Army to Cut LRSC/ LRSD Units

[DA SWO]

"Such a thing" will not normally work for a brigade commander. There are often unity of effort and unity of command issues when using SOF forces, especially highly specialized ones, in support of smaller conventional units.

These entities, and SOF in general, are finite given their specialized nature. These forces may be available in a small contingency operation but will be harder to come by in a large scale conflict because of operational requirements and priorities of effort. This is why we have SIGINT and HUMINT assets in every service for example.

SF did a lot of SR for XVIII Airborne Corps in the first Gulf War.
Theater Commander will have a lot of say when SOF Taskings are levied.

 

[Teufel]

SF did a lot of SR for XVIII Airborne Corps in the first Gulf War.
Theater Commander will have a lot of say when SOF Taskings are levied.

I'm not saying that it will never happen. It also happened a lot during the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm saying that not every corps and brigade will get that kind of support unless they have organic assets.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Unfortunately I think the risk adverse leaders in the Army would not properly use LRS at the brigade level. I saw too many LRS guys pulling bullshit missions and always felt for them. As highly trained as they are, they were being treated like a redheaded step child.

It will take another conventional war, before their necessity is realised again.

I will say there has been a dramatic drop in standards for LRS in heavy units. Commanders and 1SG without Ranger Tabs, TL/ATL's without tabs, many you see with nothing more than Airborne and several soldier without even Airborne. The whole RSTA and RS concept fucked that shit all up.

 

[Gunz]

The risk averse leaders in the military are under the thumb of risk averse civilian politicians and political appointees, who aside from being risk averse are also, like many generals, enamored by techno-gadgetry, and since few of them nowadays have served in uniform they have limited conceptions of the capabilities of HUMINT or recon units at the sharp edge and beyond. To them exposed CIA officers or captured American soldiers are political embarrassments.

We've been in love with our technology since Vietnam. It's a dangerous fixation and one of the main criticisms the IDF and Mossad, for example, have had against our GWOT practices. Technology is great but a satellite can't drink coffee with the Arabs.

 

[Johca]

It will take another conventional war, before their necessity is realised again.

Reference Ranger and LRS. Read the Ranger utilization history of WWII and Korea. By the mid course of WWII the Ranger units were no longer being utilized as envisioned and when resurrected during the Korean war the Ranger units were never utilized as a behind enemy lines commando or guerrilla capability. Much of this was a result of uncertain popular support of such operation among the indigenous populations and the fact such forces do not blend in among non Western European populations. The Korean War was cause for realization guerrilla forces are best gathered and trained from the portion of the indigenous population that supported US and allied fighting efforts or political interests.

 

[ThunderHorse]

So over the weekend LTG McMaster announced the cancellation of the LRV (Light Reconnaissance Vehicle) program. Apparently ARCIC is testing a vehicle with a 30mm canon manned turret cannon. Which led to a discussion in my shop, that because of the battlefield and the risk averse populace you will never see light formation do what they're meant to do in a DA fight. They will be given heavily armored wheeled vehicles.

 

[AWP]

So over the weekend LTG McMaster announced the cancellation of the LRV (Light Reconnaissance Vehicle) program. Apparently ARCIC is testing a vehicle with a 30mm canon manned turret cannon. Which led to a discussion in my shop, that because of the battlefield and the risk averse populace you will never see light formation do what they're meant to do in a DA fight. They will be given heavily armored wheeled vehicles.

The guy from 73 Easting is in favor of the heavy solution? No surprise there.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

So over the weekend LTG McMaster announced the cancellation of the LRV (Light Reconnaissance Vehicle) program. Apparently ARCIC is testing a vehicle with a 30mm canon manned turret cannon. Which led to a discussion in my shop, that because of the battlefield and the risk averse populace you will never see light formation do what they're meant to do in a DA fight. They will be given heavily armored wheeled vehicles.

Yeah that's going to work just great until we end up in another tropical jungle war.

I'm probably kinda odd on this, but I actually like and respect what heavy units bring to the table. As a grunt, nothing was more calming in a gunfight than when a Bradley rolled up or an Apache was hovering over head.

That said, we have to maintain our light capabilities, airborne, air assault, and yes, leg.

LRS falls into a different category. Regardless of the terrains, the enemy, the style of warfare. We always need someone boots on the ground, eyes on the target, feeding back real time information. The fact that the conventional Army would give up their only organic assets that do that, is mind boggling. "Oh we will just get an ODA on loan". Yeah, fucking right...

 

[Etype]

I think Corps or Div level assets would complicate operations when it comes to MCO and a true maneuver war.

Think- the company commanders are controlling 3 platoons based on this Bn CDRs guidance. They are the n direct contact with the guy who controls the scouts. Now add LRS to the matter, the scouts are 3 or 4 echelons removed from the line companies.

OEF, OIF, and ODS moved too quickly for such cumbersome command issues. The FLOT moved so quickly, they would've been overtaken before they were relevant.

On top of that, the BDE, DIV and Corps levels own their own UAVs.

Theater assets will already by reconnoitering areas of strategic importance.

In my opinion, in terms of speed and agility, LRS just doesn't have a place in the modern maneuver battle. They were an overly redundant echelon.

 

[Etype]

We always need someone boots on the ground, eyes on the target, feeding back real time information.

If we always need it, then why has it not been common practice for the last decade???

Only in training, because of antiquated exercises, do we actually do that.

 

[Etype]

Shadow Spear in response to technology-

 

[Gunz]

Reference Ranger and LRS. Read the Ranger utilization history of WWII and Korea. By the mid course of WWII the Ranger units were no longer being utilized as envisioned and when resurrected during the Korean war the Ranger units were never utilized as a behind enemy lines commando or guerrilla capability. Much of this was a result of uncertain popular support of such operation among the indigenous populations and the fact such forces do not blend in among non Western European populations. The Korean War was cause for realization guerrilla forces are best gathered and trained from the portion of the indigenous population that supported US and allied fighting efforts or political interests.

The same can be said of the Marine Raider battalions and the Para-Marines. Disbanded and absorbed into the rifle regiments by 1943.

 

[DA SWO]

If we always need it, then why has it not been common practice for the last decade???

Only in training, because of antiquated exercises, do we actually do that.

Because conventional commanders would rather use (and lose) SOF assets for the role.

Add the slots to SOF and dedicate those elements to the Conventional Ground Force Commander when deployed.

 

[Etype]

Because conventional commanders would rather use (and lose) SOF assets for the role.

Add the slots to SOF and dedicate those elements to the Conventional Ground Force Commander when deployed.

SOF usually is under the command of conventional leadership, usually at the MG level.

The conventional leader can identify gaps in Intel, which SOF can fill. The caveat to that is that the conventional commander doesn't get to tell them HOW to fill those gaps.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

If we always need it, then why has it not been common practice for the last decade???

Only in training, because of antiquated exercises, do we actually do that.

Dude, I've spent too much time in LP/OP's and hides all over Iraq to agree with you on that. We always had boots on the ground with eyes on, for just about everything we did. If we set up a bullshit snatch TCP, we had an over watch team, if we hit a building we had surveillance on it a day to two days prior. I can go on and on, but to get to the point, we will always need that confirmation on the ground, we'll unless we just use drones, but good luck with that in triple canopy jungles, etc.

 

[Etype]

Dude, I've spent too much time in LP/OP's and hides all over Iraq to agree with you on that. We always had boots on the ground with eyes on, for just about everything we did. If we set up a bullshit snatch TCP, we had an over watch team, if we hit a building we had surveillance on it a day to two days prior. I can go on and on, but to get to the point, we will always need that confirmation on the ground, we'll unless we just use drones, but good luck with that in triple canopy jungles, etc.

Those are all great examples of commanders at the tactical level using their men wisely.

Which stands with my reasoning that a Corps or Div level commander doesn't need a recon element.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

If we get into another conventional war (invade another country). Corps and Division levels need that capability to plan, asses, and just because an asset belongs to divison, doesn't mean it's not being utilised at the tactical level.

The biggest reason I saw LRS not being used on deployments, is because commanders were to afraid to actually use them.

But anyway, they are gone now (or at least will be). Water under the bridge until they are needed and come back again, like they have done since the late 1950's, or even going back through Ranger history, the Alamo scouts, etc. There will alway be a need for deep behind the lines, eyes on, what is going on over here type units.

 

[Etype]

Ranger history, the Alamo scouts, etc. There will alway be a need for deep behind the lines, eyes on, what is going on over here type units.

We still have those!

The only real history LRS units have is from Vietnam, and those were rolled up into the Ranger Regiment.

 

[ThunderHorse]

LRS and R/S BDE would deploy immediately on WARNO 1, in fact LRS would deploy even ahead of the R/S BDE so CORPs' would need to give them the Five Ws and put them on a plane for an infiltration and then support them via air resupply. The R/S BDE would deploy on publication of WARNO 1, pretty much in the middle of RSOI for the majority of the force. So their shit would be either from pre-staged stocks or already at the port before WARNO 1 would be published. And LRS should truly be out there alone and unafraid.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

We still have those!

The only real history LRS units have is from Vietnam, and those were rolled up into the Ranger Regiment.

I'm very aware of the SR capabilities throughout SOF. And if the SOF community is going to play nice and conduct LRS missions for conventional units, I think that's great. I don't see that happening, but nonetheless, that's about the only option after they disband LRSC's.

As for the history of LRS. I disagree that their history is only in Vietnam. The LRRP units actually started in the 50's, in Europe, during the cold war. But the concept of deep behind the line snoop and poop has been around since the revolutionary war.

Anyway, the LRS mission is important and not the same as SR or CTR, but yet need more training than a squad of Rangers. I truly think this is a major fuck up on the Army's part.