Talk:Artillery observer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] History of

The History Channel recently aired a documentary on Forward Observers. Lots of info there.

Speaking of the history of...My article on the Union Army Balloon Corps tells about Prof. Lowe being used to direct arty fire in on an unseen encampment of Rebels at Falls Church VA. The whole caper was the arty commander's idea. Lowe was up in the balloon and would wave signal flags to Camp Advance, the firebase, all the while telegraphing results to headquarters at Fort Corcoran. It was a proud moment for field artillery to be able to fire unseen on the enemy. Lowe was only used to observing the enemy's activity. He was very self-conscious about firing on the camp early morning while the Rebs were asleep. He was relieved when the first shot fell long thereby waking the camp before the arty fire was called in hit after hit.--Magi Media 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual requirements of FOs as opposed to FDC members

While an good FO has to be quite intelligent, in terms of selectivity, the tested intellectual aptitude requirement for soldiers and marines working in the Fire Direction Center, (FDC), is actually higher - 120 on the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test. This is because of the mathematics aptitude required of FDC members. ASVAB score of 120 is also the standard score required for enlisted to be accepted to attend officer candidate school (OCS). SimonATL 01:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

the ASVAB only goes up to 99 so I think you should recheck that information. I think you are talking about GT score, in which case the required GT score for FO, FDC, and OCS is all 110. 110 gets you in any MOS in the U.S. Army.

FDC members don't actually do any math their computers do that for them, in terms of reality, the FO will be required to make on the spot corrections resulting from quick mathematical calculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fister12 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International article

I've moved this to artillery observer, and made the introductory line more generic, so that this article can cover the various FOs, FOOs, FEDs, and JOSTs of all nations (although the US versions are almost ready to break out into their own more specific articles).

Or should it have been moved to artillery controller? —Michael Z. 2006-07-14 22:39 Z

[edit] Confusing phrasing

This sentence, in the context of the article makes no sense, and I'm wondering if anyone can explain it's meaning:

13 Foxtrot/0861 are the only artillery job designators for enlisted soldiers which, due to the missions they may encounter, are authorized to attend .

I am led to assume that the sentence is meant to imply that the 13 Foxtrot/0861 designators for enlisted soldiers are the only ones authorized to attend the afformentioned airborn, pathfinder, and air-assult training schools, but that is not made clear in the article, and I don't want to change it unless that is in fact correct Russianmissile 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The most deadly and feared soldiers in battle"?

The bulk of the "Forward Observers in the US Marine Corps/Army" is dedicated to talking up the role and capabilities of FOs. Rather than reading like an encyclopedia article like it should, this part sounds like someone writing about "how cool" the FOs are without even taking the time to write correctly.

This is a prime example:

"Since FO's are the eyes of the Artillery, they [sic] essentially the most deadly and feared soldiers in battle."

It's fairly safe to say that arms corps soldiers, infantry and armoured, are more dangerous than their supporting elements.

The section also includes a lot of jargon that's difficult even for a soldier to understand and sentences that make no sense whatsoever such as "13 Foxtrot/0861 are the only artillery job designators for enlisted soldiers which, due to the missions they may encounter, are authorized to attend."

The section is subjective, poorly written and full of unverified information. I've added a couple of tags to this effect. --Jwwil 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

jwwil - that sentenced you quoted is actually correct, it is just poorly worded. FOs control more firepower than any other soldier on the field and thus are the most feared by the enemy. Inversely this fear is why FOs are the highest priority targets in the field.

"It's fairly safe to say that arms corps soldiers, infantry and armoured, are more dangerous than their supporting elements."

You obviously are not in the military. FOs are arm corps soldiers, or combat arms, whatever you want to refer to them as. They are far from a "supporting element" in every sense that phrase can be construed.

You are right, this article was obviously written by a FISTER and to be quite honest in Iraq we circulated it amongst eachother to boost morale because it talks us up so much. I do agree a little more objectivity and regard to the actual nature of a FO, specifically the duties they are meant to perform and perhaps how they operate in the current wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fister12 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of a FIST, currently serving in 4BCT, 1CD, out of Fort Hood, TX. I served in portions of OIF V, VI, and VII. During those deployments, I operated not only as a FIST'er but also a member of our BN S-2. I have been actively engaged with the collection of information in theatre, as well as analysis of the obtained data. This once again, demonstrates the numerous advantages a FIST'er can give to his unit. Other thoughts I have related to the article itself include this assumed lack of military discipline that FIST'ers have. I will agree to some level that FIST'ers "work hard, party harder", however, this notion that FIST'ers disregard military standards is absolutely false. If the author or anyone else who reads this trusts the information about FIST'ers showing up for duty looking like trash, pay a visit to our unit and find the NCOIC. I have no doubt in my mind that you will leave, surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRH1982TX (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RTO

Can someone explain out what an "RTO" is? It doesn't seem to appear anywhere except as an abbreviation. 136.165.46.150 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RTO is an acronym for 'radio transmission operator' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fister12 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An RTO is actually 'radio telephone operator' not radio transmission operator it doesnt make since this guy obviously isnt one of the intelligent 13F in this worldParrott.13f (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RTO's aren't, or shouldn't be less intelligent than the FO. This is the case more often than not, however, in many situations, the RTO is simply the subordinate soldier and lacks the needed skills to be an effective FO.