Supporting THEM!

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by Plastic Yank, Jan 18, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Having read Gizzit's recent post, I thought this a good opportunity to raise the issue of the newly proposed "Ranger" Bn that will support our good friends at H.

    This apparently is going to happen and the discussion I always had with my friends at that particular unit is "Why do the f*cking Paras get all the good jobs?"

    Now chap undergoing the questioning (in a most polite manner from me of course, generously supported by lots of single malt), maintains that the Paras, are on average just better operators! He maintains that their attitude and level of competent of their JNCO's is more suitable for this supporting role.

    He does justify these statements by saying that since the Paras are not part of the Arms Plot, that they are always available and always prep and trained for low level intensity ops. (he is not a Para by the way).

    BUT, a few thoughts have been going through my head:

    1. Everyone and their dog seems to be doing proper, dynamic and serious operational tours, and thereby, being vastly more experienced.

    2. Most of these tours are involving mech or arm bn's and therefore unsuitable for Light Role Bn's.

    3. Future ops would seem to be a repetition of the current status quo.

    THEREFORE, (I am getting to the point), with the current state of ops (globally) and the potential for future ops being of the same kind, would not our SF friends be better advised to gain support from a heavier unit, as opposed to getting support from a unit, which is not the differently equip to its own? (phew, got that out finally).

    Thoughts, comments, rude remarks?
     
  2. RTFQ

    RTFQ RIP

    Maybe the thinking is:

    They will always need a short/almost no notice air deployable (incl, crucially, hele deployed) force that are absolutely at home in that light role.

    They can always get medium/heavy forces from the 'abundance' (I mean that relatively) of them in the rest of the army.
     
  3. ah good point RTFQ,

    However, the point of creating a "Ranger" Bn (not my word by the way) is that by being closely linked and trained with the lads, they will understand their thinking and methods. So surely, by only using other assets on an ad hoc basis, you run the risk of distrust through unfamilarilty?
     
  4. By way of warning, this is a serious thread asking a serious question. Any hint of 'I hate hats, they're shit' or slagging of 'The Reg' will be deleted.

    Clear enough?
     
  5. In an ideal world support would be provided by a unit that offers the required capability. That could be heavy or light dependent on role, location and so on. Delta Force in Somalia (Blackhawk Down and all that) got Rangers. What it really needed was a heavy unit to get them out of trouble, rather than borrow the UN tanks/APCs as happened. (I know there were political considerations involved there as well)

    Whether or not a unit is deployable at short notice depends on whether or not its funded and equipped to be. If the Paras are your only rapid reaction units then it's not surprising that they're always ready, and criticising other capbadges because they aren't misses the point.

    By the way, only a pure cynic would point at this arrangement means that the Paras don't lose a Bn and relate that to the capbadge worn by POD. Nasty, vicious rumours they are.
     
  6. Point to note, that the Para's have already supported them, in Siera Leon, so possibly was that deployment the catalyst to this idea? I recall that the PF's had that job as one of thier roles.

    I personally think it is a good idea, seeing some of the things that may be required of the Ranger Batt, there may possibly be room in it for (and dare I say it!!!) 2 Sqn RAF REGT. Again they are a para/infantry/trained guard force which I guess will be one of the main jobs for the RB.

    If, as said previous they need 'heavy' bits and pieces, then they will hopefully get them as the mission and need dictates (hang on, this is the 'New Labour' Army here, so they will get it after they have deployed and attacked!! DOH!!) otherwise I think it would be an expensive missuse of otherwise important units and kit.
     
  7. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    The Airborne Task Force (ABTF), as one of the highest readiness warfighting elements in the UK inventory, has always had the role of providing Cat 2 support to SF (see Sierrra Leone). Like any Cat 2 element (i.e no specific training, equiment, etc) the SF have always wanted them to be more closely integrated and the level of demands placed on the ABTF has meant that this hasn't been possible recently. Quite rightly, in my opinion, DSF has made the case that this isn't acceptable given the unstable times we are living in.

    Much as I hate to see a Para Bn removed from the Op Commitments Plot and given the task of 'plum jobs' I suspect that it is the correct one....
     
  8. I don't doubt that using a fully intergrated and dedicated Para Bn for supporting the boys in black is a good idea, BUT what i would like out of this thread is opinions on whether or not this role should perhaps be expanded to take into consideration the more varied nature of UK plc's taskings.

    I.E. - Is another Light role unit the correct one for this supporting role?
     
  9. By the very nature of the ops carried out by the regiment they will not require heavy armour etc , look at Sierra Leone as an example , a rapid attack and follow up , and back in blighty for tea and medals , any heavier firepower required can be sorted by air .
    Rapid deployment is the key , what's the point in having an armoured inf. battalion in this role (for instance) unless the kit is already in theatre you're f*cked for the rapid deployment , it'll take 3 months of paper shuffling before the first wagon is shackled down , all things taken into consideration i definetley think they've made the right choice on this one.
     
  10. The way in which Para have been used in the past 40 or so years means that they are used to going in where the sh1t is flying and sorting things out. They have the right attitude for this work and are by temperament most closely approximating to the guys they would be working with.
     
  11. Isn't Para who have been providing this support when reqr anyway?
    The questions are, why the whole new unit to do the job?
    will this unit be in addition to the 3 Bns of Para, or reduce Para to 2 Bns?
     
  12. RC

    1 Para effectively ceases to exist. It is certainly going to be removed from the Infantry's ORBAT. The Bn (let's hope they aren't called Rangers FFS) will be a purple organisation, aparently including some 'elite' RAF Regiment (a static guardforce / FARP protection party no doubt) and some booties.
     
  13. Thank you.
    Is there currently a real reqr for such a group of dedicated "Rangers"?

    They would seem to be somewhat like Canada's SSF. Not all para, but air portable, etc.

    (So these will be Purple Rangers, not Green Rangers... :wink: )
     
  14. I personally don't have a problem with the word 'Rangers' as the Spams hijacked it from us. Remember Rogers Rangers in the French/Canadian War?

    There is a need within UKSF for a unit that provides a similar capacity to that which the 75th Ranger Regt provides to US SOF.
     
  15. I have no problem with Rangers being used either. The reference used though in forming this Ranger unit is to the US Rangers, even though the US did take their own use of "Rangers" from Britain.

    What has taken so long for such a special unit to be formed to support UKSF, or has what's been done up to now been fine for the task?