Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > U.S. Army Special Operations > 75th Ranger Regiment

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 9 November 2011, 15:20
BiblioRanger's Avatar
BiblioRanger BiblioRanger is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 964
Pre-Regiment Scroll

Those of us that were in Benning prior to October 1984 may remember seeing this scroll. It was about the same time that 3d Batt had its "r" in the scroll, too.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 75th Inf Scroll.jpg (23.5 KB, 473 views)
__________________
"A University is a group of buildings gathered around a library." - Shelby Foote

"Damn a man who doesn't read books" (Mulholland, 2000, p. 32).
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 9 November 2011, 15:48
Ranger1 Ranger1 is offline
ORP
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: ............
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiblioRanger View Post
Those of us that were in Benning prior to October 1984 may remember seeing this scroll. It was about the same time that 3d Batt had its "r" in the scroll, too.
That's good history Ed. I'm adding that to that main collage on the first page.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 9 November 2011, 16:36
PocketKings PocketKings is offline
Conformed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 565
I know better than to respond to these threads, because it's always taken the wrong way. Given the number of people who responded, I can't even begin to address them all but I will say a few things I left off.

1) On Shinseki - yes, he took the beret. Stupid. Insulting. Myopic. He was also dead on about Iraq for whatever that's worth. Why does he have to represent every tabbed guy? I don't put out the fratricide of Tillman as the only example of Rangers. Why put one General out there as an example of school guys?

2) Lineage - I get the lineage. It's a great one. But, some a-hole General (see Shinseki) or Politician can stop that lineage with the stroke of a pen. They've done it before (after WWII, after Korea, after Vietnam). To some, the 75th is a line item on a budget. Ranger School has filled in part of that lineage, and one day may be the only vestige left. Even the role of the Rangers has changed dramatically over the years. One day, they may be no more. You can't say it's not possible. Force Recon isn't the same today as it once was. You don't see any more Recondos running around. Cavalry isn't the same. There was a time when Dragoons were the hot thing. My point - you take a small pool and make it smaller and it may end up drying up altogether.

3) The culture - there is no comparison to the culture/training/efficiency/etc. of the 75th as a whole. Did I have to be there to see it? No. I saw it in soldiers that came to my unit from there (CSM Nelson being a great example), in my friends who went there, and all over the Army. Most of my NCO mentors came from the 75th and I benefited tremendously from it. Again, there's no comparison between the two. I've never said there were and I never claimed to understand first hand (as an officer, I wouldn't have anyway). However, that culture is not defined by a single term. It's bigger than that.

4) I'm sure we can all point to worthless tabbed guys. I had them in my class and my units. The way some of you responded here, you probably put me in that category. We've also seen dirtbag Rangers in and from the 75th. Rangers and tabbed guys are humans, you get the good with the bad. Broad generalizations just insult the good soldiers and elevate the shitty ones.

Kirk - You want to insinuate things about me personally then so be it. I have an opinion that I keep emotionally neutral. Why you need to insinuate that I run around puffing my chest out while representing something I am not is beyond me. I'm about as humble as they come. My meager military background seldom comes up and the only time I talk about it is usually to tell self deprecating jokes about the dumb things I did. Sarcastic 'Sirs' and questions insinuating I'm some kind of poser or moron aren't necessary. I'm just offering an opinion on an open board because I'm a glutton for abuse.

Jurenta - my favorite interweb sparring partner - I never even noticed the category this was in. My mistake. Blame it on the lobotomy that they give all ROTC grads. I can see the circling of the wagons and (see point #2) I think that's probably necessary for a bunch of reasons (and more of a good thing).

