Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross
I can see that these guns would require less training, officer oversight, equipment and organization to be set up to shoot LOS only.
I seem to remember the issue of 'direct fire only' coming up in the past. Do I recall that the purchase cost for these guns is less than their indirect fire counterparts?
Cross
|
Yes, IDF capable guns and mortars have a small points surcharge for the ability/training to fire indirect.
Anyway - a most useful site for all things artillery related is
http://nigelef.tripod.com/directory.htm. See the section under "Technical Fire Control" for history and techniques.
Direct fire infantry guns are meant to be things like the 37mm infantry cannon, and larger pieces used like say 1914 WW1 French 75s. For use on targets in LOS of the battery, and especially things like bunkers and MG positions. Only howitzer equipped early WW1 arty tended to even train for indirect fire even if equipped with dial sights. By 1916 all
artillery were doing it. As I recall, there was a sudden need for the officers and NCOS of the Royal Garrison Artillery to be posted to the front in the early part of WW1 since these guys were versed in indirect/trigonometric fire methods for anti-shipping work whereas the field arty had neglected the technique.
Indirect fire is a
much more complicated thing to do (involving trig, survey, accurate maps, forward observation techniques etc) than simply laying for direct fire. I managed it on a 1 week school cadet force training course at Larkhill. Most of the week was on indirect techniques, and the direct fire bit was learning on the range by firing at old obsolete fire engines and buses and we had the basic idea after 3 rounds of 25pdr HE each as gun layer
!.
Therefore ability to fire indirect comes from unit class (ie
training) and is
not inherent to the weapon itself. It is therefore perfectly logical to have arty piece XXX available in both classes. One will be used by "proper" artillerymen (
gunners) trained in IDF or infantrymen ditto (e.g. the USA regimental cannon company), the other will have been issued to "mere" infantry with less involved training as a bunker-buster battalion/regimental support weapon and used pre-1914 style as a cannon fired over open sights.
Cheers
Andy