Project Reality Forums

Few days ago, I joined a squad and the squad leader organized us in 2 fireteams.
I was pretty surprised to see that, and even more surprised when I realized I haven't heard the word FIRETEAM in PR in... well, half year, or maybe even more.

Apparently, splitting squad in fireteams proved not to be as efficient as it seemed at the earlier stages of PR.

KingKong.CCCP wrote:Few days ago, I joined a squad and the squad leader organized us in 2 fireteams.
I was pretty surprised to see that, and even more surprised when I realized I haven't heard the word FIRETEAM in PR in... well, half year, or maybe even more.

Apparently, splitting squad in fireteams proved not to be as efficient as it seemed at the earlier stages of PR.

What is the tactical argumentation leading to this conclusion, that fireteams not beign as effecient as in earlier stages?

I find it VERY effective, it definitely works for me in this version.

Works very well for defending imo. Splitting the Medic and the AR and maybe the SL into a 'covering' fireteam and having rifles 'roaming' infront.

Fireteams are cool, but sometimes even better, is when people actually supress, that actually sometimes makes fireteams uneccassry. Cause individual skilled men are better than 3 men togheter.

I think fireteams promotes the idea of dispersion and covering several arcs, more than f.ex. just one big blob of infantry.

But its all different from situation to situation.

Wrestlers_Konglisch wrote:I find it VERY effective, it definitely works for me in this version.

YES! I believe it was you, Wrestlers_Konglisch I was playing with. I believe you were the SL I'm talking about.

Cool. It reminded me of the time when I was just a young PR guy...

throughout my PR life, i've only been in one squad where the SL divided us into 2 fireteams. needless to say it was pretty sick.

TheOldBreed, sick as in good, I suppose?



The ONLY time I've succesfully splitted a squad into fireteams and was successful was when I had 2 clan mates on the same FT and the rest with me (it worked well, AR + rifleman).

But in the end, I little delegation works fine, especially on TG.

I don't split squads into specific fireteams, instead splitting them as required, but I frequently divide my squad. However, it requires a squad with people who understand what we're doing and doesn't really shine unless mumble is used. Mostly I'm moving with another squad though, making them the other fireteam .

I find fireteams in PR are a little obsolete, with squads more frequently working together in platoons.

...mongol...

In long/med range fights fireteams work if used properly but in cqb it gets drustrating if people dont know what theyre doing.

Yesterday on TG my SL split us into 2 fireteams it worked pretty well and we acomplished more things and by splitting us into smaller teams it was harder for the enenmy to spot us

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:I find fireteams in PR are a little obsolete, with squads more frequently working together in platoons.

...mongol...

Exactly.

gonna have to agree with mongol...

individual, well-run squads are still vital to success, but the removal of rallies and overhaul of the Firebase system & available transportation per map has led to decreased single-squad independence. 3 guys are simply not enough to provide adequate suppression if you are engaging anything larger than a 3-4 man enemy squad.

That's not to say fireteams can't work in the right situations (i.e. against relatively inexperienced opponents that bunch up, against outnumbered opponents, etc.).

In single squad vs single squad firefights at med-med/long range, you would want all 6 squadmembers to be firing first and establish superiority. Even then, I would keep 4 members (SL, Medic, SAW, rifle/gren./marks/L-AT) back to cover when you unleash "the dogs"--a small flanker team lead by your second most experienced squadmember and comprised of only "cheap" kits. rifleman and rifleman specialist.

Last night on Silent Eagle Infantry, as a USMC team we seperated into two groups, one in a covering position, the rest in a spread out 'guarding' position. It was in the Central Village, South Eastern region.

We held out there for about twenty minutes with no one going down. But then by the time a second squad moved in we kicked even more ***.

Basically, you need to be able to seperate into fireteams but also move on the fly.

billdan wrote:gonna have to agree with mongol...

individual, well-run squads are still vital to success, but the removal of rallies and overhaul of the Firebase system & available transportation per map has led to decreased single-squad independence. 3 guys are simply not enough to provide adequate suppression if you are engaging anything larger than a 3-4 man enemy squad.

That's not to say fireteams can't work in the right situations (i.e. against relatively inexperienced opponents that bunch up, against outnumbered opponents, etc.).

In single squad vs single squad firefights at med-med/long range, you would want all 6 squadmembers to be firing first and establish superiority. Even then, I would keep 4 members (SL, Medic, SAW, rifle/gren./marks/L-AT) back to cover when you unleash "the dogs"--a small flanker team lead by your second most experienced squadmember and comprised of only "cheap" kits. rifleman and rifleman specialist.

Yeah, I would have to say I think thats the best approach in single-squad action right there. Good call.


...mongol...

IDF Clan is moving as fireteam. Using 6 formations of the real IDF as a fireteam formations.

Last night on Lashkar we had 3 Fireteams to sweep ares for caches. All the SLs were in mumble, and we got 18 pubbers working together.

I like using Fire Teams predominantly for squad MOVEMENT without support from other squads: and when ATTACKING I'd have so called Buddy Teams consisting of two riflemen or specialists as the attack/flanking team. Sometimes this is easier to coordinate. I like to have at least two people flanking if possible, to cover each other as the other one is, say, throwing a frag or moving across a danger area. It very much differs, though. Sometimes, little suppressive fire is needed and you can have 3 people in support (almost always Officer, Medic and AR) and 3 moving. Other times, when you need a lot of suppression, maybe a grenadier, I'd have him in a support role, in effect that'd be 4 or more people covering, and 2 moving.

With defense, I often find designated fireteams unnecessary. People will often have very specialized roles, and being a bit separated from each other when covering many sectors. I often competely mix up the teams when defending for more convenience.

Fire and manuevre in this game is very important. It's the difference between a dead or living squad.
Do this whichever way works best. I like to have designated fireteams with a full 6 man squad. This can be complicated, sometimes very difficult with some inexperienced players, and some people simply don't like it. However, with a group of people who've trained together, this is in my opinion one of the most effective tactics there is.

As with everything, all of this depends so much on the tactical situation. But even with a two man team, in CQC, covering each other as the other moves is a very effective and safe approach.

EDIT: billdan, great explanation. That's it right there.

EDIT 2: Tartantyco also brings up a very important point. With fireteams, use of Mumble is essential as to not clutter VOIP with too much info! Guide the SAW's fire in Mumble, report the enemy sniper in VOIP.

IF you see [TP] personnel on servers. Join their squad, the longer serving members have been taught how to fire and maneuvre in the terrain and leading a squad effectively. Using fireteams, using buddy pairs, moving successfully in CQB and much more. There is a reason this is still used today in our armed forces.

This is not an attempt to recruit anyone. It's just a friendly heads up and a tip for players that would like to experience more of this kind of play.