Talk:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
archive of Mar 2005 copyvio issues
[edit] Re: Final Word?
I have no objections here. I still believe the article turned out for the better regardless of the copyvio fiasco.
The webmaster at the specialforces website never responded, so it is up to you whether you want to believe me or not.
Tin_soldier 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Marine Recon Battalions (?)
I remember when creating the article I put a statement stating that Force Recon is, at least to the point we are interested in, unrelated to Marine Recon Battalions, and stated that there was not yet an article on Wikipedia about Marine Recon Battalions.
But since you wrote one, thats great! I'll put up a link when I have time, or if you feel like doing it, go ahead.
- Tin
EDIT: Rewritten! First sentence in article in italics.
Tin_soldier 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Marine Recon Battalions (?)
In response to the link at the top of this page: I found a fledgling article titled "recon battalions" that I've cleaned up and renamed/redirected to "Marine Recon Battalions". I have absolutely no knowledge of this subject, but if that article suits you, you may remove the link at the top of this page (or provide a disambiguation link instead). If the article I created is incorrect (again, I know nothing of what I cleaned up), feel free to either mark it for deletion or fix it. CapeCodEph 01:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Final Word?
I actually thought I had removed or reformatted this section when I did the rewrite, but it must have slipped my mind. It does not seem, to me, that this paragraph falls in line with the normal standards of article content on Wikipedia, insomuch as it draws conclusions in an essay or opinion piece format, when policy is fairly clearly in favor of presenting only factual information and presenting opinions only in the form of cited references, if vital to the article. I'll give any interested parties a chance to have a say before I do anything.
Fox1 14:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Needs Work
Stumbled upon this article today while doing some heavy maintenance on United States Marine Corps, and it has a lot of good information. I do think it has a lot of room for improvement, however, and I'm going to take a crack at it in the coming weeks. Like I said, most of the information is very good, and quite inclusive, but the style, NPOV, and keeping to the topic at hand could use some work. Fox1 15:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anecdotal
Is it necessary to include the part about the M4 being ineffective in the MidEast? That sections is more "primary source" than anything else and seems very anecdotal.
I think it is important because it indicates the need for evaluation of the weapon. Considering the fact that most units are now incorporating the M4 weapon into their CQB role. "Special forces" magazine (i think) had a first hand account of a Army spec ops guy that shot two tangos, dropped them, cleared the room, only to get shot when the tangos recovered. In sum, I think that this is an issue facing units involved in CQB and thus at least needs to get mentioned.
- That note needs to be rewritten to provide a view of the (ongoing) controversy regarding the 5.56 round, without the excessively anecdotal "soldier I met once" perspective, or implying that some ad hoc majority of the armed forces have found it ineffective and it's simply still in use due to organizational inertia. There IS controversy over the round, that may bear mentioning, but we need to NPOV it. Fox1 14:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- After rereading the note, I changed my mind and removed it. None of that information adds anything useful to an article specifically concerning Force Recon. If you'd like to contribute this information to wikipedia, maybe take a look at editting M16 Rifle, 5.56_x_45_mm_NATO, M4 Carbine, or maybe special forces or War_on_Terrorism. Fox1 15:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Debate June 2004
You think we should put the prices for the different gears?
Ty JohnCrawford for photo alignment.
- I'm curious as to why this was done. I'm not saying that I disagree with the practice, it provides some interesting information, in a way, but I would like to know a little about the reasoning behind listing the prices. I don't believe I've run across a similar treatment of equipment on another wiki page.
