Talk:Artillery observer

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of 

message: 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)
replies: text: While FDC operators typically do not make manual calculations, they are still required to know how to do so, and M-16 plotting boards are still issued... just in case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectual requirements of FOs as opposed to FDC members

message: 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)
thread_title: Confusing phrasing

message: 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)
replies: text: The nature of "control" versus "request" is a result of the evolution of forward observation in the US and how US forces operate.  In the advent of indirect fire, battery commanders would deploy forward and act as both Fire Support Officer and commander.  Being as he had the authority to order his unit to fire, the BC would issue a Fire Order to his unit.  His Executive Officer was the man on the guns to make it happen.  That's why the XO in battery-based US units was referred to as the "Firing Battery Commander" (not to be confused with the BC, who was his boss.  Here "firing battery" just refers to the guns and FDC" stripping out support sections.)  This went on until after WWII (not exactly sure when) when the current enlisted MOS was created.  During WWII, as I understand it, FOs were part of the firing battery, and were not an MOS, but were trained and detailed out on a rotational basis to the maneuver unit.  The fact that an FO in the US does not control fires is a recognition by the US that the FO does not own the assets.  The folks that own the assets are the ones that are responsible and accountable for the effects of their actions (or inactions) and thus the US DoD has kept the control at the firing unit. Caisson 06 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The most deadly and feared soldiers in battle"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RTO 

message: Hello fellow editors/FISTERs
I think something needs to be added to this article describing the declining use of forward observers on the modern battlefield. The specialty is being replaced by high-end lasing devices such as on the KNIGHT Vehicle. All a servicemember must do is literally 'point and click' and he receives all the target data. While I do not believe that machines should replace FO's on the battlefield due to the massive amount of ordnance controlled, it is a material fact that it is happening. Any thoughts? I will await further discussion to add a section to the article to the effect I described. Aristotle1776 (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The effective fire direction procedures you describe are only allocated to senior NCOs and FSOs, to that point you are right, such procedures are beyond the training of most soldiers - including most FOs. For most FO's the job is becoming point and click and relatively simple, the terminal effects of such indirect fire systems are usually considered by the local commander, not the FO/FSNCO/FSO, this is especially true in Iraq. However, I cannot speak for Afghanistan. I am not trying to be argumentative, just playing devil's advocate here. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you have brought up a totally different term (fire direction) that in technical terms is the perview of the firing unit (cannon battery, etc.).  At least that's the U.S. term.  We usually talk about technical (aiming) and tactical (method of fire: which guns/plts/btrys, how much of what ammo, where, when, etc.) fire direction at Battalion and below, and above that, we used to talk about "fire control" (higher level tactical FD: which units and how much of what ammo) at Fires Brigade and the now-defunct Division Artillery (DivArty).Caisson 06 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dying MOS 

message: I've also heard the term "artillery spotter" used, should we add that term to the top of the page? FstrthnU (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artillery spotter? 

message: What is that? "FiSTers are highly skilled and usually above average in test scores(minimum FA score of 100 for the U.S. Army)." --AW (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? --AW (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA test? 

message: Is there a page for the naval gunfire spotting role, not involved in fire support?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I can find, not even for spotter aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a couple of pages crying for creation. (I wish I had the sources for it... :( )  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Navy