Talk:Weapons of Choice

message: USS Shreveport (LPD-12) is of the Cleveland (LPD-7) class, which is being replaced by the San Antonio (LPD-17) class.
—wwoods 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "LPD-12 landing assault ship" 

message: There are two ships in the MNF which don't appear at all in Weapons of Choice post-transition, but are important in Designated Targets: the HMS Vanguard (which landed in the Arctic ice and was stripped by the USSR), and the Dessaix (captured and stripped by the Germans, and used by the Japanese to attack Hawaii). At the time of Weapons of Choice, as far as the rest of the MNF knows, these ships either didn't go through the Transition or were destroyed by it.
How should these ships be listed in the Order of Battle? Currently the "Ships of the MNF" section is inconsistent--it lists the Vanguard as "lost and presumed destroyed", but describes the Dessaix's fate as we readers know it from Designated Targets. Any opinions? Narsil 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody responded, so I'm going to change the OoB to represent the state as known to the MNF at the end of WoC--that is, both the Vanguard and the Dessaix are missing and presumed lost. Narsil 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to list ships that don't appear until second book? 

message: *The 'flawless' nature of the 2021 personnel is also viewed as being heavily tainted by liberal bias.
Huh?
The main issues with the 1942ers seem to be their racist and sexist attitudes. I thought those two were no longer considered liberal issues. Sexual orientation plays a minor role but even here all that we see is acceptance which is shared (at least officially) by all mainstream Republican politicians.
So what is so *heavily* tainted?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  82.135.67.221 (talk • contribs)  03:19, 26 January 2006  (UTC)
:That whole section could be stricken, as it stands today.  Flagged for refs, but the very, very specific criticisms it lays down read like blatent NPOV violations or OR without sources.  Were those descriptions of real reviews, or just written by someone that mistook the Wiki for Amazon? MrZaiustalk 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal Bias?

message: I am currently trying to read this book, and so far have found the quality of the research to be horrible.  The author has a Marine Battalion being led by a Colonel (the job of a Lt. Col.), the S-4 Logistics officer being a Lt. Col. (the job of a Captain), and the chief medical officer being a Navy Captain (the job of a Navy Lieutenant).  He also has the 3rd Battalion 9th Marine Regiment (3/9) being part of the 5th Marine Division, when it is really a part of the 3rd Marine Division.  He also has 3/9 having a "C Company".  C Company would belong to 1/9, and 3/9 would have comppanies lettered I, J, andK (plus L if at full wartime strength).  An MEU is the equivelant of a Regiment, with a Colonel leading it (who outranks the LtCol that leads the GCU (Infantry) section).  The MEU is composed of seperate units combined, and they do not loose their unit designation.  3/9 (or 3rd Bn or Btn, not "3 batt" as the author calls it - Batt is short for "Battery", an Artillary unit) would still be 3/9.  The individual armour and artillary units would also keep their designations.  The MEU is only a temporary unit, and once the operation is complete it is disbanded.  And if it was an MEU of the 5th Division, it would be named a 2 digit number, starting with a 5 (51st MEU, 52nd MEU, etc).  An MEU designation of 82nd MEU would belong to the 8th Marine Division (which like the 5th, does not exist - the most ever was 6 during WWII).  The author also has new classes of ships (including Amphibious Ships) thrown all over the place, apparently not realizing the length of service that the US Navy actually puts it's ships through.  The USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) was in service from 1961-1993.  The current Wasp class ships (7 built - 1 under construction) is so new, I can't see the reason for the author designing an entire new class of Amphibious ship.  Especially considering what they normally stick the Marines with (20-30+ years is the average life span of an amphib ship).  Speaking as a former Marine infantryman, the author should have talked to a few Marines as research before publishing this book.  I am only on page 7, and have found a huge number of glaring inconsistancies.  No matter what changes may happen (such as women being in an infantry battalion), they would never  make such huge changes in the rank structure, or build entire new classes of Amphib ships.  A Tom Clancy, Harry Turtledove, or W.E.B. Griffin this guy is not.  Mushrom 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does happen, sometimes, that Bns are lead by Cols(He probably screwed up somewhere.). Thats not really so big of an error there. The rest of it, I can't say... I've never read the book. Gelston 17:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To me, it is a piece of fiction and set in a different timeline.  I can not honestly remember seeing or reading that a multinational force made its way to the 40's from the future.  As it is a piece of fiction, I don't think your arguments are relavent. ----darkman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.16.21 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research Quality

message: Wasn't this character an SAS officer, rather than a Royal Navy officer? I no longer have a copy, so I cannot check myself. Kevin 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Harry Windsor 

message: Would anyone object if this article was changed to C'wealth English as it is written by and Australian and initially released in Australia? BradK (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Substituted at 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment