The sheep were scared? in other words?? :eek::eek: ;);)
Pard's gonna be jealous if we have another sheepshagger on board!!!!! ;);)
Pard's gonna be jealous if we have another sheepshagger on board!!!!! ;);)
Maybe they can team up and share the sheepshagging. :uhh:
Pardus shouldn't be jealous, I'm sure there's a difference between Greek sheep and Kiwi sheep.
Pardus shouldn't be jealous, I'm sure there's a difference between Greek sheep and Kiwi sheep.
Marines do not attempt to copy anyone, they are well known for making their own. The fact that Marine SOF community actually has a budget now “is a great thing”. I watched a lot of friends, leave the USMC so they could get some where with a budget. Being that they are the newest branch in JSOC, and have evolved greatly to fill their new role, I think they can use a huge pat on the back.
As for MARSOC replacing SF role in guerrilla warfare, SF will never be replaced. However, I see nothing wrong with the USMC having their own form of SF type units. Now that they have the means, and the ability to form (MCTAG) it’s a good thing and should be welcomed.
As for MARSOC reinventing the wheel of Advisory and Training, “irregular warfare” is a fancy title to get a bigger budget. It’s a common practice in all branches of the military…
:2c:
As for MARSOC replacing SF role in guerrilla warfare, SF will never be replaced. However, I see nothing wrong with the USMC having their own form of SF type units. Now that they have the means, and the ability to form (MCTAG) it’s a good thing and should be welcomed.
As for MARSOC reinventing the wheel of Advisory and Training, “irregular warfare” is a fancy title to get a bigger budget. It’s a common practice in all branches of the military…
:2c:
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
My source for the following is Army FM 7-85, Ranger Unit Operations, dated 1987. Although the FM talks about generally about a "Ranger Regiment" (as it is the basic doctrine for forming and employing 75th Ranger Regiment), the principles within the source document can easily be applied to any SOF Direct Action/Strategic Recon (DA/SR) force (like an MSOC). Hope this helps both frame my point and advance the discussion.
Para 1-5 Employment Considerations
a. Ranger units are characterized by the quality, motivation, training, and individual skill of their members. This produces units with superb collective abilities, able to adapt well to changing, complex situations.
b. Ranger units can conduct either deliberate or quick-response operations.
(1) Deliberate operations rely on careful planning, reconnaissance and surveillance of the target area, deception, secrecy, thorough preparation and rehearsals, and violent execution. A deliberate operation aims to complete the mission even though the enemy may have heavy forces on or near the objective area. Deliberate operations allow for detailed planning, evaluation, rehearsal, and coordination before insertion. A deliberate operation is likely to succeed against targets that the enemy has protected in depth, that have strong natural defenses, or that need a detailed and long insertion process.
(2) Quick-response operations rely on the high level of training and readiness of the ranger regiment to execute a mission before the enemy can react. These operations are conducted when there is little time for long, detailed planning. They rely on set procedures set forth by the ranger regiment and its supporting elements. A quick-response operation aims to complete the mission before an enemy can react. This type of operation may be chosen due to the time-sensitive nature of the target, political or military goals, the time frame of other operations, or the increased chance of enemy detection.
(3) Whether an operation is to be deliberate or quick response is often a difficult and time-sensitive decision by a high-level command authority. Decision-makers must consider the enemy's strength in the area, his intentions, his ability either to reinforce or to alter the target area, and the consequences of success or failure of diplomatic or military initiatives in related areas. The ranger unit commander tries to use the existing time, manpower, and resources to complete a detailed and coordinated plan. He refines that plan up to the insertion into the objective area.
c. Ranger units train to operate in any environment or weather condition. They regularly perform operations during periods of limited visibility. Ranger units maintain a high state of physical fitness and often train in close quarters combatives. In addition to completing advanced marksmanship training with standard US weapons, each member of a ranger unit trains with many foreign weapons. Ranger units are trained to operate on urbanized terrain, becoming specialists in entry and clearing techniques and quick-fire methods, especially during periods of limited visibility.
