Ranger Brigade(s)

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
True, it's the rest of D INF we're not sure about.

Well....

There's Armoured Infantry, Mechanised Infantry, Light Infantry, Specialist Infantry, Ranger Infantry, Airborne Infantry, I Can't Believe It's Not Infantry.....

At this rate every individual infantryman will have his own descriptive and unique title, role and amusingly-coloured titfer to cut about in.
 
Well....

There's Armoured Infantry, Mechanised Infantry, Light Infantry, Specialist Infantry, Ranger Infantry, Airborne Infantry, I Can't Believe It's Not Infantry.....

At this rate every individual infantryman will have his own descriptive and unique title, role and amusingly-coloured titfer to cut about in.
Do not forget Light Cavalry, the unemployed pretending to be infantry
 

NemoIII

War Hero
Well....

There's Armoured Infantry, Mechanised Infantry, Light Infantry, Specialist Infantry, Ranger Infantry, Airborne Infantry, I Can't Believe It's Not Infantry.....

At this rate every individual infantryman will have his own descriptive and unique title, role and amusingly-coloured titfer to cut about in.

Missing Light mechanised infantry, and maybe Airmobile infantry.

Just so we can get even more titles floating about.
 
Well....

There's Armoured Infantry, Mechanised Infantry, Light Infantry, Specialist Infantry, Ranger Infantry, Airborne Infantry, I Can't Believe It's Not Infantry.....

At this rate every individual infantryman will have his own descriptive and unique title, role and amusingly-coloured titfer to cut about in.

Seems to work for the Israelis...
 

SignalFire

On ROPS
On ROPs
Why would they need to do that? They can go to The BRF or ML2 training or a multitude of SQs within their own Corps. Equally they can go SFSG/SRR or 18 Sigs etc. All established with kudos and pedigree.

Why would they be interested in something that doesn’t yet exist and is drawing their manpower pool from line infantry regiments?
Doesn't work like that, SQs like ML have an 8 year waiting list, SFSG is extremely competitive. Most Bootnecks that ended up in an undesired SQ would ditch the corps to join this new Ranger Regiment in a heartbeat.
 
Doesn't work like that, SQs like ML have an 8 year waiting list, SFSG is extremely competitive. Most Bootnecks that ended up in an undesired SQ would ditch the corps to join this new Ranger Regiment in a heartbeat.

What’s your knowledge of RM as a matter of interest?
 
What’s your knowledge of RM as a matter of interest?

I've no idea what his background is, but having a poke around and speaking to bootnecks I know, my goodness the juniors are unhappy.

I suspect that there will be far more volunteers for the Rangers than the Corps might be comfortable with.
 
I've no idea what his background is, but having a poke around and speaking to bootnecks I know, my goodness the juniors are unhappy.

I suspect that there will be far more volunteers for the Rangers than the Corps might be comfortable with.

You are far more current than I am. I just find it difficult to comprehend that people would be diverted from the established gold standard to something so undefined and based on units that your average Marine would rightly or wrongly consider lesser.

If you are going to go through SF selection and all that entails, I personally can’t see many choosing The PWRR/Mercian etc as the top choice. That could obviously change.

Unless it’s going to be a second eleven for those who can’t pass UKSF selection but want to be called SF.
 
You are far more current than I am. I just find it difficult to comprehend that people would be diverted from the established gold standard to something so undefined and based on units that your average Marine would rightly or wrongly consider lesser.

If you are going to go through SF selection and all that entails, I personally can’t see many choosing The PWRR/Mercian etc as the top choice. That could obviously change.

Unless it’s going to be a second eleven for those who can’t pass UKSF selection but want to be called SF.

I think you may have a misplaced belief in the attitudes of the lads.

If PWRR/MERCIAN are deploying and doing stuff, and the Corps is in a washing machine of preparing for exercise, exercise and short notice exercise taskings, then frankly PWRR/MERCIANS will be seen as the better deal. Equally, the lads eyes are firmly open on what being at Poole means, and enough of them don't want it - that doesn't mean they're "second XI", it means they're making considered, adult choices.

I want FCF to succeed, my fear is that it is neither fish nor fowl. Personally, I think they should've gone much harder for the 75th Ranger Style tasking but reasons stopped them.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I want FCF to succeed, my fear is that it is neither fish nor fowl. Personally, I think they should've gone much harder for the 75th Ranger Style tasking but reasons stopped them.
The real question here is whether, despite all the fanfare about how (wait for it, wait for it!) the brand new ranger type soldiers will (just a bit longer!) actually be able to soldier - TADA! - we all know that the old non-ranger type soldiers were actually able to soldier too. The problem was that nobody would let them because they're scared they might get hurt.

There has been **** all stopping the Spec Inf Bns, or indeed anyone, deploying with partnered forces except the ROE they are given and risk aversion in London. Certainly they could be trained better and more specialised, but the dense idea of presenting it as an 'upgrade' so they are combat deployable is, frankly, just insulting. Either that or some politicians ran away with a line they simply didn't understand, and then various VSO who should have known better repeated it.

The limitations on tasking have always been more about the taskers than the tasked.
 
The real question here is whether, despite all the fanfare about how (wait for it, wait for it!) the brand new ranger type soldiers will (just a bit longer!) actually be able to soldier - TADA! - we all know that the old non-ranger type soldiers were actually able to soldier too. The problem was that nobody would let them because they're scared they might get hurt.

There has been **** all stopping the Spec Inf Bns, or indeed anyone, deploying with partnered forces except the ROE they are given and risk aversion in London. Certainly they could be trained better and more specialised, but the dense idea of presenting it as an 'upgrade' so they are combat deployable is, frankly, just insulting. Either that or some politicians ran away with a line they simply didn't understand, and then various VSO who should have known better repeated it.

The limitations on tasking have always been more about the taskers than the tasked.
Spot on.
 
It’s only ever been about policies and permissions.

And selling those to politicians is sometimes about selling the story, not the capability.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Well....

There's Armoured Infantry, Mechanised Infantry, Light Infantry, Specialist Infantry, Ranger Infantry, Airborne Infantry, I Can't Believe It's Not Infantry.....

At this rate every individual infantryman will have his own descriptive and unique title, role and amusingly-coloured titfer to cut about in.

Forces trained, equipped and mentally adjusted for one kind of operation were wasteful. They did not give, militarily, a worthwhile return for the resources in men, material and time that they absorbed... They were usually formed by attracting the best men... The result was undoubtedly to lower the quality of the rest of the Army. This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier, who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it, should be expected to climb a tree. - Field Marshal Sir William Slim,
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
It’s only ever been about policies and permissions.

And selling those to politicians is sometimes about selling the story, not the capability.
Perhaps, but not in this case. The alternate universe version is that five years ago, CDS or CGS said to politicians:

These Spec Inf guys are trained up to a high standard, entirely capable of deploying as mentors in combat operations, and indeed have been doing that for the best part of fifteen years. It's in our interests, if we bother deploying them to [XXX] at all, to ensure that they engage in the full range of mentoring, including the front line.

Anything else will substantially undermine our actual purpose, which is consent winning local forces to do the heavy lifting for us, and take our opinions seriously. No local force will respect, or give a damn about us if we just hang back behind the walls whenever an actual risk is required, so we might as well not bother deploying them inside those walls at all, if that's the extent of where they will go. This is the lesson of nearly a century of western forces doing this around the world, and is exactly what we teach to our officer cadets in Sandhurst: nobody will follow you if you aren't willing to share the same risks.

Does this incur a higher risk of individuals being killed or injured? Yes. But compared to Afghanistan, you're looking at about a 10-15 times risk reduction on numbers alone, because that is the factor reduction of mentoring vs whole force numbers. Not to mention, we do not need to deploy them into the most dangerous roles or places, just close enough that they can actually do the job we are asking them to do, and that they aren't thought to be cowards by those we are trying to influence. It is the lowest acceptable level of risk while still achieving a worthwhile effect.

Perhaps the politicians nixed the missions completely and they freed up effort for elsewhere; perhaps they took that advice and gave those ROE. I don't see them countering the military options by inventing something in-between. Both of those would have been preferable to the ridiculous halfway house most of these 'training' deployments ended up being, where infantry soldiers were basically expected to run RSOI or Phase 1 lite for (often) experienced combat troops in a guarded, risk-free environment.
 

Wee Hawken

Old-Salt
If PWRR/MERCIAN are deploying and doing stuff, and the Corps is in a washing machine of preparing for exercise, exercise and short notice exercise taskings, then frankly PWRR/MERCIANS will be seen as the better deal.
Given that 1 MERCIAN is an Armd Inf Bn and 2 MERCIAN about to cease to exist, the unhappy Marines might not find quite what they had hoped for.
 
Given that 1 MERCIAN is an Armd Inf Bn and 2 MERCIAN about to cease to exist, the unhappy Marines might not find quite what they had hoped for.

I was using the example given in response to me.

I though 2 MERCIANs were the ones who set fire to camps, ignored a covid outbreak and conducted a stealth mess dinner?

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
 
Perhaps, but not in this case. The alternate universe version is that five years ago, CDS or CGS said to politicians:

These Spec Inf guys are trained up to a high standard, entirely capable of deploying as mentors in combat operations, and indeed have been doing that for the best part of fifteen years. It's in our interests, if we bother deploying them to [XXX] at all, to ensure that they engage in the full range of mentoring, including the front line.

Anything else will substantially undermine our actual purpose, which is consent winning local forces to do the heavy lifting for us, and take our opinions seriously. No local force will respect, or give a damn about us if we just hang back behind the walls whenever an actual risk is required, so we might as well not bother deploying them inside those walls at all, if that's the extent of where they will go. This is the lesson of nearly a century of western forces doing this around the world, and is exactly what we teach to our officer cadets in Sandhurst: nobody will follow you if you aren't willing to share the same risks.

Does this incur a higher risk of individuals being killed or injured? Yes. But compared to Afghanistan, you're looking at about a 10-15 times risk reduction on numbers alone, because that is the factor reduction of mentoring vs whole force numbers. Not to mention, we do not need to deploy them into the most dangerous roles or places, just close enough that they can actually do the job we are asking them to do, and that they aren't thought to be cowards by those we are trying to influence. It is the lowest acceptable level of risk while still achieving a worthwhile effect.

Perhaps the politicians nixed the missions completely and they freed up effort for elsewhere; perhaps they took that advice and gave those ROE. I don't see them countering the military options by inventing something in-between. Both of those would have been preferable to the ridiculous halfway house most of these 'training' deployments ended up being, where infantry soldiers were basically expected to run RSOI or Phase 1 lite for (often) experienced combat troops in a guarded, risk-free environment.

This would be the SoS whose stated aim was to dead-bat anything to do with Defence so as to keep it off the front pages, which absolutely included anything looking like new risk (Fallon), or the SoS who used Defence as a stalking horse to beat the PM with and tickle the erogenous zones of the old folk in Conservative Associations by acting like a hyperactive puppy (Williamson)?

I mean for while - during MDP - the entire Armed Forces were very lucky that we had much capability left.
 

Latest Threads

Top