Talk:Special Forces (United States Army)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Special Forces (United States Army) 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.

Would someone with a more critical eye please take a look at the photo for this article? Maybe it's just me, but the helicopter in the background looks very suspicious, and makes me wonder if the picture is legit. Gcolive 20:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I objected to the use of the words "struggle against the North." I believe "in fighting..." is more neutral. Struggle implies to me "great efforts made by an underdog." Objectively speaking, this applied to the Viet Cong. It did not apply to the South Vietnamese Army.

Contents

[edit] Unit name

I know little on the subject but I will tell you the "special force", "green berets" and "special operation forces" pages give entirely contradictory information. Someone should look at all three pages and get them to match up. But that someone isn't me because I have no specialized knowledge of this - I'm just editting for typos and clarity.

HJS

The unit's official name is the "United States Army Special Forces". Please, do not move this article to "Green Berets"; that article is supposed to be pointing to this one (as it is right now).

--Maio 05:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) - "Green Berets" is the common name, so this article should be located there. --Jiang 01:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it is the common name.. among Americans and other military developed countries. But in other countries, like for example in Latin America, guerillas use green berets as their head caps, and people refer to them as "Green Berets" — from the spanish translation of "boinas verdes". That is the very reason why the Army officialy changed their names to "Special Forces", to avoid any links to revolutionary guerrillas. Anyways, Green Berets redirect to this article, and in the article summary it is explained that their are also called like that. If you still beleive that it should be moved, then do so, but I will not agree with the decision (although I will not move it back). --Maio 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it will be confusing if we move it there, as long was we keep the current bolded title in the text. A note about the name change should be added to the article. What about Night Stalkers? --Jiang 00:35, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Same POV: I don't agree with it, but if you wanna do it feel free to do so.. as long as we keep the current bolded text of the article. ;0) --Maio 09:50, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Headgear:the green beret

Today I added information about Kennedy and decided to move the paragraph about the Royal Marines before the mention of the Rangers, because with the addition of the Kennedy paragraph there is far more on U.S. Army Special Forces than the Royal Marines in this section. Where it was, before I moved it, the Royal Marines paragraph, separated the first U.S. paragraph from the second and (the new) third.

But the alteration that ALoan has made has obscured the information about the Royal Marines of today. I would like to reinstate a separate paragraph about the Royal Marines. As it is much shorter than the information on the US Special Forces I would like to place in before the mention of the Rangers. The reason for doing this is clarity, but as the Royals have been wearing green berets for longer than US forces, it is also follows seniority. Does anyone object to this. If so why Philip Baird Shearer 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ALoan's edit > your edit. —John | Talk 21:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But to make the change of a change, without an explanation, can start an edit war and life is too short. Philip Baird Shearer 21:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining before editing, and for the pointer on my talk page. It is not something that I would go to the wall for, but I just thought that my version was clearer. The article is mainly about the US Special Forces because they are known as the 'green berets' and the Royal Marines generally are not. I just thought it looked a bit odd to refer to the Marines before explaining their link to the US Special Forces. The reference to the Marines' headgear and WWII is really an aside, and, pace your point about seniority, I don't think it needs to come first. Perhaps you disagree. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The moving of the section Headgear:the green beret to an article green beret by User:JohnCrawford (exporting information to 'green beret'), makes the talk about this section redundent. Philip Baird Shearer 08:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was attending SFQC (enlisted) course in 1979 when CPT Wilder was attending the Officer's Course. At the time, it was rumored that CPT Wilder failed the land navigation course but, she was still allowed to graduate. As it has already been mentioned, the O-course was significantly shorter (and easier) than the enlisted course. Luckily, this changed. I might also add that SFAS did not exist during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.183.5 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women in the SF

