The Creation of Mechanized SOC Units

[Cavguy]

CAVGUY mentioned it in another thread that the SF we had in Tal Afar were about as helpful as a missing HEMMT fueler

Steve - pure gold. I may use this statement. I really never figured out what the SF in our sector actually did except use the granary as a launchpoint for missions they wouldn't tell me about.

On topic - let's think what makes Ranger BNs special other than attending a hard course.

At heart, they are highly resourced and trained light infantry. They have selective entry standards, and can drop any non-performer for any reason.

They receive copious amounts of training time and little in the way of red cycle BS the GPF endures.

Now, create a cav sqdn/armor BN, give it the same advantages. Might be a worthwhile capability, even if it isn't SOF in nature.

Niel

[Ken White]

...Ranger BNs special...At heart, they are highly resourced and trained light infantry. They have selective entry standards, and can drop any non-performer for any reason...They receive copious amounts of training time and little in the way of red cycle BS the GPF endures.

True. Some day most will realize that 'SOF' has become a misused term. Because regular infantry training from 1975 until quite recently was severely lacking in rudimentary skills that were once taught all Infantrymen, so-called SOF missions became the province of a select few.

I will guarantee you that will not last in a real MIC / HIC war. It cannot..

Fortunately, the Army (I think) has learned that many units can do the old so-called 'Ranger' missions while the Rangers do other things. As Field Marshall Sir W. Slim, arguably one of the best WW II Commanders if not the best, said, any infantry battalion, properly resourced and trained can do all the so-called special operations mission except Strategic reconnaissance (for which we use the wrong people... ). Long way of getting to the point:

Now, create a cav sqdn/armor BN, give it the same advantages. Might be a worthwhile capability, even if it isn't SOF in nature.

Absolutely!!! Been a dream of mine for almost fifty years. It is achievable and could have great utility. Such units could do some great things with the right equipment and training. Think of strategic raids...

Yes, I'm serious. We need -- have long needed, since before Viet Nam -- the capability to smack lightly, destroy surgically take relatively few casualties and withdraw the force. Our last few attempts at trying to wage full scale war using a less than full throttle approach haven't been nearly as successful as we'd have liked, have they...

[Cavguy]

Been a dream of mine for almost fifty years. It is achievable and could have great utility. Such units could do some great things with the right equipment and training. Think of strategic raids...

Yes, I'm serious. We need -- have long needed, since before Viet Nam -- the capability to smack lightly, destroy surgically take relatively few casualties and withdraw the force. Our last few attempts at trying to wage full scale war using a less than full throttle approach haven't been nearly as successful as we'd have liked, have they...

I'm thinking more along the lines of a rigorous conventional unit, for argument's sake, call it an ACR. It would consist of highly trained crews on M1A2 SEPs, M3A3 Bradleys, Strykers, etc. (would have to brainstorm MTOE)

It would be manned/trained like a Ranger BN, with due emphasis shift to mounted vice light infantry skills.

While not necessairly supporting SOF, it could fill an armor niche:

* "First Responder" unit, nation's armored response force, rapidly deployable, lethal
* Mobile Reserve/Counterattack force in large conventional battle
* Deep armored penetration (no jokes here) force, for raids
* Support SOF/SF or HN militaries as required
* ???

Pros:
* Like Ranger BN, NCO's and Officers would "rotate" in and out of conventional units, spreading the skills/knowledge acquired infuse force with its spirit
* Build a higher skill level among unit members than possible in a GPF unit - truly "master gunners" and "master maintainers"
* Could readily appropriate cavalry history and identity for esprit

Cons:
* Takes "best and brightest" out of conventional units
* Creates "have/have not" promotion ticket/selection bias
* Potential drain on other unit resources/range time.

Just daydreaming here, but thoughts?

[ODB]

Would have been very useful in let's say Somalia?

An additional con. Would get misused like the rest of us. Not sure why, not at my levels to determine why we consistently get misused, just know we do. Don't forget the "We can't employ them we may need them for this later", mentaality. It's a fine line between proper utilization, under utilization, and flat out misutilization.

[selil]

I was hoping you'd start talking about light weight, high speed, hover tanks, with the ability to cover any field anywhere, but due to light loads wouldn't be considered for HIC. With recoilless, high fire rate, auto-loading, main guns, on a high speed hover chassis, small enough to be air dropped, but packing enough wallop to take on other armor forces. Hey I can day dream too.

[Ken White]

I just used shorthand and the most (now) impractical.

* "First Responder" unit, nation's armored response force, rapidly deployable, lethal
* Mobile Reserve/Counterattack force in large conventional battle
* Deep armored penetration (no jokes here) force, for raids
* Support SOF/SF or HN militaries as required

Agree, one per CoCom responding to the Army component Cdr. There should be also, I think, a light version with wheels (though nothing we have today is, IMO, suitable).

I agree with all your '"Pros" and while your Cons are all valid, I suggest, in order:

* Raise the entry standards across the board to make the Army a challenge and attract even more high quality troops than we already have -- besides, we can let the slugs go (with suitable remuneration and penalty for contract non-fulfillment). We need to shed the mass, peoples Army myth which has not been true for most of our history. World War II will just not go away (and it's been 63 years. Sixty Three. Three Score and three.)...

* Fix the personnel system which is still operating in the last century. That, of course, needs to happen regardless.

* Fixable easily, I think. We could use Stimulus money to build more ranges (little current humor there; we can afford more ranges but lets build them where we do not have Woodpecker or tortoise problems and where full scale APFSDS firing is possible). Training area for tracks is sort of finite but we could also go off a five day week (another one of my pet rocks... ) and stagger ranges day and night. Yep, night. Turn some young S3s loose and tell them to work it out -- and tell the Installation they're there to support, not dictate, training. All the old retired guys at Range Control can handle it...

[Ratzel]

Now, create a cav sqdn/armor BN, give it the same advantages. Might be a worthwhile capability, even if it isn't SOF in nature.

This is what I was talking about from the start. If I wrote "SOF" somewhere in the discussion then I'm sorry for the confusion. Ultimately it would be a cav sqdn or mechanized infantry bn. It would be a Ranger-Mech type idea in which it would have a selection process and lots of resources for training and gear. This could include experimentation in different types of vehicles and in new ways of using them. Every NCO would be required to go to Ranger school and higher standards would be required for gunnery.


This kind of unit could be particularly useful in the flat geographies of the Middle East and much of Africa. Some people are predicting that we'll be spending a lot of time in these regions?

[Ratzel]

I'm thinking more along the lines of a rigorous conventional unit, for argument's sake, call it an ACR. It would consist of highly trained crews on M1A2 SEPs, M3A3 Bradleys, Strykers, etc. (would have to brainstorm MTOE)

It would be manned/trained like a Ranger BN, with due emphasis shift to mounted vice light infantry skills.

While not necessairly supporting SOF, it could fill an armor niche:

* "First Responder" unit, nation's armored response force, rapidly deployable, lethal
* Mobile Reserve/Counterattack force in large conventional battle
* Deep armored penetration (no jokes here) force, for raids
* Support SOF/SF or HN militaries as required
* ???

Pros:
* Like Ranger BN, NCO's and Officers would "rotate" in and out of conventional units, spreading the skills/knowledge acquired infuse force with its spirit
* Build a higher skill level among unit members than possible in a GPF unit - truly "master gunners" and "master maintainers"
* Could readily appropriate cavalry history and identity for esprit

Cons:
* Takes "best and brightest" out of conventional units
* Creates "have/have not" promotion ticket/selection bias
* Potential drain on other unit resources/range time.

Just daydreaming here, but thoughts?

Yes! This was what I was trying to describe from the start. I guess using "SOC" in the title threw everyone off. It wouldn't do any sort of FID, or humanitarian assistance. It would be for the most challenging missions where mech and tanks are needed. I assume the Ranger Batts were created for the most challenging light infantry missions?

Anyway, you're on the right "track."

[ODB]

* Raise the entry standards across the board to make the Army a challenge and attract even more high quality troops than we already have -- besides, we can let the slugs go (with suitable remuneration and penalty for contract non-fulfillment). We need to shed the mass, peoples Army myth which has not been true for most of our history. World War II will just not go away (and it's been 63 years. Sixty Three. Three Score and three.)...

If at anytime, now is the time. With the state the economy is in, we could take full advantage of it and only take those desirables. Unfortunately we all have our opinion on who is the most desired.

