Ranger Brigade(s)

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.
 

Cocopops62

Swinger
Regarding the risk involved. I'm the sure the Niger Ambush which resulted in 4 American SFs KIA, is still fresh in the mind of our politicians. I can't imagine our politicians allowing this new Ranger Force to undertake even half the risks of its American counterparts, so what use will other actors have of ours?

where infantry soldiers were basically expected to run RSOI or Phase 1 lite for (often) experienced combat troops in a guarded, risk-free environment.
The Vietnam War (2017) documentary by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick has a couple of interviews with a (ex) South Vietnamese Marine who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam. He said that every time a new American SF soldier would arrive, explaining that he's here to train him, he would laugh and say the only purpose that you serve, is to call in the airstrikes when the **** gets bad.

I wonder what purpose our 'Rangers' would serve. Considering our lack of global airpower.
 
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.
 

Q_Man

Old-Salt
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.

Would you want to be first eleven that are not in the tournament or second eleven that are still in? I think the reasoning is they (we) joined for a scrap / adventure / to be the best (I should trademark that, might be useful for recruiting). Would they rather be on tour in Africa with Mercian and the mudguard or on Dartmoor with a green lid?
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I knew a RM who transferred Army. The pay cut and proper dicking around by seniors had him jack it all and become a RN Stoker.
 
Because calling them "Half a Bn doing a never ending round of STTT but it was that or cut you" isn't quite as snappy?

At the risk of cementing my reputation as a dull uniformed civy twunt

Sudiously Ignoring the whole keeping battalions around in little more then name only to avoid the whole disbanding 3rd Loamshires harumph issue.

Would it not be more cost and resource efficient to expand SFSG to 2 Battalions with for example 2 SFSG and 2 "Ranger Coys" thus allowing rotating through roles etc

Or

Nominally Adding a 'Ranger" platoon to each battalion
In effect a few Dozen extra officers and ncos so again theres more capacity to rotate through roles within the regiment and arguably a pool to aid expansion in the future if required .
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
At the risk of cementing my reputation as a dull uniformed civy twunt

Sudiously Ignoring the whole keeping battalions around in little more then name only to avoid the whole disbanding 3rd Loamshires harumph issue.

Would it not be more cost and resource efficient to expand SFSG to 2 Battalions with for example 2 SFSG and 2 "Ranger Coys" thus allowing rotating through roles etc

Or

Nominally Adding a 'Ranger" platoon to each battalion
In effect a few Dozen extra officers and ncos so again theres more capacity to rotate through roles within the regiment and arguably a pool to aid expansion in the future if required .
It could be, although the roles (from what we know of the Ranger role so far which isn't much at all) are different and require role specific equipment, qualifications and skills. Any transition from one role to the other adds further training time and cost.
 
The concept has an interesting (and seemingly well worked out) ops rotation in its current guise.
The team leading it (headed up by a seemingly well regarded bloke) have got their ducks in a row.
 
Nominally Adding a 'Ranger" platoon to each battalion
In effect a few Dozen extra officers and ncos so again theres more capacity to rotate through roles within the regiment and arguably a pool to aid expansion in the future if required .

Sounds like what the Canucks did when the disbanded the Canadian ABN Regiment and transformed a Coy of each of their regular INF Bn into an ABN Coy.

After the disbandment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in 1995, the Canadian army reverted to its former practice of maintaining a parachute company within one of the battalions of each of the regular infantry regiments. The commandos, at that time, returned to their regimental "homes" and became a company of the light battalion of each of their regiments (the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the 3rd Battalion Royal 22e Régiment). As of 2018, only the 3rd Battalion RCR is an airmobile and air assault capable battalion (the first and by now only one in Canada), having been converted to that role in 2011, as part of the growing international deployments of the Army outside Canada (formerly only M company was assigned to the parachute role within the battalion).

 
It could be, although the roles (from what we know of the Ranger role so far which isn't much at all) are different and require role specific equipment, qualifications and skills. Any transition from one role to the other adds further training time and cost.
One Qual might my the ML qual that the booties do, or get some through the RAF Mountain Rescue teams,
 

riksavage

Old-Salt
Sounds like what the Canucks did when the disbanded the Canadian ABN Regiment and transformed a Coy of each of their regular INF Bn into an ABN Coy.

After the disbandment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in 1995, the Canadian army reverted to its former practice of maintaining a parachute company within one of the battalions of each of the regular infantry regiments. The commandos, at that time, returned to their regimental "homes" and became a company of the light battalion of each of their regiments (the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the 3rd Battalion Royal 22e Régiment). As of 2018, only the 3rd Battalion RCR is an airmobile and air assault capable battalion (the first and by now only one in Canada), having been converted to that role in 2011, as part of the growing international deployments of the Army outside Canada (formerly only M company was assigned to the parachute role within the battalion).

Every battalion now has it's own embedded ‘bollock burning team’, awesome!
 

Cyberhacker

War Hero
Nominally Adding a 'Ranger" platoon to each battalion
In effect a few Dozen extra officers and ncos so again theres more capacity to rotate through roles within the regiment and arguably a pool to aid expansion in the future if required .
As I understand it, this has effectively been done - but in reverse...

So many companies are undermanned, they're a platoon short - or in effect, after a big of shuffling, a cadre-company short of a battalion... a simple rename and job-jobbed.

31 "elite" ranger companies :D
 

Buddy!

War Hero
At the risk of cementing my reputation as a dull uniformed civy twunt

Sudiously Ignoring the whole keeping battalions around in little more then name only to avoid the whole disbanding 3rd Loamshires harumph issue.

Would it not be more cost and resource efficient to expand SFSG to 2 Battalions with for example 2 SFSG and 2 "Ranger Coys" thus allowing rotating through roles etc

Or

Nominally Adding a 'Ranger" platoon to each battalion
In effect a few Dozen extra officers and ncos so again theres more capacity to rotate through roles within the regiment and arguably a pool to aid expansion in the future if required .

Why is everyone so caught up on it being comparable to SFSG? The SFSG and the Rangers will perform two completely different roles, worlds apart.
 
Why is everyone so caught up on it being comparable to SFSG? The SFSG and the Rangers will perform two completely different roles, worlds apart.
Because the PARAs are sad that Regimental protectionism has now been expanded?
 
As I understand it, this has effectively been done - but in reverse...

So many companies are undermanned, they're a platoon short - or in effect, after a big of shuffling, a cadre-company short of a battalion... a simple rename and job-jobbed.

31 "elite" ranger companies :D
Have a look at the independent companies raised in 1939-40 pre commandos a concept that morphed a tad
 
Top