:
“That round was short”
“How short?
“Behind me”
Reminds me of the scene in Apollo 13 where Lovell in a critical time shortage is calculating their position in his head and on a worksheet and calls the numbers down to mission control and within a couple of minutes with slide rules and paper they calculate the correct numbers for the LEM computer.
Ping.
I will not condemn progress that's been made.
Those who do condemn and criticize, based on PAST experience's, perhaps decades old, are full of it.
Without computers, the B-2 CANNOT fly. That's just the way it is. I don't think computers are the issue here, just having multiple capabilities, including the old manual ways. The increased rate of fire and accuracy that advanced systems provide is a GOOD thing for American forces, no?
Yet because of this article, a select few have just to chime in how wrong it is to “rely” on computers like it's some kind of disaster that some idiots don't see.
To me, the article says no such thing, except to be prepared incase certain advanced technologies fail, even if that scenario is unlikely. Otherwise, there's a lot of advantages for us to use these new technologies. That's how warfare generally evolves. We could not fight with massive attacks and barrages like WWII. Those days are over; precision wins far more.
I thought I read somewhere the Air Force is going to bring back Navigators for many of their aircraft. They REALLY need to get back in the cockpits of the tankers. Thankfully, the B-52s still have their Navigator but I am not sure if they are trained in the old ways of navigating. I am pretty sure the B-1B Navs don't.
I’m not one of those who condemn the use of computers and know their usefulness. I feared the loss of manual skills as the ultimate backup when the computers failed and the troops still needed fire support. I remember being told that “computers were the wave of the future and that the old ways would NEVER be needed again.” This article shows that some “old ways” need to be remembered, sort of like wilderness survival techniques.
I understand you, and appreciate your service and remarks.
I’m just looking at the reality that much of our prowess in military affairs is with advanced technologies more than all else.
Of course good soldiering and spirit is still # one, but our distinct advantage over other nations is in modernity.
I was just Air Force comm-computers. We barely trained in any combat skill. I did a lot of joint duty in the Pentagon and DC, got plenty of ribbing from my Army/Navy/Marines counterparts about that (even though they were all comm-computer types, too). As I used to say then, “If things get so bad they have to give me an M-16 and put me on the flight line, we’re REALLY SCREWED!”
Hand Salute to you!
"About a decade ago" was 2009. Barry Hussein was pResident. Most Americans will never know the true extent of damage that evil man did to American national security.
Back in the stone age, I got familiarization training in artillery FO and plotting. I was amazed how accurate the manual method is at putting steel on target.
USCG started pulling their chart tables off the bridge, even for bouy tenders.
Idiots.
Good! Thanks for the ping.
I put in 9 years in the DC area in various Army and Joint intel assignments, to include a stint in the Pentagon; and then 22 years as an Army historian at Ft. McNair. And Andrews AFB was just 5 miles from our house.
A good SP/4 13E could derive manual firing data faster than the old FADAC.
The Navy first needs to learn to look out the windows and notice the large oil tanker or container merchantman that they are about to ram.
AFFIRMATIVE!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.