d. Because ranger units have limited vehicles, logistics operations capability, indirect fire support, and heavy weapons systems, they are not designed for continuous operations. During all phases of operations and training, ranger units need responsive external support.
e. Ranger units are normally employed against targets and under conditions that need their unique skills. Although targeting priority is set by the overall commander, ranger units are not normally assigned missions that can be done by conventional aerial bombardment or by other units.
f. Ranger units are oriented toward offensive operations. They are not normally employed as a rear area protection force. Although the ranger regiment has a small reconnaissance unit, ranger units do not normally conduct long-range reconnaissance missions. The structure, communications, and training of the ranger unit do not prepare it for LRRP missions. Ranger units engaged in strike and special light infantry operations have a secondary mission to collect and report combat information.
g. Ranger units can be deployed worldwide when US military presence or participation with a host national military activity would serve US interests. This deployment shows a readiness to commit forces into a threatened area or proves US national resolve. After the deployment, other activities include staging operations, rehearsing combat operations, securing base areas for use and deployment of other forces, and so on that provide a clear signal of US intent. Ranger units are not trained or organized to provide mobile training teams (MTT) to train indigenous forces. The US Special Forces or other special operation forces are trained to conduct such security assistance operations.
h. Ranger units can serve as an example to a host country and provide limited military advice and training. They will normally be augmented with linguists and technicians to increase their abilities. The regiment would normally still function as a unit. Most of its assistance would be through short-term, high-impact, unit-oriented operations. They would not be long-term individual efforts associated with advisory-type activities.
i. Ranger units may be deployed to engage in combined training exercises with allies. This enhances US national image by demonstrating the outstanding abilities of the American ranger. These activities may include ranger, light infantry, airborne, air assault, or amphibious operations.
j. Ranger units use standard US nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) warning; detection; protection; and decontamination equipment and doctrine when operating on the integrated battlefield.
Well, I suppose this by itself, takes out the SR mission.
Anyway, if there is a “ranger” unit with closer resemblance to Force Recon, (and DASR MSOCs) I presume it would be the new Ranger Recon Company.
Here is an extract:
“The RRC is a Reconnaissance unit organized to plan and conduct world-wide Reconnaissance and Direct Action Operations in support of the 75th Ranger Regiment. Simply put, RRC is our nation's experts in tactical and special Reconnaissance. The centerpiece of the RRC is our recce teams. Our recce teams consist of senior NCOs who are veterans of numerous combat deployments”.
Somebody put the whole recruiting letter (from AKO) on a forum, but I am not putting the link in case it would be considered an OPSEC breach.
That FM is from 1987, I'm thinking maybe doctrine has changed a little in the last 20 or so years ;)
While I agree that MSOB displays all of these qualities, minus a few, their capabilities far exceed this definition. While I will not go in to detail due to OPSEC there are a few things that I can say. When speaking of SR and MSOB they are not talking about "strategic reconnaissance", which Battalion Recon as well as MSOB can perform, they are talking about special reconnaissance which as many of us know can involve a lot more than simply watching a target area. Also unlike this definition MSOB just like Force before it can perform long range reconnaissance. Although it doesn’t say it here I'm going to assume that a ranger unit on the missions discribed above operate in at least platoon size or close to it most of the time. MSOB on the other hand operates in much smaller numbers most of the time. Finally although they are experts in CQB MSOB does a lot more than just clear a house in an urban area.
Like I said I'm not sure were you got your impression or info about MSOB from, but this definition doesn’t even completely describe modern day Battalion Recon, which is a few steps below MSOB in terms of capabilities and training, and many steps as far as funding and gear go.
If anything, with the exception of often training with foreign weapons, not having indirect fire support, and needing external support, I would say this definition describes a Marine Infantry Battalion. Not to offend the Army but don't confuse a "regular" Marine Infantry Battalion with a "regular" Army Infantry Battalion.
