Ranger Operations Capable

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Horsesoldier RE:Ranger Operations Capable 11/5/2005 9:04:15 AM

I have to agree that it ain't broke. I'd also point out that "(SOC)" designation for MEUs is definitely not the best way to do special operations, it is just a USMC public relations effort to convince Congress they were also serious about SOF and unconventional warfare while actually not being remotely serious about them at all.

Quote Reply

John Barry RE:Ranger Operations Capable 11/25/2005 8:53:22 PM

In the past I?ve wondered if it?s the best use of manpower to concentrate so much elite manpower in just three battalions. There are just so many of these top guys around. It seems that the concentration in units like Delta and SF is warranted by the special capabilities these units bring. The Rangers on the other hand may be the finest Light Infantry, but they are still Light Infantry. What mission can they do that one of the parachute infantry battalions couldn?t? As it stands today the Rangers no doubt can do these missions better. However, if you took the personnel in the Ranger Battalions and infused 1800 of your hardest-chargers into the airborne battalions, coupled with an increase level of training in a cycle like longrifle mentioned, the airborne battalions could be capable of the same missions and could avoid burnout.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Ranger Operations Capable 11/27/2005 11:48:36 AM

Dissolving the Rangers into the PIRs would compromise operational capabilities, even if one does a replay of the "MEU(SOC)" concept. You still are watering down your institutional knowledge and culture, parting it out to units that don't use that skill set with sufficient frequency to maintain proficiency at the level SOCOM and JSOC require. Trying to do so violates at least a couple of the SOF truths that have guided US Special Operations Command in its development (quality is better than quantity; special operations forces cannot be mass produced) and I don't see it as being the most adaptive solution to the mission requirements. As it is you still get cross-flow of guys back out into the Big Army from the rangers, but without compromising JSOC's requirements for light infantry forces.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Ranger Operations Capable 11/27/2005 7:04:14 PM

I'd agree with HS. The Ranger battalions as they are have a role. The MEU SOC is a different animal and does not represent what you propose for the airbourne battalions. Rotating the individuals through the Ranger units is probably a better solution. One thing that can interfere with the rotation of indivduals is if the standards are too high. If the pressure on the individual is such that too high a portion are solving burnout through simply leaving the Army then a counter productive situation exists. I other words if a excess of the top 10% or 15% of your soldiers are not reenlisting because of training pressure someone has screwed up. Similarly if there are too few volunteers for Ranger serve because of fear of the pressure then again there is a problem. In the case of the Rangers this is strictly a hypothtical argument, but I have seen it occur on a smaller scale in specific unts.

Quote Reply

longrifle RE:The operational pace 11/27/2005 7:24:35 PM

I served with several men who had been in one of the Ranger Battalions. Some had completed a successful tour and some had not. Of the ones who had completed Ranger School and a successful tour, some wanted to go back and some did not. The most common complaint that I heard was not about tough PT, or hard training, or making it through Ranger School. The most common complaint was about the day to day operational pace. This came from both the hackers and the packers. As I said before, overall I don't think it's broke. But I do think that there are some good soldiers who can hack hard training and the leadership standards of Ranger School, but just don't want to be in the Regiment due to the frequency of time spent in the field. It's not they are not good enough or tough enough. That will always be a factor in how many soldiers rotate through the Regiment. Just food for thought.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:History question 11/29/2005 9:17:01 PM

When were the ranger battalions reactivated? I vaguely recall something about that in the 1970s.

Quote Reply

longrifle RE:History question 11/29/2005 10:24:01 PM

Ranger Battalions reactivated: 1st- January of 1974 2nd- October of 1974 3rd- October of 1984, along with the 75th Regimental HQ

Quote Reply

asavery RE:History question 12/7/2005 8:47:42 PM

On the topic of Rangers, I have come to believe that they fill an important unspoke/unwriten role, that of the link between conventional forces and "true" special forces. Yes, they are elite light infantry, but they also provide screening and experience to individuals who may go on to more select units, or are able to bring the skills they have learned back to "normal" light infantry units. Just a theory - I'm sure they exist, but I have never heard the term "career Ranger".

Quote Reply

shek RE:History question 12/8/2005 12:25:38 AM

There are career Rangers. However, as a pyramidal organization, at some point, personnel have to move on because there is no longer enough positions for them as they advance into the senior ranks. As far as making other units "Ranger" capable, that is not feasible. It would require airborne skills, aviation support, 110-120% fill in the enlisted ranks to support schooling (Pre-Ranger, Ranger, etc.), injuries, relieved for standards, etc. That's just the personnel side. Then you need to equip them with the necessary equipment for all their mission sets, determine how to keep them on green cycle (and thus saddle other units with more red cycle taskings) so they can train to reach the necessary training levels. Also, you need to conduct exercises with SOCOM units so you can plug and play on ops. You need to increase your staff sizes and liasons so you can plan all this training and make the necessary coordinations. You need to synchronize your training with your USAF assets, work out JATTs (are there enough airframes to support this), etc. Bottomline, the Ranger Regiment fills a specific role, and it takes significant assets to do this. To try and expand the role of conventional units to cover down on Ranger missions isn't feasible.

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:Ranger Operations Capable 12/8/2005 12:59:55 PM

I had a similar sort of idea a few months back... link ... though without actualy mil experience it was purely a product of fantasy. Wonder what kind of merit you would see in it? Also the Brits seem to go your way (as in elite infantry - to - special forces link) by creating the SRS... a significant change from supporting SAS with just Paras (As was done in Sierra Leone a few years back). OTOH Indians are insisting on every Infantry Regiment contributing one battalion to Rashtriya Rifles (the counter-insurgency force), so that all regiments have some counter-insurgency training on hand. (BTW Regiments there have nearly 15 battls. each and are more training and recruting groups, they never go to battle together but in brigades). It also reduces fatigue and entrenchment in COIN politics for all concerned.

Quote Reply

GOP RE:Ranger Operations Capable 12/30/2005 6:59:40 PM

A MEU(SOC) is not comparable and definitely not the optimum way to go (although it seems to work for the Corps). Let's be honest...the 101st and 82nd airborne is basically already capable of performing most, if not all, Ranger tasks...such as raids, etc. Alot of 101st/82nd soldiers already have the Ranger tab (I think if your MOS is infantry in the Army, you have to get the tab). The only problem is the deployability factor. The 101st is a heli-borne force, so they could not deploy as rapidly as the Rangers...although the 82nd possible could. The other problem is that the Rangers are Deltas blocking/security force, and the 82nd would have to do some more specialized training and possibly alter their command structure slightly to be able to handle some of the missions Delta performs. I am not advocating this, but the 101st and 82nd both have the type of high quality soldiers that is needed and desired to perform the Ranger missions, the only thing that is needed is a little extra training.

Quote Reply

Tiber1 RE:Ranger Operations Capable 12/30/2005 11:15:21 PM

Don't forget 10th Mtn either! When I was in my CO and Lt. Col had both come from the 75th. All of our officers had tabs and so did most of our NCO's. My Captain was pissed to have been moved out and basically ran us like he'd never left. My battalion was the preferred choice for SF opfors. As for burn out to do field work, I know that in at least one year we spent like 230+ days in the field or deployed for training. I'm not sure if the current 10th though is as capable as we were allowed to be though. We were given and allowed A LOT of leeway in training & tactics, etc. My last few months there, new management at the brigade and division levels disapproved and started to crack down hard. Basically, by the book or get hit by the book... While they allowed it though, we were really damn good. That and of course the good drinking stories that resulted!!!

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Ranger Operations Capable 12/31/2005 2:27:46 PM

>>Let's be honest...the 101st and 82nd airborne is basically already capable of performing most, if not all, Ranger tasks...such as raids, etc. Alot of 101st/82nd soldiers already have the Ranger tab (I think if your MOS is infantry in the Army, you have to get the tab). The only problem is the deployability factor. << Deployability is actually not an issue. A battalion of the 101st or 82nd is about as deployable as a battalion from the 75th -- the 101st only starts getting heavy when you start adding in their aviation assets and associated support units. Send a chunk of the 160th out with the 75th as part of the JSOTF and there's not a whole lot of weight savings at all. The problem is that the 82nd and 101st cannot do those missions at the skill level that the Rangers bring to the table and on the timeline the Rangers can manage. Ranger units are manned at higher levels, and have more training and equipment $$$ per man than the 82nd or 101st. They are also organized with some specialization for SOF missions, while the 82nd and 101st are organized for a range of mission sets, including conventional conflict. Rangers have their own TACPs embedded on a full time basis, for instance. They don't waste manpower on anti-armor companies with Hum-Vee mounted TOWs (and generally don't waste much time on dedicated ATGM assets at all, preferring multi-role weapons like the Carl Gustav and/or the assumption that tac-air will deal with any armored threat). Etc. At the end of the day, Rangers are not just 82nd guys wearing different colored beters. By and large they are still young troops, but they are more rigorously selected than their counterparts in the 82nd, and are held to a higher standard than guys in the 82nd -- not to say they are lax on discipline in the 82nd, but their units have their problem children like everyone else. Ranger problem children very rapidly change career paths and become the 82nd's problem children . . . >>The other problem is that the Rangers are Deltas blocking/security force, and the 82nd would have to do some more specialized training and possibly alter their command structure slightly to be able to handle some of the missions Delta performs.<< Functioning as backup for JSOC units is pretty much the real world mission of the Rangers -- raids, air field seizuers, etc., are much less likely taskings than cordon, QRF, etc. for CAG and other JSOC units. So validating for those sorts of missions would be the highest priority if the 82nd were to attempt to fill those shoes. >>I am not advocating this, but the 101st and 82nd both have the type of high quality soldiers that is needed and desired to perform the Ranger missions, the only thing that is needed is a little extra training. << I'd question that.

Quote Reply

GOP RE:Ranger Operations Capable - Horsesoldier 1/2/2006 1:30:10 AM

I agree with you...and it appears both the 82nd, 101st, and 75th can all deploy within 72hours (at least, a battalion can)...again, my mistake. I am certainly not saying that Rangers should be replaced by the 82nd or 101st they shouldn't. Nor do I think that the 82nd or 101st has the same percentage of high-quality soldiers that the Rangers have, they don't (although they do have some very fine soldiers). My point is that if push came to shove, and the 75th was deactivated (say, to save money or some other hypothetical), then I believe that the 82nd or 101st could fill their role without much problem. The 82nd can certainly seize an airfield or conduct a raid...although they would probably not be able to do it as well and with as few casualties. I also think that the 101st proved themselves to be a great, versatile fighting unit during Operation Anaconda...so the Rangers are not the only unit in the Army who can conduct raids or seize airfields, although they are probably the best. Rant over :)... sorry I got so long winded

Quote Reply

lrsrng RE:Ranger Operations Capable 1/2/2006 9:13:18 AM

82nd DRB1 can deploy in 18hrs.RRF can deploy in less then 18hrs.The 82nd is most different in its ability to conduct "sustained" combined arms operations.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - December 3, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us