Talk:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance/Archive 1

message: United States Marine Corps (USMC) Force Reconnaissance (Force Recon) can be considered to be the USMC equivalent of units such as the Navy SEALs, Air Force Air Commandos, or U.S. Army Special Forces (though their missions do differ by some margin). Although they are not under the wing of U.S. Special Operations Command]], their training and deployment agenda may appear to suggest otherwise (Though some Force Recon Marines have been assigned to a special unit, 'MCSOCOM Detachment One', in an attempt to start integration with USSOCOM). Marine Force Recon operators perform highly specialized, small scale, high-risk operations, such as:
*Amphibious and deep ground surveillance.
*Assist in specialized technical missions {Weapons of mass destruction(NBC), Radio, sensors and beacons, etc.}
*Assist in ordnance delivery (i.e., designating targets for laser-guided bomb units, ground artillery and naval artillery).
*Conduct 'limited scale raids,' including gas and oil platform (GOPLATS) raids, Military Interdiction Operations (MIOs) and the capture of specific personnel or sensitve materials.
*Hostage/Prisoner of war rescue
Marine Force Recon detachments operate within Marine Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable) {MEU(SOC)}. They are not to be confused with Marine Reconnaissance, as Force operators are much more experienced in deep recon and are at times assigned duties other than reconnaissance (which are not assigned to Recon Marines).
History and Organization
History
Marine Corps. Force Reconnaissance was first conceived in 1954, at Marine Base Camp Pendleton, outside of San Diego, California, when an experimental recon team was formed. Three years later, that team merged with an existing amphibious reconnaissance company to form the 1st Force Reconnaissance Company. 
In 1958, half the Marines in 1st Force were removed from the Company and hauled over to the Eastern seaboard, forming the 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company. 1st Force supplemented Fleet Marine Force Pacific (FMFPac), while 2nd, Fleet Marine Force Atlantic (FMFLant).
Force Reconnaissance received their baptism by fire during the Vietnam War, arriving first in 1965 and staying for five years. Forty-four Marines of 1st Force were killed or missing in action through the course of the war.
After US withdrawal from Vietnam, 1st Force and 2nd Force were both deactivated in 1974, and the existing Force Marines were rolled into the non-Force 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion in order to maintain Marine Corps deep recon capabilities. However, the roll-in was never completed to a satisfactory condition, and 1st Force Reconnaissance was reactivated as an individual unit in 1986, and was later deployed in the Gulf War.
Many Force Recon Companies are in existence today, and have been deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Organization
In order to understand Marine Force Reconnaissance unit organization, Marine unit organization in general should be explained first.
The United States Marine Corps is divided into two zones of operation: Marine Forces Pacific (MARFORPAC) and Marine Forces Atlantic (MARFORLANT) and three Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs): MEF I WestPac (MARFORPAC), based on the West Coast; MEF II MedFloat (MARFORLANT), based on the East Coast and MEF III (MARFORPAC), based in Japan. Each MEF consists of a Marine Division, a Marine Air Wing, and a Support Group. Forward deployed Marines make up a smaller unit, known as the Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable {MEU(SOC)}, made up of no more than 2,500 men. Much like the MEFs, MEU(SOC)s are composed of an infantry element, the Battalion Landing Teams (BLT) (which includes the non-Force Division Reconnaissance), an air element, the Marine Medium Helicopter Squadrons with a control detachment, and a support element, the MEU Service Support Groups (MSSG). Tying these three elements together is the Command Element (CE). Force Reconnaissance platoons are attached to and are a part of the Command Element, and their position in the MEU(SOC) is not tied to the Battalion Landing Team.