Regardless of your intention to say that the Marine Corps is copying everybody else, or the Marine Corps goes where the money is, as if no other branch does the same is an insult. Everybody copies everybody when it comes to SOF, if somthing works and fits your needs why wouldn't you use it. Money wise the Marine Corps is the most cost effective branch in the DOD. To call MSOB nothing more than a ranger unit that is nothing special is also an insult. You have no idea how much training and sacrifices those guys have made to get this thing up and running, or how hard it was for some of them just to get into the unit, not to mention the day to day training. So I think it would be a good idea to refrain from giving an opinion that is based on partial information, until you have something more concrete than what I can only guess is scuttlebutt you've heard and an FM from the 80's. :2c:
One reason I wrote about a “contest” can be found here
http://www.veteransofspecialforces.org/Main/main.html
and more specifically here
http://www.veteransofspecialforces.org/Main/Editorials/recent_editorials.html
and here
http://www.veteransofspecialforces.org/Main/Editorials/recent_editorials.html#article_2
Maybe the word I used is not the most appropriate word, but there is undoubtedly some kind of serious animosity in the air.
I am referencing this source because the aforementioned organization is lead by widely respected senior SF veterans AND a lot of what they are saying makes sense.
Am afraid it’s a bit late for me to come over, get the citizenship and enlist. But there are other ways to get involved, and support the effort, even from Greece.
Time for me to get a sheep before Pardus gets it.
Seems like a tough fellah to mess around with.
PS:New thread about Greek Special Forces in the appropriate forum. Gdamadg beat me to it but I contributed a little.
B
Boondocksaint375
Guest
I think you are all confusing shit more than you need to. That excerpt above was from a really old fm, not to mention it had nothing to do with RRD (now known as RRC). The 75th Ranger Regiment doesn't spend time "reconning" shit, as they are a primarily a direct action force that is unlike the rest of the military units. If you want to compare MSOB to something, it would more than likely be RRC. Then again, until any of you have done both, I doubt you say much at all about each unit's capabilities.
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
1 of 3 for Hitman...
Someone- I think it was Harry Truman- said the Marines have the best propaganda operation in the world.
Who trains their pilots? The Navy
Who provides Marines with Medics and Chaplains? The Navy
Who facilitates most of the Marines' Tank/Heavy Armor training? The Army
Where do the Marines do a lot of their Motor-T and Engineer training? US Army Base Fort Leonard Wood.
Etc..
These things may have Marine Corps resources present, but are cents on the dollar compared to the costs the other Services provide. It may be fiscally prudent to do things this way, but to then turn around and say "we're cheaper" is simply disingenuous. To their credit, the Marines do invest well in some things, and have great results (e.g. Infantry, marksmanship, etc). And by being smaller, they have significantly less overhead, especially when a lot of that cost is sloughed off to other Services.
Someone- I think it was Harry Truman- said the Marines have the best propaganda operation in the world.
Who trains their pilots? The Navy
Who provides Marines with Medics and Chaplains? The Navy
Who facilitates most of the Marines' Tank/Heavy Armor training? The Army
Where do the Marines do a lot of their Motor-T and Engineer training? US Army Base Fort Leonard Wood.
Etc..
These things may have Marine Corps resources present, but are cents on the dollar compared to the costs the other Services provide. It may be fiscally prudent to do things this way, but to then turn around and say "we're cheaper" is simply disingenuous. To their credit, the Marines do invest well in some things, and have great results (e.g. Infantry, marksmanship, etc). And by being smaller, they have significantly less overhead, especially when a lot of that cost is sloughed off to other Services.
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
2 of 3
I never said a ranger unit is "nothing special". In fact, I think I said that this is an excellent baseline for any SOF DA/SR type unit. "SOF" is Special Operations Forces, in case you forgot. So I think I have a conceptual understanding of how hard this is. My 22 yrs of service in mostly SOF and Combat Arms units provides my actual understanding - I'll send my DD214 to the moderators for "vetting" my bonafides. So spare me the crank-measuring contest.
