Talk:UNSC Armed Forces

Inclusion
Why aren't the Marines and Navy included here? Or have they just not been gotten around to yet? --  Councillor  Specops306  -  Kora   'Morhek  21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Trooper is resilient in saying that the Navy and Marines aren't in the UNSCDF. I've shown and told him a lot of evidence about a Defense Force isn't purely *defensive* in nature. For example, the Israeli and Australian Defense Forces; they have an Army, Air Force....and a Navy. [[Image:United Nations logo.png|35px]] General  Tony ,  Administrator of Halopedia  Talk 8/05/2008

Transfer?
Is it possible for people to transfer between say the Army and Air Force? Say if ONI wanted to use an Air Force pilot for a mission or as part of a group, could they transfer them to the Navy?--210.56.88.80 11:25, 24 August 2011 (EDT)


 * People in the military don't really 'transfer' in the way how a civilian decides that he'd rather be a banker than a janitor. You stay in the branch you chose for as long as you're still in service, though I guess you could sign up for something else afterwards. Of course, you're asking if it could all happen at once - the answer is no. NOBLE team were still UNSC Navy personnel, but were working in a joint-service capacity with the UNSC Army. The capture of the Covenant corvette Ardent Prayer depended on the UNSC Navy and the UNSC Air Force to board the vessel - ONI didn't "transfer" the airmen into the Navy, they just took part because a brassed-up airman agreed to work with the Navy.--  Fore  run  ner '' 11:33, 24 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Thanks for the prompt and detailed response. That clears it up for me, makes sense too but I still wanted to clarify. Once again, thank you for your help.--210.56.88.80 11:45, 24 August 2011 (EDT)


 * You're welcome. I'm glad I went to that Navy class - they're a lot better at getting interest than the Air Force guys. :) --  Fore  run  ner '' 11:47, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

"Soldiers"'
Why are Marines and sailors referred to as "soldier?" Is it now a universal term for military personnel or something? Signed, Tex the Spartan
 * In Halo it seems to be, I don't recall the term servicemen or servicewomen ever used. Course it's 500 years in the future and meanings of words change over time sometimes. Sith-venator Wavingstrider Fett helmet.jpg ( Commlink ) 20:31, 20 December 2012 (EST)
 * Yup. Kurt even lampshades it (as a Troper would say) to some degree in Ghosts of Onyx, Page 58, where he reminds himself that officers do not like being corrected unless it saves lives.

National forces on Earth
Why would member-states of the UEG maintain their own military forces? Was it some compromise in the charter or something, 'cause it's not as though there's any real any purpose for them to fight since it seems the only enemies the people of Earth have are the Flood, Innies and the Covenant. Sincerely, Tex the Spartan
 * Presumably, the member-states maintaining their own military forces allows for a large reserve pool of troops that doesn't have to be paid for by the UEG's taxes. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Interplanetary War, when there were presumably still a lot of rebel holdouts still around, member-state military forces would be a rapid reaction force that would already be on the ground if the rebels got uppity before UNSC forces could arrive. Thirdly, the continued existence of national forces into the 26th century might be similar to the circumstances surrounding the continued existence of the right to bear arms in the United States in the 21st: It's seen as a defence against an overly-powerful central government, backed up by provisions that seemed like a good idea put down in a constitution centuries before.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2013 (EST)
 * Ah, makes a lot more sense now given how the UEG probably wouldn't tolerate civilians owning firearms as much as organized national forces. But why didn't any of the East African forces help out the UNSC?
 * All dead, maybe? Considered not very good so were relegated to the sidelines? Or perhaps they just helped out in different theatres but didn't get involved around Voi because of the importance of the objective. Also, why do you presume that about the UEG's stance on firearms ownership? Judging by the Insurrectionists, fairly significant numbers of people do own firearms and are prepared to use them.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (EDT)
 * It would've been better if they at least mentioned that the local Kenya and Tanzanian troops were wiped up or otherwise occupied. Chief: What about the local military? Cortana: They're all either dead or on evac duty. Also the UNSC was willing to initiate the S-II program to fight the Insurrection-who's to say they banned assault weapons prior? Given how the Colonies had legitimate gripes about the UNSCs somewhat repressive nature, who's to say they didn't ban rifles and pistols? As for why the Innies acquired military-grade firearms, outlaws and insurgents like them tend to disobey weapons laws. Plus the FLP was able to acquire a NUKE-a commercial-grade nuke at that, but a nuke nonetheless that's definitely gotta be restricted and gotta cost quite a lot of cash or require a pretty well-thought plan that'll be high-cost anyway, plus that's only one instance where the Innies had nukes. Infantry weapons are nothing compared to nukes.
 * The principle of "show, don't tell" applies. Cortana and the Chief saying that would have sounded ridiculous, and would have taken up memory for an entirely unnecessary point.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (EDT)
 * Fair point.

