Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Time on target

Time on target (TOT), also known as time-on-target, is a fire control technique in artillery operations where multiple firing units adjust their firing times based on varying ranges and flight durations to ensure all projectiles impact the target simultaneously.^[1]^[2] This method, specified by the observer in the call for fire, requires precise synchronization between the observer and the fire direction center to achieve impacts within seconds of the designated time, such as in a call stating "TIME ON TARGET, 0859."^[2] The primary purpose of TOT is to maximize the initial destructive effect of a barrage by delivering a concentrated volume of fire all at once, thereby enhancing surprise and limiting the enemy's opportunity to react or seek cover.^[1]^[2] In U.S. Army doctrine, it supports massed fires to overwhelm targets, reducing the "popcorn effect" of staggered arrivals that could alert defenders.^[2] This tactic demands accurate time-of-flight calculations for each unit, often involving dozens of guns or howitzers, and is planned to account for factors like ammunition type and terrain.^[2] TOT evolved as a key innovation in field artillery during World War II, where U.S. forces refined it to deliver rapid, coordinated barrages that inflicted heavy casualties in the opening moments of engagements.^[1] Post-war analysis confirmed its effectiveness, noting that artillery impacts cause the majority of damage before targets can disperse.^[3] In contemporary operations, as outlined in Army Techniques Publication 3-09.30, TOT integrates with joint fires, including close air support and electronic warfare, while multinational exercises emphasize interoperability for synchronized multinational TOT missions.^[2]^[4] Beyond ground artillery, the term extends to air operations under U.S. Department of Defense definitions, denoting the scheduled or actual time for aircraft to attack or photograph a target, or for a nuclear detonation at ground zero.^[5] This broader application underscores TOT's role in multi-domain coordination, where timing precision remains critical for mission success across services.^[5]

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

Time on target (TOT) is a military synchronization technique in which multiple artillery units or weapons systems adjust their firing times to ensure that projectiles from all sources impact a designated target simultaneously.^[6] This method relies on coordinating diverse firing positions, where units at varying distances account for differences in projectile flight times to achieve precise convergence at the intended moment.^[7] The primary purpose of TOT is to maximize surprise and destructive impact by delivering an overwhelming concentration of fire in the initial strike, thereby minimizing the enemy's opportunity to react, seek cover, or mount a defense.^[8] Unlike sequential or creeping barrages, which involve progressive fire along a line to support advancing infantry, TOT emphasizes simultaneity on a single point to saturate and neutralize the target instantaneously.^[8] Key components of TOT include multiple firing units, a pre-established impact time, and adjustments for time-of-flight variations based on range and environmental factors.^[6] This tactic first gained prominence during World War II as a means to enhance artillery effectiveness in dynamic combat scenarios.^[8]

Basic Principles

Time of flight (TOF) in artillery refers to the duration a projectile travels from the gun muzzle to the point of impact or burst at the target, typically measured in seconds and critical for synchronizing fires. This time is primarily determined by the range to the target, the elevation angle of the weapon, and the initial muzzle velocity imparted by the propellant charge, with longer ranges and higher elevations generally increasing TOF due to the parabolic trajectory governed by gravitational acceleration and air resistance. Environmental conditions further influence TOF, including air temperature and density, which affect drag; wind components along the flight path, particularly range wind that can accelerate or decelerate the projectile; and altitude, which alters atmospheric pressure and thus drag forces.^[9] The tactical rationale for time on target (TOT) stems from the need to deliver a sudden, overwhelming concentration of fire to maximize destructive effect and psychological shock on enemy forces, particularly against stationary or high-value targets. By ensuring all projectiles arrive simultaneously, TOT denies the enemy sufficient time—often mere seconds—to seek cover or react, thereby increasing casualties and disrupting cohesion in the initial moments of the barrage, a principle refined from post-World War I observations of massed artillery barrages that demonstrated the superior lethality of surprise concentrations over prolonged exposures. This approach leverages the physics of projectile motion to achieve a "shock" effect, where the instantaneous volume of fire blankets the target area, enhancing both physical damage and morale suppression compared to staggered impacts.^[10]^[9] Effective implementation of TOT requires several prerequisites, including precise target ranging to establish accurate distance and location via methods such as grid coordinates or polar plots, comprehensive ballistic data from firing tables that account for weapon, ammunition, and meteorological variables, and robust communication networks between forward observers, fire direction centers, and firing units to relay timing and adjustments in real time. Central to TOT is the concept of "zero time," defined as the synchronized moment of impact at the target, serving as the reference point from which all firing times are calculated backward using individual TOFs to ensure simultaneity across dispersed batteries.^[9] TOT differs from related artillery tactics in its emphasis on pre-planned simultaneity without interim adjustments. Unlike predicted fire, which relies solely on computed ballistic solutions for immediate execution without an adjustment mission to verify accuracy, TOT incorporates TOF synchronization as a core element to guarantee concurrent arrival even across varying ranges. In contrast, adjustment fire involves sequential spotting rounds and observer corrections to refine aim before full effect, potentially sacrificing the surprise of TOT by extending the observable firing sequence.^[9]

Historical Development

Origins in World War II

The concept of time on target (TOT) artillery tactics emerged from lessons learned in World War I, where prolonged barrages often allowed enemy forces to seek cover after initial impacts, reducing overall effectiveness despite high casualty rates from the opening salvos. Studies of WWI massed fires, such as the V Corps Artillery's bombardment on 1 November 1918 that advanced 8 kilometers and overwhelmed German positions, highlighted the need for surprise and concentrated initial strikes to maximize psychological and physical disruption. These observations influenced interwar doctrine at U.S. Army posts like Fort Sill and British artillery schools, emphasizing centralized control and rapid synchronization to replicate the devastating "first few seconds" effect before targets could react.^[10] Refinements to TOT occurred during early WWII campaigns in North Africa and Italy, where Allied forces adapted WWI principles to mobile warfare against Axis defenses. In North Africa, British artillery introduced TOT in early 1942 for multi-battery concentrations, using synchronized clocks via BBC time signals to achieve precise impacts, which proved vital in disrupting German armored advances. By the Italian campaign, particularly at Anzio in 1944, U.S. and British units employed TOT to synchronize large-scale fires, allowing hundreds of guns to deliver overwhelming barrages that neutralized enemy counterattacks and supported beachhead expansions.^[11]^[12] British forces formally adopted TOT from late 1942, integrating it into fire plans following doctrinal updates in September after trials by XIII Corps in North Africa. This enabled rapid, surprise concentrations during major operations in North Africa and subsequent campaigns, deluging Axis positions without prior warning. By the Normandy invasion in June 1944, TOT had become standard in British fire plans, coordinating hundreds of guns (up to around 400) for "Victor" targets that shattered German defenses and facilitated Allied advances.^[11] In the U.S. Army, TOT was initially developed by the VII Corps under General J. Lawton Collins in 1944, evolving from combat needs observed during the Normandy campaign and subsequent operations. Collins, drawing on his earlier experience implementing massed fires as 25th Infantry Division commander at Guadalcanal in 1943, refined TOT through fire direction centers to synchronize corps-level barrages, first achieving large-scale application during the Cherbourg assault (June 1944) and Operation Cobra breakout (July 1944). This innovation allowed VII Corps artillery to mass 258 guns and expend 140,000 rounds in coordinated strikes that neutralized German strongpoints with minimal warning.^[8] Major TOT applications by U.S. forces in 1944-1945 included overwhelming barrages that devastated German positions, such as those during the Aachen offensive (October 1944), where artillery support from multiple battalions halted counterattacks. A notable example of a large-scale TOT occurred later in the VII Corps sector on 21 November 1944 during the attack on Hill 187, where 20 battalions delivered a three-minute concentration—the heaviest single-target barrage of the war—destroying a key German observation post. Another example was during General Omar Bradley's 12th Army Group operations at the Rhine crossing in March 1945, particularly the Remagen bridgehead, where the 400th Armored Field Artillery Battalion executed TOT missions on 13 March, firing over 2,100 rounds to shatter an enemy counterattack of 40-50 troops and secure the eastern bank expansion. These uses demonstrated TOT's role in achieving tactical surprise and high initial neutralization rates.^[8]^[13]

