Jump to content

Talk:Fireteam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conscription?

[edit]

The article mentions:

"These requirements have led to successful use of the fireteam concept by more professional militaries. It is less useful for armies employing massed infantry formations, or with significant conscription. Conscription makes fireteam development difficult, as team members are more effective as they build experience over time working together and building personal bonds."

I don't see how this applies. The source of personnel shouldn't matter; volunteer or conscript. They will both go through the same training and experiences. What is the source of the OP comment - professional journals (Army/Marine), personal experience? After all, if the enemy is shooting at you, do you CARE if the guy or girl next to you was drafted? Karanne (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fireteam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Fireteam

[edit]

According to MCIP 3-10.4i[1], the 4 soldiers in a marine fireteam are the Team Leader, Rifleman, Auto Rifleman, and Grenadier. What source states the Ready-Team-Fire-Assist organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5A01:4B70:3591:740:93A1:3408 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/MCPEL/Electronic-Library-Display/Article/1881652/mcip-3-10a4i-cancelled-by-mcip-3-10a4i/ pg. 8 retrieved June 17, 2020

Different national approaches to designation on maps

[edit]

According to the article Squad only 8 NATO countries (Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States) use ● for Squad. As it turns out, in Spain one dot also denotes Team (Spanish: Equipo).

In this regard, in those countries where the Squad analogue is denoted by ●●, firemeam is denoted by one dot (●).

I am currently preparing two tables with national designations similar to those in Squad. If there are no objections, then after checking the information they will be posted here. The check is needed to make sure that we are talking about Team, and not Crew, because for example the Bulgarian terms Razchet (Разчет) and Ekipazh (Еҝипаж) are all variants of Crew. JurKo22 (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided verified information. Since in the second table from one country there can be several values, the third line in the table is the translation of the national term. JurKo22 (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theory from ADP 3-90

[edit]

I began preparing revisions to this article and found that additional theory from ADP 3-90 Offense and Defense was needed both here and in related articles.

The fact is that ADP 3-90 on page 2-18 contains the following definitions of four small military units:

  • A fire team is a small military unit typically containing four or fewer Soldiers. A fire team is usually grouped by two or three teams into a squad or section.
  • A crew is a small military unit that consists of all personnel operating a particular system. This system might be a weapons system (such as a mortar or a machinegun). The system might also be a vehicle (such as a tank) or a sensor system (such as a target acquisition radar).
  • A squad is a small military unit typically containing two or more fire teams. It typically contains a dozen Soldiers or less. In some cases, the crew of a system may also be designated as a squad.
  • A section is a tactical unit of the Army and Marine Corps smaller than a platoon and larger than a squad. A section may consist of the crews of two or more Army systems, such as a tank section or several fire teams.

For these definitions, FM 1-02.2 provides its own symbols (Ø / ● / ●●), but for squad it provides the following note:

  • Common English language definition also applies to this symbol, “a small group engaged in a common effort or occupation.”

As for the standard APP-06, it takes these designations from FM 1-02.2 and suggests that other NATO countries use them. However, due to the remark on squad and the fact that in a number of countries section is an analogue of squad, inconsistency begins:

  • some NATO countries fully agree with this approach, even if they do not have a fire team (Ø) / squad (●) / section (●●) structure
  • however, most NATO countries, for which section is an analogue of squad, use the standard designation (●●) for section, and taking into account that Common English language definition also applies to symbol ●, “a small group engaged in a common effort or occupation”, gives the designation for squad (●) for crew and team.

I believe that this theory should be presented both here and in related articles. I will start in Section (military unit), then in Squad, and lastly here. In my opinion, this repetition is necessary, because it fully explains the reason for the inconsistency to the unprepared reader. JurKo22 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not reliable sources discussing the existence of your theory and reasoning for such a discrepancy, then we cannot include it as it would be original research. Such a discussion would have to be explicit -- we cannot derive the content from multiple sources that do not actually say this (which would be synthesis. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we have several facts, but it is not a fact that one fact directly follows another. In this case, the solution is to cite these facts without stating how exactly these facts are connected. Accordingly, different articles will have different volumes of citations. JurKo22 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite how it works. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And presenting individual facts together with the intention of implying a conclusion that is not supported by the individual sources themselves is synthesis, which we cannot use.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I myself shortened the quotes from ADP 3-90: I left the extended definition only for the unit the article is about JurKo22 (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all major changes in the article have been made, please check the final result. Thank you! JurKo22 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fireteam&oldid=1304669795"