Thanks for playing along, I was just jerking your chain.KRM45 wrote:I don't know if I can give a definition, but I had the oportunity to serve in both an infantry unit and an armor unit in the Army. In the infantry I was in the mortar section, and we used both 60mm and 81mm mortars. These are clearly high angle weapons. They are also indirect fire weapons.KBCraig wrote:Naval guns are very high velocity, with a flat trajectory.jimlongley wrote:Actually that's what those battlewagon guns appear to be doing, they are depressed too far to achieve much range.
Point of order: can anyone here define the difference between low-angle and high-angle fire?
In the armor unit I was tank crewmember. The M1A1 has a 120mm main gun. This is a direct fie weapon, and I would say it has a low angle of fire.
Direct fire is sighted directly from the weapon to the target. Tanks are almost always direct fire, but they were sometimes used as indirect fire from WWI through Korea. Perhaps rarely in Vietnam, but we had so few tanks there (and so much artillery), it's unlikely.
High angle and indirect are not the same. Lots of mortars (which are always high angle) are direct fire, because the gunner sights directly on the target.
The question I posed stumped many of us at FAOBC 5-86. Since the question was even asked, it had obviously puzzled many generations of artillery officers.
Here's the official definition: High angle fire is that at which range decreases with an increase in muzzle elevation. Low angle fire is that at which range increases with an increase in muzzle elevation.
That's the official Fort Sill answer.