Do away with the UNSC ranking?
I wonder if it would be best for the wiki to merge all articles on UNSC ranking system since most of them, in my own assessment, do not meet the notability standards. Only a fair few are often used with the rest left standing as orphan articles.— subtank   16:25, 15 January 2014 (EST)


 * Yea, verily. I'd say perhaps a third of the ranks we have pages for have actually been referenced in official media, the Encyclopedia notwithstanding. What do you think about having separate pages for enlisted and commissioned ranks? That would prevent the clutter of having every entry on the same page, yet it would still be preferable to the current system. -- Our vengeance is at hand. Gravemind.svg ( Talk to me. ) 23:13, 15 January 2014 (EST)


 * I'll start an article soon. Somewhere along the lines of "UNSCDF rank structure" perhaps? — subtank   13:43, 20 January 2014 (EST)


 * Just a word of caution. I see UNSCDF tossed around a lot when it should probably be just UNSC. The Defense Forces specifically would refer to those parts that do not take overt action such as the fleet of ships and the Marines deployed from them. They would be part of the UNSCEF or Expeditionary Forces. The UNSDF would be things like logistics, the Army, probably Air Force, space stations like MAC stations, etc. It may have gone unused but there was even a UNSC eagle emblem in the Reach texture files that had UNSCEF written on the banner. If you refer to the military as a whole, you should probably just use UNSC, unless you mean planetary or orbital stations and their complements specifically. I'm still working out the dynamics of a full UNSC organizational flow chart, but I thin the separation of UNSCDF and UNSCEF in terms of this ranking here would apply to all the UNSC forces, would it not? -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (EST)

I must say I'm very glad you've cleared that up. For the last few years I've been bugged about the relationship between the UNSC and the Defense Force, primarily because the latter seemed so underutilized. That would explain why the UNSCDF logo has been seen only twice (to my recollection): Cairo Station is by its very nature a defensive installation, while Spirit of Fire is a support ship. I guess we've got a lot of work ahead of us.

On a related note, I'm necroing a topic Jugus called attention to a couple of years back. Despite this wiki's references to a "Covenant navy" and "Covenant army", there doesn't seem to be much (if any) reference for their distinct existences. Fluff from Reach and The Essential Visual Guide states that the Covenant used branches of service (cf. plasma repeater and Banshee), though it makes absolutely no indication as to the nature of these formations. The EVG seems to imply that the Covenant military was based around various ministries, most importantly the Ministry of Resolution. Could you shed any light on this? -- Our vengeance is at hand.  ( Talk to me. ) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (EST)


 * Another offhanded indication that the Covenant may have some form of distinct branches is found in Bungie's Halo 3 co-op introduction, which has this to say in reference to Usze 'Taham: "Following the dissolution of the Covenant, he was approached by the Ascetics to become one of their liaisons within the Navy." Like the mentions in the Visual Guide, though, it doesn't give any details. Make of that what you will. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 23:50, 20 January 2014 (EST)


 * According to Frankie, the UNSC Defense Force comprises the Army and the Air Force. For the reasons listed above we can add defensive space stations, though the Spirit seems like an odd one out given her assignment to the Third Fleet. Following up, I just thought of another question: The Air Force is a UNICOM component, right? -- Our vengeance is at hand. Gravemind.svg ( Talk to me. ) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (EST)


 * I can't say for sure about a formal Navy or Army in the human sense of the organization. At least I hope it's not that. Aliens should still be alien. To have a direct human analog for everything in an alien culture is lazy and sloppy. I see it as the UNSC imposing their notions of Navy and Army on the Covenant rather than something the Covenant would differentiate. I would guess the Ministries would still be the basis of military organization of the Covenant. Ship-based operations would be classified by the UNSC as Covenant Navy, whereas fortified ground forces would be their version of Army.


 * I see the case of Usze 'Taham in the same way...the term Navy is used but rather than a literal, formal title like "Covenant Navy", my interpretation is just that he's a liaison between the Ascetics and the shipborne forces of the Covenant military.


 * My own UNSC org chart does put the Army and Air Force in the UNSCDF, along with about half of the Navy structure, ostensibly NAVLOGCOM. The other two naval divisions, FLEETCOM and NAVSPECWARCOM are both in the UNSCEF section along with, I'd surmise, the newly-separated-out Spartan branch. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2014 (EST)


 * That's my interpretation of the "Navy" references as well; they're essentially referring to the spacefaring component of the Covenant's military forces and not an official service branch in the human sense. Think it's time we took steps to do something about this thing - it's been, what, two years (?) since this was first brought to light. As with the Forerunner fleet page, we could keep "Covenant fleet" as a general article for all things Covenant's spaceborne military (it might be more apt to call it "Covenant navy", but that has the risk of people confusing it for a proper organization). --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 00:06, 22 January 2014 (EST)

Anyway, back to the original question, the title of the article consolidating the UNSC ranks would be "UNSC rank structure". I presume they still retain the same rank structure as the ones used by the US military (like how they are now in these two templates). — subtank   10:30, 22 January 2014 (EST)


 * And done. — subtank   11:52, 24 July 2014 (EDT)

UNSC Armed Forces
Referring to ScaleMaster117's observations in the above discussion, I'm thinking we should probably do something about this page and our references to the UNSCDF in general. As he pointed out, it seems that the "UNSCDF" doesn't refer to the UNSC military as a whole but rather certain portions of it (mainly the Army and Air Force plus some Navy assets like super MAC stations), and there are mentions of "UNSCEF" (or Expeditionary Forces) in the fiction which would supposedly cover the Marines and most of the Navy. 343i has recently used the term "UNSC Armed Forces" in at least this article, so maybe we could cover the UNSC military as a whole under that title? In that case there's probably no need to make separate articles for the Defensive and Expeditionary forces as they can be covered under the Armed Forces title along with the rest of the military's organization. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 02:24, 25 December 2015 (EST)


 * I completely agree. We've had several references to the UNSC Armed Forces as well, though I don't remember any references to the UNSC Expeditionary Forces. I was thinking, in an article for the UNSC Armed Forces (can't wait for possible acronym issues with the UNSC Air Force), the "Organization" section can include subsections for the UNSCDF and UNSCEF maybe. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 00:28, 26 December 2015 (EST)


 * From what I can verify, "UNSCEF" can be found in at least the M247 GPMG's tripod and possibly other in-game decals. ScaleMaster117 might know more examples (according to him in the above thread it appears in the Reach texture files as well). --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 12:35, 26 December 2015 (EST)


 * Ah, I see. Also, the Armed Forces name would make more sense given the name of the "Senate Armed Forces Committee". -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 13:15, 26 December 2015 (EST)
 * Despite my own organizational preferences (which I have discussed with 343i), they have not made a definitive stance on it. In addition to the M247 reference, there was also a UNSC logo in The Art of Halo book (pg. 159) that shows UNSCEF. How 343i will ultimately treat it, it's clear that when referring to the military as a whole UNSC is more correct than UNSCDF which is specifically for the defensive units. That's why it's almost exclusively on the MAC stations..they don't exactly travel anywhere...they defend. As with all this, don't conflate my own interpretations with 343i's intent. I'm hoping we'll get something definitive from them at some point. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2015 (EST)


 * UNSC Armed Forces still exists as an entity that has been mentioned in multiple sources now. In the meantime, we can rework this page to only reference the UNSCDF, but we still have the Armed Forces and the EF to deal with. Perhaps (at least until 343i says anything) we could create a UNSC Armed Forces article about the UNSC branches (which in turn would take most of the content from this article), or we could merge the little info we have about the UNSC Armed Forces into the UNSC's article. Not sure what to do with the EF though. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 20:32, 27 December 2015 (EST)


 * I think renaming this page to UNSC Armed Forces is warranted given that we already have the basis for the page in the existing article and the fact "Armed Forces" leaves no ambiguity as to whether it covers the whole military (unlike "UNSCDF"). It's certainly more warranted than a page for the UNSCDF alone since we know basically nothing about it. We can list the -DF and -EF on the Armed Forces page and describe the little information we have on them (and possibly elaborate on the ambiguities in notes). Our articles claim "UNSCDF" stands for "UNSC Defense Force" but I don't think we know even that much - if Loftus's interpretation is correct, it's more likely to be "Defense Forces" or "Defensive Forces". Still, as with everything else we don't know for sure, we can leave this part vague. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 01:54, 28 December 2015 (EST)


 * Agreed. That's probably the best way to do it for now. And Encyclopedia does refer to the "UNSC Defense Force", but we all know where the name was likely taken from. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 10:10, 28 December 2015 (EST)
 * The DF is definitely Defense Force but it can also mean Defense Forces if referring to a plurality. I don't know if this or the EF is something that would necessarily show up on a an organizational chart as such. I think an EF would be cobbled together on an as-needed basis. A DF fleet or array of stations could be more permanently considered such, but that's not to say that a defense fleet couldn't be sent to the front should circumstances warrant it. before his assignment to Buck's unit, the Rookie was part of an Expeditionary Force. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (EST)

(reset indent) Man, I really want a Canon Fodder about UNSC organization now. I figured the UNSC is under the UEG's Department of Defense, with the UNSC Armed Forces making up a majority of the UNSC. The UNSC Armed Forces is then divided into its five branches, which fall under the authority of UNICOM or NAVCOM. Both of which are under the authority of HIGHCOM, which is then headed by the Security Council. That is my understanding of the UNSC's structure. So then we have the DF and EF, which seem to be somewhat loosely organized divisions of the UNSC Armed Forces based on whether they are defense or expeditionary forces (so system fleets would be DF, while the numbered expeditionary fleets would be EF). So if I'm not mistaken, our best option right now would probably be to rename this article to "UNSC Armed Forces", rewrite it slightly, and mention the DF under organization. We currently don't seem to have an official source on EF. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 14:16, 28 December 2015 (EST)
 * As I understand it, UNSC is a blanket term for the Armed Forces. You're correct that the Armed Forces comprise the 5 branches (Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, and more recently Spartans), but it's equally valid to refer to all the Armed Forces as the UNSC. I think the UNSCDF can be relegated to a footnote on the UNSC page. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2015 (EST)


 * Agreed. I will deal with this article momentarily (probably later tonight if no one beats me to it), after I just finish some other things here. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 17:37, 28 December 2015 (EST)

Keyes and the 'soldier' error
Every time I read through the section with the bit about how Marines are sometimes referenced as 'soldiers', it grinds my gears. it seems a little unnecessary, and its more than a little unfounded. For instance, how do we know that Keyes wasn't trying to snap the Marine out of his panic by using a term he'd recognize as wrong, with the implication that he was acting like one, before making him remember what branch he was really part of?

Or maybe in the heat of a firefight in which a tall armored man was slaughtering dozens of Covenant soldiers, Keyes was too busy keeping his head down to really care that much, considering he's part of a different branch and all.

I just think it'd make it neater if we didn't have that bit. Seeing if I can get some agreement, considering that this is fairly major page. --Grim Looters (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2016 (EDT)