1986Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Requires access

Command and Control of the American Fire Support System,

Bruce A Brant

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the most appropriate command and control system for the U.S. Army fire support system. Specifically, it addresses the question of how tactical fire direction should be controlled in the direct support field artillery battalion. The major problem concerning today's field artillery is the coordination of indirect assets with the commander's scheme of maneuver and direct fire systems. To examine the coordination problem, this study compares the tactical command and control systems of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the present U.S. TACFIRE system and the future American system, the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS). The study makes three main conclusions. First, future planned automation provides a means of greatly enhancing the capabilities of fire support assets. Second, the fire support system is improved if the fire support officer controls fires instead of the fire direction officer. Finally, there needs to be a philosophical change within the U.S. fire support community. The final conclusion refers to the practice of placing the most experienced personnel near the guns rather than with the maneuver units which is the practice of both the Soviets and British.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The purpose of this study is to determine the most appropriate command and control system for the U.S. Army fire support system. Specifically, it addresses the question of how tactical fire direction should be controlled in the direct support field artillery battalion. The major problem concerning today's field artillery is the coordination of indirect assets with the commander's scheme of maneuver and direct fire systems. To examine the coordination problem, this study compares the tactical command and control systems of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the present U.S. TACFIRE system and the future American system, the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS). The study makes three main conclusions. First, future planned automation provides a means of greatly enhancing the capabilities of fire support assets. Second, the fire support system is improved if the fire support officer controls fires instead of the fire direction officer. Finally, there needs to be a philosophical change within the U.S. fire support community. The final conclusion refers to the practice of placing the most experienced personnel near the guns rather than with the maneuver units which is the practice of both the Soviets and British.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the most appropriate command and control system for the U.S. Army fire support system. Specifically, it addresses the question of how tactical fire direction should be controlled in the direct support field artillery battalion. The major problem concerning today's field artillery is the coordination of indirect assets with the commander's scheme of maneuver and direct fire systems. To examine the coordination problem, this study compares the tactical command and control systems of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the present U.S. TACFIRE system and the future American system, the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS). The study makes three main conclusions. First, future planned automation provides a means of greatly enhancing the capabilities of fire support assets. Second, the fire support system is improved if the fire support officer controls fires instead of the fire direction officer. Finally, there needs to be a philosophical change within the U.S. fire support community. The final conclusion refers to the practice of placing the most experienced personnel near the guns rather than with the maneuver units which is the practice of both the Soviets and British.

Key concepts: Artillery, Officer, Fire control, Command and control, Engineering, Aeronautics, Control (management), Field (mathematics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Command and Control of the American Fire Support System, — Research Paper | ScholarLens