data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0483c/0483c99595853f2ba173285f545f2f789f720a2a" alt="Call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/21bc8/21bc80dd5ef32a7efdeada5bb215081e2e051284" alt="call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war"
However, if he was given the position of commander of the U.S. An Army general cannot take command of a Marine unit as they are different service branches just as an Air Force officer cannot take over a Navy post.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd734/fd734a2474f7e38927ca02f2356046f89bf43248" alt="call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war"
The speculation is the exact reason for him being in command. It's not just speculation, we know he had something big to do with them. commanding officer) with the 30,000 marines who died, and so I think it is safe to say that he was one of the people in command of the force, if not the "BMOC". But what is certain is that he had a close relationship (i.e. marines, as army elements may have taken a small role in the battle (thus Shepherd's presence) and it is not explained. We also cannot be certain whether or not the operation was a joint operation or just U.S. And in MW2 it was 100% certain the event he spoke of was the nuclear explosion seen in Shock and Awe. And so, he could be leading marines as long as no Marine Corps officer with a higher rank than him is present. HOWEVER, if he is the most senior officer present, he would be given command by the Corps if the U.S. Cultred 23:24, J(UTC)Īccording to the page edit history, some people believe that an army general cannot command any marines. I'm replacing the current article with this, but if an admin considers this unnecessary, just undo it. Okay, I finally finished the rewriting of the article. I plan on making it more of a war article than a mission summary. I'll begin to rewrite the article, and someone please give me constructive criticism of how I rewrote it once I'm done. I read the article and I am forced to agree with Scottie and the IP user. Scottie theNerd 02:17, Janu(UTC)Ĭall Of Duty Mobile Review - Boots On The Go Unsigned comment was added by 86.167.169.59 The whole article needs to be cleaned up, but I don't see how that comment is productive. This article looks like it was written by someone with English as a second or third language. These articles should, in my opinion, resemble the conflict pages on Wikipedia.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/61605/616051c8f9bca3ba0df95ed9854dbae8d05fa060" alt="call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war"
Otherwise, it's a blocky version of the mission overviews. They're too intricate in the events - if we're going to write general articles about the major conflicts, we should be looking the big picture and summarising the single-player campaign events in an out-of-universe tone. I'm not too fond of the way these war articles are written. 6 Ultranationalist Party Splits into Two Groups.5 I don't think that the Middle East should be part of the article.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0483c/0483c99595853f2ba173285f545f2f789f720a2a" alt="Call of duty modern warfare second russian civil war"