User talk:CobraDragoon

Marine Raider Regiment
CobraD, would take a look at the recent edits on Marine Raider Regiment between Surfwiki1 and myself? The user seems to be confusing the Marine Raider Regiment with the parent United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, but I'm really not certain. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * BilCat, you are correct; the Regiment is subordinate to the Command. They are not the same thing. All MARSOC Marines are not Raiders. CobraDragoon (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Seabee
The information posted regarding Marine Corps/Seabee organization was ca. 1942 and what you posted is for 2017. I expect you can see the need for a re-edit. You will find that in 1942 heavy weapons were platoons not companies, could be wrong. I can give you a list of battalions to check if you want. Have the complete 4th Marine Divisions Operations Report for Iwo Jima linked to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133. Thank you.

Mcb133aco (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

USMC - US Navy
I am certain there are many USMC on Wikipedia but you are the only one I know of. So, I am going to ask you to review two articles United States Navy  and United States Marine Corps. In both I will ask you to review the section on "Interactions with other services"  (Navy with the Marine Corps and Marine Corps with the Navy). My opinion is that those two should read nearly verbatium. As the black sheep of the Dept of the Navy the Seabees are not mentioned in either version. I added a single line in the USMC article and the user Billcat deleted as potential vandalism. In any case I could do this, but I think you would agree that some things should be left to USMC. Mcb133aco (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the request; I'll take a look and see what I think. CobraDragoon (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and I apologize for posting this on the wrong page. Mcb133aco (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Lost Squadron of the 1st Cavalry Regt.
Thank you for stating the obvious. With their reactivation in '58, I hadn't thought of any retiring from the enlisted corps and I was thinking of officers as lifers. :) Dad's term was two years but yes, he was drafted. He was Signal Corps, 1st Cav Division (not Regt) from Korea to Camp Chitose in Sapporo. Went through basic training at Ft. Jackson only to get pneumonia two weeks from graduation. He spent a month in the hospital and then they had him do basic over again.

Here is a discussion that may interest you as it is about the material we were just editing. You are welcome to join. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information and invitation.CobraDragoon (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your clear explanations in Talk:Platoon! I was hoping perhaps you could also provide an answer to the question I asked at Talk:Headquarters_and_Service_Company? –Tommiie (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Military History
 Hello ! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject&mdash;we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Air assault, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * References have now been added to the article.CobraDragoon (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Red links
Please read WP:REDLINK and restore the redlinks to the List of ships of the United States Army. Red links are a reminder that articles are needed on those subjects and should not be deleted unless they're not notable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wilco. Thanks.CobraDragoon (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

USMC uniforms in Israeli prisons
Hi CobraDragoon,

While I have no objection to your removal of a factoid here, I am curious as to why you chose to specifically remove this part, saying it is "obvious incorrect". Actually it's correct, I am trying to find a source but this might be difficult as the type of uniforms worn in Israel is discussed extremely rarely unless there's some kind of new innovative uniform (and even then these sources get "lost" quickly). The reason Israeli military prisoners wear old USMC uniforms is that the USMC donated them to the IDF, and the IDF had nothing else to do with them. You can see it in this article for example, which happens to mention that these are American uniforms, but doesn't specifically mention the Marines.

—Ynhockey (Talk) 08:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ynhockey,


 * I removed "USMC" uniforms and wrote "obviously incorrect," because as originally written, it would naturally lead one to believe that the uniforms worn by prisoners were essentially identical to those worn by U.S. Marines. There was no disclaimer as to the apparent fact that these were (presumably) "old," or otherwise unserviceable uniforms that may have been previously worn by U.S. Marines. Based purely, on what was written originally, a reader might even believe that Israeli prisoners were going about looking as if they were members of the U.S. Marine Corps! However, and in what ever condition, these uniforms wound up in Israeli hands and some idiot made the decision to issue uniforms that were (again apparently) clearly marked as "USMC" uniforms is absolutely outrageous. These uniforms may have at one time been "USMC" uniforms, but once they left U.S. hands and were issued to prisoners, they were no longer "USMC" uniforms--extremely poor writing by someone who obviously has no respect or sensitivity to the pride and image of the U.S. Marine Corps.


 * Now, had the article explained that the uniforms had formerly been "USMC" uniforms, and they had been donated by the U.S. for Israeli use, etc., etc., then to identify the uniforms as "former," "obsolete," "unserviceable," or whatever, "USMC" uniforms would have been a different matter, and (outrageously!) technically correct. As written, someone could be excused for believing that these prisoners were going about wearing U.S. Marine Corps "Blue Dress" uniforms, rather than the old, obsolete, OG-107, olive green, sateen cotton, non-camouflage, "utility" or "fatigue" uniforms that I suspect they were/are.


