Like we did during the cold war?Yes, but almost a reorganizing of units all together (IE. SIGINT, EW, UAV, at the company level)
Yeah, a lot needs to change at all levels.
Call to recruit Army, Marine infantry as 'elite branch'
- Thread starter Devildoc
- Start date
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,437
Not to step on any toes, but what's so bad about the infantry getting better training, pay, and gear? Again. Not trying to step on toes here or throw shade, but SOF and Rangers can't be everywhere at every time. Also, pretty sure it's usually the grunts who get tasked with the most drudgerous day to day work outside the wire. I know this is going to sound demeaning, but SOF and their components aren't treated with the same expendability that 'Infantry Joe' is.
Just food for thought.
Just food for thought.
Brill
SOF Support
Disclaimer: Not a Ranger or SOF guy.
The “system” is geared to support Special Operations and not at all regular Army ops. Support troops and the national infrastructure that supports the supporters isn’t geared to provide same quality of service.
If they get same training and gear, the effectiveness will diminished without the support.
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,437
I know I'm going to sound like a retard, but what do mean?
Add on: I know the acquisitions process for the Army is stupidly retarded. Hence guys buying gear/optics on their own dime. Or am I missing something? I'm probably missing something.
Brill
SOF Support
Granted it’s a movie, but the majority of the film Zero Dark Thirty was about the work finding the target, refining it, and maintaining it. There was very little “pew pew” comparatively. Then, when the guys are back preparing for the next go, even MORE people are combining through the SSE (the shit in bags) and putting all the puzzle pieces together.
There is very little, if any, of that level of support available to Joe 11B.
The support work is done via priority and by the time Joe’s ready to do something, there’s not many resources left available.
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 691
I read in one of these reports I forget which one I’ll try to find it. On how The Russians like to use snipers that can accurately shoot a mile. Place them in the back and have them wreck havoc on enemy forces. The Report said Artillery was the only counter measure to this I believe
Your infantry/combat arms can only perform so well without a good support team; the further the gap between support/infantry skills and abilities, the less optimization.
The author of the article mentions Rangers as his ideal infantry force. I'd argue that Regiment is the ideal less because of the infantry alone, and more because every MOS, from 11B-94W, will go through Ranger School and RASP; that makes the gap between combat/support MOS guys much thinner.
I think better training and elevated entry standards would significantly improve the infantry. The Raiders and Rangers didn’t have a huge support tail in World War II but still performed spectacularly conducting mostly conventional infantry missions. I think everyone is reading this article through a CT lens and may be missing the mark. For example, SOF units dedicate a lot of their support to locate their targets. It takes much less work to find an enemy tank brigade than a terrorist. Also, I think support requirements, and priorities, will shift dramatically when you are talking about brigade and division sized engagements.
I think a lot of y'all are seeing this in the wrong view point.
Large scale war, our light infantry divisions are used for securing high value targets and denying movement and controlling terrain. They go in, they hold something long enough for heavy shit to move in. It's been that way since WW2.
Low intensity conflict, they historically act as occupational forces, deny and disrupt patrols, etc.
The type of low intensity conflict we have been observing in Ukraine, is very different and far more sophisticated than what we have seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. There is not enough SOF in NATO to deal with that problem. I'm not talking COIN, I'm not talking about FID or the like. I'm talking about the need to rapided deployment of massive light forces to counter this Russian style hybrid warfare, in Europe. To be able to fight and sustain in an environment where, EW, SIGINT, ISR, and deadly mass indirect fires are being used against us. While waiting for the big guns to arrive.
Our heavy divisions are fine, practice, practice, practice. Our light divisions are a stop gap, between heavy showing up and Eruopen countries being taken over, such as happened in Crimea. We have very little heavy in europe, we should start staging more. But that doesn't change that our light divisions and brigades need to get better. Unless we tell Europe to get fucked, which is possible as much as it is insane, but if that is the case it's a moot point.
As for the building up the support assets within our light divisions and brigades. No argument there, absolutely, they gotta get better too.
EW, SIGINT, more UAV capabilities, better CAS and indirect capabilities, it's all gotta get better. Nobody is saying build Ranger divisions or an equivalent. But, being more selective in who goes to a light div/bct, having better training as part of that selection and or assessment (let's call it a lightfighter A&S) that determines where a Joe goes (light or heavy). Or having better in house training, such as weapons, explosives, breaching, tactics, infil/exfil, SSE, ECM, language and cultural training, etc, how in the hell can that be a bad thing? How would better tech, Intel, and logistics support for light be a bad thing (hell use it as a stepping stone for guys wanting to go into SOF units)?
Why would better sign on bonus be bad, or special pays for the guys who will be deployed more and will be engaging the enemy? Why is it okay to bonus and give special pays for cyber, recruiters, doctors, lawyers and just about everyone else except the guys pulling the trigger?
The Infantry is already distinguished, that shit is already there, it is already evident enough when I wear my blue cord/crossrifles on my ASU, or walk into the room wearing my EIB or CIB on my chest.
Again, if Europe is going to be told to get fucked, than yeah who cares, until that shit is in our hemisphere. But if we are going to continue to meet the global threats, specifically the Russian threat. Than we need to get better... Period.
@Marauder06, that article is quoting a retired general who was hired as part of a team by former SECDEF Mattis, to asses and plan on how to make ground forces more lethal and effective, specifically to meet the threats I posted about above. I don't think he is grand-standing or attempting to stay relevant, or just making crazy talk. As to the rest of your comments, I couldn't disagree with you more, within the context of what I am describing in my post...besides, that shit just wasn't nice man. Intel-weenie jokes to follow!
Large scale war, our light infantry divisions are used for securing high value targets and denying movement and controlling terrain. They go in, they hold something long enough for heavy shit to move in. It's been that way since WW2.
Low intensity conflict, they historically act as occupational forces, deny and disrupt patrols, etc.
The type of low intensity conflict we have been observing in Ukraine, is very different and far more sophisticated than what we have seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. There is not enough SOF in NATO to deal with that problem. I'm not talking COIN, I'm not talking about FID or the like. I'm talking about the need to rapided deployment of massive light forces to counter this Russian style hybrid warfare, in Europe. To be able to fight and sustain in an environment where, EW, SIGINT, ISR, and deadly mass indirect fires are being used against us. While waiting for the big guns to arrive.
Our heavy divisions are fine, practice, practice, practice. Our light divisions are a stop gap, between heavy showing up and Eruopen countries being taken over, such as happened in Crimea. We have very little heavy in europe, we should start staging more. But that doesn't change that our light divisions and brigades need to get better. Unless we tell Europe to get fucked, which is possible as much as it is insane, but if that is the case it's a moot point.
As for the building up the support assets within our light divisions and brigades. No argument there, absolutely, they gotta get better too.
EW, SIGINT, more UAV capabilities, better CAS and indirect capabilities, it's all gotta get better. Nobody is saying build Ranger divisions or an equivalent. But, being more selective in who goes to a light div/bct, having better training as part of that selection and or assessment (let's call it a lightfighter A&S) that determines where a Joe goes (light or heavy). Or having better in house training, such as weapons, explosives, breaching, tactics, infil/exfil, SSE, ECM, language and cultural training, etc, how in the hell can that be a bad thing? How would better tech, Intel, and logistics support for light be a bad thing (hell use it as a stepping stone for guys wanting to go into SOF units)?
Why would better sign on bonus be bad, or special pays for the guys who will be deployed more and will be engaging the enemy? Why is it okay to bonus and give special pays for cyber, recruiters, doctors, lawyers and just about everyone else except the guys pulling the trigger?
The Infantry is already distinguished, that shit is already there, it is already evident enough when I wear my blue cord/crossrifles on my ASU, or walk into the room wearing my EIB or CIB on my chest.
Again, if Europe is going to be told to get fucked, than yeah who cares, until that shit is in our hemisphere. But if we are going to continue to meet the global threats, specifically the Russian threat. Than we need to get better... Period.
@Marauder06, that article is quoting a retired general who was hired as part of a team by former SECDEF Mattis, to asses and plan on how to make ground forces more lethal and effective, specifically to meet the threats I posted about above. I don't think he is grand-standing or attempting to stay relevant, or just making crazy talk. As to the rest of your comments, I couldn't disagree with you more, within the context of what I am describing in my post...besides, that shit just wasn't nice man. Intel-weenie jokes to follow!
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,437
No homo. Love for @Teufel and @Diamondback 2/2
Brill
SOF Support
@Diamondback 2/2 and @Teufel , do you really think we’ll ever see war like that again? Humans are now very adept at killing large numbers of people with minimal effort.
I personally don’t think governments would consider such losses as acceptable but I really would like to hear your opinions.
I personally don’t think governments would consider such losses as acceptable but I really would like to hear your opinions.
Brill
SOF Support
I’d already have hacked the dick pics from your phone and displayed them on the PowerPoint by the time walked from your car to the conference room.
As in like WW3 without nukes, or countering Russia in Europe as I spelled out?
I think anything is possible, I don't see how a Army commander can develop an effective response plan for the joint chiefs, if the capabilities don't exist. But blowing Crimea off the map as a response to Russia seizing it, seems a bit more extreme than dropping several light brigades in and pushing their forces back, or at least having the demonstrated capability to do so.
I'm not sure what the future holds, I'm just going off of what I'm seeing, reading and listening to. When someone like Mad Dog Mattis says we need to get more lethal on the ground, and reports like that of what's been observed in Ukraine are saying the same thing, I tend to take it at face value as that is what we need to do.
Brill
SOF Support
Remember @Diamondback 2/2 , those aren’t Russian forces in eastern Ukraine but Donetsk and Luhansk independent fighters...with Russian military experience...and families in Russia...and new equipment from Russia.
Man I would love to agree with you but a lot of very smart people said the same thing before both World Wars. I really hope you are right but I think we need to be prepared for full scale conflict and it’s going to take a robust combined arms approach to do that. The tip of that kind of spear would be infantry forces and we should do our best to improve their combat effectiveness. Keep in mind that we would almost certainly have to rapidly mobilize our youth to win such a conflict; our fielded forces would provide the bones to build a much larger organization from.
I also think improving our infantry would signal to our adversaries that we are preparing ourselves for large scale conflict and provide some small deterrent to such action.
Honestly I think our next conflict will take place through cyberspace. Why blast each other apart if you can hold critical infrastructure at risk and disrupt public services to achieve your political will. The trick will be keeping your adversary from escalating into kinetic conflict through information operations.
Honestly I think our next conflict will take place through cyberspace. Why blast each other apart if you can hold critical infrastructure at risk and disrupt public services to achieve your political will. The trick will be keeping your adversary from escalating into kinetic conflict through information operations.
I think every infantry Soldier and Marine should know how to call in CAS, artillery, medevacs, resupply etc. I'm not sure how these skills are taught nowadays--if they're taught--but if not, they need to be. When I got to my team in the bush, even though I was a machine-gunner, the first thing they handed me was the PRC-25. "Learn it, because your life depends upon it," I was told. If you're the last man standing, comm is your lifeline.
Also combat first aid. If your Corpsman or Medic is shot in the gut, he can't help anybody including himself.
Also demolitions. Everybody should know how to blow shit up without blowing themselves up.
I know I'm outdated, and it's great to know how to fire and maneuver, fire team rushes, movement to cover, and how to strip down and reassemble all your squad organics in the dark...but proficiency (not just rudimentary bullshit) in comm and first aid is a must. And if they can extend infantry training to include some of these critical skills, so much the better.
Also combat first aid. If your Corpsman or Medic is shot in the gut, he can't help anybody including himself.
Also demolitions. Everybody should know how to blow shit up without blowing themselves up.
I know I'm outdated, and it's great to know how to fire and maneuver, fire team rushes, movement to cover, and how to strip down and reassemble all your squad organics in the dark...but proficiency (not just rudimentary bullshit) in comm and first aid is a must. And if they can extend infantry training to include some of these critical skills, so much the better.
I think a lot of y'all are seeing this in the wrong view point.
Large scale war, our light infantry divisions are used for securing high value targets and denying movement and controlling terrain. They go in, they hold something long enough for heavy shit to move in. It's been that way since WW2.
Low intensity conflict, they historically act as occupational forces, deny and disrupt patrols, etc.
The type of low intensity conflict we have been observing in Ukraine, is very different and far more sophisticated than what we have seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. There is not enough SOF in NATO to deal with that problem. I'm not talking COIN, I'm not talking about FID or the like. I'm talking about the need to rapided deployment of massive light forces to counter this Russian style hybrid warfare, in Europe. To be able to fight and sustain in an environment where, EW, SIGINT, ISR, and deadly mass indirect fires are being used against us. While waiting for the big guns to arrive.
Our heavy divisions are fine, practice, practice, practice. Our light divisions are a stop gap, between heavy showing up and Eruopen countries being taken over, such as happened in Crimea. We have very little heavy in europe, we should start staging more. But that doesn't change that our light divisions and brigades need to get better. Unless we tell Europe to get fucked, which is possible as much as it is insane, but if that is the case it's a moot point.
As for the building up the support assets within our light divisions and brigades. No argument there, absolutely, they gotta get better too.
EW, SIGINT, more UAV capabilities, better CAS and indirect capabilities, it's all gotta get better. Nobody is saying build Ranger divisions or an equivalent. But, being more selective in who goes to a light div/bct, having better training as part of that selection and or assessment (let's call it a lightfighter A&S) that determines where a Joe goes (light or heavy). Or having better in house training, such as weapons, explosives, breaching, tactics, infil/exfil, SSE, ECM, language and cultural training, etc, how in the hell can that be a bad thing? How would better tech, Intel, and logistics support for light be a bad thing (hell use it as a stepping stone for guys wanting to go into SOF units)?
Why would better sign on bonus be bad, or special pays for the guys who will be deployed more and will be engaging the enemy? Why is it okay to bonus and give special pays for cyber, recruiters, doctors, lawyers and just about everyone else except the guys pulling the trigger?
The Infantry is already distinguished, that shit is already there, it is already evident enough when I wear my blue cord/crossrifles on my ASU, or walk into the room wearing my EIB or CIB on my chest.
Again, if Europe is going to be told to get fucked, than yeah who cares, until that shit is in our hemisphere. But if we are going to continue to meet the global threats, specifically the Russian threat. Than we need to get better... Period.
@Marauder06, that article is quoting a retired general who was hired as part of a team by former SECDEF Mattis, to asses and plan on how to make ground forces more lethal and effective, specifically to meet the threats I posted about above. I don't think he is grand-standing or attempting to stay relevant, or just making crazy talk. As to the rest of your comments, I couldn't disagree with you more, within the context of what I am describing in my post...besides, that shit just wasn't nice man. Intel-weenie jokes to follow!
That was an interesting and thoughtful post, and deserves a lengthy reply:
Large-scale war, CT/COIN, or anything in between, our infantry is used for anything the Army needs. That's why they are part of the "General Purpose Force." They are the "Queen of Battle" because they can go anywhere and do anything, from fighting ISIS to fighting Ebola, from delivering flood relief to flooding an enemy country with paratroopers.
I'm well aware of who MG Scales is, he and I have written for some of the same publications and I've followed his stories on blogs and on news shows for years. He's got lots of ideas about how to make the Army better, and I think his motivations are legit. Unfortunately some of the things he suggests, like no one should be assessed straight into the infantry (i.e. you have to do an enlistment as something else) and this "Infantry New Deal," are very bad ones. "No Marine can go infantry until they do a full enlistment or they're in their mid-20s!" "Every Infantryman is special and deserves another participation trophy!" lol ok sir...
