Talk:Fire discipline
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fire discipline article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
US Call For Fire
[edit]Its worth pointing out that the methods described in the article are very much the US militarys method for call for fire. The key difference between the US method and armys such as the British Army is that the forward observer, not the gun line or fire cell, specifies the ammunition natures, quantities, spread and fusing as part of the call for fire. In the US Army its the other way around with the forward observer being told what they are getting. If this is a generic article the difference should be articulated, if not the article title should potentially be changed to US Army Call for fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.50.176 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- This entire article is completely US-centric and should either be re-written in a more general context or renamed to something more accurate e.g. "Fire discipline in the US armed forces" NathanGriffiths (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
To Include:Aiming point,FOO
Very interesting article! I wanna know more!--84.217.116.171 02:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Cease fire, etc.
[edit]Been a long time since I was in the Army, but I recall that the phrase "cease fire" meant something like "shoot the round loaded then stop" and there was a different term, which escapes me, used to immediately stop firing, like if rounds are impacting your position. Then I may have this confused, so maybe someone with better memory or more recent service, could add this. Wschart (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
isn't there more to fire discipline than indirect fire?
[edit]I was under the distinct impression that "fire discipline" was that trait of well-trained troops of not wasting small-arms ammunition by excessive full-auto fire, and the correct terminology and etiquette for radio comms pertaining to requesting an artillery fire mission were something else entirely.
Also, the language and terminology in the article seems to me to be specific to US military radio comms about indirect fire. Does, for example, the UK military use the same terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed - this article seems to be about fire direction, not fire discipline at all. ?Re-title? 93.145.221.210 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Concur. I'm no military person, but my understanding is that the term "fire discipline" is used at least as often to mean "the appropriate expenditure of ammunition." So rather than "spray and pray," personnel are trained to use single shots or judicious bursts of fire, and you can often tell trained professionals from irregulars by their fire discipline. Unfortunately, I don't have any expertise or reliable sources to use to rewrite the article.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"Repeat"
[edit]The statement
- The proword "repeat" is never used anywhere on a radio but when communicating that a forward observer wants the previous artillery battery to fire the mission again.
overstates the case quite a bit. It's true that "repeat" isn't used as a request (if you want somebody to repeat something they've already said you use "say again") but it's not uncommonly used in place of "I say again" to mark repeated information within a message, when confusion with fire control is unlikely.