Talk:Battle of Sigma Octanus IV

Marine strength

As a precursor to making the article clearer... Was the original 1200-strong marine garrison wiped out prior to 0520? --74.99.140.28 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Marine casualties that high?

I know that only 14 Marines survived the combat at Alpha HQ and Firebase Bravo, but the numbers don't add up. Supposedly 1600 Marines were involved in the battle, but the book states that there were only 400 Marines at Alpha. 14 of that battalion survived (including Cpl. Harland's team, who were the only survivors of Firebase Bravo). Then add the company or battalion from Bravo Base that Lt. McCasky's and Cpl. Harland's platoon belonged to. At most, that's about 800 Marines accounted for. Now, how do we know there were 1600 Marines in the first place, and not just 800? If someone just didn't make a mathematical error, then the remaining 800 Marines should be somehow addressed, as either MIA or "situation unknown". Maybe they got wiped out, too, but I still think they should be adressed.

User:Big Bad Wolf

Yeah how did they get 1600? --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 15:19, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy...

Hey,

About that discrepancies thing, when it says how did the Cradle cover all the ships? Well, wasn't there more than one refit station at Sigma Octanus?

File:Haloforgheisonvv4.gif|35px]] Stryker117File:UNSCoH Dingo without letters.PNG|30px]] 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there was just the Cradle. There were three at Reach, but that was later, and they faced much more ships. Specops306, Kora 'Morhek 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

21 Gun Salute

There doesn't need to be exacly 21 ships. in the origonal version, if there were not enough Cannons, then some were used again. This could mean LESS than 63 UNCS ships.Forerunner 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cruisers and Destroyers have multiple mac guns ProphetofTruth 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Year

In Halo: Fall of Reach it says the battle of Sigma Octanus IV was in 2542.-- Joshua 029 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It was confirmed to be a typo --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 00:32, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Covenant casualties

do we have a source for the covenant casualty claim? CaptJim 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

I always thought that the cover of The Fall of Reach depicted the battle. It can't be the Battle of Reach, for obvious reasons, so the likely candidate is the Battle of Sigma Octanus IV. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 16:22, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

It could be, but then again, I don't recall a scene like that at any point in the battle, with that many Spartans together and guns blazing. Not to mention that they're wearing Mark V. I always thought it's just a generic cover image summarizing the main focus of the story.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 16:29, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Could we add the fanart of the Marines on the warthog as the main picture?--Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 17:10, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

We could indeed. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 17:13, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

No.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 17:16, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Operation: BRAVADO (REJECTED due to near-unanimous votes on the opposing side)

As per Data Drop Two, the battle for Sigma Octanus IV was codenamed Operation: BRAVADO. I considered separating the article into two, one detailing Keyes' engagement and the second about the defence with the title Operation BRAVADO, but it seems more logical and less presumptuous to simply rename the wider battle there. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 08:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Support

• Support -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 08:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Oppose

• Oppose — As per my statement below. CommanderTony
• Oppose — We should be writing our articles from a neutral perspective. To rename the article would add a pro-UNSC slant.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 13:09, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
• Oppose - As per CT. Besides, the memo doesn't explicitly say what Operation: BRAVADO refers to.-- Rusty UserWiki:Rusty-112|- 112 ]] 14:31, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
• Oppose - As per Tony.--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 22:54, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
• Oppose — As per what I said below, and that you did what I suggested :) Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Neutral

• We had a proposal like this before over another battle. It was turned down after CommanderTony pointed out that the battle wasn't orchestrated by the UNSC - they simply countered the Covenant in some places. Operation FIRESIDE, the UNSC's investigation of Ariel, was deemed to be unworthy of replacing the article's title because it was not the entire battle; the Covenant had already taken over the planet.-- Forerunner 11:47, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

I can't view the page, so what I'm saying may be incorrect. If Operation: BRAVADO was the name of the UNSC's ground defence, then it does not represent the entire engagement; the same goes for if it was the space engagement.-- Forerunner 11:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

If that's the case then what should be done is that we just summarize the ground engagement (or whatever BRAVADO was) on this page, and then go into more depth and the events of the ground engagements in another page. Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2011 (EDT)!

Indeed. If its something like those "suicide" SPARTAN-III missions or Operation UPPERCUT during the Invasion of Reach, then yes, it would be named as such. Though considering the scale, scope, and events of this battle, and others, it should be left alone. CommanderTony

So you're saying that we shouldn't even mention that there was something called Operation: BRAVADO during the Battle of Sigma Octanus IV? That just doesn't seem very smart.

Wait, I just thought of something. Operation: Bravado may be the name of the SPARTAN-IIs ground operation during the Battle of Sigma Octanus IV. That makes a lot of sense when you think about it, if you can't figure it out I'll tell you :) Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2011 (EDT)!

How about "also referred to as...", but than again we don't know whether it refers to the whole battle or one part. Col. Snipes450 17:42, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Exactly. But 343 is giving us this information and we can't just ignore it! There has to be SOMEWHERE that we can include this new information. Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)!

Okay, I'm happy now :) Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Covenant Carrier

The Carrier in the picture looks like a CAS-class, But the "strength" section lists it as a DDS-class carrier. Could there be similarities between them? Kinda like the CCS and the CRS?

DDS-class Carrier?

What is the evidence that the carrier present in the opening actions of the battle is a DDS-class carrier? I just recently re-read The Fall of Reach and I don't think there's anything to suggest that. Also, our page on the DDS-class carrier doesn't mention its appearance in that novel (or the battle) either. TheArb1ter117 (talk) 16:03, May 19, 2020 (EDT)

If the given source doesn't mention the info, feel free to remove it.BaconShelf (talk) 19:30, May 19, 2020 (EDT)