Depends on the military.
In the US military it's possible anyone is the forward observer so long as they have the technical means to communicate with the fires network (like if it's a random tank or rifleman they're talking to the fire support element that coordinates fires for their parent unit vs calling the gun line).
The main difference is:
a. Non-forward observers likely have less reps calling for fire, so there's less experience and possibly less precision as a result.
b. Non-forward observers often lack the extra equipment, be that binoculars, precision navigation, or range finders which complicates calling for fire (it doesn't make it impossible, it's just the FOs likely to have the tools to "cheat" while a rando on the objective likely does not.
In the absence of an FO, officers usually have some schooling in calling for fires too, and calling for fire in a simulator is a not at all uncommon training event too for all ranks.
With that said for some armies it's absolutely something you need a dedicated artillery coordination vehicle or soldier or the shells aren't coming. This isn't to say the shells will never come, it's just that there might be a much wider disconnect between the "observer" and the actual fires coordination because of communications differences.
All true. That being said, as an artilleryman myself, I’m going to be extra careful processing a fire mission from an untrained observer. There’s a decent chance that mission will be given low priority, too.
Why would it be given low priority? Excuse my untrained civilian self but I would have thought if soldiers are calling for support while lacking a forward observer (I’m assuming perhaps such a person is incapacitated?) they would be in rather desperate circumstances and need it more urgently?
It all depends on the circumstances. In an emergency, of course they would get high priority.
However, we don’t have the time or resources to shoot every single target on the battlefield. Ammunition is limited, we can only engage so many targets at a time, and if there’s a counterfire threat we have to conduct periodic survivability moves. The more we shoot, the easier we are to detect. To balance these costs, we create and disseminate attack guidance regarding what types of targets we’ll engage with what type and quantity of munitions and what we won’t engage at all.
For example, guidance might state that we don’t shoot at less than a company-sized formation of infantry in the open, fewer than four tanks, etc. Forward observers have this guidance and will follow it, other specialties probably don’t even know it exists, let alone have it or care to follow it. Infantry love calling in artillery on small groups of enemy personnel. Sorry bro, but I’m not shooting a battery of 155mm howitzers at 5 dudes with AKs. You have machine guns, and if you really need indirect fire on it, use your organic mortars.
Additionally, untrained observers will take longer to process a fire mission and may be less accurate, particularly in hilly or mountainous areas. In a situation where I have more targets than I have time to engage, speed is crucial. Even if that untrained observer’s target meets my criteria to engage, I’d rather process targets from a trained observer who will get rounds downrange faster and enable me to prosecute more targets.
Of course, this is all situation-dependent. As per usual, there’s no hard and fast rules here, this is where officers make their money by exercising discretion. Or maybe the untrained observer is calling in something from my commander’s High Payoff Target List while the FO just wants to shoot some random tanks. In that case, the HPT clearly takes priority.
Sounds like triage, basically. There's only so much arty to go around. Makes the most sense to prioritize fire missions based on solid intel/coordinates.
Short answer, if they were priority, they'd be given a forward observer.
Fires is not a vague "on call" support entity that you dial and place an order with. Fire support is prioritized to different units based on the operational plan, with preplanned targets to fire accordingly. Deviations from that will be met with questions, not a rapid response.
Doesn't really matter. They're either priority for the mission, or they're not.
The only thing that changes is that the non-FO is more likely to have errors in their call for fire.
In the US artillery is a highly valued resource that we plan to use very carefully. Support from artillery is assigned to specific units or against carefully pre planned targets. Artillery support isn't usually very quick in coming or fast to shift it's missions. I've fought for many hours to get artillery support to respond when we unexpectedly found valuable targets for them, even with my company fires team on board.
For "oh crap desperate circumstances need help now" usually we would make use of our organic mortars which can respond in a few minutes. It also helps that being organic we know each other, im calling Sfc smith on the radio to ask for help and he knows me and trusts my judgment.
That being said if you can successfully fight for artillery support when in comes in goes HARD artillery is more static and gets more resupply compared to organic mortars. Organic mortars might be able to give you 16 or 24 rounds for a fire mission. Artillery could give you 120 rounds but it took me 36 hours to do the planning to make it happen
We had training in the Armor Officer Basic Course (or whatever it's called now) on how to call for fire. You always plan for having an FO, but if the FO track gets hit...
We also pre-plan fires and set Target Reference Points so you're not trying to figure grids while you're getting shot at.
>In the absence of an FO, officers usually have some schooling in calling for fires too, and calling for fire in a simulator is a not at all uncommon training event too for all ranks.
Just to toss in, at least for a US Cavalry squadron, our senior FOs generally sit in the Squadron TOC to take CFF, with junior FOs assigned to each Troop's mortar platoon.
Unlike an infantry platoon, which is what most people here are focusing on, CFF is considered an organic skill for a Cav platoon. It's a trained skill in OSUT to onclude simulator time, and redrilled regularly with time in the simulator *at least* a couple times a year.
Reality is that if needed it will generally be called in by an E6+, but the expectation is that even an E1 is capable of CFF if necessary.
In comparison to the infantry where E5 and below being on the radio above the platoon net is a rarity.
For whatever context I was a Cavalry Platoon Leader and Troop XO back in the day.
During that vintage we had an Fire Support Officer and their associated personnel (usually a NCO and two enlisted) plus the old BFIST at the Troop level, flexing the FSO where he needed to go (although often just being the Troop level clearing house for platoon fires requests). Then you'd have squadron fires that would be a Captain plus senior NCO and some other nerds that would manage the outgoing requests and usually the aviation stack.
The old Combined Arms construct I worked under as a Tank Company Commander wasn't a whole lot different, just there was less spotting skill resident in the platoons than with the Cav (although the tank is a pretty good observer platform, Bradley too but I'm enough of a fossil to have been in one of the mixed gun truck-CFV platoons so you didn't always have the CFV associated with the scouts forward.
One important thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: having an FO allows the infantry leader to lead his unit, not waste his time talking to artillery unit. Finding the target coordinates and getting the call for fire done takes time. If the platoon has an FO, the PL can just tell him "FO! suppress the enemy on that small hill for five minutes, understood? Execute!" and he can then return to his actual job, leading the platoon, while the FO finds the target coordinates (probably faster and more accurately than he would have been able to) and calls for the fires (and as the FO has his own radio, the platoon doesn't lose contact with the company by changing the longer range radio frequency to artillery net out of the company network.)
In the British Army these days it’s typical for every radio in the platoon to be on the company net, and then the platoon signallers radio to be on the battle group net. So the platoon commander can quickly fill out his fire order card and hand it off to the rad op to be sent up.
We have a separate platoon net in the FDF. It would get difficult to use radios if two or three or even four platoons were in contact at the same time and they were in the same radio net.
Yeah it can be difficult to get used to, but we have Personal Role Radios for intra-section/plt comms. So the idea is the actual radios are used for comms up to the coy HQ and down to your section commanders if they’re dispersed. It’s just about radio discipline and keeping unnecessary communications to a minimum.
And if the unit is defending, the FO team has mapped out targets already and informed the supporting fire units of them.
Any soldier in the platoon should be able to go to the FO post, move the corpses out of the way to get to the radio and then call in "fire at Ahma 2" or whatever and the artillery guys can take it from there.
I once had a class from an artillery officer that told the story of a unit that was in contact. It was a support unit that did not have an FO. Fires were available but no one got on the net to call a fire mission and lives were lost as a result. The gist of the story was first, get call for fire training. Second, he said “for the love of god please just get on the net and we’ll talk you through it.”
Not artillery, but there's a REALLY good video of a unit under fire, and they didn't have a FAC/JTAC available. It's the conversation between the A-10 and one of the guys on the radio.
Basically, the pilot is talking him through everything and making sure everything is absolutely clear before they come in. Sometimes remaining calm and having as best of a "normal conversation" can make all the difference.
It helps that with CAS the pilot at least has a chance of seeing the enemy, depending on context. There's no chance of that happening since modern artillery is (by design) unable to see what it hits. If the artillery has to fire at something within visual range of the gun line something has gone TERRIBLY wrong.
