|WikiProject Mexico||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 RPG
- 2 Vandalism
- 3 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
- 4 Removing of several weapon system entries.
- 5 The FX-05 proof of Mexico's increased military budget?
- 6 Inclusion of History
- 7 Reliable Sources
- 8 Not to be confused with the Navy
- 9 Sighted weapons but no documentation to prove it
- 10 Recent image additions to the organization section
- 11 Army size
- 12 New Weapons
- 13 File:MSG-90SDN.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 14 Terrorism
- 15 General Problems
- "RPG" comes from Ручной Противотанковый Гранатомёт (Ručnoj Protivotankovyi Granatomjët), which translates as Hand-held, Anti-tank Grenade launcher. "Rocket-propelled grenade" is a backronym, but it is a pretty fitting description of what the weapon is.
- This article  cites that criminals are using RPG-7's in Mexico. It is possible that captured examples could find their way into use by the army. This picture Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales purports to be Mexican Special Forces during training exercises, and you can clearly see an RPG-7 in the bottom left section.
- Let me add to the mix. The infantry rifles used by the Mexican Army are just that--rifles. Not "assault" rifles.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mexican Special Forces RPG with other weapons: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4583/78686767878777777777777df7.jpg Brody Kennen (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Mexican Army (equipment) is under constant vandalism from 18.104.22.168 IP location Manchester, UK
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Removing of several weapon system entries.
There are several weapon systems currently listed in this article that are not in use by the Mexican Army (or, in some cases, in prototype stage). I't should be usefull to remove the weapons that are in prototype stage as there is either no reference to talks between SEDENA or reference in the weapon's dedicated page.
Furthermore, considering the lack of visually verifiable information we should only retain the weapons backed up by a picture of either the numerous parades during the 15th of September or pictures provided by newspapers, as the SEDENA reserves the right of declaring most of it's current operational status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacker ARG (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry the fact that a weapon doesn't appear in pictures of a military parade does not trump written sources. SJSA 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
To whomever is repeatedly removing information, would please discuss your proposed changes here before doing so again. SJSA 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
To whomever is using Reference 4 to repeatedly adding weapons clearly not in service with the Mexican Army please stop doing so, Reference 4 is in no way an official source to back up this claims, moreover said source (besides several other mistakes) marks said weapons systems as doubtful with an "?" sign, so unless a more reliable source or visual confirmation is provided those weapons has no place on any Mexican Army equipment list. 8 March 2009 (unsigned comment left by User:22.214.171.124 )
- Ok now at least we are talking. Please continue the discussion here before taking action in the article again. Also please sign your posts on the talk page with four tildes ~~~~. Now am I to take it that you are claiming 'worldinventory.googlepages.com'is a more reliable source? Googlepages are personal websites, on the same level as geocities or a blog. In additon to the army recognition link, there is this http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1387214 as well. Apparently, much of this information was available on the SEDENA website in 2006 but I can no longer find it there. Even so, you have shown no reliable source of your own that backs up your claims, and now I have shown you two. Certainly if you are able to find reliable source stating that these weapons are not in Mexican military inventory I will relent, but as of right now you have nothing. Oh, and if you are the same user as User:Slacker ARG, you should sign in before editing to make it easier to know who's who. SJSA 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am removing all weapons that I know are not in the Mexican Armed Forces's inventory. The "army recognition" website that is constantly being added here as a reference is laughable and simply unrealistic. I will remove all weapons that I have not seen on the countless pictures and videos from military parades and other operations of the Mexican Armed Forces. Anything that cannot be verified with a reliable source, photos or videos will be removed. If a particual weapon seems like it might actually be in the Mexican Army's inventory I will add a "citation needed" mark so that someone else will either verify it or remove it. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- As someone mentioned here there can only be one way to cease doubt about what weapons the Mexican Army actually has and that is to see it for yourself. That is why I have added links to pictures of the Mexican Army in posesion of particular weapons so that they may no longer be in doubt. This doesn't mean that weapons without photo confirmation aren't in the Mexican Army's inventory, it just means there aren't pictures to confirm them yet, so keep tight and refrain from adding any rifles, machineguns or other weapons that are doubtfull. Check your sources as well because the SEDENA very rarely discloses any official information and, as such, all the claims floating all over the internet are very suspicious if they are not based on visual confirmations made during public exibitions such as military parades or press photos of the Army in action. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok that's not how wikipedia works. Please look over these wikipedia polices and guidelines: 1 and 2 Please stop making edits until you are clear on those polices and guidelines. SJSA 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's own No Original Research guidelines 1 it states: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by reliable source... In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." As it stands the Army Recognition website is neither a scholarly source nor does it verify it's claim in any way by either peer review or visual confirmation. The Army Recognition webpage that is used as a source to make all sorts of wild attributions to the Mexican Armed Forces's weapons inventory in this article does not confirm it's own claims by any scholarly research and is not a mainstream news source nor does it in any way demonstrate any evidence, referenced or otherwise, to demonstrate it's claims as undeniable fact. As a token of their error when it comes to Mexico they placed the country in the wrong continent: http://www.armyrecognition.com/south_america/index.php . Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was just giving this page a read: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1387214 and frankly I find it as misguided as the Army Recognition website. For one, it says they have the PzH 2000 in their inventory. If that's not crazy then I don't know what is. I also think the burden of proof has to be on those of you who want to attribute a certain weapon, or weapons, to the Mexican Armed Forces and not the other way arround. It seems to me that some people are claiming certain weapons are in the possession of the Mexican Army and then challenging everyone else to disprove it. That is not how scholarly rigor works. It's completely backwards. This is not a scholarly source but I will put my hands in the fire and say it is a reliable one because it has photographic evidence even if it may not be good enough for Wikipedia's standards for sources since not all photos are marked with a publisher: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101145 Ocelotl10293 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since you have not taken the time to read the polices and guidelines I have shown you I will reiterate:
"Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." Photographs posted on a forum such as militaryphotos.net are not reliable sources. Furthermore EVEN if they could be accepted as sources, the ONLY thing that you could prove with them was that a weapon IS in inventory, not that some weapon ISN'T in inventory simply becasue there are no pictures of it on militaryphotos.net. All of the weapons that you have tried to be removed have a citation and some have more than one. Regardless of what YOU think of their accuracy, armyrecognition.com and academic.ru CAN be used, and anything posted on an Internet forum such as militaryphotos.net CAN NOT be used. If you come up with something more reliable such as a SEDENA official website listing the complete inventory of the Mexican army feel free to use it. Please re-read the polices and guidelines especially Wikipedia:Verifiability. SJSA 05:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- SJSA methinks you want to start something here now. I invite you to re-read my last post here and see that I clearly stated that Militaryphotos is NOT A SCHOLARLY SOURCE therefore I refrained from making any alterations to the article based on it. I mentioned Militaryphotos only here in the discussion to strees the fact that we need VISUAL EVIDENCE and not bogus sources that can be easily weaseled into passing off as legitimate research by people who do not fully understand the concept. I have noticed you hide behind wikipedia's guidelines but you show no understanding of them. According to Wiki's own Verifiability guidelines: "Editors should provide a RELIABLE source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." This is precisely where we hit the snag, in the RELIABILITY of your sources which are not hence I have the legitimate right under Wikipedia's guidelines to remove all these false atributions to the the Mexican Army's inventory. As you said it yourself, any'ol shmuck can publish anything, especially on the net. I have looked into both Academic.ru and Army Recognition and neither fulfill the qualities of reliable sources. Now, once again, the burden of proof is NOT on the one who is challenging the credibility of your statements and sources, it is on YOU who claims them. This is how peer review works. If you make a statement or proposition then the burden is on you to show evidence for it (and to make it clean here Army Recognition and Academic.ru are not credible sources). It is most unreasonable for you to ask us that we disprove your claims by whiffing out some sort of counter evidence because it doesn't matter even if we get full details from SEDENA itself, you will still be making the claim that such and such weapons are in their inventory simply because the pictures and the data do not explicitly show or state that they don't have such and such weapons. All we have to do is ask for the evidence to back up your claims and should you fail to provide any then you have no legitimate claim to attribute any equipment to the Mexican Armed Forces. If you cannot see how flawed your rationale that just because we cannot disprove something then it must be true then you have no business editing here lest Wikipedia be downgraded into another common blogging website and all scholaly rigor thrown out the door. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that a hiatus is in order untill reliable sources can be found to clear up the weapons inventory of the Mexican Army. The Mexican Army community constantly laughs at this article and it has become a joke among many people (myself included :-P) due to the many outlandish claims and attributions. What we need to do is not edit the article any more untill we can come to a conclusion here or at least find more reliable sources that adequately follow Wikipedia's standards. We have to make our bed before we sleep in it. This will be our homework, but I ask again NOT TO EDIT this article untill we can come to something conclusive and reliable here. A barren article is better and more respectable than one filled with errors. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- To Ocelotl10293. It seems to me, that you believe that if you have never seen a photo of the weapon in question in the hands of a Mexican military official then you assume it is not in service with the Mexican army. Now you may think army recognition is not a reliable source but http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1387214 states these things as well. You pass off many of these things simply by saying "thats crazy" but that is not how wikipedia works. You can not just delete things because you believe they are not true. If this was the way things worked than i could simply delete the entire Mexican army article and say "well i don't think that Mexico has an army and all those sources that say the have an army are wrong". In addition you have been deleting weapons that are obviously in service with the Mexican army such as th UMP and the Galil, i mean jeez all you have to do is look at any Newspaper in Juarez and you'll see Mexican army troops with the UMP! You also have now removed the G-36 from the list of assault rifles in service with the army even though you previously provided a source and image of the G-336 in the hands of a Mexican soldier! This not only challenges your knowledge of Mexico's defense inventory but shows that you are disproving yourself! And as about the PzH 2000, the Mexican army was looking to acquire 24 PzH 2000 back in 2007 but they ran in to budget problems and did not acquire them and instead the Air force got new surveilance aircraft and equipment, this can be construed as wrong on the part of dic.academic.ru but when the article was published the army was probably still trying to acquire the PzH 2000 thus it was included in the list. You can not cite sources as unreliable simply because you think it's crazy that Mexico has these weapons. Mexico definetly has enough money to afford them as Mexico is the worlds eleventh largest economy. I think one of the reasons that you may not see that pictures of these weapons is because the SEDENA is somewhat secretive about they're purchases, nevertheless just because you have'nt seen pictures of them dosen't mean that they're not in service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not delete them because "I believe they are not true," I delete them because there is no reliable proof for them. The dic.academic.ru source does not substantiate it's claims with any research hence does not constitute any more of a reliable source than the Army Recognition website. For something to be considered reliable and scholarly it has to have a bibliography or a list of sources somewhere on the page where they reference where they got their information from. If they have sources then we can methodically check them to see if they are reliable or just a mere peddling of opinions found in blogs or personalized websites that aren't peer reviewed. There is some confusion as to the weaponry carried by the army because people often confuse the Army with the Navy. It is the Navy (marines) who use the UMP and it was a Marine who was carrying that G36 rifle in the picture I showed. The Mexican Air Force was also looking to purchase a couple of SU-27 Flankers and the Army had plans to domestically build the G36 rifle to become the new standard weapon but those plans were scrapped http://www.sedena.gob.mx/leytrans/petic/2006/diciembre/15122006a.html I know that just becuase there aren't pictures it doesn't mean they aren't in service. What I am stressing here is scholarship rather than mere speculation. Mexico has the money to buy almost any equipment they want but they have historically kept the armed forces very marginalized and the Mexican government to date in general has shown no true interest in having a modern army nor to give adequate funding. The Mexican Secretary of National Defence Guillermo Galván Galván has, on several occasions, complained to the senate of inadequate funding to keep the current equipment operational and in an analysis back in January 2009 by the Estado Mayor de la Defensa Nacional they concluded that if Mexico were to go to war the current Military arsenal would only hold up for 12 days of sustained combat. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/164857.html This Article shows the severe lack of vision of Mexican Beurocrats when the SEDENA proposes to buy 12 F16's to replace the obsolete F-5s: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/editoriales/42365.html Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the dic.academic.ru source does substantiate it's claims with a complete list of references at the end and your entire argument is invalid. Here are some of academic.ru's sources http://www.saorbats.com.ar/articulos/orbatMexico2006.pdf http://www.sedena.gob.mx (website has been change to exclude information since 2006) SJSA 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The FX-05 proof of Mexico's increased military budget?
- I thought this statement in the begining of the article is misleading: "[s]ince the early 2000s the Army has steadily modernised to become competitive with the armies of other Latin American countries. An interesting proof of the Army's increased budget is domestic production of the new FX-05 Assault Rifle." The first sentence is focused on Mexico's modernization and then the second sentence infers an increased budget (which is true and I don't dissagree with) and as proof of this the FX-05 rifle is referenced. It is to my knowledge, and to this article from the SEDENA: http://www.sedena.gob.mx/leytrans/petic/2006/diciembre/15122006a.html that the whole point of the FX-05 project was to reduce costs. So the FX-05 cannot be said to be proof of the Mexican Armed Force's increased budget if the whole point of it was to reduce costs. I am going to fix that statement in a few days if no one has any objection or other propositions. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of History
- The article needs a lot of work, but most importantly it needs to be founded and sourced on reality through scholarly rigor. We need to include history and past events and battles along with other technical data. Mexico as a Nation today considers it's pre-hispanic heritage as a cornerstone so I thought we should include at least a brief history of pre-hispanic military history (or a facsimile thereof). We should also include the history of this past century as well as the 1800's. I dont have a lot of information to post or the time to post it so I need feedback. Also someone else could take the initiative to start adding Mexico's military history to the article if I cannot do it fast enough but remember to always back up your words with scholarly or peer reviewed sources by at least following Wikipedia's guidelines: WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just added a small part about prehispanic military history based on the SEDENA's own brief recap. This is only a very small part of what that page actually says I still need to include the rest of the information contained in the SEDENA's website. Using hyperlinks to direct readers to other already established wiki-articles about this material will save us much explanations on this article I think. For example: I only needed to briefly mention the Triple Alliance and Calmecac since these already have articles on wikipedia. This will help to keep the history brief yet smooth and clear. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a lot of the history is missing -- not even brief mention of operations in Texas in the 1830's and the war between Mexico and the United States in the 1840's? W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm getting to that, slowly... I'm basically translating the pages from the SEDENA website by myself (Which are dismally written to begin with and Google Translator doesn't help much). I'm using the history on the SEDENA website because it only includes battle details and it's very brief. But nonetheless there are a lot of gaps and the chronology, presentation and sentence structure is all messed up so I have to sit down for a few hours and read up on history to fill the gaps and then write and organize it all in a way that's easy to read and flows smoothly without awkward and fragmented sentences.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- This article has downgraded into a editing war between several individuals who do not comprehend what constitutes a reliable source and me. I have tried my best to keep this article objective and I have explained, in as much detail as I can, why I make the changes that I make. While I do this, other individuals see fit to revert my edits without explaining themselves or by arrogantly stressing the supposed reliability of their two sources without ever actually coming to the discussion to prove it. It should be known that the SEDENA itself is not an infallible source as they have given contradictory information to the public in recent years: http://www.contralinea.com.mx/archivo/2005/septiembre/htm/caja+negra+sedena.htm Now if the SEDENA itself can be misleading and unreliable what are you people thinking in arguing that the Army Recognition website and the dic.academic.ru (this one appears to be a carbon copy of of Wikipedia's Mexican Army article) constitute as some sort of infallible dogma when it comes to the Mexican Armed Forces's military weapons inventory? The link that I provided in this paragraph shows the author (Jorge Torres), publisher (Revista Contralínea ), in text citations, and sources are clearly stated at the bottom of the page. Your two websites on the other hand do not show where they got their information from, they do not follow Wikipedia's WP:Reliable Sources guidelines so thus it's the reason I keep removing them. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that someone added the UMP submachine gun to the weapons list. This is wrong because it's the Navy who use the UMP not the army unless I am mistaken in which case I would need to see some evidence of the UMP being used under the SEDENA's (not SEMAR) jurisdiction. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Someone has added the Mercedes-Benz Unimog as part of the vehicle inventory of the Mexican Army. This is incorrect for it is the Mexican Navy who posses this vehicle. If the Army has made it's own purchase then we need a citation to confirm it. So far only the Navy possesses the Mercedes-Benz Unimog in their inventory not the Army. This misleading information has to be removed unless it can be confirmed. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC )
Sighted weapons but no documentation to prove it
- There is very limited documentation that can be found online to confirm which weapons are in the Mexican Armed Force's inventory. Most of the information we know of comes from sightings of such weapons, by the media, in the hands of military personnel which is coincidentally documented by journalists (who usually take photos) and from the annual military parades on September 16 and on May 5th. Here are 3 grenade launchers that the Mexican Armed Forced uses which cannot be confirmed by documentation   . I do not know what type of grenade launchers they are (the 3rd one is NOT an Mk 19 grenade launcher and the soldier belongs to the Navy) so I ask if anyone can recognize them please post it here. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
-  = Not 100% sure because of the bad angle/colour on the picture, but it seems to be a Milkor MGL Mk.I or an XRGL40 (Also from Milkor - basically an MGL with better range) which other articles on Wikipedia state that Mexico has purchased.
-  = CIS 40 AGL (In fact, the same image is used on the wiki page)
- No idea on the other one. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Jonathon, Jeez! Talk about a cat fight here. I have a 2005 copy of THE WORLD DEFENSE ALAMAC by Monch Publishing in Germany. It is what a lot of embassies use. The following under the Mexican Army on page 65.
- ARMORED CARS:: 40 M-8s, 41 MAC-1s, 123 ERC-90F Lynx.
- APCS and other VECHICLES: 406 AMX-VCI (including several variants), 34 M2A1s, 22 BUFFALOS, 95 BDXs, 40 VBL M-11s, 40 HWK-11, 40 VCT/TTs, 25 Mowag ROLANDS.
- ARTILLERY: 46 M2A1 105mm howitzers, 24 Oto Melara Model 56 105mm pack howitzers
- MORTARS: 34 120mm, 330 81mm, 1,561 60mm
- ATGW: 6 MILANs (ie which everyone and his mother when seen in parades calls anything from a TOW, SPIKE, JAVELIN and even the Russian KORNET!)
- Anti-tank: 1,191 BLINDCIDE (ie rocket launcher which I think were withdrawn and are in storage), 96 106mm recoiless rifles
- Jonathon, Jeez! Talk about a cat fight here. I have a 2005 copy of THE WORLD DEFENSE ALAMAC by Monch Publishing in Germany. It is what a lot of embassies use. The following under the Mexican Army on page 65.
- FWIW, Jane's World Armies (2008) lists the 40mm HK19 as being in the Mexican inventory. I can provide other Jane's quotes on different weapons in the inventories if there is interest. Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wilson, the Mexican Army has both the US MK19 and a look alike made in Singapore which fires a projectile where the time is set as it is fired and it explodes at a preset distance from the target showering the area with pellets -- ie a counter ambush round. Also, there is a listing for the Israeli B-300 replacing the BLINDCIDE. I have found no references or saw any photos of the B-300 with Mexico. I have seen the RPG-7 with Mexican Army special forces units, etc. As to HK. Tread careful. That is a "touchee" subject. Mexico has a new assault rifle that they are extrmely proud of and HK is crying "FOUL!" about that assault rifle. As I have stated, Jonathon is a fare braver man than Jack. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- For AT weapons, JWA 2008 lists the MILAN (20), the 106mm M40A1 Recoilless (40), Blindicide (500), B-300 (20), and, heh, 37-mm M3 antitank guns (25). I'm skeptical about the last mentioned; they may be for ceremonial use or function as gate guards or be mothballed. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Someone removed this armored vehicle from the inventory list: . I don't remember the name of this AV but it used to be in the inventory list of vehicles until someone erroneously removed it. If someone recognizes it please add it back into the list. I would do it myself except I don't remember the name of it which is why I'm posting the pics here. Two of these AVs were recently used in the killing of Arturo Beltrán Leyva as you can see in minute 1:02 on the following video: .Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ocelot, The vehicle is the Panhard VCR. It is the APC version of the Panhard Lynx vehicles that mount a 90mm cannon. I think in Mexico it is called the "Buffalo" My listing shows that Mexico has 22 Buffalos. Finally, I don't see how Mexico keeps from having a national nervous breakdown with this drug war. --Jackehammond (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Recent image additions to the organization section
There's no need for those to be there. They do not represent the units they're associated with, they're the state flags, and city seals. They have nothing to do with the units they're associated with beyond representing the region they're based in. If you want to wikifi the City/state names so they link to the appropriate page, and ensure that the images are on the city/state page, then that makes sense. It doesn't make sense to needlessly clutter a page with images. Please see WP:Layout#Images. Quoting the relevant line: "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Also, speaking as someone who's stuck on dial-up, it adds a ton of loading time to the page for absolutely no gain. They're not Mexican Army images. The images you see on the US and German army pages actually are unit insignia, and are relevant. - Jonathon A H (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Mexican Army has grown quite a bit since the 2001, here is the link to a official document with an updated size figure, circa 2009:
- There's no dispute that the army has grown in size since 2001, the problem is that the increase has never had a reliable citation. The document you provided is good, but the problem is that the 192,000 figure, while entirely believable, is still not supported. The number given is 202,355 as a combined total for the army and the subordinate air force branch. Could you point out or otherwise clarify where the figures for the army come from in that document? - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont have a wikipedia account, but i read the news and the mexican army are about 200 thousand units http://www.oem.com.mx/elmexicano/notas/n1525590.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it can be safely stated the growth in size of the Mexican military is a direct response to the current "drug war" which has been reaching insurgency proportions at this point, with drug cartel fighters donning paramilitary uniforms and openly recruiting in several provinces. Although the numerous attacks against Mexican military and civil forces have been terroristic in nature, how is it the main article says that Mexico has not had terrorist incidents? Marxist units were operative there all the way back to the 1920s and if I remember correctly Trotsky was killed there in an obvious terrorist plot on behalf of the international arm of the Communist party as a warning against defectors. The Zapatistas have also carried out a number of terrorist attacks since the 1990s, with foreign travelers and tourists being killed when the uprising first started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
While the Army has grown the too large figure of 470,000 is unsupported, the most recent reliable estimate is of just a bit less of 200,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Y'all might want to include that the Mexican Special Forces, I think, are using the Israeli-made Cornershot with Glock attachment. Seen here: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/Moyocoyatzin/6e680b87007da94800yt2.jpg
I can't find the picture but the Special Forces of Mexico also uses the Barrett M95, this was seen at one of the latest parades. No older than 2008, probably 2009 though. So, y'all might want to look into that. The picture I saw was definately on militaryphotos.net though.
And a cool picture of their Panhard VBLs: http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/Panhard%202009%20-%20VBL_MK2_KONGSBERG_15%20copie2.jpg
File:MSG-90SDN.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:MSG-90SDN.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
It is stated that Mexico has not "suffered a major terrorist incident". That is not correct. There have been very many terrorist attacks, mostly carried out by drug cartels.18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you asking me to list every single headline about cartel terrorism in recent years? So many of those incidents fully qualify as terrorism in so many ways that your question/comment is absurd. There is not a single definition of terrorism that many of those attacks do meet. The narrower definitions of terorrism will accept any attacks against noncombatants for the purpose of influencing the views, policies or activities of a third party. Kidnapping people off the street and dismembering them, then leaving the corpses with notes demanding various changes in various official government policies qualifies. Many such attacks have been in demand of the release of cartel people, removal of military or federal police offices or officials, and changes in policies with regards to international (usually US) law enforcement agencies. The United States Justice Department crossed the line of sponsoring some such attacks when they facilitated the transfer of several weapons to one of the cartels through their "fast and furious" program which was aimed at giving a "friendly" cartel a fighting advantage while facilitating evidence to further their claims that gun control is needed in the US in order to stop bloodshed in Mexico, in addition to their busts of several low level gunrunners in Arizona who were the unlucky few involved with the operation to not have more solidified "cooperation agreements" with the US Attorneys office as the cartel leadership and licensed gun dealers. Sinaloa cartel leader Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla's lawyers have provided extensive documentation which is all over the web.
Fact of the matter is, Mexico has an extensive home grown terrorism problem, it is recent, pervasive and large. That is not even counting the activities of some factions among the Zapatistas who have murdered travelers and tourists as a "message" (getting into that definition of terrorism buddy). Numerous claims have been made in the Chiapas conflict of the Mexican army also committing terrorist attacks against the indigenous population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Aztecs: 'Giving out signals using coats of arms was very common.' According to wikipedia, a coat of arms is a unique heraldic design on a shield/escutcheon or on a surcoat/tabard used to cover and protect armour and to identify the wearer. Somehow, I don't think that Aztec warriors had coats of arms. Even if they did, one wonders how they could have been used to signal!
War of Independence: Size of Insurgent Army at different stages doesn't seem to tally with figures quoted in other wikipedia articles. Also, disagreement as to when elements of the Queen's Dragoons joined rebels.
Modern Army: 44 Zones, yet 45 listed! Even worse the Spanish site says 46 zones! It is hard to see how each zone has at least a btn (at least that is how I read wording). Discrepancy in number of each type of unit between English and Spanish wiki articles; I accept that armies are continually being restructured and thus two separate snapshops would have differences, but looking at infantry btns, one says 18, the other 106! The higher (spanish) figure makes more sense when you consider the allocation to zones. [The 18 looks like a typo to me]