StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm watching We were Soldiers (awesome movie, a little jingoistic but damn fine war film) and Mel Gibson's character is calling in air and artillery strikes left and right as his position is constantly about to be over run. My question is two fold.

What kind of artillery assets can a US unit be expected to have at its disposal in terms of guns, batteries, fire power, etc. And does rank have any thing to do with the amount of fire support you can draw? Mel Gibson's character was a Colonel so I fully expect him to get tons of support but throughout the movie I see Lietenants calling in fire support, at one point a 2nd Lt. trapped with his platoon out during the night is calling in what looks like many guns to defend his position.

And later in the movie as the position is about to be overrun so he declares Broken Arrow which is supposed to be a code from an American unit that will be overrun whoch clears the decks for any air and artillery asset avialble to come in and support the bellueagured American unit. Does such a code exist?

I read that one of the major complaints from both sides during WWII was that American forces relied very heavily on their artillery. Is this an American doctrine that still exists today?

Artillery is still important, but hasn't really come to it's full potential in the most recent conflicts due to the inability of current artillery to keep up with the pace of combat. This was one of the selling points of the Crusader. It could actually keep up with the troops it was supporting, instead of constantly stopping to fire.

I always thought "broken arrow" was the code used for a lost undetonated missile, specifically nuclear.

Mel Gibson's character (LTC Hal Moore) commanded the 1st Battalion of the 7th Cavalry. A battalion generally has a battery of artillery in support, up to 155. Vietnam played things a bit differently, and as LTC Moore's was the only show in town, he likely had a great deal more available, including an entire DIVARTY and CAS. Haven't studied the battle, so I can only offer generalities...

Stravo wrote:
What kind of artillery assets can a US unit be expected to have at its disposal in terms of guns, batteries, fire power, etc. And does rank have any thing to do with the amount of fire support you can draw?

Rank has little to do with it, and for units bigger then a platoon, artillery and air support is normally requested and controlled through specialist personal, they tell the fire direction center with the guns what the target is, how it needs to be hit and then adjust the fire. In theory and practice through anyone with a radio be they the battalion commander or a private can call and get anything and everything that's available.

What is available in the first place depends entirely on what size and what type of force is in action. Specific batteries may be attached to specific units for their support, especially the batteries of mortars and guns attached to brigades and battalions rather then being divisional guns. But as much as possibul everything is kept in one big pool to be allotted as needed. It's a high and rapid degree of flexibility on this issue that's made American guns so effective, despite the fact that the US Army and Marines have never deployed particularly large numbers of guns.

Mel Gibson's character was a Colonel so I fully expect him to get tons of support but throughout the movie I see Lietenants calling in fire support, at one point a 2nd Lt. trapped with his platoon out during the night is calling in what looks like many guns to defend his position.

At the platoon level the commanding officer, a 2nd Lt. is reasonably for requesting and adjusting artillery. Once you hit the company. He'll get whatever the fire direction center can give him.

And later in the movie as the position is about to be overrun so he declares Broken Arrow which is supposed to be a code from an American unit that will be overrun whoch clears the decks for any air and artillery asset avialble to come in and support the bellueagured American unit. Does such a code exist?

Not that I'm aware of, it would be the call of the fire direction center which knows the whole story across the battlefield. Though such a thing might be rigged up on an as needed basis.

I read that one of the major complaints from both sides during WWII was that American forces relied very heavily on their artillery. Is this an American doctrine that still exists today?

The US Civil War taught commanders that its better to expend things rather then lives whenever you can. It didn't get implemented too well in WW1 but from then on it certainly was. The American style of warfare is often referred to as the "pile it on" style. We use our vast economic resources to swamp the enemy with ammunition and with the means to supply and deliver it. It worked quite well in WW2 which let the US come out of the war with only about 290,000 dead, Italy suffered nearly that many.

I've yet to see anyone on the Allied side complain about how much artillery US forces used, we shot off more rounds per day then the Soviets, though they could fire much larger single barrages with great preperation.

The Germans however did often questioned it, since from there point of view it was a waste of ammo to shell hills and empty positions that infantry patrols could have inspected. But the Germans didn't have the ammo to spare. You'll find few regular forces which will take manpower losses when they could do the job with shear firepower.

tTe US still fights this way. Its just most of our recent enemies have not presented suitable targets, and politics prevent the firing of Army wide Time on Target barrages against single towns resulting in there total obliteration.

Beowulf wrote:Artillery is still important, but hasn't really come to it's full potential in the most recent conflicts due to the inability of current artillery to keep up with the pace of combat. This was one of the selling points of the Crusader. It could actually keep up with the troops it was supporting, instead of constantly stopping to fire.

When they went to knock Crusader down from 70 tons to 40 tons part of what went was the capability to fire on the move. Which is one more reason why it was rightly canacled.

It mgith have been rightly canceled after the weight drop but before then it would have been a wonderful piece of artillery to have (not that the Marines would have gotten any). That said I am reasonably pelased abotu the action to aquire the new XM777/LW155. The thing, if it really does perform like it has been said to, delivers all the range, more of the accuracy, all with a lot less weight and a lot more stability than its predecessor.

CmdrWilkens wrote:It mgith have been rightly canceled after the weight drop but before then it would have been a wonderful piece of artillery to have (not that the Marines would have gotten any).

Its better then the M109A6, but it was already inferior to what other nations had in production in rate of fire, and especially range. Really once the liquid propellant for the gun was abandon, the whole thing was on the road to inferiority.

That said I am reasonably pelased abotu the action to aquire the new XM777/LW155. The thing, if it really does perform like it has been said to, delivers all the range, more of the accuracy, all with a lot less weight and a lot more stability than its predecessor.

That program is a big if. But some very nice towed or trucked 155's could be bought off the shelf if it does fall through.