- Fox1 14:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I was also curious about the comments like ......This kit is available to civilians, with prices for the FSBE vest body starting at $500 USD. This price does not include load bearing pouches or hard ballistic armor inserts...... While it does seem interesting from a gearhead point of view, some of the comments almost read as an advertisement. I doubt they are meant to be but it sort of comes off like that. I realize that a lot of people, say law enforcement officers looking for marijuana, might like to dress up with the same kit as SF soldiers. However, they can look up the prices on their own time, in my opinion. It's cool to list the equipment but the price isn't really that important for an educational article. Maybe a dedicated article about common aftermarket equipment used by soldiers would be more appropriate. Other than that, an interesting and informative article. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Gabe 02 September 2006
[edit] MEU(SOC) pistol
The MEU(SOC) pistol is assembled from surplus GI 1911A1 frames and Springfield or Caspian slides. There are no Kimber parts involved. Kimber frames and slides are not used to make the MEU(SOC) pistol. Kimber made about 100 Interim CQB pistols for MCSOCOM Detachment One. The ICQB pistol is only for Det1. It is not a replacement for the MEU(SOC) pistol. Det1 was never issued any MEU(SOC) pistol. Before the Kimber ICQB, Det1 made use of 50 Springfield Professional Models, similar to the ones in use by FBI SWAT. Kimber has not been given any contract for the MEU(SOC) pistol or the Improved MEU(SOC) pistol. Also, the MEU(SOC) pistol is only used by Force Recon and SOTG instructors. Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) and Military Police Special Reaction Teams (SRTs) use the Beretta M9. They do not use 1911s of any sort.
[edit] Author credit
Original Authors: Maio, Tin soldier 'Shrimp' All help is sincerely appreciated...
[edit] Training?
There's almost nothing here about the training they receive. On the other hand, for example, the Navy SEALs article covers training in detail... might be good to add, for someone who knows more than I do. Pakaran 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I noticed the lack of information on training also, and I think that information about it should be added to this article to bring it more in line with the articles about other special forces organizations--Tabun1015 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Combat Readiness?
There seems to be a contradiction in the readiness section of the sidebar. The text reads "Any shore in the world within six (4) hours of first notice." Could someone perhaps fix this? I would myself, but I am not sure of the actual readiness.
Mask 17:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I also strongly wonder about whether this means they must be at any shore, or ready to assemble and leave for any shore. I don't believe an aircraft exists which can get anywhere in the world in 6 hours (though, with in-flight refueling, some could probably come close, they'd be ridicously expensive to use for transporting trools). -- Pakaran 04:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I am sorry. Perhaps I should have elaborated. What I mean is the diffferance in the spelled out "six" and parenthetical "4". Is the readiness six or four? I do see your point, however, about the readiness. The SEAL page, in fact, states four hours notice, a detail I thought a bit ridiculous.
It's actually accurate, because the teams are forward pre-positioned around the world. Should a crisis pop up in south america, they can leave from Camp Pendleton, or in the carribean from Camp Lejeune. In Asia from Okinawa. In the middle east from one of the naval groups that's always in the med. Or from any number of places. PS: the number should be 12 though. ⇒ SWATJester 
Ready Aim Fire! 14:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Force and Recon Bn's, have open screening for Marines. The Men who pass screenings then go to a training platoon. This is usually called Pre-BRC. Once they pass that they attend a formall school. These are called Basic Recon School,for the West coast and Amphibious Recon School for guys on the East Coast. If they pass they are then "pipelined" through special schools like Jump, dive, sniper, ranger, etc. Though this is all tentative on each units needs. Tony
[edit] What's the "Force" in Force Recon
Subject matter experts in Wiki-land are often victims of their own expertise. When I first joined the USMC and heard about the fabled "Force Recon" I wondered, "Why do they say "Force?"
Doesn't it make sense to discuss this and little background on the old Marine Amphibious Force (MAF) and its evolution into the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) ect? In that light, wasn't Force Recon originally the recon arm of that "Force?" Think about it, please SimonATL 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Simon,
My impression is that the "Force" in Force Recon is used to imply their ability to use Direct Action and give battle in the "Reconnaiscance in Force" tradition/doctine but I could be wrong.
Also I was wondering if anybody had any plans on expanding this article to relect the Marine Corps recent descion to send their Force Recon units to SOCOM. Under this new plan Force Recon Companies will be under SOCOM and will still deploy in Marine Corps MEU(SOC)'s but be trained and funded at/by SOCOM. I'm very new to editing Wikipedia (as in not at all) and just wanted some input before I started to edit this article. NeoFreak 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The "Force" in Force Recon Co. Reffers to their parent comand. The MEF's. Marine Expiditionary Force. There are three of them. In regards to Force becoming part of Socom. The descision to raise 3 detatchments of special operations marines has been made. These Dets will pull Marines from Force, and Battalion Recon. Tony
Force Recon Marines provide long range, strategic intelligence to the commander of the MEF. Their area of operations is generaly further behind the lines then regular battalion recon. Additionally, they may be tasked with Stingray type operations, designating targets for airstrikes, calling artillery onto rear echelon troop concentrations. They specialize in covert "hit and git" and "snoop and poop" operations. Andrewmisker 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)AndrewMisker
[edit] Merge?
