Ok firstly I aint happy with what I just wrote but its better than the opinated information that was their heres my problem with what was wrote into the article.
1) How is the M16 decreipt its being used by the US right now in Afghanistan and Iraq and its being used for something like 40 years is an extra 10 years going to age it that much, particulary considering in the game spetznaz still use the AK-74 albeit upgraded, the M-16 is one hell of a rifle and quite simply if it fires like it does today the people its aiming at will die.
2) The stuff about easily beating infantry etc ok me and a freind tested this and I can deafeat a fully deployed force recon from any army with unupgraded riflemen so that information as an absolute is incorrect.
3) The Abrams beating a company of panthers firstly a company is not 4 tanks their is around 70 to 200 soldiers in a company depending on country secondly no they cant or at least it can be avoided by using the panthers right im begining to think whoever wrote this simply sent his/hers vehicles headlong at the force recon. The Abrams have superior numbers but a lil bit of shoot and scoot mops them right up as does special abilities.
4) I cant recall seeing troops deploy from a Humvee however I cant say they dont either as I've not realy watched them deploy so ill give that the benefit of the doubt. ( They do deploy from humvees checked it out so it was correct78.149.24.192 13:49, July 21, 2010 (UTC))
5) 'A pain in the rear end' ok it brought a smile to my face but you dont right that kind of stuff into wiki articles.
6) How do me and you KNOW that them tanks are Abrams how do you and me KNOW that those rifles are M-16 assault rifles how do we KNOW their Humvees we dont were guessing at best however their very educated guesses just pointing out that some wikis (mass effect wiki, wikipedia, dragon age wiki, the vault and many many more :{) will pull that kind of stuff of or with language such as' They APPEAR to be armed' 'The tanks are SIMILAR or The tanks deployed look EXACTLY the same as the Abrams tanks deployed back in blah blah' I dont know this wikis policy (probaly the same or the community can change it) on that but until someone says no ( by someone I mean an another admin or im outvoted) I applaud you for using common sense and saying what the unitsclearly were.
7) Why did you write the rifle platoon page from the perspective of the 22nd battlegroup? is it in the book or something im actually confused about that one.
8) Where does it say that their actually US army and not Marines? I personally I think their US army but where has it being confirmed they are US army.
9) Just remembered the 22nd battlegroup has their own page why do you love them so much:}
10) None of your estimates/Claims/Experiments/Testing or whatever you got your conclusions from took into account the special abilities, experience, manouvreing, posisitioning of the units against them never mind the chaos that transports and infantry would cause with even basic upgrades and abilites, secondly you cant realy write that stuff because theirs far to many ways to potentially beat a force recon deployment even with your cherry picked results such as unupgraded riflemen what about say artillery, sniping, HOT missiles, Exploding shelss and VIRCATOR ummmmmm Stealth abilites simply taking cover attacking them piecmeal LUCK, BAD LUCK see my point, theirs far to many ways to beat them in single-multi player, skirmish for us to predict resonably the outcome of a battle..
11) A lot of what you wrote seemed to be from YOUR personal view why are they easily reconisable not every one may know what a US soldier would look like or more importantly what equipment and hardware is deployed by them, Pain in the butt once again would depend on the commander and the units that they were facing . Plus your talking about elite and special forces facing them as well this all points to a massacre in real life never mind in the game where I tested this out and it was not true. As stated above the view of the M-16 being decreipt is your opinion and a wrong one at that. Long story short try not to write from opinions.
11) This isn't a personal attack on you merely my problems with the article you have written and the reasons I've changed it, also im curious about the percieved love for 22nd battlegroup it seems to have being given special attention is it in the book or something?. Like I said I dont like what I've wrote its written from differing perspectives my spelling is probaly off my grammar is definitly off but im wrecked so ill fix it up later but opininated info cant be placed in articles..
YOU ARE WRONG ON YOUR END![]
First of all YOU IDIOT! The Riflemen you get from the force recon must have been standing out in the open because gusse what THEY CAN BEAT THE ELITE COUNTERPARTS! You just need to use them more smartly. The infantry were never used for in the open combat.
The next thing is that the tanks you get in the game are LIGHT TANKS not HEAVY TANKS! Don't know what the diffrence is I might as well tell you. A light tank is faster but dosn't have as good of fire power and armor that is what makes it faster. Secondly the heavy tank is slower and harder to make. But it is stronger and better armored so it can take and give quite a beating. The only way a light tank can beat a heavy tank is that they can doge enemy shells because it is faster. That and they need to be in numbers.
