Talk:Delta Force/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Delta Force is a nickname not an official name, and should be listed as such on the article page. The term Delta Force refers to a Chuck Norris movie by that title. This name is frowned upon in the actual community and if used at all should be listed under nicknames. All instances of Delta Force should be changed to Delta. --SFjarhead 13:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Its common name among the general populace of the world is Delta Force and therefore the article title should be kept as Delta Force. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). -- Necrothesp 10:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Good argument Necrothesp. Using that logic let's label the article on the French "Garlic-Smelling Surrender-Monkeys", change the title of Judaism to "'dem conspirin' jewz", George Bush's wiki to "Dubbya" or perhaps just "dumbass" and the articles on God to the "man upstairs" or Allah. You know, the general populace of the world and all. Friggin' computer-geek civilians. --EdTadk—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.110.245.176 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 November 2005.

I agree, it is the common nickname for this unit. The article should remain the same; Delta Force title should be under the heading of nicknames.--SFjarhead 01:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How about the official title of the page be 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta and have Delta Force as a disambiguation page for links to this page, the game, and the movie? --BenWoodruff 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, one of the linked PDFs states that DELTA recruits from all branches of service, yet the body of the article states that DELTA recruits only from the Army.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 September 2005.

delta is an army organization, but members of the military from any branch may try out for the force. additionally, some recruiting is done from other forces, but on an informal basis. usually such prospective recruits have special operations experience, such as marines from a MEU-SOC. Avriette 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No Marine, Force Recon or otherwise, would even dream of going through selection for Delta. They draw 99% from the Army. Any transfers are likely to be Air Force Combat Controllers, which, from what I've seen, are better soldiers than anything the Army has to offer anyway. Just what I hear. Take it or leave it. Ooh Rah! - Dave—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.14.46 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 October 2005.

The make-up is 100% Army, no Air Force Combat Controllers from what I know from my time at Bragg. To say the AF Combat Controllers are "better soldiers than the Army" is pretty funny. I've yet to see a Combat Controller with anywhere near the leadership experience of an 82d squad leader or the tactical expertise for that matter. I seriously doubt they're capable of leading the tactical movement of a platoon size element and the few I knew certainly weren't friggin' disciplined enough to put up with some of the stuff an average 11B has to deal with. Virgil61 01:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand, if Delta is 100% Army, as stated above...why bother with the June, 2002 recruitment trip to Okinawa(USMC)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.100.17 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 March 2006.

The June 2002 Recruitment trip is because there are Army Units (including One Battalion of the 1st Special Forces Group) on Okinawa at Torii Station. (This is -or was- all easily accessible Public knowledge). SFOD-Delta draws 100% from the Army, but their selection is open to every male soldier SPC and above (Branch Qualified Officers in the grade of O-3 or O-4), regardless of SF, Ranger or Airborne affiliation -- provided that they've completed most of their first enlistment (They will be sent to Airborne school prior to operator training if they pass the assessment phase -- Just like Special Forces). That means that SPC Joe the Cook can try out for it and --provided he's in the physical and mental shape and has the character to pass Selection and Assessment-- can become an operator. Additionally, Marines, Sailors and Airmen can service-transfer to the Army (that is, reenlist into, Ala Blue to Green) and then try out for Delta, but they have to transfer to the Army first and may not transfer back if they fail selection (At least until the end of their enlistment. The same is true of those in the Army who transfer into the Navy to become SEALs) -- Just like SAS, this open-selection was the intent of the unit in the first place in order to draw on the potential of all soldiers, not just those in Special Ops. That is, according both to Charlie Beckwith's book "Delta Force" and to the annual Perscom/HRC SFOD-D briefing announcements. SFOD-D briefings are held at least once a year on every major base in every major US ARMY command in the world. SFOD-D Briefing announcements with all of this information used to be available on the Perscom website prior to 2001. They have since been removed. -- A guy who actually pays attention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 April 2006.

delta force should remain the way it is.in every special forces guide or encyclopedia etc they are refered to as delta force not just delta.plus it is more recognizable as delta force also personally it sounds better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.202.119 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 August 2005.

Delta Force is such a clicheed, overused term. It is, indeed, cringed at by actual operators. Within the Army Delta Force is known as Delta, D-Boys, or just D. Members of the unit are referred to as 'Operators'. Rumor within military circles has it that the unit has been renamed to Combat Applications Group or CAG. Delta Force is just being thrown around too much, it seems. By comparison, look at the former Seal Team Six, which, due to the brazen blabbermouth Richard Marcinko, had to redesignate itself 'Naval Special Warfare Development Group', or DEVGRU. As secrecy in both the SEALS and Delta intensifies as the war on terror continues, there may come a time when special operators in either unit carry no designation whatsoever. Most direct ops are conducted as part of a Task Force anyway, e.g. Task Force 11 or 22 in Afghanistan, which is an amalgam of operators from all branches of the military. The point is, if the public overuses unit designations they are likely to be changed. Anon—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.14.46 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 October 2005.

No, administratively they will always have some unit identifier, even if working under another unit commanding a taskforce. It's just the way the military is. Combat Applications Group does indeed refer to Delta, but is a very loose umbrella term. Gibson Cowboy 16:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point about overuse. "Delta Force" is an amateurish handle used by civilians. I never heard it refered except as "Delta" while at USASOC. It really should reflect the actual name rather than silly-sounding popular convention. Virgil61 01:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, requiring the average person to type in Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta every time is rediculous. I understand the annoyance the special forces community has at the term "delta force," but that is the common name the public has for it. And unfortunately, most civilians don't have to deal with typical military designations so it's better to keep this simple. Gibson Cowboy 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Revelations 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC) "Deltoids" is a term that I have DF members use when they are referring to others of their rank.

If Charlie Beckwith referred to it as Delta Force (Delta Force at Amazon.com), then I think that Civvies and Wikipedia can get away with it, too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 April 2006.

         What about Delta's association with the British S.A.S rumor has it that they train together, looking at the qualifitcation list on the main page it seems like a lot of things are the same. The 40 mile hump the psychological testing all that good stuff....seeing that Delta is so secretive it seems that they are a lot like the S.A.S being so tied down yet given so many personnal freedoms.

There is a Delta Force series of movies. Two of the movies The Delta Force and Delta Force 2 already have Wiki pages. There is also a Delta Force video game which has a wiki. Why don't we make a Delta Force disambiguation page? We can give a link to the above and include Delta (US Special Operations Force) as one of the options. This would allow Wiki to have the correct name and allow for the uneducated masses to find the appropriate article. --BenWoodruff 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree Mathmo 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to substantiate the recent diff with a cursory google search, and subsequently found nothing but a bunch of garbage by counterintelligence fanboys. I realize these things are hard to substantiate, but surely somebody can find something? Avriette 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing from that diff I've found that is accurate is the mention that delta recruits from any component (active, guard, reserve) etc. I'm inclined to believe that article is wrong because Delta's training program consists of extreme amounts of practice in MOUT tactics and weapons training (evidenced by Col. Beckwith's book about the creation of delta), and that their training program is very similar to both SFQC/SFAS, and SAS selection. I've never heard anything about any DAO group, but then again if it really existed that wouldn't surprise me. Swatjester 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Diccussion transferred from Navy Seals because Delta Force is meant. (MARK S. 14:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, Women cannot become Navy SEALs. The only SOF women can become, is Delta Force. This is only a rumour though! It's said there is a platoon within Delta Force called "Funny Platoon" made up of female personnel. Again, this may just be a rumour.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 January 2006.

Incorrect. Women are not allowed to hold combat arms positions in the Army, and any member of Delta Force is a member of 1st Special Forces Group, and still holds an 18 series MOS identifier, which is restricted to males only.Swatjester 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunetly You are incorrect!

Deltas are -NOT- members of 1st SFGroup, but of the "Combat Applicatins Group", formerly known as "1st SFODetachment (Airborne) Delta", which was a separate unit with an ASF-Unit-Name for secrecy reasons. By the way, there are diffrent special forces web-sides where the existence of the "FUNNY PLATOON" IS CONSIDERD AS A MATTER OF FACT(!) (MARK S. 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately, no I'm not. "funny platoon" has never been anything more than a rumor. The clear and verifiable fact is that ALL members of Delta ARE technically co-existant members of 1st SFG. They STILL hold an 18 series MOS, and the position is STILL restricted to women. Remember: women in the army are NOT allowed in direct fire combat arms positions. Stop telling me I'm wrong, stop making uncivil comments on this talk page, and instead, try citing your sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a complete idiot if you think women don't hold combat arms positions in the US Army. Having lived for 3 years on an Army base as the spouse of a soldier I can tell you with 100% certainty that women do indeed hold combat arms positions. You've obviously never been to an army base or been to Iraq. If you were in Iraq you would see women manning machine guns on the gun line, going on raids, defending convoys, ect.....Irreguardless of what you think the MOS says women are 100% certainly serving in direct fire combat arms positions in Iraq and Afganistan as we speak. I would point out that a huge number of soldiers operate outside their MOS - daily. It's certainly sad to see an 74A or a 54B cleaning floors and cutting lawns on a daily basis

It would seem rather stupid to not have female members of Delta. Delta isn't just about guns and muscle it's about being able to slip in and out of places without being noticed. I hate to break it to you but women would often be less noticed than big muscled men.

