I would call this unit a brigade in English.Originally Posted by PsJÄÄK Korte
Regarding your earlier post, requesting a suggestion for an English term for "forward observer officer aidman" I would suggest "Fire Support Specialist" as the US Army equivalent if I understand you correctly. English "aidman" usually has medical connotations, but I think that you mean an assistant to the forward observer officer, right?
Yes maybe fire support specialist is better translation. I am talking about person in fire support/forward observer team/squad whose job is to carry laser rangefinders and other similar gear and, to my understanding, help determine exact location on team and/or target for arty and mortars.
Also maybe you are right on calling it brigade.
PsJÄÄK Korte, thanks for quick explanation (juhannuksen aikana). This is best, that I have found so far.
Is this NLAW team on picture? Do they have only 1 NLAW shot per team? Sounds unbelivable. ... or weapon is so good
Saabs are great so long as you can find a mechanic…
The NLAW is disposable, right? So I guess the photo shows one NLAW and three M72s. Is that the normal make-up of a team?Is this NLAW team on picture? Do they have only 1 NLAW shot per team? Sounds unbelivable. ... or weapon is so good
Last edited by ganulv; 06-24-2011 at 12:58 PM. Reason: to improve the question
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
As you can see from picture, it is from exercise with advanced MILES. They propably have one NLAW simulator because number simulators, which can simulate other forms of damage than rifles, Finland has is low. There are barely enough for one exercise between two peace time brigades. So every advanced MILES gear is rotated between peace time brigades, althought every infatry battalion has their older MILES gear of their own, used to practice squad and platoon combat, while advanced MILES is reserved for company, battalion and battlegroup/brigade exercises. For example, in our exercises APILAS-team I was part of usually had one APILAS simulator. And in our "Final War" we had to use older MILES, so only way to simulate APILAS fire was to have referee with "referee gun" follow us everywhere.
In war that team would be given anywhere between 2-9 NLAW, depending on wether it is in more "peaceful" location or wether it is part of force sent to blunt attack of tank brigade.
A US Army infantry/armor/cavalry company/troop gets a 4-man team for observation/fire support coordination- a LT Fire Support Officer, a SSG (E6) Fire Support NCO, a SPC (E4) Fire Support Specialist and a PFC (E3) RadioTelephone Operator (who is also MOS 13F- Fire Support, not communications).
In addition, rifle platoons (and the cavalry platoons in the Infantry BCT) get a forward observer party consisting of a SGT (E5) Forward Observer and a PFC (E3) RadioTelephone Operator (who is also MOS 13F- Fire Support, not communications).
Other platoons (tank platoons, cavalry platoons except where noted, and anti-armor/weapons platoons).
The US Army used to, and the USMC still does, refer to the artillery officer (LT) in the company as the forward observer. AFAIK, that changed in the mid-70s with the introduction of the Fire Support Team (FiST) concept, and the LT became known first as the FiST Chief and then the Fire Support Officer (FSO). I don't know exactly when the FiST Chief changed to FSO, but it was before I became FA in 1997, although my early BN CDRs were FiST Chiefs in the early-mid 80s.
When in doubt, doctrine is always a good place to start. FM 1-02 defines brigade as "(DOD) A unit usually smaller than a division to which are attached groups and/or battalions and smaller units tailored to meet anticipated requirements. (Army) A unit consisting of two or more battalions and a headquarters." Dictionary.com has "a military unit having its own headquarters and consisting of two or more regiments, squadrons, groups, or battalions."Also maybe you are right on calling it brigade.
Based on these, and your unit descriptions, I would use the BDE symbol if I were drawing this unit on an overlay, but that's just an opinion, and you can take it for what you paid for it.
The latter definition does not draw a line between brigade and regiment, though. Brigades tend to be combined arms, whereas regiments tend to be one-branch formations.
Infantry should be highly agile, a 2 km cross-country run with equipment should be possible at almost any time (I certainly would need two months of exercise till I reached that fitness level).
Not the least for this requirement, I dislike the idea that infantry teams always need to have heavy AT munitions.
I'd rather prefer to have multiple TO&E per team; and a Plt base / cache / carrier vehicle with the temporarily unnecessary equipment.
Traditional US Army usage (I don't have the definitions handy) was that a Regiment was a fixed organization of (predominantly) a single arm/branch, while a Brigade was an unfixed organization combining multiple arms/branches, but that wasn't always true, since a square division in WW1 had 2 brigades of 2 regiments. It is also not true in the current organizations, since each of the three BCTs have a fixed organization. The Multifunctional and functional support brigades have an unfixed organization, but at least the functional support brigades are predominantly of one arm.
It also depends on the size of your regiment, since some nations' regiments are only battalion sized.
I dare to say that right now there is no NATO infantry unit able to do it as a team in equipment they are required to carry on when outside the wire. It´s beating the same dead horse as we do for some years already.
Last edited by BushrangerCZ; 06-26-2011 at 08:35 AM.
Well, I'm not talking about a patrol, but about tactical (area) defence.
Responding to a post from FUCHS containing: "Infantry should be highly agile, a 2 km cross-country run with equipment should be possible at almost any time "
There are assumptions a commander makes when deploying troops and one is the ability to get to where they are required to be with all their fighting kit over various types of terrain and distances.
I wonder if the now weight restricted movement of dismounted infantry is being factored in at Command & Staff Colleges and during other officer training? It seems it is impossible to expect the Michelin Man to conduct even a 10km approach march overnight and be ready to fight from first light.
This would lead to changes in the definition of "full kit" as required for the 2km fitness test FUCHS mentioned.
Would it be naive to assume that as wearing body-armour is now seemingly a non negotiable that it is now worn throughout basic training for recruits and during all field training (including range work) for trained soldiers?
Wearing flak vests during all outdoor training was common in Germany in the 90's, but full body armour incl plates? There are training plates that don't break, but it still makes no sense to burden recruits with 'em. Recruits need to build muscle and bone strength first.
I personally don't think that hard plate level IV body armour should be non-negotiable at all. It's a passive protection response to the specific threat spectrum of small wars and occupations.
Inter-state wars include a much much higher fragmentation threat and OPFOR does punish immobile opponents much more as well.
Both points towards a need for a full body fragmentation protection suit.
Likewise, the optimal APC for a large conventional war would probably not exceed the protection levels known from Cold war APCs (when APCs weren't optimised against a specific single threat).
As far as I experienced, body armour is not worn during basic training (not enough plates and carriers), but it is commonly worn during training in regiments.
Infantry and armoured infatry companies have fire support officer (senior lieutenant or captain) and, depending wether they are armoured infatry company, type 05 jaeger comapany, type 90 jaeger company or type 80 infantry company, either company level fire support platoon with 3-4 fire support squads or each platoon has organic fire support team. Difference between fire support squad and team is that squad has two RTOs and team has one. Reason why squad has two RTOs is that one of RTOs have radio for communicating with firing positions while second carries telephone cable for company network
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks