Talk:Fireteam

Different national approaches to designation on maps

According to the article Squad only 8 NATO countries (Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States) use ● for Squad. As it turns out, in Spain one dot also denotes Team (Spanish: Equipo).

In this regard, in those countries where the Squad analogue is denoted by ●●, firemeam is denoted by one dot (●).

I am currently preparing two tables with national designations similar to those in Squad. If there are no objections, then after checking the information they will be posted here. The check is needed to make sure that we are talking about Team, and not Crew, because for example the Bulgarian terms Razchet (Разчет) and Ekipazh (Еҝипаж) are all variants of Crew. JurKo22 (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have provided verified information. Since in the second table from one country there can be several values, the third line in the table is the translation of the national term. JurKo22 (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Theory from ADP 3-90

I began preparing revisions to this article and found that additional theory from ADP 3-90 Offense and Defense was needed both here and in related articles.

The fact is that ADP 3-90 on page 2-18 contains the following definitions of four small military units:

• A fire team is a small military unit typically containing four or fewer Soldiers. A fire team is usually grouped by two or three teams into a squad or section.
• A crew is a small military unit that consists of all personnel operating a particular system. This system might be a weapons system (such as a mortar or a machinegun). The system might also be a vehicle (such as a tank) or a sensor system (such as a target acquisition radar).
• A squad is a small military unit typically containing two or more fire teams. It typically contains a dozen Soldiers or less. In some cases, the crew of a system may also be designated as a squad.
• A section is a tactical unit of the Army and Marine Corps smaller than a platoon and larger than a squad. A section may consist of the crews of two or more Army systems, such as a tank section or several fire teams.

For these definitions, FM 1-02.2 provides its own symbols (Ø / ● / ●●), but for squad it provides the following note:

• Common English language definition also applies to this symbol, “a small group engaged in a common effort or occupation.”

As for the standard APP-06, it takes these designations from FM 1-02.2 and suggests that other NATO countries use them. However, due to the remark on squad and the fact that in a number of countries section is an analogue of squad, inconsistency begins:

• some NATO countries fully agree with this approach, even if they do not have a fire team (Ø) / squad (●) / section (●●) structure
• however, most NATO countries, for which section is an analogue of squad, use the standard designation (●●) for section, and taking into account that Common English language definition also applies to symbol ●, “a small group engaged in a common effort or occupation”, gives the designation for squad (●) for crew and team.

I believe that this theory should be presented both here and in related articles. I will start in Section (military unit), then in Squad, and lastly here. In my opinion, this repetition is necessary, because it fully explains the reason for the inconsistency to the unprepared reader. JurKo22 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If there are not reliable sources discussing the existence of your theory and reasoning for such a discrepancy, then we cannot include it as it would be original research. Such a discussion would have to be explicit -- we cannot derive the content from multiple sources that do not actually say this (which would be synthesis. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we have several facts, but it is not a fact that one fact directly follows another. In this case, the solution is to cite these facts without stating how exactly these facts are connected. Accordingly, different articles will have different volumes of citations. JurKo22 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And presenting individual facts together with the intention of implying a conclusion that is not supported by the individual sources themselves is synthesis, which we cannot use.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I myself shortened the quotes from ADP 3-90: I left the extended definition only for the unit the article is about JurKo22 (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

all major changes in the article have been made, please check the final result. Thank you! JurKo22 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

proposal to separate the section about Battle Pair into a separate article

There is a proposal to separate the section about Battle Pair into a separate article. The fact is that such articles already exist in Estonian, Finnish, Swedish, Russian and Ukrainian, but they are mistakenly combined with articles in English, Spanish and Chinese about Battle buddy.

Before separating, it makes sense to work through this section as much as possible, taking as a basis the article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia (I am the author of this article), which contains links to the NATO standard APP-06(E)(1), as well as military publications of the USA, Canada, Finland, Sweden and Ukraine. I can immediately note that the concept of a battle pair does not exist in the armed forces of the USA and Great Britain, but in the US Army and the Marine Corps there is a team, which consists of two servicemen. In the Canadian Army, the function of a battle pair is performed by a fireteam. JurKo22 (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO it could go either way. As currently written, the Battle buddy article is pretty poor and only focuses on one particular aspect of the battle buddy relationship (mental health protection) and completely lacks any references to the term's wide unofficial use for two-man fire and maneuver operations. However, I can see why it would make sense to separate the articles out for nations that use the term as a doctrinal echelon of formation, vs. an unofficial echelon of formation, particularly as their focus is much more operational. In general, a 2-man "team" in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps is going to be temporary and ad-hoc subdivisions of a squad/section/detachment/platoon -- usually scouts, snipers, or COLT teams, though some military intelligence collectors operate in 2-man teams as well. I would not get too hung up over the usage of "team" and probably lean more towards separating the articles out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for supporting my initiative. I would like to point out that the concept of fire teams varies in different countries. The American military doctrine provides for the division of a rifle squad into two (army) or three (marines) fire teams. According to the combat regulations of Ukraine and Russia, fire teams are called combat groups and are formed by the squad leader depending on the combat mission. Usually these are groups of two and three people, so we call them combat twos and combat threes or simply "twos" and "threes". A group of four people is also possible.

The concept of combat pairs appeared in Scandinavia (Sweden and Finland), and then in Estonia, but it is not a fact that they are the founders: in the Canadian Army, a fire team is exactly two people and, as in Sweden, Finland and Estonia, between it and the infantry squad there is an intermediate unit in the form of a group of four servicemen.

By the way, I found a mistake regarding Finland, today I will try to correct it. It turned out that combat threes (the Finns call them patrols) were before, and combat threes still exist, as they are described in the Soldier's Handbook (Sotilaan käsikirja) Soldier's Handbook (Sotilaan käsikirja) by Finnish Defence Forces (Puolustusvoimat), 2024. It all depends on the number of people in the squad: with 9 we get three patrols, and with 7-8 we get 3-4 combat pairs, which are formed by 2 half-squads.

I also found Finnish terminology regarding the designations on the map, so this section will be supplemented. JurKo22 (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Need your advice. I finally managed to find a modern Finnish military manual in English.

https://intti.fi/documents/1948673/2253258/Soldiers_Guide_2024_lr.pdf/aba96ad2-e0cb-20b4-87c7-3bc5e148df23/Soldiers_Guide_2024_lr.pdf

For comparison, this guide in Finnish: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/documents/1948673/0/Sotilaan_k%C3%A4sikirja_2024_lr-compressed.pdf/17293bd1-fa67-b94b-d800-8f3aa6b40eab/Sotilaan_k%C3%A4sikirja_2024_lr-compressed.pdf

It turned out that what in Finnish it is called a battle pair (taistelijapari), in English it is translated as a fire-and-manoeuvre team (p. 187) Since this is the official translation of the term into English, which is also in the NATO standard APP-06 (Annex B, Estonia) I think that the Wikipedia article in English should be called exactly this way. Then there will be no confusion with other two-man units, which are in the US Armed Forces.

By the way, this term is already in the article Section (military unit), but I drew attention to it. JurKo22 (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing various sources, I came to the conclusion that it would be better to call the new article as planned (Battle pair), but at the very beginning, clarify that the corresponding Estonian and Finnish term is translated into English as fire-and-manoeuvre team. It's just that such a translation is a special case of a combat pair. The translation is determined solely by the fact that the team is the smallest unit.

As it turned out, the Swedes did not immediately switch to such a translation: in the 2017 edition, both terms were translated the same way, but starting in 2020, they introduced such a distinction. JurKo22 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

To clarify here, the question you were asking advice on is the appropriate name for the article? Presumably between Fire-and-maneuver team (whatever the official spelling of the translation is, if there is one), battle pair, or taistelijapari? Per WP:UE and WP:ENGLISHTITLE the answer would be "whatever version predominates among English-language reliable sources." Here's my thoughts: if English-language documents (particularly NATO standards) consistently refer to it as taistelijapari in what are otherwise English documentation, I'd suggest titling the article that, unless one of the translated terms is notably more prevalent. See, e.g. Kustjägarna (which to be fair, is a specific unit rather than an echelon, but exemplifies the point about titling of a foreign term that is consistently used as such in English sources). But I do not actually know which usage is more prevalent -- you'd have to do the research and find out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Just forgot to add as an addendum; if this terminology is in use by more than just Finland than obviously the Finnish word probably wouldn't make sense, and we'd have to go with the English-language term most frequently and consistently used by reliable sources to describe a 2-man team (whether that's Battle pair, or whatever) and then have all the foreign translations of that be redirects. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, because it is not about one country, but three. If these countries used a term with a similar spelling, it would be possible to take one of its variants. But they only have the general essence of the term.

The literal translation is also not suitable, because there are at least two options: AI for the Swedish term stridspar offers the option Combat pair. Also, I did not find any authoritative source that would use a literal translation. Finally, as an exception, the Swedes can have three infantrymen in stridspar, if someone in the section does not have a pair or is undesirably combined with the section commander.

As a result, the choice remains between Fire-and-maneuver team options. Although the Swedish Wikipedia offers the option Fire and maneuver team, and Annex B to APP-06 (Estonian terminology) the option Fire and maneuver team, I am inclined to the Finnish option Fire-and-maneuver team as more accurate, since it emphasizes the simultaneity of action: one fire covers the maneuver of the other JurKo22 (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

My take on the MOS is that it supports the hyphenated option over the unhyphenated option as well, so that sounds good to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice, because Fire-and-manoeuvre team is my first article in the English Wikipedia. I have already improved the section on Finland, and at the same time added sections on the USA and Ukraine (I seem to have described / cited everything correctly).

In general, my main interest is theology, but for now I am getting practice in writing articles in Wikipedia and communicating with other authors in the field of military science. JurKo22 (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

military symbol and concept of use

So, the article Fire-and-manoeuvre team (FMT) has been successfully created, but as the author, I don't see the point in duplicating information in it. The fact is that FMT is a special case of a fireteam (a team of two soldiers, maximum three), so it makes sense to designate and name them here, and to redirect them to the relevant section here.

I think it would also make sense to describe the different concepts of using a fireteam here. Since FMT is two soldiers, the concept of "one maneuvers while the other fires" is actively used. However, while preparing the article, I discovered a different concept used in the US: one team maneuvers while the other provides covering fire.

• "Grange: Teams keep eye out for troops". CNN. March 23, 2003. Two or three fire teams make up a squad, a total of nine to 12 people. If they are on the ground, they are organized as a fire-and-maneuver team -- one fire team is fighting, while the other is moving.

The problem is that this is a civil news source of information, so it can't be trusted in the same way as military manuals. Therefore, I'm interested in whether this is actually the case in US military doctrine. JurKo22 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Using Ukraine as an example, I was able to understand the differences in approaches:

• if a rifle squad has a common mission, then there is interaction between the teams
• if each team has its own mission, then there is interaction within the team

I cited references to Ukrainian military sources. But the question remains regarding the US. Perhaps, as in Ukraine, there are separate instructions for pairs, but to find them, you need to know military terminology. I haven't yet found such a term for the US, because battle buddy is a psychological interaction.JurKo22 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what you're asking for, but if you're asking for the interactions of a U.S. Army rifle squad, yes in small unit tactics at the squad-level, typically one fireteam is designated the "support-by-fire" team, and the other fireteam is designated the "assault" team. See, e.g. FM 3-21.8 (PDF version) and I think directly covers what you're looking for though there are plenty of other documents referencing this same concept. I believe the USMC has a similar concept but different execution due to their different squad/fireteam organization. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. I realized I needed to clarify one very important detail about Ukraine.

You see, I served in the army back in the USSR, a year before its collapse, in a convoy brigade of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs' Internal Troops. (My commanders were more concerned about me knowing the intricacies of escorting prisoners and guarding prisons, so my infantry training consisted of two solo trench digs for prone shooting and one linear attack, which ended literally a minute after it began, because the lieutenant realized his soldiers were clearly not a threat to NATO ;)) I also didn't participate in the war with Russia, because God entrusted me with spiritual warfare (which also involves "fire and maneuver").

That's why I don't have modern military training, and I overlooked the fact that in Ukraine, there are essentially two types of fireteams: a basic squad, divided into teams (3-4 teams of 2-3 people each), and an attack squad, divided into an assault team and a fire support team (which, as I now see, are not monolithic, but comprised of the aforementioned teams). This is somewhat similar to squads in the Canadian Army, but there the squad (or rather, section) is divided into assault teams, which, in turn, are divided into fireteams (the terminology is based not on the teams' missions, but on their size). JurKo22 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It's slightly different with the U.S.; again speaking for the Army (not the USMC), because our squads break down into two identical fireteams, both are capable of flexing into the support-by-fire (fire) or assault (maneuver) role at the squad leader's discretion. The fireteams are not dedicated solely to just one or the other, they train and practice in both so that they each can be called on to play either part. Similarly, for individual movement techniques, a fire team broken down into two buddy pairs (or even a single buddy pair consisting of two soldiers conducting bounding overwatch movement) work the same way -- both halves are capable of both fire and maneuver, and do not specialize into one or the other. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, with regard to usage in pairs, while you're correct that the U.S. military doesn't broadly operate that way, we still train for fire and maneuver techniques in pairs, even during basic combat training. Every soldier is trained on what are called Individual movement techniques, which include overwatch and bounding overwatch. The latter, when performed by a soldier and their buddy, is a doctrinally instructed soldiering skill; but it is taught as an individual movement technique rather than as a fireteam or squad technique. See, e.g. this Army ROTC instruction, note the section about the 3-5 second rush and the portion about covering your buddy's movement. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

One other note -- while you're correct that CNN is a civilian news source, please note that they're interviewing retired Major General David L. Grange, who is one of the most widely respected and knowledgeable infantry general officers in modern history, and is the son of retired Lieutenant General David E. Grange Jr. (for whom the David E. Grange Jr. Best Ranger Competition, which is the U.S. military's preeminent small unit tactics competition, is named.) He is an expert to the degree that there are very few people in the world more knowledgable about this subject than him.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. I am not and have never been a professional military man, but I am a professional scientist and a professional forensic expert, so I dislike inaccuracies. Military science, and uniformology in particular, is my hobby, but Wikipedia's uniformology doesn't need the nuances I was able to discover by analyzing open sources online. In military matters, I couldn't tolerate the obvious fantasies of some article authors, especially when English-language articles are translated inaccurately, plus they include some "original" information. Actually, I was interested in Ranks and insignia of NATO, but while editing the Ukrainian version of the article on NATO codes, I had to study NATO practices for units led by sergeants, corporals, and lance corporals. That's how I ended up here...

I've explained the differences between Ukraine and the United States as best I could (I think Americans are the main authors and readers of the English Wikipedia), but there's still material for the Fire-and-manoeuvre team that needs to be reworked. JurKo22 (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to solve the problem that had been bothering me. The thing is, I was studying Order No. 317 of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, dated September 7, 2020, not the original version, but the amended version. That's why I overlooked the fundamental changes introduced by Order No. 659 of the Minister of Defense of Ukraine, dated January 3, 2023.

I've described the chronology of the changes, and now it's clear why there are new positions in the current statute: they weren't included in it in time. JurKo22 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Military regulations and copyright

According to Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine No. 2811-IX of December 1, 2022, "On Copyright and Related Rights," official documents of a political, legislative, administrative, and judicial nature (laws, decrees, resolutions, decisions, state standards, etc.), as well as their drafts and official translations, are not subject to copyright. A similar provision is contained in Article 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: "... The following are not subject to copyright: 1) official documents of state bodies and local government bodies of municipalities, including laws, other regulations, court decisions, other legislative, administrative, and judicial materials, official documents of international organizations, as well as official translations thereof"

It follows that the regulatory acts of the armed forces of Russia and Ukraine, which include military regulations, are not protected by copyright in these countries. Unfortunately, my section on Russia, which actually quoted one of the field manuals, was removed for potential copyright infringement. To avoid similar incidents in the future, I'll have to add {Source-attribution} to the source and the following note to the link:

"In accordance with the national legislation of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, regulations and other similar official documents of the armed forces of these countries are not protected by copyright"

In theory, {Source-attribution} should be sufficient, but to avoid any questions, I think a note wouldn't hurt. JurKo22 (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the footnote is actually unnecessary. The point is that {Source-attribution}, when added to {ref} or {sfn}, adds the following text to the cited source:

"This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" JurKo22 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)