|
|
|
Green GI
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 12/24/2007 5:36 AM
Posts: 37,
Visits: 72
|
|
"I know I'm late, but I wanted to jump in here, being a former LRSC guy. Plenty of good points by the way.
I think LRS should be apart of SOCOM, I think everyone would benefit.
My LRS unit was full of ex-hooahs. I've worked with a lot of SF guys, but I've never been in SF. I'd say the atmosphere in a 5-6 man LRS team is more akin to SF then a 100+ Ranger Company.
My first trip to the field, my Team Leader puts me on point. Let's me go crashing through the woods for a couple hundred meters....stops me, and has me turn around and look at all the brush I trampled. He tells me, (He was also ex-2nd Batt) you can walk like that with a Ranger Company, but with just 6 of us, your going to have to slow down, make less noise, and leave less spoor.
Anyway, glad to be here and good to see some LRS guys on here!
Jim"
|
yes totally. even though a lrs unit traditionally has a ranger background, it operates like an sf unit more than anything. to be honest, our unit specifically, was the polar opposite of how todays 75 ranger regiment operates. I agree, that lrs units should go underneath socom, solely for the purpose of better funding, and proper utilization. As always, thru our colorful history, lrrps have always been misutilized. In training, thats fine. well suck it up. but when theres live ammo in our chambers, thats different. and underneath socom, we would land a chain of command, that has the experience enough to properly emplace us, and organize us. unlike our current chain of command. Working underneath an MI unit is just disastrous in a combat theater. it got old REEEAL quick. and as far as the sf guys having the long range surveillance mission 'covered' with their 'sr' teams... well to be honest. ive spoken with quite a few sr guys, that cant STAND the mission lol. if they got us (a lrsc) underneath them, we could take on the task, and free some more of those guys up, to do the stuff they may prefer, which im guessing would be more DA and FID stuff. sure, im sure sf guys are OUTSTANDING at the SR mission, (theyre outstanding at ANY mission im sure) but sf guys, like most other socom teams, are sometimes 'jack of all trades' whereas lrsc guys specialize in surveillance and reconniassance. its our bread and butter. and were VERY good at it. hell, its all we do man. I think it would be a marriage made in heaven. though this is just an opinion, and i could be totally wrong. there may be a lot i'm not seeing. Though, the best way to find out, is to try. If they discover us to be of little utility to them, fine, kick em back out. but i think its worth a try.
|
|
|
|
|
Stare Master
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 12:43 PM
Posts: 9,311,
Visits: 41,160
|
|
joesnuffy (6/4/2007)
"I know I'm late, but I wanted to jump in here, being a former LRSC guy. Plenty of good points by the way.
I think LRS should be apart of SOCOM, I think everyone would benefit.
My LRS unit was full of ex-hooahs. I've worked with a lot of SF guys, but I've never been in SF. I'd say the atmosphere in a 5-6 man LRS team is more akin to SF then a 100+ Ranger Company.
My first trip to the field, my Team Leader puts me on point. Let's me go crashing through the woods for a couple hundred meters....stops me, and has me turn around and look at all the brush I trampled. He tells me, (He was also ex-2nd Batt) you can walk like that with a Ranger Company, but with just 6 of us, your going to have to slow down, make less noise, and leave less spoor.
Anyway, glad to be here and good to see some LRS guys on here!
Jim"
|
yes totally. even though a lrs unit traditionally has a ranger background, it operates like an sf unit more than anything. to be honest, our unit specifically, was the polar opposite of how todays 75 ranger regiment operates. I agree, that lrs units should go underneath socom, solely for the purpose of better funding, and proper utilization. As always, thru our colorful history, lrrps have always been misutilized. In training, thats fine. well suck it up. but when theres live ammo in our chambers, thats different. and underneath socom, we would land a chain of command, that has the experience enough to properly emplace us, and organize us. unlike our current chain of command. Working underneath an MI unit is just disastrous in a combat theater. it got old REEEAL quick. and as far as the sf guys having the long range surveillance mission 'covered' with their 'sr' teams... well to be honest. ive spoken with quite a few sr guys, that cant STAND the mission lol. if they got us (a lrsc) underneath them, we could take on the task, and free some more of those guys up, to do the stuff they may prefer, which im guessing would be more DA and FID stuff. sure, im sure sf guys are OUTSTANDING at the SR mission, (theyre outstanding at ANY mission im sure) but sf guys, like most other socom teams, are sometimes 'jack of all trades' whereas lrsc guys specialize in surveillance and reconniassance. its our bread and butter. and were VERY good at it. hell, its all we do man. I think it would be a marriage made in heaven. though this is just an opinion, and i could be totally wrong. there may be a lot i'm not seeing. Though, the best way to find out, is to try. If they discover us to be of little utility to them, fine, kick em back out. but i think its worth a try. Hey, Airborne, you are a no-go on the inprocessing station. You need to fill out the bio in your profile and go to the New Personnel Reporting forum and start a topic to introduce yourself to everybody as outlined in the e-mail you received after registering. Hooah?
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
|
|
|
|
|
Cherry
Group: Awaiting Activation
Last Login: 5/5/2008 7:31 AM
Posts: 18,
Visits: 36
|
|
I see that the discussion of who should have command authority of the LRS units is still alive and well.
This has been going on since the late 80's when the LRS units and detachments were activated. In fact when I was in the 82nd LRSD we had one CO (Goracke) who had been a SF CO and was asked to come to the 82nd by GEN. Stiner himself to provide the leadership that he thought the LRS units should have.
Cpt. Goracke proved to be one of the best things that unit ever received. Not only did we get more Ranger school slots (everyone in the unit could go), we got SERE, HALO, and Pathfinder slots (along with a couple of SNIPER slots as well), we also got training from many of the SF guys that knew Goracke.
So should it fall under the Ranger command or SF? Im going to have to say SF mainly because they are only 6 man teams who typically have only themselves to rely on in a pinch and because the job itself requires one to be able to do something that many in the Rangers or regular infantry whether Airborne or not are not able to do and that is exhibit an extreme level of patience and calm when you have people practically walking on top of you.
Last time I checked a successful LRS mission was to get in, do the job, and leave without ever firing a single round or leaving any evidence of having been there.
E
|
|
|
|