Talk:RSTA (U.S. Army)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

created and updated.

We need a listing of rsta units. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible merges or clarification

Seems to me that the title of this article should not be the acronym. Rather, the acronym RSTA, should redirect to RSTA unit or similar. Also, I find something of a similarity between the term "RSTA" and "ISR" "C4ISTAR". Maybe it would be best to separate the terminology from the unit discussion. Conversely, if the terminology is only applied to the unit, the article should be moved. aa v ^ 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Close. RSTA is actually a type of company that an organic unit can be TOE'd as. I'm not quite sure how to properly explain it, but I think the best way is to say that C4ISTAR is a doctrine/type of operation, whereas RSTA is literally a type of cavalry/infantry unit.

I've also known such units & sub units to be called ISTAR Squadrons/Companies. However the descriptor squadron or company is always there to indicate an organization (and not the process). Some clean-up & merger seems to be required between this theme of acronyms. A simple merger will likely be inadequate. I propose discussion occur here at Talk:C4ISTAR. -- MCG 03 Sept 06

Unnecessary. There's no need for a merge. The two articles refer to two different things. C4ISTAR refers to a doctrine, whereas RSTA refers to a type of unit in the US Army, as well as a doctrine. Even doctrinally I believe they're different. RSTA is too large of a subject to be merged, though perhaps C4ISTAR could be merged into RSTA. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I still belive it is appropriate. RSTA is not the unit, it is a function assigned to a unit (but a function that may be described stand alone). An RSTA Bn is the unit. Same within the Canadian military; ISTAR is not the sub unit but ISTAR Sqn is (and this function is typically filled by a recce sqn). Looking into the text of this article we can see that RSTA is this to also be true of RSTA: "Typically, a brigade/regiment designates one of its battalions/squadrons as a RSTA squadron." If this article is not renamed "Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition organizations" then it should be merged. I propose further discussion occur here at Talk:C4ISTAR. -- MCG 03 Sept 06

As for the title, what would you recommend changing it to? RSTA unit doesn't work well because the article isn't only about RSTA units, but is also about RSTA operations. Are you suggesting having two seperate pages, one for RSTA unit, and one for RSTA operations? That would work but seems like a lot of work that could just be combined into one article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to have two articles. RSTA Squadrons are a US Army construct.