There are currently seven MEU(SOC)s in the Corp. In MEF I WestPac, there are three MEUs: the 11th, 13th and 15th. They responsible for the Middle-East and the Persian Gulf region. In MEF II MedFloat, there are also three MEUs: the 22nd, 24th and 26th. They focus on countries around the Mediterranean Sea. The last MEF, MEF III, has only one MEU(SOC), based in Okinawa, Japan: the 31st MEU.</b>
MEU(SOC)s are deployed onboard Amphibious Ready Groups, a group of several ships usually centered upon an amphibious assault helicopter carrier (designations for these ships range between LHA, LPH, LHD).  As many as three such groups, each carrying its own MEU(SOC), can be deployed around the world at any given time. Because of this constant mobility, a MEU(SOC) can reach any shore in the world within six hours of an order being given.
As of 2004, there are currently four active Marine Force Reconnaissance companies: 1st Force Reconnaissance, based at Camp Pendleton, CA; 2nd Force Reconnaissance, based at Camp Lejeune, NC; 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, based in Mobile, AL and 4th Force Reconnaissance Company, based in Honolulu, HI. 5th Force Reconnaissance was folded into non-Force 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion as Deep Reconnaissance Company, and is based with 31st MEU(SOC) at Okinawa.</b>
As for unit structure, Force Recon companies operates more like a battalion. Taking 1st Force as an example, there is a Commanding Officer (CO, Lt. Col.), Executive Officer (XO, Major) and a Sergeant Major. Other components include S1, S2, S3, S4 and S6 (Administrative, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics, Communications). Beyond that, the Company is divided into six operational platoons, each with a Platoon Commander (Captain) and a Platoon NCO (Sergeant, E-6 SSgt or higher). One of these platoons is a scout/sniper unit retained from the MEU BLT. Navy medical corpsmen are also active in Force Recon units, endure the exact same training as Force Recon members and are very much respected by the Force Marines.
...
Greenside Operations
The term 'Greenside Operations' refers to operations that do not necessarily require direct force-on-force contact, or is not an open assault or breach. In terms of Force Reconnaissance, this almost always means deep recon patrols. Force Recon Marines operated in six-man teams, and rely on stealth, evasion and training to survive, as they are usually too far ahead of the main force to expect artillery support or quick helicopter extractions. Generally, an operator's kit would include:</b>
...
Blackside Operations
Blackside, or Direct Action (DA) operations include Tactical Recovery of Aircraft Personnel (TRAP), Gas/Oil Platform (GOPLAT) raids, Vessel/Board/Search/Seizures (VBSS) and other missions involving close quarter battle. Just recently, In-Extremis Hostage Rescue (IHR) was also assigned to Force units to a slight degree in order to supplement the roles of USSOCOM CAG and DEVGRU with a more forward deployed unit.
During blackside ops, a Platoon acts as one and brings along special operators as per mission specifications (i.e., explosive ordnance disposal personnel, electronic warfare specialists, etc.). Force Marines can be inserted into the combat zone in a variety of ways: on land, using the IFAV, by sea, and by air {High Altitude High Opening (HAHO), High Altitude Low Opening (HALO), helicopter fast rope, etc.} A common operational kit includes:</b>
----
As you can see, most of the article outside the equipment descriptions is identical, except for wikification, a few punctuation changes, and maybe one place where a sentence was moved from one paragraph to another. Now that I've had the time to pick out all the dupes, I'm going to go ahead and remove them form the article, as per the copyvio policy, until this is cleared up. Fox1 14:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Text Comparison, verbatim duped text in bold

message: Original Authors: Maio, Tin soldier 'Shrimp' All help is sincerely appreciated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatinumX (talk • contribs) 04:42, 09 July 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author credit 

message: Is it necessary to include the part about the M4 being ineffective in the MidEast?  That sections is more "primary source" than anything else and seems very anecdotal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comatose51 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 December 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That note needs to be rewritten to provide a view of the (ongoing) controversy regarding the 5.56 round, without the excessively anecdotal "soldier I met once" perspective, or implying that some ad hoc majority of the armed forces have found it ineffective and it's simply still in use due to organizational inertia. There IS controversy over the round, that may bear mentioning, but we need to NPOV it. Fox1 14:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: After rereading the note, I changed my mind and removed it. None of that information adds anything useful to an article specifically concerning Force Recon. If you'd like to contribute this information to wikipedia, maybe take a look at editting M16 Rifle, 5.56_x_45_mm_NATO, M4 Carbine, or maybe special forces or War_on_Terrorism. Fox1 15:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anecdotal

message: The MEU(SOC) pistol is assembled from surplus GI 1911A1 frames and Springfield or Caspian slides. There are no Kimber parts involved. Kimber frames and slides are not used to make the MEU(SOC) pistol. Kimber made about 100 Interim CQB pistols for MCSOCOM Detachment One. The ICQB pistol is only for Det1. It is not a replacement for the MEU(SOC) pistol. Det1 was never issued any MEU(SOC) pistol. Before the Kimber ICQB, Det1 made use of 50 Springfield Professional Models, similar to the ones in use by FBI SWAT. Kimber has not been given any contract for the MEU(SOC) pistol or the Improved MEU(SOC) pistol. Also, the MEU(SOC) pistol is only used by Force Recon and SOTG instructors. Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) and Military Police Special Reaction Teams (SRTs) use the Beretta M9. They do not use 1911s of any sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pettifogger (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MEU (SOC) Pistol

message: Stumbled upon this article today while doing some heavy maintenance on United States Marine Corps, and it has a lot of good information. I do think it has a lot of room for improvement, however, and I'm going to take a crack at it in the coming weeks. Like I said, most of the information is very good, and quite inclusive, but the style, NPOV, and keeping to the topic at hand could use some work. Fox1 15:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Work

message: I actually thought I had removed or reformatted this section when I did the rewrite, but it must have slipped my mind. It does not seem, to me, that this paragraph falls in line with the normal standards of article content on Wikipedia, insomuch as it draws conclusions in an essay or opinion piece format, when policy is fairly clearly in favor of presenting only factual information and presenting opinions only in the form of cited references, if vital to the article. I'll give any interested parties a chance to have a say before I do anything. Fox1 14:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Word?

message: I have no objections here. I still believe the article turned out for the better regardless of the copyvio fiasco. 
The webmaster at the specialforces website never responded, so it is up to you whether you want to believe me or not.
Tin_soldier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.251 (talk) 22:52, 06 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Final Word?

message: In response to the link at the top of this page: I found a fledgling article titled "recon battalions" that I've cleaned up and renamed/redirected to "Marine Recon Battalions".  I have absolutely no knowledge of this subject, but if that article suits you, you may remove the link at the top of this page (or provide a disambiguation link instead).  If the article I created is incorrect (again, I know nothing of what I cleaned up), feel free to either mark it for deletion or fix it. Capecodeph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.251 (talk) 22:52, 06 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine Recon Battalions (?) 

message: I remember when creating the article I put a statement stating that Force Recon is, at least to the point we are interested in, unrelated to Marine Recon Battalions, and stated that there was not yet an article on Wikipedia about Marine Recon Battalions. 
But since you wrote one, thats great! I'll put up a link when I have time, or if you feel like doing it, go ahead.
- Tin
EDIT: Rewritten! First sentence in article in italics.
Tin_soldier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.251 (talk) 22:52, 06 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Marine Recon Battalions (?)

message: There's almost nothing here about the training they receive.  On the other hand, for example, the Navy SEALs article covers training in detail...  might be good to add, for someone who knows more than I do.  Pakaran 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I noticed the lack of information on training also, and I think that information about it should be added to this article to bring it more in line with the articles about other special forces organizations--Tabun1015 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Strongly.  Some things are better left unsaid, or unwritten.  If you have a burning desire to find out all that training to be a Reconnaissance Marine is all about, see your local recruiter.  Be advised however that volunteering for Recon is no guarantee - a very high first class PFT is a start.  Semper Fi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I read books that said the USMC RECON have one of the hardest training of the US military. The RECON also train alot more that the SEALs and may also be even better than the SEALs. I know one of their training involved treading in the water for 1 min with a M16 rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure Havoc (talk • contribs) 03:11, 07 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training? 

message: There seems to be a contradiction in the readiness section of the sidebar. The text reads "Any shore in the world within six (4) hours of first notice." Could someone perhaps fix this?
I would myself, but I am not sure of the actual readiness.
Mask 17:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also strongly wonder about whether this means they must be at any shore, or ready to assemble and leave for any shore.  I don't believe an aircraft exists which can get anywhere in the world in 6 hours (though, with in-flight refueling, some could probably come close, they'd be ridicously expensive to use for transporting trools).  -- Pakaran 04:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry. Perhaps I should have elaborated. What I mean is the diffferance in the spelled out "six" and parenthetical "4". Is the readiness six or four? I do see your point, however, about the readiness. The SEAL page, in fact, states four hours notice, a detail I thought a bit ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenMask (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually accurate, because the teams are forward pre-positioned around the world. Should a crisis pop up in south america, they can leave from Camp Pendleton, or in the carribean from Camp Lejeune. In Asia from Okinawa. In the middle east from one of the naval groups that's always in the med. Or from  any number of places. PS: the number should be 12 though. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 14:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Force and Recon Bn's, have open screening for Marines. The Men who pass screenings then go to a training platoon. This is usually called Pre-BRC. Once they pass that they attend a formall school. These are called Basic Recon School,for the West coast and Amphibious Recon School for guys on the East Coast. If they pass they are then "pipelined" through special schools like Jump, dive, sniper, ranger, etc. Though this is all tentative on each units needs. Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.238.154 (talk) 22:55, 08 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accordance to the Maritime Pre-postitioning ships in their expeditionary advandages, the time of arrival to deploy a SEAL team is 4 to 6 hours, although it is more or less nearer to 6-hours.  But they don't leave from Camp Pendleton nor Camp Lejeune if a crisis were to "pop" in South America.  This is why we have such pre-positioning ships with a US Navy Fleet that in is rotation.  They would already be nearby or in the vicinity if such a crisis arised.  These would be the MEU(SOC) rotations.  That is why the Fleet Marine Force is in existence; its a joint-Navy and Marine Force to be that 911-Force in Readiness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekonDog (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Readiness? 

message: Subject matter experts in Wiki-land are often victims of their own expertise.  When I first joined the USMC and heard about the fabled "Force Recon" I wondered, "Why do they say "Force?" 
Doesn't it make sense to discuss this and little background on the old Marine Amphibious Force (MAF) and its evolution into the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) ect? In that light, wasn't Force Recon originally the recon arm of that "Force?"  Think about it, please SimonATL 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the "Force" in Force Recon 

message: Force Reconniascance does imply direct action, though they have many very similar capabilities to special operations units.
No my knowledge of anything reputable and published, USMC has only submitted a select few (at least one, not more than four) Detachments to SOCOM, and the way I understand it, you're totally backwards on the funding: funded by the Corps, but trained (at least in part) and under most immediate control of USSOCOM.
The article on Det-1 doesn't really belong in here, pehaps merging that in with any credible info about additional USMC Detachments, but just because the Det's are made up of Force Recon operators does not mean the content/info there belong in the Force Recon page, at all.
This is wikipedia -- if you're wrong, the idea is that somebody will fix it, and as long as you have some credible information to provide (that isn't plagiarized), then hop right in!!!
--TehLlama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.2.196 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: No.  Force Recon is NOT DET1, nor is it MARSOC.  At least not yet.
The units referrenced above are distinct and with their own histories.
Its rediculous to merge the pages.--SOTB 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge subjects/articles 

message: I've removed the "considered the best" statement made by a potential vandal doing the same thing type of thing at the Navy SEAL page. This uses weasel words and is POV and potentially inaccurate. Who considers it the best? What is the criteria for this statment? What about those that disagree? Where are the citations and refrences? Etc. Please don't put it back in without clearing up these issues. NeoFreak 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "best" POV statement 

message: I think the current table should be replaced with an infobox.  Here's what I have so far:
Blanks still need to be filled in.  Thoughts?--KrossTalk 06:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  replacing the "taxo box" 

message: Also in regards to MEU(SOC) Pistol section.  The information on the 9mm v .45 is not entirely accurate.  It is true that the .45ACP has a slightly larger crush cavity than the 9mm, which in the case of FMJ makes it marginally better in terms of how much tissue and bone it destroys.  However the 9mm Nato and .45ACP deliver equivalent kinetic energy.  The deliverance of kinetic energy may have an effect on the target, but it is not a scientifically verifiable one.  I would point anyone interested to www.firearmstactical.com or www.stoppingpower.com for a debate or research on these issues.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash05 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 09 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MEU (SOC) Pistol (2)

message: I am repeating my objection to some of the information given in the MEU(SOC) Pistol section.  The M1911 was not introduced at the end of the Phillipine American War, although the requirements for such a pistol did grow in part out of incidents in that conflict.  The actual Engery On Target aspect of this article is hotly disputed and is generally false - The 9mm NATO and 1911 .45 ammuntion generate similar energies on target, and both rounds produce through and through wounds, not expending much energy in the target.  At the very least, the article needs to be cleaned up and references given.  There are many reasons for the M1911's persistence in Military, Law Enforcement and Civilian use - most of which is personal preference.  The .45 does create a slightly larger wound channel - approx 1/10 of an inch.  This could potentially lead to more tissue and bone disrupted with the FMJ rounds mandated by the Hague Conventions.
Sorry for any grammatical errors, writing on the run.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash05 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEU (SOC) Pistol (3)

message: I was perusing the USMC sections and came across this.  I cleaned up the Training section so it's more readable.  Maybe someone could go through and clean up the actual content as well.
All the info on here seems very credible, and I have no doubt in my mind that it's true, however, the article doesn't cite sources and I find that irksome.
Just a concern,
--06:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and Sources? 

message: Question in regards to the sentence "Force Reconnaissance units have been recently integrated into the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and are now part of Marine Special Operation Battalions East and West."
My understanding is that only the active component Force units will make this transition & 3d & 4th Force will stay as is.  Is this true?  If so, I recommend changing this line to "Active duty Force Reconnaissance units..."  FieldMarine 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force to SOCOM 

message: They are looking for that special fire, a mean gene inside of the Marine to ensure he will hang tough under the most difficult of circumstances.  Biased language that clearly is not up to the Wikipedia standards. This just one of the many examples found in the text. 130.234.177.222 13:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The entire training section was lifted from http://www.forcerecon.com/strongmenarmed2.htm. I have reverted the section back to the version it was in before an anonymous IP copy and pasted the article a few months ago. If someone could use some of the information from the copied article to expand the section in an encyclopedic manner that would be great. — OcatecirT 07:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More copyright violations were found. The entire "Tools of the Trade" section has been removed now. — OcatecirT 08:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Someone really should put the training and requirements to be a usmc force recon. like the prerequists for swimming, running, and everything ya know?
70.181.160.79 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accurate training regimens can be had all over the place. It takes a 300 on the  PT just to qualify, I believe. Talk about work. Semper Fi, Marines. That is all. ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.226.118 (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they changed the minimum PFT score requirement to 225 (enlisted). It's in military.com's Force Recon info section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.28.121 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training or requirements? 

message: Seriously, this article reads like a recruitment pamphlet. Since when are encyclopedia articles EVER written in future tense? The back half of this article says "Marines will" every three sentences. Someone who's more qualified than I needs to give this thing a look over for facts and edit out all this future tense nonsense. 128.101.167.143 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Wrote This?

message: I am to blame on the grammatical errors and improper usage of ALL the history and the training sections.  This page definitely needed work!  There were past concerns about the lack of information, so I took upon my own research and sources to incorporate all into what we have now to date, due to the anonymous' requests.  I have not copied any sources nor violating any copywrite issues.  These are all the work of my best 'creative writing ability'.  I am a Marine, I walk and talk like one as I am not an English professor; if many of you feel that it sounded like a recruiting propanda, I 'unintentially' was unaware!  But please take note of my huge contributions to this article when it was started a few years ago!
All my work is to the credit of the Force Reconnaissnce Association (FRA), the Marines of the FORECON Company-past and present, my contacts at Headquarters Marine Corps, plus, the pile of books, publications, and everything about FORECON that I could obtain; to include the National Archives and Records Administration. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RekonDog (talk • contribs) 08:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I Wrote This!

message: Since that most of the Companies where deactivatied [sigh!], there are many, many historical points that I am trying to incorporate without tarnishing this article.  As the way I see it, Force Recon is in the past, although there are the Deep Recon Platoon that were placed into the Division-level Recon Battalions.  The only Companies that I feel that must be addressed 'as in present-tense' are the Active Reserve components of the FORECON Companies that are still in existence, such as 3rd and 4th FORECON, and distant 5th (treading on thin ice here).  Before, I had a promising 'chronological' Table of Organization, but since those logos were eliminated, I took it in my own hands to delete the work I created!  Regardless, these Companies must be posted somehow, I seen how other articles are done and they have them, so why not here?  I have some ideas, but not yet experimented them on sandbox in my User Page.
Plus, there was a suggestion amongst the 'group' that the Table of Equipment should be separated by the Greenside and Blackside as I having even experimented, I'm working on that as we speak-surely but slowly!  The article lacks images as we cannot use the same pictures from other articles and use it on here (another wiki rule).  If I only had taken pictures of my gear [however, illegal!], things would been 'fine and dandy'.  So we need pictures and more involvment on the equipment.  I've been too busy as it is and been spending most of my 'research' on the history of Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion, in which I typed a messy mash of info when I created that article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RekonDog (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions about this Article

message: They were the direct subordinate of the FMF when it was established as a 'detachable' Fleet Marine Force-level Recon unit, to conduct different type of recon aside from the Division-level Recon's mission.  It follows more in the lines of being under the direct echelon of the force commander, whom are under the higher echelon of the Fleet Marine Force.  Their duties are given by the FMF commander, who influences the MAGTF, its MEF and MEU; also jointly beside the Landing Force or Amphibious Task Force Commanders...all of which are all force commanders in relation to the FMF.  Only significant difference was their level of penetration, Close or Distant vice Deep reconnnaissance.  The Commandant at that time wanted this unit to be mobile to support FMF-level missions, under the direction of him and his subordinate staff of the MEF and MAGTF.  All this is explained the publications that I posted along with the article, especially the FMFRP 12-21 "AARUGHA!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekonDog (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Force' refers to Fleet Marine ''Force''

message: If you aren't a Recon Marine past or present please don't add or take away anything from this article. There were several incorrect statments that have been put in by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I understand if you'd like to contribute, but unless you were or are a Recon Marine you simply have nothing to go on except for what you have read or heard. So please leave the writing for those who actually know whats what.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.239.140.86 (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Semper Fi.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: There are a few points that I would like to make. The origin of Marine Force Recon goes back to the Amphibious Reconnaissance Corps of WWII. Marine Force Recon can not trace it's roots to the Marine Parachute Battalions or the Marine Raiders. usurped from RekonDog's User Talk
:Under the section "The Founding Years", the historical lineage of Force Recon is highly incorrect about it forming from the 'ideas' of the Marine Raiders and Paramarines.  I removed any record of that information about the Raiders and Paramarines and replaced it with the lineage that actually founded the Force Reconnaissance Companies.  Please correct all the grammatical errors from the sections I posted - since I tend to input a lot of grammar errors like I did on the other sections I've posted in the past - see example MCTU#1, History, Mission, Training, Organization, etc...  User:RekonDog 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine Raiders and Paramarines? 

message: There is a controversy about whether Force Recon Marines get/had gone through BUD/S or not...although I, myself didn't go, nor had any inspiration to go to the prestigious training class; I have no documented proof other than my personal knowledge of a few Marines whom I knew that had gone to BUD/S.  I'll research and link-up any possible findings as I can to elaborate more on this issue.  It was quite known that FORECON Marines were able to go through the program, but seemlessly quite difficult upon request; unfortunately, timing and funding made it quite hard to insert the volunteers into the class schedule, and even took away the valuable time for the Marine's rotational training with the 'Company'.
LINKUP:
http://www.dragondoor.com/golafson.html
Bare with me folks, more links will follow, as I have time provided.
RekonDog (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have served with them, they exist, though it was not common.  Veriss (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BUD/S 

message: "they are capable of performing unconventional special operations similar to those of the United States special operations forces (e.g. Navy SEALs, Army Rangers,and to some degree, the Army Special Forces), although Force Recon's missions and tasks do differ by a margin." i was hoping you could ellaborate on this statement for me. why "to some degree the Army SF"? this is not to provoke an argument of whos better then who or anything just looking for some info. thanks i appreciate it!
--Rmedic10 (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarifying question?? 

message: The Vietnam War section cites no sources at all. Would the author please update with some references?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhuffman42 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam War section in history (section 11) cites no sources 

message: User:RekonDog, I proudly salute your service to our country, which is similar to the service of many other editors even if they choose not to display the details of their service on their user pages.  I disagree very strongly however with your repeated assertions: "If you ain't recon, don't teach recon!" -- that those who have not served in FORECONCO do not have the right to edit this article.  I could explain why this is wrong on  many levels but I don't feel that I should need to remind a fellow Marine to play by the rules.  Semper Fi Devil Dog.  Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right of non-FoReconCo to edit 

message: I know that JAG has a episode with force recon. IUt's season 2, episode 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.164.20 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAG episode 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827064938/http://safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/Parachute/MCO_3500.20B.pdf to http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/Parachute/MCO_3500.20B.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406112312/http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%203500.42A%20W%20ERRATUM.pdf to http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%203500.42A%20W%20ERRATUM.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406112327/http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%201510.125.pdf to http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%201510.125.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406112340/http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%203502.2A%20W%20ERRATUM.pdf to http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%203502.2A%20W%20ERRATUM.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023092111/http://www.mfr.usmc.mil/4thMARDIV/3dForceRecon/ to http://www.mfr.usmc.mil/4thmardiv/3dForceRecon/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060603184743/http://www.marforres.usmc.mil/4thmardiv/4thForceRecon/ to http://www.marforres.usmc.mil/4thmardiv/4thForceRecon/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629085611/http://www.specialoperations.com/USMC/Recon/Default.html to http://www.specialoperations.com/USMC/Recon/Default.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Force Recon is referred to as a Tier 3 unit, a status which denotes conventional warfare units which can augment special forces in large scale engagements.[3] " ---  Completely false statement from an unreliable source. Please remove immediately Gmw2128 (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. BilCat (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021 

message: The article indeed is up-to-date...however, it gives wrong impression about Forecd Recon and the (latter) Raiders of SOCOM, particularily the internal debate and arguments on Force Recon conducting direct action operations in general... Historically, Marines avoided/vied for participation with USSOCOM...two stark opposite polarity of views in the "purity" of reconnaissance. 
And Marines are divided on SOCOM, and its role, given due if SOF/SOCOM operative units directly support the 'grunts' (main forward projecting infantry units) advancing their area influence in the battlespace. Which had some influence in CMC Gen. Vandegrift's decision that USMC were institutionally already in the business of many special operations roles, ever since its founding, and cemented by the FMF established in 1933. The MEUs would certify in all dimensions of special naval operations in every pre-deployment cycle. Even recon Marines will humbly say that they are a 'support unit' for the 'real' warriors...the grunts who have to face a volley of machine gun fire, mortar, artillery, bombs, gas, chemicals, grenades, trench warfare, and etc.
Again...a lot of exciting Marine Corps history. 
Anyways, as always to Jarheads, Leathernecks, and Devil Dogs...
...Semper Fidelis
RekonDog (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some addt'l info worth mention...maybe?