Talk:Special reconnaissance/Archive 1

Archive 1

No Class B review as yet

Hope I'm not jumping the gun, but I'm starting to put the more special operations articles into the rating process while we wait for the intelligence task force/project definition. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

De:Human Intelligence?

I think that wiki-link was wrong. I removed it. Filippof 09:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Remote sensing

It seems to me that you mean remote sensing in the narrow sense of the HUMINT because in the broadest since its significantly older, commencing with sound ranging for artillery.-- mrg3105mrg3105 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not; the term is not used at all for HUMINT, but for MASINT. Igloo White and I-REMBASS are mentioned explicitly. The MASINT series of articles includes current radar, sound, and electro-optical artillery spotting, but most of those sensors are manned and/or too large to be moved by SR teams, such as Electro-optical MASINT#Rocket Launch Spotter.

If one excludes psychic perception, I don't see how remote sensing could be HUMINT. Human reconnaissance, as I understand it, is not remote. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was reading one and typing another. I mean that sound and flash ranging were also used, and earlier the Vietnam. BTW, they were still in use in Vietnam. When I say 'Vietnam', I mean the entire duration of that conflict which includes the French 'period'.-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Globalisation

I'm more than happy to use sources from other countries; there are simply more US documents published than by most other countries. Many of the US documents are coordinated with NATO, so they really are multinational. Besides the US, however, the article now refers to SR operations/techniques from countries including:

• UK: Bruneval, Falklands (SAS & SBS), Iraq (SAS, 18 (UKSF) Signals Regiment), and a number of doctrinal references to SAS and SBS. I'd hesitate before calling the LRDG SR. If you like, I could mention the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, although I haven't seen anything authoritative beyond "it exists".
• USSR: Spetsnaz
• Republic of Korea: joint operations before Inchon
• Republic of Vietnam: LEAPING LENA

The Special reconnaissance organizations does mention a number of units from additional countries, which I do think gives as globalised a view as practical, given that the operational techniques of most others are mot published, although available information suggests they aren't terribly different than the countries listed.

Is this sufficient to take off the globalise tag? Do you have specific sources to suggest?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap this article is messy!

Typical operators, a pile of stuff in the middle of a table and sidebar yapping going on all around. Clean this article up already. 12.46.252.98 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As a total layman, it seems that there is a great deal of detail re Air Support and guidance systems that perhaps would be better hived off into a separate article. It seems too speciali(sz)ed for this article --Yendor1958 (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

History subsection

Is it at least okay to mention that the Continuation War is a sub-theater of WWII?Urbanwanderer2071 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Urbanwanderer2017:, you can re-add any content that is relevant and properly sourced (see WP:CITE), don't change the section header levels, unless necessary, dont remove "refneeded" or "refimprove" tags unless all the content is properly sourced and lastly, if those initial edits made by the IP account were you also (and you dont have say if it was), please dont edit while logged out. Thanks - wolf 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)