Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: "Computer Models Leave U.S. Leaders Sure of Victory" Message-ID: <1990Dec28.030945.1453@cbnews.att.com> Date: 28 Dec 90 03:09:45 GMT References: <1990Dec19.010219.24876@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA Lines: 63 Approved: military@att.att.com Full-Name: Linus's Usenet From: emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery) >From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From what I understand the U.S. countermortar/counterbattery system > is not all that good (that's from some 'red-leg' friends of mine). > We have the TPQ-4 Radar - but not enough of them. Artillery really > doesn't have dedicated tubes solely for counter-battery - their fire > support mission take precedence over counter-battery missions. > The Soviets, however, have more CB/CM radars spread across their frontage > and dedicate their 180mm Guns to the counter-battery mission. Even > a four-digit plot (coordinate) will be fired on by a "battery volley 3". Your red-leg friends are either hopelessly out of date or pulling your (nonred) leg. The Q-4 has been obsolete for 6 years or so. The new generation of radars are the TPQ-36 and TPQ-37*. The former is optimized for countermortar, and the latter is optimized for counterartillery. My National Guard unit has 1 Q-36 and 1 Q-37 (out of 3 and 2 authorized, respectively), and a second Q-36 is expected this year. (They're not the fastest things off the assembly line.) Our experience with them has been good, particularly the Q-36. The Q-37 has had some maintenance problems. They both work as advertised, and we love 'em! Current artillery doctrine assigns an artillery brigade per heavy division, and usually gives this brigade the counterfire mission. In exercises that I've participated in, counterbattery missions are often the highest priority (except FPF) missions, particularly for general support or reinforcing artillery. This is especially true during covering force operations or preceeding an attack. There is a joint Army/Air Force group studying "JART" Joint Attack of ArTillery, but counterbattery fire is still an Army Field Artillery mission. The Soviets are replacing their 130mm gun (what I think you meant when you talked about a 180mm gun) with 152mm guns, and they'll dump a "Battalion 3 rounds" (~160 rounds) if they get an opposing FA position. They have more counterbattery radars than the U.S., but these radars are much less capable, and they're not tied into a digital fire direction system. The Soviet radars have much less sophisticated signal processing, and they can be overloaded (too many bullets to track) much easier than U.S. radars. They also are much more succeptable to U.S. ECM. Once they do get a target, then they have to get the target to a firing unit, get authority to fire, etc. The Soviets set up "Reconaissance-Fire Strike Complex" to streamline this process. However, with the U.S. Q-36/Q-37 radars in hostile fire, auto-send mode, the radar will automatically transmit a fire mission to a receiving FA computer (either Tacfire at battalion or BCS at battery) as soon as it detects a target. It's quite possible to have counterbattery rounds in the air against the enemy unit before his rounds have landed. My guard unit practices this digital communications, and the damn stuff actually works! dave emery (CPT, FA, NHARNG 197 FA Brigade Counterfire Officer) * Credit dept: Both radars were built by Hughes Ground Systems. Except for an occasional leak in the Q-37, they're very well engineered systems.