My take, and it has always been my take, is that the nice catchphrase 'the tab is just a school but the scroll is a way of life' doesn't capture being a Ranger at all. The tab and scroll are just pieces of cloth just like the beret is just a hat. The School is a school, and yes, the 75th is a unit. What defines a Ranger is the mission conducted and/or the man himself, be it tabbed, scrolled, once scrolled, or some other variation. I see the 75th producing a soldier with certain skills and a mindset that is called a Ranger. I can also see the School and combat or experience producing something very similar called a Ranger. I'm sure you all will disagree, but the Army - in its RHOF, Best Ranger, terminology used, references in daily life, even the very lineage that the Ranger's cite, tends to see it that way. Obviously, nobody from the 75th does. There's the difference.

It's just like the definition of marriage, what 'is' is, 'hero,' or any other terms. It's not cut and dried, even though we try to make it. Nor is it a simple explanation. Again, my opinion.

I don't know why I even post. Maybe I'm pissy from a rough week at work and watching my university fuck up big time. Maybe I like getting virtually beat on. Who knows. For the record - I've never called myself a 'Ranger.' When it comes up, I say Ranger Qualified and then have to go into a 15 minute discussion on what the hell that means (which is why I try not to have it come up in the first place).
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 9 November 2011, 17:00
Soot's Avatar
Soot Soot is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
A guy with a tab who never served there implying that he is associated with that is being somewhat dishonest.
Question: If you don't know you're being dishonest in that respect, are you really being dishonest?

What I mean is, if you never served in a Ranger Battalion and someone asks you if you served in a Ranger Batallion, and you say "yes", then clearly you're being dishonest.

But if you've never served in a Ranger Battalion, but you have a Ranger Tab, and someone asks you if you're a Ranger, and you say "yes" honestly believing that having the Tab makes you a Ranger, would you call that dishonest?

Because when I was serving (11M in Germany in the early '90s) the only folks we ever saw who had anything Ranger on their uniforms were the guys with Tabs (primarially officers but also a very few NCOs, usually SSG or above, who got a very rare Ranger School slot).

So we considered them Rangers.

We didn't really know anything about the 75th and didn't really care anything about the 75th.

I remember watching the fight in Somalia on TV in the dayroom and wishing we could be there to help but not for one second did any of us think that there was anything "special" about those guys.

Once that episode of history had passed I didn't think about the term Ranger all that much til I joined SocNet a decade later.

Since being here I've learned plenty about the difference between Ranger and Ranger qualed, but only because I've been exposed to it through you guys.

20 years ago in Germany a Tabbed guy could have told me he was a Ranger, probably believing it, I would have believed him, and neither of us would have assigned a thousandth of the weight to it that y'all do.

As a member of the 75th I can see where you would place great importance on the distinction, but not everyone else in the Army, not even everyone else in the Infantry, did or probably does.
__________________
“If you guys fucking fall for this shit again, I swear to God the ridicule that I unleash will reverberate in the signature lines of half the membership here for an eternity.”

― MakoZeroSix
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 9 November 2011, 19:14
MikeC2W's Avatar
MikeC2W MikeC2W is offline
Cry havoc
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ciudad Juarez
Posts: 11,155
Meh, that's a god awful amount of verbiage for a very simple concept.

Why would anyone in the 82nd or the 101st or the 197th or whatever unit, when asked, "what did you do in the army?", say,"I was with the Rangers.". It makes no sense.

Why wouldn't they just say they were with the 82nd? I really don't get it. Unless they are trying to mislead. Besides, I usually stop with 11b.

Luckily I have a tab and was in Regt, so I can say whatever I like :). Still when people ask me what I did in Korea, unfailingly I say, " I was in Long Range Surveillance.".

Apparently for some I guess having served in the 82nd, 101st, etc ... just isn't good enough?

Oddly enough I had a mom at the check out line, after seeing that I was purchasing Times SpecOps piece, tell me her son was in Special Forces.....then she went on to say lucky for him he had a SF contract because when he got hurt in training he was afforded the opportunity to go home. Where he is now studying Chemistry at the genius level - her words not mine. I smiled and said that was awesome. No one should be out there correcting moms.
__________________
Cco 1/75
RLTW


Two eyes from the east.

Last edited by MikeC2W; 9 November 2011 at 19:20.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 9 November 2011, 20:34
CharlieRanger1FFV's Avatar
CharlieRanger1FFV CharlieRanger1FFV is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: georgia
Posts: 68
Kind of late to the party . . .

QUOTE Kirk; Scrolled vs Tabbed: Updated November 2011
There was a time where what was taught at Ranger School was almost a mirror of what was practiced in various 60's and 70's era Ranger units, but today there is very little similarity.


Your right on the mark with your opening statement, Kirk. . . .except. Back in the Stone Age, time peroid of 69 - 71, Ranger School, was a good leadership school, but it did not come close to mirroring what we were doing in the Ranger companies in Nam. The MACV Recondo School set up by the 5th SFG was made the order for our missions. . . Great School.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 9 November 2011, 21:00
CombatWombat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
So, the real question is, why the hell don't we fix Ranger school? Why isn't that place 61 days of the latest, greatest, ass kicking techniques instead of a stumblefest based on old tactics? Why aren't we using Ranger school as the conduit to blast out the best lessons and tactics our finest Light Infantry is developing? I get the leadership, gut check, stress inoculation aspect we've got going now, but after a decade of war, maybe we need to rethink what we're doing?

Probably another thread, don't mean to kick a hornets nest. I'm not saying we need a school to make Ranger Batt guys, that's not possible. But why are we wasting so many resources on a school that has questionable tactical content?

Caveat: I ain't got a tab or a scroll. Maybe that means I've got no standing to question what we're doing at the school, but I would wager that I might have a bit of a point. Either way, I apologize for the intrusion, Rangers. And yes, I know who that term applies to.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 9 November 2011, 21:10
Regulator3 Regulator3 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northwest Indiana/OCONUS
Posts: 74
Anybody know how the lineage works with the current LRS units? Do any share a lineage back to the Ranger Companies in Vietnam?

The LRS unit from the Indiana National Guard has or did have the guidon from D/151 (II Field Force LRRP) with the combat streamer. Several of the old vets served in the LRS unit when it was activated.

I never will consider myself a Ranger, but instead a Ranger qualified LRS guy. It is interesting though, to see how the Army assigned lineage.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 9 November 2011, 21:42
The Corporate Guy's Avatar
The Corporate Guy The Corporate Guy is offline
bland, cruel, incompetent
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Occupied NY
Posts: 3,158
If the Army authorizes a soldier to wear a Ranger designator on the uniform then I have no problem referring to them as a Ranger. But there is also no confusion in my mind between someone who has earned a school tab versus someone who is part of the special operations community. Apples and snow tires.

I get the need for the guys from 75th Regiment to be clear about the difference, and to some degree the ownership of the "Ranger" brand, but it seems (to an outsider) that both can lay some claim to the Ranger lineage.

Question: Has there ever been discussion about a modified tab for those Ranger school grads who also served in a batt? Something like "Regimental Ranger" or "Ranger SOF" or "75th Ranger"?
__________________
“I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.” John Cleese
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 9 November 2011, 21:48
Sharky's Avatar
Sharky Sharky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: SOCNET
Posts: 15,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soot View Post
Question: If you don't know you're being dishonest in that respect, are you really being dishonest?

What I mean is, if you never served in a Ranger Battalion and someone asks you if you served in a Ranger Batallion, and you say "yes", then clearly you're being dishonest.

But if you've never served in a Ranger Battalion, but you have a Ranger Tab, and someone asks you if you're a Ranger, and you say "yes" honestly believing that having the Tab makes you a Ranger, would you call that dishonest?



To answer your first question, the answer would be no.

As for the rest, I have never met a guy who graduated Ranger School since 1/75 and 2/75 stood up that thought having the Tab was the same as being a Ranger. I have known guys who said they were when they knew they were talking to people who didnt know the difference. Thats what I mean about being dishonest.

Im not trying to be argumentative. It's just something that is hard to explain to someone who was never in the unit. It's a life changing experience. I always liken it to being in a cult or the mafia. Once in, never really out. It is a unique experience that is not even in the same category with Ranger School. For many of us, it defines who we are for the rest of our lives and how we approach life, even long after we have left.
__________________
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul.
-Invictus
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 9 November 2011, 22:30
EricFoltz EricFoltz is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Laguna Hills, CA
Posts: 109
Calling someone a Ranger who never served in the Regiment is like calling a five jump chump that went to Airborne School and then never jumped again a Paratrooper.
__________________
B 1/75 1981-84
8th Army 2001-2002
82d Airborne 2002-2005
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 9 November 2011, 22:38
Brian1/75 Brian1/75 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: RVA
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CombatWombat View Post
So, the real question is, why the hell don't we fix Ranger school? Why isn't that place 61 days of the latest, greatest, ass kicking techniques instead of a stumblefest based on old tactics?
It's not that wildly different. We might not do leader's recon anymore because we have ISR, and security might be pulled a bit different because we're often taking down a single building these days, but the basic ideas are there. Which is exactly what it's suppose to do, teach some PL the basic ideas of SUT in a very stressful environment, so they learn how to motivate a bunch of turds(hungry, sleepy guys). They're not going to teach you what to do when you're assault element is landing on the X and this wouldn't be very valuable to most leaders in the regular Army.

Some of the techniques are in place at Ranger School with the idea of doing extended dismounted patrols hitting multiple targets. They have been messing around with COBs and such instead of patrol bases. And honestly maybe one day we'll get parachuted behind lines in the jungle/woods and go back to those techniques setting up patrol bases so we can chow and conduct weapons maintenance. Personally, I'd love to see the course become the Advance Leader's Course, so Battalion can move pass it, but whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 9 November 2011, 22:53
RangerJurena RangerJurena is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Back In Texas
Posts: 316
@pocketkings - My guess is Steve Reider is as distraught as you are over PSU, I would also venture to guess he would admire your tenacity,but I'm confident he taught you about picking and choosing your battles.

For the record, I agree with your Shineseki statement, but I've always thought outside the box, made me a Stan Goff protege who is a bit of a pariah, but by far one of the best I ever served under.

@regulator3, perhaps look at this from the 75th RRA..who by the way, does not accept those who are just tabbed Rangers.

SECTION 1: The Association shall consist of various classes of members, as defined in ARTICLE VIII. The qualified members of the units listed below are considered eligible for 'Regular' membership. Also eligible are members of predecessor and successor units to those listed below, as well as all past, present or future units authorized the colors and coat of arms established for the Merrill's Marauders. In addition to the unit eligibility sited above, and subject to approval of a General Membership vote, additional units from various sized elements, who produce evidence that they operated or served as a LRRP / LRP unit, may be eligible as part of their parent units under their existing Unit Directors.

SECTION 2: Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol
A. V Corp (LRRP)
B. VII Corp (LRRP)
C. 9th Inf. Div. (LRRP)
D. 25th Inf. Div. (LRRP)
E. 196th Inf. Bde. (LRRP)
F. 1st Cav. Div. (LRRP)
G. 1st Inf. Div. (LRRP)
H. 4th Inf. Div. (LRRP)
I. 101st Abn. Div., 1st Bde. (LRRP)
J. 199th Inf. Bde. (LRRP)
K. 173rd Abn. Bde. (LRRP)
L. 3rd Inf. Div. (LRRP)

SECTION 3: Long Range Patrol
A. Co D (LRP) 17th Inf.
B. Co E (LRP) 20th Inf.
C. Co E (LRP) 30th Inf.
D. Co E (LRP) 50th Inf.
E. Co F (LRP) 50th Inf.
F. Co E (LRP) 51st Inf.
G. Co F (LRP) 51st Inf.
H. Co E (LRP) 52nd Inf.
I. Co F (LRP) 52nd Inf.
J. Co C (LRP) 58th Inf.
K. Co E (LRP) 58th Inf.
L. Co F (LRP) 58th Inf.
M. 70th Inf. DET (LRP)
N. 71st Inf. DET (LRP)
O. 74th Inf. DET (LRP)
P. 78th Inf. DET (LRP)
Q. 79th Inf. DET (LRP)
R. Co D (LRP) 151st Inf.

SECTION 4: 75th Infantry Ranger Companies
A. Co A (RANGER) 75th Inf.
B. Co B (RANGER) 75th Inf.
C. Co C (RANGER) 75th Inf.
D. Co D (RANGER) 75th Inf.
E. Co E (RANGER) 75th Inf.
F. Co F (RANGER) 75th Inf.
G. Co G (RANGER) 75th Inf.
H. Co H (RANGER) 75th Inf.
I. Co I (RANGER) 75th Inf.
J. Co K (RANGER) 75th Inf.
K. Co L (RANGER) 75th Inf.
L. Co M (RANGER) 75th Inf.
M. Co N (RANGER) 75th Inf.
N. Co O (RANGER) 75th Inf.
O. Co P (RANGER) 75th Inf.
P. Co D (RANGER) 151st Inf.

SECTION 5: Vietnamese Ranger Advisors BDQ
All units of the Biet Dong Quan (BDQ).

SECTION 6: 75th Ranger Regiment
A. 1st Battalion (Ranger) 75th Inf., activated in 1974.
B. 2nd Battalion (Ranger) 75th Inf., activated in 1974.
C. 3rd Battalion (Ranger) 75th Inf., activated in 1984.
D. 75th Ranger Regiment HQ's Company, activated in 1984.
E. 75th Ranger Regiment, designated in 1986, and all subordinate, assigned and attached units.

SECTION 7: Long Range Surveillance Any Long Range Surveillance Company or Detachment that can trace its' lineage to, or is currently assigned to a Brigade or larger element that was deployed to Vietnam.

@sharky -It's just something that is hard to explain to someone who was never in the unit. It's a life changing experience. I always liken it to being in a cult or the mafia. Once in, never really out. It is a unique experience that is not even in the same category with Ranger School.

Word.
__________________
C Co 1/75 87 -93
6th RTB 93 - 95
F.Co 51st LRS 95 -97
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10 November 2011, 01:00
OppressorsBeware175 OppressorsBeware175 is offline
Always look cool.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ft Rucker, AL
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketKings View Post
My take, and it has always been my take, is that the nice catchphrase 'the tab is just a school but the scroll is a way of life' doesn't capture being a Ranger at all. The tab and scroll are just pieces of cloth just like the beret is just a hat. The School is a school, and yes, the 75th is a unit. What defines a Ranger is the mission conducted and/or the man himself, be it tabbed, scrolled, once scrolled, or some other variation. I see the 75th producing a soldier with certain skills and a mindset that is called a Ranger. I can also see the School and combat or experience producing something very similar called a Ranger. I'm sure you all will disagree, but the Army - in its RHOF, Best Ranger, terminology used, references in daily life, even the very lineage that the Ranger's cite, tends to see it that way. Obviously, nobody from the 75th does. There's the difference.
Once again, if you're a college student majoring in English Literature, but you take Calculus for a semester, does that make you a mathematician?

Mold of individual has a great deal to do with degree of success in the SOF community, but is not of itself an identifier. If a soldier in the regular Army exhibits "Ranger-like" traits, then perhaps he should assess to become a member of the organization, but it does not grant him license to call himself a Ranger any more than a 3rd ID 11B who graduates airborne school may call himself a paratrooper.

There is no regulation because there is no need for one. I don't call myself a paratrooper. I don't call myself a "Dog Faced Soldier" or an "All American." I don't have a "Rendezvous with Destiny." I called myself a Ranger because I was assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment. This identity crisis only seems to exist in THIS singular matter, that of the tab vs the scroll, not with airborne school, not with air assault school. I don't see pathfinder graduates calling themselves pathfinders if not assigned to a pathfinder unit.

