The Creation of Mechanized SOC Units

[Ratzel]

Hello, this is my first post. I'll give a little background so you know where I'm coming from. I was in the Army from 1999-2003. I served in 3rd ID and did one rotation in Kosovo and took part in the invasion of Iraq. I got out an E-5 and and served as a team leader during both deployments. I'm now finishing up my Bachelors degree and will be either seeking government work or may do a Masters first. Now my proposal:

As we all seen during OIF, Armour certainly has a place in the GWOT. I can still remember one of the 1st Sgt's in my Battalion claiming we were "going to war in our coffins" while conducting MOUT training with the Bradley's. Thank God, he ended up being wrong, as the Brad's and tanks preformed well on our rush up to Baghdad and beyond.

So, my idea is the creation of a Ranger-type-Special-Operations-Capable-PanzerGrendier-unit. While the desert is obvious, the winds seem to be blowing towards Sub-Saharan Africa as the battle space of the future. This is why the creation of such a unit would seem to be appropriate.

I'm not exactly sure how the unit would be assembled? I'm thinking 3 companies of Infantry, one tank company, one recon (with snipers), company, one mortar company, HQ company. Either way, it must be capable of being airlifted to wherever it must go. This may mean that Abrams and Bradley's would have to be replaced with something smaller?

The soldiers would have to go through something like RIP. Every Infantry, Cav-Scout, and Medic NCO would be required to have a Ranger tab. The tankers and other NCO's would be encouraged as well. Just like the Ranger Batt's, the PT standards would high, and the unit would be well equipped. The Tankers would be chosen for their ability shoot gunnery in a superior fashion. I'd also like to see the people who man the Bradly's or other APC's be full time tack people but this may not be possible?

Training would be just as intense as a Ranger Batt. The unit would also train along side other Special operations units, just like Rangers or Marine SOC units' do. While being airborne qualified would be nice too, I'm not sure this would matter besides the psychological understanding that everyone in the unit is willing to jump out of an airplane?

The unit would mainly be used for situations where Special operations forces are needed, but require armour. During the resent operations in Somalia, Ethiopian Armour forces were used, this unit would be used when such forces are unavailable or unable to accomplish the mission.

During OIF I, a unit like this was used in Northern Iraq. It obviously wasn't Ranger-like, but did get inserted by air after the 173rd secured the airfield. It took something like 5 days however, to get a company's worth of gear and personal on the ground. The unit I'm describing would need to get their whole battalion/UOA on the ground in 24-36 hours. This in itself, would require lots of coordination.

[Rifleman]

Isn't what you described supposed to be the mission of an Armored Cavalry Regiment for their parent corps - to scout, screen, raid, and parade, with all the tradition and 'elan of the historic cavalry?

If our ACRs can't do that.....train them to. If they aren't optimally organized for that role; for instance, not enough dismounts or something, then reorganize them.

Your idea sounds sensible but how about we just make better use of existing assets, to include their proud cavalry lineages?

Maybe the question should be "Should SOCOM have an ACR assigned to it?"

[William F. Owen]

So, my idea is the creation of a Ranger-type-Special-Operations-Capable-PanzerGrendier-unit. While the desert is obvious, the winds seem to be blowing towards Sub-Saharan Africa as the battle space of the future. This is why the creation of such a unit would seem to be appropriate.
.

Go look at the Royal Marines. This is exactly what they now are and doing well in Helmand. UK Para is even thinking of equipping with the same BvS-10 Armoured Vehicle, as are SF.

Now, do not underestimate the resistance SF/Rangers/Commandos have to armour. There is an incredible amount of emotional resistance, based on ignoring the facts and it is to the eternal credit of the Royal Marines that they adopted light armour, before someone died.

[Uboat509]

Now, do not underestimate the resistance SF/Rangers/Commandos have to armor. There is an incredible amount of emotional resistance, based on ignoring the facts and it is to the eternal credit of the Royal Marines that they adopted light armor, before someone died.

Which facts are those? SF/Rangers do use uparmor HMMWVs some MRAPs but we really don't need more than that. If a SOCOM element needs more armor or firepower for a specific mission then we borrow it. SOCOM units typically rely on surprise, speed and agility rather than overwhelming fire. Targets that require that kind of force will probably be passed to the units that have those assets rather than trying to make a SOCOM unit into cav or armor unit.

