Snc's Fire Team Summary

Candidate Hairston was confident and thorough when briefing his order. Although confident and thorough while briefing, Candidate Hairston failed to ask fire team members if they had any questions at the end of his brief. This caused a little confusion, leaving fire team members with unanswered questions. Prior to the execution phase SNC posted security and ensured security was able to hear everything in the event he had to replace a fire team member. During the start execution phase, SNC did not utilize the gear provided and attempted to use his fire team members as a means to traverse the obstacle. For more than two and a half minutes, fire team members were standing around waiting for direction, not progressing towards mission accomplishment,

Candidate Merritt briefed all the necessary requirements for his five paragraph order. While briefing, SNC had his entire fire team take a knee conducting security looking away from him and the obstacle while he briefed. Because of this, his fire team was not truly oriented to the problem. SNC did not conduct any type of leader's recon and came up with a plan that was severely lacking in detail and was more of a check in the box. While executing the mission, SNC got stumped and could not figure out how to adapt his plan. He paused for a minute while he tried to figure out a new plan, losing crucial time. While SNC addressed security, he did not enforce it. The candidate on security spent more time watching the problem be executed as

Candidate Sharp demonstrated a basic understanding of the five paragraph order, but did not clearly articulate his words, paused intermittently, and rushed through parts of his brief. SNC failed to develop an executable plan and did not brief any tasking statements to his team. SNC also ended the brief and then went back to finish it after he had already begun executing the mission. After a suggestion from another candidate, SNC delegated security to a team member. Another team member would continually ignore SNC while executing the obstacle. However, SNC lacked the command presence and communication skills to correct the candidate or recognize the need to replace him at a key location. SNC had difficulty leading multiple candidates and failed

Candidate Goff immediately addressed security before briefing his order. SNC briefed in a rushed manner using many “ums” and “uhs,” showing he lacked confidence in his plan. When briefing, he referred to the scenario as an obstacle instead of treating it as a tactical situation. His fast brief was difficult for his fire team to follow, evident by their confusion at the beginning of the mission even though the initial plan was well developed. SNC had to direct his fire team’s actions he had just briefed in order for them to execute. This candidate lost his tactical and situational awareness, evident by his loud instructions throughout the task and the fire team dragging their weapons through the sewer tunnel making the execution extremely loud.

SNC gave a detailed brief that outlined a precise plan that was coherent and directed towards mission accomplishment. SNC contradicted a well thought out plan of action with a monotone voice and his use of filler words, such as, uh and um, coupled with a lack of passion. The lack of passion was seen in his sense of urgency as SNC spent 80% of his time briefing his 5 paragraph order that adversely affected his sense of urgency. SNC was able to secure the objective quickly, but loss situational awareness of his surroundings and enemy position that initially created confusion when engaged by the enemy. SNC was able to make clear and concise decisions in an appropriate amount of time that efficiently utilized his fellow candidates. This expedited

Candidate Huff did not brief the admin/logistics and command/signal paragraphs of his order. The rest of his order was briefed with shaky confidence involving heavy use of "ums." SNC did not establish security during his brief or during execution. SNC demonstrated inefficient use of his time by spending nearly sixty seconds re-slinging the teams rifles in the beginning of execution. Due to a lack of an initial plan following the brief, the team had to begin execution whileconducting reconnaissance and orienting to the problem. Once oriented, SNC was hesitant in deciding how to engage the problem. Once a scheme of maneuver was developed, he was able to communicate his guidance to the team members and begin driving his team toward mission

SNC conducted an incomplete 5 paragraph order which did not cover all of the information pertaining to the mission. For example, the mission was to locate, close with and destroy the enemy preventing them from setting up a hide sight. SNC did not cover the administration and logistics paragraph also; SNC failed to inform the fire team of the chow plan. SNC did not seem to understand the measure of his brief . During the brief SNC used an extended amount of time by repeating the situation multiple times causing confusion within the fire team. SNC did develop an initial plan prior to starting the execution; however SNC was not able to make adjustments to the initial plan. SNC ’s failure of future planning was evident during the enemy contact