This part of the article requires a little clarification. In its present reading, one might think they won't see a woman wearing the Special Forces Green Beret, but that's not true. Women can serve in SF units in a non-combat capacity (ex: clerks). They'll get airborne training, but they won't get tabbed. They'll wear the Green Beret, but it won't have the flash. They won't find themselves on an A-Team. My jaw dropped when one of the women in my Airborne class put on a Green Beret after graduating jump school and receiving her orders. On the other hand, she kicked butt during training (most women dropped out of my class, no pun intended), so more power to her. Rklawton 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That changed in the mid 1990s. No untabbed personnel assigned to special forces groups wear the green beret anymore as of 1995 or so. It used to be the case that all personnel assigned to group wore the beret, like you said, but that changed. Not sure of the exact date, but I remember the change coming down while I was serving as an 18C between 1991 and 1997.Ikilled007 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one female did qualify for the flash. I met her (Kate Wilder) this weekend and heard some of her story, did some googling, and came up with an AP source. Added to the article with a footnote...one of these days I'll register a login for WP. -- Anonymous Coward, 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) .

Women assigned to support duties in SF groups now wear the maroon beret. When this switched, I don't know. I remember reading in Aaron Banks' book (I believe it was his) that the real SF soldiers weren't happy that support guys were wearing the beret. Apparently, the complaints were finally addressed. Incidentally, the only info I could find about Kate Wilder was that she was allowed to attend the course (probably as a test) but was caught cheating on the land nav and was kicked out [1]. How accurate the info is, I've no idea.--Nobunaga24 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a terribly reliable source you've got there - I'm told by my father (who knew her and her husband at Bragg) that there was a lot of pressure to wash her out and rumors to the effect of what you see in that gunboards forum. The full AP article I linked to mentions that she was told she failed land nav right before the graduation ceremony and filed a sexual discrimination complaint. The complaint was investigated by Brig. Gen. F. Cecil Adams, who found that she had been wrongly failed. BTW, the reason she was allowed to go through the course was because the regs barred enlisted women from qualifying for the training but did not mention officers - she was a captain, and snuck in on a loophole (promptly closed after her). 169.253.4.21 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I went through the Q-Course in 1981 after the Wilder episode. At the time, officers attended an abbreviated version of the course that consisted of mainly classroom work followed by a short field excercise; enlisted men, meanwhile, went through the full three phases of training, starting with an intensive "pre-phase" period followed by several weeks in the field at Camp McCall. Cpt. Katie Wilder, of course, attended the "gentleman's course." If she had attended the enlisted course, it would rightly be considered an accomplishment. The O-course, meanwhile, no longer exists, now they have to prove thhemselves like everyone else. BTW, the finding that she was "wrongly failed" actually determined that one of her fellow candidates in the cheating episode wasn't terminated, not that she didn't cheat on the land nav course. Incidently, quite a few candidates found out that they had failed or were being "recycled" just before the end of the course. Only KW thought of suing. Her actions spawned a saying, "I can do anything the men can do - and if I can't, I'll sue you."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.27.203.131 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 January 2007.

That sounds more realistic and accurate, knowing what I know about how the army works. It would explain how she could have passed selection, since she wouldn't have had to attend in the first place.--Nobunaga24 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A very different situation, but perhaps there could be a bit of space in the article for Martha Raye. I suspect it would be unsafe to tell anyone who knew her, or knew of her, that she wasn't part of Special Forces. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Does anyone know the number of Special Forces casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan War? How do they compare percentage-wise to other military units (normal infantry, rangers, ect.) in the US army? And how do they compare to green beret casualties of other US wars? How do they compare to the military units of Iraq and Afghanistan (Taliban soldiers, Baath soldiers, Al Queda Terrorists, ect.) during the current wars? Zachorious 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team composition and culture

The MOS is a general job, if you want to add skill levels, then you can explain which paygrades generally hold these MOS levels.

The composition of an A team and B team are what is on paper, a list was better suited. Someone expressed a disliking for a list, so I did not revert. Giving the preferred rank for each position the way I have left it is best in my wholehearted opinion... The Supply and NBC NCOs are part of the B Team composition and should not be listed under the SF MOS list. If you wanted to list every single MOS that works with SF then go ahead, you have alot of listings ahead of you.

As for MGS, a "platoon" is an A Team, a game like MGS is not very accurate. I do not think we should leave room for a person to wonder "What is an SF platoon?", leaving (A Team) in parenthesis lets the reader know that they were talking about an ODA.

Debatable whether a "platoon" is an A-team, considering a platoon refers to a composition of squads, and since A teams correspond more to squads. Your method for listing the ranks is inefficient: It's much better to put the MOS first, and then which ranks generally hold that MOS. That way, when listing the composition of the A and B teams, you need only put the MOS and the reader already knows what rank that will be, rather than having to give a stylistically mind-numbing list of all the ranks with the MOS over and over and over again. Come on, that's just common sense. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The equivalent to a platoon is an A Team. Platoons and Squads are not used in SF structure.

Reverting the pages over and over is quite embarrassing, I created the B team composition section so I think I should have the final say, I also created it to look like the original A team composition section. I think you are incorrect because it leaves misinformation in the article.

Hi, I saw this dispute on WP:3O - the page to request a third opinion. It's difficult to decide on which version of this page is better because there is no line-by-line citation. If you could both provide sources that illustrate your point, a third opinion can be provided. Also, it would really help if all users involved would start leaving their signature at the end of their comments by typing four tildes (~). Regarding who has final say, no individual user has this right. Content disputes are decided by consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). I'd also like to remind users, just in case, of the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. Thanks. Please provide the diffs, then contact me, and I will provide the opinion. KazakhPol 00:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. """When editors cannot come to a compromise""" and need a third opinion, they list a dispute here.

There was a compromise; he stopped reverting the page, it was a dispute between the two of us so I said I think I should have the final say, case and point, we found a compromise.

That wasn't a compromise. You weren't ever going to stop reverting, so I gave up. That's no compromise. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence in "C Team Composition" isn't. Can someone fix that? I have a doc on Vietnam era team composition but not current. 66.82.9.57 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Me again.

[edit] US Army Special Forces page

Is there anyone on here doing the editing that is actually a member or former member of the US Army Special Forces?

If so we need to chat. That page needs a lot of work as do many of the other Special Forces pages now being over run by children's forums and gaming websites. I am known as the Team Sergeant on professionalsoldiers.com and I own ProfessionalSoldiers.com, a website with a few hundred vetted Army Special Forces soldiers that chat on a daily basis.

The blue light rumor needs to go as does the coast guard reference. Much needs to be re-written and the NG drug ODA removed. If you're not SF you should not be doing any editing.... If you wonder as to my website or credentials you can check with SF Command or the Special Forces Association.

Team Sergeant 23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone is in fact doing some editing but will not respond to my post? Thank you for removing the delta force and blue light "rumor".

Soon I'll be posting on our website that this webpage (on Wikipedia) is about 60% correct and requires quite a bit of revision.

Again, the Coast Guard reference needs to be removed. SF A-team composition is silly as is the SF B-team composition.

"The Supply NCO, usually a Staff Sergeant, the commander's principal logistical planner, works with the battalion S-4 to supply the company." A company S-4 has never been "the commander's principal logistical planner" ever..... needs to be removed. The B-Team should only require "Consists of:"

"See also" should include the Navy SEALS, Marine Special Operations, AF Special Operations, SF Command, USASOC, and USSOCOM.

The link for the "History of the Green Berets" should be removed. http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-History-Of-The-Green-Berets/50815

Team Sergeant

Team Sergeant 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen and read enough. Have fun with your editing and "stories" concerning the US Army Special Forces.

Team Sergeant Master Sergeant Special Forces (ret) Team Sergeant 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the comments this user deleted. I understand it's his/her own comments, but I believe it's necessary to preserve the record of discussion. Alcarillo 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corky Sheltons Medic

needs a written transcript/letter of knowledge during Provide Comfort....... (No tildes available on computer) Hey fellow Tolzers, this is Clark. I was an 18D on 011(CORKIES TEAM!). I last saw a lot of buddies in Baghdad in 2004-5 (in & out of uniform) ran into George Schlebowsky in the GZ & then had Corky over for some of our BBQs. We had a blast. My computer is a bit dodgy.... (Sorry but cats have stripped off a few keys!). I was wounded in 2005 after some GOOD payback firefights for 9/11....however the VA is denying my Claim as these ambushes & firefights occurred AFTER Id left SF ( I was broken down physically & got out at 15). I will get to the point of my nightmares in 1991 after a few lines. ....But, after that time I went to Bosnia, Kosovo. Then after 9/11, I wanted payback & felt up to going back & force to those shitholes a bit of respect.....Now I need your help. Ill get my VA 100% if some of those that know me will remember all the early morning Burial Details we went on....It was one of those Oh good I can sleep, the Medics will do it.....but let me tell you I still remember those stinking, maggot infested corpses to this day......i have Happier remembraces of certain firefights. Imagine the skin peeling off in YOUR hands. So, please, pretty please with a cherry on top, get this to Greg Thew. I only need maybe 3-4 statements. Then they gotta be dropped off snail mail & mailed to me at: CLARK D. ALLEN, P.O. BOX 165, CAROLINA BEACH, NC 28428.....& MY PH# IS 910-0458-8927 THIS WOULD MEAN A WORLKD TO ME AS IVE BEEN TOLD BY 3 DOCTORS I CAN NEVER AGAIN WORK....SO IM CERTAIN YOU CAN IMAGINE THE HARDSHIPS IVE GONE THRU & UNDERSTAND MY NEED FOR MY COMRADES TO STEP FORWARD. MERRY CHRISTMAS- CLARK P.S. I HAVE NO 4 TILDES.....PLEASE DONT THROW AWAY, GET IT TO GREQ THEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.244.168.99 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] green berets

I'm joining the berets.65.167.40.88 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)anonamous (i think thats how you spell it) (-:

[edit] History section needed

Given that the SF is over 50 years old and members have served with distinction (even some notoriety) in America's wars, this article badly needs a comprehensive history. Maybe a general overview is better with links to specific, more detailed articles on certain periods. For instance, SF operations in Vietnam alone could be an article unto itself. I'll try to add what I can, but my knowledge is at the moment in a nascent stage. Linda Robinson's Masters of Chaos is an excellent source for more recent SF history (1980s-present) with a focus on operations in Panama, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq. Alcarillo 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I stared a history section, essentially adapted from a US Army site. Alcarillo 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links questioned

I'm seeing a lot of links to specialoperations.com. Aside from the repetition, it's essentially a commerical site with a store, business directory. I question whether it qualifies as WP:SPAM. (See relevant WHOIS info [2].). Another site listed is of dubious value, too: sfahq.com (not the official site of the Special Forces Assn. [3]). There are plenty of other better sources out there, especially from .mil sites, we should be using. Alcarillo 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the anon user who started removing some of the commercial websites. I went through them as well and added links to official US Army sites. I kept the one called the 'Special Forces Search Engine' because it bills itself as a not-for-profit site. See their disclaimer here.[4] Alcarillo 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alcarillo (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Motto mistranslation

De Oppresso Liber, while not exactly correct grammar[5], does not mean "To Free the Oppressed." The closest meaning is "To Free From Oppression." See also Talk:De Oppresso Liber and List of Latin phrases. Alcarillo 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sniper School

The article doesn't mention SOTIC (Special Operations Target Interdiction Course), so I am curious -- did they change the school name? That's what it was called when I went to it in the 90's. Ikilled007 01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SF Battalion ?

How many companies in SF Battalion ? --Jonybond 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

3 companies..Alpha , Bravo and Charlie ..--Max Mayr 08:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovered link

This link was listed as being in this article, and dead. I have found a new link, but the old one appears to have been removed, so I do not know where to put it, so I will post it here. Dean Wormer 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added some photos.

Added 2 public domain photos.

This.machinery 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

11/11/07- Also fixed numerous spelling errors. This.machinery 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 180A ?

I think its First Seargent not Chief Warrant Officer ..please verify ?--Max Mayr 08:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Well its say he must be at least E6 which means staff seargent and above....--Max Mayr 11:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is to apply to become 180A. A 180A is a Special Forces Warrant Officer. Nicht Nein! 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence augmentation; articles on SF missions

I have some detail on the 4-man Special Operations Team-Alpha, which is a SIGINT augmentation to operational detachments. There is also a 2-man counter-intelligence/HUMINT augmentation team, but I haven't dug into sources beyond its existence.

You may also want to make some Wikilinks to special reconnaissance, which is a major SF role these days and is intelligence collection. There is also a direct action article, and unconventional warfare, but the latter needs work.

I started one on foreign internal defense, but it is definitely in draft stage. Even more fragmentary, and on one of my user pages, are current controversies in the SF community of overemphasizing SR and DA over UW and FID; that also still is in draft.

The SR-DA ("door-kicker") vs. UW/FID is one controversy. There is another, discussed in some CIA articles to which I can link after I remedy my caffeine deficiency, that addresses a possible legal loophole: where the White House is require to notify Congress and provide a Presidential Finding for use of CIA paramilitary personnel in a covert action or clandestine surveillance operation, there does not seem to be a legal prohibition of using SF in the same role. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes, battles, and SOF (and strategic forces in general)

Just as there was a recent combatant vs. belligerent debate in what clearly was a war, I'm increasingly wondering about how meaningful "battle" was with respect to what I will generically call strategic assets.

I can reasonably accept the Battle of A Shau. But what about smaller unconventional warfare operations? Before the tilt to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, were the SF detachments with the Kurds fighting battles, or really functioning at an operational or strategic level? What about the special recon and air support coordination against the Taliban, with the Northern Alliance providing the majority of the troops?

Was Hiroshima a battle? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For battles and information, instead of using contemporary links - though very few come to mind - this should stay for Vietnam war era conflicts with this unit. The purpose is 2 fold; We cannot ascertain exact applications of an SF unit in contemporary battles - closest we can use would be the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi as SF was in a direct action operation in support of CIA and General Dostum's fighters. Secondly, we cannot ascertain the functions of units with embedded SF operators or trainers (Ie MIKE Units in Vietnam - not a principle unit). As for further information, highly suggest Tom Clancy's Shadow Warriors as it gives a nice round description of detailed SF operations through the 1980's - albeit fragmented. Mcase07 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly related articles on US Army Special Forces missions

I've written an article on foreign internal defense, which had far too much theory of insurgency and counterinsurgency. Yesterday, I did a major rewrite of insurgency, which needs to be understood before approaching UW and FID/COIN.

When I refer to UW, I refer to it as a U.S. mission with associated doctrine. You see, I volunteered to improve the unconventional warfare article, but, after preliminary edits, I can't really see why there is such an article separate from guerilla warfare, unless the purpose is to expand on the SF UW mission.

May I have some opinion? Should there be an article discussing the doctrine of each of the primary SF missions, which, by necessity, would be US-centric?

Insurgency, incidentally, is decidedly not intended to be US-centric. While its beginning sections should help clear that insurgency is not equivalent either to terrorism or to that which goes on in Iraq, no matter how much politicians and television hairspray abusers news anchors would like it to be. Instead, I go into the messy concept that a very wide range of historical conflicts qualify as insurgencies. There are models, which I hesitate to call academic since some were developed or refined by soldiers, of potential for insurgency, and what needs to change for the motivation of an insurgency to wither (paging the honored ghost of Ramon Magsaysay...).

Comments on insurgency are greatly welcomed, but I'll preface it to say that I don't know how to make an accurate description simple to understand. I assume the insurgents and counterinsurgents are armed with Occam's Combat Razor, which means giving the simplest explanation that covers the phenomena, but not oversimplifying beyond that point.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personnel strength of SF command

There is starting to be a revert war that I'd like to avoid. When I asked for a citation for the much smaller number than is generally used, a National Geographic documentary was given.

I'm afraid I have never thought of National Geographic as a major source on military organizations. In contrast, sources like Jane's, the Military Balance, and indeed plausible official documents may be useful. As a reality check, I would suggest you start with the table of organization of SF groups and work out the theoretical number of personnel needed to put them at full manning. There are a number of Defense Department initiatives to enlarge USSOCOM, although I'm dubious where they will get the personnel for these specialized jobs, and, particularly with Special Forces, quickly generate units when full training and operational unit cohesion may take several years to build.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)