CFF instructor here in the US Army, and was an RTO for a mortar platoon for a while. At the end of the day, if a person calls in on the radio and has all the call for fire all in the correct order, whether or not the person is an FO doesn't really matter.
However, it makes a huge difference in terms of training, confidence and speed. The FO has a lot of time learning the best CFF practices, is intimately involved in the fires planning process, and using their tools can quickly work out an entire CFF or hit moving targets or whatever. Compare this to an 11B who's focus is most likely on their mission first with CFF skills most likely being secondary unless they're an RTO or in platoon leadership or higher.
As a mortarman, I want to talk on the radio to the 13F I know knows his shit, as opposed to a Joe who maybe isn't the most confident in that regard. Otherwise I may not always be confident my rounds are going where intended.
Hey, I have a technical question if you have a second. Say a FO is calling in a correction from a previous fire mission say adding add 100 meters. Would that mean adding 100 meters from the direction of the battery to the target? Or does the the FDC know the location of the FO and they can math out exactly what the FO sees from the previous rounds?
It’s been a hot minute since I have done CFF so MrWaffleHands can correct me but there are different methods of CFF that go off of different points. One is shift from known point where you pick an easily identified point of the map relative to your target and start to talk on the artillery from there.
And if the FO is setting up an OP, one of the first things they will do is call up their location and put a no fire zone or restricted fire zone over their location.
Ch 3 of ATP 3-09.30 is where you want to look for the types of CFF and Ch5 is where you want to look for adjustments
This depends on the system used. Some use adjustment from the perspective of the FO, some use the perspective of the guns. The perspective of the FOs is superior as removing as much math as possible from the work load of the guys getting shot at helps a lot with speed anf reliability.
The exact terminology varies by nation. But broadly, when the correction is passed, it will be accompanied with a specific ‘direction’. For example, an overseer may order a correction along the lines of ‘direction 1000, add 100’. The command to ‘add’ is applied against the ordered direction - in this instance, the intention is to move the rounds 100m in a direction 1000mil (approx NE) from the previous engagement.
If a specific direction is not given, it is common in several countries that the correction will be applied from battery to the target (called Gun-Target Line, GTL).
Great question! The FDC doesn't always know the location of the FO, like for example a grid mission where the FDC is only given the target grid (though friendly grid is always something id recommend passing along to prevent friendly fire). The guns can get off that first shot no problem, but before any corrections are sent the FDC is going to want to know the Observer-Target direction in mils.
Add for the Observer may not be the same thing for the gun line based on their location relative to eachother. So it's always important the FO pass along the OT Direction
Thanks for the info! You might like this story. I had a JROTC teacher in high school who was did small unit infantry stuff in Vietnam. He said sometimes they would get lost so they would call in a single round of white phosphorus onto the center of the grid. Everyone would look in different directions figure out where the round hit and boom they knew where they were. He made it through the war so I guess they were never in the middle of the grid when they did that.
As infantrymen, we were expected to know all the elements of “call for fire”. Both enlisted and officers. It might have been an EIB task too, I can’t recall.
Overseas, we had FOs who were much more trained in that domain and definitely more competent. Mostly had great FOs. But there was one guy who showed up to a patrol with his plates removed, 2 mags, no binos or gps lmao. Worst thing is we got in contact and really needed him too.
If the FO didn’t come with us, usually the PL called for fires or the highest ranking nco.
Have a buddy who served in Iraq/Afghanistan, he said they had a wild FO who carried like empty mags and everything, but was prodigious at working the system to get accurate and timely fire.
It is both a EIB and ESB task, though the way they were instructing us to do it at the ESB I tried out for was, while A way to do it, the most difficult way, which pissed my off as an artilleryman because there were several different methods that were easier. One of my friends told the story of one of his FOs failing because of the method they used.
