Talk:Unified Special Warfare Command: Difference between revisions

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:


I believe the use of SPECWAR in Reach with its obvious references to the Army rather than the Navy (which already has its own NAVSPECWAR), should properly be written as UNISPECWAR for Unified Special Warfare. Reason being is SPECWAR on its own doesn't represent the Unified Ground Command as it should. Col. Holland is also Army. He's in charge of Noble Team, which itself is a part of Unified Special Warfare, Group 3. In the opening of the ''Halo: Reach'' game manual, Col. Holland is shown as attached to USW which I think can only be interpreted as Unified Special Warfare. If anyone has the Reach pre-order bonus card of the Recon helmet, notice it submits for authorization for S-312 the Recon helmet from ">UNICOM/SPECWAR GROUP THREE > NOBLE" .Incidentally, "SPECWAR/GroupTHREE" is part of what's written on Jorge's dog tags. I imagine the frequent use of simply SPECWAR on its own is to be less confusing to fan of the game who aren't into the particulars like most of us. It was probably enough to know that Noble was a special warfare team. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 20:49, 21 January 2014 (EST)
I believe the use of SPECWAR in Reach with its obvious references to the Army rather than the Navy (which already has its own NAVSPECWAR), should properly be written as UNISPECWAR for Unified Special Warfare. Reason being is SPECWAR on its own doesn't represent the Unified Ground Command as it should. Col. Holland is also Army. He's in charge of Noble Team, which itself is a part of Unified Special Warfare, Group 3. In the opening of the ''Halo: Reach'' game manual, Col. Holland is shown as attached to USW which I think can only be interpreted as Unified Special Warfare. If anyone has the Reach pre-order bonus card of the Recon helmet, notice it submits for authorization for S-312 the Recon helmet from ">UNICOM/SPECWAR GROUP THREE > NOBLE" .Incidentally, "SPECWAR/GroupTHREE" is part of what's written on Jorge's dog tags. I imagine the frequent use of simply SPECWAR on its own is to be less confusing to fan of the game who aren't into the particulars like most of us. It was probably enough to know that Noble was a special warfare team. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 20:49, 21 January 2014 (EST)
:The discovery of the "USW" in the manual definitely sheds some light on the matter. I'd reckon the UNICOM part was omitted essentially for the same reason Noble Team used to lack the SPARTAN-III company identifiers in their Spartan tags; to avoid confusing casual audiences. So Unified Special Warfare would basically cover Army special operations - while UNICOM (according to the Encyclopedia) is in charge of the Marine Corps as well, the ODSTs fall under NAVSPECWAR instead. On that matter, is it ''Naval Special Warfare'' or ''Naval Special Weapons''? It's as if both are used interchangeably, though it's possible there is some minute distinction. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 00:23, 22 January 2014 (EST)

Revision as of 01:23, January 22, 2014

Branch

Hm, interesting: in the Reach beta, SPECWARCOM was stated to be under UNICOM. In the A Spartan Will Rise ViDoc, near the end, it's shown in the large viewscreen in the lower left-hand corner that SPECWAR actually answers directly to HIGHCOM. Now, someone more familiar with the military organization structure could explain if this means that SPECWAR is separate from NAVSPECWAR, or if it's even attached to any branch (Navy, army, etc.) in the first place. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:18, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

SpecWar sounds like a term referring to any member of a specialist unit, rather than an Army unit. The SPARTAN-IIs were Navy; the IIIs appear to have Army ranks (at least Gamma company) and the SPARTAN-Is and ODSTs are Marines.-- Forerunner 22:18, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'd imagine Special Warfare Command is the UNSC Army's equivalent of the Naval Special Warfare Command. More than likely the "HIGHCOM" reference is referring to a unified combatant command such as the modern-day U.S. Special Operations Command. But i'm glad that they didn't put UNICOM in Reach. :) User:CommanderTony/Sig.

I believe the use of SPECWAR in Reach with its obvious references to the Army rather than the Navy (which already has its own NAVSPECWAR), should properly be written as UNISPECWAR for Unified Special Warfare. Reason being is SPECWAR on its own doesn't represent the Unified Ground Command as it should. Col. Holland is also Army. He's in charge of Noble Team, which itself is a part of Unified Special Warfare, Group 3. In the opening of the Halo: Reach game manual, Col. Holland is shown as attached to USW which I think can only be interpreted as Unified Special Warfare. If anyone has the Reach pre-order bonus card of the Recon helmet, notice it submits for authorization for S-312 the Recon helmet from ">UNICOM/SPECWAR GROUP THREE > NOBLE" .Incidentally, "SPECWAR/GroupTHREE" is part of what's written on Jorge's dog tags. I imagine the frequent use of simply SPECWAR on its own is to be less confusing to fan of the game who aren't into the particulars like most of us. It was probably enough to know that Noble was a special warfare team. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2014 (EST)

The discovery of the "USW" in the manual definitely sheds some light on the matter. I'd reckon the UNICOM part was omitted essentially for the same reason Noble Team used to lack the SPARTAN-III company identifiers in their Spartan tags; to avoid confusing casual audiences. So Unified Special Warfare would basically cover Army special operations - while UNICOM (according to the Encyclopedia) is in charge of the Marine Corps as well, the ODSTs fall under NAVSPECWAR instead. On that matter, is it Naval Special Warfare or Naval Special Weapons? It's as if both are used interchangeably, though it's possible there is some minute distinction. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:23, 22 January 2014 (EST)