Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Ranger Brigade(s)

Incorrect, it’s a mindset, brutal as it is. Hence the massive failure rates on both UKSF and BUD’s PJ selection.

They haven’t lost a candidate on selection for some time, in the water there are instructors in the water safe guarding it. You jump in a pool for the swim test, or drown test you know you are not going to die, as people will pull you out.
That depends on whether you class 2016 as "some time".
 
Incorrect, it’s a mindset, brutal as it is. Hence the massive failure rates on both UKSF and BUD’s PJ selection.

They haven’t lost a candidate on selection for some time, in the water there are instructors in the water safe guarding it. You jump in a pool for the swim test, or drown test you know you are not going to die, as people will pull you out.
Utter crap.
 
Absolutely. It doesn’t have to be a carbon copy of anything, however it needs to difficult and selective.
There are any number of specialisations which have daunting admission criteria and eye-watering failure rates during training without there being even the faintest hint of the hills or the trees about them. High failure rates, of course, tend to suggest poor pre-selection and -training screening, a negative, rather than a positive.

'Difficult' and 'selective' needn't involve bergens. although I grant you that the infantry component of the Rangers, if they're going to mentor and then accompany their mentored friends into operations will certainly need their core skills to be right up to standard, as well as having the linguistic ability, cultural sensitivity and instructional aptitude to be able to do the job in the first place.

I suspect you can always train in the skills, but will need to select for the aptitudes.
 
Obviously you’ve experienced the course? Experienced parts of it?
You are long out of date my friend. You are fast becoming the Stonker version of the Royal Air Force.
I spent 3 yrs at Lackland and considerable time looking at the 37TRW trg pipeline for PJs. I can’t swim 50m underwater, but I’m quite comfortable with my knowledge base. You?
 
Last edited:
How many deaths vs how many passed?
I was simply postulating that your comment of "haven't lost a candidate on selection for some time", is dependant on whether you consider 2016 as far enough in the past to count as "some time".

I'll leave it up to others on whether they do so or not.
 
I spent 3 yrs at Lackland and considerable time looking at the 37TRW trg pipeline. I can’t swim 50m underwater, but I’m quite comfortable with my knowledge base. You?
I can swim 50m underwater, I am also passed an arduous course, the swim was over twenty years ago, in England. Have you passed an arduous course?
 
Only if you define SF as people that run fast with weight.

We suffer enough from trying to, thinking we do, and entirely not, understanding the US terms of SF and SOF.

If Rangers are going to be partners/instructors/mentors and also go on operations with the non-UK groups they train, whether we call that SF or not, or say its an SF tasking or not, doesn't necessarily require the ability to do the Fan with a heavy bergen or have wings on their arms.

Not only the US that differentiates between SF and SOF. I have a mate in Germany who is a company commander whose unit he describes as “not special forces, but special purpose troops”. His lot perform a very niche role, which at the level they work at, is ordinarily performed by SF in most countries.

Because of their role, the training, and need to rapidly deploy they are based with box head SF. This results in them being regarded as SF by most people. Admission to the unit requires possession of the required infantry skills, a clean record, good performance ratings, a vacancy in the unit, but no defined arduous selection.....though due to the work, and their location, the unit tends to attract and retain the fitter type of individual.
 
Last edited:
Nothing to do with badges, more the assertion that you can force yourself to remain underwater for an indeterminate time because you “know you are not going to die”.
He wasn't saying that though was he? He was just saying that you have the comfort of knowing that if you get into trouble there issomeone nearby who is going to fish you out.
 
Not only the US that differentiates between SF and SOF. I have a mate in Germany who is a company commander whose unit he describes as “not special forces, but special purpose troops”. His lot perform a very niche role, which at the level they work at, is ordinarily performed by SF in most countries.

Because of their role, the training, and need to rapidly deploy they are based with box head SF. This results in them being regarded as SF by most people. Admission to the unit requires possession of the required infantry skills, a clean record, good performance ratings, a vacancy in the unit, but no defined arduous selection.....though due to the work, and their location, the unit tends to attract and retain the fitter type of individual.


?
 
Top