04.06.2013 Views

Field ArTillery - US Army Center Of Military History

Field ArTillery - US Army Center Of Military History

Field ArTillery - US Army Center Of Military History

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

302 The OrganizaTiOnal hisTOry <strong>Of</strong> field arTillery<br />

M110A2 8-inch howitzer<br />

three) and enable the howitzers to be dispersed over the battlefield, thus increas ing<br />

survivability. Other advantages of the eight-howitzer batteries were more responsive<br />

firepower, improved capability for contin uous fire power, and more firepower<br />

with out a corresponding increase in overhead. The number of 155-mm. howitzers<br />

rose from fifty-four in the existing armored and mechanized divisions to ninety-six<br />

in the restructured division. The general-sup port artillery battalion was also to have<br />

four firing bat teries (rather than three), each with four M110 8-inch howitzers, thus<br />

raising the total number of 8-inch howitzers from twelve to six teen. As a result, the<br />

cannon in the division climbed from sixty-six to a hundred twelve. 45<br />

In addition to the headquarters battery, each restructured battalion included a service<br />

battery (for handling battalion-level mess operations and ammunition and fuel resupply)<br />

and a maintenance battery (for maintaining the individual firing sections’ equipment in<br />

the forward areas). The firing sections each lost one cannoneer, making a total of nine<br />

soldiers in each section. The loss of the ammunition and mess sections to the service<br />

battery and the wire sections to the headquarters battery, coupled with the loss of one<br />

cannoneer per howitzer section, reduced the firing battery’s ability to maintain perimeter<br />

defense. Increased emphasis had to be placed on early warning to provide time to displace<br />

or prepare to defend an area. In all, the divisional direct-support battalions realized a<br />

49-percent increase in personnel and a 78-percent increase in fire power. 46<br />

45 Phase I Rpt, <strong>US</strong>ATRADOC, 20 Dec 1976, sub: Division Restructuring Study, copy in CMH files;<br />

Combined Arms <strong>Center</strong>, “Division Restructur ing Evaluation. Independent Evaluation Report: Brigade<br />

Phase,” December 1979, 1:1–6, 16–20, and 4:1–7, Command Historian files, <strong>US</strong>ATRADOC, Fort Monroe,<br />

Va., and copy in CMH files; Keith, “Forward Observa tions,” pp. 3–4; Darrell Mor geson, “DRS,” <strong>Field</strong><br />

Artil lery Journal, November-December 1978, pp. 21–22.<br />

46 Gibbs, “DRS,” pp. 36–40; Kenneth R. Knight, “DRS,” <strong>Field</strong> Artillery Journal, January-February<br />

1979, pp. 44–49.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!