- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Hey umm I was wondering if it is infantry men or combat engineers who work the radios most of the time in the field?
All help is appreciated.
All help is appreciated.
Who is usually the Radio Operator?
- Thread starter brendanthompson
- Start date
A
aesop081
Guest
JBoyd said:
In 11 years as a combat engineer, i never once had a sig op work the radios in any of my sections, troops or at the Sqn level. Regimental HQ had a few but they worked the regimental CP. At lower levels , it was always an engineer working the radios.
Ex Ranger Instructor
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 330
It varies with unit and availability of manpower in various trades. Most times, Pl level Signallers are of the same trade as the rest of the Pl, i.e. if we're talking about infantry, then the Pl Sig would be an Inf guy with a comms crse. Most of the time, the Coy/Sqn Sig would be a Jimmy.
There are exceptions to these rules though.
There are exceptions to these rules though.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
You're not likely to see Sigs working much below Coy lvl, however that doesn't mean we won't fill a hole where needed.
Given the iterations of new organizations ie: OMLT,PRT and "other", not to mention the other elements. The Air Force in particular is going to be absorbing a few more posns for Sig Op in the future as MES is going to be the way ahead.
Long story short...Cbt Arms...Engrs: usually no siggies below Sqn lvl except EOD.
Armd: Same (except no EOD
We do (did), however train all designated operators in house where possible.
Given the iterations of new organizations ie: OMLT,PRT and "other", not to mention the other elements. The Air Force in particular is going to be absorbing a few more posns for Sig Op in the future as MES is going to be the way ahead.
Long story short...Cbt Arms...Engrs: usually no siggies below Sqn lvl except EOD.
Armd: Same (except no EOD
We do (did), however train all designated operators in house where possible.
M
MikeL
Guest
dan7108 said:
Yes, on TF 1-08 there were some Sig Ops employed as Pl Signallers in the Force Protection Coy. But I don't know if any other Rotos have done the same. But like was said before Signallers are typically employed at the Coy HQ an Battalion HQ level in an Infantry Battalion. But that doesn't mean you won't see Sig Ops carrying radios on tour as part of their job as Coy Signallers, or filling positions that come up, or employed in different organizations on tour that employ Sigs in that role.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Depends where you place the priority of your communications. Within the Arty it is extremely important as our FOOs are useless without radios. Most Arty guys i.e. 80% all ranks, are skillful on most types of communications. For the Arty it would be very rare to see a Sig Op below Regt level. We take our comms and voice procedure (VP) very seriously and Arty fire discipline is different from basic VP.
That said, experienced Rad Ops can provide invaluable knowledge and without comms no modern Army would survive.
That said, experienced Rad Ops can provide invaluable knowledge and without comms no modern Army would survive.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
In the Armoured world, each callsign (vehicle) has an "operator" if you will, who is a crewmen. In a troop, you'll not find any Sig Ops but you can bet your boots that the VP is good and tight regardless. Most of the radio comms are done at the Crew Commander level, but VP is (or was) something taught to all Troopers in the Corps, and they all used it over their careers.
In my experience, the lowest level you'd see a Sig Op is in a Sqn CP (command post). The Sqn Sigs Sgt is supposed to be a Jimmy too, but I've seen that as a secondary task for an A or C callsign as well.
In my experience, the lowest level you'd see a Sig Op is in a Sqn CP (command post). The Sqn Sigs Sgt is supposed to be a Jimmy too, but I've seen that as a secondary task for an A or C callsign as well.
M
MikeL
Guest
GnyHwy said:
Isn't there a Signaller for each Bty?
Also, I know theres been a few Sigs that were in FOO/FAC Teams in the BG an OMLT.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
In the Arty, all the Signallers are Artillery soldiers, be it Gnrs or Bdrs. All ranks will have strong capablities. For trouble shooting most NCMs will have strong skills and good VP is stressed for all ranks.
As far as actual Signallers i.e. Rad Ops. You will likely not see one below Regt. Although, I have seen MCpl Rad OPs at the Bty level. He was extremely experienced and proved to be a great asset.
Arty VP is different and that maybe a reason we train our own as opposed to hiring Rad OPs.
As far as actual Signallers i.e. Rad Ops. You will likely not see one below Regt. Although, I have seen MCpl Rad OPs at the Bty level. He was extremely experienced and proved to be a great asset.
Arty VP is different and that maybe a reason we train our own as opposed to hiring Rad OPs.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Further, in response to
In a FOO/FAC team in the BG the Sig will most certainly be an Arty Bdr or Gnr. If an actual Rad Op was with a FOO/FAC team then he was either a rental, just wanted to "get out" for some experience or an extreme rarity.
For the OMLT a Rad OP is very likely. Although, if an Arty Bdr or Gnr was in the OMLT he could very well be the sig.
In a FOO/FAC team in the BG the Sig will most certainly be an Arty Bdr or Gnr. If an actual Rad Op was with a FOO/FAC team then he was either a rental, just wanted to "get out" for some experience or an extreme rarity.
For the OMLT a Rad OP is very likely. Although, if an Arty Bdr or Gnr was in the OMLT he could very well be the sig.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
There is good reason why, in general, the combat arms wants combat arms soldiers to operate the Coy/Sqn/Troop/Bty nets.
The best signallers for combat arms sub-units are not necessarily the ones with the best technical radio skills or the best voice procedure. The best guys to carry the radios are the ones who have a grip on the tactical picture.
They're the guys who have the background and situational awareness required to act as an organizational aid to the commander. The most important skill of the signaller is to filter and track information, to understand the big picture, and then be articulate enough to spew out the Reader's Digest version of what's going on so the commander can make timely and informed decisions. This is the difficult part of comms at that level.
The easy part is learning the technical skills and voice procedure taught on the Basic Comms Course (ACTIS OP Basic + Intermediate) - the same classes and PO checks as what a Sigop gets on the Tacrad portion of his QL3, anyways.
I'm not trying undermine what the Sigops do. I've known enough to know that they really are experts in their field. It's just that their field is typically not in breaching obstacles, conducting raids, calling fire missions, or armoured recces.
In the end, it's just easier to take a Combat Arms Pte and train him to use the radio then it is to take a Sigop Pte and train him to understand the context of the messages sent on a combat arms net.
The best signallers for combat arms sub-units are not necessarily the ones with the best technical radio skills or the best voice procedure. The best guys to carry the radios are the ones who have a grip on the tactical picture.
They're the guys who have the background and situational awareness required to act as an organizational aid to the commander. The most important skill of the signaller is to filter and track information, to understand the big picture, and then be articulate enough to spew out the Reader's Digest version of what's going on so the commander can make timely and informed decisions. This is the difficult part of comms at that level.
The easy part is learning the technical skills and voice procedure taught on the Basic Comms Course (ACTIS OP Basic + Intermediate) - the same classes and PO checks as what a Sigop gets on the Tacrad portion of his QL3, anyways.
I'm not trying undermine what the Sigops do. I've known enough to know that they really are experts in their field. It's just that their field is typically not in breaching obstacles, conducting raids, calling fire missions, or armoured recces.
In the end, it's just easier to take a Combat Arms Pte and train him to use the radio then it is to take a Sigop Pte and train him to understand the context of the messages sent on a combat arms net.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I have a suggestion. Take a basic comms course, whatever trade, add 1 week and teach them some useful things.
Either, better trouble shooting, more diversity or rewrite all together and give our basic soldiers a more destructive capability.
Either, better trouble shooting, more diversity or rewrite all together and give our basic soldiers a more destructive capability.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Womderbread and Gnyhwy,
Time for the SigOp to school you.
You speculate where you think SigOps might or should be employed.
"There is good reason why, in general, the combat arms wants combat arms soldiers to operate the Coy/Sqn/Troop/Bty nets."
Really? I have BEEN a coy signaller on operations in the fight. There are at a minimum three Sig in each Coy on operations, and they don't just run the CP. They are out most of the time.
The OMLT has it's share of SigOps as well...not just in the CP.
A lot of what has been posted is quite accurate ie: no there are no operators in the Arty bty (for the most part), in fact a new SigOp has to take an Arty Comms course (taught by a gunner).
