The differences between OZ commando and US Rangers?

[GreyWolf]

Just wondering, what's the difference between OZ commando and US Ranger? Is OZ commando an OZ version of Rangers?

Thank you

[Aussie Digger]

Not really. Australian Commando units are true special forces units designed to conduct "classic" special forces raiding missions, with a particular emphasis on Waterborne operations, though they are trained in the full range of specwarops insertion methods including HALO/HAHO parachuting operations, vehicle mounted operations (including long range patrol vehicle ops and soon, "fast attack" vehicle ops).

They also have a very strong Counter-Terrorism role (particularly the full-time soldiers), providing a Company Group to provide for the Australian East Coast, Tactical Assault Group (TAG-East).

Australia Commando's are in fact closer in capability and taskings to US Navy SEALS, than Rangers, who to the best of my knowledge are "simply", higher trained infantry units...

[mysterious]

What abt the Delta Force? Are the OZ commando units at par with them?

[Aussie Digger]

Who knows? The Commando's include a lot of SASR operators in their TAG-East unit at present as it's still a relatively knew formation, so there's little doubt they are very capable. OTOH, Delta is very well established and not to mention well equipped and trained. I doubt there would be too great gap between the 2 unit's capabilitites...

[Pathfinder-X]

What abt the Delta Force? Are the OZ commando units at par with them?

As far as I know, these two units are tagged for different mission roles. I think it would be more appropriate to compare SASR to SFOD-D when it comes to CT operations.

[pepsi]

Does Australia have anything similar to the US Marines? I was wondering about that for awhile but i can't find anything we have that is similar

[Aussie Digger]

Does Australia have anything similar to the US Marines? I was wondering about that for awhile but i can't find anything we have that is similar

No units specifically tasked as a "Marine" unit, however 2 RAR train extensively for Amphibious warfare operations and if Australia seemed likely to conduct an Amphibious warfare op, it'd probably be 2RAR tasked to do it. It was 5/7RAR that conducted that type of Op in Timor though so go figure...

[SOLDIER officer]

From Wikipedia:

The 75th Ranger Regiment —also known as the United States Army Rangers— is a Special Operations Force of the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC); with headquarters in Fort Benning, Georgia. The Regiment is a flexible, highly trained and rapidly deployable light infantry force with specialized skills that enables it to be employed against a variety of conventional and special operations targets.

The force specializes in Airborne, Air Assault, light-infantry and Direct Action operations, conducting raids, infiltration and exfiltration by air, land or sea, airfield seizure, recovery of personnel and special equipment, and support of general purpose forces (GPF) among others. Each Ranger Battalion can deploy anywhere in the world with 18 hours notice.

[Cootamundra]

In my opinion SASR troopers are in line with US Delta and SEAL operators while the Aus Commando troops are probably more like British Marines and US Rangers and Marine Recon. All of these troops are very well trained and equipped. The real difference that I see is that 'true' special ops warriors specialise in small unit combat, recon, evasion, CQB, patrolling etc while the more 'normal' commando/marine/ranger soldiers are essentially focused on enhancing their existing infantry skills. Look it at like this - SASR has gone back to Afganistan, along with a contingent of Commando's and associated support. The SASR guys are there to patrol, and recce - when they see Taliban or AQ they will call in the supporting infantry, who will go in a clear em out, if that fails, or if trouble brews the SASR boys can move in to help clear up. For an example of this see the rescue of the downed Chinook crew and associated US troops in 2003.

[pepsi]

This is from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Commando_Regiment

4RAR has conducted operations similar to those normally carried out by Navy SEAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_SEAL) (earlier this year for instance they boarded an escaping drug trafficking ship with a North Korean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea) Flag and took control using airborne and waterborne insertion methods) and now, given its CT role is also performing roles similar to Delta Force and SEAL Team 6. Its recon unit can be compared to Force Recon (US Marines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Marines)) and the regular Commando regiments are similar in tasking to US Army Rangers, though they are subjected to a more arduous selection process (suffering a greater failure rate) and a longer period of training. Many Commandos are Sniper, and HALO/HAHO qualified.

It kind of makes me wonder why they dont seperate them into different regiments or something, it seems they are doing a lot of things, could it be a lack of population thing maybe?

[GreyWolf]

ADF has got only 45000 personnels while USDF has got more than 1 million personnels. Go figure!

[Wooki]

The main difference is that young Oz Commando officers drive their soldiers to dangerous fatigue levels and wonder why their unit has a 90+% inoperabilty rate during training.

I am deeply disappointed in how young bucks come in and want to hospitalize their outfit with excessive barrier training (doubling up or even trying to treble levels that US Rangers go through) in order to gain brownie points.

It happens time and again and is a rot that should be drummed out.

It descreases Australia's readiness level as a nation. It is not leadership. It is stupid.

[99Alpha]

[QUOTE=Wooki]The main difference is that young Oz Commando officers drive their soldiers to dangerous fatigue levels and wonder why their unit has a 90+% inoperabilty rate during training.

If this is the case how are the Oz Commando's able to train? No military unit, especially a specialised one at that can sustain effective training with less then 10% of it's personel available?

[gf0012-aust]

The main difference is that young Oz Commando officers drive their soldiers to dangerous fatigue levels and wonder why their unit has a 90+% inoperabilty rate during training.

I am deeply disappointed in how young bucks come in and want to hospitalize their outfit with excessive barrier training (doubling up or even trying to treble levels that US Rangers go through) in order to gain brownie points.

It happens time and again and is a rot that should be drummed out.

It descreases Australia's readiness level as a nation. It is not leadership. It is stupid.

I'm curious as to where you came up with those attrition numbers, they're certainly way way way beyond any I've seen.

Where abouts have you trained with 3 or 4 Commando? I'm curious as to what Ranger figures you're using as well, as certainly my awareness of how US Rangers have performed in distressed country training in the "north" of Aust has resulted in a high degree of extractions by NORFORCE (who aren't Regs let alone Commandos.)

The drop out rate for Commando entry (which I'd need verified by someone like Aussie Digger) has typically been at 10% attrition.

[Wooki]

I'm curious as to where you came up with those attrition numbers, they're certainly way way way beyond any I've seen.

Where abouts have you trained with 3 or 4 Commando? I'm curious as to what Ranger figures you're using as well, as certainly my awareness of how US Rangers have performed in distressed country training in the "north" of Aust has resulted in a high degree of extractions by NORFORCE (who aren't Regs let alone Commandos.)

The drop out rate for Commando entry (which I'd need verified by someone like Aussie Digger) has typically been at 10% attrition.

My figures come from the horses mouth with 100% credibility.

I'm not talking about drop out rates, but if one is using say 40men to assault a position, you don't deprive them of sleep (as in zero hours of sleep) for 6 to 7 days (thats 144+ hours continuous exercise) and then wonder why only 4 members of your team actually manage to move forward for the assault.

That is not the only area where I have heard of this going on.

1997, Townsville, After routine exercises, a young Lieutenant ordered a force march of over 100Km back to base in the middle of the day.

I was staying with the NCO, who tried his level best to keep his troops fit, but as it was nearly the whole platoon reported sick the next day.

I met said junior officer in a mall and questioned him on it and he was proud of it (???). If he was under me I would have busted him so far down the ladder he wouldn't know what was up from down.

It is dumb to use your troops up like that and if anyone on this board has the connections, I encourage you to dig a little and get some answers.

I for one, suspect "Bronze Wallaby Syndrome" is becoming, or has become a prevalent attitude amongst young Australian officers and it gives me serious pause as to what future ADF leaders will be like.

Scratch an Aussie soldier, or Australian for that matter, and you will find gold, but abusing your men achieves nothing.

[gf0012-aust]

My figures come from the horses mouth with 100% credibility.

I'm not talking about drop out rates, but if one is using say 40men to assault a position, you don't deprive them of sleep (as in zero hours of sleep) for 6 to 7 days (thats 144+ hours continuous exercise) and then wonder why only 4 members of your team actually manage to move forward for the assault.

That is not the only area where I have heard of this going on.

1997, Townsville, After routine exercises, a young Lieutenant ordered a force march of over 100Km back to base in the middle of the day.

I was staying with the NCO, who tried his level best to keep his troops fit, but as it was nearly the whole platoon reported sick the next day.

I met said junior officer in a mall and questioned him on it and he was proud of it (???). If he was under me I would have busted him so far down the ladder he wouldn't know what was up from down.

It is dumb to use your troops up like that and if anyone on this board has the connections, I encourage you to dig a little and get some answers.

I for one, suspect "Bronze Wallaby Syndrome" is becoming, or has become a prevalent attitude amongst young Australian officers and it gives me serious pause as to what future ADF leaders will be like.

Scratch an Aussie soldier, or Australian for that matter, and you will find gold, but abusing your men achieves nothing.

Thanks for the detail in your response. I've sent out some feelers to a few who have been regs to get some feedback. ADF training changed somewhat after East Timor so I'm trying to find out from some of the older troopers I've known.

There are a few in here who have been regs, have deployed overseas to Somalia, East Timor etc... so with a bit of luck they might respond.

[Aussie Digger]

I understand completely, what you're saying Wookie. My last field exercise (Bush) was (for those who know their 2/14 LHR lore) the Chauvel Cup in 1998. I served under a particularly in-competent troop commander who drove us for nearly 3 days on roughly 45 minutes sleep in total.

The Troop Sgt, injured his back on day 2 and was medivac'd out. This didn't stop our wonderful LT however and he kept pushing us. He refused to listen to any of his other "Senior" ( in-service if not rank) NCO's (some including me who had relatively extensive ARA service) and as a result I discharged from ARES, almost immediately after this exercise finished. No matter what your experience level, if you've got a f*cked boss, you've got a f*cked job in the ADF...

As to 4 RAR, all I can say is that the current 4 RAR is a vastly different beast to that, which existed in 1997. 4 RAR (Cmdo) was initially staffed by the dregs of the other RAR Battalions , ie: those not considered fit to serve in, 1,2,3 or 5/7 RAR, the Army's "regular" Line battalions.

