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?

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Great post. Your thinking really shows experience & reason.

This format is the basis of a school of though which has been strong in our Army since WWII; based on mobility horizontally & vertically, force protection in the atomic age & maneuverability over diverse terrains. There's a great book out on it now called Air-Mech Strike.

Luckily we have the equipment on hand to make this happen, such as thousands of M113s and more.

[Bob's World]

Just a couple of quick thoughts:

1. SOCOM does not want to own any armored units. However, this is simply one of many "service-common" capabilities that the services are tasked to man, train, organize and equip. What we do need are much more effective mechanisms for putting such conventional capabilities under the C2 of the SOF Commander. Central to this is the major paradigm shift that sometimes conventional needs to work for SOF.

2. When SOF rides in armor, it belongs to an ally. I rode to war in an Egyptian APC. Limited US CAS, no US Arty, no US medevac, etc.

3. The party line is "Development of SOF enablers." Not to create conventional capabilities in SOF, nor to create SOF capabilities in the conventional force; but to create the capabilities and policies that allows the conventional commander to more readily provide the SOF force with whatever (log, air, armor, infantry, fires, etc) it might need for an operation, without having to provide it in the one size fits all BCT construct.

[ODB]

I played catch up on this one and in the process went through multiple WTFs and just pure madness. Coming from an infantry back ground prior to going SF this was wrong to me on multiple fronts. The number one issue being why would I be doing something as an ODA that would require armor? That is not my mission. One of the biggest problems we face in todays Army culture is everyone wants to be everyone else. SF guys want to do kinetic operations only, conventional forces want to be SF guys conducting FID, gathering intel, working with the local populace. When one cog of the whole mechanism is successful everyone wants to be that cog. All the cogs are in place already, we just need to utilize them properly. Entirely too many capabilities are under utilized or misused today. Everyone is looking for the lastest and greatest capability and what do you know, it already exists. Why Cav Scouts in infantry battalions is a prime example of this......I'll hand it to the Cav branch they sure stole one there. If I sound a bit harsh I apologize.

As far as having our own aviation unit, yes SOF does, but ask any SF guy when the last time they were flown by that unit. Us lowly SF guys are not sexy enough for them, we get much better support from conventional aviation and other services aviation units. When talking an infil platform it is just that a means to move from point A to point B, not a lot of special/elite training needed to do that. So in essence if I was to be moved by bus I would need an elite bus driver to drive me because he/she is so much better at driving.....sorry does not pass the common sense factor.

With the political infighting for budget money the way it is good luck, hence we now have MARSOF, why? Why must we keep creating organizations with capabilities that all ready exist in existing organizations.

Honestly I'm torn on the whole who should work for who. Should conventional forces work under SF or SF under conventional. IMO it depends on the situation. Really what a lot of this comes down to is education/knowledge of each others capabilities and personalities.

[reed11b]

IAs far as having our own aviation unit, yes SOF does, but ask any SF guy when the last time they were flown by that unit. Us lowly SF guys are not sexy enough for them, we get much better support from conventional aviation and other services aviation units. When talking an infil platform it is just that a means to move from point A to point B, not a lot of special/elite training needed to do that. So in essence if I was to be moved by bus I would need an elite bus driver to drive me because he/she is so much better at driving.....sorry does not pass the common sense factor.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this. Look into the history of WHY the SOF aviation unit was created aka "Operation Eagle Claw". There are requirments for flying SF missions that differ from GPF missions. I just can not think of armor asset missions that SF would do with eneough frequency to justify the creation of a mechanized SF unit. Perhaps a Ranger asset?
Reed

[ODB]

Just stating the fact that "said" aviation unit rarely supports SF, therefore most of our support comes from conventional and other services. That would also factor into the decision as to why SF is currently fighting for their own aviation assets at the Group level, because SOF aviation in it's current form is not big enough to support all of SOF.

[Ratzel]

IOne of the biggest problems we face in todays Army culture is everyone wants to be everyone else. SF guys want to do kinetic operations only, conventional forces want to be SF guys conducting FID, gathering intel, working with the local populace.

This may be your experience, but in mine, no one wanted to do FID or COIN? Frankly, If the Army ever develops an "Advisor Division" or such, I would not envy the people serving in it in any way. I, in no way wanted EVER to be working with the local population and hated every minute of it when I did. If the Army had units that ONLY did HIC type missions, I probably would have never left?

[Ken White]

...If the Army had units that ONLY did HIC type missions, I probably would have never left?

Doesn't get to pick what type of war it may have to fight. Fortunately, most in the Army adapt and do what needs to done.

[ODB]

This may be your experience, but in mine, no one wanted to do FID or COIN? Frankly, If the Army ever develops an "Advisor Division" or such, I would not envy the people serving in it in any way. I, in no way wanted EVER to be working with the local population and hated every minute of it when I did. If the Army had units that ONLY did HIC type missions, I probably would have never left?

When making that statement didn't mean down to the individual. Unfortunately the nature of the beast is about funding. Therefore you end up with those much higher than us fighting over who can do what and forcing units to be misutilized to try to gain more funding at least, if not try and get rid of an entire branch.