SFC W

[William F. Owen]

Which facts are those? SF/Rangers do use uparmor HMMWVs some MRAPs but we really don't need more than that. If a SOCOM element needs more armor or firepower for a specific mission then we borrow it. SOCOM units typically rely on surprise, speed and agility rather than overwhelming fire. Targets that require that kind of force will probably be passed to the units that have those assets rather than trying to make a SOCOM unit into cav or armor unit.

SFC W

The facts are my experience of doing presentations to 4-star and 1-star HQs advocating the employment of light armour to vehicles, regardless of the units preferred method of operations. UK Para initially deployed to Helmand with no organic armoured vehicles. Now everyone gets armour. The threat has not changed.

Yes, Ranger and SF units do have Armoured Hummers and MRAPs - today. How many did they have on establishment in 2003? If SF can afford dedicated Helicopter support, as they have in both the US and UK, why not dedicated protected mobility?

No threat currently seen in Iraq is new. Even EFPs have been around for years. They are all threats that folks chose to ignore. Why? I can never work it out.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Owen_0207_RDS.pdf

The above link may be of interest. It has some bearing on this discussion.

[Uboat509]

Yes, Ranger and SF units do have Armoured Hummers and MRAPs - today. How many did they have on establishment in 2003? If SF can afford dedicated Helicopter support, as they have in both the US and UK, why not dedicated protected mobility?

We had and have the what we needed for the threat we face. Outside of Iraq (and to some extent Afghanistan) there is not a significant need for the type of armor that we use in Iraq. in those cases the drawbacks to the extra armor (increased fuel usage, slower speed, maintenance issues, air transportability, etc) outweigh the benefits. As I stated before, if a target requires tanks and heavy armor to take it down then it is not a SOF target and the mission will be given to a unit that already has tanks and heavy armor.

No threat currently seen in Iraq is new. Even EFPs have been around for years. They are all threats that folks chose to ignore. Why? I can never work it out.

The types of threats may not be new but the scale of these threats is new. No one has ignored these threats but there is more to consider than simple armor protection. That type of thinking is why I keep getting issued more and more body armor to the point where, if I were to wear it all, I would be fairly well protected and nearly immobile.

SFC W

[William F. Owen]

@ We had and have the what we needed for the threat we face. Outside of Iraq (and to some extent Afghanistan) there is not a significant need for the type of armor that we use in Iraq.

@ in those cases the drawbacks to the extra armor (increased fuel usage, slower speed, maintenance issues, air transportability, etc) outweigh the benefits. As I stated before, if a target requires tanks and heavy armor to take it down then it is not a SOF target and the mission will be given to a unit that already has tanks and heavy armor.

@ The types of threats may not be new but the scale of these threats is new. No one has ignored these threats but there is more to consider than simple armor protection.
S

@ Well the threat down here in Southern Thailand means the RTA want's more armoured vehicles. We deployed a lot of armoured vehicles to Northern Ireland, and used them in large numbers for all but the last 10 years. IRA IEDs meant there was no significant Army road movement in South Armagh for nearly 8 years.

@ Agreed, that is why the Royal Marines - and soon Para - are going for BvS-10, not Warrior or Bradley.

@ Well I think the PKM and RPG-7 were very likely to be encountered in great numbers anywhere on the planet, but yes, sensible TTPs are vital, and logistic and operational judgements and compromises have to be made - that is no excuse to base line a units equipment around something that has all the protection of a family car.

My point being, none of this is new. The sensible application of Armour saves lives. A key lesson of the Falklands war was the need to equip light infantry formations with more armoured fire support and mobility - something we, the UK chose to ignore until 1999/2000.

[Ratzel]

We had and have the what we needed for the threat we face. Outside of Iraq (and to some extent Afghanistan) there is not a significant need for the type of armor that we use in Iraq. in those cases the drawbacks to the extra armor (increased fuel usage, slower speed, maintenance issues, air transportability, etc) outweigh the benefits. As I stated before, if a target requires tanks and heavy armor to take it down then it is not a SOF target and the mission will be given to a unit that already has tanks and heavy armor.
SFC W

Try not to think about this in terms of what you understand Mechanized forces to be today. I'm talking about a new concept here. Your unit, or for that matter, any Special Operations unit would not be transformed into one of these units. Instead, this unit would be formed from, or reflagged from the regular Army.

The idea is not to turn SO into the a mech unit, the idea is turn a mech unit into a SO unit. You bring up the point about a target not being an SF target if tanks and APC's are needed. What I I'm wondering is if there's something in between?

Is there a need for an highly trained mechanized unit that can get on the ground fully in 24 hours and operate for a for a week or so in an intense environment? Mechanized units can sustain themselves longer than a regular Ranger unit. If re-supply by air is imposable due to weather or something unforeseen, this type of unit would be especially useful.

Of course, anyone who entered the military after Somalia learned the lessons of that experience. Most people now admit that armour could have saved a lot of lives there. You bring up the point about a target not being SF if tanks and APC's are needed. But in this situation, this is far from the truth. So now the question is, if we did use armour in that situation, would you rather it be from the regular Army or from the new Panzer-Grenadier-Mech-SO capable Unit? Please answer this question?

[William F. Owen]

Of course, anyone who entered the military after Somalia learned the lessons of that experience. Most people now admit that armour could have saved a lot of lives there.

As an side, I went back to my light armour presentation notes and found a figure of 6 dead and over 40 wounded from travelling in un-armoured vehicles during the Blackhawk down thing. Can't remember where I got those figures, but they are telling in themselves.

[Ski]

SF and the Rangers also have Stryker (Rangers) and Pandurs (SF - I think that's what they ended up procuring). I think the capability exists to an extent already.

[Uboat509]

The idea is not to turn SO into the a mech unit, the idea is turn a mech unit into a SO unit. You bring up the point about a target not being an SF target if tanks and APC's are needed. What I I'm wondering is if there's something in between?

Is there a need for an highly trained mechanized unit that can get on the ground fully in 24 hours and operate for a for a week or so in an intense environment? Mechanized units can sustain themselves longer than a regular Ranger unit. If re-supply by air is imposable due to weather or something unforeseen, this type of unit would be especially useful.

That is the genesis of the light cav concept. I was with 2 ACR when it was first formed as a light cav regiment. Back then our prime mission was "expand the lodgement." The Rangers or 82nd or whoever would seize an airfield and then we would land on that airfield, push out and hold the terrain around the airfield until heavier forces could be landed and pushed into the fight. The original intent of the Stryker battalions was similar. They were designed to be carried on a C130 and then roll off into the fight and as far as I know that is still the intent. Everyone is focused on Iraq right now and not really thinking about forced entry into another country but that is what Stryker is supposed to be for.

Of course, anyone who entered the military after Somalia learned the lessons of that experience. Most people now admit that armour could have saved a lot of lives there. You bring up the point about a target not being SF if tanks and APC's are needed. But in this situation, this is far from the truth.

No one ever denied that armor would have been nice to have for that raid in Somalia but it was not was up to SOF. The armor had been removed as a result of a decision by the NCA not SOF. Had the armor been available in sector then SOF would have used it. That does not mean that they need organic armor capability. In any case, even if SOF did have its own armor it would likely have been pulled out with the rest of the armor.

So now the question is, if we did use armour in that situation, would you rather it be from the regular Army or from the new Panzer-Grenadier-Mech-SO capable Unit? Please answer this question?

I have no problem at all with getting armor support from big Army on those rare occasions when it is needed. What I do have a problem with is a mech unit eating up SOF resources and budget.

SFC W

[Norfolk]

Uboat509 has an important point about funding being an issue for SOF; simply creating more Units is just spreading existing resources even more thinly.

But Wilf is on to something when he raises the example of the Royal Marines. One of the major differences between the US Army Rangers and the British Commandos is that the latter are trained, organized, and equipped for sustained as well as brief operations. The 75th Ranger Regiment is almost entirely composed of Infantry Battalions, and also a dedicated SF-Support Company or Group; no Armour, no Artillery, no Engineers, no ADA, etc, and as such, can normally only perform operations of very short duration. 3 Commando Brigade has organic Artillery, Engineers, ADA, etc., and Armour attached or on-call. Moreover, within the Infantry Commandos, there are Heavy Support Weapons and Troops; in the Ranger Battalions, the Rifle Companies are mainly left to their own devices, although that appears to be possibly changing or about to change.

When 2 Para fought at Goose Green, the presence of a few Light Tanks may have made quite a difference; I do not mean to say that Light Armour will always or even often be required in many operations by Airborne or Commando Forces, but it should be organic to Airborne and Commando Forces Formations, and therefore available if needed. Even a situation not unlike Mogadishu in '93 may have turned out rather better if a Unit akin to the Rangers found themselves in a similar situation (political factors eliminating that option for the Rangers themselves in '93).

In sum, adding a Light Tank Squadron (Company) or even a Regiment (Battalion) to a Formation such as 3 Commando Brigade would give it tactical and even operational capabilities and options that may prove very useful under certain circumstances. Even a Commando Tank Regiment (Battalion) with a few Squadrons (Companies) plus a Rifle Company or two, and with the usual attached Artillery, Engineers, ADA, etc., might make for a very potent striking force for certain roles and in certain environments.

As for the 75th Ranger Regiment, personally I would rather see it augmented into something at least comparable to 3 Commando Brigade, with sustained operations being added to its roles. That said, I am speaking from a Commonwealth perspective where having fewer troops means having to train them in a greater range of skills and for a greater range of roles. Large Armies may have the luxury of not doing this, though I do not agree with it at all.

Light tracked vehicles are the way to go where possible; the LAV-III Stryker has not turned out well in cross-country operations in Afghanistan; it works best when there is a reasonable road network to use most of the time, and it does not fare well under attack by volleys of RPGs and the like.

[Schuld]

SOF have used armor: if I'm not mistaken, the Australian SAS used the Wiesel with 20mm gun for fire support on patrol in Afghanistan -- one answer to the beyond .50 BMG range engagement issue on the DM thread. If a small vehicle like the Wiesel 2 could be fitted with something like the Warrior 40mm CTW gun in the remote turret configuration, and powered by hybrid electric drive such as that demo'd in the RA 93-23 program, would it be useful to the Rangers? It would essentially be reprising the role of the M24 Chaffee but in a much smaller, airmobile and LAPSE-able package. This would fill the niche between the GMV-R and the Stryker 105mm MGS, if such a niche needed to be filled. There is also a Wiesel 2 with 120mm self-loading mortar whose 14-rds/minute burst-mode ROF and fire-control might be superior to the current towed 120mm mortar used by the Rangers. If only money were no object.

I think the light infantry fear, which I recollect a NZ Army infantryman expressing as he transitioned to Stryker-type wheeled armor, is that equipment changes mindset and mission focus (in this case, the fears expressed were that suddenly the concept was patrol-from-the-vehicle and COIN skills like tracking were dying out).

[Surferbeetle]

All,

It's been my observation that SF has moved to a more kinetic focus over the past few years. No doubt this is in part a necessary response to our current operational requirements in Afghanistan & Iraq, however despite this change a standing SOC Armor unit seems to violate some of the basic tenets of SOF.

It has been my observation as a CA-Bubba (OIF 1 & New Horizons) that 'lighter is righter'. Psychologically I am not looking for walls/armor to separate me from the locals. Instead I am looking to develop a network of relationships with key power brokers, SME's on various subjects, and your average local. Often-times my SF brothers have helped me out by fleshing out local networks before I arrive. With this network I can, if I speak the language and understand the culture, identify friction points and leverage points where I can help the commander to influence his AO. I am also situationally aware of how to keep me and mine alive (always a good thing). Over time I can figure out who might need a kinetic visit and make a recommendation. More importantly I can also make short and long term recommendations on how to get to a point in time where kinetic relationships are minimized. To produce this I need to spend alot of time with the locals.

From my vantage point Armor is geared more for highly kinetic operations where one needs a barrier between oneself and something very unpleasant than for working closely with the populace to influence the battle.

Steve

[William F. Owen]

All,

I think all that is being proposed is the creation of an armoured unit for SOCOM, in the same way as they have dedicated Helicopter support, or small boat support, why not give them dedicated protected mobility. This does not change SF or SOCOM in any way. It augments it.

In the Royal Marines, they have a separate Armoured Support Group. This provides Commando Battle Groups with protected mobility as and when required. Marines still have to learn to Ski, climb and do all the Commando stuff. Nothing changes except you have more capability.

[bismark17]

The "lightfigher" culture would be very adamant against this for a whole host of reasons. I was in a light unit that got converted into a Bradley unit and just about every tabbed and or scrolled participant bailed at the first chance. The comment, "I didn't sign up to be a treadhead" was uttered numerous times. We lost a lot of highly experienced people.

Beyond that, TO&E and budget issues would be a major problem. It seems like the Stryker units seem or at least are trying to fill that void already. The Panzer Grenadiers were just well trained infantry to be used in a role they were trained for and it seems kind of insulting that you think you need tabbed or people with wings to be competent in that role. Jumping out of airplanes scared the crap out of me but it didn't make me a better Bradley commander. Doing the Darby Queen smoked me but I am not sure it made me a better leader. From what I am hearing from the guys on the ground there is a major blurring in SOF and the regular joes in mission taskings and operational procedures these days, anyway.

More decisions are being made by ever smaller element leaders and the operational tempo is rapidly increasing. It's starting to sound like some of our 11bs are becoming more like cops by stuffing doors and immediately following up on leads instead of forwarding info up the chain and awaiting further orders. These are good things and I sure wouldn't look down upon anyone doing these things in a real world environment who doesn't wear various tabs or badges on their BDU, oops I mean DCU.

[bismark17]

After re-reading the original post I am not sure if we don't already have that capability through the armor element of the 82nd or the Stryker Brigades. I assume we still have the RDF? Even if not, the bats have anti-armor capabilites and are deployable in 72 hours if I remember correctly.

[William F. Owen]

@ The "lightfigher" culture would be very adamant against this for a whole host of reasons.

@ Beyond that, TO&E and budget issues would be a major problem. It seems like the Stryker units seem or at least are trying to fill that void already.

@ Well there's the problem. Culture.

@ TO&E is merely how. The critical question is why. Once you have the why, the budget and the TO&E usually follows.

The Israelis don't understand the idea of light infantry as they don't have any. They have an infantry brigade they can drop by parachute, and an infantry brigade that can do amphibious operations, but they are all just infantry. They use armoured vehicles as and when they need them. When they need to get out and infiltrate on foot, they do just that.

[Ratzel]

All,

I think all that is being proposed is the creation of an armoured unit for SOCOM, in the same way as they have dedicated Helicopter support, or small boat support, why not give them dedicated protected mobility. This does not change SF or SOCOM in any way. It augments it.

Thank you for stating this. I didn't intend to start discussing unit finance or budgets. Lets just assume that no ones budget will be touched. The idea isn't to re-flag the Ranger units or to force a Special Forces A-Team "behind walls." The idea is to form a new unit, that is Mechanized, which has the same standard of fitness, leadership, discipline, and training as a Ranger Battalion. No one who is currently in a Ranger or SF unit would be forced into it. All were doing here is having a brainstorming session.

I meant no offense towards the regular Army, As I was in the regular Army myself. And like I said, I happened to be in a Mech unit. Sticking Rangers into some APC's is not the same as a unit who specializes in it. We want Airborne Rangers to do what they do. We want this unit to do what it does. Think specialization, think comparative advantage. When I said Panzer Grenadier, what I should of said was SS Panzer Grenadier. The SS was a highly trained unit, at the same time, they weren't airborne. We have an image of SOC units as always being Airborne, this unit wouldn't need that. So there would be no changes for anyone else, this unit would be created from the regular Army and from new recruits.

I've been thinking about this since I was in the Army. I often thought about what a mech unit would look like made from the guys who always had high PT scores, got the school slots, never got in trouble, were always motivated for the field, never dropped out of ruck-marches, and who were highly disciplined? This unit would be just another tool for the military to use. A mech unit that could go further, and fight harder than a regular mech unit.

I think we can all agree that the military is going to be very busy for next 20-30 years? I foresee situations that will call for variety of mixed units. If Rangers are the best of the best for light infantry, then why not have the same for a mechanized unit? There may be times when fast-roping into a town and bringing in the little birds will be too dangerous. Instead, what may be needed is a unit to drive into the town that has tanks, 120MM mortars, and maybe even some light artillery?

Don't think about this affecting you. Just let your creative minds operate. Think outside the box.

[SWJED]

... let your creative minds operate. Think outside the box.

... you are in the right place for that!