Speaking of slugs. I remember a time back in 92' and 93' when I had a 1SG who chapter an average of 110 soldiers a year. If you were good in the woods you could just about get away with murder. If you were no good in the woods it was just a matter of time before you were gone. Oh how I long for those days to come back to the Army....

Back on thread

What type of vehicles?
a.) If rapidly deployable what meets this requirement?
b.) Packs enough punch without huge logistical tail?

Deployed by?

Been light my whole life, just seeking knowledge here, initial thoughts....

[Ken White]

An additional con. Would get misused like the rest of us. Not sure why, not at my levels to determine why we consistently get misused, just know we do. Don't forget the "We can't employ them we may need them for this later", mentaality. It's a fine line between proper utilization, under utilization, and flat out misutilization.

True dat. 'Nother one of my pet rocks. Let's talk about Strategic Recon and who really ought to be doing it. Then there's the DA mission and who should not be doing that. And the FID mission and who ought to be leading it.

On the GPF side, the units who are really aimed at a type of mission -- and then are given one completely out of character. I'm not talking about re-roleing Tankers or Arty to patrol infantry, that's bad but understandable and supportable -- and as David points out above, other Armies have also done that. We've done it before. There are plenty of cases of severe misuse in all parts of the Armed Forces.

Anyway -- you're right, misuse is a potential. An easy trick to preclude misuse is to design the TOE, training plans, stationing and personnel requirements to preclude it. That is quite possible but you'd have to break a rice bowl or two to do it.

That would work for SOCOM and the Army...

[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.

[ODB]

True dat. 'Nother one of my pet rocks. Let's talk about Strategic Recon and who really ought to be doing it. Then there's the DA mission and who should not be doing that. And the FID mission and who ought to be leading it.

On the GPF side, the units who are really aimed at a type of mission -- and then are given one completely out of character. I'm not talking about re-roleing Tankers or Arty to patrol infantry, that's bad but understandable and supportable -- and as David points out above, other Armies have also done that. We've done it before. There are plenty of cases of severe misuse in all parts of the Armed Forces.

Anyway -- you're right, misuse is a potential. An easy trick to preclude misuse is to design the TOE, training plans, stationing and personnel requirements to preclude it. That is quite possible but you'd have to break a rice bowl or two to do it.

That would work for SOCOM and the Army...

Who will shine those jump boots right back up.......

We are our own worse enemy......

[Uboat509]

I'm still not sold on the need for a "Ranger-Mech" unit. As it is we have only a total of three battalions of Rangers. That's it. And they still have a huge budget. Imagine the budget for "Ranger-Mech" unit, not to mention the facilities and equipment they would need. Furthermore, unless you are planning to deploy them with nothing larger than say, a Stryker, they really aren't going to much more rapidly deployable than any other armor unit. The ability to strike anywhere in the world on short notice is one of the hallmarks of the Ranger battalions. A key to that is the ability to deploy everything they need in C130s. You can't put anything larger than a Stryker in a C130. From what I understand, you can barely put a Stryker in a C130. I think you might be able to 1 or 2 Brads in a C17 but don't quote me on that I know you can put them in a C5 and I have heard that you can put M1s in a C5 although I don't know that for sure. But even still with C17s and especially C5s you are severely limited in where you can land and even then I don't think that you can just roll off and into the fight. And then, on top of that, you have to deploy a sizeable logistics tail to support this unit. Add to that that the Rangers typically use air assets, whether it be airborne or air assault, something that armor cannot do.
I can certainly see the utility of creating an elite formation within existing Mech or Armor divisions to do some of the missions Cavguy listed but I do not see a need for a "SOF" armored formation.

SFC W

[Uboat509]

Would have been very useful in let's say Somalia?

I'm not so sure. The reason there was no armor there was that the NCA had ordered all armor out. I'd be willing to bet that that would have included SOF armor had there been such a thing at the time.

SFC W

[Sabre]

The ability to strike anywhere in the world on short notice is one of the hallmarks of the Ranger battalions. A key to that is the ability to deploy everything they need in C130s. You can't put anything larger than a Stryker in a C130. From what I understand, you can barely put a Stryker in a C130. I think you might be able to 1 or 2 Brads in a C17 but don't quote me on that I know you can put them in a C5 and I have heard that you can put M1s in a C5 although I don't know that for sure. But even still with C17s and especially C5s you are severely limited in where you can land and even then I don't think that you can just roll off and into the fight.
SFC W

Whoa, we (the Army) have paid an shockingly HIGH price for fixating on C-130 "deployability". We've spent what, millions? billions? on trying to shoe-horn the Stryker, and then the FCS, into an airframe that first flew in 1952 (when the JEEP was the most numerous vehicle in the inventory), only to finally figure out that we really can't...

The last thing that we need to hear about is the C-130.
For strategic deployability, I think that the C-17's are much more appropriate for delivering heavy armor. Those were used to deliver the tiny armored task force to northern Iraq, to support the 173rd (One platoon of tanks, and three of infantry - one in Brads, two in M113s, plus engineers, support, etc)

The US continues to pay a high price chasing deployability, that it doesn't always even need. Well, the Army pays the price. IIRC, the USAF insisted that it needed more C-17s, until someone suggested that they could cut back on F-22 procurement to pay for 'em... (Perhaps my memory is rusty, these days, admittedly.)

[Uboat509]

The last thing that we need to hear about is the C-130. For strategic deployability, I think that the C-17's are much more appropriate for delivering heavy armor.

Except that a C17 cannot land many of the places that a C130 can. The C130 may be old but until we find a platform that can land in all the places that it can land to replace it, it is the best we have for SOF missions.

SFC W

[Ken White]

a C-130 can't do. The C-17 may not be the perfect replacement but it can haul vehicles better and it can land enough places. Not to mention the C-130 is also too big for some things since AFSOC is buying PZL M-28s, Pilatus PC-12s and C-27Js...

Just to clarify a point, I don't think Cav Guy or I were talking about a "Ranger-Mech" unit or "SOF Mech" unit. I know I was not. I am not a Ranger fan.

We were talking about an Armored Cavalry unit that was PROPERLY trained instead of marginally trained. The only Ranger involvement was to allocate more money for training, better support, the ability to fire anyone who looked crosseyed for not breathing properly and better access to intel among other things. IOW, give the rest of the Army the bennies the Ranger Regiment has. Yes, I'm aware of the costs involved -- and aware they're microscopic in terms of the net DoD budget. It's affordable -- it's just not wanted and rice bowls play a bigger part in that than does affordability. Sadly.

There's an old civilian saying that's appropriate: "You get what you pay for."

All that said, it's not going to happen because the upper echelons of the Army and SOCOM cannot and / or will not tolerate sweeping changes to the status quo and their uneasy relationship.

[Uboat509]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know that it is technically affordable but SOCOM has no use for a Mech unit and Big Army tends to be allergic to the whole concept of elite formations. If someone is elite that means that everyone else is less than that and they don't like that. I don't see them pouring the lion's share of budget into such a unit.

Getting back to the subject of the C17. I'm not so sure that it can land enough places to make it a viable replacement for the C130. I think both are great at their respective roles but I don't see the need for the C130 going away for a while.

SFC W

[Cavguy]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know that it is technically affordable but SOCOM has no use for a Mech unit and Big Army tends to be allergic to the whole concept of elite formations. If someone is elite that means that everyone else is less than that and they don't like that. I don't see them pouring the lion's share of budget into such a unit.

Getting back to the subject of the C17. I'm not so sure that it can land enough places to make it a viable replacement for the C130. I think both are great at their respective roles but I don't see the need for the C130 going away for a while.

SFC W

Uboat,

Please read my proposal again. I don't intend for such a unit to go to SOCOM or do any SOCOM missions (unless requested/tasked). I am talking about a highly trained and lethal armored formation capable of expertly doing the tasks outlined above in a conventional or near conventional setting. The ranger analogy was used only in my reference to it being highly trained and resourced light infantry. Kind of like the WWII rangers, who were used in the most "daring" and no fail missions, rather than today's SOF centric force.

As far as deployability, we have long demonstrated the ability to deploy a company (+) of armor in less than 24h using either C5 or C-17 capability, and sustain them. Sustaining up to a BN by air is possible.

I think a highly trained, selective armored formation would do good as a capability and good for the armored corps.

[Uboat509]

Sorry about that, I know you weren't but that was the original concept of the thread and I was adressing that. I do agree that having an elite formation organic to the divison would be a good thing, although apparently I did not articlulate that very well. I just don't think you could sell Big Army on the idea.

SFC W