More Rangers

[Kevin]

I plan on becoming a Ranger when I enlist in the Army in a year and I have some questions for anyone who is listening. We currently have 3 Ranger Battalions in the Army, but I believe we should have more. In my opinion, the Rangers are one of the best light infantry forces in the world and with the 21st century upon us and the new types of missions the Army is facing, I believe the Rangers will be called upon more and more. Instead of having the 75th Ranger Regiment, I think that the Army Rangers should at least grow to the 75th Ranger Brigade. With the Army trying to turn into a smaller, more mobile, and more elite force I think having more Rangers should be part of its plan. If anyone has any thoughts on this, pleae tell me.

[Mike]

Well, first you have to be int he Army and then you can talk about your theories. Beside, if you want to add more battalions, you got to find more people. The local Army recruiter complained the physically fit guys are going over to the Marines. I told him if the Army train everyone as infantrymen first, then more guys will join the Army. He didn't get it.

[abn_rngrr]

Kevin-

Your opinions are as welcome as anybody elses; as long as it's kept civil and respectful.

It would be very difficult to maintain a Ranger force structure larger than the present one, as it is very difficult to constantly maintain standards. The attrition rate of newly assigned personnel is large as well. The Army maintains light divisions which are capable of all the standard light infantry roles, bringing into question the advantage to be gained by increasing Ranger force size. Further, the light divisions work hard to get their small unit leaders in the rifle battalions through Ranger School (with limited success). Smaller, more mobile units will result from changes (advances) in training, task organization, and technology. But there is also an advantage to be had in sheer numbers. No matter how well trained and equipped you are, you can't be everywhere.

[E19]

Mike,

I'm a bit confused by your theory. If the Army is having difficulty getting guys to
enlist to man the Ranger slots how does training everyone as infantry first get more guys (who are fit) to join up? Perhaps the Army should make airborne training a requirement for all recruits too. Would that create a rush of "PT Studs" at the Army recruiting offices and leave the Marines with too few good men?

[This message has been edited by E19 (edited 02-06-2000).]

[Snake]

E19,
Airborne PT aint what it used to be, at least when I went through in '96. It just aint that tough at all. It certainly did not preparee me adequately for entering the Eighty-Deuce, talk about your shocks!!!


Snake
25th ID(L)

[norm]

Snake,

How did you find the 82nd? I've heard that it's one of the Army's premiere combat units. If you could explain, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

norm

[norm]

Snake,

How did you find the 82nd? I've heard that it's one of the Army's premiere combat units. If you could explain, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

norm

[Snake]

Well,
I was with the 82nd from late '96 through
March '98. During the time I was there we go hit hard because of the race-issue that JCS had dreamed up. The 82nd is a media-renowned
unit, which puts em in the public eye much more than, say, my present unit (25thID). The result being that less gets done due to being the 1st to be called/accused. As to being "elite"....not so you'd notice, actually. The marksmanship and Common Tasks were pretty average, with shining exceptions, both good and bad. The 82nd, however, is the proverbial "one trick pony". It jumps, fights, and stops until relieved. I truly think that the other Light Infantry units (yes guys, even the 10th<eg> ) are more flexible tactically, and more survivable on the modern battlefield.
Witness the Gulf deployment in '90. If Iraq had come south, the 82nd would be a memory today. The Seperate Airborne Batts in europe and Alaska really impress me though. Although those Vicenza boys seem to be getting soft. Too much Grappa and Bella.....

Snake
25th ID(L)

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Kevin, post a thought on this anytime you want...thats why this forum is here. Mike, no need to tell people who can post theories and not on this forum, thats Tom Hunters job.

Now as far as more Ranger BNs....no, we do not need anymore. I have even tossed the idea around as to eliminating 3 structured BNs and go back to Ranger companies tasked with standard army units.

But that is just a current thought I am actually looking into as far as seeing how feasable this posibility is.