They were named Commando's LONG before there was anything "special" about them at all, and in fact in 2002/2003 (I can't remember exactly which, off hand) were completely re-roled as a light infantry battalion and saw service in East Timor.

Since then they've been manned exclusively as a specwarops unit and have received greatly increased funding (ie: additional resources and manning wise) and have become a dedicated specwarops unit.

They possess outstanding capabilities now, that are at LEAST a match for any other specwarries in the world...

[Wooki]

... as a result I discharged from ARES, almost immediately after this exercise finished. ...

I'm sorry to hear you had to quit like that AD. That is what my two buddies did as well. Although the one in 4 RAR quit after East Timor.

Good non coms quitting for those reasons ( a boss who acts like he's been eating too many scooby snacks) is a serious symptom of what I am talking about and that is the first place I would look to see if this sort of carry on is still going on-- Non com discharge rates.

If it is then, I would seriously examine the fundamentals these young officers are being exposed to upon entry to the ADF. I would also seek out the Australian equivalent to a George C. Marshall and have that person "do a Benning" on Duntroon and your other Officer training facilities.

Glad to hear 4 RAR is performing well, though. There was/is absolutely no reason they could not be the very best.

GF. Thank you for putting out the feelers. I hope it gets people thinking a little.

To all, I apologize for getting "arced up" but waste of manpower (and therefore talent) is one of my pet peeves.

[Dryotriorchis]

Just to put in my 2c, I have known a few people from Albatross that say that a lot of the young officers are just to immature to handle such a demanding position. thats it.

[Pursuit Curve]

I agree with the description of the US Ranger's being better trained grunts.
But is there a Australian SAS still? It seems that the US and Russia beleive that you can have thousands of "Special Forces" ( Spetsnaz and Rangers), but I do not believe you can.

Special forces and commando's are not grown, or hatched, they are a very select few that have demonstrated exceptional capabilities, just do not keep them on the shelf for too long!

[Aussie Digger]

I agree with the description of the US Ranger's being better trained grunts.
But is there a Australian SAS still? It seems that the US and Russia beleive that you can have thousands of "Special Forces" ( Spetsnaz and Rangers), but I do not believe you can.

Special forces and commando's are not grown, or hatched, they are a very select few that have demonstrated exceptional capabilities, just do not keep them on the shelf for too long!

There certainly is still an Australian SAS Regiment (known as SASR). One of the problems of our expanded special forces is that our regular army is extremely small, and thus possesses a limited pool of individuals, sufficiently capable of performing special forces duties.

The Government subsequently created a direct entry scheme for potential special forces, who are recruited basically directly into Aust special forces and don't have to serve with a line unit before trying out.

This has been beneficial for recruiting specwarries with backgrounds in policing, firefighting, atheletes etc, who may be interested in specwarries, but wouldn't necessarily be interested in "regular" army service...

I believe around 80 or 90 "civvies" have so far filled specwarrie spots within 4RAR, thanks to this new scheme...

[Pursuit Curve]

There certainly is still an Australian SAS Regiment (known as SASR). One of the problems of our expanded special forces is that our regular army is extremely small, and thus possesses a limited pool of individuals, sufficiently capable of performing special forces duties.

The Government subsequently created a direct entry scheme for potential special forces, who are recruited basically directly into Aust special forces and don't have to serve with a line unit before trying out.

This has been beneficial for recruiting specwarries with backgrounds in policing, firefighting, atheletes etc, who may be interested in specwarries, but wouldn't necessarily be interested in "regular" army service...

I believe around 80 or 90 "civvies" have so far filled specwarrie spots within 4RAR, thanks to this new scheme...


Aussie, thanks for that bit of information, i have a question for you,
Do you feel it is a prerequisite for special forces types to have previous military service, or is it far better to train the troops from the ground up in Special warfare?

[Aussie Digger]

That's an interesting question, Pursuit Curve. A good mate of mine is now in the Australian's Army's only reserve special forces unit, 1 Commando Regiment and we've discussed this type of thing before (me being an ex-regular and reserve soldier, just like him).

People in that unit are highly capable specwarries (though lacking in a few of the skills and capabilities of their regular counterparts as could be expcted) and haven't served a day of military service as a regular "conventional" soldier. They seem to get along just fine. Also the new recruits for 4RAR are coming in part from the direct entry scheme I mentioned before, and they also seem to be working out fine.

On the other hand, Australia's (and just about everyone elses) special forces success has been built by soldiers who have extensive military service in "conventional" units prior to performing special forces duties, so there doesn't seem too much wrong with that approach either...

The CO of SASR has also been quoted as saying SAS think that some aspects of conventional military training actually stifle a recruits abilities to "take on" the special forces attitude, ethos and actually affects the soldiers ability to think creatively in some situations, which is essential for the Special forces soldier. Hence SASR pushed strongly for the direct entry scheme...

As to my personal opinion? I think it very much depends on the individual, if he performs well on the selection course, during training and on ops, who cares where he comes from? Performance is key, if you ask me. Not backgrounds...