Yes there ARE operators in the armd recce sqns, doing the same job as everyone else (based on my practical experience).
No, there are no operators in an Engr field troop, but there are in the Sqn CP.
I can assure you that the operators that are workingin thos positions are very well versed in how thier respective units operate in the field, right down to the section level.
One of the operators that worked for me on my last tour just completed the Inf recce course, and is now employed in that posn.
Neither one of you have any idea where/how SigOps are employed or what we do in Cbt Arms units, or anything else for that matter. You are both talking out of your a## about something you have no concept of.
I would suggest that you both stay in your lanes.
Time for the SigOp to school you.
You speculate where you think SigOps might or should be employed.
"There is good reason why, in general, the combat arms wants combat arms soldiers to operate the Coy/Sqn/Troop/Bty nets."
Really? I have BEEN a coy signaller on operations in the fight. There are at a minimum three Sig in each Coy on operations, and they don't just run the CP. They are out most of the time.
The OMLT has it's share of SigOps as well...not just in the CP.
A lot of what has been posted is quite accurate ie: no there are no operators in the Arty bty (for the most part), in fact a new SigOp has to take an Arty Comms course (taught by a gunner).
Yes there ARE operators in the armd recce sqns, doing the same job as everyone else (based on my practical experience).
No, there are no operators in an Engr field troop, but there are in the Sqn CP.
I can assure you that the operators that are workingin thos positions are very well versed in how thier respective units operate in the field, right down to the section level.
One of the operators that worked for me on my last tour just completed the Inf recce course, and is now employed in that posn.
Neither one of you have any idea where/how SigOps are employed or what we do in Cbt Arms units, or anything else for that matter. You are both talking out of your a## about something you have no concept of.
I would suggest that you both stay in your lanes.
I gotta mostly agree with wonderbread, but both sides make valid arguments.
Each Sig Op beyond what is technically necessary could deny a slot for one of its tradesman, so there is a reason right there to want to employ a double hatted Pte/Cpl.
I know from personal experience that it takes a good long time to pick up the lingo and understand what information might be tactically relevant. I deployed as the mythological Cbt Engr Tp Sig. I devoted a good deal of effort teaching those around me communications skills, and in turn I learned a lot about military engineering.
I believe the pragmatic approach would be to train a switched on and motivated combat arms soldier to use the radio, rather than grab a Sig Op and teach them the basics of a combat arms trade. Tactical radios are pretty simple, and if we absolutely need a Sig Op to operate that radio, and only operate that radio at all times then we've got 2 problems. 1) We bought the wrong damn radios 2) We're recruiting the wrong damn people
my 2 cents
Each Sig Op beyond what is technically necessary could deny a slot for one of its tradesman, so there is a reason right there to want to employ a double hatted Pte/Cpl.
I know from personal experience that it takes a good long time to pick up the lingo and understand what information might be tactically relevant. I deployed as the mythological Cbt Engr Tp Sig. I devoted a good deal of effort teaching those around me communications skills, and in turn I learned a lot about military engineering.
I believe the pragmatic approach would be to train a switched on and motivated combat arms soldier to use the radio, rather than grab a Sig Op and teach them the basics of a combat arms trade. Tactical radios are pretty simple, and if we absolutely need a Sig Op to operate that radio, and only operate that radio at all times then we've got 2 problems. 1) We bought the wrong damn radios 2) We're recruiting the wrong damn people
my 2 cents
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
i'm not saying that you have the Sig Op be the only one on the radio, far from it.
Based on your profile you have a very limited view of what an operator does beyond just working in a CP.
Why would you not train a switched on Sig Op (see my previous post about one of my operators who just completed the Inf recce crse), and teach him infantry stuff (moot point).
As far as teaching others comms skills in an Eng Sqn, you were just doing part of your job...nothing more than what is expected of you.
Based on your profile you have a very limited view of what an operator does beyond just working in a CP.
Why would you not train a switched on Sig Op (see my previous post about one of my operators who just completed the Inf recce crse), and teach him infantry stuff (moot point).
As far as teaching others comms skills in an Eng Sqn, you were just doing part of your job...nothing more than what is expected of you.
Similar threads
