Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaxJaromeMalues

RATELO Service Reference Cards

Recommended Posts

All Reference Cards are based upon the following sources:

  • UOTC Radio Telephone Operator Course
  • UO List of ingame Prowords
  • FM 6-02.72 (FM 11-1)
  • UO CFFS Requests (I changed the arty form as the previous form was nearly unusable for artillery)
  • FM 3-09

Please IMMEDIATELY inform me via PM if one of these sources is outdated or has been replaced.

 

 

! ALL REFERENCE CARDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND UPDATED TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE !

! IF YOU FIND ANY MISTAKES, PLEASE INFORM ME VIA PM, I WILL TRY TO FIX ASAP !

! ALL REFERENCE CARDS IN EU DIN-A4 PAPER FORMAT !

! IT IS SUGGESTED TO PRINT AND LAMINATE THESE CARDS FOR REUSE WITH FLIPCHART-PENS !

 

Format: .pdf

 

All Card are now in the UO WIKI LINKME


 

Videos for Education:

 

(sounds familiar, any one? No?)

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/t2RkSKhFhJI?t=5m48s

 

 

 

 

 

Kind regards,

Pax

Edited by PaxJaromeMalues

Share this post


Link to post

I was there, VPope introduced the three transmission format

  1. Observer Identification and Warning Order
  2. Target Location
  3. Target Description & Firing Data (Method of Engagement, Fire and Control)

as you find linked above.

 

The other thing that was presented was a simplified generic format for relaying fire support (CAS and artillery) requests:

  • Target location (grid and elevation)
  • Target description (marking)
  • Friendly location (marking)
  • Get confirmation
You have mixed the two together.
Edited by zumorc

Share this post


Link to post

If you wanna put a proper call for fire reference in I suggest you adapt a simplified version of this:

 

rsz_zpcjq.jpg

 

 

1. "________ this is __________, Fire for Effect, Over."
       (FDC Callsign)                    (Observer Callsign)

 

2.  "Grid ________,  Altitude __________, Over."
                (Min 6 digit tgt grid)                       (tgt alt msl in meters)
 
3.  "________, Over."
       (Target Description, Other information)
 
Maybe add the example Vpope used:
 
Example:
 
Observer
FDC
 
“STEEL RAIN, THIS IS 2-6 ROMEO, FIRE FOR EFFECT, OVER.”
“2-6 ROMEO, THIS IS STEEL RAIN, FIRE FOR EFFECT, OUT.”
 
“GRID 501 601, ALTITUDE 150, OVER.”
“GRID 501 601, ALTITUDE 150, OUT.”
 
“INFANTRY SQUAD IN BUILDINGS, OVER.”
“INFANTRY SQUAD IN BUILDINGS, OUT.”

Share this post


Link to post

 

I was there, VPope introduced the three transmission format

  1. Observer Identification and Warning Order
  2. Target Location
  3. Target Description & Firing Data (Method of Engagement, Fire and Control)

as you find linked above.

 

The other thing that was presented was a simplified generic format for relaying fire support (CAS and artillery) requests:

  • Target location (grid and elevation)
  • Target description (marking)
  • Friendly location (marking)
  • Get confirmation
You have mixed the two together.

 

 

Just went through the course stuff I wrote down and you are right, Call for fire support for the Artillery one became mixed in my writing. Thanks for pointing that out :)

I will fix the cards ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post

QSL and QRZ

this is literally the first time in my 9 years of service hearing those terms, and they are quite pointless

QSL would either be "Say Again" or "improve transmitter conditions"

QRZ would simply be a statement like "say again your callsign" or simply just stating as part of the conversation that the callsign is unkonown.

Share this post


Link to post

QSL and QRZ

 

this is literally the first time in my 9 years of service hearing those terms, and they are quite pointless

 

QSL would either be "Say Again" or "improve transmitter conditions"

 

QRZ would simply be a statement like "say again your callsign" or simply just stating as part of the conversation that the callsign is unkonown.

 

VPope can correct me if I am wrong, but the terms are most likely originating from the civilian world and are used by amateur radio operators as part of the universal "Q-Codes" (reference this article). Not sure if/ why it would be used for military communication.

Share this post


Link to post

They are indeed Q-Codes, they are not supposed to replace the existing pro-words , QSL is analogous of How Copy and is slightly faster to use , QRZ was added simply because there is no comparable pro word currently in use and frankly its far more brief than asking "last station send your callsign" 

Edited by VPope

Share this post


Link to post

Another alteration, Rodger and Affirmative are separate pro words, Roger strictly speaking is a conformation that you have received and understood eg "did you copy my last" "roger" 

Where as Affirmative or its shorter version Afirm mean "yes"

Share this post


Link to post

Another alteration, Rodger and Affirmative are separate pro words, Roger strictly speaking is a conformation that you have received and understood eg "did you copy my last" "roger" 

Where as Affirmative or its shorter version Afirm mean "yes"

I think I still have to correct that.

Share this post


Link to post

QSL and QRZ shouldn't be used in the reference card, frankly.

 

They're pointless abbreviations in this context that are much better replaced with transmissions that people can understand without remembering a 3 letter word designed to make morse code more brief.

 

"Do you copy?" and/or asking for a readback is much more useful, as is saying "Last sender, restate your callsign!".

 

 

Apart from that, I think Sighting should be on its own instead of Contact (Sighting). They shouldn't be confused.

Share this post


Link to post

They were included in an effort to increase the brevity of transitions (obviously) we already expect people to learn prowords to shorten statements, QRZ in particular seemed to have no comparable value and as such seemed to be a good idea to include. If the consensus is that it is unnecessary then it will have to be removed, however it is my concern that its being downplayed because its not a military pro-word. If we can save time on nets by introducing new pro-words then why not use them ?

 

As for sighting I tend to agree with VKing, at the moment on the primary people are calling "contact" only then to explain that its a visual contact rather than the expected"we are in contact" situation, perhaps a method to better differentiate is required , or perhaps we can simply keep doing that it warrants consideration either way.

 

 

 

Edit. Spelling

Edited by VPope

Share this post


Link to post

What would equipment yellow or black even mean in an ACE report? I believe the standard set in the UOTC Handbook should be used instead for its clarity.

 

Also if you confuse the 3-state casualty report (green, yellow, red) with 4-state (green, yellow, red, black) then a red status could either mean a KIA, heavilly wounded, or even whole unit combat ineffective, as indicated by this document. A standard for either using percentage of ammo remaining or number of magazines should be set as well.

 

If it is deemed that we can come up with a better way than the handbook, then I suggest that it be updated and set as the only standard to avoid miscommunication.

Edited by Delta38

Share this post


Link to post

In ArmA equipment would be medical supplies, then depending on missions, explosives, vehicles, spare tyres, etc.

 

Sorry VPope got to agree with VKing & Godhand here, the abbreviations will lead to confusion as not everyone will know them and they are not immediately obvious. How copy is a military term that does the same thing, and is more obvious.

Last callsign say again or Last callsign, who are you? would be better than QRZ.

Edited by Herbiie

Share this post


Link to post

What would equipment yellow or black even mean in an ACE report? I believe the standard set in the UOTC Handbook should be used instead for its clarity.

 

Also if you confuse the 3-state casualty report (green, yellow, red) with 4-state (green, yellow, red, black) then a red status could either mean a KIA, heavilly wounded, or even whole unit combat ineffective, as indicated by this document. A standard for either using percentage of ammo remaining or number of magazines should be set as well.

 

If it is deemed that we can come up with a better way than the handbook, then I suggest that it be updated and set as the only standard to avoid miscommunication.

I will revisit that in the lesson plan and make sure to more clearly define what codes are applicable to what parts of the report. This is an oversight on my part as the ACE report was not in the pre-existing radio lesson plan , I added it in there and did not sufficiently elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry VPope got to agree with VKing & Godhand here, the abbreviations will lead to confusion as not everyone will know them and they are not immediately obvious. How copy is a military term that does the same thing, and is more obvious.

Last callsign say again or Last callsign, who are you? would be better than QRZ.

No need to apologise for agreeing with VKing :) my opinions are fluid and can and do change based on sufficiently compelling arguments. I can see why QRZ as a code with no immediately distinguishable connection to "who are you" would be more confusing that simply asking for a call-sign. If the trade-off of speed is not sufficient against Clarity then it would be pointless. Perhaps the inclusion of "Unknown Station" would be preferable ? One aim of the course it to arm new ops with a standardised tool-set to employ, at the beginning most ops will fall back on the examples they were given in training and the situation in which another unknown station enters into a net was not covered previously.

Share this post


Link to post

As you say, by the ABCs of radio communications, clarity trumps brevity.

 

On balance, I think someone going "QRZ" on the net and then having to explain what he means to someone on the other end who is unfamiliar with the term, will take more time overall than doing the plain text version from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post

ACEREP fixed

BREVITY fixed

CFFS changed

 

On balance, I think someone going "QRZ" on the net and then having to explain what he means to someone on the other end

I expect people to be intelligent enough to know when to use it.

I would never do that If I would see that a person is slotted RTO that has no RTO tag.

Also called Situational Awareness, anyone? No? hm.

Edited by Pax'Jarome Malues

Share this post


Link to post
I expect people to be intelligent enough to know when to use it.

I would never do that If I would see that a person is slotted RTO that has no RTO tag.

Also called Situational Awareness, anyone? No? hm.

 

I have an RTO tag and I wouldn't remember what it means, since it's never been a subject in an RTO course before.

My final comment on the matter is that it's not an abbreviation used in any military signals or brevity manual I've ever seen.

 

And what does situational awareness have to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post

I guess in the end it is up to the UOTC guys to handle that. I personally would welcome some changes, but thats only my opinion.

Sofar I loved every second of the new RTO course. 4h was a bit tuff though, but it was more than worth it.

 

What every will be decided, I will try to keep the cards up to that and what one can find in the multitude of sources available around UO.

 

EDIT: If anyone finds spelling mistakes, wrong facts, format issues, please let me know :)

Edited by Pax'Jarome Malues

Share this post


Link to post

Q codes have military applications:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACP-131

 

I don't think we should be using three letter codes to replace plain speak and adding complexity further complicating basic communication in game. Players in game hardly use established military pro-words or use their own call sign half the time.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...