Light infantry

[Rimasta]

The question of the U.S. Army's strategic deployability and how it can be enhanced are not new concepts. Since the end of world war two the amount of sea lift and air lift seem to have fallen behind over the decades, in terms of being able to deploy and then sustain a(n) invasion/expeditionary force in a contested battle space. This issue has been exacerbated with budget reductions and the Anti-access/ area- denial challenge.

In recent war games the Army's own conclusions about such a scenario show only light forces and strikers brigades being able to gain entry, but are then rapidly contained by heavier forces and are prevented from expanding and deploying heavier units and keeping them supplied.

Although I am a mere veteran of the field artillery and in no way an expert, it would appear light infantry forces like the Army Rangers would be ideal. The Ranger regiments proved to be invaluable in virtually every landing in ETO.

Should the Army consider increasing the numbers of active battalions in 75th or add another Regiment entirely? Given their value on the battlefield and their ability to operate with a reduced logistal tail (target) it would seem money well spent. I don't think we should have units similar to Viet Cong Sapper units but given the wars we will most likely find ourselves in in this new century, effective and true light formations seem a logical step for addressing the Army's problem of strategic deployability and sustainability.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

You seem to be confused. The Ranger Regiment is one of the lightest armed formations in the US Army. The current 20 Light Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (10-Lgt; 6-Abn; 4-AAslt) each individually contain more combat power and self sustainability than the Ranger Regiment.

While Ranger units are excellent assault and raiding forces, they simply lack the ability to seize, hold, and expand a lodgement against heavy forces. The Ranger Regiment may have light logistical tails, it is because conventional units are tasked to provide those functions.

Additionally, Special Operations Forces draw their personnel from the rest of the army. So, the more you expand the SOFs, you reduce the available quality leaders from the conventional side, further reducing their capabilities. Consider that in a 5,000,000 man US Army during WWII, only 6 Ranger Battalions were formed. In the 570,000 soldier US Army today, the Ranger Regiment contains 3 line battalions, and a supporting Regimental Special Troops Battalion.

 

[Rimasta]

You seem to be confused. The Ranger Regiment is one of the lightest armed formations in the US Army. The current 20 Light Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (10-Lgt; 6-Abn; 4-AAslt) each individually contain more combat power and self sustainability than the Ranger Regiment.

While Ranger units are excellent assault and raiding forces, they simply lack the ability to seize, hold, and expand a lodgement against heavy forces. The Ranger Regiment may have light logistical tails, it is because conventional units are tasked to provide those functions.

Additionally, Special Operations Forces draw their personnel from the rest of the army. So, the more you expand the SOFs, you reduce the available quality leaders from the conventional side, further reducing their capabilities. Consider that in a 5,000,000 man US Army during WWII, only 6 Ranger Battalions were formed. In the 570,000 soldier US Army today, the Ranger Regiment contains 3 line battalions, and a supporting Regimental Special Troops Battalion.

I see, I believe I was confused. I recently read "An Army at Dawn" and "The Day of Battle" both by Rick Atkinson. Long story short it goes over the war I Western Europe starting with the Torch landings all the way to the fall of Rome. Reading about Darby's Rangers and their exploits led me to surmise the Rangers could find similar utility. Would a Stryker brigade be harder to resupply though since the strikers need fuel and use heavier weapons? I more envisioned them (Rangers) seizing airfields, seizing and holding choke points, etc... In support of a larger forced entry operation.
Additionally I don't know if Ranger regiments are the answer but lighter forces drawn from motivated troops. For example, in Afghanistan, a infantry unit not special ops exactly but troops that can out guerrilla the Taliban. On the ground it seems the Taliban chooses when to initiate contact most of the time giving them a huge advantage in the initiative. It seems hunting Taliban, catching them in ambushes by day and hitting them where they sleep by night would give us at least dome of the initiative back. Rangers here would seem ideal for missions that would mirror Vietnam in many ways. Sending out long range patrols to observe and report enemy activity. Also this has been down before, using draftees in the 9th Infantry division when it was fighting in the delta's of South Vietnam. I forgot the name of the source but it basically went from VC & NVA initiating contact, using mines/booby traps, mortaring the FOB to when a new CO arrived and they started kicking serious ass. In fact enemy attacks plummeted and captured intel showed the unit developed a reputation with their enemy as hardcore troops. And these were draftees mainly not Rangers.
Ultimately my point would be that a lot of service personnel aren't all in the fight, at least in their hearts. Understandly so, counting down the days on deployment, but I'll tell you this, the Taliban isnt counting down the days when they go home, their in this to win and as we are on the way out, it appears the Taliban could still pull of a strategic victory in that country.