Talk:UNSC Army airborne

Giving a list of modern military units as "likely" ancestors without citations seems a bit unfounded. True, they are all well-known and effective airborne units, but the selection seems arbitrarily biased towards the US military, with a token British force. I'd be more comfortable with a more general outline of airborne infantry, and a statement that this is likely the model for the UNSC version, since as yet we have nothing in the way of hard data. Hopefully this will change. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   19:49, 24 June 2011 (EDT)


 * What you regard as "token" I see as an essential link. We weren't the first nation to introduce the concept of airborne infantry, nor were we the most numerous (Germans and Soviets had us outnumbered on that front I believe). However, as the UNSC Defense Forces show a clear instance of lineage from the American, British, and Commonwealth forces, it's important to give some "background" to the article...much like we have for dozens more in the past. Nothing different here on Army Airborne.


 * My concern was that the article seemed to imply a direct line of descent from these units to the current UNSC Army Airborne units, when no such link has been confirmed. There is a relation, I agree, but not a clear one, and using only those units specifically would be misleading to a casual reader. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   20:49, 24 June 2011 (EDT)


 * We could replace the word "descent" and use "training and doctrine" in it's stead.