Modern Military Tactics and Strategy 201

[Bad Infinitum]

Both are distinctly advantageous. As Sundra pointed out, Rhino was a huge success and a huge win for the Airborne community, as their skillsets are being less and less utilized in modern strategies. The problem with Iraq, however, is that our large-scale troop positions don't matter as much as our individual soldier's skill and tactics. Faced against guerrilla forces, smaller-scale focus must be paid to individual operations. We can't just move the frontline anymore.

However, if we were ever to be in another situation as that, dedicated airborne infantry would be invaluable. Dropping a division of troops behind enemy lines not only is a huge strategic advantage, it also gives us the edge by disrupting the opposing force's general day-to-day functions. Supply routes would have to be rerouted to avoid known airborne locations, and those who haven't exposed themselves could always be in wait. Line troops would have to be diverted from their defensive positions to hunt down marauding airborne units. The entire defending force would be all thrown off-kilter and generally less combat effective.

Airborne infantry also has the benefit of quick mobility in case of defensive action. An entire division sized element can be loaded for bear and dropped basically anywhere in the world in just the time it takes to get there, immediately combat effective. Air assault units require helicopters to be within flight range of the target, more helicopters would be needed for larger amounts of troops and scrambling a hundred Blackhawks is much more logistically challenging than two C-130s full of gung-ho paratroopers.

On the other side of that, airborne operations on the offensive side must be more heavily planned out and require a great deal of coordination for an assault to be executed properly. Plus, a lot more can go wrong in a paratroop drop than an air assault (case in point: Market Garden).

In summary, airborne and air assault each have their own specific application in modern warfare, and neither could fully absorb the duties and abilities of the other.

[Bellemiatic]

I am not a specialist on droppings, but I believe each exists for a reason. For example, you won't expect airborne forces do the job of rangers or vice versa. Using Spec Ops are such as waste, so, I think regular paratroopers are necessary if you have enough planes and parachutes.

[Mal]

I like the thinking nd the dialogue. And FYI: there are no right or wrong answers to discussion questions.

[Bellemiatic]

When can we drop tanks from sky?

[Mal]

As I understand it, dropping armor via parachute has been tested but never actually done in an operational situation.

[Kannex]

Sept 29, 2011 7:38:48 GMT -5 Mal said:

As I understand it, dropping armor via parachute has been tested but never actually done in an operational situation.

Is it practical in your eyes, Mal? I can't imagine a tank drop being very safe... you might crush your own soldiers or land in the enter of an enemy ambush. Correct me if I'm wrong, which I think I am.

[Bellemiatic]

I guess deploying through gliders is more... practical, right? If you just got shot, you just need to open the chute, even you may crash the following glider...

[Bellemiatic]

Just imagine a bunch of gliders with tanks in them and deployed in the center of the enemy force, I don't think they expect there are armors in it.

[Mal]

As I said, to my knowledge, dropping armor via parachute has been tested, but it has never been done in an operation. But truthfully, I'm not even sure they have dropped an actual armor piece. Rather, I think they've simulated it.

Back in the 1980s, the Army wanted to replace their M551 Sheridans with the M8 Buford sysytem, which would have been produced in three versions, two of which would have been able to be parachute inserted into the battle space. However, changing priorities led to its cancellation.

Problematic with Main Battle Tanks is the weight. While it may indeed be possible to drop a light tank, I can't imagine a system that would be able to drop a Main Battle Tank such as the Abrams, at least not with existing technology.

The impact could do serious damage to the vehicle, including rupturing the tread connections on the tracks, thereby rendering it useless. Moreover, if the impact were to damage the main gun's firing system, subsequent attempts to discharge from the gun could have catastrophic results which would in turn kill the crew.

While light tanks have been "dropped" by C-130s flying at a very low altitude to where no chute was needed, a process known as "extraction dropping", I'm unaware of any tank being dropped from parachute altitude.

Any thoughts?

[Bellemiatic]

But the extraction droppings don't bring any element of surprise.

[Mal]

True enough, but until a system is developed that allows for the safe deployment of MBTs by parachute, it's the obly way to get armor on the battlefield quickly.

Anyway, I am very proud of all of you for the lateral thinking and for not being afraid to propose ideas.

[Mal]

Because we drifted off topic, I'm continuing this lesson until Wedensday of next week.

Reminder: Please try not to post off topic. I understand everyone has their own areas they want to discuss. Thus, I encourage you to look at the syllabus and try to wait until we cover your topic before commenting on it.

And I want to commend everyone again for their enthusiasm! I am especially impressed with all the out of the box questions, whether they are off topic or not. Great job!

[Mal]

Okay, Troops,

This week we continue our discussion on rotary wing aircraft.

Read this article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing/Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche

Via PM answer: Why didi the Army discontinue the Comanche?

What did they do with the funds in addition to upgrading the existing fleet?

How much money was spent on the program before it was cancelled?

For discussion: Should the Army have finished this program? Why or why not? What about the way the left over program money was spent? Do you agree with that use of funds?

[Surdra]

Should the Army have finished this program? Why or why not? What about the way the left over program money was spent? Do you agree with that use of funds?

I personally think that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was that the project was so poorly run and was using up too much money the Army had no choice but to cancel the project.

The Army also did the right thing in using the unused funds into fleet modernizing programs and future UAV projects

[Mal]

OK everyone. We are very fortunate this semester to have a former Army Ranger joining us and filling in for the next two weeks as a guest instructor. As most of you know, I was on active duty in the Marines from 1982 to 1986. However, contrary to popular belief, the Marines actually learn a lot about the early campaigns by the Army.

Without stealing too much of Surdra's thunder, the Brecourt Manor Assault, executed on D-Day in Normandy by members of the Army's "Easy" Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, is still taught in Marine Infantry School as a text book example of Small unit tactics.

Anyway, this weeks lesson is being postponed to a later date. Without further delay, I'm turning the class over to Surdra for the next two weeks, and you should look for his lesson beginning this Friday night.

[Surdra]

Thank you Malecia.

Alright to start I will give you guys my background; I have around two years service with the US Army. I joined straight out of high school. After I finished basic and infantry school I did jump school, were I was the youngest student there, and graduated top of my class. After that I did RIP (Ranger Indoctrination Program), now known as Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP), and did four months with the 2nd Ranger Battalion. I then did 60+ fun filled days of the US Army Ranger School, were I'm proud to say I was third in my class. I did not return to a Ranger battalion but was sent to the 3rd BCT, 10th Mountain Division. We deployed to eastern Afghanistan where we did over four and a half months of combat operations. I was then in a Humvee accident and suffered a head injury that led me to retiring from the Army. I now work for a US DoD government contractor as a ground combat systems operator for computer war games.

Now that we got that bit out of the way we can get to my lesson plan. For the first part of the Special Operations Module we will cover a general overview of SOCOM and each of the units that are part of it. I do suggest you do some research on your own as we will not go into any real depth as it is an overview. The week after that we will look at Ranger history and I will give you an basic understanding of ranger patrolling tactics. I will also give extra credit for a small project that I will post in the following week.

If you have any questions feel free to PM me, my door is always open.

[Mutanatia]

I must say, thank you for your service. (Do soldiers accept hugs? If so... *hug* ^_^)

[Surdra]

Module 4. Special Operations

Over the next two weeks, we're going to look at Special Forces. Most of you probably have a general idea of what Special Forces are and what they do. In this lesson we are going to take a look at SOCOM and some of the various units that are a part of it. All of the reading is from articles on Wikipedia, from which you will have to answer the following questions:

After reading this article,

-When was SOCOM formed and what was the reason for its creation?

Now we are going to take a look at the various units within SOCOM. The answers to the questions can be found early on in the respective articles.

Here is an article about the US Army Special Forces, aka the Green Berets.

-What are the Six primary missions that the Green Berets are tasked with?

Next we have an article about the 75th Ranger Regiment.

-What are the missions the Regiment conducts and how much time does it take the Ranger Ready Force to respond anywhere in the world?

After reading this article about the 160th SOAR, what are the types of aircraft the 160th fly and how many of each do they have?

Next we are going to take a look at the US Marine Special Operations Regiment (MSOR), after reading this article what was the major controversy that the MSOR had when they deployed in 2007.

-Also what are the roles that MSOR fulfills for the USMC?

And finally we come to the US Navy Seals, read this article.

-What are the primary and secondary roles of the US Navy Seals and also how many SEAL teams are there?

Special Forces often use modified or custom equipment during their operations. One such item is FN’s Special Operations Forces (SOF) Combat Assault Rifle or SCAR. Here is an article about the SCAR.

-Why did SOCOM cancel their order for the SCAR?

Discussion: What makes Special Forces effective in the current war on terror? What are the strengths and weakness of the various units in SOCOM? What do you think is the best way to use these units in a conventional war?

Next week, we are going to go into greater detail with the US Army Rangers. We will take a look at the history of the Rangers and we will also look at Ranger Patrolling Tactics. I will also give extra credit for a special project.

[Free Northern States]

Is it too late to sign up for this class!

I am a 20 year veteran of the Canadian Forces. I have two operational deployment to Afghanistan and I am currently the Operations and Training NCO for my unit.

[Surdra]

Never to late, You will however need to contact Malecia as this is his class.

[Mutanatia]

Discussion: Special Forces Units are great on the war on terror because that is mostly its main purpose (Counter-terrorism is mentioned on all of them!)
The only weakness I see in these units is that they are meant for specific, tailor-made (well, that's not the right word ) missions. If something else pops up that they are not prepared for, such as an out-and-out military battle, they might get into trouble as that is not their training. It also takes a long time to train them. Strengths are that they seem to be prepared for these sorts of missions extremely well. There are some bums in the road at times, and sometimes they seem to order weapons that they may not actually need. That's an over simplification here... but I think you get the point. In a conventional war, the thing that jumps into my head is perhaps sabotage of some sort, and also of locating the enemy and finding out its weaknesses (IE: "special recon")

[Mal]

Actually, the only weakness I see is a lack of sharing of intel, which has been resolved to some degree since the war on terror began. As far as Direct Action, Rangers have been very adept at that, as have Marine Recon Battalions. Seals used Direct Action to get Bin Laden.

With the new command at SOCOM, hopefully, inter-unit integirty has improved.

[Mutanatia]

You know what, Malecia? I was actually going to ask Surdra if they share information. I remember a lot of talk of that going on about 10 years ago. IF they don't, the other question then is: why? I mean, they talk about government inefficiency... but is that concept applied to the military as well?

[Surdra]

I'll toss this one out there for you guys to chew on, what about the lack of organic support? Both combat and supplies.

[Mutanatia]

Well, if there's no organic support... wasn't SOCOM founded to do exactly that? So... haven't they succeeded in having a command structure that isn't organized--and thus was the problem to begin with? If this is true, then it seems, well, like they haven't learned from the very lessons that led them to create it to begin with?

[Surdra]

SOCOM is for command and control, what I was talking about combat support. For example, the Rangers do not have their own vehicles, they must borrow from other units. Rangers also have limited anti-armor capabilities, so if they run into armor they are in world of sh*t. And remember that the Rangers are one of the more combat ready of America's SF groups.

Most regular units only have to go only a few steps up their chain of command to call in organic armor or artillery, when a regular unit runs into armor they can call for organic armor to come to assist them, rangers can not. Rangers must call the theater commander and then have him send armor to them.

[Mal]

Oct 16, 2011 14:31:04 GMT -5 Surdra said:

SOCOM is for command and control, what I was talking about combat support. For example, the Rangers do not have their own vehicles, they must borrow from other units. Rangers also have limited anti-armor capabilities, so if they run into armor they are in world of sh*t. And remember that the Rangers are one of the more combat ready of America's SF groups.

I'm glad you brought that up, especially the last line. It's important to remember that Rangers are a unique unit in the Special Operations Community. Particularly when it comes to their duties and capabilities. As Surdra pointed out, there are no heavy weapons support units within the Ranger Regiment.

Unlike, for example, an Airborne Division which has within it's Table of Organization Artillery and Cavalry units for support.

So, in response to the question: I am not so sure that a lack of organic support units is very wise. However, with the advent of modern digital encrypted communications systems, this seems as if it would be less of a problem in the modern era.

As to the supply question, you can never have enough supplies. Food, ammo, and medicine ("beans, bullets, and band-aids" if you prefer the slang) are absolutely essential to any winning strategy. I think that a larger organization such as the Rangers should have its own supply battalion, or at least a support battalion that contains a communications company, a supply company, and medics.

[Mutanatia]

Can someone define what "organic armor," etc. means? Right now, I think it means armor made from plants, but I know that's not right

[Surdra]

Anthing that is organic to an unit means that it is permantly a part of that unit.

Example: An Armor division's tanks are organic to that unit, while an Air Force combat controller that is asigned to rifle platoon is not permantly a part of that platoon.

[Surdra]

Alright guys, now we are going to move onto a unit very close to my heart, the US Army Rangers. The Rangers are America's first special forces and have fought in every major war it has fought.

Read this article and then answer the following questions. You are going to have to search the page for the answers.

- Who is he "father of American ranging"

- Who is credited with, among other things, drafting the first set of standard orders for rangers and what are they called?

- What unit is credited as being the first official Ranger unit (by name) for the United States? (Hint: American Revolution)

- In World War II why did the US Army decide to call their new commando unit Rangers?

- How did the Ranger Motto come about?

- What was the Ranger type units called in the Vietnam War?

- When was the current day 75th Ranger Regiment formed?

Before the discussion read this.

Discussion: Why do you think the Rangers are so effective? Why are the Ranger's "Standing Orders" still meaningful today?