Artillery Callsigns?
- Thread starter CS51
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
CS51 said:
ACP-125 (Cansupp) is the original source for the call sign tables, unfortunately the can supp version isn't available digitally, and the version that's available digitally doesn't have the call sign tables.
There are several aide-de-memoirs with them included, that are available digitally, I can't remember which at the moment... Brigade Operations SOPs memoir maybe?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
The Arty reference is B-GL-371-004 Chapter 7 Section 2. That being said, that publication is woefully out of date with regard to the way things are really done now in theatre, so individual Unit SOPs become the reference. And THAT being said, those are often woefully out of date (1RCHA's are dated 2004 and currently being reviewed and rewritten) so in the end individual deployed Bty's develop their own SOPs . I know this doesn't help but it is the ugly truth.
if only that were true rytel, I would have to agree with cleared hot, if there is one constant in Field Arty call signs it is that there is no consistency.
At some point this is going to get settled once and for all, and considering communication systems are coming on line soon that require fixed call signs (and IP addresses) or you're taliking to nobody, this frggin' around with call signs by each deploying Bty will have to stop
To a certain degree this has already started happening with DGMS
At some point this is going to get settled once and for all, and considering communication systems are coming on line soon that require fixed call signs (and IP addresses) or you're taliking to nobody, this frggin' around with call signs by each deploying Bty will have to stop
To a certain degree this has already started happening with DGMS
I don't think you're being anal OWDU
And to a certain degree it would be OPSEC
But the funny thing is, maintaining the Canadian Army tradition of writing detailed doctrine, and then ignoring it, we have a pam describing what radio call signs are supposed to be, which deploying Troops have ignored and have created their own, which are not published here nor should be (maybe this thread should be locked before somebody does).
OK, maybe that's not so funny
And to a certain degree it would be OPSEC
But the funny thing is, maintaining the Canadian Army tradition of writing detailed doctrine, and then ignoring it, we have a pam describing what radio call signs are supposed to be, which deploying Troops have ignored and have created their own, which are not published here nor should be (maybe this thread should be locked before somebody does).
OK, maybe that's not so funny
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I'll jump in here with my 2 cents for what it's worth. Agree with Petard that there may be some OPSEC issues here, and when you're not sure the best rule is to assume there are so i'll keep this generic without including actual C/S.
Also agree that the deployed Batteries (including the one I was with one in 2007) have not used the C/S in the Artillery pub. Sometimes it was because they didn't want to or didn't know them (not the best reasons) but I think the biggest reason was that the Batteries are organized for operations overseas in a way different then that outlined in our doctrine. They are an an "independant" Battery in the sense that they do not report to an Arty Regt, so the Battery FSCC becomes the de-facto "control station" of the Battery net. Some folks think that as a result, the Bty FSCC should become C/S 1, 2 etc to reflect this. Personally I don't think this is a good idea because it leads to other problems (what C/S do you give to the Btys Gun Tps when they are deployed as one then?) Other reasons for not following thye C/S doctrine overseas:
- they are organized into three independantly deployable gun troops that sometimes work seperately, sometimes together. Each of these three Tps have their own TC, TL, TSM, CP, maybe Recce party, Met etc all of which need their own C/S on Bty net which isn't reflected in our doctrine.
- the Bty had other elements attached to it that are not outlined in 371-004 which needed C/S as well.
All of this meant that there had to be a certain amount of changes made on the fly to give all the units in a Bty that needed them a C/S. That's just the way it is when you fight in ways that doctrine didn't envision. The bad part of this is we have been doing this for over three years now and the doctrine, even in an unnofficial way like a LL pub or CIG Directive, have not as far as I'm aware changed to reflect this. My tow censt from the sideline.
Also agree that the deployed Batteries (including the one I was with one in 2007) have not used the C/S in the Artillery pub. Sometimes it was because they didn't want to or didn't know them (not the best reasons) but I think the biggest reason was that the Batteries are organized for operations overseas in a way different then that outlined in our doctrine. They are an an "independant" Battery in the sense that they do not report to an Arty Regt, so the Battery FSCC becomes the de-facto "control station" of the Battery net. Some folks think that as a result, the Bty FSCC should become C/S 1, 2 etc to reflect this. Personally I don't think this is a good idea because it leads to other problems (what C/S do you give to the Btys Gun Tps when they are deployed as one then?) Other reasons for not following thye C/S doctrine overseas:
- they are organized into three independantly deployable gun troops that sometimes work seperately, sometimes together. Each of these three Tps have their own TC, TL, TSM, CP, maybe Recce party, Met etc all of which need their own C/S on Bty net which isn't reflected in our doctrine.
- the Bty had other elements attached to it that are not outlined in 371-004 which needed C/S as well.
All of this meant that there had to be a certain amount of changes made on the fly to give all the units in a Bty that needed them a C/S. That's just the way it is when you fight in ways that doctrine didn't envision. The bad part of this is we have been doing this for over three years now and the doctrine, even in an unnofficial way like a LL pub or CIG Directive, have not as far as I'm aware changed to reflect this. My tow censt from the sideline.
Dan
A couple of points.
First. I see no benefit in using the FSCC as control on the battery net even with an independent battery, but then I am a jillion years old. The practice concerns me in that it can lead to confusion later, and there is enough confusion already with out inserting some more. Having worked alongside the Airborne Battery when its was an independent unit in the Canadian Airborne Regiment, I found that it had no problem fitting into a regimental structure because it had not fiddled with doctrine, call signs or basic artillery procedures.
Second. As we have seen, including in the Discovery mini-series Combat School, Canadian troops are sometimes supported by other guns including an Afghan D30 battery. It would be nice if we had a standardized system.
Third. The lack of a 'blessed' system to conform to "the war" is troublesome. Who has the authority to impose such a system? The Director? The School? A staff agency on behalf of CLS? In this regard, I recently had a discussion with the outgoing CIG during which the subject of CIG directives arose. I suggested that as no one ever seemed to read my CIG directives, I saw no reason to believe anyone would read his.
If you think any of this should not be on open means either PM or email me.
A couple of points.
First. I see no benefit in using the FSCC as control on the battery net even with an independent battery, but then I am a jillion years old. The practice concerns me in that it can lead to confusion later, and there is enough confusion already with out inserting some more. Having worked alongside the Airborne Battery when its was an independent unit in the Canadian Airborne Regiment, I found that it had no problem fitting into a regimental structure because it had not fiddled with doctrine, call signs or basic artillery procedures.
Second. As we have seen, including in the Discovery mini-series Combat School, Canadian troops are sometimes supported by other guns including an Afghan D30 battery. It would be nice if we had a standardized system.
Third. The lack of a 'blessed' system to conform to "the war" is troublesome. Who has the authority to impose such a system? The Director? The School? A staff agency on behalf of CLS? In this regard, I recently had a discussion with the outgoing CIG during which the subject of CIG directives arose. I suggested that as no one ever seemed to read my CIG directives, I saw no reason to believe anyone would read his.
If you think any of this should not be on open means either PM or email me.
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Folks, accurate or not - I've stripped out the call signs as prescribed by existing doctrine.
Simian turner provided the link to the appropriate publication.
There is nothing to be gained by providing any more detail regarding how artillery nets are managed currently.
Thanks for understanding, and locked.
Army.ca Staff
Simian turner provided the link to the appropriate publication.
There is nothing to be gained by providing any more detail regarding how artillery nets are managed currently.
Thanks for understanding, and locked.
Army.ca Staff
- Status
