BfSB

[reed11b]

I have not worked with them yet. I have been in the Behavioral Health Section Sgt. Slot for my 2 drills w/ the AKNG. I will be transfering back to the infantry by Sept. What I have seen of them has not impressed me that they are up to technicaly complicated jobs. They may have once had a woodsman advantage, but how is that going to help them fly a UAV or operate GSR?? Not picking a fight, but nothing I have seen supports what you say you have seen.
Reed
P.S. and none of this answers what we need BfSBs for in the first place. The various "intel" augmentations we have seen in Iraq have produced very few real benifits. More boots on the grounds and combat brigades are clearly needed, not more gadgets, and believe me, the MTOE is gadget heavy.

[Ken White]

... What I have seen of them has not impressed me that they are up to technically complicated jobs.

"a technically competent" job in the sense you use it and I wouldn't expect anyone to try to place them in such jobs.

P.S. and none of this answers what we need BfSBs for in the first place. The various "intel" augmentations we have seen in Iraq have produced very few real benifits. More boots on the grounds and combat brigades are clearly needed, not more gadgets...

We can disagree on all that. A lot of folks would disagree with you on the intel benefits in Iraq. There's a reason Rifle Companies now have intel cells...

I don't think more boots or brigades are needed -- I'd sure like to see some that were better, though.

[gute]

I'm more interested in the structure of the BfSB and wonder if the BfSB would be more versitle if it was an Infantry Brigade Combat Team or Airborne Infantry Brigade Combat Team with enhanced military intelligence capabilities and a Ranger battalion instead of a RSTA squadron?

This design may not fit with the true purpose of the BfSB, but a Ranger battalion and two maneuver battalions would seem to me to add flexability and "bite" compared to the current design.

Also, with some talking about creating stability & security brigades would it not make sense to team SBCTs with the SFGs? Maybe this is already being done.

Hell, combine all three into Special Forces Brigades - take the Stryker BCT with enhanced MI, add a Ranger battalion and a SFG.

[Rifleman]

I'm more interested in the structure of the BfSB and wonder if the BfSB would be more versitle if it was an Infantry Brigade Combat Team or Airborne Infantry Brigade Combat Team with enhanced military intelligence capabilities and a Ranger battalion instead of a RSTA squadron?

Ranger BN? No, not by the definition of what a Ranger BN is now. In times past, companies designated as Ranger units were attached to corps, divisions and brigades for recon and raiding but now the Ranger designation and heraldry is owned by the 75th Ranger Regiment and the Ranger Training Brigade.

This design may not fit with the true purpose of the BfSB, but a Ranger battalion and two maneuver battalions would seem to me to add flexability and "bite" compared to the current design.

Flexibility and bite? How about a true cavalry squadron that can fight for information or observe and report?

Also, with some talking about creating stability & security brigades would it not make sense to team SBCTs with the SFGs? Maybe this is already being done.

I don't know why a SBCT would need to be paired with an SF Group for stability and security but maybe they would.

The 75th Ranger Regiment was using some Strykers for a while for combat ops but I thought it would make more sense for SOCOM to "own" a light armored cavalry regiment and not try to make the Rangers into something they were not intended to be.

Hell, combine all three into Special Forces Brigades - take the Stryker BCT with enhanced MI, add a Ranger battalion and a SFG.

Maybe we need to define some terms here. You seem to be using the term "special forces" in a general way to refer to special operations or elite light infantry. In the US Army the term refers to the special forces groups that have their roots in the WWII OSS Operational Groups and Jedburgh teams. A unit isn't called "special forces" just because it has a unique mission.

[gute]

Ranger BN? No, not by the definition of what a Ranger BN is now. In times past, companies designated as Ranger units were attached to corps, divisions and brigades for recon and raiding but now the Ranger designation and heraldry is owned by the 75th Ranger Regiment and the Ranger Training Brigade.

Why not change the definition.

Flexibility and bite? How about a true cavalry squadron that can fight for information or observe and report?

It's my impression that the BfSB is a corps level unit and one that needs to conduct deep reconnaissance and surveillance. A Ranger battalion would do this and conduct raids. Having two airborne qualified or air assault infantry battalions would give the brigade and the corps a maneuver element that could be moved quickly based on reports by the LRS. I also believe that by being a "recon oriented" IBCT, the brigade would have the strength to function as a BCT if needed.

I don't know why a SBCT would need to be paired with an SF Group for stability and security but maybe they would.

Many believe the Stryker vehicle is suited for the SOSO role, peace keeping. This is also a role for the SF (two of many). This focus on COIN, SOSO, peace keeping will require military organizations to fill the gap. IMO this how it might be filled - SF groups and SBCTs working together in a low to medium threat environment.

The 75th Ranger Regiment was using some Strykers for a while for combat ops but I thought it would make more sense for SOCOM to "own" a light armored cavalry regiment and not try to make the Rangers into something they were not intended to be.

Great idea, but the SBCT could also be used in this role. Maybe the Stryker ACR proposed by Colonel Benson in 2002 with two ground squadrons and one air recon squadron.

Maybe we need to define some terms here. You seem to be using the term "special forces" in a general way to refer to special operations or elite light infantry. In the US Army the term refers to the special forces groups that have their roots in the WWII OSS Operational Groups and Jedburgh teams. A unit isn't called "special forces" just because it has a unique mission.

You are right. SBCTs are not special forces - I should have used a different name/description. There is talk about more cooperation/interaction between special and conventional forces.