Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: U.S. Army Trivia Question

  1. #1
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default U.S. Army Trivia Question

    Did there used to be an Army regulation or pamphlet that caused the commanding officer's jeep or vehicle to be numbered with a -6 suffix on the bumper, as in HQ-6, A-6, B-6, etc? During my time in service there was no such requirement that I'm aware of, but the tradition was still put into practice. If I recall correctly from my military history reading the -6 suffix also was sometimes used informally in radio call signs until Signal operating instructions got away from that procedure.

  2. #2
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    I've never heard of a regulation, but its been that way for the last 15 years.

    In the mech units I've been around, when the CDR has a fighting vehicle (tank, IFV, etc) and a HMMWV, the HMMWV is -6, and the fighting vehicle is -66.

    Also since I've been in the Army, we've had freq-hopping, encrypted radios, and used Hollywood callsigns almost exclusively. Every commander I've ever been around has used the unit call sign with the -6 expander. (Dragon 6, AllAmerican 6, Devil 6, Warrior 6, Thunder 6, etc). This is true from company level on up. Inside a platoon, the PL is the company call sign, then 16 (first PLT PL), -26, -36, etc. PSGs are -5 or -7, 1SGs/CSMs are usually -9 (or sometimes -7), XOs are -5. Primary staff are usually -1, -2, -3 and -4, but then they get garbled (because CDRs, XOs, DCOs, 1SGs/CSMs use their numbers) and usually have some two digit expander.

  3. #3
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Thanks, Redleg, during my Field Artillery service in '77-'84 nobody could tell me why we did it that way, except to say that's the way it had always been done. Maybe it started in a technical bulletin from the '50s.

  4. #4
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    In around '79 or '80 we were equipped with Vinson secure units for our tactical radios, which I believe were frequency-hopping. Before that our secure units consisted of devices with male rods that fitted into female recepticles, and the settings on the device had to be changed daily according to that day's settings specified in the Communications-Electronics Operating Instructions. However, call signs then included in the CEOI did not have unique suffixes that identified the specific element within the organization.
    Last edited by Pete; 01-17-2011 at 12:31 AM.

  5. #5
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    One of the hazards of being an old U.S. Army fa*t is that the terminology and acronyms we are accustomed to change all the time. When we see it happen our first step after taking deep breath is to assume that the new term can't be that much different from the old one, hence SOI, Signal Operating Instructions, turns into CEOI, Communications-Electronics Operating Instructions. Generally we keep up with these changes, but let me tell you, boys, Gettysburg was hell.

  6. #6
    Council Member sullygoarmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fort Stewart
    Posts
    224

    Default

    It was like that back in 1994 in the anti-tank companies in the 82d Airborne as well. Not sure when it started but definitely still in effect in combined arms battalions today as well.
    "But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."

    -Thucydides

Similar Threads

  1. Ramadi Revisited; Cracks in Jihad
    By SWJED in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-31-2007, 07:51 PM
  2. Muqtada al-Sadr: Spoiler or Stabilizer?
    By Jedburgh in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 11:16 AM
  3. Iraqis jailing innocents, U.S. officials say
    By tequila in forum Iraqi Governance
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 09:51 AM
  4. U.S. Is Extending Tours of Army in Battle Zones
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-22-2007, 07:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •