Talk:Delta Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Delta Force article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force

A show on TV (history channel?) on capturing Pablo Escobar (cocaine kingpin in Columbia in the 1990s) said the Delta force was heavily involved in Columbia as part of that effort (as part of the US response to the President of Columbia's request for help). 4.250.138.184 18:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. As a result I inserted a line about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 October 2005.

MagicBez: There's a small contradiction on this page - Operation Eagle Force is said to have happened in 1979 in the main text but 1980 in the list at the bottom of the page - I don't know which is correct but this discrepancy should probably be fixed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MagicBez (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 July 2005.

"Operation Eagle Claw" was conducted in 1980, but the actual order to spin up the elements required and conduct planning and rehersals may have begun in 1979. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.108.24 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 14 January 2006.

Contents

[edit] What's in a name?

Delta Force is a nickname not an official name, and should be listed as such on the article page. The term Delta Force refers to a Chuck Norris movie by that title. This name is frowned upon in the actual community and if used at all should be listed under nicknames. All instances of Delta Force should be changed to Delta. --SFjarhead 13:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Its common name among the general populace of the world is Delta Force and therefore the article title should be kept as Delta Force. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). -- Necrothesp 10:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Good argument Necrothesp. Using that logic let's label the article on the French "Garlic-Smelling Surrender-Monkeys", change the title of Judaism to "'dem conspirin' jewz", George Bush's wiki to "Dubbya" or perhaps just "dumbass" and the articles on God to the "man upstairs" or Allah. You know, the general populace of the world and all. Friggin' computer-geek civilians. --EdTadk—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.110.245.176 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 November 2005.

I agree, it is the common nickname for this unit. The article should remain the same; Delta Force title should be under the heading of nicknames.--SFjarhead 01:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How about the official title of the page be 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta and have Delta Force as a disambiguation page for links to this page, the game, and the movie? --BenWoodruff 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, one of the linked PDFs states that DELTA recruits from all branches of service, yet the body of the article states that DELTA recruits only from the Army.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 September 2005.

delta is an army organization, but members of the military from any branch may try out for the force. additionally, some recruiting is done from other forces, but on an informal basis. usually such prospective recruits have special operations experience, such as marines from a MEU-SOC. Avriette 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No Marine, Force Recon or otherwise, would even dream of going through selection for Delta. They draw 99% from the Army. Any transfers are likely to be Air Force Combat Controllers, which, from what I've seen, are better soldiers than anything the Army has to offer anyway. Just what I hear. Take it or leave it. Ooh Rah! - Dave—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.14.46 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 October 2005.

The make-up is 100% Army, no Air Force Combat Controllers from what I know from my time at Bragg. To say the AF Combat Controllers are "better soldiers than the Army" is pretty funny. I've yet to see a Combat Controller with anywhere near the leadership experience of an 82d squad leader or the tactical expertise for that matter. I seriously doubt they're capable of leading the tactical movement of a platoon size element and the few I knew certainly weren't friggin' disciplined enough to put up with some of the stuff an average 11B has to deal with. Virgil61 01:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


I dont understand, if Delta is 100% Army, as stated above...why bother with the June, 2002 recruitment trip to Okinawa(USMC)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.100.17 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 March 2006.


The June 2002 Recruitment trip is because there are Army Units (including One Battalion of the 1st Special Forces Group) on Okinawa at Torii Station. (This is -or was- all easily accessible Public knowledge). SFOD-Delta draws 100% from the Army, but their selection is open to every male soldier SPC and above (Branch Qualified Officers in the grade of O-3 or O-4), regardless of SF, Ranger or Airborne affiliation -- provided that they've completed most of their first enlistment (They will be sent to Airborne school prior to operator training if they pass the assessment phase -- Just like Special Forces). That means that SPC Joe the Cook can try out for it and --provided he's in the physical and mental shape and has the character to pass Selection and Assessment-- can become an operator. Additionally, Marines, Sailors and Airmen can service-transfer to the Army (that is, reenlist into, Ala Blue to Green) and then try out for Delta, but they have to transfer to the Army first and may not transfer back if they fail selection (At least until the end of their enlistment. The same is true of those in the Army who transfer into the Navy to become SEALs) -- Just like SAS, this open-selection was the intent of the unit in the first place in order to draw on the potential of all soldiers, not just those in Special Ops. That is, according both to Charlie Beckwith's book "Delta Force" and to the annual Perscom/HRC SFOD-D briefing announcements. SFOD-D briefings are held at least once a year on every major base in every major US ARMY command in the world. SFOD-D Briefing announcements with all of this information used to be available on the Perscom website prior to 2001. They have since been removed. -- A guy who actually pays attention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 April 2006.

[edit] Delta force remain

delta force should remain the way it is.in every special forces guide or encyclopedia etc they are refered to as delta force not just delta.plus it is more recognizable as delta force also personally it sounds better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.202.119 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 August 2005.

Delta Force is such a clicheed, overused term. It is, indeed, cringed at by actual operators. Within the Army Delta Force is known as Delta, D-Boys, or just D. Members of the unit are referred to as 'Operators'. Rumor within military circles has it that the unit has been renamed to Combat Applications Group or CAG. Delta Force is just being thrown around too much, it seems. By comparison, look at the former Seal Team Six, which, due to the brazen blabbermouth Richard Marcinko, had to redesignate itself 'Naval Special Warfare Development Group', or DEVGRU. As secrecy in both the SEALS and Delta intensifies as the war on terror continues, there may come a time when special operators in either unit carry no designation whatsoever. Most direct ops are conducted as part of a Task Force anyway, e.g. Task Force 11 or 22 in Afghanistan, which is an amalgam of operators from all branches of the military. The point is, if the public overuses unit designations they are likely to be changed. Anon—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.14.46 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 October 2005.

No, administratively they will always have some unit identifier, even if working under another unit commanding a taskforce. It's just the way the military is. Combat Applications Group does indeed refer to Delta, but is a very loose umbrella term. Gibson Cowboy 16:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point about overuse. "Delta Force" is an amateurish handle used by civilians. I never heard it refered except as "Delta" while at USASOC. It really should reflect the actual name rather than silly-sounding popular convention. Virgil61 01:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, requiring the average person to type in Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta every time is rediculous. I understand the annoyance the special forces community has at the term "delta force," but that is the common name the public has for it. And unfortunately, most civilians don't have to deal with typical military designations so it's better to keep this simple. Gibson Cowboy 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Revelations 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC) "Deltoids" is a term that I have DF members use when they are referring to others of their rank.


If Charlie Beckwith referred to it as Delta Force (Delta Force at Amazon.com), then I think that Civvies and Wikipedia can get away with it, too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 April 2006.


There is a Delta Force series of movies. Two of the movies The Delta Force and Delta Force 2 already have Wiki pages. There is also a Delta Force video game which has a wiki. Why don't we make a Delta Force disambiguation page? We can give a link to the above and include Delta (US Special Operations Force) as one of the options. This would allow Wiki to have the correct name and allow for the uneducated masses to find the appropriate article. --BenWoodruff 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree Mathmo 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA "DAO" group?

I tried to substantiate the recent diff with a cursory google search, and subsequently found nothing but a bunch of garbage by counterintelligence fanboys. I realize these things are hard to substantiate, but surely somebody can find something? Avriette 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing from that diff I've found that is accurate is the mention that delta recruits from any component (active, guard, reserve) etc. I'm inclined to believe that article is wrong because Delta's training program consists of extreme amounts of practice in MOUT tactics and weapons training (evidenced by Col. Beckwith's book about the creation of delta), and that their training program is very similar to both SFQC/SFAS, and SAS selection. I've never heard anything about any DAO group, but then again if it really existed that wouldn't surprise me. Swatjester 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Links

Links 3 and 5 are dead, from the following: "Since the 1990s, the Army has posted recruitment notices for the 1st SFOD-D [3] [4] [5] (PDF files)" Do they work for anyone else? If not they should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.200.30 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 January 2006.

I've not checked, but I can verify the information is accurate. I've seen the recruitment notices, in fact they're still there in the chow hall that 20th Group uses at Camp Blanding. Swatjester 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That is not the point, I never doubted the accuracy of the info. I just would like someone else to check links 3 and 5. If they are dead for others as well, then they need to be deleted or fixed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.200.30 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 January 2006.

I know. I was just pointing out that the information is still accurate (because the links are dead, it might imply to some that the information is now out of date). Swatjester 04:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JSOC instead of ASOC!!!

  • Hi!

Commanding military institution of the CAG is the JSOC, NOT the ASOC! Even when delta is originally an Army-unit. (MARK S. 00:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Existence of the "Funny Platoon" (yes or not)

Diccussion transferred from Navy Seals because Delta Force is meant. (MARK S. 14:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC))


Yes, Women cannot become Navy SEALs. The only SOF women can become, is Delta Force. This is only a rumour though! It's said there is a platoon within Delta Force called "Funny Platoon" made up of female personnel. Again, this may just be a rumour.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 January 2006.

Incorrect. Women are not allowed to hold combat arms positions in the Army, and any member of Delta Force is a member of 1st Special Forces Group, and still holds an 18 series MOS identifier, which is restricted to males only.Swatjester 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunetly You are incorrect!

Deltas are -NOT- members of 1st SFGroup, but of the "Combat Applicatins Group", formerly known as "1st SFODetachment (Airborne) Delta", which was a separate unit with an ASF-Unit-Name for secrecy reasons. By the way, there are diffrent special forces web-sides where the existence of the "FUNNY PLATOON" IS CONSIDERD AS A MATTER OF FACT(!) (MARK S. 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC))


Unfortunately, no I'm not. "funny platoon" has never been anything more than a rumor. The clear and verifiable fact is that ALL members of Delta ARE technically co-existant members of 1st SFG. They STILL hold an 18 series MOS, and the position is STILL restricted to women. Remember: women in the army are NOT allowed in direct fire combat arms positions. Stop telling me I'm wrong, stop making uncivil comments on this talk page, and instead, try citing your sources. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A google search of [1] comes up with only 320 hits for "funny platoon", all of which are either from unsourced fansites, or refer to it as speculative, with no information to confirm or deny its existance. Everything is "believed to be" or "allegedly" or "supposedly". Out of all those links, the only ones with any little bit of credence are the stars and stripes links (all of which quantify it with "allegedly or believed to be, or supposedly"). I'm sorry but conjecture on blogs, forums, etc. does not equal verifiable facts that Funny platoon actually does exist and employs women. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hallo!

Verifiing actual matters officially classified can obviously not be substantiated by hard(official) sources (as everybody knows). Therefore all the sources I found are inofficial:

  • 1) "The TO (Table of Order) for Delta consists of three operational squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is termed the "Funny Platoon". This funny platoon is reported to be the only JSOC unit including female operators."-http://www.specwarnet.com/americas/delta.htm
  • 2) "The Funny Platoon": This is the in-house Intelligence arm of Delta. They grew out of a long-running dispute/rivalry with ISA. They will infiltrate a country ahead of a Delta intervention to gather intelligence. They are the only US Special Operation Force to employ woman in a combat role (the only other SOF that has employed women at all has been Army Special Forces, and then, only in a training role)."- http://www.delta-green.com/opensource/textbook/socom.html
  • 3) " There is also the Funny Platoon, an intel group that uses female operatives."-http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dngrjobs.htm
  • 4) "Under its umbrella, Delta is said to consist of three operational — direct action shooting — squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is often referred to as the Funny Platoon, believed to be one of the few special operations units allowing female operators among the trigger pullers."-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

Possibly these sources do not meet scientific demands but they are an indication for the "Funny Platoon's existence. (MARK S. 14:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC))


Sorry Mark, but I'm afraid Swatjester's right on the money with this.
Prior to my separation in 2004, I was stationed at Ft. Bragg, assigned to the 313th MI. Now, the problem is that while Delta has a training compound at Bragg, they pretty much keep strictly to themselves, so noone really knew how much of the rumors were truth and what was just speculation. Yes, there were rumors floating around about the "funny platoon" (along with much discussion on the nature of the women assigned), but it was the standard shooting the BS "I know a guy who heard from a guy, who overheard a ..." type of rumor.
The problem with females in Delta is exactly the problem Swatjester pointed out. See, NOONE enlists directly into Delta (that I've ever heard of, anyway). Delta likes to recruit from the 18 series sorts after they've gotten some time under their belts. And women are explicitly barred from selecting an 18 MOS.
As for the links you provided, I certainly don't think I'd call them "an indication for the Funny Platoon's existence". The sites are strictly speculative/fan/fringe sites, to be taken with a large grain of salt. By the same token, I can dig up several sites that are adamant that the 11B's are fighting with railguns and laser weaponry as standard issue. :) Of course, that doesn't make it true.
What the bottom line comes down to is that if Delta's fabled "funny platoon" does exist, the women in it aren't coming from the ranks of the US Army. We don't have a qualified pool for them to draw from. I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that they could be seconded women from DIA/CIA, but that's pure unfounded speculation on my part. It'd take far more convincing documentation to suggest that "funny platoon" is anything more than wistful fantasy. JEJoyce 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Your MOS does not change when you enter Delta Force, nor does Delta Force recruit strictly from the 18 series MOS. SFOD-D is considered a Special Mission Unit (SMU), not a Branch. According to Douglas Waller's extensively researched 1993 book "The Commandos" an idea that involved Female operators was experimented with briefly in the 1980s but dropped almost immediately as unworkable (but not until after some women had gone through a modified selection and assessment course). Waller provides his Sources in the appendix of the book, including JSOC staff and Delta Operators, so I'm inclined to take him at his word. However -- according to the same sources the "Funny Platoon" does currently exist. It is a Military Intelligence platoon attached to SFOD-D. Women can hold nearly any MI position (exceptions being the S2 in Infantry and Armor battalions -- though they can serve as S2 in Engineer and Aviation BNs as well as at the Brigade level), so I see no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand, especially since women can serve in SOCOM in CA and PsyOp capacities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 April 2006.

the previous comment is correct. females can hold any position in a support unit, such as special forces support or ranger support. the same would hold true for a support unit for delta. Parsecboy 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involved in Peruvian Operation?

I believe there is some speculation that Delta was involved in the raid that ended the Japanese embassy hostage crisis in Lima, Peru a few years back. Anyone have any vis on this? I also remember seeing a video that was shot right after the incident where the raid force all gathered in a courtyard and were supposed to be singing the Peruvian national anthem and there were obviously some very European looking individuals who had no idea what the words to the song were. They were just moving their lips to make it look like they were singing. Am I way off on this or is there anything official that may warrant mentioning it in the article?

I heard the rumor too, but nothing to substantiate it. ⇒ SWATJester eady Aim Fire! 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, found on GlobalSecurity.org : A small advance team was sent to Lima, Peru immediately following the takeover of the Japanese Ambassador's residence in January 1997 along with six members of the British SAS.. Delta can frequently operate "observators" and/or support teams, as it is said for Brigadier General James L. Dozier kidnapping.

[edit] Recruitment and training?

In recruitment it says that Delta is only for Army green berets and Rangers who want to try out for it(or are asked I guess). However, links under Background show a recuitment ad for all millitary personel to come to a 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta orentation. It lists a bunch of requirments that someone must first have but it specifically states that Delta is open to people from other services.

Which one is right? Is delta open to all branches or not? It's a little unclear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Docbrown777 (talk • contribs).

Err, in that context, branches means "branches of service" i.e. Army, Navy, etc. For the past couple of years, Delta has been open to any member of the US army who wants to apply, however, they must in the process pass all the requirements for the US Army Special Forces. Therefore, all members of Delta are a priori members of US Army Special Forces....they just got there from different places. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delta is open to all Branches of the US ARMY, not Branches of Service. Members of other services must transfer to the Army to apply. Delta has always (since its inception) been open to members from all Branches, as patterned after the British SAS. Delta Selection and Assessment is similar in concept to SF Selection and Assessment, but the training itself is not. The only "SF" standards that Delta operators must meet are the Physical Training standards, which are essentially the same PT Standards as Airborne requirements (70% in all categories at the 17-21 level). Any male in the Army who wants to try can submit a packet. When their packet is reviewed, they may be invited to attend the selection course. Ranger and SF status by themselves do not confer special status for selection purposes. (although you are more likely to find people who can pass the A/S course among SF and Rangers, that's correlation, not causation) Once in the Delta Pipeline (upon completion of Selection and Assessment), and upon completion of the Operator's Training Course, these soldiers fall under the auspices of SOCOM and on that basis are considered Special Operations Forces. However, they are not 18 series, nor do they undergo any 18 series training, so they are not "Special Forces". There is a difference between SOF and SF, so Swatjester's statement is misleading.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 April 2006.
So is the Delta Force considered a more elite force than say the Green Barrets (Army Special Forces)? Zachorious 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
They're different. Delta's principal task is counter-terrorism, whereas Green Berets' operations involve mainly unconventional warfare and direct action. --Nkcs 02:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Green Berets are supposed to do mostly training of rebels allied with the US for Spec. Ops style campaigns. MikeNM 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

69.162.53.104 is wrong on the airborne standards ( i realize, nitpicking). they are not 70-70-70, they are 60-60-60. i attended jump school in nov. 2004, and unless they've changed since then (which is highly unlikely) that's what they remain. Parsecboy 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I was by Ft. Benning (earlier this year) the PT standard was 60 60 60 to pass the army standard: BUT US Army Airborne school required a 70-70-70 by the start of Tower Week. SFAS requires a 70-70-70 minimum, on top of the required standards for airborne school and army standard. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

since when do you take a 2nd pt test at jump school? there isn't enough time for 2 pt tests. although, my roommate actually got back from jump school today, so i'll ask him when he's around. i'll let you know what he says... Parsecboy 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Read again what I said: You don't take 2 PT tests: But if your first PT test you score 60-60-60, you have to improve by Tower Week. Like I said, things may have changed, but ask your friend, I'd like to know for certain. And regardless it doesn't matter: SFAS requires 70-70-70. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

i realize what you said. but in the army, if you don't prove it on paper (i.e., on a pt test) nothing has occurred. and even if what you say is the standard, there aren't too many nco's in the army who care enough to actually verify progress without being forced to hold a 2nd pt test. Parsecboy 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undercover with long hair and moustaches

One of several operations in which Delta Force operators are thought to have played important roles was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They allegedly entered Baghdad in advance, undercover with long hair and moustaches..

The last bit of that seems like it could be false. As it happens, I don't know that much about the subject, and am most probably wrong, hence why I didn't make a change. Just let me know if I did correctly, so that I can learn in future.--Dreaded Walrus 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction

Fiction, as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary: "Invention or fabrication as opposed to fact." Folks have been persistently editing this article with citations from The Unit, a show on CBS; 24, a show on FOX; and Deception Point, a novel by Dan Brown; among others — and these citations are, to say the least, inappropriate. Small wonder the mainstream doesn't take this project seriously, if you're going to publish an encyclopedia that asserts certain facts to be true based on their depiction in dramatic works. Cribcage 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing my best to remove any such edits. It's a disrespect to Delta operators that such assertions and citations exist. Anyway, that's why we have a "Delta force in popular culture" section. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delta casualties

I've put together a list of Delta soldiers that have died in action since the beginning of the unit. Given the secrecy of the unit, a death is one of the few times the unit is even somewhat tacitly acknowledge by the Pentagon, which doesn't even list the unit in the press release announcing the soldier's death, choosing only to say the soldier was assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command. I think this would be a good addition to this page but wanted to run it past others before adding to the page. Thanks. Dsw 11:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You could conceivably make an article called "List of US Army Special Operations Command soldiers who have died in action" but since you have no way to explicitly verify that they were in Delta, you cannot include it in the article as per WP:V and WP:CITE. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the sacrifice is the same if a person was delta or a fry cook on the USS Missouri. I agree that a page for soldiers who died in service might be good, but long, as it really should include all the names available for all conflicts. I am not sure if it would get vandalized if it is even possible to make such a list. Perhaps some sort of clearing procedure would need be dreamed up and obviously restrict user posting. I am sure there are databases with list of Fallen Soldiers somewhere that could be used. One nice thing about such a list would be that families, friends, comrades, could then link to a page in memory for each of the fallen, in those pages information like citations, unit, branch, or other information could be included. Just my 2 cents. Mantion 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, you generally can't verify which unit KIA's come from, and even if you could, you certainly couldn't verify that they were delta. If you can't verify it, you can't include it.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re-orginize

The article seems to be a bit confusing. This is typical when it is contributed and then edited. I think that reorganizing it would be beneficial.

First the "background" section jumps right into the failed 1980 mission then goes on some random tangents. I think starting over or deleting the section entirely. I think that "Delta force in modern conflicts" could be changed to "Delta in conflicts" and include all operations including the ones listed in the Second "Operations".

Maybe expanding some sections and adding some, like people credited with delta's formation. Also the term "Delta Force" is used a bit too much and though it is common in popular culture it is kind of annoying to some. Delta would be just fine. It is like people who say "PIN Number" which is redundant and annoying because the "N" Stand for number already. Anyways, "Delta" or "1st SFOD-D" would be better then delta force

Well there is a bunch of changes I think could stream line things and improve flow, just want to hear other's idea before anything is done.Mantion 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, that where it says "Delta Force" should be changed to "Delta". ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/l/Talk%7EDelta_Force_4506.html"