Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

to confirm, a grammar question

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • to confirm, a grammar question

    hello folks,

    I would like to talk about something that has been ocurring quite often when I was playing on TG.
    they were saying sentences like "I confirm." or "confirmed." as an equivalent to "I understand", "copy that", "roger".
    everytime I hear them saying that I ask myself: "what do you confirm?"
    in my opinion there is a context missing, the therm to confirm something particuarly.

    like "the spotted APC is confirmed to be an armed M113", "the time for attack, 1330, is confirmed",
    "spotted forces are confirmed hostile", "I confirm spotted enemy force to be 15 times infantry in the open",
    "I confirm, 1iC is down".

    am I thinking right? if not, explain please.

    greetz
    what's the value of so called "tactics" and "teamwork", when I am better and faster alone?

  • #2
    Re: to confirm, a grammar question

    con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms
    1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.


    Confirming something is to agree, support or establish the validity of or verifying that the given information is correct. All the above terms are correct to use as this helps to keep comms brief and understandable.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: to confirm, a grammar question

      Copy that or roger that should simply mean "I understand" your last transmission,order. Confirmed can mean the same thing depending on the military service and country you served with. The english language is twisted and difficult even for those that claim it as their own, let alone for those that it is not. So you can confirm that you understand someones last order by saying "copy that", a much shorter version of "I confirm that I heard and understand and will carry out your last order". That is my take on it, not an english major.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: to confirm, a grammar question

        In radio transmissions, "I confirm" should honestly be avoided almost entirely since there really is no need to validate anything being said as everything being said should be truthful and validated already. The presence of "confirmed" indicates that you are making assessments or assumptions on the radio which are unnecessary. Asking for confirmation, "Can you confirm if the units in GL512817 are friendly?" is much more acceptable than wasting the air to confirm something that didn't necessarily need it.

        When speaking from a radio, the prowords used should be "ROGER (I have received your transmission, understood it, and acknowledge it)" and "WILCO (I have received your tramission, understood it, acknowledge it, and will comply)". The misuse of prowords stems from a tangible lack of knowledge on the subject from the playerbase.

        I will use the OP's examples with appropriate prowords and radio transmission examples to hopefully educate on why things like "confirmed" should not be said anyway.


        Originally posted by Koepi
        the spotted APC is confirmed to be an armed M113
        This is a good example of extraneous radio traffic. So, in this example, the initiator (referred to as A) has told the receiver (B) that there is an APC, possibly an M113 in their vicinage and B is confirming that assessment. But if A has already said it's an M113, there is no need to "confirm" the make of the APC because it has already been established that the APC is an M113 or is suspected to be. The only traffic that would need to be given regarding the identity of the APC is if it were NOT an M113.

        In practice, with prowords capitalised:
        A: B, THIS IS A, possible enemy APC two zero zero metres azimuth 180 of your position, OVER.
        B: A, THIS IS B, ROGER.
        B: A, THIS IS B, APC is an M113, OVER. [SALT REPORT]

        There is no need for A to speculate on the identity if he is not sure. Just like when calling out any other contact report, getting the details precisely correct is not necessary. Merely letting B know there is an APC in their proximity is more than enough.

        Originally posted by Koepi
        spotted forces are confirmed hostile
        This again implies that there was any question. If you are "confirming hostiles", you should be giving a contact report and reporting to higher that you have taken soft contact, not "confirming hostiles". In this case, it might be prudent for A to talk with C before talking with B about the presence of enemy units in the area.

        A: C, THIS IS A, do we have any friendlies in GL981854, OVER?
        C: A, THIS IS C, NEGATIVE.
        A: C, THIS IS A, ROGER. BREAK. B, THIS IS A, you have enemy infantry maneuvering near you to your southwest, OVER.
        B: A, THIS IS B, ROGER. [SALT REPORT TO FOLLOW]

        What you've done is completely remove the need to "confirm" anything. If it's not hostiles -- perhaps civilians? -- then there is no issue and everyone can stand down and sleep soundly. If it is, you go into your SALT report, conduct SLLS, and carry on with the mission.


        Originally posted by Koepi
        I confirm spotted enemy force to be 15 times infantry in the open
        Again, an immediate contact report and SALT report is a better option. No need to confirm anything. Let the people that can see it give the information instead of speculation. If you don't know the size of the enemy force, then don't give one. There's no sense in taking up airtime with "I think it's about 20 guys in the open" and having it confirmed. If there is a legitimate threat, it doesn't matter if it's one or one hundred guys.

        Originally posted by Koepi
        I confirm, 1iC is down
        I hear this one all the time too. This is just an example of not reporting important information properly in the first place.

        B: C, THIS IS B, A is down. B taking command. OVER.
        C: B, THIS IS C, ROGER.

        Nothing changes. Compare that to what we hear all the time...

        C: B, can you see A? Are they down?
        B: Yeah, I confirm A is down.
        C: Okay roger.

        It's not much, but you're taking up more time with unnecessary information and questions. If you can see someone is down, and it's a mission-changing injury (i.e. a team leader, squad leader, or anyone else involved in C2) then it needs to be reported immediately. Example, from a fireteam level.

        FTM2: Team, this is 2, 1 is down. I am taking command.
        FTM3: Roger.
        FTM4: Roger.
        FTM2: Command, THIS IS 2, 1 is down. 2 is in command of Alpha fireteam. WAIT. My intent is [...]
        C: Alpha 2, THIS IS C, ROGER.

        Does that all make sense? If what you're saying on the radio does not add anything to the pool of knowledge shared by all units, or does not require action, then it doesn't need to be said.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: to confirm, a grammar question

          There ya go, everything you ever need know. I wish I could delete my puny attempt at answering your question.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: to confirm, a grammar question

            I feel like I should expound, to be more clear.

            "Confirmation" itself is not a bad thing. But what I was addressing is mainly the extraneous traffic tied into requesting confirmation.

            If you are looking to verify a transmission, the proword is "VERIFY". You can use other prowords, such as "ALL BEFORE" or "ALL AFTER" or "WORD BEFORE" or "WORD AFTER" to make more clear a transmission. If tranmission is particularly difficult, you can even ask for "WORDS TWICE" (which would be like saying A THIS IS B, A THIS IS B, WE ARE PINNED DOWN REQUESTING IMMEDIATE EVAC, WE ARE PINNED DOWN REQUESTING IMMEDIATE EVAC, OVER.)

            When requesting confirmation, the prowords are "CORRECT (what you have transmitted is correct)" and "WRONG (your transmission was incorrect, the correct version is _____)".

            In use:
            B: A, THIS IS B, VERIFY ALL AFTER "APC" IS "IS AN M113", OVER?
            A: B, THIS IS A, CORRECT, OVER.

            Saying "SAY AGAIN" is also acceptable, if not preferred.

            B: A, THIS IS B, SAY AGAIN WORD AFTER "AN", OVER. [Alternatively, SAY AGAIN ALL AFTER "APC IS AN"]
            A: B, THIS IS A, I SAY AGAIN "M113". I SPELL MIKE WUN WUN THREE, OVER.

            Generally, "I SPELL" is used with proper nouns, especially names or city names since those are easily misheard. If you are concerned a unit is not properly receiving your traffic, you can request a "READ BACK", which is when the addressee reads back the entire message as it was received.

            A: B, THIS IS A, move your men WUN FIEF ZERO metres azimuth ZERO SIX ZERO to building GOLF WUN TWO. READ BACK, OVER.
            B: A, THIS IS B, I READ BACK move your men WUN FIEF ZERO metres azimuth ZERO SIX ZERO to building GOLF WUN TWO, OVER.
            A: B, THIS IS A, CORRECT. A OUT.


            If you mess up a transmission, instead of saying "UHHHHH" or something like that, get in the habit of saying "CORRECTION" which is a fancy way of saying, "I goofed up, let me start back over with the last word properly transmitted". You can also use "CORRECTION" to transmit a corrected version of a message in answer to a request for verification. Generally, I use "CORRECTION" to just start back at the last word I didn't goof on.

            If you are mid-traffic and find your entire transmission to be in error, just say, "DISREGARD THIS TRANSMISSION -- OUT". Do not use DISREGARD THIS TRANSMISSION when a message has already been received and acknowledged though.

            Comment


            • #7
              to confirm, a grammar question

              There is a TGU library that should clarify most if not all covered here.

              If you need practice, ask the TGU staff to assist.

              TGU Instructor · TG Pathfinder

              Former TGU Dean · Former ARMA Admin · Former Irregulars Officer

              "Do not seek death. Death will find you. But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment." - Dag Hammarskjold

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: to confirm, a grammar question

                thank you for your answers.

                @ Lord Fuzzywig

                fuzzywig, thank you for eloborating in logical and how-it-should-be-done and how-to-work-around matters.
                much more than a TGU library can give to me and I try to value it fairly.
                my radio examples are of course shortened.
                I really agree on your argument not to waste the radio bandwith with unecessary information,
                but in this case, we, I, simply assume that it is necessary.
                unfortunately often things occur to me that are not very logical and come with a huge change in plan or whatever,
                so before I carry out that task I'd like to have it confirmed.

                M113 example.
                In my imagination there was radio traffic before like:

                "A this is B, enemy APC sighted at location X, over"
                "B this is A, understood, enemy APC sighted. Interrogative, can you identify Type and verify wether it is armed, over"


                1iC is down example.

                "A, this is B, we failed to recieve any response from actual and RTO of X, can you confirm/verify Lead of X is down?"


                so I try to summarize to my open questions, the core:

                1. can/ should you use "confirm" as a synonym for "verify"?

                2. are these verbs, if equal in its sence, depending on additional information?

                3. is it possible or adviced to respond by saying "I confirm, over" or "I verify, over".

                greetz
                what's the value of so called "tactics" and "teamwork", when I am better and faster alone?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: to confirm, a grammar question

                  Originally posted by kOepi123 View Post
                  I really agree on your argument not to waste the radio bandwith with unecessary information,
                  but in this case, we, I, simply assume that it is necessary.
                  Unneeded radio traffic is never necessary. Again, it comes from improper or incomplete education on the matter, which is to be expected since many people do not come from a military or law-enforcement background. The only reason it is "necessary" is to cater to the people that don't know better. Think of it like not knowing how to use an elevator. The stairs are there if you don't know how, but the elevator will get you there faster and with less effort once you take the time to learn. :)

                  Originally posted by Koepi
                  unfortunately often things occur to me that are not very logical and come with a huge change in plan or whatever,
                  so before I carry out that task I'd like to have it confirmed.
                  This stems from the idea that everyone has to know everything about the battlefield. When you are a rifleman, your only concern is staying alive and making sure they other guy dies if he's in the way of you and your objective.

                  As a FTL, your only concern is accomplishing the squad leader's objective to the best of your ability with the team you have. It seems a lot of people get all caught up with assisting other FTs when they are engaged. Let the other team deal with it. If you're not actively engaged, then don't get actively engaged. You don't need to know how many people there are or what their composition is. Your primary focus is dealing with threats to YOUR team.

                  As a SL, the same as the FTL applies. You should focus on using your squad to the best of its abilities, while coordinating your fireteams to deal with threats to the squad as a whole. If FT A is engaged, that doesn't mean that FT B needs to help. Maybe telling FT A to break contact and set up a hasty ambush is better. Even a squad leader doesn't need to know everything. Periodic ACE, SALT, LOCSTATs and SITREPs are all you need to keep track of your units on the battlefield.

                  Basically, what I'm saying is that less is more. If you know everything about the battlefield, you know too much. Let the person above you deal with C2 by keeping them informed with as much pertinent information as possible, but in as brief a form as possible. If you've taken contact, you don't even have to report it immediately. Report it when there is a lull in the firefight. Make sure your men are safe and then deal with the reporting. Too often, we hear, "FT A is engaged with EI! Do you need assistance?" or "I'm hearing shots to my west, who's shooting?"

                  Let people do their job. If they're shooting, they're probably in a bad situation and don't need to be bothered with radio traffic. Let them do their job, get safe, and then deal with it. If the bosses are doing their job, they'll know who's being shot at anyway and will already be working on a plan.

                  Originally posted by Koepi
                  "A this is B, enemy APC sighted at location X, over"
                  "B this is A, understood, enemy APC sighted. Interrogative, can you identify Type and verify wether it is armed, over"
                  Well, again, this is about knowing too much and violating the B of the ABCs of radio communication -- Accuracy, brevity, clarity. You've said almost three sentences in the addressee's response.

                  If you know there's an APC, it doesn't matter if it's a Vodnik, BTR, BMP, M113, or a BFV. The only thing that matters is that it's an APC and should be avoided or dealt with. If it's an active threat, then destroy it. If it's not, then avoid it. That's like trying to speculate whether the APC has infantry in it or not. It doesn't matter. Treat it like it does. APCs are dangerous whether they have a gun or not. =]

                  Originally posted by Koepi
                  "A, this is B, we failed to recieve any response from actual and RTO of X, can you confirm/verify Lead of X is down?"
                  Again, trying to know too much. It doesn't matter what happened to them. What difference does it make if they're dead or not? You try to raise them, get no response. Try a relay through another unit. If the relay doesn't work and no one has used the chain of command to report they are taking command of X, then you have a breakdown of C2 within that team and need to deal with it appropriately.

                  I'm reminded of a mission where I played with OPS, Irnesto, and Chichco. Chichco rolled out from a corner and took a round to the chest. OPS tried to help him and also was incapacitated. I dealt with the threat -- Irnesto did not speak English, so I was on my own -- and then cycled through 343 channels and tried to reach every other FT. No one responded. I took OPS's radio and reported the situation to higher. I told them, simply, "<Callsign> 2, 1 and 3 down and I am taking command of the unit. We are combat ineffecitve. My grid is..." At this point, probably two minutes had passed, but it felt like 5-10. Higher took note, and were unable to help. I needed help a long time ago, and OPS and Chichco were going to die if I didn't help them, so I found out where the medics were and drove them to the medic and continued commanding the team until OPS was combat effective again.

                  If that's not happening every time, then there needs to be some re-education. I didn't say, "We took hard contact and my team is down and I'm alone here, please send help." I took charge, led my team to where they needed to be to get help, and relieved command when the original leader was back in the fight thanks to some quick medic action. Everyone should do the same.

                  Originally posted by Koepi
                  1. can/ should you use "confirm" as a synonym for "verify"?
                  Can you? Yes. Should you? No. PROWORDS are PROWORDS for a reason, and mixing-and-matching words and synonyms means not everyone is on the same page.

                  Using VERIFY in a sentence:
                  "A, THIS IS B, VERIFY WORD BEFORE "can" is I SPELL "X-ray"?"
                  "B, THIS IS A, CORRECT. OUT."

                  Originally posted by Koepi
                  2. are these verbs, if equal in its sence, depending on additional information?
                  VERIFY means you've received the information but want to make sure (as an example, I heard the grid you wanted me to go to, but I want to make sure I got it correctly even though there was not a READ BACK order). When you're asking for "confirmation", you're asking for MORE information or validation of information you do not already have, which -- if everyone is reporting things appropriately -- should not even be necessary. Let's look at another quick example.

                  FTM in direct-chat: "I see movement about 300m out there. Are those guys confirmed as friendly?"
                  FTL to Command: "Comm, this is FTL1, my team has possible soft contact 300m azimuth 250. Do we have friendly units in GRID 123456? Over."
                  Command to FTL: "FTL1, this is Comm, negative. I say again negative. Over."
                  FTL1 to FTM in direct-chat: "No friendlies in that area. PID and fire at will."
                  FTL1 gives SALT report and again makes sure that higher knows FTL1 has soft contact and intends to hold position and fire at will.

                  It's okay to use "confirmed <whatever>" in direct, but not on the radio. Think of an Apache pilot or something saying, "Those are confirmed friendlies west of the river."
                  What he's saying is, "I have already checked and I can say with certainty that the units west of the river are friendly."

                  Originally posted by Koepi
                  3. is it possible or adviced to respond by saying "I confirm, over" or "I verify, over".
                  VERIFY is a request. CORRECT/WRONG/ROGER are the appropriate responses to requests for verification. So, in short, no.

                  I know I sound like a robot at this point, but again -- avoid using "confirm" altogether. Anything that you can respond to with "I confirm" would have been an inappropriately-worded question.
                  "1, this is 2, can you confirm your men are at the building?"
                  "2, this is 1, I confirm we are all here."

                  I mean, how much easier would it be to just say,

                  "1, this is 2, in position."
                  "1, roger."

                  If 1 didn't get the transmission, 2 should just repeat it or relay it until it IS heard. No need for confirming anything because the situation was properly reported in the first place. :)

                  Hope that helps, Koepi.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: to confirm, a grammar question

                    Place saved for proper reply.
                    |TG-189th| Unkl
                    ArmA 3 Game Officer
                    Dean of Tactical Gamer University
                    189th Infantry Brigade Member
                    SUBMIT A RIBBON NOMINATION OR CONTACT AN ARMA ADMIN
                    "We quickly advance in the opposite direction and take cover in a house on the SW side of town." - BadStache

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: to confirm, a grammar question

                      uh ja, fuzzy.

                      I dont even know if I could compete with that detail in a discussion...
                      lol
                      thanks anyways.

                      "using the stairs more often, makes you fast as an elevator " :P

                      "verify" not equal "confirm"
                      "verify" message implies a yes/no question and asks for the answer "correct" or "wrong".
                      "confirm" message asks for more information that has not been told already.

                      again, the same as I wanted to assume that the question in my examples are in fact necessary, for the moment they appear to, at least,
                      and I understand your argument about not knowing all so you can concentrate about your own responsibilites.
                      As I see it, we can only get better, if we practise, since we dont go for actual radio training or communication training
                      and even if, it wouldnt be enough, I would like to, I am, using the game time to practise, so every word is practise.
                      if I would hold down to that not knowing too much condition, it would not be possible to learn that fast from it.
                      So in my opinion its more important to learn the vocabulary first and then, what to talk about ^^.

                      About knowing to much, when there is no clear briefing or the mission (plan) changes during the execution or
                      when there is only a briefing over the radio with only one carrier of information, because he doesnt pass it
                      to his teammates, you cannot avoid many questions.
                      this refers to training again, but you cannot learn it really while playing, because when somethings goes wrong,
                      not many care enough to talk about why things went wrong.

                      about the should-not-be-necessary-if-all-went-well, I would like to prepare for the things that can go wrong.
                      even when I see your point in it, but it only refers to -> training.

                      fuzzy, if anything I summarized out of your answers is correct, I would like to close this, cause I am all satisfied.

                      thanks
                      what's the value of so called "tactics" and "teamwork", when I am better and faster alone?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: to confirm, a grammar question

                        Originally posted by kOepi123 View Post
                        "confirm" message asks for more information that has not been told already.
                        Right. But, again, "CONFIRM" is not a PROWORD. And while that isn't to say that you must only use PROWORDS on the radio, it's important to not confuse them and use them appropriately. If you need to ask for confirmation of something, that means there's a breakdown of communication and C2.

                        Originally posted by Koepi
                        fuzzy, if anything I summarized out of your answers is correct, I would like to close this, cause I am all satisfied.
                        Pretty much, you've got it. Training is the key. When you think you've trained on it enough, train some more.

                        Getting on TS3 with someone and practicing mock-up situations makes it a lot easier to understand than a bunch of words on a screen. If I see you around, I'd be more than happy to go through some radio comms training one-on-one with some mock-ups. =]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: to confirm, a grammar question

                          alright "confirm" is not part of "official" radio / communications vocabulary.

                          I would like to accept that opportunity to get some uncensored accurate information from the original source. see you around.
                          what's the value of so called "tactics" and "teamwork", when I am better and faster alone?

                          Comment

                          Connect

                          Collapse

                          TeamSpeak 3 Server

                          Collapse

                          Advertisement

                          Collapse

                          Twitter Feed

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X