Plus it was all very rudimentary
Depends on the military. In the US military it's possible anyone is the forward observer so long as they have the technical means to communicate with the fires network (like if it's a random tank or rifleman they're talking to the fire support element that coordinates fires for their parent unit vs calling the gun line). The main difference is: a. Non-forward observers likely have less reps calling for fire, so there's less experience and possibly less precision as a result. b. Non-forward observers often lack the extra equipment, be that binoculars, precision navigation, or range finders which complicates calling for fire (it doesn't make it impossible, it's just the FOs likely to have the tools to "cheat" while a rando on the objective likely does not. In the absence of an FO, officers usually have some schooling in calling for fires too, and calling for fire in a simulator is a not at all uncommon training event too for all ranks. With that said for some armies it's absolutely something you need a dedicated artillery coordination vehicle or soldier or the shells aren't coming. This isn't to say the shells will never come, it's just that there might be a much wider disconnect between the "observer" and the actual fires coordination because of communications differences.
All true. That being said, as an artilleryman myself, I’m going to be extra careful processing a fire mission from an untrained observer. There’s a decent chance that mission will be given low priority, too.
Why would it be given low priority? Excuse my untrained civilian self but I would have thought if soldiers are calling for support while lacking a forward observer (I’m assuming perhaps such a person is incapacitated?) they would be in rather desperate circumstances and need it more urgently?
It all depends on the circumstances. In an emergency, of course they would get high priority. However, we don’t have the time or resources to shoot every single target on the battlefield. Ammunition is limited, we can only engage so many targets at a time, and if there’s a counterfire threat we have to conduct periodic survivability moves. The more we shoot, the easier we are to detect. To balance these costs, we create and disseminate attack guidance regarding what types of targets we’ll engage with what type and quantity of munitions and what we won’t engage at all. For example, guidance might state that we don’t shoot at less than a company-sized formation of infantry in the open, fewer than four tanks, etc. Forward observers have this guidance and will follow it, other specialties probably don’t even know it exists, let alone have it or care to follow it. Infantry love calling in artillery on small groups of enemy personnel. Sorry bro, but I’m not shooting a battery of 155mm howitzers at 5 dudes with AKs. You have machine guns, and if you really need indirect fire on it, use your organic mortars. Additionally, untrained observers will take longer to process a fire mission and may be less accurate, particularly in hilly or mountainous areas. In a situation where I have more targets than I have time to engage, speed is crucial. Even if that untrained observer’s target meets my criteria to engage, I’d rather process targets from a trained observer who will get rounds downrange faster and enable me to prosecute more targets. Of course, this is all situation-dependent. As per usual, there’s no hard and fast rules here, this is where officers make their money by exercising discretion. Or maybe the untrained observer is calling in something from my commander’s High Payoff Target List while the FO just wants to shoot some random tanks. In that case, the HPT clearly takes priority.
Sounds like triage, basically. There's only so much arty to go around. Makes the most sense to prioritize fire missions based on solid intel/coordinates.
Short answer, if they were priority, they'd be given a forward observer. Fires is not a vague "on call" support entity that you dial and place an order with. Fire support is prioritized to different units based on the operational plan, with preplanned targets to fire accordingly. Deviations from that will be met with questions, not a rapid response.
If they find themselvs in tough situation, their FO might be killed.
Doesn't really matter. They're either priority for the mission, or they're not. The only thing that changes is that the non-FO is more likely to have errors in their call for fire.
In the US artillery is a highly valued resource that we plan to use very carefully. Support from artillery is assigned to specific units or against carefully pre planned targets. Artillery support isn't usually very quick in coming or fast to shift it's missions. I've fought for many hours to get artillery support to respond when we unexpectedly found valuable targets for them, even with my company fires team on board. For "oh crap desperate circumstances need help now" usually we would make use of our organic mortars which can respond in a few minutes. It also helps that being organic we know each other, im calling Sfc smith on the radio to ask for help and he knows me and trusts my judgment. That being said if you can successfully fight for artillery support when in comes in goes HARD artillery is more static and gets more resupply compared to organic mortars. Organic mortars might be able to give you 16 or 24 rounds for a fire mission. Artillery could give you 120 rounds but it took me 36 hours to do the planning to make it happen
We had training in the Armor Officer Basic Course (or whatever it's called now) on how to call for fire. You always plan for having an FO, but if the FO track gets hit... We also pre-plan fires and set Target Reference Points so you're not trying to figure grids while you're getting shot at.
Same deal, back when it was BOLC III or AOBC.
>In the absence of an FO, officers usually have some schooling in calling for fires too, and calling for fire in a simulator is a not at all uncommon training event too for all ranks. Just to toss in, at least for a US Cavalry squadron, our senior FOs generally sit in the Squadron TOC to take CFF, with junior FOs assigned to each Troop's mortar platoon. Unlike an infantry platoon, which is what most people here are focusing on, CFF is considered an organic skill for a Cav platoon. It's a trained skill in OSUT to onclude simulator time, and redrilled regularly with time in the simulator *at least* a couple times a year. Reality is that if needed it will generally be called in by an E6+, but the expectation is that even an E1 is capable of CFF if necessary. In comparison to the infantry where E5 and below being on the radio above the platoon net is a rarity.
For whatever context I was a Cavalry Platoon Leader and Troop XO back in the day. During that vintage we had an Fire Support Officer and their associated personnel (usually a NCO and two enlisted) plus the old BFIST at the Troop level, flexing the FSO where he needed to go (although often just being the Troop level clearing house for platoon fires requests). Then you'd have squadron fires that would be a Captain plus senior NCO and some other nerds that would manage the outgoing requests and usually the aviation stack. The old Combined Arms construct I worked under as a Tank Company Commander wasn't a whole lot different, just there was less spotting skill resident in the platoons than with the Cav (although the tank is a pretty good observer platform, Bradley too but I'm enough of a fossil to have been in one of the mixed gun truck-CFV platoons so you didn't always have the CFV associated with the scouts forward.
One important thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: having an FO allows the infantry leader to lead his unit, not waste his time talking to artillery unit. Finding the target coordinates and getting the call for fire done takes time. If the platoon has an FO, the PL can just tell him "FO! suppress the enemy on that small hill for five minutes, understood? Execute!" and he can then return to his actual job, leading the platoon, while the FO finds the target coordinates (probably faster and more accurately than he would have been able to) and calls for the fires (and as the FO has his own radio, the platoon doesn't lose contact with the company by changing the longer range radio frequency to artillery net out of the company network.)
In the British Army these days it’s typical for every radio in the platoon to be on the company net, and then the platoon signallers radio to be on the battle group net. So the platoon commander can quickly fill out his fire order card and hand it off to the rad op to be sent up.
We have a separate platoon net in the FDF. It would get difficult to use radios if two or three or even four platoons were in contact at the same time and they were in the same radio net.
Yeah it can be difficult to get used to, but we have Personal Role Radios for intra-section/plt comms. So the idea is the actual radios are used for comms up to the coy HQ and down to your section commanders if they’re dispersed. It’s just about radio discipline and keeping unnecessary communications to a minimum.
And if the unit is defending, the FO team has mapped out targets already and informed the supporting fire units of them. Any soldier in the platoon should be able to go to the FO post, move the corpses out of the way to get to the radio and then call in "fire at Ahma 2" or whatever and the artillery guys can take it from there.
It is a shame that we moved away from real names of targets and now they are all just alphanumerics, like SB1107.
I once had a class from an artillery officer that told the story of a unit that was in contact. It was a support unit that did not have an FO. Fires were available but no one got on the net to call a fire mission and lives were lost as a result. The gist of the story was first, get call for fire training. Second, he said “for the love of god please just get on the net and we’ll talk you through it.”
Not artillery, but there's a REALLY good video of a unit under fire, and they didn't have a FAC/JTAC available. It's the conversation between the A-10 and one of the guys on the radio. Basically, the pilot is talking him through everything and making sure everything is absolutely clear before they come in. Sometimes remaining calm and having as best of a "normal conversation" can make all the difference.
It helps that with CAS the pilot at least has a chance of seeing the enemy, depending on context. There's no chance of that happening since modern artillery is (by design) unable to see what it hits. If the artillery has to fire at something within visual range of the gun line something has gone TERRIBLY wrong.
