Post: #1

I found this after seeing the discussion of "Lone Survivor". John Reed has some caustic comments about the danger, pain, and uselessness of Ranger training.

There is a physical test, but the school training is almost entirely a masochism test. Masochism is generally considered to be dumb and rightly so.

most who flunked were arbitrarily flunked just so the Rangers could brag about how hard it was to be a Ranger.

When I went to Ranger School, we were told we were being trained to patrol behind enemy lines.

If there haven’t been any enemy lines since the Korean War in 1953, why are we still training soldiers to patrol behind them?


'Elite' military units: Army Rangers

Post: #2

(01-18-2014 08:21 AM)Searcher Wrote:  If there haven’t been any enemy lines since the Korean War in 1953, why are we still training soldiers to patrol behind them?


'Elite' military units: Army Rangers

Damn - that's a poignant thought.

Wald

Post: #3

article Wrote:At present, it would appear that the only basis for that “Marines are better” claim is 100 years of very strenuous Marine public relations. Fort Monmouth had the military’s only photographer school when I was stationed there in the 1970s. That meant that active-duty enlisted photographers from all branches of the military—Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Army—had to go there to learn photography. Guess which of the services had the most photography students by far? And guess which service was by far the smallest in the U.S. military? The Marines in both cases. I wouldn’t be surprised if Marine means “narcissist” in some dead language.

Post: #4

I went to Ranger School at the age of 20. In fact I spent my 21st birthday baking on the landing strip in Dugway, Utah waiting to board a C-141 to take us to Ft. Benning to graduate. Frankly I thought the 2 week Ranger Indoctrination Program was much worse. I called it concentrated evil. The Ranger Instructors in the Florida Phase were all crusty. weathered, scary ass Vietnam vets that were in Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol units. The primary thing I learned in RIP, and Ranger School is to keep going. There were times that I wanted to quit, but didn't because I couldn't live with the shame of raising my hand. I saw some glaring weaknesses and strengths in my character there. It didn't make me braver, smarter, or better, but I learned more about myself in the process. And I'm better for it.

Post: #5

I have a lot of respect for Rangers.

When I was on active duty I did a JTF-6 mission with 2nd Marine Recon Battalion (from Lejeune) on the Mexican border in Arizona. We had to monitor and track the movement of suspected drug smugglers coming in from Mexico.

In the beginning I was a bit wary, since there is some antagonism between the Marine Corps and the Army. But the Rangers were great. Calm, cool, psychologically well-centered.

I was one of the intel guys with 2nd Marine Recon Battalion, and we had to work with Ranger units coming from Ft. Huachuca. They were extremely competent, professional, and disciplined. I thought they were fantastic.

My experience with Rangers contrasted greatly with my experience with Navy SEALS. I'm sorry, but I found most of them to be arrogant, overbearing, and not very good at basic patrolling and collection skills. Then again, this was the mid 1990s, so maybe things have changed over the past 15 years.

QC

Post: #6

(01-19-2014 01:38 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  My experience with Rangers contrasted greatly with my experience with Navy SEALS. I'm sorry, but I found most of them to be arrogant, overbearing, and not very good at basic patrolling and collection skills. Then again, this was the mid 1990s, so maybe things have changed over the past 15 years.

I'm just a nerd but that seems to be the general consensus today.

An Army Ranger starts off as an infantryman. Although Rangers do direct action raids, they are at their core the world's premiere light infantry unit.

SEALS start off as Navy guys and then go straight to BUDs. They don't have the patrolling experience of Rangers and infantry tactics aren't their focus.

So while SEALS are great when doing direct action stuff, their lack of fundamentals can show during firefights and when out in the field.

If you read these sort of books, I highly recommend Sua Sponte: The Forging of a Modern American Ranger.

I think Fisto was a ranger - as in not just a tabbed guy but someone who served in Ranger Battalion.

Post: #7

^^^
Mike:

Yeah, that's been my experience. My experience with them when I was with 2nd Recon was the same. I know some guys will put that down to interservice rivalry or just competition, but that's not the case.

The SEALS that were with JTF-6 were jokes, when compared with the Rangers. The best way to explain it is that the SEALS are tri-athletes masquerading as soldiers. They'd rather walk around with Oakleys on and talk shit about how bush they are, than actually do the work on the ground. I think they were good during the Vietnam era, but now their PR machine has turned them into false gods.

I blame a lot of that on Dick Marcinko and all his carnival-barking bullshit. His book "Rogue Warrior" in my opinion is one big infomercial for him. I'm not saying every SEAL is bad. I'm just giving my own opinion based on personal experience.

But Rangers were fantastic. I was able to do such good work for JTF-6 because of my Rangers who were assigned to me. They would even draw me amazingly detailed maps, by hand, that Mexicans would make crossing the border. And because they have to get psych evals, they're all level-headed, even-tempered, and strong-willed.

I don't like to give the Army compliments, but I have to say it. I also had a great Army CO when I was in Bosnia on another joint-service op.

Post: #8

(01-19-2014 03:58 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Although Rangers do direct action raids, they are at their core the world's premiere light infantry unit.

I don't know. The FFL is pretty bad ass when it comes to infantry, although they are hardly strictly an infantry unit. But the infantry that they do have are held to very high standards.

Post: #9

Quote:I had to take out a routine reconnaissance patrol in a relatively secure area in Vietnam once. Because of my Ranger training, I was able to do it competently. That is, I made sure all my men drank a ton of water beforehand and left with two full canteens each, that we did a commo check with the corps TOC before we left (they weren’t listening—we had to get them to turn their radios on), that we had prearranged artillery concentrations and a commo check with the pertinent artillery unit, that my men were told of rallying points to return to if we got separated during the patrol, etc.

That patrol was a weekly event in our battalion and the other, non-Ranger officers who took it out the other weeks generally did absolutely none of the things I just listed.

Sounds like Mr. Reed was one of those officers who while highly intelligent, consistently displayed so little common sense in the field to anyone he came in contact with that his superiors decided under no circumstances would he be placed in command where soldiers could be killed. He likely would have done very well in a Signals Battalion or Logistical element, I blame the Army for placing him someplace he shouldn't have been. He was never in combat, allowed to lead men one time, now has a four decades old axe to grind. The opinion of this Ranger is one that I share:

http://www.socnet.com/showpost.php?p=987...stcount=71

Quote:He said he was a radio officer... not radio operator. There is a big, big difference. My guess is that Mr. Reed had plenty of opportunity to go outside the wire and mix it up, but chose not to because he was a soft bellied, soft skill loser.

Multiple units while in Vietnam with NO ENEMY CONTACT?

I think I can deduce why SF wasn't drooling over the prospect of bringing him in.

My experience is that if you want a fight in a combat zone, you can find one.

Bitterly complains about the Army not allowing him the chance to go to cool guy schools, yet bitches incessantly about the one he did get?

He also said he was awarded the Tab through the Pentagon affirmative action program for sniveling, spotlight, chow thief, sleeping on security, sensitive items losing, Joe Shit the Ragman West Point grads. Not quite the same as earning it.

@Suits - if read reports about missions in OEF you'll see that the FFL has conducted mostly standard light infantry missions, the Ranger unit is involved in special operations, 'commando' missions.

Post: #10

Ranger v SEAL rap battle: