Indirect Fire

[Third Mainer]

Thought this was fascinating.

http://artillerymanmagazine.com/Archives/2001/indirect_fall01.htm

Pearson

[faabala]

Re: Indirect fire

I don't think he invented it but he certainly used it effectively.

[Third Mainer]

Re: Indirect fire

It does seem like a bit of mythology.

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Indirect fire

Humphreys is often credited with developing concepts and the equations for using indirect fire and implemented some of it as described in this and other articles, but unfortunately the system wasn't documented and evaluated, and essentially any contribution of value to indirect fire was lost. While the Russians, Germans and French played with the concepts experimentally, the US Army didn't adopt them until 1911 with the institution of the "School of Fire" under Captain Dan T. Moore at Fort Sill. Even then, it was WWI that matured and developed the ideas of indirect predicted fire as we know artillery today.

[James Brenner]

Re: Indirect fire

It's an interesting article, but ...

Unobserved indirect fire was a common practice long before 1861. Mortars and howitzers used unobserved indirect fire to shell cities, fortifications, and positions in defilade. For example, in 1813, William Henry Harrison had large earthen traverses constructed at Fort Meigs as protection against British 5.5 inch howitzer shells. It's interesting to realize, too, that howitzer and mortar gunners could mass fires on a target from different locations using the Table of Fire developed for that specific type of ordnance. I have not seen Humphrey's Tables of Fire, but I imagine they were similar to standard firing tables: range, elevation, time of flight, etc. and it's likely that those gave him his inspiration. BTW, I seem to recall that Gibbons', Artillerists Manual contains a passage about how to position cannon to cover important points (river crossings, for example) at night when the target could not be seen. Anyway, from the article, it doesn't appear that Humphreys could make corrections based upon observing the fall of shot. If he could, then his technique would fall into the realm of observed indirect fire. But, what's interesting about Humphreys is that applied an old technique in a new way.

[noonanda]

Re: Indirect fire

It's an interesting article, but ...

Unobserved indirect fire was a common practice long before 1861. Mortars and howitzers used unobserved indirect fire to shell cities, fortifications, and positions in defilade. For example, in 1813, William Henry Harrison had large earthen traverses constructed at Fort Meigs as protection against British 5.5 inch howitzer shells. It's interesting to realize, too, that howitzer and mortar gunners could mass fires on a target from different locations using the Table of Fire developed for that specific type of ordnance. I have not seen Humphrey's Tables of Fire, but I imagine they were similar to standard firing tables: range, elevation, time of flight, etc. and it's likely that those gave him his inspiration. BTW, I seem to recall that Gibbons', Artillerists Manual contains a passage about how to position cannon to cover important points (river crossings, for example) at night when the target could not be seen. Anyway, from the article, it doesn't appear that Humphreys could make corrections based upon observing the fall of shot. If he could, then his technique would fall into the realm of observed indirect fire. But, what's interesting about Humphreys is that applied an old technique in a new way.

Agree 100% here. Im a retired Marine Artilleryman (FDC) and that is what was lacking was the ability to adjust the observed fire with accuracy. the Ability to take corrections from an Observer and calculate data to apply to the guns. The union was able to do this somewhat a few times during the war especially with naval gunfire, but not with any type of precision that we would even consider "accurate when compared even to WW2 standards