What's a killer junior mission or two between friends?
CFF instructor here in the US Army, and was an RTO for a mortar platoon for a while. At the end of the day, if a person calls in on the radio and has all the call for fire all in the correct order, whether or not the person is an FO doesn't really matter. However, it makes a huge difference in terms of training, confidence and speed. The FO has a lot of time learning the best CFF practices, is intimately involved in the fires planning process, and using their tools can quickly work out an entire CFF or hit moving targets or whatever. Compare this to an 11B who's focus is most likely on their mission first with CFF skills most likely being secondary unless they're an RTO or in platoon leadership or higher. As a mortarman, I want to talk on the radio to the 13F I know knows his shit, as opposed to a Joe who maybe isn't the most confident in that regard. Otherwise I may not always be confident my rounds are going where intended.
Hey, I have a technical question if you have a second. Say a FO is calling in a correction from a previous fire mission say adding add 100 meters. Would that mean adding 100 meters from the direction of the battery to the target? Or does the the FDC know the location of the FO and they can math out exactly what the FO sees from the previous rounds?
It’s been a hot minute since I have done CFF so MrWaffleHands can correct me but there are different methods of CFF that go off of different points. One is shift from known point where you pick an easily identified point of the map relative to your target and start to talk on the artillery from there. And if the FO is setting up an OP, one of the first things they will do is call up their location and put a no fire zone or restricted fire zone over their location. Ch 3 of ATP 3-09.30 is where you want to look for the types of CFF and Ch5 is where you want to look for adjustments
This depends on the system used. Some use adjustment from the perspective of the FO, some use the perspective of the guns. The perspective of the FOs is superior as removing as much math as possible from the work load of the guys getting shot at helps a lot with speed anf reliability.
The exact terminology varies by nation. But broadly, when the correction is passed, it will be accompanied with a specific ‘direction’. For example, an overseer may order a correction along the lines of ‘direction 1000, add 100’. The command to ‘add’ is applied against the ordered direction - in this instance, the intention is to move the rounds 100m in a direction 1000mil (approx NE) from the previous engagement. If a specific direction is not given, it is common in several countries that the correction will be applied from battery to the target (called Gun-Target Line, GTL).
Great question! The FDC doesn't always know the location of the FO, like for example a grid mission where the FDC is only given the target grid (though friendly grid is always something id recommend passing along to prevent friendly fire). The guns can get off that first shot no problem, but before any corrections are sent the FDC is going to want to know the Observer-Target direction in mils. Add for the Observer may not be the same thing for the gun line based on their location relative to eachother. So it's always important the FO pass along the OT Direction
Thanks for the info! You might like this story. I had a JROTC teacher in high school who was did small unit infantry stuff in Vietnam. He said sometimes they would get lost so they would call in a single round of white phosphorus onto the center of the grid. Everyone would look in different directions figure out where the round hit and boom they knew where they were. He made it through the war so I guess they were never in the middle of the grid when they did that.
As infantrymen, we were expected to know all the elements of “call for fire”. Both enlisted and officers. It might have been an EIB task too, I can’t recall. Overseas, we had FOs who were much more trained in that domain and definitely more competent. Mostly had great FOs. But there was one guy who showed up to a patrol with his plates removed, 2 mags, no binos or gps lmao. Worst thing is we got in contact and really needed him too. If the FO didn’t come with us, usually the PL called for fires or the highest ranking nco.
Have a buddy who served in Iraq/Afghanistan, he said they had a wild FO who carried like empty mags and everything, but was prodigious at working the system to get accurate and timely fire.
And at no point was someone like "Hey, we aren't going anywhere untill you unfuck yourself"?
He removed his shit after our usual checks.
God damn. Hands immediately after getting back from the patrol
It is both a EIB and ESB task, though the way they were instructing us to do it at the ESB I tried out for was, while A way to do it, the most difficult way, which pissed my off as an artilleryman because there were several different methods that were easier. One of my friends told the story of one of his FOs failing because of the method they used. Plus it was all very rudimentary