 * If someone wants to rewrite that section to make it clear that the prisoners are/were wearing uniforms that had previously been of a style, type, pattern, or whatever worn by U.S. Marines and had been donated by the U.S. and then ended up as "prison" uniforms--then OK--but to simply identify them as "USMC" uniforms is highly misleading, "obviously incorrect," and greatly insulting to the U.S. Marine Corps.CobraDragoon (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Question
Re: this edit you made at USN SEALs, I don't doubt your personal knowledge here, but I still have to ask; do you have a source for these changes? I haven't reverted because the entire section already lacks sourcing, and the article needs more souring overall, so any refs you can add would be helpful. Thanks - wolf  20:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * To directly answer your question re sourcing--no, not yet. However, I am researching it via published works in the public domain, so I hope to have something within a week or so. But, as to reverting--I don't know why anyone would do that, since all I did was to correct/clarify obvious errors introduced by whomever authored the text before I edited it.


 * Specifically, I changed "platoon" Senior Enlisted to "troop" Senior Enlisted since the context of the passage clearly referred to the leadership of the "troop" vice the "platoon" (of which, per the article, each troop contains two), and under the description of the "platoon" leadership, the position of "Platoon" chief is identified. So, obviously, the "Senior Enlisted" of the “troop” would not be a "platoon" Senior Enlisted, but rather a "troop" Senior Enlisted. Secondly, I changed the number of squads and fire teams from the obviously mathematically impossible four and eight, respectively in each "16-20 man" platoon (a number I reduplicated from within the article and to the best of my knowledge is essentially correct), to two and four, respectively based on the number of members per squad (eight) and fire team (four) the article states exists within each platoon.


 * Lastly, I included "squadron" and the deduced "three troops (containing a total of six platoons") from the already existing, disjointed, organizational description that used the term "squadron" (which, again I believe is correct) and stated that the "Team" (viz., "squadron") contains "three 40-man Troops" and each “troop” contains "two SEAL platoons." Ergo, one "Team"/"squadron" contains three "troops" and a total of six SEAL "platoons."


 * I have read another source that stated that a SEAL "Team," which I understand is functionally organized as a "squadron"-equivalent, i.e., a battalion-level organization, since its commanding officer is an O-5 (the same as a naval aviation squadron), contains up to ten platoons (the number of "troops" was not addressed!), but usually contains no more than eight. As further “evidence” for the “squadron” nomenclature, an Army or Marine Corps battalion, or an Army cavalry squadron or Air Force "flying" squadron, is usually commanded by an O-5, as well. (However, a Navy ship or submarine “squadron” is commanded by a senior O-6 with the “courtesy title” of commodore--so who knows?!)


 * Therefore, Navy Special Warfare (NSW) is organized as a "command" consisting of "Groups" (naval regiment or air group-equivalent) commanded by an O-6, containing "Teams"/"Squadrons," (battalion-equivalents) commanded by O-5s, having three, or possibly more, "Troops" (company/battery-equivalents) commanded by O-4s, with at least two organic platoons, each commanded by an O-3 (assisted by an O-2), and organized into two squads of two 4-man fire teams each.


 * Anyway, nothing I have so far edited materially changes this article (except for the titles and numbers, as explained above) rather it makes it clearer and more accurate. I would that someone with direct experience as either an officer or chief petty officer in Navy Special Warfare rewrite this article, but until that happens, I’ll try to find verifiable, reliable (if not official) information (which may be purposely very difficult to obtain, anyway) to more accurately represent the NSW structure.CobraDragoon (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'm aware of the changes you made, I read through all of them before messaging you. You say you're correcting errors made by the previous author, but without sources, what is to say who is correct? Hopefully you see my point, but it's really just the reason for asking in the first place. As I said, the article is sorely lacking in sourcing, and since you say you're actively searching for sources, that's good enough for me. Anything you can find and add would certainly be helpful. Thanks again -  wolf  21:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I have expended all the time and I effort I care to on researching a "definitive" and "official" source for the organization of the Navy Special Warfare Command and its subordinate units, so I have posted the best that I can find: https://navyseals.com/nsw/structure/. One may quibble with certain details of minutia but the edit that I performed and this reference citation are in general agreement. If there is someone out there who has a better citation/more current information, then they are welcome to post and/or edit as appropriate.CobraDragoon (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)