Re: [SG] Scenario with engineers

On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Glover, Owen wrote:
>  
> > Well, I've been in the situation of our platoon providing protection
for an
> > engineer breaching team on a number of occasions. Engineers are
employed in
> > route recon and this might fall into that category. If you want to
be more
> > generic then the task could be simply "clearing the area of enemy as
part of
> > Bn advance". I would suggest that teh Engineer squad cannot be
activated by
> > the Platoon Comd.
> 
> Good call.  Don't listen to damnfool.  He's stupid 'coz is 2LT, and
> stupid 'coz is Infantry.  Definitely don't listen to.  Do own thing on
> own time and explain to Infantry how things will be done and what he
> should be doing.  If 2LT has problems taking directions from Engineer
> NCO, FUBID him. (Seen it done)
>

Sorry, but "FUBID"?

I can think of a couple of meanings, all of them at this point both
impolite & utter nonsense. What does it really mean? (I'm damn sure it's
impolite, but less sure the real meaning is nonsensical...)

Change of Topic:

When doing graphical representation of military units (using NATO
symbols,
in this case) how does one treat HQ unit sizes? A platoon formation,
laid
out with squad symbols, has, say, three rifle squads and an HQ squad. So
does the HQ unit get tagged as a squad (by the # of troopers in it) or
as
a platoon (by the level of command it has)?

Or, say, a tank comany, laid out with plt markers - 2 line plts & one
with
HQ in it. Is the HQ a plt symbol or Coy symb?

Thanks,

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
-- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/ --DS2/SG2/gaming
website--