QB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.150.19 (talk • contribs)

I hate to break it to you, but "irreguardless" is neither a word, nor would it be spelled correctly if it were one. As for women in combat positions, yes, they are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is a major difference between non-combat soldiers being caught in an ambush and those specifically trained to go kick in doors, which women are not. Parsecboy 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A google search of [1] comes up with only 320 hits for "funny platoon", all of which are either from unsourced fansites, or refer to it as speculative, with no information to confirm or deny its existance. Everything is "believed to be" or "allegedly" or "supposedly". Out of all those links, the only ones with any little bit of credence are the stars and stripes links (all of which quantify it with "allegedly or believed to be, or supposedly"). I'm sorry but conjecture on blogs, forums, etc. does not equal verifiable facts that Funny platoon actually does exist and employs women. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hallo!

Verifiing actual matters officially classified can obviously not be substantiated by hard(official) sources (as everybody knows). Therefore all the sources I found are inofficial:

• 1) "The TO (Table of Order) for Delta consists of three operational squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is termed the "Funny Platoon". This funny platoon is reported to be the only JSOC unit including female operators."-http://www.specwarnet.com/americas/delta.htm
• 2) "The Funny Platoon": This is the in-house Intelligence arm of Delta. They grew out of a long-running dispute/rivalry with ISA. They will infiltrate a country ahead of a Delta intervention to gather intelligence. They are the only US Special Operation Force to employ woman in a combat role (the only other SOF that has employed women at all has been Army Special Forces, and then, only in a training role)."- http://www.delta-green.com/opensource/textbook/socom.html
• 3) " There is also the Funny Platoon, an intel group that uses female operatives."-http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dngrjobs.htm
• 4) "Under its umbrella, Delta is said to consist of three operational — direct action shooting — squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is often referred to as the Funny Platoon, believed to be one of the few special operations units allowing female operators among the trigger pullers."-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

Possibly these sources do not meet scientific demands but they are an indication for the "Funny Platoon's existence. (MARK S. 14:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Sorry Mark, but I'm afraid Swatjester's right on the money with this.

Prior to my separation in 2004, I was stationed at Ft. Bragg, assigned to the 313th MI. Now, the problem is that while Delta has a training compound at Bragg, they pretty much keep strictly to themselves, so noone really knew how much of the rumors were truth and what was just speculation. Yes, there were rumors floating around about the "funny platoon" (along with much discussion on the nature of the women assigned), but it was the standard shooting the BS "I know a guy who heard from a guy, who overheard a ..." type of rumor.

The problem with females in Delta is exactly the problem Swatjester pointed out. See, NOONE enlists directly into Delta (that I've ever heard of, anyway). Delta likes to recruit from the 18 series sorts after they've gotten some time under their belts. And women are explicitly barred from selecting an 18 MOS.

As for the links you provided, I certainly don't think I'd call them "an indication for the Funny Platoon's existence". The sites are strictly speculative/fan/fringe sites, to be taken with a large grain of salt. By the same token, I can dig up several sites that are adamant that the 11B's are fighting with railguns and laser weaponry as standard issue. :) Of course, that doesn't make it true.

What the bottom line comes down to is that if Delta's fabled "funny platoon" does exist, the women in it aren't coming from the ranks of the US Army. We don't have a qualified pool for them to draw from. I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that they could be seconded women from DIA/CIA, but that's pure unfounded speculation on my part. It'd take far more convincing documentation to suggest that "funny platoon" is anything more than wistful fantasy. JEJoyce 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been on every major news channel in the US over the past 5 years that all branches of special forces in the US - Delta, Rangers, Seals, ect.. are now actively recruiting outside of the military. They are looking for the best possible people and it seems that they've finally figured out that the military isn't necessarily the best place to find them. They aren't just looking for people to pull triggers anymore. Why exactly wouldn't a women with a much higher IQ than the average enlisted soldier or trained savant fighter be just as good of choice as a guy who got a GED and spent 4 years as a medical clerk, mechanic or cook? Most nations outside the "Western" world use women as covert special ops. Women can be just as brutal and intelligent as any man. If they are good enough for the CIA and the NSA to use in similar positions why not Delta or Rangers?

As the wife of a soldier I have the greatest respect for our men and women in uniform. However, I can honestly say that not all of the soldiers in our military are not what anyone would consider top of the line or professional soldiers. When you're trying to select the "best of the best" from a pool that consists of less than 1% of the population you have to be realistic and know that your best isn't really anywhere near what the "best" could or should be. I can't count on my fingers how many soldiers I've seen who couldn't even grasp the English language well enough to take basic orders from there command or soldiers who didn't know how to preform basic math. Does it really take a genius to figure out why they finally started looking for outside placements or why women in a "Funny Platoon" would be preforming intelligence gathering?

A CAG Squadron consists of Approximately 50 operators. It is broken into three 16 man Troops; 2 Assault Troops, and 1 Sniper Troop. An Assault Troop consists of a four man Head Quarters element, Troop Commander, Troop Sergeant Major, Troop Communications Chief, and Troop Medic, and then 12 Assaulters, which are typically organized into three 4 man teams, or two 6 man team (referred to as "Heavy"), plus any attachments that there might be (i.e. such as CCT). A Sniper Troop, also consists of 16 operators, the same 4 man HQ elements, and then the other 12 Snipers are divided into two 6 man sections, which are further divided into 2 man sniper teams. A sniper team consists of a Sniper and an Observer (who is usually the Team Leader). CAG recruits from ALL of the different service branches (including the Coast Guard) of the Military unlike DEVGRU, which recruits exclusively from within the ranks of the Navy SEALs. They are THREE Operational Squadrons (A,B, and C). In addition, CAG Operators also serve as part of Intelligence Support Activity (also known as "The Activity", "Task Force Orange", and the "Army of Northern Virginia"), which conducts SR operations in Sensitive, Denied or Restricted territories, they also do things like Target Acquisition and TTL, using things like Blackbird systems, "Airscan", and other covert SIGINT. There is also a Tier above this, it is referred to as "PM" (Paramilitary). These are the Operators, who are discharged from the military and then are hired by PMCs and then go to work for groups such as SAD/SOG.

QB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.150.19 (talk • contribs)

It's pretty rich that you're ripping on soldiers who "couldn't even grasp the English language", while you make one spelling and grammatical mistake after another. There, their, and they're are all different words, with different meanings. One does not "preform", one "performs" a task. Parsecboy 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your MOS does not change when you enter Delta Force, nor does Delta Force recruit strictly from the 18 series MOS. SFOD-D is considered a Special Mission Unit (SMU), not a Branch. According to Douglas Waller's extensively researched 1993 book "The Commandos" an idea that involved Female operators was experimented with briefly in the 1980s but dropped almost immediately as unworkable (but not until after some women had gone through a modified selection and assessment course). Waller provides his Sources in the appendix of the book, including JSOC staff and Delta Operators, so I'm inclined to take him at his word. However -- according to the same sources the "Funny Platoon" does currently exist. It is a Military Intelligence platoon attached to SFOD-D. Women can hold nearly any MI position (exceptions being the S2 in Infantry and Armor battalions -- though they can serve as S2 in Engineer and Aviation BNs as well as at the Brigade level), so I see no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand, especially since women can serve in SOCOM in CA and PsyOp capacities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 April 2006.

