• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

The advent of shoot and scoot technology has certainly diminished the enemy's ability to conduct counterfire operations against friendly delivery assets. At the same time, this increased flexibility has created a second order effect in terms of the complexity created during planning. When should units stay in position, and when should they scoot? Our current solution: Units continue to use old paradigms based strictly on threat artillery capabilities to determine survivability move criteria (SMC). These techniques are too simplistic and do not exploit the enhanced flexibility nor take into consideration the more complex tasks associated with the modern fire support system.

Current doctrinal manuals do not account for this complexity in sufficient detail. They do not specifically address an accepted method for computing SMC. FM 6-70, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for M109A6 Howitzer (Paladin) Operations, refers to SMC in general terms, but does not indicate logical steps for battalion S3s to calculate SMC. Additionally, trends indicate that unit-developed TTP and SOPs also do not address calculation of SMC. Direct support (DS) battalion S3s and Assistant S3s will inevitably give varied answers to the question, "How did you derive your SMC?" As a consequence, SMC is not integrated into the Field Artillery-Military Decision Making Process (FA-MDMP). Battalion S3s seem to make decisions based on personal experiences and background, further varying any established procedures. In summary, SMC in recent Field Artillery Support Plans (FASPs) at the CMTC are as dissimilar as the M102 and M109A6 howitzers.

This article attempts to present a logical method that units may use as a base to determine SMC during the FA-MDMP--particularly in high intensity conflict (HIC) operations. It is not "the" method, but rather lays the foundation for units to develop their own SMC based on mission, enemy, terrain, troops, time available, and civilians (METT-TC). The theme behind the article is to generate consensus and thought with regard to determining SMC, rather than to create dogma.

Survivability Move Criteria: What Is It?

To fully appreciate and apply a common-sense approach, S3s must identify a concrete definition for SMC. For the purpose of this method, SMC is defined as those factors, both enemy and friendly, that when combined, give battalion and battery commanders guidance with regard to maintaining firing capability and conducting survivability moves during sustained combat operations. SMC should be adjusted and based on established factors. SMC will normally be expressed as: Time from First Round Fired (Minutes)/Number of Volleys/Time in Position (Minutes). Example: 12/15/15.

Using the definition above as a guide, S3s must compute SMC by narrowing what would otherwise be an infinite number of available ideas into a small field of values that support the unit's METT-TC. This paper proposes a four-step process for preparing and assessing SMC: 1) Identification of Factors, 2) Preparation of SMC Standards, 3) Development of an Assessment Matrix, and 4) Determination of SMC.

Four-Step Method: Follow Me.

Step 1. Identification of Factors. Units must develop clearly defined factors that establish usable parameters with which to measure and assess our ability to remain survivable. Many of these should be developed prior to an operational deployment based on known aspects of the operation. The factors proposed by this article represent a mixed bag approach to measuring not only the enemy's ability to affect the operation, but also the phase of the operation and our own capabilities as well as our effect on the enemy's capabilities. S3s must continue to update the assessment of factors with each phase of the operation. This article identifies four specific factors. Individual units, however, are encouraged to create their own factors based on METT-TC.

Enemy Target Acquisition Threat. This factor is defined as the enemy's ability to bring effective and timely indirect fires onto friendly artillery. It takes into consideration both quantitative and qualitative enemy factors. Evaluation criteria for this factor might include: Enemy Order of Battle, Phase of Fire, and Enemy Acquisition Assets (Radar, HUMINT). One way to characterize the enemy's acquisition threat might be:

• High.
• Medium.
• Low.

Movement Guidance. This factor is centered on the scheme of fires. A properly prepared scheme of maneuver and fires gives the DS Bn S3 guidance as well as windows of opportunity to conduct survivability moves. The scheme also indicates times when firing batteries will be least able to conduct movement for survivability purposes. For example, when Suppress, Obscure, Secure, Reduce (SOSR) fires begin, our opportunity to conduct moves is diminished. An example of characterizing our movement guidance into three categories might be:

• Not Flexible.
• Flexible.
• Extremely Flexible.

Friendly System. This factor simply assesses the unit's own firing system employed and its ability to survive against counterfire during sustained combat operations. This is especially important when conducting light-heavy operations and when employing a battalion with multi-functional capability.

• Shoot/Scoot.
• SP.
• TOWed.

Enemy Degradation. The last factor in our matrix identifies and assesses our ability to affect the enemy fires delivery system process. This is accomplished through the attack of high payoff targets (HPTs) and/or enemy artillery. As the battle progresses, the enemy artillery's percentage strength should decrease based on successful attack means. Our matrix recognizes the enemy's degradation using the following factors.

• High - 75-100 percent.
• Medium - 50-74 percent.
• Low - <50 percent.

Step 2. Prepare SMC Standards. Step two of the process calls for the creation of a baseline SMC to be used following a detailed assessment by phase. Using the enemy's artillery order of battle and the S2's threat assessment, the DS battalion S3 develops a baseline SMC for later application and comparison. To determine the initial baseline, S3s should start with the high end, most dangerous, enemy capabilities. then move to the medium and low end. In other words, determine the criteria for the worst case, and then modify the remaining criteria to represent a medium and low threat. In the SMC Baseline Example at Figure 1, the high criteria is <10/<15/<15.

Step 3. Develop the Assessment Matrix. Using the factors in Step 1, S3s will develop a method by which to apply a quantitative value to those factors. A matrix of numerical values provides a simple means of computation. (See Figure 2.) Once each assessment is made, the DS battalion S3 is able to apply factors and determine survivability criteria. During wargaming, the SMC should change as the factors are reassessed with each Phase/Essential Fire Support Tasks (EFSTs)/Essential Field Artillery Tasks (EFATs) for the operation.

Step 4. Putting It All Together: Determine SMC. Using the previous information, the DS battalion S3 analyzes EFAT 2 (Provide Fire in Support of SOSR) of maneuver Phase II (Breaching Operations). He determines SMC for that particular Phase/EFAT using the logic contained in Figure 3 below.

• Enemy counterfire (CF) Threat. Assessed as medium by the Battalion S2 based on the enemy's phase of fire. He believes the enemy will focus fires at the breach site. On the other hand, the S3 balances this information with the fact that the enemy possesses a multitude of counterfire assets to include: 9A52s, BM-21s, and Big Fred Radar.

• Movement Guidance. The brigade is involved in breaching operations and the commander's guidanceis to remain in position as long as possible and deliver SOSR fires.

• BLUEFOR System. M109A6.

• OPFOR Degradation. Effective counterfire by the battalion and the DIVARTY take the OPFOR down to 70 percent prior to Phase II.

The S3's assessment yields a cumulative total of eight. In accordance with our SMC standards, Figure 1, developed in Step 2, eight is a medium threat. Therefore, the S3 determines the SMC during this phase as:

Medium (7-9) Criteria: 10-15/16-25/16-30.

This guidance is published in the FASP and gives battery commanders parameters with which to operate when executing EFATs in this phase.

Conclusion

Artillery battalions deriving criteria for movement of their firing assets to enhance survivability is by no means a new idea. It has existed since the cold war. Many computational techniques exist and are as varied as the units that developed them. DS Battalion S3s must clearly articulate SMC to battery commanders to ensure that EFATs are executed within the limits of a unit's own survivability. This article is not a road map, nor a Tabular Firing Table (TFT). It is a guide through the thought processes required for artillery counterfire survivability. Failure to fully recognize this process may result in confusion. At the same time, it might not allow firing units to fully maximize the potential of our fires delivery system. In the end, a well-stated SMC is essential to EFAT accomplishment.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Enter Your Email Address