# 19D vs 11B



## Fate Price (Mar 27, 2012)

Which mos would give me the best opportunity to get into a long range reconnaissance unit?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 27, 2012)

11B.


----------



## reed11b (Mar 28, 2012)

Fate Price said:


> Which mos would give me the best opportunity to get into a long range reconnaissance unit?


11B and 25C are the ONLY MOS that can get you into a LRS unit. A few LRS units will allow a 25C on the team, but most teams are limited to 11B. There are very limited opportunities for LRS selection on active duty, most of them having been disbanded or turned into pathfinder companies. The only ones that exist are in BfSBs and in the National Guard. Better to focus on the 25m target of being the best soldier you can be first.
Reed


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 28, 2012)

Unless you count Regimental Recon.... and that's like about a 1000m target to be totally honest. 4-8 years on the line having become a Soldier, Paratrooper, then Ranger through the selections and processes inherent in the process of getting your shit... Ranger school, then not suck as a Team and usually Squad Leader..... then pass Recon selection when it comes around.

Good friend is over there.  Here's an idea of the general expectations for physical fitness... mind you, this is while on deployment:

300lb bench
405lb DL
230lb power clean
215 lb Hang clean
230lb Front squat
125lb TGU
12 min 2 mile run

Needless to say, blowing the PT test scores out of the water like Hiroshima is basically the standard. 

You may think LRS/Recon is a cool thing.. and it really is, there's cool toys and cool things to be done that no-one knows about if you did your job right.  But, there's a fuckin hell of a lot of work to get to that point, regardless of the location. NG LRS, Ranger Recon, Marine Recon, other recons... You have to know your shit already before you get taken in the door.  You don't just "show up" and become Recon unless your background and training from elsewhere precedes you.

The other thing to realize is that you won't always be LRS/Recon. Regardless of where you are, there's a limited amount of duty positions. Just think about a Infantry platoon, for even Stryker brigades/battalions there's a recon platoon.  There was room for 1 LT, 1 PSG, 3 SSG's and 3 SGT's. That was it... and all the duty positions were filled. I was immediately assigned to the Recon platoon because I had 6 years at 3/75 and the 3 trips to the 2 way ranges already under my belt.

Since all the positions were filled, I wasn't going to be promoted within the platoon. A PSG in the line, who was also from 2/75 knew that and raised holy hell to get me out of there to take one of his fire teams... which was appreciated other than once I showed up to the company I had 3 hour notice that we were going to the field for a week,  with NO CIF issued gear yet.

My PSG just grinned when I showed up for layout and had everything on the packing list, the only team with no gigs for gear, and even had body armor when all they had issued to that point was flak vests...


----------



## AWP (Mar 28, 2012)

On the Guard side you could enlist directly into an LRS unit if they had open slots, I'm not sure if that is still allowed and at one time most if not all Guard LRS units had a waiting list; guys were resigning their commissions or taking a voluntary reduction in rank for a slot. We have a few LRS types on the board, Spider 6 recently left an LRS unit as one of their O's, so maybe someone can go into greater detail on that side. Again, unless something changed, all slots on any LRS team are 11B with 25C's in a supporting role, but I'm sure there may be one or two local exceptions. Also, 25C is a dead end MOS. I was recently told it, 25U, and 25L would merge and that would then offer more career progression, but a 25C slot past E-5 used to be rare unless you went to a place like JCU.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 28, 2012)

I'll add the caveat that I was speaking about active duty reconnaissance assets/units. NG units you pretty much straight enlist into, in the area you either already live in or choose to move to.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 28, 2012)

I know as a 19D you are extremely limited in the schools you can attend.


----------



## CDG (Mar 28, 2012)

It's surprising that 19D is not an MOS you would find in a LRS.  Why is that?  They are scouts, right?


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 28, 2012)

Sorry to say this o any 19Ds out there but that job is useless. I almost feel bad for them, they are so similar to 11B yet have none of the opportunities.


----------



## AWP (Mar 28, 2012)

CDG said:


> It's surprising that 19D is not an MOS you would find in a LRS. Why is that? They are scouts, right?


