Talk:Delta Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Delta Force article.

Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents


[edit] DELTA FORCE TRAINING VIDEO

Please excuse me for I have limited access to outside sites @ my job. A few weeks ago, I had posted an article on here regarding a video that was posted on YouTube. Now, we all can understand and respect that YouTube isn't always a factual place. However, last week, the Pentagon had issued a statement on "Around The Services" on the Military Channel regarding a video of the CAG that was posted.

Now, I had gone in depth regarding this particular subject, as it would be the first real recording of Delta Operators every released and it has been removed without justification or cause. If it has been removed for security purposes or what not, understood. Im a former soldier and wouldnt want my ugly mug posted all over the internet. I just would like an explanation as to what has caused this particular informational piece (which was decidely neutral in its portrayal) was removed.

Mcase07
I saw this video also. As far as I could tell it was the real deal, but again, I suppose it could have been faked. Tmaull 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the same. However, Blackhawks and Little Birds in military configuration are not certified for civilian use, so really that rules out Private Military Contractor's.

Also, the methods and equipment are military doctrine for hostage rescue plus the locale and use of weapons in the what appears to be Iraqi AO's would mitigate against that. I know this is a place of discussion. What do you think? I have the vid at home and its pretty impressive and I think its the real deal, IMHO. I mean this is the first real video glimpse into the unit itself and its shock and awe tactics. Mcase07 21:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Mcase07

Could you perhaps provide a link to the video for people who might be interested in watching it? Parsecboy 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have recieved the request. Be advised, the military may have removed it. Luckily I have saved a copy of the YouTube video to my computer as I wanted to analyse it further. If you have a .FLV player, I could send it to you. BTW: What does your username mean? (Addendum: Nevermind, I took the time to read your profile)
I'm not %100 sure the video SHOULD be available, as I am pretty sure it is real. But, anyway... Tmaull 05:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. That video was NEVER intended to be for public use. Hell it wasn't for regular Army as I understand it. It discloses ALOT of methods and what not. OPSEC should never have let this video see the light of day. Mcase07 06:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point and with correspondence to the Special Operations Command in Florida, I will not be posting the link to this video. Furthermore, I have requested it be deleted from YouTube yet again. The precedence for this is located in USC somewhere which I would rather not get into but I have been asked to keep the video under wraps and to not provide further information for personnel and operational security purposes. Our enemy uses the same resources as we do afterall. Let us not make it too easy on them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcase07 (talkcontribs) 20:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ho2bWl3Y2RA check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.187.41 (talk) 06:56, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Is this the video to which you are referring? It must not be that big a deal, if Military.com is posting it. It does seem legit though. Parsecboy 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think if the Army really thought it was a big deal, they'd have done something about it, and not slowly. Tmaull 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the video is really of negligible intelligence value. It's pretty much a chest-thumping video of guys with guns, shooting and blowing things up. Nothing you can't get from any Hollywood action movie. Parsecboy 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Very true, it has been removed several times from places like YouTube and I tried to get more information from SOCOM regarding this video and was stonewalled and asked not to post it again. This posting of the video APPEARS verifiable if nothing else. This is likely a test of operational strength and psychological warfare (in my mind anyways). If I was "hajji" (apologies for the slur - no harm intended) seeing that video, i would likely get spooked at the sheer ability. Who knows with this military anymore. Either way, I think its a significant event considering no US private Citizen outside of a select few and Kurt Muse have seen the training and abilities of this unit in the 30 years of it being in service. Also shows the Military is not going insofar as to deny the existence which has been a staple of the military since the units inception. Mcase07 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Delta Weapon

Delta force changed its standard weapon from the M4A1CQB to the HK-416 since 2004 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.48.229 (talkcontribs) Sources:i found the article in Armytimes magazine and here is the link :www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/ .

i dont know why its not working but you can read the article on yahoo ..just write HK-416 new delta weapon on yahoo search and it will be the first search result ( better than the M4 but the army cant have it )

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.48.229 (talk) 10:32, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Provide a source, and we'll include it. Parsecboy 15:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The link you provided is broken; perhaps you missed something copying it? Parsecboy 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/ FIXED Mcase07 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An article by Vickers about the HK416 : http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm. He says that "All the key Units in JSOC chose the HK416 in preference to the current M4 and the FN SCAR Light which is still in development for the rest of SOCOM." Rob1bureau 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known Delta Operations

I don't know that it has an official name, but it appears that Delta did security for the Seattle WTO meeting, as seen here: Delta's down with it Tmaull 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that any information about Delta with a good source is interesting. Should be added in the part operations. Terry Griswold's book DELTA (2005 edition - ISBN-10: 0760321108) also reports that "Delta had to provide badly needed assistance during both the 1986 Statue of Liberty centennial in New City York and the 1984 Olympics Games in Los Angeles". I also advise Steven Emerson's Shadows Warriors, in which there are quite some information about Delta operations in the 1980s (Gen. James Dozier kidnapping, TWA 847 and Achille Lauro hijacks). Rob1bureau 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delta casualties

Since the Army not commit on delta activity , so casualties in both Afghanistan and Iraq are not released but listed as : HQ US Army special operation command .--Jonybond 08:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

i know about 12 operator casualties since 9/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.88.211 (talkcontribs)

So give your list (and your sources if possible please) ! Rob1bureau 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Delta casualties in Iraq :

1-Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez / April 2, 2003 / small arms fire / North of Iraq.

2-Sgt. 1st Class Mickey E. Zaun / Jan. 28 , 2005 / Non Hostile / Mosul, Iraq.

3-Sgt. 1st Class Steven M. Langmack / May 31 , 2005 / small arms fire / Al Qaim, Iraq.

4-Master Sgt. Robert M. Horrigan / June 17 , 2005 / Hostile fire / Al Qaim, Iraq.

5-Master Sgt. Michael L. McNulty / June 17 , 2005 / Hostile fire / Al Qaim, Iraq.

6-Sgt. 1st Class Trevor J. Diesing / August 25, 2005 / IED attack / Husaybah, Iraq.

7-Master Sgt. Ivica Jerak / August 25, 2005 / IED attack / Husaybah, Iraq.

8-Sgt. 1st Class Obediah J. Kolath / August 25, 2005 ( died on August 28 in Germany ) / IED attack / Husaybah, Iraq.

Note / A Ranger died along the above three in the same attack

9-Master Sgt. Joseph J. Andres, Jr. / Dec. 24, 2005 / Hostile fire / Baqubah, Iraq ( Died in Balad ).

10-Sgt. 1st Class Lance S. Cornett / Feb. 3, 2006 / Hostile fire / Ar Ramadi, Iraq

11-Sgt. 1st Class Richard J. Herrema / April 25, 2006 / Hostile fire / Baghdad, Iraq .

--82.116.149.190 21:48, 23 October ,2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but please specify your source(s) (where you found it) and what unit the were officialy assigned. Rob1bureau 11:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is your source : http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Service.aspx They are all mentioned to be assigned to US ARMY Special operation headquarters.

Also here is a casuality in Afghanistan :

Sgt. 1st Class Speer, Christopher J. / Aug. 7 ,2002 / Hostile - hostile fire / Ab Khail Afghanistan

[edit] M1911

People the army switched to M9 Beretta and that includes Delta ..I know a guy in Green beret who said all army units now are using M9 .--Max Mayr 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Provide a source then, not just hearsay. Parsecboy 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the Green Beret Guy is operator with the 3rd Battalion of the 3rd special force group Fort Bragg N.C. that all what i can say .--Max Mayr 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, but you need to provide a reliable source for the article to be changed. You can't just say "so and so said it, so it must be true". Parsecboy 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will contact him and see if he can help me with this --Max Mayr 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes any and all verifiable information regarding the Combat Applications Group is welcome. Of course, be advised, some things are ALWAYS open to debate. Mcase07 (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Delta and JSOC in general do not use just the standard US weapons. They use some of everything. JSOC and a mixture of special forces users were behind the Heckler & Koch MK23 Mod 0. I've seen pictures and had reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere of late of Delta operators still using M1911s, a Glock or two, a Mk23, and a couple of revolvers. Also some Berettas, Sig M10, a Glock 18 machinepistol, and at least one guy with a Mini-Uzi in the thigh strap holster. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They use HK23 Mod 0 in order to put a silencer , you cant put a silencer to berreta --Blain Toddi 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is why I have no faith in the accuracy of articles on wiki...it is simply wrong. You can put a suppressor on any rifle or pistol with the right barrel and the proper suppressor for that weapon. If people who knew what they were talking about were the only ones writing things here there would be a LOT less space taken up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.98.15 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, any weapon can be modified in order to introduce it to a suppressed fire environment. Delta and JSOC have specially trained operators that are some of the VERY best gunsmiths in the world for this matter. To return to the foundation of the 1911 argument, as stated in the article, Delta Operators have been issued a stipend in which they can purchase an m1911a1 of their own preference, be it Kahr Arms, Para-Ordnance et al. They may retrofit and have their arms customized in order to have a LAM or Light Module, in the configuration they please. Great Delta Operator Larry Vickers was one of the very best gunsmiths before, during and after his Delta term, hence his design with the help of HK of the 416. I agree that there should be no nominal discussion regarding the weapons use, modification et al, as there is too much room for discussion from those who found out from a friend of a friend. What I have provided is a nominal explanation that any sidearm, regardless of stock or modified can be suppressed whether or not effectively is for debate.Mcase07 (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHANGE TO OPERATORS

I have changed the title from "Famous Delta Force Operators" to "Notable Delta Operators". Reason for this, is that you would think these particular people were movie stars (though Eric Haney could be debatable due to his work with "The Unit"). It is rather distinguished that the operators are rather more Notable due to contributions, operations, citations or private sector work or entertainment. Therefore, they are not "famous" in the vein of a Tom Cruise or Eric Bana. Mcase07 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this Classified?

I don't think its a good idea to post actual information about Delta Force and other secret organizations because the Government might not want the information to be seen. General Mannino (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing classified here. There's nothing in this article that is not already in the public view. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Which government is this exactly? Wikipedia doesn't belong to or owe allegiance to any government. Regardless of that any fact on wikipedia should be verifiable (by citing public sources), see Wikipedia:Verifiability. If someone add secret/insider info that can not be verified it should be removed. — Deon Steyn (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Any of the information that is generally posted here is essentially media statements, information about CAG that is disseminated to the appropriate levels (declassified) and also operations that have been well noted in the media IE Operation Acid Gambit, Operation Gothic Serpent et al. if there was any information that became released IE current operator names, locations etc the gov't would more than likely have it removed ASAP - gotta love the ECHELON system ;) Mcase07 (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat worried by the comments here (not just this section) saying that the info is classified so it should be removed or that one of the editors has been in contact with some division of the army which has told them to remove it. Wikipedia does not belong to one country, nor does it operate under any particular government. This means that any NPOV, referenced, relevant material should be added to the article, whether it's classified or not. If the US governemnt then decides to filter the information in the same way that China has censored most of wikipedia (at least when i was there a few years ago) then it can. However, editors should not take it upon themselves to censor information from the whole world. Despite this, everything must be referenced from reliable sources, rather than fan sites etc. 78.105.191.12 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your feelings there. Its not that any of this is classified, most parts are confirmed by literature and from former Delta Operators. There isn't anything in this article that is not already known by the public or has been documented for the most part. In regards to anything classified, it would stand to reason that a "sockpuppet" that works in the government, could easily log in and remove anything that would put their operations and operators at risk. Thats conjecture. I can't prove it but I can say that it would be simply possible. There isn't much here for them to worry about. Also, most people generally use discretion on what we would input in here anyways should it be classified or time-sensitive intelligence. Personal opinion on that but nonetheless possible. Mcase07 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I recognise the above and of course self-censorship is advisable to prevent avoidable tragedy, yet in many places (not just this discussion, i've seen it plenty of times but finally decided to question it here) - for example the first issue in this discussion - people advance this as an editorial argument for removing or not inserting certain information. 78.105.191.12 (talk)
Absolutely agreed. Should anyone have any information, they should feel free to post it, irregardless of the ramifications. Whatever occurs from there on in, can obviously go from there. Not trying to get people discouraged from entering the discussion or clarifications on the CAG, but rather to keep in mind certain things that are or can be pure conjecture. Post away! And no, I'm not on the company payroll as some have asked. I am a retired SF operator and the ol' adage "Loss Lips Sink Ships" is always in mind. I've provided as much as I can to the unit and teams. Hopefully other enlightened personnel can give us more on our secret operators. Mcase07 (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ranger Haircuts

Is the sidenote about Ranger hair styles necessary?141.161.119.79 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably in a Ranger article. It should be mentioned in this article about the relaxed grooming standards for Delta.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The haircuts are something mentioned already in relaxed grooming standards for The CAG. Highly noted and contrasted in multiple books and publications - much the same with the Army Special Forces as well. Mcase07 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
They are only required to get Haircuts once a year for Military photos. I've seen pictures of these guys with beards as big as I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.143.238 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember reading the bit abour Rangers haircuts in BHD. Can someone check that ? Rob1bureau (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Helmet

It was stated in Black Hawk Down that Delta operators wore Pro-tec helmets instead of standard issue kevlar helmets due to CAG's special role in hostage rescue (they were more concerned with bumping and scraping their heads because of their fast operation is what i recall the book was saying). Should that be listed in the article and also is it possible that by now Delta may have custom helmets made for them, since "What Delta wants, Delta gets"? Tsurugi (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)