Third (I can't believe you are this dumb) You must have used force recon incorrectly because when I use it I use a level three one with one level one force recon. That means you will get quite a force to cut off the bridges and intersections that the enemy needs to use. They arn't guys that can give and take a beating they are either the big push you need (COUGHAIRSTRIKESNOOBCOUGH) because they give you 2 tank units 3 FAV (Fast Attack Vehicals) When you use one level one and one level 3 and 3 riflemen units. I will either use it to defend my uplinks that have force recon attached to it or cut off key roads, bridges, etc.
So in short LEARN TO USE IT CORRECTLY YOU IDIOT!!!!!
I still can't believe your this dumb. They are U.S. Army because they are designed to look like it. Plus if the guys you use are marines then clearly the force recon infantry are the us army so please shut up or get your friggen facts straight.
Response
1) Firstly insult me or another user again or use profanity and you will be banned its against the sites policy and is uncalled for and unnecessary the fact you neither checked the policy and resort too personal insults says a lot. Perhaps you should relook at what you put in the article and no the force recons were not standing in the open they were defending uplinks, open ground, differing levels of terrain, villages, barricades, bridges, once again you pulled that from out your backside because I never said they couldn’t beat the elite counterparts YOU worded the article as if this was the only result possible and guess what you were wrong.
2) Where did I say anything about light or heavy tanks? And thank you for explaining something my 7 year old sister guessed when I asked her the difference your ability to explain the obvious and unimportant amazes me. I also served for two years in the Thai armed forces so I happen to know the difference and guess what a light tank may have increased mobility but tanks have a tendency NOT TOO MISS.
3) Yes and as I already pointed out up above I only used a single infantry squad to defeat them what was difficult for you to understand about that. So your statement I must have used them incorrectly well let’s see we tried various maps and locations from open ground, uplinks, barricades, bridges, inclines and so forth I actually tried this every way possible your more likely attacking them incorrectly so please get your 'facts' correct.
4) I agreed with you on them being US army I simply asked where it was confirmed and pointed out they could be marines I also agreed what the vehicles were in fact if you check the wiki or even the page I actually put that they were Abrams and humvees, what I pointed out was that wikis don’t usually allow this unless it is specifically stated, and you know as an admin I have too keep the rules in my mind, more to the point I actually simply asked you how did you KNOW they were US army. And the reason I done this was just inform you in case someone came along and disputed them being US army. Because disputing something on a wiki is allowed just as you seem unclear on this.
And so what if they LOOK like the US army if i look like say Will Smith it does not make me him that’s just foolish logic. But more to the point I APPLAUDED AND AGREED with you yet you tell me how dumb I am, technically I should of just pulled all that info until it was confirmed. So I am dumb for having the same view as you once again amazing logic. More too the point you do realize the US has the army, air force, navy, coast guard and marine corps so no they would not clearly be US army would they, they would be part of the US armed forces check your facts ( especially before telling me too do so0 http://www.funadvice.com/q/are_marines_part_of_the_navy. But you could of at least had the decency too check and realize that the site says they are US army troops and that I edited it so it appeared that way before attacking me. And if I had being called out by someone asking how I KNOW they are US army I would of said because it is very likely due to their tech and appearance if they disagreed I would of put it to the vote you know instead of calling them an idiot, or I could go a step further and attack the people who agree with me as well if i follow your example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Personnel_in_each_service
5} I see you did not respond too the parts about your article being your opinion because your experience with force recon is not absolute either is mine but I had completely different results too you their fore I removed it and please take note of this DID NOT PUT MY VERSION IN BECAUSE NEITHER OF US IS INCORRECT BUT THE INFORMATION YOU PLACED IN THE ARTICLE WAS BECAUSE SOMETHING COMPLETLY DIFFERENT CAN HAPPEN.
6} You posted an incorrect article full of your opinions and inappropriate wording and clearly you did not like this being pointed out too you, I also pointed it out too you as nicely as I could and made it clear it was not a personal attack on you I even placed the points in numbered format for you to respond to them easier. Nothing I pointed out too you were incorrect. Your view on what happens when force recons are deployed as an absolute is wrong end of story if you don’t like that then tough. You have called me an idiot and then pointed out great nuggets of wisdom such as the US marines being us army (on a point where I actually agreed and didn’t remove it so well done on that). Your behavior has being childish like what I would expect from a 15 year old not an adult and if you are going to throw a tantrum when you are pointed out as wrong your will not be welcome on wikis. If however you argue your points without insulting people and telling them too shut up and you know research what your disagreeing about your welcome here. But until you act cordial why should I show you any respect or give any credence too anything you say. And next time get your facts right because filling a rebuttal with incorrect information does not help your case. And even if you had being 100% correct I would still not pay attention to what you wrote because you were insulting and rude.
I cant recall seeing troops deploy from a Humvee however I cant say they dont either as I've not realy watched them deploy so ill give that the benefit of the doubt. ( They do deploy from humvees checked it out so it was correct.<<< This should of showed you two things one I WAS CHECKING UP ON WHAT YOU WROTE, and too im reasonable and intelligent enough to not say someone or somethings incorrect unless I've checked or am very sure.
7) You presumed that i deployed incorrectly you presumed that I used them incorrectly you would of being much better served asking how I had come too my conclusion and I would of told you more ironically your headline states im wrong from my end while you are both incorrect and clearly had know idea of HOW I had tested the force recons abilitys. Also I tested every level of force recon from lv1 up. Also please sign your comments using the four tildes.
8) None of your estimates/Claims/Experiments/Testing or whatever you got your conclusions from took into account the special abilities, experience, manouvreing, posisitioning of the units against them never mind the chaos that transports and infantry would cause with even basic upgrades and abilites, secondly you cant realy write that stuff because theirs far to many ways to potentially beat a force recon deployment even with your cherry picked results such as unupgraded riflemen what about say artillery, sniping, HOT missiles, Exploding shelss and VIRCATOR ummmmmm Stealth abilites simply taking cover attacking them piecmeal LUCK, BAD LUCK see my point, theirs far to many ways to beat them in single-multi player, skirmish for us to predict resonably the outcome of a battle.
YOUR RESPONSE= First of all YOU IDIOT! The Riflemen you get from the force recon must have been standing out in the open because gusse what THEY CAN BEAT THE ELITE COUNTERPARTS. The next thing is that the tanks you get in the game are LIGHT TANKS not HEAVY TANKS! Don't know what the diffrence is I might as well tell you. A light tank is faster but dosn't have as good of fire power and armor that is what makes it faster. Secondly the heavy tank is slower and harder to make. But it is stronger and better armored so it can take and give quite a beating. The only way a light tank can beat a heavy tank is that they can doge enemy shells because it is faster. That and they need to be in numbers. ( yes great logical thinking they clearly must of just left the force recon out in the open and shot it up oh what idiots, also what about the tanks and FAVS and as extra iceing you decided to do a rather incomplete and unessesary summary on the capabilities of light and heavy tanks)
Third (I can't believe you are this dumb) You must have used force recon incorrectly because when I use it I use a level three one with one level one force recon. That means you will get quite a force to cut off the bridges and intersections that the enemy needs to use. They arn't guys that can give and take a beating they are either the big push you need (COUGHAIRSTRIKESNOOBCOUGH) because they give you 2 tank units 3 FAV (Fast Attack Vehicals) When you use one level one and one level 3 and 3 riflemen units. I will either use it to defend my uplinks that have force recon attached to it or cut off key roads, bridges, etc. ( Oh I see these are what YOU do silly me how foolish of us not to test your SPECIFIC criteria... oh wait we did it could still be beaten by weak forces when used correctly)
How do me and you KNOW that them tanks are Abrams how do you and me KNOW that those rifles are M-16 assault rifles how do we KNOW their Humvees we dont were guessing at best however their very educated guesses just pointing out that some wikis (mass effect wiki, wikipedia, dragon age wiki, the vault and many many more :{) will pull that kind of stuff of or with language such as' They APPEAR to be armed' 'The tanks are SIMILAR or The tanks deployed look EXACTLY the same as the Abrams tanks deployed back in blah blah' I dont know this wikis policy (probaly the same or the community can change it) on that but until someone says no ( by someone I mean an another admin or im outvoted) I applaud you for using common sense and saying what the units clearly were.
Where does it say that their actually US army and not Marines? I personally I think their US army but where has it being confirmed they are US army. Your Response =
So in short LEARN TO USE IT CORRECTLY YOU IDIOT!!!!!
