Army Field Sanitation Powerpoint: Fill & Download for Free

I really like this question because, as an operations intelligence analyst who did lots of work supporting both conventional and special operations around the globe for every branch of the US Military, I spent a lot of time both reading and writing the type of report I think you are talking about.There are three parts to this question:How do I write a military report?How do I make that military report look futuristic?How do I convey information that is important to the narrative of my novel?The first two things you’re going to need to decide is (in-story) “what kind of person is writing this report” and (meta) “what kind of audience am I writing it for?” That’s going to have a major impact on what kind of report you pick. For example, if you’re looking for something that “feels very official” but is kind of arcane and obscure enough that it requires some effort to read, then you’re probably going to want a report that’s specialized for ops intel.Writing the Military ReportOps-Intel reports are highly-structured and information-dense, because a small number of people need to process a large number of reports very quickly. Here’s a PDF that explains how to write them (https://fas.org/irp/agency/usaf/amcdbr.pdf), but the part you’re really going to focus on are the NARR and RMKS fields. Those are where analysts do the story-telling about what happened (again, very matter-of-fact and language-neutral). You’re telling the stories that were relayed to you from someone else, sanitized of names (codenames and callsigns are fine, but not people names). Conciseness is the name of the game here.* A subset of Intel reports are the reports written by intelligence specialists. HUMINT, IMINT, SIGINT, etc. folks often make their reports in PowerPoint because it’s already on the computer and it lets them make pictures to convey information. I produced dozens of these as a contractor with the Army, and they look exactly like they do on the news. Do what they do, and you’ll be good-to-go.Ops reports, though, tend to be very narrative/action-focused. After-Action Reports (AARs) explain what “we” did, or “Phoenix 1” did, or “Support Gunner” did. They’re the first-hand accounts of the people who did the work reflecting on (1) what went wrong, (2) what went right, and (3) what could have been done better. The goals are to provide a first-hand account of the work, but also to contribute to the institutional knowledge of the military and make everyone else better at their jobs by analyzing your experiences. Conciseness is appreciated as a professional courtesy, but isn’t necessarily expected—just remember that the goal is to record the facts of the event, not to make sure the reader understands that you could hear your heart beating in your ears. Nobody cares about how the AAR reader felt, they just want to know what happened.Then, in between these, you have “working papers”, generally of the quick-turn or emergency varieties—then once it’s been converted into some other report, it’s destroyed. This is when you need to quickly get the most important details, right now, and send them out ASAP. For example, a plane lands rearms and launches 20 minutes later—someone will be at the cockpit to jot down the pilot’s notes, because there’s no guarantee that the pilot will be able to talk about it a second time. As you can probably guess, there isn’t a lot of time to offload information in those 20 minutes, and the pilot has a million other things going on… expect a brief (and probably annoyed) explanation of what just happened.Bottom line, here: be concise, focus on the facts, and pick a format based on the tone you want to convey—MISREP/INTREPs are good for highlights, AARs are good for first-hand accounts, working papers are good for “this was an emergency” that happened right now.FuturisticThis one is a little harder to explain. Reports are logistics/administrative in nature, and the US Military runs on logistics. There’s a tendency toward “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, with a very very very narrow definition of “broke.” MISREPs were designed before computing, for storage on paper or transmission over telegraphs in sealed vaults. When the Internet came around, we wrote the same reports into a web-form instead of on a typewriter, and we store them online instead of on paper. The format wasn’t changed, because changing the format requires changing the bureaucracy, and changing the bureaucracy means retraining everyone who knows how to use a MISREP, which means that everyone is a n00b. That’s a major cost to overcome.To convey a sense of futurism while still staying somewhat true-to-life, you’ll need to change the means that the intelligence report is distributed, change the mechanism that the report is made, or both.For example, changing the reporting medium from paper to website didn’t change the format, but it made it possible for any intelligence analyst on the network to read a MISREP moments after it was written. This means that an analyst in California can read an intelligence report moments after an analyst in Afghanistan submits it.You can also change the way that the reporting is done. Video and satellite imagery used to be so tightly controlled that only a handful of people in the US Military even knew it was possible, and now satellite imagery is a global commercial business that anyone can lookup on their smartphone.If, for example, your soldiers had sensors in their gear that recorded and transmitted everything they did back to HQ (which, by the way, is exactly how modern “drone” operations work) then you can eliminate the need for a debrief to begin with: the intelligence analysts who write the reports can tap into the data feed and watch what’s happening in-real-time to write the reports themselves, and then rewind the feeds to find things that the operators missed—and even feed that information directly back to the operators as live-intel—then you have something that is very futuristic but also very grounded in modern science.So my recommendation might be to skip the “written report” altogether and go straight for the person experiencing the report with whatever distribution mechanism you pick—make a 3D projection of the battlespace from the aggregated data of all of the soldier’s sensors and let the reviewer “fly” around the model and “watch” the action unfold for themselves.Convey InformationOnce you have the other two parts figured out, then conveying the information is just a matter of artfully inserting it into the distribution medium. Let’s say you’ve got a McGuffin that you want to tell the reader about.If you put it in a MISREP, then it needs to be overtly meaningful to the person writing the report. Otherwise, it’s a waste of space in the document. This is the kind of thing like “at 1307Z RAIDER-3 attempted to retrieve the McGuffin and was incapacitated by what RAIDER-7 assessed to be an electrostatic discharge. RAIDER team then setup a defensive perimeter…” blah blah blah.If you put it in an AAR, then it doesn’t need to be overtly meaningful, but it must have been impactful to the person telling the story. “RAIDER-3 identified the McGuffin, but attempted to retrieve it before thoroughly checking for traps. Upon contact with the MG, RAIDER-3 was electrocuted and lost consciousness.”If you put it in an image, that’s literally just an annotated map that explains where it is. Probably not what you’re looking for, but worth mentioning.If you put it in working papers, then it’s more unfiltered and probably better explained during the information-collection than anything else; Koal’s focus was broken—yet again—by what was, at this moment, the most useless and irritating man on the station. “He was fucking electrocuted,” he snapped. “He was electrocuted, they showed up, we couldn’t get the shield down, and we CASEVAC-ed without your McGuffin!”Finally, if you put your McGuffin into your futuristic-video-playback thing, then that McGuffin doesn’t even need to be directly noticed by the people who “wrote” the report. You can explain it from the perspective of someone reviewing the feed afterward. “What is that?” Lemay took a few steps closer to the window, and resumed the playback at half-speed. Looking back at him, just over the lip of the window, and for only an instant, were the sickly yellowed eyes of the Jaundiced. The sound of the static sleeve crackling to life was faint but unmistakable.Have fun with it. And I hope this helps.