Tom pretty much has it for post Vietnam FO Teams. It hasn't changed that much now either. Only differance is one LT FSO (Fire Support Officer) at each Company and 3 soldiers for an Armor Company, 6 additional other soldiers for an Infantry Company. That gives you 3, 2-man FO teams to go with the PLTs and still have a FIST element for the Company.
During Vietnam, I believe there was only the one LT at Bn and a SGT at each Company as an FO.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Artillery Battery ?
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:01 PM UTC
thathaway3
Joined: September 10, 2004
KitMaker: 1,610 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 04:27 AM UTC
Quoted Text
During Vietnam, I believe there was only the one LT at Bn and a SGT at each Company as an FO.
That's no doubt how it wound up being, with SGTs out with the Company. I remember hearing (probably a SLIGHT exaggeration!) that the "life expectancy" of an FO in Vietnam was about 2-3 weeks!
But generally speaking what the doctrine called for was the FO at Company Level to be a LT and there was "supposed" to be a CPT at Bn as a Liaison Officer. But like everything else in war, it seldom works out the way you draw it up on the chalkboard!
Tom
Zacman
Joined: January 27, 2006
KitMaker: 210 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 06:20 AM UTC
Tom and Gino,
thanks for the info. My son's grandfather was in Veitnam(U.S. Marnies, Artillary) from April 65-68, They come ashore around Da-Nang, they were then part of a "float phase" and made landings in Amtracks and L.C.D's, When landing would they have acted as Infantry and used the Naval guns as support? or would they have laned there guns on the Beach and set up insupport of the Infantry?
.
thanks for the info. My son's grandfather was in Veitnam(U.S. Marnies, Artillary) from April 65-68, They come ashore around Da-Nang, they were then part of a "float phase" and made landings in Amtracks and L.C.D's, When landing would they have acted as Infantry and used the Naval guns as support? or would they have laned there guns on the Beach and set up insupport of the Infantry?
.
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 06:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
When landing would they have acted as Infantry and used the Naval guns as support? or would they have laned there guns on the Beach and set up insupport of the Infantry?
Would seem silly to set up 105mm howitzers when the Naval barrage would be able to reach further.
They still would have taken the guns ashore. Naval guns are really big and can be quite inaccurate due to teh motion of the ship. The smaller guns would be brought ashore to use as close support for the ground troops. Naval guns are good for general shore barrage, but not really good for close support due to the above problems with them.
thathaway3
Joined: September 10, 2004
KitMaker: 1,610 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 09:00 PM UTC
Gino's right. Naval Gunfire is great for bombardment, but given that most of the time not only is the ship rolling due to the waves, but is moving through the water at the same time, it can be very difficult to attack a point target. During WW II there are lots of cases in which the Destroyers with their smaller 5"guns (that's 127 mm for those who are counting!) would move in close to shore to provide close support. But the Cruisers with their 8" and the Battleships with their 14" or 16" guns would stay offshore and just pound the beach head and beyond MOST of the time on a set schedule of pre-planned fires, not necessarily responding to an Observer to attack an immediate target.
The real distinction is whether a landing is "opposed" or not. If it IS, then as an assault it is crucial to maintain continuous fire support and you will definintely want the guns to go ashore as soon as practical ready to set up and fire. But if the infantry hasn't cleared the defender's close in emplacements, the crews are susceptible to rifle and machine gun fire from the defenders and they can't set up and support.
I've seen footage of assualt landings in the Pacific during which howitzers were actually firing from the landing craft as the came ashore, but again due to the fact the guns were moving, the firing data would have been a "SWAG" and intended more for supression or psychological effect as much as anything.
As far as the Marines going ashore during the Vietnam war, these landings were definintely NOT opposed so the tactics would have been a bit different since you're not expecting to defend yourself or "kick-in" the door.
Tom
The real distinction is whether a landing is "opposed" or not. If it IS, then as an assault it is crucial to maintain continuous fire support and you will definintely want the guns to go ashore as soon as practical ready to set up and fire. But if the infantry hasn't cleared the defender's close in emplacements, the crews are susceptible to rifle and machine gun fire from the defenders and they can't set up and support.
I've seen footage of assualt landings in the Pacific during which howitzers were actually firing from the landing craft as the came ashore, but again due to the fact the guns were moving, the firing data would have been a "SWAG" and intended more for supression or psychological effect as much as anything.
As far as the Marines going ashore during the Vietnam war, these landings were definintely NOT opposed so the tactics would have been a bit different since you're not expecting to defend yourself or "kick-in" the door.
Tom
Zacman
Joined: January 27, 2006
KitMaker: 210 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 12:48 PM UTC
I know when one lot first come ashore to Da-Nang, they did incouter heavy resistance from the local call girls fighting to get to those us dollars!
I know they went back to sea and were part of a "Float phase" and made several landing's.
I have photo of 2 amtracks in the well of the u.s.s. Point Defiance, making a landing in Veitnam.
I know they went back to sea and were part of a "Float phase" and made several landing's.
I have photo of 2 amtracks in the well of the u.s.s. Point Defiance, making a landing in Veitnam.
Whiskey6
Joined: August 15, 2006
KitMaker: 408 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 07:07 AM UTC
Another late response from the new guy.....
I was a Marine artillery officer in Vietnam, so the subject is one I am familiar with.
We used the wooden direction stakes to give the gun crews a bit of a heads-up as the fie mission was coming down. While the firing data was being calculated (buy hand...charts and darts...etc.) the FDC would send the general direction of the fire mission down to the XO on the gun line. That would allow the gun crews to swing the guns around to the direction of the mission and also to get the sights moved so that when the actual fire commands came down, the guns could put rounds on the target as quickly as possible. The whole idea was to minimize the inconvenience of the infantry who were usually getting their collective butts kicked......the illum missions were always special. That meant that the grunts were in contact and may have already taken casualties.
With the four-deuces (artillery weapons in the Marines), some of our harriest missions were shooting illum for the medivacs. The birds were generally two AH-1's and two CH-46's. They would circle the LZ like a bunch of buzzards while we plopped illum rounds in the middle.....it would make a rational safety officer shudder, but we saved a lot of lives doing that. You had to know the max ordinate of the rounds, the height of the choppers and have a really good stop watch and intuition. The idea was to shoot the round in between the choppers as they circled. I figure we must have been pretty good...we never shot down any of the "pop-up targets" (helicopters).
Whiskey6
I was a Marine artillery officer in Vietnam, so the subject is one I am familiar with.
We used the wooden direction stakes to give the gun crews a bit of a heads-up as the fie mission was coming down. While the firing data was being calculated (buy hand...charts and darts...etc.) the FDC would send the general direction of the fire mission down to the XO on the gun line. That would allow the gun crews to swing the guns around to the direction of the mission and also to get the sights moved so that when the actual fire commands came down, the guns could put rounds on the target as quickly as possible. The whole idea was to minimize the inconvenience of the infantry who were usually getting their collective butts kicked......the illum missions were always special. That meant that the grunts were in contact and may have already taken casualties.
With the four-deuces (artillery weapons in the Marines), some of our harriest missions were shooting illum for the medivacs. The birds were generally two AH-1's and two CH-46's. They would circle the LZ like a bunch of buzzards while we plopped illum rounds in the middle.....it would make a rational safety officer shudder, but we saved a lot of lives doing that. You had to know the max ordinate of the rounds, the height of the choppers and have a really good stop watch and intuition. The idea was to shoot the round in between the choppers as they circled. I figure we must have been pretty good...we never shot down any of the "pop-up targets" (helicopters).
Whiskey6
2CAVTrooper
Joined: October 21, 2005
KitMaker: 310 posts
Armorama: 302 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 07:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes, aiming circle was used to lay all the guns on the same azimuth (common direction). The Collimator is a separate aiming point for each gun. It has a scale in it that you place the sight onto and then you can set off the required mills of deflection on the gunners periscope and traverse till the numbers line up in the sight. That puts you on the proper azimuth of fire.
Tom, all great looking stuff. I was thinking heavy DS for the 8 gun batteries. Light/towed was always and still is 6. We have actually gone to 2 x 8 Paladin Batteries in the new Heavy Modular BDE concept now. Q-36 and Q-37 are now organic to the BDE and part of the DS BN as well.
My my how things have changed.
I remember when each division had it's own TAB, and one battery of MLRS.
With the new TO&E, did they go back to a full MLRS Bn attached to each division?
And I guess that since the Q36 and Q37 are now organic, I take it that they added an additional 37? IIRC there were only 2 Q37's in a division back in the day.
IndyCopper
Joined: March 16, 2004
KitMaker: 153 posts
Armorama: 63 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 08:00 AM UTC
Wow, nothing new for me to add to this conversation, but as a former 13E FDC, this really brings back the fond memories. Kinda inspires me to get to work on a Humvee we used as an FDC in a 198 batery.
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 10:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
My my how things have changed.
I remember when each division had it's own TAB, and one battery of MLRS.
With the new TO&E, did they go back to a full MLRS Bn attached to each division?
And I guess that since the Q36 and Q37 are now organic, I take it that they added an additional 37? IIRC there were only 2 Q37's in a division back in the day.
Yes, there are now 3 Q-36 and 3 Q-37 per DIV. There is no MLRS organic to the DIV though. All MLRS is at the Fires BDE (new name for DIVARTY, sort of), but they don't have any DS units assigned. Another twist, not all DIVs have a Fires BDE. I think there are only 4 Fires BDEs planned at DIV level, the rest will be at Ft Sill and in the Guard and Reserve.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 08:18 PM UTC
Quoted Text
My my how things have changed.
I remember when each division had it's own TAB, and one battery of MLRS.
The new brigades have a RSTA squadron (Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition). The RSTA is a cavalry designated organization that gives the Bde commander his own scouts and his own target acquisition capibilities.
Page B-7 shows the configuration of the Heavy, Stryker and Infantry Brigades: Modular Brigades
thathaway3
Joined: September 10, 2004
KitMaker: 1,610 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Friday, September 15, 2006 - 02:44 AM UTC
Robin, thanks for the link. I for one found this very interesting.
A couple of the things that really caught my eye were the fact that the AC is only 48% of total end strength, and the "plan" for involuntary mobilization for RC units is only 1 year in 6.
I hate to say it but those two numbers are not compatible with the current OPTEMPO, which while the RC doctrine now talks about 1 year in 5, for most units has been closer to 1 year in 4 or less. (The MP Bn I commanded as an LTC just finished their second 1 year tour since 9/11).
Having spent 25 years in the RC before I retired, I can appreciate the importance the RC has in the overall warfight. But once you're IN a war, (and one with NO near term end in sight) which has required in excess of 100,000 RC people (all services) on long term mobilization for the last 4 years, I think the end strength for the AC is too low. I know the SECDEF disagrees with me, but I'm not sure that an indefinite use of 100,000 RC people full time is sustainable much longer.
The folks at the top seem "OK" with using the RC as an operational reserve. But the model for the Reserve (pay, benefits, drill schedules, equipment etc) was established for the LAST war, and fits a strategic reserve.
I'm afraid that in using the RC operationally, we'll wind up breaking it, and if we don't have a STRATEGIC reserve we could find ourselves in big trouble if we have to fight another significant war.
Tom
A couple of the things that really caught my eye were the fact that the AC is only 48% of total end strength, and the "plan" for involuntary mobilization for RC units is only 1 year in 6.
I hate to say it but those two numbers are not compatible with the current OPTEMPO, which while the RC doctrine now talks about 1 year in 5, for most units has been closer to 1 year in 4 or less. (The MP Bn I commanded as an LTC just finished their second 1 year tour since 9/11).
Having spent 25 years in the RC before I retired, I can appreciate the importance the RC has in the overall warfight. But once you're IN a war, (and one with NO near term end in sight) which has required in excess of 100,000 RC people (all services) on long term mobilization for the last 4 years, I think the end strength for the AC is too low. I know the SECDEF disagrees with me, but I'm not sure that an indefinite use of 100,000 RC people full time is sustainable much longer.
The folks at the top seem "OK" with using the RC as an operational reserve. But the model for the Reserve (pay, benefits, drill schedules, equipment etc) was established for the LAST war, and fits a strategic reserve.
I'm afraid that in using the RC operationally, we'll wind up breaking it, and if we don't have a STRATEGIC reserve we could find ourselves in big trouble if we have to fight another significant war.
Tom
Zacman
Joined: January 27, 2006
KitMaker: 210 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, September 15, 2006 - 07:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Another late response from the new guy.....
I was a Marine artillery officer in Vietnam, so the subject is one I am familiar with.
We used the wooden direction stakes to give the gun crews a bit of a heads-up as the fie mission was coming down. While the firing data was being calculated (buy hand...charts and darts...etc.) the FDC would send the general direction of the fire mission down to the XO on the gun line. That would allow the gun crews to swing the guns around to the direction of the mission and also to get the sights moved so that when the actual fire commands came down, the guns could put rounds on the target as quickly as possible. The whole idea was to minimize the inconvenience of the infantry who were usually getting their collective butts kicked......the illum missions were always special. That meant that the grunts were in contact and may have already taken casualties.
With the four-deuces (artillery weapons in the Marines), some of our harriest missions were shooting illum for the medivacs. The birds were generally two AH-1's and two CH-46's. They would circle the LZ like a bunch of buzzards while we plopped illum rounds in the middle.....it would make a rational safety officer shudder, but we saved a lot of lives doing that. You had to know the max ordinate of the rounds, the height of the choppers and have a really good stop watch and intuition. The idea was to shoot the round in between the choppers as they circled. I figure we must have been pretty good...we never shot down any of the "pop-up targets" (helicopters).
Whiskey6
David, could you tell me what unit in the Marnies you were in duruing Vietnam and what area you were in. My son's Grandfather was in "I" Battery, 3rdBATT 11th Marnies, 1stDiv, his unit was in I corps zone. I'am trying to find the names of the bases he was at, during his time in Vietnam.
Whiskey6
Joined: August 15, 2006
KitMaker: 408 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 05:59 AM UTC
Zacman -
I was in 1st Bn, 11th Marines. I had various jobs including Battery XO, Battery Commander, Battalion FDO, S-2 (Intelligence), S-5 (Civil Affairs) and FO/Advisor to the 21st Bn of the ARVN Rangers. (I spoke Vietnamese way back then.)
As far as 3/11 goes, I think the battalion headquarters was at LZ Ross near or in the Que Son Mountains - with a couple of it's 105 Batteries in outlying positions. 2/11 was at An Hoa, also with a couple of it's 105 Batteries in outlying positions. I'm not certail where I/3/11 was during the period I was there...the firing batteries got moved around a bit over time.
I'll see if I can find out more...if I do, I'll let you know.
Dave
I was in 1st Bn, 11th Marines. I had various jobs including Battery XO, Battery Commander, Battalion FDO, S-2 (Intelligence), S-5 (Civil Affairs) and FO/Advisor to the 21st Bn of the ARVN Rangers. (I spoke Vietnamese way back then.)
As far as 3/11 goes, I think the battalion headquarters was at LZ Ross near or in the Que Son Mountains - with a couple of it's 105 Batteries in outlying positions. 2/11 was at An Hoa, also with a couple of it's 105 Batteries in outlying positions. I'm not certail where I/3/11 was during the period I was there...the firing batteries got moved around a bit over time.
I'll see if I can find out more...if I do, I'll let you know.
Dave
Whiskey6
Joined: August 15, 2006
KitMaker: 408 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 06:05 AM UTC
Zacman -
There is a little bit on this site:
http://www.answers.com/topic/3rd-battalion-11th-marines
It's pretty generic though. What dates was your son's grandfather in Vietnam? Like I said, the batteries moved around a bit, particularly in the 1967-68 time frame.
I'll check some Marine Corps sites and see if I cna anrrow it down a bit.
Dave
There is a little bit on this site:
http://www.answers.com/topic/3rd-battalion-11th-marines
It's pretty generic though. What dates was your son's grandfather in Vietnam? Like I said, the batteries moved around a bit, particularly in the 1967-68 time frame.
I'll check some Marine Corps sites and see if I cna anrrow it down a bit.
Dave
Zacman
Joined: January 27, 2006
KitMaker: 210 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 11:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Zacman -
There is a little bit on this site:
http://www.answers.com/topic/3rd-battalion-11th-marines
It's pretty generic though. What dates was your son's grandfather in Vietnam? Like I said, the batteries moved around a bit, particularly in the 1967-68 time frame.
I'll check some Marine Corps sites and see if I cna anrrow it down a bit.
Dave
Thanks heaps Dave,
Any information is greatly appreciated, he joined the Marnies in 64, his unit((India Battery)3rdBat,11thMar1div(rein)FMF) was sent to vietnam in 65 i'am unshore of the date he landed, they went back to sea as part of a float fase so they landed ashore a few times. He left the Marines and Vietnam in late1968, i think he returned to Vietnam 72or3 but not as a Marine.
I have his photo albams from Vietnam and you can see they moved around a lot, i don't know the names of the bases he was at.
Thanks again .
Mark.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.