I still can't believe your this dumb. They are U.S. Army because they are designed to look like it. Plus if the guys you use are marines then clearly the force recon infantry are the us army (Umm no their not) so please shut up or get your friggen facts straight
A lot of what you wrote seemed to be from YOUR personal view why are they easily reconisable not every one may know what a US soldier would look like or more importantly what equipment and hardware is deployed by them (oh I dont know such as guns and tanks), Pain in the butt once again would depend on the commander and the units that they were facing . Plus your talking about elite and special forces facing them as well this all points to a massacre in real life never mind in the game where I tested this out and it was not true. As stated above the view of the M-16 being decreipt is your opinion and a wrong one at that. Long story short try not to write from opinions. YOUR RESPONSE= The Riflemen you get from the force recon must have been standing out in the open because gusse what THEY CAN BEAT THE ELITE COUNTERPARTS. DC 05:35, December 15, 2010 (UTC) So in short learn too act like a civilised adult and not argue with incorrect 'facts' and insults or you may come across as an idiot. Good day
o k
Ok wooow I just edited this page look on the talk page and see this :S, so heres my two cents. I mostly agree with DC they were courteous too you, and generally just advised you on whats acceptable and then you railed against them (Even on things you were in agrement about and I looked at the pag history and the information was to subjective and opineinated. But stuff like a reconisable force doesnt belong its pointless putting it in their so i removed it I mean soldiers change all the time anyway so they wont always be reconisable as us army. ive put their similar to their modern day counterparts but I think that should be remvoed too??.And anon you need too caaaaaallllllllmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm down lol how would you of reacted if DC had being just outright rude and called you an idiot for your article you would properly fucking be pissed Ii bet, i mean they were realy polite the first time . And DC too be fair you should of just edited the article and not asked questions about its staate but i thimk you were trying too help anon out (i think) plus you didnt need too be sooo cutting and sarcastic in response, I get that youve being insulted but were all sposed too be adults here particularyly from an admin. Anywhoos hope you both like the rewrite.Dark Primarch 07:00, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
I am VERY VERY sorry![]
Sorry but I should have added that this was my opion. also why didn't you include the fact that you served in the armed forces? I wasn't trying to insult you. I am very sorry so please forgive me. I was just trying to point out what I thought were facts. Please forgive me.
Reverend []
Okay I have some things to say. The comments below first off fail to capitalize the 'M' in Marines. Now I believe it is the US Army because they say it in game. They also use M16A2 rifles that the US Army uses, the Marine Corps uses tthe M16A4 the visual difference between the two is the handguard the M16A4 uses a RIS the M16A2 does not. Also the only thing that backs up the claim that they could be Marines is the name Force Recon. Also most countries no longer use light tanks or heavy tanks they have aadopted the MBT concept, that is of one tank to fulfill the roles of heavy, medium and light tanks. The leopard, Abrams, T-72, T-80, T-90, Le clerc, Challenger ect... Are all MBTs The USSR stoped making heavy and light tanks in the 1950s.
- And since every other country has Force Recon without having Marine Force Recon... we'll mark that down in Trivia. Also, T-55, T-62 and the original T-64 (not T-64A) were all considered medium despite entering production as late as 1961. - MA4585159 (talk)
- The T-54 and T-55 tanks are a series of main battle tanks originally conceived as medium tanks. The T-62 is a Soviet main battle tank, a further development of the T-55. Its 115 mm gun was the first smoothbore tank gun in use.ReverendSpecialK (talk) 10:29, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but from where I'm standing, Russian Wikipedia trumps English in terms of first-handedness. T-55 and T-62 were both commissioned as medium tanks, with the latter serving alongside T-64A, which is the first that was dubbed an MBT. Same as how AK was never called AK-47. Probably because Russian military historians hate retroactive application of names. - MA4585159 (talk)
- http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product415.htmlhttp://armyjeeps.net/T55NewA/russian_t55_main_battle_tank.htmhttp://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89103/t-55-mbt.htmlhttp://www.primeportal.net/apc/t-55.htmhttp://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Equipment/Armour/341-T55.html
- I guess sisethe T-54 was a medium tank the t-55 could be considered ione as well and considerfed a MBT.ReverendSpecialK (talk) 10:25, September 16, 2013 (UTC)