Abn_rngr
- 44 comments
- 0 likes given
- 75 likes received
Bio not provided
@Erik L @rozhbash @JackMurphyRGR @Robertkyle @majrod Here, here. Never quite understood this maturity issue I read about. With comparable rank, experience and age, I'd even give a slight nod to the Ranger-being responsible for leading troops speeds up the growing up process.
@Canopylight @JackMurphyRGR @majrod I remember ol' Doc Dononvan. 1/75 legend. Similar to Don Lamica and Purdy. I believe he once said he definitely preferred Rangering to SF'ing but I have no idea why. Again, long time ago.
@JackMurphyRGR @majrod Had an E-6 come over back in my day. Think have might have been right about 1980. There was no long tab nor SF MOS in those days. Guy was just fine, but nothing special as far as squad leaders go. Some of his more experienced guys liked the more laid back style but his newer guys were slower in coming up to speed.
Similar experience in Ranger School. Had an SF guy or two in the course. I figured they would just blow through, no worries. As far as the ability to plan and conduct small unit ops, they ended up being about average compared to even a Bn private. Nothing close to what I saw of my NCO's in 1/75.
Again, can't emphasize enough this is no knock on SF. Really liked 'em and any SF training course was always top notch, no BS, high quality instruction. This is all 33+ year old recollection, too.
No need to point out which picture is of you in SF. Your boot laces are hanging out in the SF pic, of course, rendering you combat ineffective.
To your point, it's never a good idea to make decisions in anger. Getting compromised at the objective area is not Rgt policy, either. Plausible scenario: the guys that got the patrol lost would have been DX'd and the ambush would be laid in as per the op order, the expended AT4 used to beat the truck driver.
@ArcticWarrior In my humble opinion (assuming there is such a thing as a humble opinion) it would be a mistake for the Regiment to lose this medium- and large-scale capability. One of the greatest value ads of a Ranger Bn or Rgt is the ability to do forced entry, seize and hold, then launch and execute multiple, simultaneous and sequential company, platoon and even smaller sized operations, then roll the whole thing back up and extract before it appears on CNN.
@JackMurphyRGR I would be interested in such an update. Much to my surprise, I've actually been asked about that show and if it was representative of what it's like. I refer people to the book Sua Sponte as to what it's like these days. Be nice to know that what they read is what is going on.
@Coriolanus @Canopylight For Delta, most of the selection assesses the individual. One of the things that makes the selection rate so low.
@Canopylight Selection is supposed to very much target maturity. Sounds very unlike that unit. Is he still in the OTC?
@ITRIEDEL Ages old joke Marine: "I'm attending the Marine Corps ball this evening" Army: "Ball? I didn't know the Marines had balls."
@Surge375 I will guarantee you no Ranger has any interest in humping anybody's leg. The view of SEALs at the time was that the L was last for reason-the Navy got to go 10 clicks in from the shoreline and the Army 10 clicks out from it. The only unit I'm aware of that any Ranger truly aspired to is Delta.
@Surge375 @MingoKane OK, last one. We'll have to agree to disagree here. SOF units seem to be fine killers without the artists who fuck their 18 yr old daughters (weird one, that). I sure hope it's not the case that the Marines have two kinds: criminals who can kill and law abiding citizens who can't.
@Surge375 @MingoKane DUI's are death. It wasn't always that way but the rule came down in the very early 80's from on higher and that was, as they say, that. There are a few other infractions of that sort. Utter dependability, among other traits, is what is sought. Don't kid yourself, you've lost good officers in your ranks to similar infractions.
There are a few assumptions in your statements. One is that without the DUI and RFS this individual would have made a great Ranger. You're assuming at that time he was one of the best guys. He may not have been at the time. Perhaps it's the fact this happened that made him reconsider and realign his priorities.
Many guys get punted and many are not honest with those around them about the whys. I've on occasion run across and individual in an airport or a hotel and on casual discussion learn how they were "fucked over cause the guy didn't like me." One guy even told me he was RFS'd from 2/75 because he was too tough and rough with his peers. Hysterical. Not saying the guy you know is of the same ilk at all, just saying be careful what you believe about the process.
Like anything else, there is some subjectivity to the process. But
I've seen many a good young Ranger get in trouble and not get DX'd b/c his chain of command considered him worth the effort. I've seen guys struggle and be transferred to other squads and platoons and given another shot. Some guys just pack it on in and ask to leave.
As to losing good guys, that undoubtedly happens. But it's the exception. Still, there's another behind him to take his place. In units of these types, it's not the good guy you don't get as much as it is the shithead you do. You can indeed to some extent select the true killers but those are limited supply anywhere. Recall, the guy you are discussing did indeed pass RIP. The quality of others does indeed impact the success and survivability of these types in the battle and therefore the unit's success.
@Surge375 @MingoKane Incidentally the cover ups i spoke of were not white collar-type; they could easily have gotten people killed. To some minds, that did indeed happen. Not sure what you're referring to reference our cover ups.
I think Ranger selection today is not too far removed from that used over the decades or centuries. I've often wondered if i would have had what it would take to be a WWII Ranger, especially at Point du Hoc, or Korea or Vietnam. Many a guy who squeaked by RIP and subsequent training has gone on to make a name for himself sometimes in one unit that is near impossible to get in to.
This is what Marines don't understand about our or other unit's cultures. you think it's about the money. It's not. I served in 1/75 at first in the Carter days and we did not have money. We had our culture. When Ronbo was elected that culture is what let us make use of the money when it became available.
You may be the only Marine I've met who considers your culture democratic.
@Surge375 @MingoKane Ah, there's the misunderstanding. Other than severe, usually honor or live fire, violations a Ranger will be given all the necessary counseling, of any description, he needs before he's DX'd. Some guys, however, just can't or won't get with it or don't have what it takes to repeatedly dig down deep on demand or, more importantly, of their own volition, to be kept. Sua Sponte.
@MingoKane Thanks, brother.
@Surge375 Strange collection of replies. How can you on the one hand tell me you have your own version of RFS'ing then tell me you question if it works. Yes, it works. While most Rangers think there have been abuses and some good Rangers may have been lost the system overall worked. The present system of RASP works even better. BTW, your "RFS'ing" is pretty much, again, what you get in an Army airborne bn or even a line infantry bn.
Can't believe the comment about no cover ups and ethical conduct. Stop reading your own press releases. The field grade was convicted on felony charges for trying to cover up unflattering information, to be kind, about the Osprey. India company, one of the first MARCSOC units deployed, filed false reports about missions and whereabouts to cover their unlawful activity. Counter examples to your comment abound.
Stranger still would you claim that nobody understands Marine culture but a Marine but make comments that would lead one to believe you understand ours. I've never met a Ranger who had trouble speaking his mind. Respectfully, tactfully and forcefully. You gotta be kidding me.
Nothing makes this more apparent than your comment that we select and you make "elite." I've had this discussion before with Marines when RIP was 3 weeks in length. "3 weeks don't mean shit." Well, it was serious shit when the Marines argued their recruit training was longer by that length. It was serious shit to the 70% that didn't finish those three weeks. But the reality was, that RIP/RASP only get raw material-it finds the people who have the potential. Life in Bn forges and forms the Ranger. Life in Bn is harder and more demanding by far than RIP or RASP. That's our culture.
Great article. I remember building that O-course when I was cadre.
This "we can do everything you can do" stuff is nonsense as it's meaningless. My local football team can do everything the pros can do. Run defense, offense, throw, kick, you name. Therefore they're the same. No Marine I've ever met brings up his Army counterpart can do everything he can do and therefore the Army is the same.
If the Marines were to ever try to raise an infantry bn to Ranger Regiment standards they would find the same need to eliminate non-performers either through a selection program or something akin to RFS'ing (DX'ing in my day). There's no magic here. Marines have a long history of this "boot camp covers all this." No, it doesn't. The Marines were startled when required to stand up MARSOC that the high failure rate in selection was limiting their timeline and, at the least, had to institute a preparatory course. In my day, after trading a few days shooting time at the Parris Island KD range some of the Weapons Bn NCO's came to our pre-Ranger program. Result- greater than a 60% failure rate. Similarly, once and for all to put the myth to rest, Marines don't "own" Ranger School. The failure rate is the same as the Army's. Implying many Marine small unit leaders cannot meet the Regiments most basic leadership requirement.
This article covers one of the primary differences. Selection and assessment. is one primary difference. Marine line infantry don't have anything close. Nor is their an RFS-type mechanism. So no, the troops are different, the standards are different. For the most part, a more accurate comparison can be made between Marine and Army line infantry.
The money issue is another misleading item. Marine numbers are about 1/3 the rest of the services so you'd expect them to only get 10% of the total funding available to all the services. That doesn't really cover it though. While the Marine have tanks, they don't have tank divisions, while the Marines have rotary wing, they don't have an air assault division, while the Marines have fighter aircraft, they don't have the numbers of the AF or Navy, nor do they have massive ticket items like aircraft carriers and their associated maintenance. The Army further has to maintain and train a sizable reserve force, and runs the R&D programs that eventually benefit the Marines for weapons, aircraft, even missile defense. When the Marines embarked on their first really big development effort, after decades of ridiculing anybody and everybody else, we got massive overruns, under performance, safety questions and a field grade convicted of felonies. And let's not forget who picks up the Marines' medical care-there's a high ticket time for you. All that leads to a reality-many Army units get considerably less funding than their marine counterparts. After leaving 1/75 so many years ago I sent time in a Light Infantry Division. I would have killed for the training dollars allocated to the Marines on the other side of the island.
Incidentally, while there, I helped set-up the division's pre-Ranger course, as the Army was pushing for many Ranger-qualified leaders in the LIDs. We invited Marines for attendance. Many failed to include PT failures. All in all, not the quality by far of a Bn Ranger.
But Marines infantry receive so much more combat training, look at how much longer their training programs are, right? Wrong. Army basic training has been 9 or 10 weeks over recent years, while Marine recruit training has been 13 weeks. That's 3 or 4 more weeks of combat training, right? Wrong. Part of Marine recruit training includes mess/support week, a week of drown proofing, neither of which the Army care about, and the Marines include in their time the first week of reception, where the Army does not. So they get the same amount of combat training? No. The Marines get less, much less. Marine boot camp spends it's first few weeks in the process of "making Marines" where the Army basic combat training is exactly what it's name say- combat training. Marine Combat Training (for non-grunts) mostly covers material the Army trainee saw months earlier. In the case of Army infantry, a week and a half, give or take, is saved by not out processing basic training and in-processing for infantry school. Marine SOI is 5 days per training week, the Army's is 7 days per training week. All in all the amount of combat skills training an 11x gets is comparable to his 03xx Marine counterpart. Arguably the Army has it harder, as the same material must be learned to comparable standard in much less time.
This can go on but I do so at the risk of demeaning a service I have great respect and admiration for. Marines have served their country well. It's true strength as a combat formation lies in the superb integration of the combined arms team that is a Marine MEU. Save possibly for the Army that ran across Europe in WWII, there has never been anything like it on earth.
Nice to see a review and a book that sings the praises of the much maligned and grossly under appreciated US Army 11B basic infantryman. Especially in the second battle of Fallujah where they most certainly didn't get their just due for the pivotal role they played and the intensity of combat they prevailed under.
These guys are truly outstanding troops.