Those outside of the Regiment who "see it that way" are simply seeking an association with an organization with which they do not properly belong.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10 November 2011, 02:00
MooseUSN MooseUSN is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 115
I'll never understand why the Army sends so many folks to ranger/sapper/airborne/airassault school. The navy never (except for a few combat camera guys) sends people to HRST/Dive/Free Fall/BUD/S/BCT school unless that's their primary job. There are plenty of posers in the navy but almost none of them can show a badge/pin/tab (that they are authorized to wear) indicating membership in any high speed navy unit.
__________________
"One Good Deal After Another." -SFC Jerry M. Shriver
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10 November 2011, 02:30
Ranger1 Ranger1 is offline
ORP
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: ............
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketKings View Post
I know better than to respond to these threads, because it's always taken the wrong way.
If you know better why post?

But, maybe that's a clear sign that you're outlook is severely misguided. Or you're comments are seen as negative. You're amongst a group of Rangers, suggesting that people who aren't Rangers, be addressed as such. Even when you're being told, by mutiple Rangers, that you're off base.

I don't see this as dogpiling, because so far, we've been 100% respectful to you and your rank. Besides, SOCNET doesn't work that way.

Again, I honestly suggest you find someone from the 75th Ranger Regiment (tabbed or untabbed) and ask them if a Tab makes you a Ranger. We're just anonymous people on the Internet to you, that's fine, prove it to yourself.

Bringing up Tillman - you're severely out of line and obviously mis-informed. I'll only let that slide once. Ranger Tillman is not for discussion in this thread.

About Shinseki, I put him as an example of someone who has a Tab. Forget about the Beret issue. He was light in Infantry units in VN with a Tab, a very successful Commander, and lost part of his foot in a combat zone. A highly decorated West Point Graduate. And he was so good at his job he eventually became the Army Chief of Staff, the highest Army post you can attain before JCS. And, as you say, he was 'dead on about Iraq'. Not too shabby by any standard.

So do you consider him a Ranger? That's a serious question Sir. This will help us determine exactly how far off the reservation you actually are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketKings View Post
2) Lineage - I get the lineage.
If you get it, then what's the issue? It currently stands, has stood since before the Revolutionary War. Ranger School was stood up in 1950. I'd be happy to pull out a calendar and count the months/years out if that would make it clearer for you. Serious offer.

As far as the possibility that Ranger School being the only thing left and Regiment going away....you're seriously deluded Sir. One or two Leg and Airborne Divisions will dissappear long before we will. Regiment may indeed go somewhere and in the future we may not be able to talk about them, but they'll still be there. We have a seat at the big boys table now. We're so tied into other things, Big Army wouldn't even know how to get rid of Regiment these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketKings View Post

3) The culture....- However, that culture is not defined by a single term. It's bigger than that.
Wrong, it is a single term. It's a word that makes up the first letter of every stanza of the Ranger Creed, which was written with respect to all that came before and all that came after it. That word is Ranger. The fact that you dont grasp that screams volumes.

We don't memorize the Creed once for a School and then forget it. It's not a GO/NO-GO station for us. We say it every day and live our lives by it. Most of us even after being out for 20 some odd years still do. When's the last time you even thought about whether or not you were living your life by the Creed?

And it doesn't matter who you served with that came from Regiment. Of course they were superior soildiers, but that doesn't mean you have any insight whatsoever to what it's like to serve in Regiment. It's not like trading baseball players with a better team that knows better pitches and saves, had a better stadium, better training grounds, better equipment, better uniforms and a bigger budget. It's a whole other sport that you'll never even get taught the rules of unless you go to RASPII and pass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketKings View Post
Kirk - You want to insinuate things about me personally then so be it.
I wasn't being sarcastic or personal. When I say Sir, I mean it (...courtesy to superior officers..', surely you remember that line). Those weren't insinutations, they were serious questions you've chosen to ignore. I didn't type them because my fingers need exercise.

Last edited by Ranger1; 10 November 2011 at 05:33.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10 November 2011, 03:01
OppressorsBeware175 OppressorsBeware175 is offline
Always look cool.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ft Rucker, AL
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketKings View Post
Broad generalizations just insult the good soldiers and elevate the shitty ones.
Irrelevant, considering sub-standard Rangers are readily identified and redistributed to the needs of the Army, tab or no. But even then, you figure a sub-par Marine is still a member of the Corps. You can't take it away from him, even if you want to; he passed through the gates. Whether he deserves the title or not is moot. Supposing a guy isn't a stellar performer relative to the Regimental standard, he still graduated RASP/RIP, wore the black/tan beret and the scroll; some of us went to the war, some didn't, but all of us lived the life of an Airborne Ranger for a time. Just getting to the Regiment is an achievement. Staying there is an even greater achievement. It's not just playing Army with black PTs, better gear, and stronger backs; if you haven't been there, you haven't been there.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10 November 2011, 03:05
Ranger1 Ranger1 is offline
ORP
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: ............
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by CombatWombat View Post
So, the real question is, why the hell don't we fix Ranger school?
I don't think it needs fixing. It's a leadership school, not a combat skills training school. That's what OSUT, unit training and pre-deployment build up is for. Ranger School grads aren't meant to bring new TTP's back to their unit, they're meant to bring back better leadership skills.

Originally, Ranger School wasn't a leadership course, it was more like RASP is today...whereas they are taught the exact skills they're shortly going to be using in combat. Then the whole class gets sent to the same Ranger unit together.

Ranger School stood up in 1950 and was established specifically to man new Ranger units for the Korean War. They only trained guys in Ranger style tactics akin to what the original WW2 Ranger units learned in the UK/Ireland from the Brit Commandos before the WW2 Ranger units were stood up. And a lot of the 50's era instructors were WW2 Rangers, some coming back as civilians.

Upon graduation, the vast majority of these 50's era guys then fed directly into the Korean Ranger Companies attaching themslves to a larger division as a 'commando/recon' type force. Initially they did the six week course as cohorts and then deployed to Korea en masse as whole companies. Once most of the companies were deployed, Ranger School at Benning and another smaller one set up in Korea supplied replacement Rangers as guys were WIA/KIA. Korea era Ranger units were disbanded in 1951 long before the war 'ended' (mainly to make way for SF in the overall TO&E). Two were even disbanded on their way to Korea before they even got in country. The guys in Ranger units mainly either got folded into their Divisions, went to the 187th or went to our newly formed 'SF'.

In 1951, a year after it opened its doors, Ranger School was shut down and immediatley re-opened with a new mission. It ceased being a 'deployment build up course' for dedicated Ranger Units and became more of a full fledged 'school' for graduates to take the skills back to their non-Ranger units. At Benning they changed from 'Ranger Training Command' to the 'Ranger Department' and the school in Korea closed. The course at Benning was now mostly for Army Infantry Officers and Senior NCOs.

Somewhere between then and the late 60's/early 70's it became more of a leadership course for every Tom, Dick and Harry in Army Combat Arms that wanted to attend. By the time the School of the Julios moved to Benning, the Ranger Department were accepting people from all over the world and from every US MIL Service that had a chance of seeing actual combat. Lots of opportunities in there over many years for someone to stand up and make them stop dilluting the term 'Ranger' during all this, but it never happened. For years Ranger Joes had already been cranking out Ranger Tab teddy bears by the thousands for wannbees, posers, quitters, Cadets and IOBC grads to bring back to their girlfriends...it was too late.

Ranger School today is meant to create high amounts of physical and mental stress and teach people to lead under it. The brief AO specific skills training at the beginning of each phase taught to each student and simulated patrols are the tools your leadership skills are graded against. They just make up a common mental/physical baseline. Remember, not everyone that attends is Infantry or even combat arms. It may have been years since they've even (say) jumped, held a compass or fired a belt fed weapon. Most that attend have never rock climbed or even seen a Zodiac in real life. Everybody gets the same skills training and starts at the same assumed baseline before they start throwing patrols at you. Hopefully they've all done a 3-4 week internal 'pre-Ranger' course of some type. But some don't and just show up. So for the non-Infantry types and people from other branches/services/countries not used to 'the Army way', it's best if they keep it as simple as possible.

'OK, we've taught them the basic things and they've all tested that they can do them correctly in a non-tactical environment. Now lets put them in the field and see how they do when we put them in a leadership postion with no notice, at 01:00hrs, after 'starving' them of food and sleep for a few nights. Leading other guys who are just as miserable that we've also taught these basic skills to. And then we'll grade the poor bastards on their leadership skills and handover to another student to take over the patrol totally by surprise...and at the end of the phase we'll ask their buddies to grade them as well.'

You could do it with M1 Garands, WW2 uniforms and steel pots running between trenches with bayonets and it would still serve its purpose. That's why some of the stuff taught or used as stress tests from the 50's is still used today (the Darby Queen, hand to hand, land nav, mountaineering/ropes/knots/, basic survival, water confidence test/log walk/slide for life, rope bridges, small boat handling, long ass road marches/foot movements, etc). Ain't broke, why fix it?

RTB does however keep up with modern TTPs/Comms/First Aid/Equipment for patrols as much as they can. As an example, they're doing more urban/built up training and simulated dismounted patrols now with vehicles for part of Benning Phase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieRanger1FFV View Post
....Your right on the mark with your opening statement, Kirk. . . .except.
Got it, that statement was too general, I'll fix it.

Last edited by Ranger1; 10 November 2011 at 07:33.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10 November 2011, 03:46
Ranger1 Ranger1 is offline
ORP
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: ............
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Corporate Guy View Post
If the Army authorizes a soldier to wear a Ranger designator on the uniform then I have no problem referring to them as a Ranger. But there is also no confusion in my mind between someone who has earned a school tab versus someone who is part of the special operations community. Apples and snow tires.

I get the need for the guys from 75th Regiment to be clear about the difference, and to some degree the ownership of the "Ranger" brand, but it seems (to an outsider) that both can lay some claim to the Ranger lineage.

Question: Has there ever been discussion about a modified tab for those Ranger school grads who also served in a batt? Something like "Regimental Ranger" or "Ranger SOF" or "75th Ranger"?
No such thing as a blanket 'Ranger designator'. Today you have Scrolls and Tabs. So if you called someone with only a Tab a Ranger fair enough, but you'd be dead wrong. I'm not familar enough with Marine SOF/MARSOC to give you a good comparison, but the first post in this thread should clear it up for you.

But ask yourself this, as a former Marine, if you'd have gone to Ranger School and went back to your unit with your Tab sewn under your pocket flap, would you call yourself a Ranger to the other guys in your unit, or a Marine? Would they call you a Ranger?

As far as a Ranger specific Ranger Tab? I know we've discused it here, but no idea of its been discussed officially. But it's not necessary, one is an SOF unit/way of life, the other is a TRADOC school. It's easy for us (Army guys) to differentiate.

We stole the whole Tab thing from the Brits (some of their guys teaching ours in WW2 had 'Commando' tabs). If we'd have just called it 'Commando' School to begin with, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Last edited by Ranger1; 10 November 2011 at 04:47.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10 November 2011, 06:51
Gargoyle's Avatar
Gargoyle Gargoyle is offline
Hunting terrorists...
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southeast
Posts: 313
Kirk/All-

I asked my OIC in Iraq this same question. This guy had spent his entire career in the 75th and was about to put on full bird to take a command billet with them.

His response was something along the lines of, "A true Ranger will probably go on 3-4 combat deployments before his first enlistment is up. Most Rangers will do this without having been to Ranger School. A "tabbed guy" will go back to his command and maybe deploy once but he'll have a ton of high speed stories about his time in the Rangers.
__________________
YOU'RE NOT WORTHY
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET