Talk:Delta Force

ACE

@Rob1bureau: perhaps you could note this somewhere in the article, since numerous sources state that Army Compartmented Elememt is an alternative name for Delta, as opposed to some other unit, (and also note the other unit on the JSOC page if your sources support it). - wolf 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that works. - wolf 19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

As per statement made by the thewolfchild, explanations are required in regards to changes (corrections) I made.

Team size in Delta is not 12 members because that doesn't make sense. Besides, there's numerous photographic evidence spanning decades showing individual teams of Delta operators in various places, however, literary is not abundant, but it can be provided.

There's also a lot of unsourced "content" on many pages with all kinds of claims and on this page, yet somehow Thewolfchild is persisent in keeping content sourced with poor or unreliable sources used to cite misleading information, case in point – the part that there're 12 guys on a team which is really not true.

Instead of further counter-productive reverts, Thewolfchild, explain why do you insist on explanations for changes on particular parts or contents of the page, and not on every change or unsourced part or content? Doc Toniday (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

First, it would be best to keep the focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. To complain about "thewolfchild this" and "thewolfchild that", is needlessly personalizing this and creating a combative atmosphere. I just happen to be the one that noticed and reverted your edit first, but, as I've shown on mutiple occasions, I am also willing to discuss issues with you and try to help you along as you learn your way on this project.

Now that said, let's also try keep the focus on this article, and your edits. To try and argue over any and all alledegly unsourced content on this page and, go further out and debate other articles here as well, is counter-productive and simply not how things are done.

As for your edit, you removed sourced content without provding sufficient reasoning (in your last edit, and no reasoning at all in the edit before that). Along with the removal, you made changes/additions without citing any reliable sources. This is required of virtually all edits to content. So again, if you could explain the changes you made, and state which sources you have a issue with and why, and also provide more solid sources for your changes, that would be a good start to this discussion and go a long way to finding a reslotion. - wolf 22:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doc Toniday: I see you've since made another revert, without even bothering to reply here (or even add a summary). With few exceptions (none which apply here), once a talk page discussion regarding a content dispute has started, no further edits should be made to the disputed content until the discussion has resolved. Another problem is that your edit added "refs" that are just images. Pictures of guys standing around in tac gear do not support anything, they could be airsofters for anyone knows, (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). As such, I've taken the page back to WP:QUO, and I would strongly encourage you to stop editing this page and start working toward a resolution here on the talk page. Thank you - wolf 01:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Obviously there's no point in discussing anything because of your reiterative attitude and avoiding of answering my question in a manner of typing "helpful" suggestions. The claim that my edits were refs that were just images is a lie, unless you noticed there was also S. Naylor's Relentless Strike book cited along with the photos. How is it that photos of dudes standing in kit don't support anything, but old news journal article links (that won't even load on my end at least) with incorrect info about SMU do? With that typed, the team (and troop and squadron) size can be calculated with simple math, none of which support that "each team consists of 12 soldiers". Here, even a former Delta officer has non-explicitly listed the sizes of the sub-units and one former here even mentions it (at the time), but I suppose that that kind of source isn't appropriate for wiki. Nevertheless, like I already typed, I cited a book (which is something that seems you choose to ignore) along with the pics. Doc Toniday (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again you're focusing more on me than the content, and not really making an effort at at collegial discussion. Let's focus on content, and specifically the sources you're presenting;

• I don't see how those pictures you added can be considered reliable refs;

Sources

• There is no information with them, as in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and you also need to consult the WP:IMAGEPOLICY.
• Linkedin is also a questionable source, see WP:LINKEDIN.
• Youtube is often not considered a reliable source, see WP:YOUTUBE
• As for the book you cited by Naylor, can you provide the quote from the book, along with the page number, that you are relying on to support your edits?

Along with this, I would again ask that you read WP:V WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH... these are very important policies and guidlines, as they pertain to this discussion. I would also encourage you to read WP:ONUS and lastly WP:AGF. In a nutshell, you need to know how you can and can't source content, that the onus is on you to ensure any content changes you make are sourced, and finally, to try and have a little good faith in your fellow editors.

In this case, have some faith that I am trying to help you. I know it can be difficult when you're new and still learning all these rules, but coming in with a hostile attitude is not going to help anything; not you and not this article. It's not as if I'm just sitting here calling you a useless jerk or something. There are problems with your edits, there are problems with your approach to collaborating, and despite all that, I am legitimately trying to help you, and bring you up to speed on the rules that apply here, and trying to help you bring your info and sourcing up to standards. Anyway, let me know about that quote and we'll go from there, ok? - wolf 08:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if my responses sometimes come off as fiery. In Naylor's book, it's on Chapter 14: "This time, Juliet’s five operators would not be on foot.".

Also, in Pete Blaber's The Mission, the Men and Me, it's mentioned multiple times:

Intro chapter: "At the apex, the five operators split up and joined each of the five tanks..."

Ch. 7: "My team consisted of five men"

Ch. 16: "Master Sergeant Kris K. led a team that totaled five men."

Ch. 17: "Juliet team (five men) would infiltrate from the north and occupy the high ground on the east side of the valley (see Map 5)."

Perhaps this should be satisfactory. Doc Toniday (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Doc Toniday, you are roughly right about the team size, but you are stretching anecdotal evidence to get there.

• Intro : "Before Bill could pass the message, a group of five Delta Force operators moved forward in a half-crouched sprint. At the apex, the five operators split up and joined each of the five tanks." -> there were five because each tank needed one, not because they were a 5-man team.
• Ch. 7 : some pages before : "We divided ourselves into teams of four to five men" for the purpose of the exercise. So not necessarily indicative of operational team size.
• Ch 16/17 : you are talking about Juliet team of Delta recon troop B3, which was actually a three-operator team, beefed up in the field by a Air Force combat controller and a SIGINT operator. So indicative that as far as Delta is concerned, it was a three-man team (and India team was a two-man one !).

Now, if you want a source describing the general table of organization of a Delta troop (also including the correct number of teams per troop), I suggest you go look at Day of the Rangers by Leigh Neville p. 34. Rob1bureau (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, none of the listed quotes can really be a good confirmation, but at least it's something. Back in the early GWOT days recce teams did tend to be smaller (not surprising since Delta is always undermanned) and slots/positions on recce teams aren't entry level. Thank you for the suggestion and a bit of acknowledgement. Apparently it's not easy find a good source for such things. Doc Toniday (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, that is typical for most articles about classified subjects such as spec ops, intel agencies, etc., ...just about anything that is secret by nature. - wolf 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

@Doc Toniday: in your most recent edit (changing the number of operators per team from 12 to "4-6"), you cited page 34 of the book: Day Of The Rangers: The Battle Of Mogadishu 25 Years On, by Leigh Neville. Here is the content from page 34 regarding Delta's staffing numbers;

At the lowest level, Delta teams were composed of between four and six operators depending on manpower levels, although a six-man team was the standard. Sergeant First Class Paul Leonard who joined the unit in 1991, commented: "There were times we had four guys, other times we had six." The minimum for an assault team was four because that was the standard package carried on an MH-6 Little Bird, the nimble light helicopters that often ferried Delta operators to their targets, perched on external plank benches. There were three such teams to a troop, led by a troop sergeant major. Three of these troops - two of assaulters and one designated as snipers - along with a small headquarters element formed a squadron commanded by a colonel who had typically served as team and troop leader previously in his career.

I know that Rob1bureau recommended this book, but it documents a battle that took place 30 years ago, and the staffing numbers, as well as support and equipment for both Delta and the 75th were purposefully limited for that operation. While it gives a basic breakdown of Delta's organizational structure, (as Rob1bureau mentioned), it does not seem to be current. Do you have any others sources that support these numbers and both standard and current? - wolf 18:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question: Is the answer here to punt? Is it to acknowledge that the sources of the world sometimes conflict with each other and that Delta itself isn't chatty about it? Or that teams can take many sizes, shapes and structures depending on mission requirements, so the answer to "team size" is always a fluid one? Just a thought. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Niteshift36, team sizes do take different shapes. But if I'm not mistaken, with a saber squadron on a regular combat deployment, usually an entire troop goes on an op (which means all the four teams with 4–6 guys). The other deployed sqdn. can send 2-man elements on other zones, like during 2012 Benghazi attack Ryan Halbruner and Jolly Tate came in as a duo, during 2015 Bamako hotel attack Kyle Morgan and his fellow operator were there by themselves as operators, and there was another Delta duo during 2016 Ouagadougou attacks. Mission dictates, but even in the latter cases, that doesn't mean that those guys aren't assigned to a team that's standardly larger than just 2. Doc Toniday (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were gonna ask about this, but now that really seems sort of like pushing it. Just because it was nearly 3 decades ago doesn't mean that it's not current. Unless there is specific criteria on why exactly does something like, say, a team size information on this page need sources that also temporally support it over multiple periods, I don't believe it's necessary to ask or request any more or additional sources for it just like it wasn't asked or needed previously for all other parts of the page that can be questionable when it comes to timeframe. Some of it might have not changed or changed significantly, and some of it definitely might have. To answer your question – I don't have any other officially published literary sources. Maybe the The Day of the Rangers source for now can suffice. Doc Toniday (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I know that sourcing can be difficult to find, as I mentioned above, but there are sources out there, such as The National Interest, which in 2020 noted that Delta had initially used "20-man teams", and also noted that: "The 12-man Operational Detachment As - commonly referred to as “A Teams” - are still the foundation of the Army’s elite formations.".

Another source, How Stuff Works noted, sometime after 2006, in an article about Delta that: "The combat squadrons are composed of smaller units called troops, which specialize in airborne, ground or water insertion much like the Green Berets. Ultimately, troops can be split into small mission teams of up to 12 men and as few as one.".

So, again, I don't think we should be ascerting that the teams are specifcally made up of "4-6" operators, when obviously they're larger than that, but also split up into even smaller numbers when needed. I think that further changes are needed. - wolf 21:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The article in The National Interest states how things were when they were being made or planned in 1978 – that was 44 years ago (and you previously questioned the timeframe of a source). Delta doesn't have detachments. The 12-man ODAs are specific only Green Berets – I don't think you don't understand that Delta and SF are two different organizations.

How Stuff Works article, and generally articles on such pages, are not typed by SMEs, but by relatively uninformed journalists or journalist-like authors which tend to overemphasize and misunderstand certain things (for example, just like it was when 2011 Afghanistan Boeing Chinook shootdown (Gold Sqdn.) happened and they typed that SEALs who participated in OBL raid (Red Sqdn.) were on that bird). Just because those authors posted their claims regarding teams in the form they did regarding Delta, doesn't mean they're true – which they're not. They're also unaware that "20-man teams" are actually troops and they're using the word teams incorrectly.

From the photo evidence (that can't be used as a source) and direct word from the former D'Boys (Paul Howe, Brad Thomas, Kevin Holland, Keith Pellegrini, Bob Keller), teams standardly aren't larger than 4–6 and obviously are not larger than that. The size can also can be calculated given the number of members in the squadron. Random pages and articles shouldn't overrule subject evidence. Doc Toniday (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Eric Haney's 2002 Inside Delta Force: "The smallest unit was the four-man team.". Doc Toniday (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Oy. Obviously I wasn't hiding anything as I included a link to the article, so you're big "Ah-ha!" moment... not so much. And everything you said is meaningless unless you can support it with sources. The point was that a) sources are varied and difficult to come to by, b) that the number of operators per team, per troop varies, and c) the part you edited still needs to be changed. You just contradicted yourself with your recent comment about "Eric Haney blah blah blah...". It doesn't matter what you think you know, even if you were in Delta yourself, or your dad was, or your uncle's best freind's mailman's dog-walker's cousin was. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth, we can only add content that is clearly supported by reliable sourcing, (and not cobbled-together by various questionable sources and personal opinion). Niteshift was right about punting this, and this has dragged-on long enough, so if you want to post a suggested re-write here, then great... we'll discuss it and hopefully wrap this up. Otherwise, I'm changing that section about the numbers. - wolf 13:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have previously listed "sources" that according to wiki cannot be taken as refs. I'm aware Haney was in The Unit a long time ago, but despite that you still asked for a more recent work (book published in '02 in this case). Of course the numbers vary, but they are standardized, that's also clear with the operators' call sign patches on which the number does not go above 6 (because 6 is the maximum number of dudes on a team) – e.g., the newest Charlie Team (or any other team) member is never gonna have a callsign for example "YC12" (Y meaning B Sqdn., C meaning C Team and 12 meaning 12th member by seniority on a team) – yes, I know that that can't also be taken as a ref. If by wiki, the sources you listed are considered valid, cite them – but the team size will still be then incorrect. You still haven't mentioned the reasons why do you feel it's necessary to support team size with refs in regards to timeframe, but not other parts of the page. Unless your response to that too is that that's now how things are done (from your view), you don't have to bother answering. Doc Toniday (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)