Dismounted Recon, if humping your shit in search of the enemy is not similar to the physical job of an infantrymen they need to stop sending Infantrymen to Cavalry Squadrons. Also this discussion is not just about the Infantry but also the Armor branch as well.
Hmm, the purpose of the Ranger School is to develop small tactical leading ability by providing simulated peacetime military leading experience. Although there is being able to do physical aspects of duties connected to being there combat leading this level of physical fitness to do is not directly about humping shit but about being concurrently physically fit to perform duties while effectively commanding (leading) others.
There is much historical inconveniences left out of Ranger histories at to how and why the ugly realities of fighting with leaders (commissioned, warrant, NCOs) either lacking ability to competently command troops in action or being unwilling to command troops in action. Further what is the minimum given these troops, command the effectively in action to do this pass/fail standard? Whatever the minimum standards are, they are certainly a bit more than simply being able to hump shit. But if humping is the standard I guess we can discuss how much sex should happen.
A bit of history:
The Ranger Course was conceived during the Korean War and was known as the Ranger Training Command. The Ranger Training Command was inactivated and became the Ranger Department, a branch of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Ga., Oct. 10, 1951.
The first Ranger Class for individual candidates graduated on 01 MAR 1952.
WWII historical perspectives:
When developing and deciding if U.S. Army should have commando type units and forces, Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was in 1942 Chief of the Operations Division, War Department General Staff) told Colonel Lucian K. Truscott, Jr., such units and forces should be named something other than “commandos” because that name was so strongly identified with the British. Truscott chose “Rangers” a name that had been carried by a number of American units before, during, and after the War of Independence. The new unit was thus designated the 1st Ranger Battalion.
The 1st Ranger Battalion was officially activated on 19 June 1942. Subsequently the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Ranger Battalions were formed. All the Ranger Battalions were deactivated at the end of WWII.
Korean War influences:
Throughout the period of their existence the Ranger Companies during the Korean War these forces were mostly employed as general infantry rather than as a raiding or marauding force as initially envisioned by Army Chief of Staff, General J. Lawton Collins who ordered the creation of the Ranger Companies of the Korean conflict.
Envisioned by General Collins to be "Marauder" units to operate behind enemy lines, attacking their tank parks and assembly areas, this utilization never happened. The Ranger Companies were generally utilized in Korean conflict as just another infantry company rather than for conducting special missions as raider, marauders or commandos. By June 1951 the Department of the Army decided to inactivate these units and accomplished this by 1 August 1951. Although the Army Staff and major commands saw no need for Ranger units, they did see a need for ranger trained personnel. This resulted in the formation of the Ranger School concurrently with the inactivation of the Ranger Companies.
Generally personnel reports exposed several difficulties pertinent to combat units, in general, having difficulties in maintaining combat effectiveness pertinent to having competent leaders (trained and or experienced) and having leaders willing to lead others in combat. Put differently, those put into positions involving tactical leading were inadequately prepared to deal with the quickly changing tactical situations encountered on the Korean battlefields.
- officers continued to arrive with combat MOS's who were physically incapable of handling the jobs indicated by the MOS, it was necessary for FEC replacement installations to screen officers for age and physical condition as well as for experience and training in verifying their MOS's.
- Eighth Amy complained that a number of officers were reluctant to command troops in action and asked that remedial or punitive steps be taken, but in February there was still evidence that proper disposition was not being made of substandard officers. As late as June 1951, commanders were encouraged to make use of their powers under AR >605-200, 615-369, and 615-368 to eliminate ineffective or undesirable personnel.
My worthless opinion:
As much as the day-to-day peacetime military differs from the day-to-day fighting wartime military there is also a significant command the troops difference between supervising, managing, administrative leading and commanding troops in action. There is an abundance of NCOs, Warrant Officers, and Officers willing to make sure reflective belts are worn and more than a few of them take enjoyment in doing so. However commanding troops in actions where incompetence and lack of fitness increases likelihood of becoming WIA or KIA or causing same too others is much less desirable day-to-day environment to be the leader.
The problem with the Ranger School is the standards have already become somewhat diluted by shift from training focus to develop leaders to command others in the fight to being the equal opportunity gender neutral needed for promotion requirement. Commanding others in action at the fire team, infantry squad, combat patrol, platoon and company tactical fighting environment is as much about being able to make effective real-time decisions in a rapidly changing tactical environment as it is being sufficiently physically fit to perform duties in the direct action ground combat environment.
I've been wet, miserable, smelly, hungry, sleep-deprived, stressed and fatigued from days and nights of hyper-vigiliance like I've never been before in my entire life...and I'd still bet--except for the lethal aspects--that Ranger School is probably tougher than the real thing.
I've not gone through any Pre-Ranger or Ranger courses, but I've been through a few significantly physically and psychologically demanding courses, however, I've accomplished or participated in real world missions/operations that were tougher than I encountered during training. The training experience however was most beneficial particularly since I successfully accomplished what was expected to get accomplished without killing those participating along side me.
