Talk:Reconnaissance (military)

message: There are pages on surveillance aircraft and spy satellite which should be linked to, and some of the material on this page should be shifted to the aircraft page.  I don't have time atm. --Robert Merkel 09:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: I don't know if this is shown in all Wikipedia articles that are basically defenitions, but the way it is said seems very unclear, and I would think that most people would rather a sentence explaining how reconnaissance is not these things. Espire 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just poor prose and style and symptomatic of the entire article. I put some tags on it. Quadzilla99 04:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Compare To" 

message: Could someone knowledgeable add a blurb about the term "reconnaissance in force"? This term comes up a lot in military histories and fiction. I suspect it doesn't really need a separate article. Thanks. — Jeff Q 14:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no one rose to this challenge yet, I've added my own blurb, based on some quick scans of various dictionaries and military webpages, as well as my own impressions from reading historical and fictional works. If I have made any significant errors or misused any terminology, I ask that folks not bite my head off, but just make the corrections. Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconnaissance in force 

message: I believe that simple "reconnaissance" should be no more than a disambiguation page to reconnaissance (military), reconnaissance (network), etc. The military reconnaissance page could point to:
:Reconnaissance in force by conventional units
:Reconnaissance by recon units organic to conventional forces
:Long Range Surveillance; US Marine Force Recon Battalions go here
:Special reconnaissance; UK SAS/SBS/SRR, US Special Forces and certain other SOF units, Force Recon companies
Other national organizations are welcome, but I suspect most countries will fit into this four-level model. Russian style, where one company/battalion/etc. out of a battalion/regiment has additional recon training, might be an exception. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring Reconnaissance

message: Is this the correct term? I would use "aerial reconnaissance". Airborne to me means "carried by air", eg paratroops. Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observation. I made that heading refer to air and space, and put parachuting as one means by which SR troops can reach their area of operations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Airborne reconnaissance

message: I think the "Network Reconnaissance" section should be removed to another article, we can always add a disambiguation page.--Afpre (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network Reconnaissance 

message: I would like to see this page reconstructured, but let's point out that amphibious reconnaissance had definitely earned its place as a subcategory.  I have also like to see the "Area of Influence" and "Area of Interest" that determines the different methods of reconnaissance, recon and 'deep' (or a.k.a. Long-range) recon.  The Marine Corps utilizes amphibious reconnaissance as well as ground reconnaissance.  Navy SEALs, and the Recon units in the U.S. Marine Corps have been adopted by many naval doctrines on amphibious warfare concerning reconnaissance in amphibious operations.  The ground reconnaissance overlaps the duties of amphibious recon.   I have extensive articles that I have encountered pertaining to the United States adoptation of 'amphibious reconnaissance'.  Would anyone agree with me on elaborating more and adding a section on "Amphibious Reconnaissance"?
--RekonDog 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphibious Reconnaissance 

message: In regards to some various statements and discussions about the integrity of this article, I have revised this article due to missing allotted info on reconnaissance. I expanded the already-contained information that is still ever-present in this article, by addressing the military science of reconnaissance thereof.  I made many substantial changes in regards to creating a globalized, worldwide view, in which this article was under scrutiny. Since reconnaissance is a element of military science, I retained the main theme in the body of this article.
My reasons are that this article contains too many redundant information and ambiguous statements that relate to the approach of reconnaissance insofar. Albeit, this article does contain many factual statements, however, there are some minor errors and missed implications that I feel that needed to be addressed. And I have fixed some issues that may had (or not) been changed/corrected (on the behalf of others), and produced a format that may allow this article to be expanded even further. Sorry if I may caused repercussions on those that are affected by these changes.—RekonDog (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Revision (2010)