the previous comment is correct. females can hold any position in a support unit, such as special forces support or ranger support. the same would hold true for a support unit for delta. Parsecboy 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw on the discovery channel(maybe discovery times channel?) SF women in the feild in Afghanistan to search the women there ect... is that considered a "support role"? They caried the same combat gear as the males. Sorry i can't provide a link. -Stowic Stowic 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Women are not allowed to hold combat arms positions in the Army" : I think there is nevertheless a way to get an exemption about this for some special units, because the ISA included some women, at least in the early 1980s (according to "Killer Elite", by M. Smith). So Delta also may have (or have had) female operators. And specwarnet page is wrong to say that Delta is the only JSOC unit having female operators. Unfortuneatly "Killer Elite" doesn't quote the "funny platoon", nor do any other reference as far as I know. What is known about the ISA seems to make improbable that Delta has ever had set up such an intel platoon, because the ISA remained active and his performances impressed Delta/DEVGRU operators along the 80s. And the ISA had "dispute" with the INSCOM (because INSCOM was not familiar with special ops and covert ops), not directly with Delta. On my own mind, I suppose that the "funny platoon" rumour might in fact come from ISA female operators seen at Bragg during a joint Delta-ISA exercise. Rob1bureau 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider specwarnet a particularly reliable source based on what it says about units I do understand well, fwiw it's UK information is complete bollocks. Notwithstanding that I think your conclusion is reasonably valid. Delta need not have female operatives because it works in close co-operation with other units which will have female personnel.ALR 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my three cents. I am a former soldier (Afghan 1x, Iraq 1x)..I was NOT under the Special Operations command, but I DID train with several Special Forces ODAs as well as two different groups that were referred to as 'Delta' while I was in Iraq. The only reason I was able to do this is because I was a patrol/explosives detection dog handler. They 'Delta' guys also employed the use of a dog, and therefore we would combine training events with them. No question was ever asked directly, "Are you delta?"..."Are you CIA?"..or the like, simply because they didnt bring it up and I felt it better not to break the training relationship we had. After leaving Iraq I received emails from "1st SFOD-D" on a semi regular basis which provided basic information on applying to attend their selection course. 1st SFOD-D also holds regular briefings at all major Army installations. As I read in the emails: Pre-requisites included E-4/0-3 and above, GT and PT scores at a certain level. I was an MP, so that goes to show that ANY MOS may apply for selection. Those in SOCOM are perhaps better suited for the rigors of such a position, but any MALE soldier meeting those basic requirement may try out. Females do alot, as we see in the news consistently, they fill spy roles with the CIA and other government groups, but 1st SFOD-D is strictly a group of MALE soldiers that perform all sorts of covert/direct-action/special reconnaissance scary shit that I wouldnt want to do. But the fact remains they are MALE and they are SOLDIERS. -DavidM

A show on TV (history channel?) on capturing Pablo Escobar (cocaine kingpin in Columbia in the 1990s) said the Delta force was heavily involved in Columbia as part of that effort (as part of the US response to the President of Columbia's request for help). 4.250.138.184 18:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. As a result I inserted a line about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 October 2005.

This should be expanded ; Killing Pablo gives more details about Delta implication, and is more reliable about the role of Delta advisers for the Search bloc. Rob1bureau 13:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, on the History Channel Special "Killing Pablo" they go into good detail about the involvment of Delta Force ans Sentra (sp?) Spike. They had a huge role in the killing of pablo and it should be added to there missions. 69.129.67.253 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC) PS Im at work so I cant sign in but Im Gundam94.

I believe there is some speculation that Delta was involved in the raid that ended the Japanese embassy hostage crisis in Lima, Peru a few years back. Anyone have any vis on this? I also remember seeing a video that was shot right after the incident where the raid force all gathered in a courtyard and were supposed to be singing the Peruvian national anthem and there were obviously some very European looking individuals who had no idea what the words to the song were. They were just moving their lips to make it look like they were singing. Am I way off on this or is there anything official that may warrant mentioning it in the article?

I heard the rumor too, but nothing to substantiate it. ⇒ SWATJester ^eady Aim _Fire! 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, found on GlobalSecurity.org : A small advance team was sent to Lima, Peru immediately following the takeover of the Japanese Ambassador's residence in January 1997 along with six members of the British SAS.. Delta can frequently operate "observators" and/or support teams, as it is said for Brigadier General James L. Dozier kidnapping.

Told to me by an Operator himself: a group of Delta were actually in flight on their way to Peru, but they were diverted back state side when the Peruvians conducted their own successful mission. = That is fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.88.211 (talk • contribs)

In recruitment it says that Delta is only for Army green berets and Rangers who want to try out for it(or are asked I guess). However, links under Background show a recruitment ad for all military personel to come to a 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta orientation. It lists a bunch of requirements that someone must first have but it specifically states that Delta is open to people from other services.

Which one is right? Is delta open to all branches or not? It's a little unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docbrown777 (talk • contribs)

Err, in that context, branches means "branches of service" i.e. Army, Navy, etc. For the past couple of years, Delta has been open to any member of the US army who wants to apply, however, they must in the process pass all the requirements for the US Army Special Forces. Therefore, all members of Delta are a priori members of US Army Special Forces....they just got there from different places. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delta is open to all Branches of the US ARMY, not Branches of Service. Members of other services must transfer to the Army to apply. Delta has always (since its inception) been open to members from all Branches, as patterned after the British SAS. Delta Selection and Assessment is similar in concept to SF Selection and Assessment, but the training itself is not. The only "SF" standards that Delta operators must meet are the Physical Training standards, which are essentially the same PT Standards as Airborne requirements (70% in all categories at the 17-21 level). Any male in the Army who wants to try can submit a packet. When their packet is reviewed, they may be invited to attend the selection course. Ranger and SF status by themselves do not confer special status for selection purposes. (although you are more likely to find people who can pass the A/S course among SF and Rangers, that's correlation, not causation) Once in the Delta Pipeline (upon completion of Selection and Assessment), and upon completion of the Operator's Training Course, these soldiers fall under the auspices of SOCOM and on that basis are considered Special Operations Forces. However, they are not 18 series, nor do they undergo any 18 series training, so they are not "Special Forces". There is a difference between SOF and SF, so Swatjester's statement is misleading.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.53.104 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 April 2006.

Delta selection is open to all branches of the military, period. A couple years back I posted listings from multiple branches showing this, but the history for this page is too long for me to go back and get them. I am going to change this once and for all! 66.65.116.72 06:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Aceee

The selection of Delta applicants is completely different from the selection of Special Operations "Green Beret" applicants. Special Operations applicants go through a more formal standard military type selection process which emphasizes working in teams, physical training, and conventional application of military skills. Delta applicants are given a physical training test then a very non-standard type selection process that focuses on individual performance, the ability to act autonomously, a psychological profile, and interviews to determine if they "fit" with Delta. Special operations selection has very specific pass-fail standards that you must achieve to move forward, whereas the Delta applicant never knows what the pass-fail standard is. Additionally, someone in Delta will have completed the Q course and be authorized to wear the Special Operations tab. Any Delta in uniform wears the standard "Green Beret" of the Special Operations Command. It is not uncommon for any given Q course to have a Delta or two in it to learn a specialty. When they train in a more standard Army environment, they do so in uniform but have a cover story for the type of unit they are in. The breadth and scope of training that a Delta operative receives is far beyond the scope of any other military training soldiers receive including Rangers and Special Ops. Delta operator training is more what you would expect a covert operative to receive rather than standard military training. It is very broad and is highly technical. While it is true that physical and weapon training for an operator is intense. The myriad of other technical skills learned are impressive in their own right. Couple that with a priority to teach operators to think outside the box and work with complete autonomy then you will begin to understand that comparing Delta with any other type of Army unit is ridiculous.

So is the Delta Force considered a more elite force than say the Green Berets (Army Special Forces)? Zachorious 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They're different. Delta's principal task is counter-terrorism, whereas Green Berets' operations involve mainly unconventional warfare and direct action. --Nkcs 02:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Green Berets are supposed to do mostly training of rebels allied with the US for Spec. Ops style campaigns. MikeNM 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

69.162.53.104 is wrong on the airborne standards ( i realize, nitpicking). they are not 70-70-70, they are 60-60-60. i attended jump school in nov. 2004, and unless they've changed since then (which is highly unlikely) that's what they remain. Parsecboy 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I was by Ft. Benning (earlier this year) the PT standard was 60 60 60 to pass the army standard: BUT US Army Airborne school required a 70-70-70 by the start of Tower Week. SFAS requires a 70-70-70 minimum, on top of the required standards for airborne school and army standard. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

since when do you take a 2nd pt test at jump school? there isn't enough time for 2 pt tests. although, my roommate actually got back from jump school today, so i'll ask him when he's around. i'll let you know what he says... Parsecboy 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Read again what I said: You don't take 2 PT tests: But if your first PT test you score 60-60-60, you have to improve by Tower Week. Like I said, things may have changed, but ask your friend, I'd like to know for certain. And regardless it doesn't matter: SFAS requires 70-70-70. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

i realize what you said. but in the army, if you don't prove it on paper (i.e., on a pt test) nothing has occurred. and even if what you say is the standard, there aren't too many nco's in the army who care enough to actually verify progress without being forced to hold a 2nd pt test. Parsecboy 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One of several operations in which Delta Force operators are thought to have played important roles was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They allegedly entered Baghdad in advance, undercover with long hair and moustaches..

The last bit of that seems like it could be false. As it happens, I don't know that much about the subject, and am most probably wrong, hence why I didn't make a change. Just let me know if I did correctly, so that I can learn in future.--Dreaded Walrus 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it "could be false" hense the reason the line says "thought to have played". Anything about Delta is difficult to verify. However, there are many pictures in the book "Black Hawk Down" of Operators with shaggy hair and thick mustaches while in the Mog. Also, I know some of the SF guys first on the ground in Afghanistan after 9/11 and they all have heavy, native-style beards in their photos - Rezdave 12 May '07

My husband has pictures of his time in Iraq of going on raids with special forces and they were wearing dark tennis shoes and nothing even close to regulation uniforms longer dirty hair and beards.

Fiction, as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary: "Invention or fabrication as opposed to fact." Folks have been persistently editing this article with citations from The Unit, a show on CBS; 24, a show on FOX; and Deception Point, a novel by Dan Brown; among others — and these citations are, to say the least, inappropriate. Small wonder the mainstream doesn't take this project seriously, if you're going to publish an encyclopedia that asserts certain facts to be true based on their depiction in dramatic works. Cribcage 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing my best to remove any such edits. It's a disrespect to Delta operators that such assertions and citations exist. Anyway, that's why we have a "Delta force in popular culture" section. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put together a list of Delta soldiers that have died in action since the beginning of the unit. Given the secrecy of the unit, a death is one of the few times the unit is even somewhat tacitly acknowledge by the Pentagon, which doesn't even list the unit in the press release announcing the soldier's death, choosing only to say the soldier was assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command. I think this would be a good addition to this page but wanted to run it past others before adding to the page. Thanks. Dsw 11:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You could conceivably make an article called "List of US Army Special Operations Command soldiers who have died in action" but since you have no way to explicitly verify that they were in Delta, you cannot include it in the article as per WP:V and WP:CITE. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the sacrifice is the same if a person was delta or a fry cook on the USS Missouri. I agree that a page for soldiers who died in service might be good, but long, as it really should include all the names available for all conflicts. I am not sure if it would get vandalized if it is even possible to make such a list. Perhaps some sort of clearing procedure would need be dreamed up and obviously restrict user posting. I am sure there are databases with list of Fallen Soldiers somewhere that could be used. One nice thing about such a list would be that families, friends, comrades, could then link to a page in memory for each of the fallen, in those pages information like citations, unit, branch, or other information could be included. Just my 2 cents. Mantion 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, you generally can't verify which unit KIA's come from, and even if you could, you certainly couldn't verify that they were delta. If you can't verify it, you can't include it.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to be a bit confusing. This is typical when it is contributed and then edited. I think that reorganizing it would be beneficial.

First the "background" section jumps right into the failed 1980 mission then goes on some random tangents. I think starting over or deleting the section entirely. I think that "Delta force in modern conflicts" could be changed to "Delta in conflicts" and include all operations including the ones listed in the Second "Operations".

Maybe expanding some sections and adding some, like people credited with delta's formation. Also the term "Delta Force" is used a bit too much and though it is common in popular culture it is kind of annoying to some. Delta would be just fine. It is like people who say "PIN Number" which is redundant and annoying because the "N" Stand for number already. Anyways, "Delta" or "1st SFOD-D" would be better then delta force

Well there is a bunch of changes I think could stream line things and improve flow, just want to hear other's idea before anything is done.Mantion 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, that where it says "Delta Force" should be changed to "Delta". ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mantion, the page is too confusing, especially about operations : you've got a part entitled "operations" but dealing with the structure of Delta (?), another part also entitled "operations" (!?!) with a list of the bigs US military operations, and finally "Delta Force in modern conflicts" about some operations including Colombia (1992-92), Somalia (1993), Afghanistan (2001-02) and Iraq (2003) but not in the chronological order, and this part also includes various details about Delta weaponry, nicknames, etc. I suggest to add a warning like "page needing cleanup" or something like ; to re-organize the page ; and later to expand it and quote more sources.

About the name, I think that the term "Delta Force" should be keep as title because it is very common (at least for those who are not in special forces), but I think too we should create a sub-section about Delta names/nicknames, and to use only "Delta"/"Delta unit" in the page. I suggest also not to use "1st SFOD-D" as a current unit's term because it is probably no longer Delta's name. 1st SFOD name was already compromised after the operation Eagle Claw, and Combat Applications Group has been reported since.

Otherwise, I think that the page may be widely expanded by relying on more and better sources such as "Delta Force", by Col. Charles Beckwith, "Inside Delta Force" by Eric Haney, and others such as "Black Hawk Down" and "Killing Pablo" by Mark Bowden or "Not a good day to die" by Sean Naylor. Newspapers versions of Mark Bowden's writtings are available here : [2] and [3] for B.H.D., [4] for K.P. Photos of Deltas in the Iran mission are available here : [5]. On my own, I have "Secret Warriors" by Steven Emerson (about covert military operatios in the 1980s, including some od Delta) and "Black Hawk Down", and I'm ready to help you if you want it. Rob1bureau 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have begun to re-organize the page. Rob1bureau 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is/are there any legal citations for claims made in this portion of the article? The legal standing described in the "Immunity" section seems rather improbable for several reasons: PDD 25 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm) is a Clinton era document dealing with peacekeeping operations and while a sitting President can pardon someone for past crimes (think of Nixon and Ford) a President has no authority to exempt anyone from the laws of the United States. Even the president of the United States is not exempt from the law. Again, any valid citations suggesting that the President of the US can simply exempt someone (FBI, CIA, military, or the Boy Scouts) from the law? If not, perhaps the section should be removed.

It's true that they have presidential inmunitty? thanks...

It is what someone has written in the page some time ago, but it's probably false as said above your own message. I don't know the laws problems, but it seems that the President of the U.S. can't give imunity to anyone. Rob1bureau 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This section, particularly the reference to MEMS (microbots), makes absolutely no sense at all. What is the point of microbot techonolgy in the overall context of Delta? How and why are they applied or used? Where is the citation documentation? This needs a serious rewrite or should be eliminated. Sduplessie 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the problems of "immunity" and "MEMS" are among those making a clean-up and a re-organization of the page necessary. The page should cite more sources, and primary focuse on information directly linked to Delta, for example planned operations about POW/MIAs in Laos or hostage rescue in Middle East (US hostages in Lebanon, TWA-847 and Achille Lauro hijackings). Rob1bureau 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is plainly obvious that many special operations forces use non-standard equipment. Perhaps a discussion about how this is done is in order. The issue of 1911 use brings the issue up for me here. I dont' doubt its use by members of Delta or other special units. It is merely not the only one. I have seen references to Delta using HK USP Tactical Pistols, Glock 19, and even the ubiquitous Beretta 92. Stating that the pistol of choice is a personally bought highly customized 1911 is disingenuous, and does not give an accurate portrayal of what is used and carried by these soldiers. The fact that they have discretion is not disputed, just the portrayal here is remarkably one sided. Smash05

The part about the 1911 quotes a clear and identified source, what is rather rare in the page, so I advise to keep it. But I agree that as most SOF, D-Boys can carry the weapon they want. In his second book, Robert Baer reports D-Boys in the Beyrut embassy using 9 mm Glock pistols (probably 17s, but he doesn't told what model) - it was between 1986 and 1988. It is another good reference, maybe someone could add it (I don't do it because I have read the French translation of the book, no an English one). Otherwise, it seems that the 1911 is the most used pistol in Delta (various reports including Black Hawk Down). Rob1bureau 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC) upd 16:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very clear that the 1911 is the clear choice for Delta. A very telling source is Larry Vicker's web page, because as a professional soldier his retirement plan became custom gunsmithing but his only experience with that was from the Delta Armorers and hence the only pistol he builds is the 1911. Here is a good quote from his webpage, "I was also fortunate to be in a Unit where more .45 ACP ammo is shot out of 1911 style pistols than any other place in the world; the ultimate test bed. I learned alot in the 15 years I was at 1st SFOD-Delta about what it takes to make a 1911 work reliably and how to keep it running. I also want to thank the individuals who work in the arms room at the Unit; they will remain nameless but I learned alot from them on making a 1911 run." I plan to intergrate this into the article if no one else has objections. --Semper Fidelis 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The stipend for the personal 1911, however, is unusual even amongst the discretion given to both "vanilla" SF group, and other elements of SOCOM. Fact is, Delta has free reign to use basically whatever the hell they want, but as we have a clear, very good source for the 1911, we need to keep it in there. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a bit about the HK416 that was uncited and seems to violate NPOV. Also as noted in a conversation above - I think a well regarded weapons magazine may not be a good enough source on the 1911 issue. I hate to be picky but it irks me for reasons I will get into if someone wants me to. Anyway I would like to see a citation for information on the HK416 - and perhaps alot of this information belongs in an equipment section. Smash05 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Smash05

