Re: Direct and Indirect fire a set of definitions.

"Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CcednXD84YxI0D7eRVn-jw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Vince Brannigan" <news@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:-MCdnVa8CPLJtz7eRVn-rg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ SNIP ]
> > the key is the intelligence and computation. You have to solve the
> > relationship between the observation post and the target and the
> > observation post and the piece
>
> Not always. In the case of unobserved indirect fires (and such a critter
has
> existed), it is not applicable.

Not quite true, as far as unobserved indirect goes. As an FO, if you cannot
observe, you say so ("Cannot Observe" in the CFF, both arty and NGF), but
you still supply a target location, and the computation back at battery/ship
is the same.

> In the case of modern precision location
> systems, again it is not important--the fire control center gets the
> accurate location of the target, and has the accurate location of the
firing
> platform. The location of the observation system is immaterial in such a
> case--who really cares where it is? It could be a friggin' space-based
> observation system--do you really think an "algorythm" is required to
handle
> that??!
[ SNIP ]

Not sure I totally agree. At least in my day (G/VLLD or MULE, or an AN/GVS)
the target data was preferably sent as polar plots - direction, distance,
vertical angle. Precision, yes, but you still needed to know where the
observer was. Even if the observer carries out an intermediate computation
based on laser data, and sends grid, direction, and elevation, the location
of the observer is not immaterial in the context of the entire target
location system (even if it's a satellite or RPV or counterbattery radar).

AHS


.