Making Recce-Observed Faux Fire Missions More Interesting

[DG-41]

I have an idea I want to bounce off some of you FOO-types.

As you may (or may not) know, Recce's primary offensive weapon, especially in the defence, is the artillery. Accordingly, we train all our soldiers to be able to call fire missions and correct fire - the idea being that the FOO is both on our net (we're talking to the FOO, not the guns) and not far enough forward to observe and carry out the mission himself.

On exercise by ourselves, somebody in the CP will play FOO, and usually just parrots back the FOO's "dialogue" during the call for fire. On larger exercises, I assume we have a real FOO on the net, and that the FOO is relaying the mission back to the guns (who I assume are dry-firing the mission)

These fire missions tend to be by the numbers - initial call for fire, a couple of corrections, fire for effect, end mission. Bada-bing, bada-boom.

But in Real Life, nothing works as planned, and it'd be cool to throw a few real-life wrinkles into the exercise.

What I'm thinking is that we'd send a few sealed envelopes along with each callsign, marked on the front with a basic target type - maybe "dug in infantry", "infantry in open", "CRP" etc.

When an opportunity for a fire mission comes up, open one of the envelopes that most closely corresponds to your target type. Inside will be a description of what happens during the fire mission. Most of these will be "by the numbers" with some sort of description of what happens during the FFE - for example, the tank in the CRP might be overturned, or maybe the track gets blown off and the crew bails, or maybe it withdraws intact... but basically, it's a normal fire mission.

But a small percentage has a suprise in it. Some ideas I had:

1) During the FFE, an incoming round strays left/right/long and lands in a wooded or otherwise covered area - and there's a big secondary explosion. If fire is shifted to the woods (may need permission from higher!) there are further secondary explosions. Fire may esclate (on the discretion of the FOO and direction from the CP) until all guns in the area are firing on the target. The concept here is the accidental discovery of a high-value target of opportunity (a forward fuel/weapons cache, or perhaps a hidden SAM battery)

2) Durring FFE, a round lands short, either very near, or ON, the OP. Need to check fire on the mission WITHOUT giving away the OP's position ("Golf 24, you just hit my OP!" tells the enemy where the OP is), deal with casulties, and re-establish the mission minus the offending gun. (I'd really like to hear the official way a FOO would handle this, BTW)

Etc. You should get the idea.

So then, FOOs:

1) What do you think of the idea? When you're on our net relaying to the guns, does this sort of thing add any training value?

2) Got any ideas for potential scenarios?

DG 

 

[Dragoon19]

Wait for it its called C WES.

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

I like your idea of the suprise envelopes, but training value for the attatched FOO wouldn't be too great as any true FOO party is trained to the point of making split second decisions on his/her application of fire. As well at the gun end of things, the guys on the guns are reacting to numbers thrown at them and their respnse wouldnt differ. The command post on the other hand would benefit greatly from this as their calculation of the data and issuing to the guns is where the delay is most noticed.

Other scenario ideas might be, a local defense threat to recce and suddenly all your arty resources are allocated elsewhere. Fast air threat since most foos are facs aswell, total destruction of the op requiring someone else to get observation on the target and call in fire.

 

[horsegunner353]

DG 41... I have an even better idea (not that yours wasn't good to begin with).  Talk to your local Arty Regt and ask them if you could book some time in the nearest Indirect Fire Trainer (IFT).  I haven't yet checked your profile, so I'm not sure where that might be.  Get your affiliated FOO out to support you and act as a kind of FSCC for your calls for fire.  You make the call the way you're taught, and he can convert it to proper artillery fire discipline to the IFT facilitator, as he normall would.  I can see this accomplishing several goals:

1.  The FOO gets an invaluable chance to train face to face with his supported arm.  As a FOO in 1 RCHA my supported arm (3 PPCLI) was over a 1000 km away... hard to get to know them as well as I should.  During Op APOLLO I first met my supported arm OC IN KANDAHAR!

2.  As AO's get bigger and consistent with the concept of "any soldier an observer" and the limited number of artillery observers it is more and more likely that the FOO will become a "clearing house" for calls for fire.  This would be great training.

3.  It will give the FOO the opportunity to actually teach artillery tactics to his supported arm.  The training value of the IFT, while not ideal, is still quite good.  Recent advances have made it very accurate.

If I can be of any help facilitating this, just let me know.

DWG

 

[Michael OLeary]

Ask your local Arty Regt to send along a FOO Tech as an Observer/Controller in the OP line. The FOO Tech can both offer advice in training junior members and set the conditions for the mission, but can go as far as specifying where an adjusting round "lands", thus forcing the Recce soldier calling the mission to actually solve the adjustment problem. The FOO tech can also set such problems as lost rounds, the wider zone of larger angles between the OT and GT lines, etc.

 

[elscotto937]

Those are excellent suggestions and I agree that every opportunity to have FOO party on exercise should be taken. As horsegunner said the likelyhood that the FOOs will be the funnels through which Calls for Fire are executed is increasing. Your recce ptls will benifit from what the FOO can explain to them about tgt selection criteria, so they don't waist air time with the  call for fire on MG in open. Like Shelldrake mentioned, work in some ECAS proceedures to practice guiding CAS on to targets.

 

[DG-41]

Back in the day, my Regiment spent a day with the Arty School in Gagetown. We did some time in the simulator, and then went out and directed live fire. Everybody in the troop got to direct a live fire, and it was awesome training value. The FOOs were great, and I learned a great deal about the whole process.

So I'm totally on board with spending training time with the Arty, especially in that simulator (and my understanding is that we have access to one just up the road)

That being said, I have this other opportunity where my guys will be calling in fire missions as part of our regular troop training, where there may or may not be a real live FOO involved, and where there is, he'll be doing his FOO job and so won't have the time to do much in the way of extracurricular activities.

Thus, the envelope idea. It's a way to add variety without needing much in the way of extra staff or effort.

Incidentally, I'm really interested in what you think the proper way to handle a short round landing on/near the OP is. I thought that one up, and didn't have the answer to it....

DG

 

[bearded1]

In peace time, there would be a stand-fast (followed by the gentle squeack as the 2 mil elevation error is corrected...) on the guns after a pre-emptory end of mission, and a significant scrutiny on charge bags (invariably a charge error) by the TSMs and Safety-O.  Then some charges would probably be laid eventually and the FOO and the Tech/Sig would change thier shorts immediatley.  Had a round at thunder in at 50 metres, just luck, geography and being in my hole put me in the right place.  In conflict, I would be inclined to double check my data, and fire the same damn thing, and then adjust accordingly, after I changed my shorts.

Ubique

Regan

 

[Observer23]

It's amazing how many pairs of under pants one can stuff into the sig satchel.  Good to see you bearded 1.

I've dealt with this scenario once.  One the Coy net, try and figure out who will call the mission when you have multiple possible observer's on the same target (or multiple possible taregets).  In the actually scenario (I was listening on the Coy Net)  the two possible observers where looking at the same target from different angles (almost perpendicular to each other).  Each gave different grids (I think it was over 300m difference in grid) but had similar target descriptions. 

Another envelope?

 

[muskrat89]

When I was in (83-96) there was some debate regarding the use of "stand fast" in order to sort out a possible error. The CO used it once, but the general train of thought, most of those years - was that "Stand Fast" was a local safety order, used to halt an immediate safety concern. It was not appropriate to be ordered either from the OP, or CP, as the intent was not appropriate. This was the general consensus usually, when I was at the School as well.

Check fire in my mind, is the appropriate order, and meets the intent of the Aim of Fire Discipline. I have even seen sneaky GPOs not miss a beat, check fire, change the method to Battery Right, and then carry on, in order to snag the offending Number One

Back to the CO - he ordered Stand Fast from the OP. Drove all the way down to the gun posiiton, where he proceeded to tear the CPO, Tech WO, TSM, and Det Comds new rectums.. lol

 

[3rd Horseman]

A great topic good ideas, I can only concure, the use of a FOO party on your EXs and your invite to a arty units training facility is the best way to develop. Dont just ask for the FOO get the party the whole team brings a level of realism that will benefit both. I enjoyed being asked to visit my sp arm unit to help out with training.
As a FOO with Brigade Recce Sqd in Germany I would split my foo tech from my party and he would go off with two cars, the Recce TL would take his cars and the Trp 2i/c would take his between the four of us we would have the entire frontage covered with capable FOOs, by training together in Garrison we perfected it and all the leads TL, FOO, FOO Tech and TL 2i/c became very capable fire coordinators. A short comment on the location of the FOO he is always well forward. As a side note for those who may think arty does not go deep Z Bty had its task to support Recce sqd and it would send a Bty of guns deep into the screen with the forward Recce troops. Not practiced these days but was real fun back when.

Good shooting and go deep

 

[Michael OLeary]

As a side note for those who may think arty does not go deep Z Bty had its task to support Recce sqd and it would send a Bty of guns deep into the screen with the forward Recce troops. Not practiced these days but was real fun back when.

B-GL-300-002/FP-000

LAND FORCE VOLUME 2
LAND FORCE TACTICAL DOCTRINE

23. Deep Operations.
a. Conduct. Deep operations are normally those conducted against the enemy's forces or resources not currently engaged in the close fight. They prevent the enemy from using his resources where and when he wants to on the battlefield. Deep operations are not necessarily a function of depth, but rather a function of what forces are being engaged and the intent of the operations. Deep operations dominate the enemy by nullifying his firepower, disrupting his command and control, disrupting the tempo of his operations, destroying his forces, preventing reinforcing manoeuvre, destroying his installations and supplies and breaking his morale. The integrated application of firepower, manoeuvre and information warfare can be combined to execute deep operations. Airborne and air assault forces, attack aviation units, long range artillery and high-speed armoured forces provide the land component and joint force commanders the capability to thrust deep in the battlefield to seize facilities and disrupt key enemy functions. Command and control warfare uses a combination of electronic warfare, deception, psychological operations, operations security and physical destruction to disrupt, destroy and confuse the enemy's command and control efforts. Deep operations expand the battlefield in space and time to the full extend of friendly capabilities and focus on key enemy vulnerabilities. In his design of operations, the commander will normally devote information operations, firepower, and manoeuvre resources to deep operations in order to set conditions for future close operations. Deep operations have a current dimension and is setting the conditions for future operations. In this respect, although they may offer some prospect of immediate results, they are focused on providing long term benefits.

The screen does not qualify as "deep" operations in any current Canadian doctrinal context.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Obviously correct no disbute with explanation of "Deep Operations"

"deep into the screen" does not mean "Deep Operations"  although while ZBty operated as Div Recce Regt it did conduct deep operations, only once in my memory during EX Caravan Guard 90.

"Deep" in the above stated post you comment on is a figure of speech used by Recce guys who would respond to activities in the enemies rear in a fun manner by saying how deep are you? so deep I'm getting vodka with rations. or so deep I was bought beer yesterday with rubles. Germany on the Hof border facing the Russions 300 meters away cold war.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Thank you for that clarification. We should endeavour to do our best to ensure newer members don't get mixed messages on the use of specific operational terms. As you have explained, "well forward" is not "deep" in an operationally defined context.