This was posted by Ken White on another thread:
It caught my eye and started me wondering; however, I didn't want to hijack the thread it came from, so.....I strongly agree with you the GP units can do much more than we ask of them; all that's required is proper training (and we do not yet have that right) for the job they're head for. That, as opposed to schools which should train to levels higher than the next job, is necessary due to unit turnover.. A decently trained Infantry Battalion can do anything a Ranger battalion can do -- and at far less cost; give any Battlion the training time, gear and money a Ranger Battalion has and he'll be close enough in capability for government work.
Would creating a special mission task force from "regular" parachute infantry units have been a better long term option than the Ranger Battalions? I mean something similar to the Marine Corps MEU (SOC) concept for the Army: an Airborne Expeditionary Unit (Ranger Operations Capable), or whatever you'd choose to call it.
Would the capability to execute ranger-type missions have suffered if battalions from the 82nd had been detached from the division, assigned temporarily to a special task force headquarters, and trained up, tested, certified and put on standby to perform ranger-type operations?
After six months or so on standby they could stand down and another battalion could take over the role.
This would go way beyond the Division Ready Force that I remember. We weren't trained up and evaluated on a list of special operations missions before assuming DRF1 in my day.
It's sort of a pointless debate at this stage; it's not going to change now. It probably shouldn't change. After all, why disband a capability in one place only to re-create it in another form somewhere else? I'm just asking if this would have been a better option to begin with instead of forming the Ranger Battalions back in 1974?
Bookmarks