 
Ah, but look at the MOS: 19 series. I'd be willing to bet there's some doctrine or in-fighting between the Infantry school house and the Armor/ Cav school house. I'd place my money on doctrine or a turf war rather than skill sets.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 28, 2012)

Ca-val-ry scout

not reconnaissance, scout.  They have bradleys and TOW'ed out HMMWV's and find shit for the main effort to blow up better.  Way different mission and job than LRS.

In battlefield depth they're barely forward of the FLOT, where LRS is way beyond that by doctrine.


----------



## Spider6 (Mar 28, 2012)

Fate Price...go 11B.  Look for the post by Teufel at the link below.  That's the best way I've seen it put.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/ensuring-continued-relevance-of-lrsu.346/


----------



## CDG (Mar 28, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> Ca-val-ry scout
> 
> not reconnaissance, scout. They have bradleys and TOW'ed out HMMWV's and find shit for the main effort to blow up better. Way different mission and job than LRS.
> 
> In battlefield depth they're barely forward of the FLOT, where LRS is way beyond that by doctrine.


 
Thanks for the info.


----------



## goon175 (Mar 28, 2012)

You act like you have a choice between 19D and 11B, when really your choice is between 19D and 11x. If you pick up 11x, then you will be either an 11b or 11c, and guess what, that choice is not up to you. Hate to rain on your parade, but I get irritated at questions like this given my present line of work. Although, your question is better than the guy who told me he either wanted 18b or 11b in his contract...lol...


----------



## Fate Price (Mar 28, 2012)

goon175 said:


> You act like you have a choice between 19D and 11B, when really your choice is between 19D and 11x. If you pick up 11x, then you will be either an 11b or 11c, and guess what, that choice is not up to you. Hate to rain on your parade, but I get irritated at questions like this given my present line of work. Although, your question is better than the guy who told me he either wanted 18b or 11b in his contract...lol...




Understood. Makes perfect since now, sorry for the mistake. So can I get an 11x w/ option 40? Does the 75th use indirect fire? Or would I  be sent to a  conventional  unit if I were assigned an an 11 c


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 28, 2012)

If you get 11x with an option 40 You'd either be 11B or 11C. The vast majority of the Regiment is Infantrymen.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 29, 2012)

I will agree with the rest here, 11 series is your best bet for getting into anything HSLD. NG LRS can be enlisted into, however, you will be sent to another unit unless you become an asset to the unit (i.e. work your way onto a team, hit all your schools and stay out of trouble). If I could rewrite my book, I would have enlisted 11x Opt 40. If I did not make it through RASP or ended up RFS’ed, I would at least know I gave it my best and I would end up on the conventional side already ahead of the game (LRS would be a lot easier if you are BAC Q’ed, had some experiences in 75th, etc).

19D (no offense to anyone) is about the most under used asset in the Army and although most are well trained, they are not as well trained as they are taught to believe they are. I would only consider 19D if I could get a choice of duty station (i.e. FT Bragg, FT Campbell, etc) somewhere I knew I was going to get BAC, and some other HSLD schools. However, being a new enlistee, I don’t think you would get a choice of duty station.

Don’t buy into the bullshit recruiter crap that you can “try out” for Airborne or Rangers, Special Forces, etc. You get it in the contract or you will end up in a Mech unit, cleaning Bradley’s on a daily bases…


----------



## Msymms (Mar 31, 2012)

I can speak from personal experience in a LRS unit, Cav guys make a R&S squadron that really just provide support for the LRS company.

Get airborne in your contract more then likely you'll go to Bragg, be a god at pt and try and go to division LRS or their BfSB LRS


----------



## Red-Dot (Jul 20, 2012)

Had a buddy from my unit that was in the 18th Airborne Corp LRS unit.  He told me he initially liked it, then it became way too political.... He got out and became a TACP.  Go figure.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 28, 2012)

Currently I'm training to be a Scout Leader, I'm in the tactics phase of ABOLC and I cannot tell you how much stuff there is that we have to focus on. By Doctrine and not necessarily practice when ME is halted CAV set up defensive screen lines, however they conduct recce in zone when the ME is advancing. That's doctrine, LRS units missions are much different they're out there much further ahead of CAV Scouts where only CAS and CCA have a chance of supporting them if they get into it. But like CAV Scouts their best weapon is the radio, CAV Scouts are supposed to be sneaky and not get engaged beyond their capabilities.

