Prev: Re: FT/MT vs FB Next: Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

Re: [OT] Stupid Military Terminology Question

From: Randall Case <tgunner@e...>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 08:04:59 -0600
Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid Military Terminology Question



John C wrote:

> What is a good generic term for an individual vehicle or squad, other
> than element?  Or, in other words, in the following sentence, what
word
> would you substitute for X?
>
> "One Unit consists of one or more seperate X."
>
> ...where X is a tank, helicopter, infantry platoon, secret weapon, or
> something similar.  I am currently working on the military rules for
> Destroy All Monsters!,  and I need a nice, simple term.  "Elements"
just
> seems a little...unfriendly, if that makes any sense.  Any ideas?  I'm
> not normally this brain dead, but the holidays have taken a lot out of
> me.  Please reply directly to me--there's no need to clutter up the
list
> with my foolishness.
>
> Thanks,
> John Crimmins
> john1x@hotmail.com

Sorry guy, but that was what we called them: elements or teams. A lot of
people (including the military wise guys) say that the smallest unit in
use
is the squad. It isn't... it's the fire-team. Squads split into fire
teams
(in the US, there are usually two teams).

Dismount infantry teams split into two fire teams
Mech Infantry split into three teams: two dismount fire teams and a
vehicle
team/crew
Tanks and other IFVs are called crews, although vehicle team wasn't
unheard
of. In this case though, we would usually say that a tank platoon had
four
tracks, not four teams/crews.

So, barring element... team is the next best name, IMO :)

Prev: Re: FT/MT vs FB Next: Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure