There's a difference between Liaison Officers and Exchange Officers. The latter are usually instructors, the LOs are staff officers. They usually use the Brit and Aust Exchange officers to train the rugby teams around OK.

Yes. I know.

I still aint had an answer to the question. ;) What do they do, is it to ensure inter-operability between nations, is it a training deal where foreign nations are taught US artilery doctrine or what? Does the same exist at the Armor School at Ft Knox?

sorry to abuse the forum flow, but can you plse check your emails. I've sent you a q.

Which email GF? artyengineer@hotmail.com, my personal hotmail email or my BAE Systems email?

"Which email GF? artyengineer@hotmail.com, my personal hotmail email or my BAE Systems email? " ROFLMAO. so much for me trying to be discrete. ;) I PM'd you via DT - so whatever email you registered with would be the one!

Ah yes, return to the subject. Interoperability is, of course, a much abused term. However, NATO defines it quite well and you can find the definition in the NATO Glossary, I don't have the URL to hand. With artillery there are probably two key needs, the ability to use the ammunition of different nations in the guns of different nations. The other is the ability to direct and control the guns of another nation. This has actually got more complicated with the appearance of data systems, and even modern voice radios, particularly when encrypted can get complicate too. However, the basic procedural stuff is straightforward. In 1965/6 the ABCA nations agreed a QSTAG. This allows an observer, etc, of one nation to talk to the guns (or a fire direction element) of another. The slight complicator is that the US uses what the agreement calls 'system 2' and the ABC use 'system 1' (I might have 1 and 2 the wrong way about!) It is concerned with the difference between ordering (ABC) and requesting (US) fire. In 1965/6 these nations changed their procedures to the agreed ones, although those of us around at the time found it mainly cosmetic (ie terminology), not much of substance. Subsequently, NATO adopted the QSTAG as a STANAG (actually IIRC its an ATP or something). Data systems are another matter, the first agreement was STANAG 5620 which was a set of some 50 messages (including NBC defence), basically taken from the TACFIRE set and using 'character oriented messages'. Subsequently VMF has been adopted. In an arty system all the messages are machine processable, in other words a man can compose them but a computer can automatically process and action them. Of course there's rather more to data systems interoperability than this! Not least the UK BATES system had to create a heap more messages and add sets and fields to many of the STANAG ones.

All of the TRADOC schools have exchange officers and LNOs. Here at FT Lee there is an Australian exchange officer at the Army Logistics Management College, a Brit RLC officer in the Quartermaster school and Germans in the Combined Arms Support Command. A Pole is supposed to join this fall. I rememeber FT Benning having Germans, ROKs, Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Brits, Venezuelans, Italian, Japanese, Israeli, Egyptian and USMC and USAF LNOs and exchange officers. They all taught classes (a Kiwi major was my chief instructor for task force defense tactics, an Aussie taught us company in the attack and a Venezuelan taught us counter insurgency) Armor school had much the same.

Got the message and provided info.