However, based on doctrine within Cavalry Squadrons and their Cavalry Troops they have Reconnaissance Platoons. The FM that Reconnaissance PLs operate out of is titled FM 3-20.98 Reconnaissance and Scout Platoon.

The BFSB Cav Squadrons have a cavalry troop and one LRS Troop...what I don't understand is how they're all from the same Regiment but are MTOEd as ABC troops...makes no sense to me at all. Another side was a guy in my class was like hey I'm going to this unit they has a LRS Troop can I get these schools...blah blah blah. That is neither here nor there...but when I began reading this it seemed like an appendage measuring contest.

They're are plenty of 19Ds around here that would beg to differ on the opinion that their job is useless and calling it such is disrespectful.


----------



## Spider6 (Jul 28, 2012)

ThunderHorse said:


> Currently I'm training to be a Scout Leader, I'm in the tactics phase of ABOLC and I cannot tell you how much stuff there is that we have to focus on. By Doctrine and not necessarily practice when ME is halted CAV set up defensive screen lines, however they conduct recce in zone when the ME is advancing. That's doctrine, LRS units missions are much different they're out there much further ahead of CAV Scouts where only CAS and CCA have a chance of supporting them if they get into it. But like CAV Scouts their best weapon is the radio, CAV Scouts are supposed to be sneaky and not get engaged beyond their capabilities.
> 
> However, based on doctrine within Cavalry Squadrons and their Cavalry Troops they have Reconnaissance Platoons. The FM that Reconnaissance PLs operate out of is titled FM 3-20.98 Reconnaissance and Scout Platoon.
> 
> ...



There are actually 2 CAV Troops in the R&S Squadrons under the BFSBs.

  And there has been a lot of confusion with the MTOEs when they brought the LRS Companies under the Squadrons and adding to it several were allowed to keep their lineage!


----------



## Texas_Medic (Sep 29, 2012)

Hell I was part of a Cav Squadron but in an infantry company, not LRS the DRT, and our SCO (Squadron Commanding Officer) could not grasp the fact that we were not a line infantry unit, he kept asking about our 240s (we didn't have any), but were an infantry reconnaissance company.  Crazy part, the squadron CSM wanted all of us infantry NCOs to wear stetsons. It did not go over to well amongst the ranks.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 29, 2012)

Cooler than a Beret! My SCO is Infantry and I'm like


----------



## Teufel (Sep 30, 2012)

ThunderHorse said:


> The BFSB Cav Squadrons have a cavalry troop and one LRS Troop...what I don't understand is how they're all from the same Regiment but are MTOEd as ABC troops...makes no sense to me at all. Another side was a guy in my class was like hey I'm going to this unit they has a LRS Troop can I get these schools...blah blah blah. That is neither here nor there...but when I began reading this it seemed like an appendage measuring contest.
> 
> They're are plenty of 19Ds around here that would beg to differ on the opinion that their job is useless and calling it such is disrespectful.


 
I don't think anyone is saying that 19Ds are useless.  I think that JAB was saying that they were under utilized.  In my limited opinion the LRS program in the Army has been flailing for awhile because most commanders don't know what to do with them and they can't figure out their MTOE.  Long range reconnaissance is a tough job to have and it really requires a cradle to grave MOS field.  The only reason it is not a SOF unit is because it does not belong to SOCOM.  It's the same mission, with the same risks and should have the same requirements, funding and screening process.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 30, 2012)

Teufel said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that 19Ds are useless. I think that JAB was saying that they were under utilized. In my limited opinion the LRS program in the Army has been flailing for awhile because most commanders don't know what to do with them and they can't figure out their MTOE. Long range reconnaissance is a tough job to have and it really requires a cradle to grave MOS field. The only reason it is not a SOF unit is because it does not belong to SOCOM. It's the same mission, with the same risks and should have the same requirements, funding and screening process.


There needs to be a like and agree option. I often wonder if LRS would be better off in the BCT, with it written into doctrine that they are NOT to be used as a QRF. Not enough slots to justify it's own MOS unless the concept was expanded and included all DRT and battalion scouts. I partially blame SF for the near death of LRS as well. In the 80's and 90's when CF were getting a bigger share of the pie, SF really sold and expanded the DR mission to the point where the difference between DR and LRS was hard to see.
Reed
Probably going to get some hate on that, but I hope not.


----------



## AWP (Sep 30, 2012)

reed11b said:


> There needs to be a like and agree option. I often wonder if LRS would be better off in the BCT, with it written into doctrine that they are NOT to be used as a QRF. Not enough slots to justify it's own MOS unless the concept was expanded and included all DRT and battalion scouts. I partially blame SF for the near death of LRS as well. In the 80's and 90's when CF were getting a bigger share of the pie, SF really sold and expanded the DR mission to the point where the difference between DR and LRS was hard to see.
> Reed
> Probably going to get some hate on that, but I hope not.


 
A couple of points:

1) I agree with Teufel regarding "cradle to grave" and if the field doesn't warrant an MOS, then an ASI or SQI should exist instead of the "V." By doing either (MOS or ASI) you can restrict who is assigned to what slot, whereas now they are basically 11BxP or 11BxV slots....that's a pretty diverse pool of candidates who will have no LRS background whatsoever. LRS needs a school and a standardized selection and assessment program instead of the ad hoc stuff units do.
2) SF has always had the SR or Strategic Reconnaisance mission and if people don't understand that...well, we're back to poorly educated leaders. Besides, I thought that LRS was supposed to be a division or Corps asset from 0 to 50 miles and SF was anything beyond that (more or less, I'm trying to keep this simple without involving the 75ths capabilities). Also, if you consider SF doctrine, they wouldn't report to a division commander, so if they were tasked with something inside of that 50 mile mark...too bad for the division LRS assets. Again, keeping this simple without dragging along JSOA's and the like.
3) Add environments like Iraq and Afghanistan where there are no 50 mile limits because there is no FEBA and you really have a problem.

I'll take the conventional Army to task on this one: this whole issue rises and falls on leadership and it is failing the LRS mission and soldiers. I find it ironic that commanders scream for intel and then hamstring one of their primary ORGANIC intel gathering organizations.


----------



## Texas_Medic (Sep 30, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I'll take the conventional Army to task on this one: this whole issue rises and falls on leadership and it is failing the LRS mission and soldiers. I find it ironic that commanders scream for intel and then hamstring one of their primary ORGANIC intel gathering organizations.


 
Hit the nail on the head. Most, and I use the term with biased opinion, BN-BDE commanders do not know how to use organic intelligence assets. Same issue I pointed out earlier with my experience in the RSTA. We were used as either line infantry or PSD stuff, not anything related to finding bad guys. Some of my friends still in LRS, both AD and NG have been suffering most of the same issues, as far as the PSD tasking is concerned. Maybe I missed something but I am pretty sure that PSD isn't covered in the POI for RSLC. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 30, 2012)

Texas_Medic said:


> Hit the nail on the head. Most, and I use the term with biased opinion, BN-BDE commanders do not know how to use organic intelligence assets. Same issue I pointed out earlier with my experience in the RSTA. We were used as either line infantry or PSD stuff, not anything related to finding bad guys. Some of my friends still in LRS, both AD and NG have been suffering most of the same issues, as far as the PSD tasking is concerned. Maybe I missed something but I am pretty sure that PSD isn't covered in the POI for RSLC. Please correct me if I am wrong.


You are not wrong.
Reed


----------



## furple (Mar 8, 2013)

19D here I can clear some of this up. If you want to go LRS you need to be an 11B, that's it. Cav scouts conduct reconnaissance operations within a scout platoon, with vehicles or dismounted. Per doctrine we are operating anywhere from 5-10 K in front of the forward line of troops, the missions fall into one of two categories, reconnaissance and security.
LRS teams operate in 6 man teams way past the FLOT, they are all airborne qualified 11B's they conduct strictly reconnaissance missions. They are the only non SOF Army unit M/TOED HALO/HAHO. 