Force Reconniascance does imply direct action, though they have many very similar capabilities to special operations units.
No my knowledge of anything reputable and published, USMC has only submitted a select few (at least one, not more than four) Detachments to SOCOM, and the way I understand it, you're totally backwards on the funding: funded by the Corps, but trained (at least in part) and under most immediate control of USSOCOM.
The article on Det-1 doesn't really belong in here, pehaps merging that in with any credible info about additional USMC Detachments, but just because the Det's are made up of Force Recon operators does not mean the content/info there belong in the Force Recon page, at all.
This is wikipedia -- if you're wrong, the idea is that somebody will fix it, and as long as you have some credible information to provide (that isn't plagiarized), then hop right in!!!
--TehLlama
[edit] Merge subjects/articles
No. Force Recon is NOT DET1, nor is it MARSOC. At least not yet.
The units referrenced above are distinct and with their own histories.
Its rediculous to merge the pages.--SOTB 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The "best" POV statement
I've removed the "considered the best" statement made by a potential vandal doing the same thing type of thing at the Navy SEAL page. This uses weasel words and is POV and potentially inaccurate. Who considers it the best? What is the criteria for this statment? What about those that disagree? Where are the citations and refrences? Etc. Please don't put it back in without clearing up these issues. NeoFreak 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] replacing the "taxo box"
I think the current table should be replaced with an infobox. Here's what I have so far:
| United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance | |
|---|---|
 USMC Force Reconnaissance insignia |
|
| Active | 1954 - present |
| Country | United States |
| Branch | USMC |
| Type | Special forces |
| Role | Force reconnaissance |
| Size | Four companies |
| Part of | 1st Force Recon Co., DRP Co. 3rd Recon Btn.: MARFORPAC; MEF I, III; MEU(SOC) 11, 13, 15, 31 2nd, 3rd Force Recon Co.: MARFORLANT, MEF II; MEU(SOC) 22, 24, 26 4th Force Recon Co.: MARFORRES, Reserves |
| Nickname | Force Recon |
| Motto | Silens, Celer, Mortalitas "Silent, Swift, Deadly" |
| Battles/wars | Vietnam War Operation Desert Storm Operation Enduring Freedom Operation Iraqi Freedom |
Blanks still need to be filled in. Thoughts?--KrossTalk 06:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Bold textMEU(SOC) PistolBold text
Also in regards to MEU(SOC) Pistol section. The information on the 9mm v .45 is not entirely accurate. It is true that the .45ACP has a slightly larger crush cavity than the 9mm, which in the case of FMJ makes it marginally better in terms of how much tissue and bone it destroys. However the 9mm Nato and .45ACP deliver equivalent kinetic energy. The deliverance of kinetic energy may have an effect on the target, but it is not a scientifically verifiable one. I would point anyone interested to www.firearmstactical.com or www.stoppingpower.com for a debate or research on these issues. Smash05
[edit] MEU(SOC) Pistol
I am repeating my objection to some of the information given in the MEU(SOC) Pistol section. The M1911 was not introduced at the end of the Phillipine American War, although the requirements for such a pistol did grow in part out of incidents in that conflict. The actual Engery On Target aspect of this article is hotly disputed and is generally false - The 9mm NATO and 1911 .45 ammuntion generate similar energies on target, and both rounds produce through and through wounds, not expending much energy in the target. At the very least, the article needs to be cleaned up and references given. There are many reasons for the M1911's persistence in Military, Law Enforcement and Civilian use - most of which is personal preference. The .45 does create a slightly larger wound channel - approx 1/10 of an inch. This could potentially lead to more tissue and bone disrupted with the FMJ rounds mandated by the Hague Conventions. Sorry for any grammatical errors, writing on the run. Smash05
