Ranger School—what is it supposed to be? and is it that?

[ganulv]

An RFI à propos of today’s thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15077) which mentions that (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=131764&postcount=2) “The Advanced Leader Course is likely to undergo an overhaul, and more NCOs will be headed to Ranger School…”—in the present day and the recent past, what is Ranger School supposed to be? and is it that?* My first impression from afar is that its main purpose would seem to be to provide assurance to graduates of what they are physically and mentally capable of should the rubber ever hit the road. But the school bills itself as a leadership school, and given the division of the curriculum into phases there would seem to me to be some emphasis on skills acquisition (though in my experience people learn better when they aren’t semi-comatose and their stomach isn’t shrunken to the size of a walnut). I also get the impression that it serves as a vetting procedure for would-be career officers. I realize that I could be incorrect as to all of the above, and if I am (or am not) and anyone on the forum is willing to let me know I would be much obliged.


*If you’re wondering why I’m wondering: I’ve been working on figuring out historic Cherokee settlement patterns for a few years now. Ranger School popped up on my radar a couple of winters ago when I was doing some surveying and site walkovers in White County. Sautee Valley to the NE of Yonah Mountain was the location of a couple of early 18th century Cherokee settlements.

[Stan]

Not sure if this is still applicable, but just late last year the brigade's senior enlisted (CSM Smith) felt there was a very low NCO attendance rate and concluded the Army's future was in the balance with nearly the same number of graduates as those (Rangers) leaving the service. If that is in fact true, it would take over a decade to replace the level of experience and leadership in the Ranger NCO corps.

I think we now say the Army has more resilient soldiers once they complete the Ranger course. Most of the NCO courses concentrate on leadership, core tasks and physical fitness, but not to the levels in SOF and Rangers courses.

The Army of the 70s and 90s trained based on minimum passing standards while the SOF and Rangers trained for maximum standards. I used to debate on whether the 5-mile run and chin ups were of any specific value until I saw first hand how many couldn't perform 12 chin ups and run an additional 3 miles.

Odd, almost all the Rangers I've known never served a day in a Ranger Battalion.

[Bob's World]

IMO, formed years ago, is that Ranger school performed two valuable functions: It teaches the individual what his limitations aren't; and it provides intense training in small unit tactics. Both served me well and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

I never did understand the Army position that it was a "leadership" school. Ranger school leadership is of the "do it or else" variety; that while necessary at times is a poor way of day to day operations.

[DVC]

IMO, formed years ago, is that Ranger school performed two valuable functions: It teaches the individual what his limitations aren't; and it provides intense training in small unit tactics. Both served me well and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.



+1

I think a useful analogy may (or may not) be those U.S. Army officers, NCOs and men that escaped into the Philippine jungle in 1942 and then carried on operations against the Japanese for 2+ years. Ranger school imparts the type of self knowledge in conjunction with some skills that enables you to face hard, go it alone situations, not in an E&E sort of way but in an aggressive, take it to the enemy sort of way. Best training I had in the Army though every day sucked.

[Vojnik]

Ranger school was the first "hard" school that I attended in the Army. I thought the academic standards...getting a "go" on patrols...were indeed hard. It was also interesting to see how different folks operated in that environment (i.e. just because you're a SEAL doesn't mean that you won't fall out of a forced road march, just b/c you're an SF CPT doesn't mean you can lead a patrol when dead tired, and just b/c you're a stud 2LT doesn't mean you won't try to steal other people's MRE's when they're not looking.)

In other words, judge a person by what he can do, not where he comes from or how he looks. ;)

The school doesn't make you a commando, a super-soldier, or even a Ranger (ask anyone in the 75th). The school CAN give you the tools and skills necessary to be an excellent small unit leader in a combat situation...as long as you continue to use and develop those skills and leadership traits that were learned.

It's also a place where you can never really escape your reputation. I was once asked "Hey, so and so wants to come to our unit. What do you think of him?" I knew the guy, having had him in my platoon in Ranger school ten years ago. I replied: "He was a chow thief in Ranger school."

The response: "Okay, we'll throw that application away."

As an aside, the most difficult RI when I was there was an Air Force NCO. The best, most "inspiring" RI was a Marine Gunny. The best patrol brief writer in my platoon was a PFC in the Ranger Regiment who enlisted after spending time on Wall Street.

[SFAT]

Went as an E-8... learned how much I could take. learned how great some intructors were and questioned how some got go's on thier own patrols when they went. Eye opening I tell ya.