The easiest way think about it is who are these units supplying intelligence to, as a 19D in a RSTA or ARS squadron you will be conducting missions to provide the brigade CO with reconnaissance he needs. The LRS troop in a BfSB is conducting missions for a Corps level element.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 8, 2013)

Why do you want to be in a LRS Unit?


----------



## Raiderfit (Jul 23, 2013)

I am not too versed on the Army's capabilities.  But I can say that the mech scouts that I have worked with were 180 degree different than the rucksack carrying reconnaissance elements of the Army.  Not better or worse..just different.  The real question you want to ask yourself is:

Do I want to drive the weight around or carry it on my back...

We need both.  

Also, agree that don't get sucked in by the recruiter pitch that you can do Reconnaissance in SF or Ranger Bats.... remember the attrition rate.  You don't want to be the guy who wasn't prepared to live the life of a cook...not that being a cook is bad...but it is when you thought you were going to spend your time doing green side patrols on a recon element.


----------



## Ranger Lee (Mar 18, 2014)

Spider6 said:


> There are actually 2 CAV Troops in the R&S Squadrons under the BFSBs.
> 
> And there has been a lot of confusion with the MTOEs when they brought the LRS Companies under the Squadrons and adding to it several were allowed to keep their lineage!


 
BLUF:  LRS Companies / Detachments should have never left the Division / Corps level.  They work for the DIV /Corps Commander "Go out and find me something to destroy."  CAV SQDRs have too much hands on the Company.  Many SCOs don't realize that when they get deployed etc... their either going to a MG or LTG.   If I was king for a day I would re-implement a third Troop for added Combat / Recon Power and push the Infantry LRS back up to a MI BN as their a HUMIT asset or Corps Level like it was during Vietnam. 

"It ain't broke...don't fix it." 

RLTW

CPT  Lee


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 3, 2014)

So as part of our capstone field event we were conducting a zone reconnaissance mission, when I briefed to my CO that my OP teams would dismount 2k away he said to me: that's a bit far.  And I said to him: Sir, that's the minimum distance per doctrine that we should dismount.  He's an infantry guy, he has embraced our mission, but not well versed in the tactics as the previous SCO was also infantry and didn't really push the knowing of doctrine upon the troop commanders.  Our current SCO is extremely doctrinally correct and trying to do this field problem as such, it's a kinetic brigade level movement to contact when we kick off after this weekend.  

I think his primary concern was time, as we our training is limited by a test, and 4/24hrs are dedicated to data harvests.  Another thing I've run into is the fact that the Army hasn't pushed a lot of dudes to our brigade, so I will be a PL for a very long time, which is fine with me since I didn't get that opportunity at 3-1 ID.  A heavy recce unit in MATVs and MaxxPros…fun times and shenanigans for all.


----------



## goon175 (May 4, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> So as part of our capstone field event we were conducting a zone reconnaissance mission, when I briefed to my CO that my OP teams would dismount 2k away he said to me: that's a bit far.  And I said to him: Sir, that's the minimum distance per doctrine that we should dismount.  He's an infantry guy, he has embraced our mission, but not well versed in the tactics as the previous SCO was also infantry and didn't really push the knowing of doctrine upon the troop commanders.  Our current SCO is extremely doctrinally correct and trying to do this field problem as such, it's a kinetic brigade level movement to contact when we kick off after this weekend.
> 
> I think his primary concern was time, as we our training is limited by a test, and 4/24hrs are dedicated to data harvests.  Another thing I've run into is the fact that the Army hasn't pushed a lot of dudes to our brigade, so I will be a PL for a very long time, which is fine with me since I didn't get that opportunity at 3-1 ID.  A heavy recce unit in MATVs and MaxxPros…fun times and shenanigans for all.



I can't imagine dismounting any closer if the intent is to establish an OP. 2k even seems like it might be cutting it a bit close, depending on the terrain.


----------



## AWP (May 4, 2014)

Death before dismount....


----------



## digrar (May 4, 2014)

Cav recon drive around until you hear tink tink tink on the hull, select reverse, send off the grid reference to Regiment, go find another area to drive around in...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 4, 2014)

goon175 said:


> I can't imagine dismounting any closer if the intent is to establish an OP. 2k even seems like it might be cutting it a bit close, depending on the terrain.



METT-TC dependent brother, I've set OP's in Baghdad where we literally jumped out the back of a LMTV in a patrol two houses down from where we set up.

Open rural area, give me mucho time and distance, urban give me sneaky and fast.


----------



## goon175 (May 4, 2014)

JAB said:


> METT-TC dependent brother, I've set OP's in Baghdad where we literally jumped out the back of a LMTV in a patrol two houses down from where we set up.
> 
> Open rural area, give me mucho time and distance, urban give me sneaky and fast.



Even in an urban environment I would want a decent infil, especially if I am sticking around for a while in an OP. Even on raids, if we didn't land right on the X, we had a minimum 1.5k offset in Iraq and 5k in Afghanistan.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 4, 2014)

goon175 said:


> Even in an urban environment I would want a decent infil, especially if I am sticking around for a while in an OP. Even on raids, if we didn't land right on the X, we had a minimum 1.5k offset in Iraq and 5k in Afghanistan.


 
That’s interesting, most of our urban raids, were in A/O’s we didn’t want to be beating feet at all. I can’t quantify the amount of small arms fire and frag’s that would get brought down on us as we would exfil particular neighborhoods after an early morning raid. Generally we avoided foot patrols unless we had a curfew being enforced and we could completely limit the population’s ability to move. Nothing like being blacked out on a dismounted patrol, and getting hit with some high beams from a white Opal as Mohammad & Omar were heading home drunk from the local shindig.  But anyway, I get where you are coming from, it just didn’t normally work well for us back then in that particular A/O.


----------



## goon175 (May 4, 2014)

JAB said:


> That’s interesting, most of our urban raids, were in A/O’s we didn’t want to be beating feet at all. I can’t quantify the amount of small arms fire and frag’s that would get brought down on us as we would exfil particular neighborhoods after an early morning raid. Generally we avoided foot patrols unless we had a curfew being enforced and we could completely limit the population’s ability to move. Nothing like being blacked out on a dismounted patrol, and getting hit with some high beams from a white Opal as Mohammad & Omar were heading home drunk from the local shindig.  But anyway, I get where you are coming from, it just didn’t normally work well for us back then in that particular A/O.



That's a good point about the curfew, we worked almost exclusively at night so that is a different situation entirely from what you were doing. But on that note... if you are heading to an OP, it's my opinion that you should be conducting the movement at night if it is in urban terrain regardless. I wouldn't feel comfortable with half the population in a city block seeing me move to my OP.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 4, 2014)

goon175 said:


> That's a good point about the curfew, we worked almost exclusively at night so that is a different situation entirely from what you were doing. But on that note... if you are heading to an OP, it's my opinion that you should be conducting the movement at night if it is in urban terrain regardless. I wouldn't feel comfortable with half the population in a city block seeing me move to my OP.


 
I agree, and I would say about 75% of our missions were conducted at night/early morning hours. However, the other big issue was at night (during the summer) all the fucking hajis sleeping on the roofs and side walks. Again, it was very METT-TC dependent. We knew some neighborhoods better than others, we knew how the population would act, how they slept, when they ate, which A/O’s had wild packs of dogs that would literally chase your ass, what time frames most people would be working, kids walking back from schools, etc-etc.

Most of the SOF guys in our A/O (Haifa St, and central to S/E Baghdad) used helo’s almost exclusively or were completely low-pro.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 21, 2014)

Thought this would be an interesting place to put this.  I'm a Reconnaissance Platoon Leader in Armored Reconnaissance Squadron.  The last two days we conducted PLT STX, funny, how we're the only troop to figure out where we can train, even though we're on Division Red Cycle.  

First part of the mission was to conduct Area Recon of a very large village (Batt/SQDN size obj) and On Order to secure a foothold for the SQDN TAC, we inserted via UH-60s north of the village.  I moved my PLT(-) to the west of the village to set an ORP and then push out my recon teams.  After awhile based on seeing only a few civilians we saw ENFOR.  That ended up being the trigger to receive the mission to secure a foothold.  What really helped with this mission is that we had conducted MOUT training three weeks before.  Secured the original target building, possible HME, took the building next to it which I had ID'd as alternate.  We had secured four civies that were agitated having searched that house.  One of the dudes ended up running off (annoyed me).  We then started taking potshots from North, didn't see the direction, as my second maneuver element came up from the South and taking residence in the alternate foothold.  Systematically I took a team and began clearing a complex of buildings, took contact, got pinned down, took a casualty (ambulatory).  I ordered a maneuver element to come up on the eastern side of the building we took contact from, they got the one ENFOR that had us.  Pushed back to the foothold and established a CCP.  Had two buildings secured, the other PLT came forward to secure the building for the TAC.

As it got dark ENFOR started messing around, we'd been attempting to push a rest plan.  I have to say the other PLT was asleep for most of it, we captured a dude, dropped him off at the TAC and they searched him, they got credit for the intel, at one point I expressed displeasure on comms.  That triggered a FRAGO, we had to plan a raid on a town Ks away. The EPW had intel on a meeting with our primary HVT.   With when the UH-60s were again available we'd missed our hard time and had to land on the X.  We'd only done cold-load training and disembarked the day prior, so LZ movement was rough.  Secured a foothold, the other platoon maneuvered and immediately took contact.  We ended up getting our target, but spent a crazy amount of time in the town, chasing civilians and the bad dudes.  The night before the police attempted to get the prisoner and the other PLT stalled...saying they didn't have him, and that led to an altercation.  In the Village they weren't cooperating and even placed weapons within the mosque, when things got kinetic for them they turned as we assisted them when they took a casualty.  We ended up killing the HVT.

All in all in was solid training...but the other platoon could screw up a goat fuck.


----------



## Brill (Aug 21, 2014)

@ThunderHorse , you have Vigilant Pursuit at your disposal?

www.army.mil/article/72132/Vigilant_Pursuit_system_aims_to_improve_field_intelligence/


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 21, 2014)

Negative, but I do have NettWarrior!!!


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 23, 2014)

@lindy we've used Vigilant Pursuit here in AF a bit in the last year.  A lot of issues with it and the GS MI BN basically stopped using it.  Looks like a case of not adapting the system to realities on the ground in terms of connecting to networks.  PM me your SIPR email if you like and I'll send you the report the 303rd MI BN did on their issues with the system.


----------



## Brill (Aug 23, 2014)

Il Duce said:


> @lindy we've used Vigilant Pursuit here in AF a bit in the last year.  A lot of issues with it and the GS MI BN basically stopped using it.  Looks like a case of not adapting the system to realities on the ground in terms of connecting to networks.  PM me your SIPR email if you like and I'll send you the report the 303rd MI BN did on their issues with the system.



So very sorry to hear that. PM sent.


----------



## Reed Cundiff (Dec 4, 2014)

Things are far more rigid these days. When I went before the board for 173rd LRRP in 1966, what they wanted was high GT and high PT scores, MOS was unimportant. Half the guys in LRRP were not infantry MOS: MP, engineer, artillery, QM, administration, etc. Most of us were draftees. My original TL was Vladimir Jakovenko and the TL after me was Patrick "Tad" Tadina, with my good friend Laszlo Rabel (Rabel Hall at Ranger School is named after him) following Tad. Three of us were draftees when I became TL: one artillery surveyor, one truck driver, one pay clerk and three infantry. All were first string high school athletes with one college wrestler. Three of the team had GTs of 145 and above. All of the other seven TLs were Ranger or Red Raider cadre and of at least second enlistment (one a former Marine). One TL was on 7th enlistment with third award of CIB and three combat drops (503rd in PI and both with 187th in Korea). Three TLs, XO and CO in my time frame are in RHOF. Team 4 is in photo below


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 4, 2014)

Reed Cundiff said:


> Things are far more rigid these days. When I went before the board for 173rd LRRP in 1966, what they wanted was high GT and high PT scores, MOS was unimportant. Half the guys in LRRP were not infantry MOS: MP, engineer, artillery, QM, administration, etc. Most of us were draftees. My original TL was Vladimir Jakovenko and the TL after me was Patrick "Tad" Tadina, with my good friend Laszlo Rabel (Rabel Hall at Ranger School is named after him) following Tad. Three of us were draftees when I became TL: one artillery surveyor, one truck driver, one pay clerk and three infantry. All were first string high school athletes with one college wrestler. Three of the team had GTs of 145 and above. All of the other seven TLs were Ranger or Red Raider cadre and of at least second enlistment (one a former Marine). One TL was on 7th enlistment with third award of CIB and three combat drops (503rd in PI and both with 187th in Korea). Three TLs, XO and CO in my time frame are in RHOF. Team 4 is in photo below



Awesome. You might want to think about posting an intro. Stick around though, with a background like yours you are very welcome here!


----------



## Reed Cundiff (Dec 6, 2014)

We had a reunion in September which included folks from the entire lineage of N Rangers, it was the same unit, they just changed the name. 173rd LRP which existed September 1965- June 1966. The Provisonal 173rd LRRP formed under then Captain William Palmer (later Colonel in SF) was formed from same personnel. This became 74th LRP in July 1967. 74th LRP became N Rangers in 1969. Hadn't seen most of the guys for 47 years and it was like yesterday. 5 of team 4 showed up and we redid the photo from the cover of Lanning's book. O' the sad and horrifying ravages of time.

The lineage of 74th LRP is most interesting. Tome Roubideaux has written a monograph on this. Tome had an interesting career (2/502, Tigers and Recondo Platoon within 101st getting transferred around as a medic; 1st Bde of 101st LRRP; transferred to 173rd to join 173rd LRRP but got stuffed into 2/503rd since they were short of medics - and, poor bastard, made the combat jump with them at Katum; then got into 173rd LRRP to 74th LRP. Got out and went back as an advisor to RVN Airborne for 18 months and transferred back to what was now N Rangers. Got a nice cushy job in Hawaii with Pacific Command and came down as request to be original member of 1/75th. Made E7 and was on E8 list before 30 but was medically retired.

The 474th Infantry was formed in 2nd World War as a combination of the Norwegian-American Battalion and the breakup of Special Service Force and 2nd and 4th Ranger Bns (may have the bns wrong). The combat patch is the Red Arrowhead of SSF and a Viking Longship with a Ranger scroll on the sail. This is the only actual lineage from the Rangers into modern world for 45 years ago (SF did get lineage directly from SSF and indirectly from WWII Rangers - they did not know what to do with it). The brigadier commanding the 173rd when it was set up 20 years ago or so chose historical lineages and the LRSU became the 74th LRSU. Unfortunately, some idiots changed this to 93rd Cavalry (or something like this) which has the absolutely ugliest emblem in the world.

Forgot to mention; Jakovenkos, Tadina and Rabel are in RHOF, as were two later TLs (Boatman and someone else). The TL who served in WWII and Korea had been busted via an Article 15 from E8 to E5 the day he was to have been promoted to E9 in SF. He was the consummate professional. His advice and counseling (just BS'ing around) kept a lot of us alive - things that are just not taught except by old soldiers. Since he was busted by Article 15 and not by General Court Martial, he reverted to E8 upon retirement. He died several years ago and we do not have contact with family. He should be in RHOF. I was Unit Director for the N Ranger lineage within 75th RRA for 7years and we got 5 outstanding guys into RHOF. We just messed up in not getting him nominated.

Reed Cundiff, ATL and then TL of Team 4, 173rd LRRP


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 21, 2016)

Well say good bye and farewell to LRS Army looks to deactivate Long-Range Surveillance companies


----------



## medicchick (Jul 21, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well say good bye and farewell to LRS Army looks to deactivate Long-Range Surveillance companies


Yup and there is a thread about it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 21, 2016)

Well you see we had an entire forum dedicated to Long Range Recce...so I would have thought it would be here I spose.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 22, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Well you see we had an entire forum dedicated to Long Range Recce...so I would have thought it would be here I spose.



Nah, this thread is for talking shit about Cav scouts.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 22, 2016)

All I heard was crunch...keep on keeping on crunchy.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 23, 2016)

Says the guy from the same branch that doesn't wear their NVG's on a night mission, requiring an LT to half drag a TC out of their turret by their CVC because they were about to run over a dismounted friendly squad.

You can crunchy all you want, but the only thing you crunch is friendlies.. what's that say about cav aptitude?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 23, 2016)




----------