(UTC)Smash05, perhaps you are referring to Larry Vickers. I made a page for him, but it was shortly deleted. He was hired by HK for his experience as a Delta Operator and was a cheif designer for redesigning the M4/M16 into a operating piston system. You can find more information here, http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm, or here, http://www.vickerstactical.com/about/HK416.htm. I would also like the Larry Vickers page to be reinstated, but if not maybe his reference should be taken off this page. He was also responsible for pushing the development of the 7.62 HK 417 as he is a well stated fan of the larger NATO round. --There is no replacement for displacement. 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the 416 section: the weapons platform is not new, it's a marketing trick by HK to repackage the AR system. It's had lots of issues itself in testing, and gas piston AR15's have been around for some time before the 416, just none with HK's slick marketing and branding system. Also, the article as written makes the M4 sound like direct impingement systems are horribly unreliable, which is patently untrue. I've neutralized the tone. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the Larry Vickers page and am rewriting it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the Larry Vickers Page, I had planned to complete it but your draft was far better then what I could have completed. As for the M4/M16 Piston system that was written by myself, and I was speaking from what I felt was common knowledge about the weapon but I apologize if it violated the neutral tone. I felt it was important to mention because a unit such as Delta is often deployed without support for several weeks and quite often taking time to break down their firearms is not an option, due to the fact that each member must wait for his turn to break down their personal weapon so that at any time there is no more but one gun out of action, as I have been told that is the SOP for Recon Marines. Reliability is crucial when in this situation and I think we can accurately assume that this is the reason why only SOF have received this rifle. As I mentioned below, I would request permission to detail some of these issues in a separate article along with alternatives so they could only be briefly mentioned here. You are most certainly correct that gas piston systems have been around for the M16/M4 family long before Heckler and Koch came into town, Patriot Ordinance (http://www.pof-usa.com/) being my personal favorite. I think a separate page with some of the over viewing some of the issues (the 5.56 NATO being unsuitable for CQB), and alternatives such as the HK416 and other guns, along with mentioning that it would not be feasible for the Army to replace the M16 rifle entirely but could rather only replace the upper receiver and reuse their stock of magazines with other alternative options. Speaking from personal experience I must respectfully disagree with you evaluation of the rifle's mechanism. I have seen soldiers fight over the M249 because nobody wanted to have to use a M16 because after several hours in the field it was unknown it your rifle could fire more then a half dozen rounds. Even the Army and Marine times have published articles that state the HK416 is far superior to the M16 and there is a rather large push among some of the command to get the best weapon for the troops. The M16 is a fine rifle in many aspects but only so much so when it has been properly cleaned, not including criticism of the 5.56 NATO. The Jessica Lynch incident, and hundreds others that did not receive attention show us what the ramifications are of a rifle that does not offer reliability in harsh environments. It's quite true that some or most of this incidents were the fault of improper weapons maintenance but it is not always possible to maintain the weapon at it's operating condition in many circumstances, to most obvious being SOF units such as Delta. This issues stem back to Vietnam and the original rifle because of changes in the final production plans. Take note, I am not trying to put down the M16 completely. For a shooting war on the plains of Europe this rifle, and the 5.56 NATO, would have proven to be a very powerful combination against Soviet weapons as was envisioned but today's military must adopt to overcome the issues that are present in the current war we are fighting. While the HK416 no doubt had issues in it's testing phase that is actually a positive point because every issue caught early is an issue that can be solved before the final product is deployed. As seen Heckler and Koch have had great experience and positive results helping redesign the British SA80/L85 so this is not their first time doing this. I think this merits further discussion and I am looking forward to your reply but I mean no disrespect towards your position. --Semper Fidelis 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is though, criticism of the direct impingement system is listed on the M16 (rifle) and M4 carbine pages, as well as on another page, can't remember the exact title but it's like Comparison between the AK47 and the M16. It's only tangentially related to Delta, so it doesn't belong in this article; that said, nothing stopping it from inclusion elsewhere.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I added more to the HK416 and HK417 along with sources, and made a seperate section for weaponary because it seems to be such a hot topic. I also expanded Larry Vicker's section, and plan to help create a page for him once I find more sources (other then his personal webpage). I also plan to create a page for issues with the M4/M16 to it's possible in the future that less of those issues have to be highlighted in these passages. The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/) spacifically states that only Delta Force and other special forces units are going to see the new HK carbines so I feel that it is fitting to mention them. --There is no replacement for displacement. 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed instances of the M14 to the M21 because this is the military term for the rifle. Although the original author mentioned the M14 because that is how it is referred to in Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden, the author of that book only used the term M14 because he felt his readers would not be familiar with the more obscure term "M21". --There is no replacement for displacement. 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well somebody changed one of the M21 mentions back to M14, most likely based on the movie "Black Hawk Down". In an effort to avoid an edit war I'm changing the other instances of M21 to M14 but I request that it be up for consideration that it is changed back to M21. The M21 has other differences then the M14, other then just the scope. I would highlight those of the action in pictures using my personal M21 and M14 if someone is curious. --There is no replacement for displacement. 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed references to M21 because Shughart's weapon, according all accounts I've read, wasn't a M21. It was a M14 with specific modifications including a non-magnifying red-dot scope. It wasn't based on a M21 (national match barrel, mount for ART scope, etc.). This is already said at the M14 rifle page. Rob1bureau 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rob, it was my personal understanding that the M21/M14 rifles built for Delta and other groups such as the SEALS, and Recon have the larger gas chambers, the Krieger barrel, the 1:10 rifling twist, and other modifications that are associated with the M21 but perhaps I am wrong. I cannot find a source online that verifies this so I concede that the page should stay with the term M14. As for the SR-47, I had it on there because the buzz was that this rifle was built specifically for Delta and SEAL task forces hunting Al-Qaeda in the long caves of Afghanistan and other areas where they couldn't bring in all the ammunition they needed. It's also a useful weapon in areas where you do not want to leave American manufactured shell casings as a calling card. Either way, it's a fairly trivial weapon and did not last long (at least publicly). I don't have a source other then word of mouth, but I wrote an article on the .458 SOCOM round that is rumored to be in use with Delta for some of the latest CQB missions in Iraq --There is no replacement for displacement. 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've understood, Shughart's weapon was an accurized, modified M14, but was not an M21, or later M25. However, the M21 is highly in use within Delta, more currently as the M25 variant, and I've edited the article to reflect it as such. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Its nothing that says this in the article, but does Delta recruit foreign soldiers? I think I have heard that Delta asks soldiers from foreign special forces, like the British SAS and the German KSK (and other special force units they cooperate with), if they'd like to join Delta (if they have impressed Delta in some kind of way). Of course after they'd been put through the same tests as normal recruits. On link under this text it says: "Delta conducts worldwide recruitment twice a year prior to its fall and spring assessment-and-selection courses."

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/sfod-d.htm

Anyone who can answer my question?

I seriously doubt they recruit foreigners, and those foreigners would have no reason to leave their own elite unit to join an American one. The line from the global security page you posted means they'll go to South Korea to recruit from 2ID or Europe to recruit from the units stationed there, instead of just sitting at Fort Bragg and waiting for people to find them. Parsecboy 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

i dont understand why you deleted my entry.according to the government devgru and delta dont exist. the gov didnt say devgru participated in raid but is only speculated by the media. cia sad operatives dont "exist" either, however, it is speculated that they do exist and participated in the raid. whos to say that delta ( a unit that government doesnt acknowledge) didnt participate in the raid?

Read the two links I posted on your talk page. If you still have questions, come back here and ask them. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC) delta in neptune spear is not a personal speculation. devgru in neptune spear is also a speculation because its a still a classied mission. the government only says its a navy seal team and the media speculates that its devgru. however, both delta and devgru cross train. if you want to be technical about it. one of the commentators on the discovery channel's "killing bin laden" suggested that delta was involved. is that enough for me to post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.153.141 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Use official sources EG: CNN, White House, NBC etc.. Otherwise it will be deleted, although they may have participated in the raid there is lack of evidence to support the theory. As I hear ACE was on another mission, while the other Tier 1 unit took out OBL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.230.156 (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello gents, I posted randomely throughout the talk page different things that needed to be changed and some small tidbits of intel that some of you guys got wrong. But I figured nobody would see them in the large amounts of garbage I have come accross on here.

I served 4 years with the 3rd Ranger Bn, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. I served and lived with operators overseas both times to Iraq and I think my information is a little more valuable then the random websites you find on.

Some of the things that seem to trouble you people:

Patch/Uniform- -Delta wears the insignia of USASOC (red flash, USASOC Distinguished Unit Insignia, USASOC shoulder patch). -For their berets, they retain their previous unit berets (my knowledge of this is only limited to the former SOF guys).. if you were Ranger Regiment you retain your tan beret, if you were SF you retain your Green Beret. IDK what goes on with the former black beret wearing guys.

Weapons- During the no shit direct action raids; assaulters use HK416, sidearms almost all operators use either the special made 1911 made by Larry Vickers, or Glocks.

All weapons and equipment are mission dependent, remember that.

Equipment- Pro-Tec helmet? I dont know when this took place, but not during the GWOT. Operators use the MICH variant "Shorty", and its still kevlar... Plastic does not help against the dangers of Iraq or Afghanistan. Night vision goggles are a specially made variant of the helicopter pilot utilized AVS-6s. The unofficial nickname for these are the ANVS9s. They are dual tubed but they differ greatly from the PVS-15s that Regiment uses and require a huge battery pack in the back of the helmet.

Casualties- All the casualties listed below are part of Delta, but Zaun is the only one who is not an operator.

Training Video- Yes its Delta, no it is not meant for public release or military release. It is showed during the first day of Selection in order to motivate the students.

Don't change the information in the article, I don't care. This is more of me targeting you guys to be more informed.

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

the SoCom Combat Assault Rifle/Mk16 and Mk17 to commandos in April. In a bland release from the company's PA shop, FN says fielding will continue through the winter of 2009. A source close to the program tells me so far the Rangers have gotten their new rifles, with Navy Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen and SEAL teams 1, 2 and 3... from Defense Tech - May 13, 2009

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004844.html

Delta force changed its standard weapon from the M4A1CQB to the HK-416 since 2004 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.48.229 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs)

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 .

12- Master Sgt. Benjamin Stevenson / July 21, 2011 / Hostile fire / Paktika province, Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.154.236 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

--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

Zaun was not an operator. He was part of their Support element. The rest are operators. I knew Trevor and Ivica, very tragic. By the way, many operators claim William "Chief" Carlson as a Delta casualty. He retired and joined the CIA shortly after where he along with a former DEVGRU operator died in Afghanistan.

D. - Former 3/75th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.120.233 (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Pistols that are and have been in Delta's inventory include Colt 1911A1 .45's as well as those manufactured versions by other sources as mentioned above and these are used with a suppressor when required. The Beretta has never as far as ive heard or read been used by Delta, all sources have stated this is because the Operators consider it to lack the "stopping power" that comes with the .45 round which has become an unwritten rule in Delta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mercenary 73 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Delta does not have class As officially they don't even exist.--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course they HAVE Class A uniforms, and might even wear them to Arlington for funerals, or to the Hill if they ever have to testify. Otherwise, not so much. The unit exists; what the DD-214 says is a whole 'nother matter. You think they can't shop at the PX or fly space-a? Yeah, these are the guys you want to make unhappy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.209 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delta does exist. The Dept. of Defense acknowledges them. As soldiers, they have Class A uniforms. You are batting zero all the way around. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I also remembering hearing something about their helmets on the History Channel. Akadewboy (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never witnessed an operator wear a pro-tech helmet overseas. They wear Kevlar helmets, they are not stupid and reckless. A pro-tec is not going to save you from the hazards in Iraq and Afghanistan. Things change, but currently they use kevlar helmets, a model called the "shorty". A shorty is a modified MICH that you CAN purchase, it has extra room on the sides for a headset.

-D. Former 3/75th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.120.233 (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I read in the book that they did use the plastic helmets rather than their kevlar for that mission (but it was not a common thing). The reason being it was suppost to be a fast mission and they didn't think there was much risk of being shot in the head. But when the mission went to hell atleast two operators were killed because they were hit in the helmet.--70.76.166.171 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The book says Pro-tec for that mission, so it's Pro-tec until some other reliable source says it isn't. That's how we roll here on Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

his talking about somalia no iraq/afghan, now they're probably using FAST or short cut MICH (2002) helmets 58.174.240.205 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone added back what they claim is the beret flash for Delta. This is absurb. First, ALL beret flashes authorized by the Army Institute of Heraldry are the same shape. There are no triangles. Second, what kind of sense does a seperate flash make? If the Army tries to keep the unit under wraps or at least reasonably low key, why would they authorize not only a special flash, but one that was a completely different shape than any other flash, which would make these guys identifiable at 100 friggin yards? That patch isn't even a real one authorized by the Institute of Hearldry. It is a fake made up by a private company in the mid 1980's. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Delta wears the red USASOC flash, accompanied by the USASOC Distinguished Unit Insignia. Delta operators do have Class A standards; they have to wear something at the ceremony of a fallen. This is what I know for a fact; Operators wear the beret of their previous unit; whether Ranger tan, or SF Green. I do not know what the non Ranger or SF experienced operators wear.

D. -Former 3/75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.120.233 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is beyond gay, it makes the article like some kind of friggin video game you can buy. And I haven't the slightest idea how anyone can talk with authority about this unit. -some 11 bang bang fag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.147.79 (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The list is pretty bogus and is another addition made up to pack out the article. Also, where the ref's for this as most of the wpn's added are either standard issue or down to someones assumption. Delta, more than any other SF unit, have a vast array of kit which is tailored to the op in hand (Archangel1 (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)).

I generally agree as well, but I would say the bit out the stipend to purchase a custom M1911 style pistol is worth keeping. Maybe the info about the HK 416/7 as well, given that it was designed in partnership with Delta. The rest can go, as far as I'm concerned. This isn't Ghost Recon or Call of Duty 4, after all. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that the weapon section stays or goes? In my opinon it should go (Archangel1 (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)).

Why shouldn't an article about a military unit have a section about the equipment it uses? --Dekker451 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• If it could be reliably sourced, the section would be nice. But sourcing is a problem. Also, the fact that Delta (and other units) have almost limitless access to damn near every kind of small arm under the sun, what is or is not "used" becomes an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added an outcome section to the Operations list, since otherwise it's just a list of operations, giving no idea of what actually happened in them. --MoltenBoron (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I have some concerns about how you summarize them. For example, you listed the outcome for Vigilant Resolve as a failure with 27 KIA. This article is about Delta. Delta didn't lose 27 people, nor was Delta the main force. They participated. If a reader looks at this, they could get the impression that Delta ran this operation and lost 27 of their people. Same holds true for other entries. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If I add the number of Delta operators and the total number of troops in the operation that might make it more intelligable. I'll see what I can do. --MoltenBoron (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The language in this article needs to be changed to continue with the NPOV policy. (Archangel1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)).

• Can you be a little more specific? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of sources which detail SEAL involvement in the B of M. John Gay, a SEAL, was shot, his Randall knife deflecting the round. It is discussed here [6]. Dick Couch, in his book "Finishing School" details the account of Eric Olson, who rose to be commander of SEAL Team 6, and his involvement in the B of M. Bowden touches on this in Black Hawk Down as well. Simply put, read the book more closely. Search Google. Read other accounts of the battle, it's there...and quite obvious. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First, is the Delta Force under the Joint Command, or US Army command? There is nothing about it in the United States Army Special Operations Command.

Second, what's the actual patch of the Delta Force? Why would they wear patch of the whole USASOC? Where is the source? (if it's not under the US Army, then it doesn't make any sense at all) --Novis-M (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• While they "belong" to the Army, they are under the operational command and control of the USSOC. For uniform purposes, they wear the patch of their parent Army command. Think of it like a Pro Bowl game. The player still "belongs" to the Steelers, but he is actually playing for a team made of of members owned by other organizations. Joint commands don't handle things like issuing paychecks, making promotions etc. That comes from the parent organization, in this case, the Army. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's not really good example for me, I'm not an American :D lol nevermind...well the thing is that Green Berets and Rangers and all other special ops units in US Army have their own patches, so why Delta doesn't have one?

By the way, they are definitely the best, since there is nothing known about them. Navy SEALs are just best of the "regular" special ops, but many of the Delta operators are former SEALs. I heard that Delta contacts the best Rangers, SEALs, Marines, Green Berets, and others, two times a year if they wanna join. So it's something like best of the best. --Novis-M (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Marines probably not they will tend to stay in the marine core. Seals some not many through. Devgru and Delta have diffent missions usually. Devgru is more like the SEALS get in get out mentally. Delta like DEVGRU but with some more long term missons. Kept in mind this is gernarlly not saying DEVGRU cant do long term missions but it's gernarlly Delta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.193.208 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• For a long time, the Dept. of Defense denied the existence of Delta, so having a distinctive patch wouldn't have made sense for them. After that, since they rarely wear dress uniforms, nobody really cared much about it. As for them being the best, I'm not disputing or supporting it, just that calling them "the best" is subjective and opinion isn't really what we are shooting for here. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's right. So are they US Army? And is that their official patch?

Important thing is that they're both the best forces, fighting the terrorists. They're both good in their profession. But its not just my opinion that Delta Force is better, it's fact. --Novis-M (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the best": I'm sure DEVGRU would dispute that statement. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have a hard time calling it "fact", since the concept is pretty subjective. You might be able to find a credible NPOV source that calls them the best (in the writers opinion) and work it into the article. But I think you'd be hard pressed to show it as a tangible, proveable fact. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how you would explain that most professional special ops operators go to delta force? How would you explain that it is so secret? And how you would explain that they are operated jointly?

My first question again, is there any reference and source that Delta Force is part of the US Army and use the US Army Spec Ops Command patch? Thanks for responses. --Novis-M (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, let me go step by step. Delta is "owned" by the Army Special Operations Command (ARSOC). The Joint Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is comprised of the ARSOC, Naval Special Warfare Command, Air Force Special Opns Command and the Marine Special Opns Command. Try reading these 2 articles and see if it clears it up for you: [7] and [8] . Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Okay thanks. I'm just not sure about their official insignia now - it doesn't say they wear the USASOC patch. Anyway, Parsecboy was probably right. It seems that Delta Force is the best of the Army and takes place in the land and airborne operations, while DEVGRU is the best of the Navy and operates from the sea. These both units are operated by Joint Command and are the only US units which do counter-terrorist ops outside the US. We should mention that in the article. Simply said - Delta Force and DEVGRU are the best, each specializing in something else. One is Hooah and likes to jump out of the airplane, other one is Hoo-yah and likes to swim :) --Novis-M (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh...... no, the article doesn't have the sentence "this is their insignia". The article is mainly about the history of the command structure. But the article shows the patch for the ARSOC. Delta is part of the ARSOC. Unless a unit has its own distinctive insignia (which Delta does not), then they wear the insignia of their parent organization, which is...... wait for it.....ARSOC. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • alright - better now?: I'm just not sure about their official insignia now - it doesn't say they wear the USASOC patch. Anyway, Parsecboy was probably right. It seems that Delta Force is the best of the Army and takes place in the land and airborne operations, while DEVGRU is the best of the Navy and operates from the sea. These both units are operated by Joint Command and are the only US units which do counter-terrorist ops outside the US. We should mention that in the article. Simply said - Delta Force and DEVGRU are the best, each specializing in something else. One is Hooah and likes to jump out of the airplane, other one is Hoo-yah and likes to swim :D --Novis-M (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • my view delta vs devgru delta because they are most expreniced ( delta usually army then ranger or beret then if ranger goes to delta or beret then if beret goes to delta vs devgru navy seal then devgru. Beret vs Seal denfinately Beret manily cause berets are smart and more unpredictable plus more versitile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.193.208 (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we use this patch as the official insignia of Delta Force? It is really weird that on the website of the USACOM there is nothing about Delta Force. Only on the website of Joint Command, but that is different branch. I don't see how is the Delta Force part of the Army then. It is same with the globalsecurity.org article, nothing about Delta Force in the US Army Spec Ops Command article, only in the Joint Command again - because the Joint Com is separate and independent, along with USASOC, Navy spec command, and marine spec ops command. --Novis-M (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• We aren't using it because it isn't an official patch. It was a patch made up by a company in the 1980's for sale to the public. The US Army Institute of Hearaldry shows an example of every authorized unit patch. That patch has never been authorized by the Army or used by Delta. The Joint Command isn't a seperate branch. The only branches are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps (which actually falls under the Dept. of the Navy). The Joint Command is exactly what it says, a command made up of more than one service, just like the Southern Command, Central Command etc. Delta still attempts to remain low profile, so they don't put up a website or something. A lot of Army units don't have a website. As for the Global Security article, Delta falls under the Special Forces command, so everywhere you see that, you are seeing Delta. What you don't seem to understand is that Army units often belong to several commands because there are numerous levels of command. Take the Rangers for example: They belong to a specific battalion of the Ranger Regiment (one command), then the Regiment (another command), then the ARSOC, then the JSSOC. But when it comes to promotions, that is handled through the Infantry Branch at the Personnel Command. You want to see straight lines. They don't exist, especially with units that belong to joint commands. Not to sound rude, but this article and the part where it belongs has been around for quite a while, yet I can't recall anyone in the past year and a half to two years that had trouble with the concept. Have you asked yourself why? Could it be that you want it to fit into what your idea of a command structure should be? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm just trying to understand it :) globalsecurity.org confused me because it said that there were 5 separate commands (army, navy, marines, air force, and joint), and I didn't find anything that would say Delta Force is under ARSOC. Yeah and Rangers don't belong to JSOC by the way. Well, so I think I understand it now. It's true that you can't see the straight lines - it's like with Army Corps, and then Separate Brigades, etc...thanks --Novis-M (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the Rangers do belong to USSOCOM, in the way Delta does. The 75th Ranger Regiment is part of the USASOC, which is part of the USSOCOM. See here: [9], which shows the 75th as part of the USASOC, and here: [10], showing USASOC is part of USSOCOM. The GS article shouldn't confuse you....4 seperate branches, who then form the joint command. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Oh wait, I'm not talking about USSOCOM - JSOC and USSOCOM is something different. USSOCOM is divided into USASOC, NAVSOC, AFSOC, MARSOC, and JSOC. --Novis-M (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command, is part of the USSOCOM. The other 4 branches service form the 5th branch (JSOC) of USSOCOM. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Okay thats better. But units like Rangers and Green Berets are not under this JSOC. They're ARSOC, then "skip" the JSOC, and report to USSOCOM. --Novis-M (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. They're part of the USASOC. USASOC is part of JSOC......stop thinking straight lines. Think forks. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• • That is not true. Just take a look there: official site with all five commands and GlobalSecurity article --Novis-M (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I just found really good website. It also says that except Delta Force and DEVGRU, JSOC can include Rangers and Stalkers if needed (as a strike nad aviation force probably). Website link here. Just go to JSOC section. --Novis-M (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm very familiar with the sites you are citing. And you even said it yourself, JSOC includes them when needed. The belong to them on an ad hoc basis. I guess I wasn't clear enough for you. In any case, I'm pretty sure that I figured out who I worked for all those months.........and I'm pretty sure I've explained this as much as I can. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not saying you didn't - I'm just trying to see "straigt lines" :D --Novis-M (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Delta wears the USASOC patch, the red arrowhead that the 160th wears. You won't find a source, but I know because they have told me. Add if you want, or don't I dont care.. just stop with your ignorant assumptions. And you might be the only one who uses ARSOC; USASOC is most commonly used.

D. - Former 3/75th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.120.233 (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my first time posting, and I am not completely aware of all posting standard, so please bare with me.

• I have been reading this page with any information about the Unit's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there have not been any references made with regard to their mission as a "ghost tank battalion" which forced Saddam to think he was surrounded in Tikrit and not escape to Syria or Iran.

• He also mentions how they organized for the battle in Shahi Khot against al Qaeda and the Taliban using AFO members(advanced force operations) of TF 11 with 10th Mountain Division. He specifically mentions how they used laser designators from one group SEAL operators along with Delta operators to call airstrikes against hidden enemy fighters who were trying to ambush the 10th Mountain Division during the battle.

• The book is set up as a guidelines to live your life by while referring to previous life experiences. He also states in the book that certain names or facts may have been changed for operational security. But the meaning behind what he was trying to explain should not have been lost.

• I have read the book through its entirety, however, I have checked on the web and could not find any sources which could support this book or the author, and I was wondering if the book is legit or could be validated as a source for this page or as a seperate page on Wikipedia as there is no reference to this person or his book on this site.

Flyinggr (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Flyinggr

They are two books relating Blaber's actions : Not a good day to die by Sean Naylor about Operation Anaconda (in the Shah-i-Khot valley) and Cobra II by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor about the invasion of Iraq. As far as I know, no-one has challenged his claims. Rob1bureau (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following section, which has been tagged as not being supported by any reliable sources since Nov 08. Please reinstate information only if supporting citations can be incorporated. —Eustress ^talk 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Operation	Country	Year
Operation Eagle Claw	Iran	1980
Operation Urgent Fury	Grenada	1983
Operation Acid Gambit	Panama	1989
Operation Just Cause	Panama	1989
Operation Desert Shield	Iraq	1990
Operation Desert Storm	Iraq	1991
Operation Restore Hope	Somalia	1993
Operation Gothic Serpent	Somalia	1993
Operation Enduring Freedom	Afghanistan	2001
Operation Anaconda (subordinate operation to OEF)	Afghanistan	2002
Operation Iraqi Freedom	Iraq	2003
Operation Vigilant Resolve	Iraq	2004

Eagle Claw has been well documented. There is no reason to remove it from this section. In fact, I just reviewed the first four items, and all are documented in their respective articles. I'm thinking this tag was added in error. Alternatively, we just need to duplicate the citations used in the linked articles - which seems to be a waste of space. Readers wanting more information about Delta's involvement in these campaigns can simply click on the relevant article and check out its references. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the text and removed the tag. It's a list of linked articles. The references are in those articles. If the list contained items without links, then yes, those items would need references in this article, but that's not the case. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are parts of the article that are unverifible, we should pin-point them and remove them, especially on such a controversial topic. Also what exactly is "eliminating covert enemy forces (where in the U.S.?)" and isn't this opinion "It is composed of the best special operators and soldiers of the Army who are carefully selected in special processes." Also in the intro do we really need to talk about other CT units, wouldn't that be best for the history section or maybe create an overview section? Also is any of the unregistered editors check the discussion, are the edit summaries to much to ask for? But, what do I know I "am" not an admin :) Aaron mcd (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not for nothing, but the selection process for Delta is special in that it is different from other processes for other units. So why is that part controversial? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The introduction is supposed to be the overview. Please read WP:LEAD; introductions are supposed to function as a stand-alone summary of the article, much like an abstract in a scholarly journal. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the article as a whole, the topic is controversial. How is Delta's selection so special? From what I have read, It is advertised on Military bases' Newspapers, and there are requirements that are very similar to that of Army SF, except that the actual course has lower selection (well classified) rate. What are the "special processes"?. Saying that unit is based off the SAS (that's paraphrased), should go in the History section, or at least be expanded on in the history section. Seems like it is just filling space. Also you can stop telling me to read the WP:LEAD, I have read it, do you have that on your clipboard or what :). The reason I suggested putting the other unit info in an overview section, is because that there was a overview section I saw, I don't know what reversion, many unregistered users don't leave summaries and I don't have time to sift through them. Aaron mcd (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Aside from the different requirements to even apply, Delta incorporates psychological screening by panels well beyond the other components of the Army. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If that is verifiable, shouldn't that be in the article to explain why it is so special? Aaron mcd (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe. But nobody ever took issue with the word "special" before. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this article really a start class? If has, reliable (for the most part) sources, and is free of major grammatical errors. Maybe it deserves a C class? Aaron mcd (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are significant parts of the article that remain unsourced, which prevents it from being rated as B-class. WP:MILHIST doesn't use C-class ratings, so it's stuck at Start for now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that a book that describes the selection process at its inception in 1979 can be a reliable source on what the current selection process looks like today. In order to be accurate and not speculate, the text needs to reflect this. Presenting this information with the current sources is misleading. I don't really think there is a valid argument that a 29-year old account can be considered current. — Ocatecir^T 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also there is an incredible amount of unsourced material in this article, and the unsourced tag is dated November 2008. I am going to go ahead and remove everything that is unsourced. This topic invites a high level of specualation and innaccuracy. — Ocatecir^T 07:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think it more appropriate to be proactive and look for sources rather than removing information that could be correct. It is however within your right to do so... 71.52.222.151 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence mentions needing an ASVAB score of at least 110. The only problem is that the ASVAB caps out at 99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.85.85 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The ASVAB has changed its scoring system several times over the years. Rklawton (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You need a GT score of 110, not ASVAB score of 110. Just a simple mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.43.133 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I question the statement that the Aviation Branch may have at least some enlisted helicopter pilots. No branch of the US military has had enlisted pilots since WW2. Most Army helo pilots are warrant officers, and while many if not most WOs come from the enlisted ranks, they cannot be considered enlisted people.

It is possible that the author intended to state that Delta "grows its own" pilots from within its ranks, but that's just a conjecture on my part. In any case, this statement should be verified. Unless & until it is confirmed, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.56.152 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the History section reflect more of Beckwith's 15 year (or so) struggle to convince Army brass to create the unit? He initially presented a full report to the Army immediately upon his return from the SAS in the early 60's, highlighting the Army's vulnerability in not having an SAS-type unit. He rewrote and re-presented that report several times and risked his career several times, trying to force the point, for many years. Finally, in the mid 70s, when terrorist threats became high profile, the Pentagon tapped him to go ahead with his idea. The article makes it sound too simple: "He briefed military and government figures, who were also impressed with the SAS concept." Like he presented the idea and they said the word go right away. Anyone agree? All of the above info is in Beckwith's memoir, by the way. Rljkerns (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good job adding those specifics. 76.26.80.220 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The official designation is not the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta anymore it is the 1st Combat Applications Group, according to the US Federal Government. I would provide a link but it also has were 'Delta' trains and their missions so I cannot. --124.180.150.164 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One (or more) users are repeatedly adding the word "rumored" as to the existence of this unit. Given the number of sources spelling out its existence, I think "rumored" isn't appropriate and should not be used here. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add speculation about Delta's role in Osama's death unless you've got reliable, verifiable sources to go with it. Rklawton (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone finds a source that it was ACE that got him, put it in here please, also respect OPSEC, Loose lips sink ship... If you know what it mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.102.49 (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) i think some members of the assault team was delta but since no one can confirm it (because its classified) lawton wont let me put it up

Delta was present during the siege and had their own chopper stationed somewhere in country along with more SEALS in case things went south, or we started a war, or they had to fight their way out of the country, they would be the rescue team. I say this with 95% Certainty they were 'probably' on the UBL Raid

An editor has attempted to rename this article by copy and pasting the content of both the article and the talk page into a new article. There are two problems with this:

1. We should discuss any such significant changes prior to implementing them - but no such discussion took place.
2. By copying/pasting this article's contents, we lose its entire edit history. It's the article's edit history that shows us who wrote what and enables appropriate author attribution. Instead, the edit history would incorrectly indicate that a single editor is responsible for the article's entire contents, and that's just not right.
   

Instead, if it becomes necessary to rename this article, we simply perform a page-move. This will maintain the entire edit history while allowing the article's name to change. But, of course, before we do that, we should attempt to gain consensus. Rklawton (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC) In my opinion this article really has NO name, since CAG,ACE, SFOD's name is ever changing, would be good to move it, but they have already changed the name, the current name is classified.

The Delta Force Wikipedia page should not have any popular culture information, there is a separate page for this 'Delta Force in popular culture'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.192.65 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) How does the rank structure work and is there any information about what ranks each role has in the unit. It is said that experienced NCOs in the E4 to E8 range are recruited from the Army. Do they keep their rank or are they assigned new ranks within the Delta? (2) Appearing in civilian clothes or in camouflage uniforms without insignia disqualifies them as POWs in case they are captured, thus falling within local civil criminal or terrorists laws. Can anyone clarify? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I bet the Units view on being taken alive is similar to STS Former Seal Team Six Operators have stated (Discovery Channel show about the UBL RAID) they will not be taken alive, they will fight to the end and they refuse to be a POW just to have their heads taken off by Extremists, I'm sure things would change if they were going to Iran or Pakistan and got captured, they would probably allow themselves to be taken alive IF they were forced to do so and that was their only option.

Well done, Rklawton! Let's dial this page back a notch to what we can verify. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So I'm going for a "third times the charm" :D I've added the Afghanistan and Iraq missions to the article again. PLEASE NOTE THAT I'VE ALSO WRITTEN DOWN REFERENCES THIS TIME AROUND. If it's still not good enough, I'll take it down myself. --Jakeno911 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But is your addition really about Delta or about the raids? I would suppose (and I have not looked) that the raids have their own articles. But then again lately I have become more of an "exclusionist." Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Capture of Saddam Hussein (Operation Red Dawn), Battle of Tora Bora and Operation Anaconda have their own articles, but the others don't. I don't see the harm of having them on here anyway, I mean DEVGRU article has mission summaries also. --Jakeno911 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If Delta is involved in a mission, we should include a brief paragraph about the extent of their involvement. If no article is available to link to, then this paragraph must be reliably sourced. When the list gets too long, then we move it over to a "List of..." article. And the encyclopedia grows. If we have no reliable sources for something, then it doesn't belong here. Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Jake - do you realize you've just used a book advertisement for a source? Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• And it needs re-written to NOT be a copy vio and to be less of a "story". "D-boy"? Are you serious? Dial the whole story-telling part back. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about the whole story telling thing. :) I'll take 'em down then. --Jakeno911 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.