SNC briefed an incorrect objective and enemy location in his Orientation and Situation paragraphs. SNC's tasking statements did not indicate that SNC had thought ahead to possible obstacles during execution. SNC did not establish security while briefing his five paragraph order. SNC took over half of his time briefing his five paragraph order, and did not leave himself enough time to accomplish his mission within the allotted period. SNC allowed his navigator to stop to check their azimuth too often for such a short movement. SNC executed his plan and made a reasonable formation change prior to contact with the enemy based off the distance his team had traveled. SNC delivered a decent ADDRAC Report but failed to communicate or control his team

Candidate Taylor provided a shoddy five paragraph order. The mission was a statement of a basic plan to accomplish the task. The enemy situation did not even contain the expected enemy actions on contact, which was provided by the evaluator’s brief. The Execution paragraph was made up of information already provided in the Enemy Situation and billet assignments as tasks containing no purposes. There was no scheme of maneuver. SNC’s delivery was very choppy in the first few paragraphs with intermittent pauses because SNC would lose track of where he was in his notes. During execution, SNC maintained a very tactical posture throughout. At points of friction, SNC placed himself where best to facilitate his team’s movement. Communication flowed

Candidate Black plotted both the current location and the objective locations properly, failed to give the azimuth within the + or – 5 degrees margin of error. As the squad arrived at the assembly area SNC, tasked each team individually with security, building the terrain model. SNC failed to utilize the terrain model while conducting his brief. SNC sounded timid and unsure of the information he was presenting to his subordinates. The content of the brief was generic, and non-executable without further guidance. SNC failed to brief attachments and detachments, location of key personnel and succession of command. The task and coordinating instructions ran into the scheme of maneuver, SNC did not say “task” or “coordinating instructions” but

SNC began the five paragraph order brief confidently. SNC thoroughly briefed the Orientation paragraph addressing terrain, weather, and the potential for hypothermia due to the weather. SNC failed to properly address the Enemy Situation and briefed incorrected information. SNC failed to address the Friendly Situation, which contained information pertinent to the problem. SNC thoroughly briefed the coordinating instructions and ensured subordinates understood the “off-limits” areas. SNC briefed the use of verbal ADDRAC during enemy contact. SNC was confident while briefing and minimized the use of filler words. SNC failed to address security during the brief and throughout the problem. SNC’s plan was poorly thought out and tasks were

Candidate Steinbach briefed a detailed orientation with all tactical control measures included. His five paragraph order was complete, with the exception of briefing danger areas to his fire team. Though his order was complete, he took a long time to brief, thus wasting time to actually complete the problem. Candidate Steinbach’s Fire Team had an extra member and SNC ensured to engage all candidates to work toward mission accomplishment. Candidate Steinbach set in security and frequently checked on him. SNC’s initial plan was not feasible and failed. Candidate Steinbach did not allow this to distract him from continuing the problem. He quickly developed a new plan with input from his Fire Team. Candidate Steinbach acted with a sense

America is no stranger to tragedy, yet through tragedy comes America's greatest strengths. The Great Chicago Fire of October 1817, is one such tragedy that burned many wooden buildings, sidewalks, commercial buildings, and homes. A tragedy so severe that it lasted for three days that resulted in the death of three-hundred people, and put tens of thousands of Chicagoans on the streets (Volume 2 From Reconstruction, 2015, p. 484).

Candidate Jang’s inflection in his voice appeared to cause serious confusion in his team members and a lack of understanding of his order. The Orientation only included what the objective of the problem was and not any form of direction of attack or objective location either. The Situation paragraph was very thorough and detailed and contact more information than the instructor had briefed in his order. The Mission statement included no in order to, was not read twice, and was a general plan of what they were going to accomplish. SNC had also failed to brief a scheme of maneuver and his tasking statements were only what billet each fire team member was going to be with no direction or delegation given. SNC was the only one working to accomplish

Project Red Team met at 6:00pm, in Rm 217 at the Lefluer Campus. The first order of business was to review the assignments due for Class 3. We conducted a brief overview regarding submission of our team project paper outline, as well as, refreshing ourselves with the overview of the in-class exam. Once this review was completed, we moved on to the next topic at hand, which was discussing the team's outline. Secondly, each of us discussed our topics for the final team project, to ensure that our paper and presentation has a structured outline for what is expected during the presentation. Shanda Steele gave insight on her topic of discussion, which will be about employee relations, employee