These are the kinds of ideas given by someone who never has to consider the realities of implementation. I'm sure a lot of currently-serving generals, especially in the Marine Corps, are reading these things like "WTF... ." This article also makes it sound like the author is unfamiliar with modern Army doctrine. "Infantry isn't a branch... it's a function...," he says. That's completely wrong--see also: Infantry Branch. Also, "Infantry" isn't its own warfighting function. It's part of "movement and maneuver."
Moreover, the author is holding up the Marines and SOF as a model, yet AFAIK he never spent any time in either.| He's in love with the Infantry, but he was a Field Artillery officer. Of course one may have well-informed opinions on things without direct experience, but that does not make them authoritative. And admiring something from afar doesn't really help get into the weeds of how something works, and why. It appears MG Scales has fallen into the "Zero Dark Thirty" trap of seeing the success of SOF and wanting to try to replicate that across the force.
His idea about largescale elite infantry runs contrary to the SOF Truths, especially #3:
"Mass producing SOF" is exactly what MG Scales is advocating, a whole "elite" Infantry Branch of Rangers. He literally said as much in the article: " ...it seems to me that the sweet spot in that is the Ranger Regiment." "Let's say instead of having 3,000 Ranger-quality, light infantry, we have 55,000." 55,000 Rangers, trained, equipped, and motivated on Regiment standards? Damn, we probably wouldn't even need much GPF if we had that many Rangers.
...but we don't, and if we're smart we will never pretend we do.
Take a look at how long it takes to train people to be elite:
Now look at the demographics of SOF operators, and mentally compare them to the average Infantryman:
The Ranger Regiment's training time and demographics are different, but they're still a standard that most 11Bs will never meet. One of the reasons the Regiment is so good, is because they're small, they're well-funded, they're prestigious, and most importantly because they have a culture of excellence. Almost none of that is true in most general purpose forces.
The "additional training and resources" thing is a non-argument. The Army is ALREADY working hard at getting the best equipment and most effective training down to the tip of the spear.
With regard to the special pays other MOSs receive... we pay them that because we have to. We don't have to give incentive pay for Infantrymen (most of the time, anyway), so we don't. Our Army has limited resources and unlimited requirements. The more budget we put into pay, allowances, benefits, and feel-good measures like the one suggested in the article, the less we will have for things like training, equipment, and research. It's a dilemma.
We already pay some Infantry soldiers extra for things that are unusual or exceptional, such as Airborne. And as you said, since you are already "distinguished" with your Infantry accouterments, how much more recognition do you need?
General purpose infantry are not SOF and never will be. Some of the GPF are elite infantry (82nd, 101st) but when called upon, they do what the Army needs. Trying to make everyone "special" will have the exact opposite effect of what was intended. See also: black beret.
As for the intel weenie comment, don't forget that I came in under the branch detail program and was Infantry before I was MI. I probably have more time in crossed rifles than most of the one-term Infantrymen on this board. But I also did a lot of other things after, so my entire identity isn't wrapped up in a blue cord. I like to think that gives me a little bit of objectivity, by having dipped my foot in the blue pool but also seen things from an outside perspective.
The bottom line here is that this is an unfeasible idea, for any number of reasons, some of which I've enumerated above. This is another silly suggestion made by someone who doesn't understand or doesn't care about the implications of something like this. Like I said before, I think the author's motivations are good. But this is the lastest in a series of very, very bad ideas.
I don’t disagree. Article aside, I personally don’t think you need to make the infantry into SOF....just make them better. I think you could make the School of Infantry harder, increase training and readiness standards, and raise the GT score requirement though. Add some better training and equipment, and you’re on the path to a much stronger ground combat element. I acknowledge this might still be difficult for the Army because of its size but the Marine Corps could probably do it across the seven active duty regiments. The commandant already increased the number of combat support personnel in every infantry battalion. Every company will have organic EW/SIGINT Marines and UAV operators for example.
Last edited:
I like this post. I also agree that if the generals intention is to make all infantry SOF, that it's a stupid idea. However, I still feel there is plenty of room to build and advance light infantry capabilities, specifically how I had spelled out in my other post. Thanks for the great reply.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 15200
- Military
