F.O.O.
-
Was this officer alone in his observation post or was he accompanied by other soldiers?
Posted
-
Erik, Do you mean the following entries?
At 1.00pm FOO’s now permitted to proceed. (Forward Observation Officers) and at 3.22pm mentioning FOO 104th . (Forward Observation Officer).
I would read this as more than 1 FOO went out at 1.00pm and 1 only at 3.22pm – (Lt. A. Bell). It does not seem to mention that others went with them.
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
I think that each battery had a FOO as the individual batteries often had different targets from the other batteries.
That 1 pm entry sounds like the FOOs had not moved forward with the infantry when they entered Mametz, but now that the infantry were consolidating there, the FOOs could move up. When the author says "we had cleared..." he means the either 7th Division as a whole or the infantry troops the 22nd RFA was assigned to cover.
I think it's more likely that the FOO mentioned in the 3:22 pm entry was already forward, possibly as one of the previously mentioned FOOs, and that he reported back with useful information at that time.
The diary doesn't really say whether he was alone or with other soldiers, but I believe the usual practice was for an FOO to be alone or accompanied by just one other man. They did not want to be seen by the Germans and a group of men is harder to hide than just one or two.
Posted
-
British Forward Observation Officer WW1
Part of following article: ‘Generally FOOs were assigned to a company or squadron of a battalion or regiment that their battery was supporting. In the British artillery system FOOs were always [citation needed] authorised to order fire commands to their own troop or battery, based on their assessment of the tactical situation and if necessary liaison with the supported army commander’.
Article Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_observer#British_Forward_Observation_Officer
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
in response to marie.eklidvirginmedia.com's comment.
Marie, the part of the article you have quoted actually refers to World War II rather than World War I.
Posted
-
Cynthia your correct about that - posted incorrect link.
Posted
-
When an officer is mentioned as F.O.O. in a P.O. I use "other" as "Reason" or should I put "Combat"?
Posted
-
I would say it was other for this Forward Observation Officer. I think he would want to remain undetected from the enemy.
An observation post or O.P., temporary or fixed, is a position from which soldiers can watch enemy movements, to warn of approaching soldiers (such as in trench warfare), or to direct artillery fire.
Observation Post or OP Article link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_post
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
in response to erik.schaubroeckscarlet.be's comment.
I am assuming you mean when you have a name and can use the Person tag. I think Other is the best choice for an officer mentioned as an FOO. I tend to think of Combat as being more appropriate to infantry operations. As well, an FOO often watched for the effects of his battery's shelling that did not occur as part of a combat operation.
Posted
-
by
ral104
moderator, scientist
in response to cyngast's comment.
I agree up to a point, but really this is one of those situations where it's all about context. Often 'other' is appropriate, but don't forget these FOO posts were often pretty far forward and would have been targets themselves if spotted - I've read several of them describing being shelled and machine-gunned. In situations like that, or where they're in support of an attack by other units, I would use 'combat'.
Posted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
in response to ral104's comment.
You're right, Rob. On this page, Combat might be the best choice as he seems to be in the midst of operations. As well, I just realized the date is July 1st, the start of the Battle of the Somme, and the context is the capture of Mametz.
I seem to have not been paying complete attention today.
Posted
