Firebase

[Lone Cat]

What differs firebase to any simple trenches/strongpoints+Howitzers?
What are the required components/facilities to make a firebase?

AFAIK the term 'Firebase' was coined in Vietnam War. after the South Korean marines 'experiments' on the use of artillery in combination with helos and infantry. and it turned out to be successful. Americans on the other hand. copied this concepts and began using ones against communist foes. (ok. NVA and VC are expert tunnellers but there are other communists volunteers fought for Uncle Ho, i've heard that there are numerous renegades from USA vassals (Laotians, Cambodgians, Thais <if you visit somewhere in Nan province. there are also similar tunnels dug by communist rebels there so I think several Thais also joined Unclue Ho>) and several volunteers from the communist bloc). I'm not sure how good did Americans adapt this concepts.

Long Range Howitzers as we known today were first appeared in First World War (and I think Germans and French were the first to use it. Surprisingly Brits still used muzzleloaders (with rifled barrels and using the extremely potent smokeless propellants!!! I don't think that smokeless powders work well with muzzleloading weapons like that). but with its range, and the crew's training (to use plunging fire). deploying these guns inside/just-next-to the trench system doesn't make those trenches called 'Firebase'... surprisingly 50 years later. americans and its allies use the similar trenches (well not a linear one but making a fort using trenches, earthworks, barbwires, and sangars) against commies and those 'fortresses' are called firebase.

there must be something that makes WW1 trenches differs to Firebase. but what makes the differencec? which technology? helos?

 

[History_Buff]

The ability to re-supply a potentially isolated base by air. In WWI it was very difficult to move just about anything around, given the massive break down in infrastructure. Thus the thinking was to hold a solid front so prevent the enemy operating in your rear and attacking critical supply hubs.

When you get to Vietnam, suddenly having enemy in your rear isn't such a big concern for highly mobile units, be they helicopter cavalry or all mechanized units; if you have air superiority as the Americans have had in just about every war since Korea, you can use your airforce to fill logistical gaps that had been previously handled by truck or ship.

 

[Dachs]

In WWI it was very difficult to move just about anything around, given the massive break down in infrastructure. Thus the thinking was to hold a solid front so prevent the enemy operating in your rear and attacking critical supply hubs.

This was not a result of supply concerns for the most part. What generals were most concerned about in the event of flanking or encirclement was defeat in detail.

 

[say1988]

By vietnam, technologies and experiences had dramatically changed the face of war and the nature of the conflict itself was entirely different. THus ideas changed.

The most obvious difference was that in many cases, there was no "front lines" and "rear area" in Vietnam. Even into WWII artillery was stationed behind the infantry and its position wasn't that important and the artillery force provided itself defense against any enemy stragglers or infiltrators in the area. A firebase in Vietnam would have a company or more of infantry to defend it against attacks.

A second one is the helicopter making rapid movement of troops and supplies easy over any terrain, these firebases would always have a landing zone for helicopters moving men and supplies about. They would also often have stockpiles of ammo and suppliesready to be distributed to nearby units and an aid station to treat the wounded. The concentration of everything into one small area was easier than ever before due to the ease of helicopter transport. This made a firebase a full operating base, not just an artillery position.

Then you have the changing nature of artillery control. In WWI there was still a huge focus on planned shoots and any fire requests going through the chain of command. By WWII this had somewhat changed as there were more support fire with a few guns directed at targets of opportunity and fewer heavy planned shoots. In addition, at least the Commonwealth, gave tremendous authoirty to lower officers to direct fire. In WWII a British FOO, unusally a Captain, I beleive, but often even Lietenants took up the job due to stresses of combat, had the authority to call down fire from hundreds of guns without the approval of any senior officers.
Vietnam took this further since planned shoots were not very useful in many cases as the enemy had few strongpoints and could appear anywhere. As such these guns would primarily provide support fire as requested by the observers in the fighting, not preplanned shoots organised by senior officers.

So in reality, you aren't looking at a defended artillery position, you are looking at a small forward base that is established around a gun battery.

 

[History_Buff]

This was not a result of supply concerns for the most part. What generals were most concerned about in the event of flanking or encirclement was defeat in detail.

Yeah, I know. I figured I'd compromise for the easy narrative.

 

[Flying Pig]

In British parlance, a 'fire base' is an ad hoc thing used during an attack, meaning you drop part of the attacking section, platoon, company or even battalion down in one position and have them lay down suppressive fire on the enemy while another group closes rapidly with them before attacking with grenades and fixed bayonets. An OP, or Observation Post, is (in the context of artillery etc) where the battalion's support company sets up and contains heavy mortars, heavy machine-guns and often some light Field Guns, and they have overwatch over the entire area where the battalion's three rifle companies are operating. If a company's three 'light' 51mm mortars aren't enough firepower to do the job, the commander - or in some cases, where the company isn't operating as one entity (very common nowadays in Afghanistan), even a platoon commander, who may be a second lieutenant - can order a 'fire mission' from the OP and have rounds on target in less than thirty seconds. Heavier firepower is provided by the AS90 self-propelled gun, which can support a far larger formation because it can land shells accurately over twelve miles away.

I don't know about common usage, but, at least in American parlance, the proper term is "base of fire".

That's technically correct, but years of calling "Delta drop here! Fire base!" have ensured that nobody says it outside of orders, as in "7 Platoon will move to this hill and set up a base of fire". We have FSG (Fire Support Group) for missile launchers and GPMGs used to support a large, company-level-plus attack, then 'artillery OP' for a gun position. Normally heavy fire comes from the FOB out of which a patrol is operating, so there aren't that many OPs in theatre nowadays.

 

[say1988]

In British parlance, a 'fire base' is an ad hoc thing used during an attack, meaning you drop part of the attacking section, platoon, company or even battalion down in one position and have them lay down suppressive fire on the enemy while another group closes rapidly with them before attacking with grenades and fixed bayonets.

I don't know about common usage, but, at least in American parlance, the proper term is "base of fire".

These firebases (often referred to as fire support bases) would more like a small forward operating base centred around a battery or two of guns, historically 105 or 155mm. They would be long-term or semipermanent positions (some would be occupied and abandoned as units moved in and out of the area). It would be the position that some of the towed forerunners of your AS90s would be located.