Now as far as adding more BNs...no, one BDE of 3 line BNs and 3 traning BNs is plenty. All three are tasked to do things that most RGTl size ABN units are capable of. So the need for more line Ranger BNs is not there. Having three BNs ensures that they will always get massive funding also.

Just my theory.

RLTW

[recce_o]

TFRANGERMEMBER,

Your Ranger company concept is intriguing. In Canada we have jump companies assigned to light infantry battalions. Sounds like of like the structure you propose. Think you could expand on your reasoning behind this?

[Kevin]

TFRANGERMEMBER,

Thanks for your polite reply, appreciate it. I should have clarified on my theroy a bit more. At the moment I agree with you, there really is no need for more Rangers. What I ment was that there may be a need for more in the future, when or if the Army becomes a more elite force. Also, you have a real interesting theroy on changing to Ranger companies, think you could expand on that like recce_o said?

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Think about the RGTs specialties. The one advantage they have is how much they train. Antoher advantage is that they are small, you will not often find the 82d operate in a company size during an initial engagment. Well the 82d can very easily take on the tasks of the Ranger Bns, and in many cases you don't need a whole Bn.

Yes you do need Rangers, but my thinking they should be broken into companies, assigned to various units. IE: 101st ABN, or within ABN units that may be tasked w/ airfield seizures one Ranger company per ABN battalion. These Rangers should all be tabbed Rangers, so traning is easier. They will be used in the aspect of recon, fast reactions, and to add experience with the "regular" army unit they are assigned to.

Now the only main reason I say this is because other units are capable of doing the same thing a BN of Rangers can do. By breaking the Ranger BNs into Ranger companies they will be able to be spread into larger areas, and they will understand the way the unit they are attached to works. WHich is not always the case if you were to have 3d Ranger BN take an airfield, then some units from the 82nd come in. Well I can promise you tension will arise between the units and the way eash different units works will be very different.

May make no sense, and other things i am working on I have not included yet.

RLTW

[Bulldog]

Didn't the Ranger Company idea result in a lot of Rangers getting greased in Korea and Vietnam when they were assigned missions outside of the Ranger areas of specialization?

[Mike]

To Bulldao, a lot of the Korean War Rangers and Vietnam War Rangers were not graduates of the Ranger School.

[SOTICgrad]

Mike

What about those not having graduated from Ranger school? "A tab is a tab, a scrolls a way of life" or so I'm told. NONE of the Rangers of WWII graduated the school, as it didn't exist until early 1952, but there are plenty of those non Ranger school grads in the Ranger hall of fame.

It sounds like you're implying they, how did Bulldog put it "got greased," because they hadn't been through the school. If this was not your intent then sorry, but that's the way it sounded. Hell...tell that to someone like Bull Simons!

[Mike]

To Bulldog and SOTICgrad, no offense.
But if the majority of Rangers in Vietnam were Ranger School graduates, even though there were something like 13 Ranger companies of the 75th Infantry which was redesignated in 1954 from the WWII 475th infantry, then we could have keep winning the war...

[SECON]

TFRANGER,

Interesting concept and, politics aside, probably one that would prove quite effective strategically, tactically and cost wise. By integrating the schooled Rangers' into abn., light and yes, even mech battalions you would increase the overall capability of the parent organization in terms of reconnaissance, strike missions and
plain ol' taking the fight to the enemy.

Now the downside (IMHO). Today's army, and the military in general is nothing if not a political beast. The Officers and senior NCO's of every "specialized though not yet elite" unit, small and large, such as the organic infantry scout platoon, the BN. Scouts, LRSD and LRSU would scream bloody murder as soon as you infringed on their piece of the action. Likewise, more than one Officer or senior NCO from other special operations units such as Special Forces (whom have preached the virtues of "force multiplication" from the day they were created) would have a collective stroke due to a well founded belief that once one special operations unit was integrated the powers-that-be would look to do the same with all special operations capabilities and units.

Like I said, great concept that could prove quite effective if properly applied and executed...but, man, you sure have picked a
rough road to travel. But, that's familiar territory for you guys that choose to "Lead the Way", right?

As for the debate about schooled and unschooled Rangers; well, the POI for the first "official" course had to come from SOMEWHERE. Can we all say...lessons learned on the business end of a weapon on sh**ty jobs, in sh**ty places.?

[Kevin]

Thanks for all the imput guys, real interesting ideas.

[Tracy]

Here's my .02 :

I think TFRANGER has the right idea; creating Ranger Companies. SECON hit the nail on the head: the SO folks would have a freakin stroke. A very real concern, politics notwithstanding, is the dilution of talent and capability of SO forces when mixed with the conventional guys.

How's this for a concept? Instead of creating Ranger Companies for each Infantry Brigade or Battalion; what about creating a Special Operations Company at the DIVISION Level. It's admin chain would be through SOCOM, but it's mission is to provide DS/GS to a designated Division.

The SO Company would have three Ranger Platoons, Weapons Platoon, SF Platoon (3 A-Teams) and a Commo Platoon. Plus assorted HQ and Tac CP folks. An SF platoon gives the company an organic recon/surveillance capability; as well as language, humanitarian ops, demo, engineering, etc.

The mission of such a company would be the same as the 'regular' Ranger companies; ditto the SF. As an incentive, they could recruit from within the supported Division to fill the labor positions. A grunt could extend or reenlist for a Ranger position, then reenlist a second time for SF.

[knight77]

Your concept is a damn good idea Chief. I was messing around w/ the same idea awhile back myself.

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Men,

I never said my idea would ever fly...just an idea.

To let you all know, the JC would poop if the army wanted to pull the RGT, the RGT would poop, hell...everyone owuld poop at the concept of removing the standard RGT.

The idea I posted will never fly...it would be like changing the 82nd to the "Un-American" division.

Bottom line...in the military if it makes sense..it will not happen.

RLTW

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Men,

I never said my idea would ever fly...just an idea.

To let you all know, the JC would poop if the army wanted to pull the RGT, the RGT would poop, hell...everyone owuld poop at the concept of removing the standard RGT.

The idea I posted will never fly...it would be like changing the 82nd to the "Un-American" division.

Bottom line...in the military if it makes sense..it will not happen.

RLTW

[Tracy]

TFRANGER:

A clarification: I don't want to lose the Regiment; I want to ADD a SO Company to each Division.

This will be heresy; but I think they could take the SO Company out of hide by breaking up one of the SF Groups.

Bellieve me, I don't want anything to happen to the Ranger Regiment or it's concept of operation.

[Snake]

Guys,
what about a Commando Batt. at the Corps level? Sort of like with the LRSU's? Maybe used as a "Fire-Brigade"? Oh yeah, and bring back the 173rd! The Herd was awsome.

Snake
25th ID(L)

[Ranger002]

Rangers,

The reason the force structure is set up the way it is with the Ranger Regiment is the result of Desert One ( Iran) and Urgent Fury ( Grenada) The different service spec ops units and the regulars had terrible trouble coordinating thier efforts in the desert and on the island.Hence the formation of SOCOM. Also history teachs us that special units such as the Rangers get wasted by the regulars in a conventional setting (unless they have thier command structure).Reason being because of thier elite status Rangers get all the dirty jobs far out of purportion to their combat power. Now that is Hooah but it tends to waste a alot of good soldiers. A small example of this is MOOG Town. A greater example would be the decimation of the Ranger Companies in Korea and The Batts in WWII. Not allowing the Rangers to have their own command structure has proven to be disasterous ( oops spelling). Having Rangers set up the way it is now should insure that they are used properly ( Hopefully). As for PT Standards well when I went in 50% of the army was Cat 4 ( no high school diploma) and we were almost the only unit that did PT on Fort Lewis ( 1979). The two Batts and SF ( Heck SF was almost DEACTIVATED in 1979!!!) almost single handedly got the Army Brass to incorporate higher training standards for
the rest of army. You guys have Chief of Staff General "Shy" Meyer to thank for that. He was a true friend of the SPECIAL OPERATIONS Soldier in some very dark days ( the late 70's to early 80's). Also during this time most of the senior NCO's and Junior officers were Ranger and SF Viet combat veterans. The Batts were there only refuge for a while and they had a big hand in shaping the training ( examples are RIP/ROP and SFAS) I can think of many examples of Ranger Platoon Sargeants and First Sargeants really having a hand in forming training and school doctrine for the Special Operations Soldier. Boy was I one lucky private! So my advice to you my friend is get in there and do it. And if you make it. Stick around and insure that when it comes time for you to carry the torch you with the spirit of the Rangers who went before you. Sua Sponte!
William Hazen

[Ranger002]

OOPS!!! LOL I meant "DO it with the spirit of the Rangers who went before you. I must be tired...
William Hazen

[Mike]

To Tracy; which division would your concept of Ranger companies to be attached? The 10 infantry division or?

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

RangerHazen,

As far as good guys getting wasted in MOG. NO other unit in the military would have fared as well as they did against such a massive force in an unfriednly enviroment. I know of one casualty we took that could have really been prevented, just had we been able to get him out via aircraft.

Now a lot of good Rangers getting wasted, look at UF or JC, Rangers were lost, but they did not go against odds even half what we did in MOGI. And we were just ONE Ranger company, with a few operators, and air cover.

Had nothing to do w/ a break down of leadership, I've been studying MOG since Oct of 1993, and can tell you at no time was there a major breakdown of command outside what you would find in any other unit in the world.

And once again...find antoehr unit in the military that could have fared as well..and don't say SEALs becuase they dont operate in a large enough capactiy to handle themselves like that.

RLTW

[Ranger002]

TFRANGER,

I agree with you in regard to what happened to the Ranger Company in Moog Town. They did an outstanding Job given the extreme situation they faced. My thoughts about the Command structure ( using Moog Town as an example) fall along two lines. One= what where Rangers doing on a peacekeeping operation... they are assault troops. That was a command blunder strategic in nature. Two= if they where to be on such an operation Why not support them with Heavy Weapons and Armor ORGANIC to their forces in the field so that when a situation like the Adid raid occurs they have the proper tactical fires to deal with it. PS. I have been in the hobby of Confilct Simulations for over 25 years playing and playtesting game simulations. This event got alot of space on the game theory message boards, Military History message boards and on the Ranger listserver. Dean Essig ( ex 2nd Batt Ranger ) runs a company out Homer Ill called The Gamers and this topic was discussed by a few leading military thoerists from the Army ( such as Col Robert Leonhard ) and around the world. I mention this for your information.There are quite a few historians and gamers who discussed MOOG and the discourse was very informative. I was not there but I understand once again the mishmosh of command elements contributed greatly to what happended and there is the hint that because Rangers were in Moog the UN Commander had to use them which points to one of my original statements. And what of the Special Forces is not this a perfect situation for which they were designed (indeed they were there and should have given more flexibilty and authority). Rangers fly,swim,helo,walk in, sieze the objective, and withdraw once follow on forces arrive. They are not peacekeepers.They are Rangers and They Lead the Way!!! Take Care and God Bless
William Hazen B 2/75 Ranger 1979-82 Ranger Class 14-80

[Ranger002]

TFRANGER,
Sorry about all the misspells I had no idea how much I need spell check LOL Best Regards
William Hazen

[Tracy]

Mike I would attach at LEAST one company to every active Division in the Army.

I strongly believe in the Heavy/Light Division concept. I've seen Panzers in action; and we need them. I think the CSA is mistaken in trying to get rid of the Heavies in exchange for a tuna can with a main gun.

SO Companies can help both Heavy and Light Units; especially in OOTW.

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Hazen,

We were not in MOG as peacekeepers, we were not under UN command. We were in as "assault" tropps, as you put it. We were not there making sure MREs made it where they were supposed to go, we were there to arrest Adid and various others. We were in there doing a mission we were very capable of, its not like we were there preventing the fighting, we were there to capture the man starting the figthing.

But peacekeepers...we were not.

RLTW

[Dark Helmet]

Down this Ranger Bn vs ranger company thread.....

I can see Hazen's point (Hi Bill; been a while - have not been watching the listserv as often lately) regarding the command structure, but I see it as a matter of mission. The breakdown of Rangers from Bns to companies from WW2 to Nam had quite a bit to do with the fact that the inherent mission naturally evolved from one of being an organized shock force to one of recons and small unit operations.

Modern-day warfare (EC '79, UF '83, JC '89, Mogi '93) once again displayed the need/demand for the "old" WW2-era TO&E of a Ranger BN being a shock force again, not a recon/LRRP/small unit ops "Nam" type of unit.

Hence the current structure, formailzed by USASOC with the activation of the 75th RGT in '84.

We are seeing even now the evolution continue. When I was in 1/75 (late eighties), we were slowly adopting a role of duality straddling the responsibilities of being a small-unit (raid, ambush, recon) force AND being a CT support unit for SFOD-D ops. Look how much CQB training the RGT does these days.....

Just my two cents.....

[Kevin]

TFRANGERMEMBER,

I was wondering if you or anyone else ever read the book "Black Hawk Down" about the mess at Mog? If so, what did you think about it?

[This message has been edited by Kevin (edited 02-10-2000).]

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Yes I did read BHD and enjoyed it very much. It was a very entertaining yet gut wrenching book. To my limited knowledge of the subject it is very accurate, and is put togther is a very outstanding way. I recomend it to the world.

RLTW

[Ranger002]

TFRANGER,

Point well taken. However I do seem to recall complaints about the "use" of Rangers in MOG with a peacekeeping force.I must have got myself mixed up on that one. How long were you guys in country before the mission wnet down. Perhaps that was my point. I may have been under the mistaken impression that you were on the ground for a month or more before the command decision was made to go after the Warlord. What about Intel and Heavy Weapons support ( tanks ,bradleys,arty and such) I seem to recall many discussions regrading lack of Heavy Fire Support. As for the rest of my thread Thanks for the two cents TackDaBoat and I guess I know you so here is a big kiss for my long lost brother xxx LOL. Rangers should be duel misson capable however there is a danger in not having thier own C3 in conjunction with regular army operations. I like Tracy's idea but history tells me the regular army abuses more than uses Rangers for thier intended purpose. The last few campaigns may have gone a long way towards eliminating that abuse.TFRANGER would you share your experiance about the MOG operation behind the scenes perhaps in a different post? It would be a priviledge to hear your story.God Bless
William Hazen B 2/75 Ranger 1979-82 Class 14-80

[Ranger002]

Ok thats it!!!
If ayes a meesspell one more wurd. I swea to ya Rengers I will do pustupts till me arms fell ophh!!!
William ( yes I did go to school) Hazen

[Kevin]

RANGERHAZEN,

About your question of heavy weapons support. From what I read in BHD there were only some tanks from India and some APC's from Pakistan(which were old German APC's;Condors I believe)which were both part of the UN contingent.

[Kevin]

Might have got my countries mixed up. Could have been Malaysian APC's and Pakistani tanks.

[TFRANGERMEMBER]

Malaysian APCs.

RLTW

[Shadow45]

I am a friend of Shadow45 and I would like to E-Mail TFRANGERMEMBER direct. Please e-mail Shadow45 direct. I served in Somalia with TF Ranger and I would like to correspond with you. Thank you.

[realpolypro]

tfrangermember@specialoperations.com

Poly

[Almighty Bones]

Ok my knowledge is limited on JSOC etc... So maybe i should look into and it learn some about it, but you guys talk about taking the Ranger Regiment and putting them into small companys with the Airborne units etc... What effect if any would this have on the Rangers JSOC status?
Thanks (Not A BTDT)


------------------
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/skull.gif Bones



[This message has been edited by Almighty Bones (edited 01-01-2001).]