MSDs and REDs for Indirect Fire Control

[joebayles]

In https://github.com/Esri/joint-military-symbology-xml/issues/240 we discuss the issues of the CBRN control measure symbol for Minimum Safe Distance Zones. This terminology is already used by the Fires community. Here is an excerpt from FM 3-21.8 (The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad), Chapter 2:

MINIMUM SAFE DISTANCE AND RISK ESTIMATE DISTANCE 2-56. When determining risk with indirect fires, leaders use a combination of minimum safe distances (MSDs), and risk estimated distances (REDs). The MSD risk is designed for training and ensures that friendly Soldiers are far enough away from the effects of munitions so the risk to them is negligible. REDs refer to a safe distance away from a given type of friendly munitions and are only used in combat. REDs are divided into two categories based on the percent of incapacitation (PI) to friendly Soldiers, expressed as .1 PI and 10 PI. The former (.1 PI) means that one in one thousand Soldiers will not be able to fight because of potential weapon munitions effects. The latter (10 PI) means that one in ten Soldiers will not be able to fight because of weapon effects. When MSDs and REDs are put together, the leader is able to manage his risk from negligible—to 10 PI—based on his distance from the impact of friendly supporting indirect fire. Table 2-3 contains a complete listing of MSDs and REDs for common fire support assets at maximum range of weapons systems. (At lesser ranges the RED decreases).

Table 2-3. MSDs and REDs for common fire support assets.

Weapon System	MSD (Training)	RED (.1 PI)	RED (10 PI)
60-mm Mortar (M224)	250m	175m	65m
81-mm Mortar (M252)	350m	230m	80m
120-mm Mortar (M120/M121)	600m	400m	100m
105-mm Artillery (M102/M119)	550m	275m	90m
155-mm Artillery (M109/M198)	725m	450m	125m
155-mm Artillery DPICM	725m	475m	200m

These are rendered on a map, just like Minimum Safe Distance Zone is currently:

I suggest that the FCoE be asked for clarification and a CP be drafted to create a target acquisition control measure symbol (252424?) for Minimum Safe Distances and Risk Estimate Distances, using similar draw rules to the Minimum Safe Distance Zone symbol.

@ottenw, please weigh in.

[joebayles]

From @ottenw:

Fire Support C2 systems when planning fires often use a collateral damage assessment tool (most are classified) which uses a variety of inputs, to include point of impact, trajectory, munitions specific effects data, elevation data, and vegetation and man made features. Of the outputs I have seen, none have been circular.

My question remains: should a standard symbol be incorporated into MIL-STD-2525?

[ottenw]

@joebayles I will check with the TRADOC Capabilities Manager (TCM) Fires Cell - they are the combat developer for Fires C2 - and ask them if there is a requirement. I emailed you a link to an article that talks about a CDE tool.

[joebayles]

@ottenw any answer from those guys?

[ottenw]

Now that they are (should) be back from the holiday break and use or lose leave, I'll ask again.

[joebayles]

:+1: Thanks!

[joebayles]

How'd that go @ottenw ?

[ottenw]

It was back burner'd due to higher urgency issues. It will be raised as an issue next week at Fire Support Interoperability Board (FSIB) meeting at Fires Center of Excellence.

[abouffard]

Consulted SSMC 16-1. See @ottenw 's response above.

[ottenw]

I briefed this topic at March semi annual FSIB; Chairman stated he thought the same "MINIMUM SAFE DISTANCE AND RISK ESTIMATE DISTANCE" table in the Infantry manual is also in one of the Field Artillery manuals. he took an action to research is an MSD-like new control measure symbol is needed for RED. Different but related note is the use of MSD (as corrected by a CP) for a training RED. Training RED is a single distance while corrected MSD has a center point and two radii. I believe the MSD cannot be plotted with a single radius. If same value is used for both radii, the result will be numerical 1 and 2 on top of each other. Not a MIL-STD-2525 pure issue, I will discuss with Army SSMC representative once I get feedback from Fires CoE.

[joebayles]

@abouffard, @ottenw: what's the status of this CP?

[ottenw]

I should have a decision from the Fires center of Excellence at the next FSIB semi annual meeting - September, I believe, but the meeting announcement has not gone out yet.

[joebayles]

Any update, @ottenw ?

[ottenw]

second semiannual FSIB meeting has not yet been held. No date set yet, chairman is waiting for key systems scheduling information before setting a meeting date. Would welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue related to using a MSD symbol for RED - my travel to SSMC approved, are you attending?

[joebayles]

I am Sir, and we have much to discuss.

[joebayles]

@ottenw any update? Maybe draft a CP for March?

[joebayles]

The Fires doctrine people at Fort Benning do not want to discuss this with the committee. Assuming this functionality exists in other tools like RMTK, suggest closing. @ottenw ?