If you want to be insulted, feel free - it's your right. But you do that on your own - not by anything I've written here.
I never said a ranger unit is "nothing special". In fact, I think I said that this is an excellent baseline for any SOF DA/SR type unit. "SOF" is Special Operations Forces, in case you forgot. So I think I have a conceptual understanding of how hard this is. My 22 yrs of service in mostly SOF and Combat Arms units provides my actual understanding - I'll send my DD214 to the moderators for "vetting" my bonafides. So spare me the crank-measuring contest.
If you want to be insulted, feel free - it's your right. But you do that on your own - not by anything I've written here.
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
3 of 3
Citing doctrine is not "scuttlebutt". And since you've you spent more time moaning about what I cited rather than refuting anything on point, it's fair to conclude that you missed the idea that it actually makes a strong case of (positive) comparison between a ranger type unit and an MSOC.
I wish I could bring you a more current reference, but the fact is that it has never been updated. It's been in draft at least twice that I know of, but for whatever reason, never went final. So, what I've cited IS the definitive source, unless you've got something better.
Citing doctrine is not "scuttlebutt". And since you've you spent more time moaning about what I cited rather than refuting anything on point, it's fair to conclude that you missed the idea that it actually makes a strong case of (positive) comparison between a ranger type unit and an MSOC.
I wish I could bring you a more current reference, but the fact is that it has never been updated. It's been in draft at least twice that I know of, but for whatever reason, never went final. So, what I've cited IS the definitive source, unless you've got something better.
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
Operational-level command is not a battalion level task. Too big/too many things going on. So I don't think it's realistic or fair to expect an MSOB to run a JSOTF.
It's tough to do with an O6-level Headquarters staff, and still requires significant joint augmentation. The logistics and comms pieces alone are daunting juxtaposed against what the MARSOC is fielding. Sure, they can get help in those areas and others, but how much outsourcing can you do before it's really just an ad-hoc organization? In other words, if 6 out of 10 people are not yours, is it really your mission?
Just a thought.
If it was easy, the Department of Homeland Security would be doing it....
I never said you said a ranger unit was nothing special but I apologize because I did misquote you.
Also I never said anything about myself, and for that matter answerd your post in a respectful and logical way. So how you came to the conclusion that this is a "crank-measuring contest" I don't know. Unless you are refering to yourself when you brought up,
Which is great, and I honestly commend you, but has little to do with this since we are speaking of a Marine units capabilites and more or less the Marine Corps in General which you appear to know quit a bit about. Now if we were speaking of an Army unit right on, but we're not. No one is questioning your abilites in your field or as a soldier. However, what I am questioning, quite fairly I believe, is your earlier statement.
Also on this point, you never cited anything. You made a comment that was not backed up by a source of any kind. And I, refuted your comment with one of my own. :)
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
If you have a more current reference, then cite it. You don't have to do everything to be able to speak to things in a general sense (which is what a forum like this provides). The whole "walk a mile in my moccassin" canard is bogus.
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
Read post number 25 and then try this one again.
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
This is not about me. But it is important for you to understand that SOF is inherently joint, and as a result, my time there has opened my operational aperature considerably wider than a merely "Army" view.
I think "purple", not "green".
S
Simmerin' SigO
Guest
Note to Moderators
I think that, due in large part to my intransigence, this topic has drifted way off azimuth.
In view of keeping peace, it may be a good idea to let Hitman make his final points and then close this topic. Since he's the operational guy, he should probably have the last word.
v/r
BJP
I think that, due in large part to my intransigence, this topic has drifted way off azimuth.
In view of keeping peace, it may be a good idea to let Hitman make his final points and then close this topic. Since he's the operational guy, he should probably have the last word.
v/r
BJP
Similar threads