Post-War Evolution

Following World War II, Time on Target (TOT) tactics saw initial application in the Korean War, where U.S. forces employed them against advancing Chinese positions to maximize surprise and destructive impact. Marine artillery units, such as the 11th Marines, coordinated TOT concentrations to shatter Chinese company formations, as seen in the defense of Outpost Vegas on 8 July 1953, where synchronized fires from multiple battalions overwhelmed enemy assaults. Early integration of radar enhanced targeting accuracy, enabling night strikes on Chinese anti-aircraft batteries and troop concentrations within 2,500 yards of Marine positions, though repeated use diminished effectiveness due to enemy adaptations.^[14] In the Vietnam War, TOT evolved to incorporate air support for combined strikes, reflecting the demands of airmobile operations against elusive enemies in dense jungle terrain. U.S. artillery delivered preplanned TOT fires from up to nine batteries, synchronized with helicopter gunships and close air support during battles like Ia Drang Valley in 1965, where over 4,000 rounds were fired in a single night to repel North Vietnamese attacks. However, challenges arose from jungle cover and mobile foes, which delayed fire missions to 6-13 minutes due to inaccurate maps and camouflage, necessitating innovations like firebase "star" formations for 360-degree coverage and rapid artillery displacements—166 moves, 57 by air—across non-contiguous battlefields.^[15] During the Cold War, NATO doctrines standardized TOT within allied fire support frameworks, emphasizing interoperability amid potential Warsaw Pact threats. U.S. and NATO forces refined TOT proficiency through massed concentrations, building on World War II legacies to maintain battlefield superiority, as outlined in evolving field manuals that stressed coordinated multinational fires. The 1970s and 1980s introduced computerized fire control systems, such as the Field Artillery Digital Automatic Computer (FADAC) and later TACFIRE, which automated ballistic calculations for precise TOT timing, reducing manual errors and enabling rapid adjustments for variable terrain and weather.^[16] The 1991 Gulf War marked a milestone in TOT refinement with precision-guided munitions, allowing "smart" synchronized strikes that minimized collateral damage while achieving high accuracy. Coalition artillery used GPS for exact TOT timing on Iraqi command centers and armored units, integrating laser-guided bombs from aircraft to overwhelm defenses in operations like the 100-hour ground campaign. In post-9/11 counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, TOT adapted to urban and rugged environments, with systems like the M270 MLRS delivering rapid rocket barrages—such as 108 rockets in one minute—against insurgent positions, though usage was constrained by rules of engagement to avoid civilian casualties.^[17]^[18]^[19] In the 2010s and 2020s, TOT continued to evolve with advancements in precision fires and joint operations. Systems like the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) enabled mobile, GPS-guided TOT missions in conflicts such as support for Ukrainian forces against Russian invasions (as of 2025), integrating drone reconnaissance for real-time targeting and multinational interoperability in NATO exercises. These developments emphasize reduced collateral damage and rapid response in hybrid warfare environments.^[20]

Operational Mechanics

Calculation of Firing Times

The calculation of firing times for time on target (TOT) missions relies on determining the precise moment each artillery unit must fire to ensure all projectiles impact the target simultaneously. The core equation is straightforward: the firing time for a given unit equals the designated impact time minus the time of flight (TOF) for its projectile.^[21] TOF represents the duration from muzzle exit to target impact and is derived from ballistic tables or computational formulas that account for range, muzzle velocity, elevation angle, and environmental effects. A simplified approximation for TOF in low-angle fire is \text{TOF} \approx \frac{\text{range}}{\text{muzzle velocity}} + \Delta, where \Delta incorporates adjustments for gravity-induced drop and aerodynamic drag, though full computations use numerical integration of differential equations for accuracy.^[22] The procedural steps for computing firing times begin with establishing the geometric foundation: target coordinates are determined via forward observers, radar, or global positioning systems, while unit positions are fixed using surveyed locations or GPS. Next, individual TOFs are calculated for each firing unit based on their distance to the target, using precomputed firing tables that tabulate TOF values for specific charge, elevation, and range combinations, or modern software that solves ballistic equations in real time. A common impact time is then selected to align with operational needs, such as an assault timing (H-hour). Finally, fire commands are issued to each unit with explicit countdowns, such as "TOT at 0600," prompting the fire direction center to back-calculate and transmit the exact firing offset from H-hour.^[23] Accuracy in these calculations is influenced by several variable factors that can alter TOF by seconds, potentially desynchronizing impacts. Propellant temperature variations affect muzzle velocity, with a 10°C rise potentially increasing velocity by 1-2% and shortening TOF; barrel wear from repeated firings erodes the bore, reducing velocity over time; and meteorological data (met), including wind, air density, and temperature gradients, modify the trajectory path. For instance, at a 20 km range with a 155 mm howitzer, nominal TOF might span 40-60 seconds depending on elevation and met conditions, requiring precise adjustments to maintain synchronization.^[24]^[25]^[26] Historically, during World War II, calculations depended on manual firing tables—comprehensive charts produced by agencies like the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory—that gunners interpolated for TOF based on range and charge, often taking minutes per mission. In contrast, modern systems like the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) automate these computations, integrating real-time met data, GPS positions, and ballistic models to generate firing solutions in seconds, enabling rapid TOT execution across networked units.^[27]^[28]

Coordination and Execution

The fire direction center (FDC) serves as the central hub for coordinating Time on Target (TOT) missions, responsible for plotting targets, assigning firing sectors to units, and issuing fire orders through radio or digital communication links such as the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS).^[29] In this role, the FDC processes observer requests, computes necessary firing data, and ensures all participating batteries or platoons receive synchronized instructions to achieve simultaneous impact on the target. Communication protocols for TOT emphasize real-time synchronization, beginning with forward observers (FOs) who designate targets and relay critical details like location and timing via voice or digital means to the FDC.^[29] To ensure simultaneity, the FDC issues countdown commands, such as announcing "30 seconds to TOT," prompting all units to release fire at the precise moment, often backed by primary-alternate-contingency-emergency (PACE) plans to maintain links amid potential disruptions.^[30] Execution of a TOT mission unfolds in distinct phases: preparation involves rehearsals to align units with the fire support plan, including positioning and target acquisition; the firing phase requires simultaneous release of rounds from multiple units under centralized control; and post-fire assessment evaluates battle damage through observer reports or sensors, adjusting for subsequent actions.^[29] Contingencies are addressed by designating alternate firing units for delays or reallocating ammunition in cases of shortages, allowing the FDC to adapt without compromising the mission's timing. Challenges in execution include signal interference from enemy actions or terrain, which can degrade digital links and necessitate switches to voice communications; unit mobility requirements that demand rapid repositioning while maintaining synchronization; and the establishment of safety zones through fire support coordination measures (FSCMs) like no-fire areas to prevent friendly fire incidents.^[29] These issues are mitigated through redundant networks and pre-mission planning to uphold the precision essential for TOT effectiveness.

Military Applications

In Ground Artillery

In ground artillery operations, Time on Target (TOT) primarily involves the synchronized massing of fires from howitzer batteries, gun units, or rocket systems to deliver simultaneous impacts on designated targets, such as enemy troop concentrations, fortifications, or command posts. This technique maximizes destructive effect and surprise by ensuring all projectiles arrive concurrently, often using 155mm howitzers like the self-propelled M109A7 Paladin, which can engage targets up to 30 kilometers away with high-volume fire. For rocket artillery, systems like the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) enable TOT missions by launching salvos of guided munitions, such as the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), to saturate area targets with precision strikes. These applications rely on fire direction centers to compute trajectories and time-of-flight adjustments, allowing batteries to fire at staggered intervals that converge on the objective.^[2]^[31]^[32] Tactical scenarios for TOT in ground artillery emphasize support for infantry assaults, where massed fires suppress defensive positions ahead of advancing maneuver elements, neutralizing machine guns, anti-tank weapons, or entrenched infantry. In counter-battery roles, TOT facilitates rapid neutralization of enemy artillery, mortars, or rocket launchers by directing concentrated volleys to disrupt their firing positions before they can relocate. For instance, during offensive operations, a TOT mission might coordinate howitzer batteries to blanket a forward enemy line, creating a window for infantry penetration, while in defensive postures, it counters incoming barrages by targeting detected launch points. These scenarios demand precise observer inputs and automated systems to minimize response times, often achieving impacts within minutes of target acquisition.^[2]^[32]^[33] Equipment in ground artillery TOT operations includes both self-propelled systems, such as the M109A7 Paladin, which offer mobility and survivability for shoot-and-scoot tactics in contested environments, and towed variants like the M777 howitzer, favored for lighter logistical footprints in expeditionary forces. Self-propelled units integrate digital fire control systems for faster setup and firing, while towed systems require more manual alignment but provide flexibility in austere terrain. Critical to rapid targeting is the integration of counterfire radars like the AN/TPQ-53, which detects incoming projectiles and computes enemy firing points with 85% location probability and accuracies of 30-75 meters, feeding data directly into the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) for immediate TOT mission generation. This sensor-to-shooter linkage enables responses to initial enemy volleys, prioritizing high-value threats for synchronized counterfire.^[2]^[32]^[33] The scale of TOT missions in ground artillery ranges from battalion-level engagements, typically involving 18 howitzers organized in three batteries of six guns each, to division-level massed fires coordinating up to 72 tubes across multiple battalions for overwhelming volume against priority targets. At the battalion echelon, a single TOT might deliver 100-200 rounds in seconds to suppress a troop concentration, while division-scale operations, managed through a Division Artillery (DIVARTY) headquarters, synchronize fires from cannon and rocket units to achieve effects equivalent to thousands of projectiles on fortifications or command nodes. This scalability allows commanders to tailor intensity to the threat, with MLRS battalions contributing 18 launchers per unit for extended-range, high-density barrages in larger formations.^[2]^[32]

In Combined Arms Operations

In combined arms operations, Time on Target (TOT) integrates artillery fires with infantry and armor maneuvers to provide synchronized suppressive effects that enable advances across contested terrain. Artillery units employ TOT as part of rolling barrages, where fires are timed to impact ahead of advancing forces, then lifted progressively to maintain momentum while minimizing risk to friendly troops; this coordination relies on forward observers embedded with maneuver elements to adjust fire plans in real time based on troop positions and enemy responses. For instance, in operations involving armored thrusts, TOT ensures massed shell impacts neutralize anti-tank positions or fortifications, allowing tanks and infantry to exploit breaches without prolonged exposure.^[34] Air-ground coordination leverages TOT to synchronize artillery with close air support (CAS) or unmanned aerial systems, creating layered fire effects where munitions from multiple domains arrive simultaneously or in sequenced volleys to overwhelm targets. Deconfliction procedures, such as altitude separation, mandate that artillery's first fire-for-effect volley impacts no later than 30 seconds before CAS arrival at the designated time on target (TOT), with aircraft maintaining minimum altitudes (e.g., 3,000 feet above ground level) to avoid fratricide; this approach enhances precision in dynamic environments by combining the all-weather responsiveness of artillery with the standoff capabilities of aerial strikes. In modern contexts, drones facilitate drone-enabled targeting by providing persistent surveillance and real-time adjustments to TOT fire missions, improving accuracy and reducing response times for joint fires.^[35]^[36] Naval applications of TOT focus on ship-to-shore bombardments synchronized with amphibious assaults, where naval surface fire support (NSFS) delivers timed impacts to suppress beach defenses as landing craft approach. Through the Supporting Arms Coordination Center (SACC), naval gunfire from assigned ships in direct or general support roles is integrated with landing force fire support coordination centers (FSCCs), ensuring TOT aligns with the scheme of maneuver; spotters ashore or afloat relay adjustments via dedicated nets, such as the NSFS Ground Spot Net, to execute missions like neutralization of enemy positions immediately prior to troop landings. This coordination extends to transitions ashore, where NSFS lifts fires to enable unhindered advances by marines or infantry.^[37] In urban warfare, such as the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004, TOT principles underpinned the integration of artillery and precision airstrikes to dismantle insurgent strongholds, with 5,685 155mm artillery rounds and hundreds of aerial munitions coordinated to precede infantry and armor clearing operations, thereby reducing casualties during house-to-house fighting. Artillery barrages targeted perimeter fortifications, followed by CAS strikes on identified threats, allowing ground forces to advance through neutralized zones in a combined arms sequence that emphasized mutual support across branches. These tactics highlight TOT's role in enabling decisive effects in complex environments, where joint fires amplify the maneuver of integrated forces.^[38]^[39]

Advantages and Challenges

Benefits

The employment of time on target (TOT) in artillery operations provides significant strategic and tactical advantages by delivering a sudden and overwhelming barrage that catches enemy forces unprepared. This technique ensures that projectiles from multiple batteries arrive simultaneously, creating an element of surprise that disrupts enemy command and control while inflicting immediate psychological shock. The absence of prior warning leads to demoralization and confusion among troops, as the abrupt onset of fire prevents defensive maneuvers or dispersal, resulting in steady attrition of front-line positions.^[40]^[41] TOT maximizes destructive efficiency through concentrated energy delivery, substantially increasing the lethality against personnel and materiel in the targeted area. By synchronizing impacts, the method amplifies the shrapnel and blast effects, often neutralizing key enemy elements such as command posts or troop concentrations in a single volley, which heightens the overall kill probability compared to sequential firing. Historical examples, such as U.S. artillery actions during World War II, demonstrate this through the destruction of enemy tanks and positions, contributing to high casualty rates among exposed forces.^[40]^[41] Operationally, TOT shortens engagement durations by enabling rapid fire missions that support infantry advances without prolonged exposure, while conserving ammunition relative to extended barrages through precise, volume-focused strikes. This efficiency allows artillery units to allocate resources more effectively across multiple targets, facilitating quicker transitions to subsequent maneuvers and reducing logistical demands on supply lines. In practice, such as during the Battle of the Bulge, coordinated TOT fires from numerous batteries repelled counterattacks in minimal time, preserving momentum for friendly forces.^[40]^[41] As a force multiplier, TOT enables smaller or fewer artillery assets to achieve the destructive output equivalent to larger formations by leveraging precise timing and massed effects from dispersed units. This capability was evident in interwar U.S. Army experiments and World War II operations, where multiple divisions' artillery could converge on decisive points, overwhelming numerically superior opponents and amplifying the impact of combined arms tactics.^[41]

Limitations

One significant limitation of time on target (TOT) tactics lies in their coordination complexity, which demands precise synchronization across multiple firing units to account for varying times of flight (TOFs) and ensure simultaneous impacts.^[42] Communication failures, such as delayed messages or authentication issues, can lead to desynchronization, resulting in premature or late arrivals that diminish the element of surprise and overall effectiveness.^[42] For instance, observers must perform time hacks to align watches with fire direction centers (FDCs), and any human error in this process—exacerbated by concealed positions or overlapping missions—can cause rounds to be difficult to identify or adjust.^[42] Precision-guided munitions like the Copperhead further compound this by requiring exact coordination between batteries and observers, with training success rates often below 70%.^[43] TOT missions are also vulnerable to enemy countermeasures, as the tactic's reliance on massed fire from fixed or forward positions exposes batteries to detection and retaliation.^[40] Systems with limited ranges, such as early multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) at 30 km, often necessitate positioning closer to the front line, increasing risks from outranging enemy artillery like the GHN-45 or G-5 guns.^[43] The high visibility of preparatory calculations and firing signatures invites prompt counter-battery fire, potentially neutralizing the attacking units before they can relocate.^[43] Mobile adversaries can evade impacts by altering posture—such as digging in or dispersing—once incoming fire is anticipated, reducing TOT's disruptive potential.^[42] Logistically, TOT demands extensive pre-planned data on target locations, TOFs, and ammunition requirements, rendering it less adaptable to dynamic or opportunity targets that emerge unexpectedly.^[42] This pre-planning necessitates reliable supply chains for high-volume ammunition expenditure, as missions can consume hundreds of rounds per battery, straining resupply efforts especially in contested environments.^[42] Trained crews are essential for executing these computations and adjustments, but modular force structures have decentralized control, complicating synchronization and overburdening maneuver commanders unaccustomed to fire support planning.^[43] Precision alternatives like the Excalibur round alleviate some ammunition needs but introduce high costs, at approximately $100,000 per projectile as of 2024.^[43]^[44] In modern operations, TOT faces additional challenges from electronic warfare, including GPS jamming that can degrade precision-guided munitions reliant on satellite navigation.^[45] Collateral risks remain a critical concern in TOT applications, particularly in environments with imprecise targeting or proximity to friendly forces.^[42] In danger-close scenarios, minimum safe distances—such as 200 meters parallel to front lines for 5-inch gun salvos—must be observed, yet errors in location or timing can still result in friendly fire incidents.^[42] Improved conventional munitions (ICM) used in TOT volleys carry dud rates of 2-3%, while dual-purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM) can reach up to 20%, posing ongoing hazards to civilians and troops post-engagement.^[42]^[43] Mitigations include adopting precision-guided munitions to enhance accuracy and reduce scatter, though their expense and availability constrain widespread use.^[43]

References

[1]
Definition of TIME ON TARGET
### Summary of "Time on Target" Definition and Military Usage
[2]
[PDF] ATP 3-09.30 Observed Fires - Central Army Registry (CAR)
Sep 28, 2017
[3]
Time On Target - The Historical Marker Database
After World War Two, the Army learned that an artillery barrage produces the most casualties in the first few seconds before the enemy could seek cover.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|control11|><|separator|>
[4]
[PDF] Achieving joint, multinational interoperability
Oct 1, 2019 · time on target so every firing unit fired onto one location, at each location,” said Champion. “We are able to take multinational firing.<|control11|><|separator|>
[5]
time on target (US DoD Definition) - Military Factory
1. Time at which aircraft are scheduled to attack/photograph the target. 2. The actual time at which aircraft attack/photograph the target.
[6]
https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/9B9879F3-F213-4CD7-9D20-8D4520E8D38E-1397219978180/fm3_09.pdf
[7]
FM 6-40 Chptr 5 Fire Mission Messages - GlobalSecurity.org
The battalion FDO will add 10 seconds (reaction time) to the longest time of flight reported. If the longest TOF is 30 seconds, he will announce TOT 40 SECONDS ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[8]
[PDF] Evolution of Artillery Tactics in General J. Lawton Collins' US VII ...
Jun 7, 1996 · ... creeping barrage. At a planned time, fires would shift forward ... artillery developed a new tactic which was the artillery time on target.
[9]
[PDF] Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for the Field Artillery Manual ...
Time of Flight is artillery expressed to the nearest tenth of a second ... times of flight to get the rounds on the target quickly. This technique is ...Missing: physics | Show results with:physics
[10]
[PDF] Field Artillery Doctrine Development 1917-1945 - DTIC
This thesis examines US Army field artillery doctrine from 1917-1945, finding that WWII doctrine remained similar to 1918, with WWI principles as the basis.
[11]
Royal Artillery Methods in World War 2
... time on target (which was a slow method). By the end of the war Victor targets with 1000 guns were not unusual, the British was the only army routinely ...
[12]
[PDF] The King of Battle in the Italian Campaign during World War II - DTIC
May 24, 2018 · The best expression of the synchronization of fires during the Anzio campaign was the “time on target” technique that allowed large numbers of ...Missing: refinement | Show results with:refinement
[13]
[PDF] Fire Support Employment in the Rhine River Crossing at Remagen ...
Sep 2, 2022 · The normal time required to coordinate the fires of a SERENADE was from ten to twelve minutes with more time required if additional artillery ...
[14]
None
### Summary of Time on Target (TOT) and Radar Use by US Forces Against Chinese Positions in the Korean War
[15]
[PDF] the evolution of fire support doctrine was driven by airmobile - DTIC
Given the difficult terrain and elusive enemy in Vietnam, what better opportunity to use a division capable of rapid insertion of combat forces by helicopter, ...
[16]
[PDF] MAY_JUN_1980_FULL_EDITION.pdf
May 1, 1980 · Currently, the primary means of computing technical firing data is the Field Artillery Digital Automatic. Computer (FADAC). Many artillerymen ...
[17]
The Gulf War and "European Artillery"
the artillery consistently used the GPS to time their Time on Target (TOT) missions and anything else that required ...Missing: precision | Show results with:precision
[18]
[PDF] Gulf War Air Power Survey Vol I - Planning and Command and Control
The Gulf. War Air Power Survey was commissioned on 22 August 1991 to review ... time on target for each strike. A flow list permitted planners to grasp ...
[19]
[PDF] U.S. FIELD ARTILLERY SINCE THE END OF WWII - Calhoun
An analysis of the challenges of COIN operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, ... time-on-target mission that fired 108 rockets in a single minute.231 The ...
[20]
https://www.army.mil/article/262000/army_delivers_more_precision_fires_capability_to_ukraine
[21]
[PDF] BALLISTIC EQUATIONS FOR ARTILLERY SHELLS - DTIC
The vector sum of all the exterior forces acting on a system of particles is equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the system.
[22]
[PDF] TC 3-09.81 Field Artillery Manual Cannon Gunnery - U.S. Army
Apr 13, 2016
[23]
[PDF] Development of an Artillery Accuracy Model - DTIC
Dec 1, 2006 · factor, range wind, and muzzle velocity. The influence of the range wind increases rapidly as the range increase. This is due to the longer ...
[24]
Artillery → Muzzle velocity measurements - Weibel Scientific A/S
Several factors can affect a round's muzzle velocity, including weapon conditions, tube tolerance, ammunition lot variance, propellant conditions, crew ...
[25]
BALLISTICS - British Artillery in World War 2
There are other factors that affect a projectile in flight in addition to air resistance and gravity: Wind, with head/tail and left/right components depending ...<|separator|>
[26]
[PDF] THE PRODUCTION OF FIRING TABLES FOR CANNON ARTILLERY
A firing table is basically a listing of range-elevation relationships for a given weapon firing a given projectile at a given velocity under arbitrarily chosen ...
[27]
Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)
Sep 12, 1998 · AFATDS is a totally integrated fire support C2 system designed to replace TACFIRE. It processes fire mission and other related information.
[28]
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/afatds.htm
[29]
FM 6-30 Chapter 4 Call For Fire - GlobalSecurity.org
(3) Time on Target. The observer may tell the FDC when he wants the rounds to impact by requesting TIME ON TARGET (so many) MINUTES FROM...NOW, OVER ...
[30]
MLRS Soldiers exercise combat capability | Article - Army.mil
Jun 27, 2013 · The exercise concluded with a time-on-target shoot. The goal was to hit individual targets at the same time with artillery fired from different ...
[31]
None
Below is a merged summary of Time on Target (TOT) applications in Marine Ground Artillery, consolidating all information from the provided segments into a comprehensive response. To maximize detail and clarity, I’ve organized the information into a table format for key aspects (Definition, Tactical Scenarios, Equipment, Process, and URLs), followed by a narrative explanation where necessary. The table is presented in CSV-style text for density and ease of use, with additional details provided in prose for context.
[32]
[PDF] ATP 3-09.12 Field Artillery Counterfire and Weapons Locating ...
Oct 26, 2021
[33]
[PDF] Field Artillery and the Combined Arms Team - DTIC
both observed and time-on-target missions.27 US Army field artillery would also learn and employ new procedures during the war. From December 1942 to ...
[34]
Close Air Support: Altitude Deconfliction of Artillery Fires
Artillery Requirements: Altitude separation missions are coordinated by a time to target (TTT), sometimes called a time hack, or time on target (TOT). The ...
[35]
Let Them Fly: To Generate Drone Combat Readiness, Army ...
Oct 1, 2025 · ... artillery to execute time-on-target missions. At sea, a joint task force destroyer adjusted its missile defense posture based on drone ...
[36]
[PDF] Supporting Arms Coordination in Amphibious Operations - Navy Tribe
Composed of naval fire support and naval strike, naval fires in support of amphibious operations consist of naval ... time on target (JP 1-02). TRAP tactical ...
[37]
The Second Battle of Fallujah and the Combined Arms Approach
Jun 21, 2021 · This battle serves as a practical model by which air, ground, artillery, and information assets can be applied to achieve a desired end state.Missing: synchronization TOT
[38]
The Fallujah Model | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Feb 1, 2005 · Fallujah marked the unveiling of an urban-warfare model based on persistent air surveillance, precision air strikes, and swift airlift support.
[39]
U.S. and German Field Artillery in World War II: A Comparison
Each infantry division had three battalions of twelve M2 105mm howitzers, one battalion for each of the division's three infantry regiments. The M2 105mm ...
[40]
[PDF] Maneuvering to Mass Fires: How Interwar Field Artillery ... - DTIC
Mar 15, 2017 · Corps and division artillery massed fires through the execution of time-on-target (TOT) missions providing an unprecedented amount of ...
[41]
None
Below is a merged summary of the limitations, risks, and challenges related to Time on Target (TOT) fire missions in FM 6-30, consolidating all information from the provided segments into a dense and comprehensive response. To maximize detail and clarity, I’ve organized the key points into a table in CSV format, followed by additional narrative details and useful URLs. This ensures all information is retained while maintaining readability and structure.
[42]
[PDF] Lessons Learned and Unlearned: U.S. Field Artillery Since the End ...
concept that included limitations and challenges for the artillery batteries themselves. ... time-on-target mission that fired 108 rockets in a single minute.231 ...