# Ranger School is not a Leadership School?



## Marauder06 (Dec 7, 2016)

So says a former RI:



> As a former Ranger instructor, I promise you that despite what the Army and Ranger School itself claim, this is bad advice. Ranger School is not a leadership school.


----------



## CDG (Dec 7, 2016)

@Marauder06 

That link took me to a story about a Special Forces soldier at Standing Rock, Sir.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 7, 2016)

CDG said:


> @Marauder06
> 
> That link took me to a story about a Special Forces soldier at Standing Rock, Sir.



See?  Nothing about leadership at all!
;)  sorry, I'l fix the link


----------



## Centermass (Dec 7, 2016)

Not for nothing....deep breath here.....but......

While the good Major makes some salient points, I'd like to point out for those not aware - most of the o-4's time while assigned to any of the phases is administrative, whether it's Benning, Darby, Dahlonega, or Eglin. The NCO's and Tm OIC's (1st Lt's and Cpt's) are the ones who have majority of contact with the students than anyone. (And yes, I realize he's a former NCO)

And as such, your mission focus is (Was) to train, advise, mentor and evaluate.

And as a student, you will come in contact with who knows how many RI's during the course, that do exactly that. Teach them what needs to be done when you have a squad / section/ plt size element with a couple of unmotivated performers, leadership principles and how they apply and modified in strenuous situations, arduous environments and conditions. How leaders are supposed to communicate, the 5 w's, how to integrate the principles of patrolling into all facets of a mission, and a whole lot more, too long to list.

Yes, candidates are expected to know the basics of leadership before arriving, but believe me, once you've been through it, you've picked up more examples in leadership by learning, doing and association with some of the Army's finest, than you ever realized. The most important thing is you learn more about yourself, than anything else.

Sorry Major, but I for one, ain't seeing it. Your POV that is.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 7, 2016)

I would think any tough course, especially one as demanding as Ranger School would help one's leadership skills development even if that's not the stated purpose. You're gaining strength, courage and confidence, you're overcoming challenges. Experience never hurts one's ability to lead.


----------



## Lefty375 (Dec 7, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I would think any tough course, especially one as demanding as Ranger School would help one's leadership skills development even if that's not the stated purpose. You're gaining strength, courage and confidence, you're overcoming challenges. Experience never hurts one's ability to lead.



That seems like his point. The MAJ points out that if it _were_ a school focused on leadership, you would see more drops for a failure of said leadership. 

He points out "If Ranger School was a leadership school, poor leadership skills would be expected to be the cause of most failures, but they aren’t. Only 40 percent of the soldiers who undertake the course pass. Of those who fail, over 62 percent do not meet the initial physical and skills assessments tests ". And later in the same paragraph, "finally, less than 1 percent fail for bad evaluations by their peers, perhaps the only direct measure of leadership flaws." 

In the next paragraph states, "Ranger students fail patrols more for tactical errors than inadequacies in leadership abilities." 

"Consequently, Ranger School is more of a character and leadership assessment than a leadership school." 

"To be sure, any soldier who attends Ranger School will be a better leader for it."

It seems like what he is saying is that leadership is tested, to an extreme, but not directly taught.  The few great SOF guys I had the pleasure of meeting or serving with seemed like leaders already that passed through a gate many have attempted (like RS or X school with high attrition).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 8, 2016)

No dog in this fight, just observations. 

One of the best and worst PL's I ever had was a mustang, without a Ranger school tab. He wasn't the most tactically or technically proficient. But he was smart enough to listen and could adjust his "plan" after good advice.

I've had several Ranger tabbed SL/PSG/PL's and it was pretty hit and miss on leadership skills. Some were great, some were shit bags, some thought that peice of cloth made them gods gift to the Infantry. That said, when it came to building SOP's, practicing SUT, writing OPORD, walk throughs and building sand table's, they were pretty shit hot at it.

NCO's I served under who had a combat scroll to go with that Ranger tab, we're very much a different animal all together. Solid leaders, strict but fair, delt with you based on abilities and performance and not by social skills and didn't leave you holding the bag when shit went bad. One of the reasons I long regretted not going AD, and trying out for 75th Ranger Regiment.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 8, 2016)

The man makes the Scroll, the Tab or both, not vice versa.


----------



## AWP (Dec 8, 2016)

I think this is one of those nuanced topics. The Army bills it as a leadership school, when leadership is a by-product of the environment. To this outsider, there's no "right" answer.


----------



## WarMachine504 (Dec 8, 2016)

Before I went into basic training I remember my recruiter saying something to the effect of 'Boot camp has a way of affecting people differently. People that need to lose weight, lose weight. People that need to gain some, do. People that have a problem with authority learn self control, while the timid gain confidence and assertiveness.'

From my perspective, Ranger School is the same way. It is not the end all be all school, but it gives you tools to build on and grow. If you need to build confidence by getting out of your comfort zone, you will. If you are a Private and have never felt the responsibilities of a Platoon Leader/Platoon Sergeant in the field, you will. If you need to develop and understand how to work with people that are not at their best, you will. If you want to challenge yourself and encourage your soldiers back home to do the same, you will. Ranger School is not _necessary_ in every case, but it is _valuable_. It can meet different needs for different people, and there is nothing wrong with that. I for one do not care what the Army calls it. 

Just my $.03


----------



## Etype (Dec 8, 2016)

There's something to be said for being able to execute basic leadership functions under terrible conditions.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 8, 2016)

Rangers _lead_ the way.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 8, 2016)

Etype said:


> There's something to be said for being able to execute basic leadership functions under terrible conditions.


Hot, cold, tired, wet, hungry, dehydrated, etc.  Excellent point.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 8, 2016)

0699 said:


> Hot, cold, tired, wet, hungry, dehydrated, etc.  Excellent point.



Indeed. One has to fully embrace the suck and learn to thrive in it's environment....


----------



## Gunz (Dec 8, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Indeed. One has to fully embrace the suck and learn to thrive in it's environment....



I can't speak for Rangers, but the suck at it's worst is when Marine black humor is at it's best. I suspect the same holds true for Rangers.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 8, 2016)

Seeing some of the studs and great guys who have come back from school without a tab and hearing the reasons for it, while simultaneously watching assholes roll back in with them to assume leadership positions, makes me see the Major's point. The level of discrepancy in the grading by RI's leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Johca (Dec 9, 2016)

There is no Ranger MOS and the Ranger Companies reconstituted specifically to fight in Korea during the Korean War were seldom used to make surprise attacks (rapid attacks with subsequent rapid withdrawal or infiltrate through enemy lines to raid or conduct commando type operations) during this war. This is not dissing the Rangers of and Ranger companies  of that conflict but rather the how the nature of the conflict changed after August 1950.

Of historical note: "The 2nd Ranger Company (the only all black ranger unit) and the 4th Ranger Company were the only ranger units to conduct an airborne operation during the Korean War. Upon their arrival in-country, the 2nd spent a month in basic infantry and anti-guerrilla operations in support of the 7th Infantry Division."

Regardless the primary justification during the 1950s  for establishing the currently established  Ranger School was to train squad and platoon leaders to enhance the overall effectiveness of the infantry rather than having a small group of specialized units.  The other reason was rapid force build up for the Korean war found the Army having gained too much _obsolescence_ (got too old to fight or too fat and out of shape to fight within its officer and NCO ranks).  With post WWII  recruitment focusing on technical type military occupations rater than a rough and tough infantry the Army found itself in a position of needing to toughen up and training new officers and new NCOs as replacements to put into infantry fire team, squad and platoon leading positions.   Consequently the why behind ""Ranger students fail patrols more for tactical errors than inadequacies in leadership abilities."  Effective tactical leading is the avoidance of implementing tactical errors.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 9, 2016)

For the benefit of me and some other bros on here, what is the deal with the Ranger tab? You can earn the tab only by completing the Ranger School's 3-month course, right? But it doesn't necessarily make you a "Ranger." You're only a Ranger if you're assigned to the Regiment...but...is it also true that you can be assigned to the Regiment without having completed Ranger School? 

Slow it down, there are Marines here.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 9, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> For the benefit of me and some other bros on here, what is the deal with the Ranger tab? You can earn the tab only by completing the Ranger School's 3-month course, right? But it doesn't necessarily make you a "Ranger." You're only a Ranger if you're assigned to the Regiment...but...is it also true that you can be assigned to the Regiment without having completed Ranger School?
> 
> Slow it down, there are Marines here.



I would like to know also.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 9, 2016)

Ranger qualified is someone who has completed Ranger school. A Army Ranger is anyone who has passed RIP/RASP and served in the 75th Ranger Regiment.  In order to be a leader (TL/SL/PSG/PL/CDR) in 75th, you must be Ranger quilified.

The tab is a qualification,  much like you can be Airborne quilified but never have served in an Airborne unit.

ETA: Ranger unit to be more clear, there were several different Ranger units prior to 75th, those former Rangers are considered Rangers.


----------



## Etype (Dec 9, 2016)

@Ocoka One , @Marine0311

To serve as an NCO or officer in Ranger Regiment, you have to have a Tab.  I think the requirement for support MOSs to be tabbed is somewhat negotiable, but it's a hard and fast rule for combat arms MOSs.

Additionally, you need a Ranger Tab to serve as a PL in the 82nd, at least you did when I was there 9ish years ago.  I don't know if it was a written requirement, but the LTs who didn't have tabs found themselves doing some form of career killing alternate assignment.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 9, 2016)

There's Victor or....Golf? slots as NCO's and O's across the board for lots of units. SSG up was intended in the 172nd, if I remember the METL right.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 9, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> There's Victor or....Golf? slots as NCO's and O's across the board for lots of units. SSG up was intended in the 172nd, if I remember the METL right.



Yep, most light Infantry are G (Ranger Q'ed, non Airborne) for E6 and above, and I think all Airborne units are V (Airborne Ranger Q'ed)  for E6 an above, as far as Infantry goes.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> @Ocoka One , @Marine0311
> 
> To serve as an NCO or officer in Ranger Regiment, you have to have a Tab.  I think the requirement for support MOSs to be tabbed is somewhat negotiable, but it's a hard and fast rule for combat arms MOSs.
> 
> Additionally, you need a Ranger Tab to serve as a PL in the 82nd, at least you did when I was there 9ish years ago.  I don't know if it was a written requirement, but the LTs who didn't have tabs found themselves doing some form of career killing alternate assignment.


There is an untabbed E6 running the BSP shop at 1/75. Our senior rigger is an MMFJM, air assault, SL JM, pathfinder qualified CWO. Even SSG Chisolm, RIP, did not have a tab. 11B's and medics are the only MOS's who's careers rest on the tab here


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 9, 2016)

Didn't the OEF and OIF ops tempo slow down a lot of regiment guys going to Ranger school for a while?


----------



## Centermass (Dec 9, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Didn't the OEF and OIF ops tempo slow down a lot of regiment guys going to Ranger school for a while?



For the most part, yes. But they still sent their share when able.


----------



## AWP (Dec 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> [Additionally, you need a Ranger Tab to serve as a PL in the 82nd, at least you did when I was there 9ish years ago.  I don't know if it was a written requirement, but the LTs who didn't have tabs found themselves doing some form of career killing alternate assignment.



I know one w/o a Ranger tab, but he was branch detailed to Signal. He hit 1LT and was a company XO when he left for the Signal Career Captain's Course. This was....01-04 or so.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I know one w/o a Ranger tab, but he was branch detailed to Signal. He hit 1LT and was a company XO when he left for the Signal Career Captain's Course. This was....01-04 or so.



Pretty sure @Etype meant Combat Arms. Signal was a different animal regarding that requirement.


----------



## AWP (Dec 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Pretty sure @Etype meant Combat Arms. Signal was a different animal regarding that requirement.



Yes, but he was Infantry at the time unless I'm mistaken because he never mentioned it. He made it sound like he went from IOBC to Bragg.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 10, 2016)

But in the Regiment, you have to be Airborne, correct?


----------



## Etype (Dec 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> But in the Regiment, you have to be Airborne, correct?


9 years ago, when I was in the 82nd, you had to be airborne just to walk through the door- that went for the 173rd, 172nd, and 75th also. 

There were grumblings of only the combat arms MOSs being airborne in the future, but I don't think those changes have taken place.

The Rangers on the board could speak for the 75th, but I would assume they wouldn't be affected.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> But in the Regiment, you have to be Airborne, correct?



Yes.


----------

