"Is combat experience making Ranger School unnecessary?"

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting question raised in Stars & Stripes:

The Army’s celebrated Ranger School, once coveted by young soldiers eager to prove their mettle by surviving two months of grueling simulated combat, is finding it hard to compete with another alternative: actual combat.

After a decade of extended war deployments and with little time back home for training, there is now a “critical” shortage of Rangers needed to fill hundreds of crucial combat leadership positions intended for them across the Army, school officials say.

The dearth is particularly noticeable among noncommissioned officers — the sergeants, staff sergeants and sergeants first class who lead small units of enlisted soldiers through combat — and among all ranks of combat maneuver operators — the infantry, armor, field artillery and cavalry units fighting at the front lines.

Because of the shortage, soldiers without Ranger training increasingly are filling those leadership positions. Officials at the Army’s exclusive Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga., and elsewhere said lives may be at risk because soldiers are going into battle without the best possible leaders.

“The best life insurance policy that a person can have ... is his leader being Ranger qualified,” said Command Sgt. Maj. Dennis Smith, who heads Fort Benning’s Ranger Training Brigade.

But others, including some who are Ranger qualified, believe that combat trumps training, that the hard-earned Ranger tab worn on the left shoulder after completing a brutal 61-day regimen through mountains, woods and swamps, on minimal food and sleep, is no substitute for years spent fighting real-life enemies in Afghanistan or Iraq.

NCOs with extensive combat experience are good enough for some.

“They’re as qualified as anybody else,” said Sgt. Maj. Thomas Dartez, who earned his tab in 1985, served with the 2nd Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, and taught at the school twice, most recently in 2004.

Combat is ultimately the best teacher “because you learn from experience,” Dartez said, using roadside bombs as an example. “Having a tab doesn’t prepare you for that.” ....

 

[Canadian Signaler]

Nothing beats experience,  combat time really shows where the leaders are developed not born.    School is for peacetime!

 

[brandon_]

I don't and DO  agree with you at the same time Canadian Signaler, Reason being; How would you feel if you worked your *** off to become a Ranger? 61 days at the ranger school, And the guy leading you has NOT done the same training as you?  It could be a major morale shift, and this could make or break everything.  The Infantry SGT has not learned the same as the people he is leading,  Albeit he has gone through everything for real, and has been tested in real scenarios.       


EDIT to add: I think I missed the whole point of this thread, 'RE: is ranger school necessary' I confused myself.

 

[Infanteer]

This has been an interesting shift in the Canadian Army as well - I remember when I first joined (prior to Afghanistan) the reverence that was accorded to courses like Ranger, Canadian Pathfinder, etc, etc.  Now a days we still recognize the standard these courses establish, but we are also too busy dealing with a continuous deployment cycle to focus on individual qualification when collective abilities are more important.

The article makes sense; the Ranger Course is, primarily, a leadership course.  One could make a strong case in saying 12 month in a corner of Afghanistan gives one more training on leadership than 61 days of patrolling and starvation in a training environment.

 

[MikeL]

I don't and DO  agree with you at the same time Canadian Signaler, Reason being; How would you feel if you worked your *** off to become a Ranger? 61 days at the ranger school, And the guy leading you has NOT done the same training as you?  It could be a major morale shift, and this could make or break everything.  The Infantry SGT has not learned the same as the people he is leading,  Albeit he has gone through everything for real, and has been tested in real scenarios.       

In regards to the US Army, all of their leaders in the Ranger Regiment are Ranger Qualified.  And outside of the 75th Ranger Regiment it is generally only NCOs and Officers who attend Ranger School.  Majority of the Specialists/Cpls on the Ranger Course are from the Ranger Regiment. 

And generally for Canada AFAIK, it is only Senior Cpls and other NCOs and Officers who are sent on the course.  And I doubt to many people in Canada would care if say they were a Ranger Qualified MCpl and their Pl WO or Pl Commander aren't Ranger qualified.

 

[Task]

This has been an interesting shift in the Canadian Army as well - I remember when I first joined (prior to Afghanistan) the reverence that was accorded to courses like Ranger, Canadian Pathfinder, etc, etc.  Now a days we still recognize the standard these courses establish, but we are also too busy dealing with a continuous deployment cycle to focus on individual qualification when collective abilities are more important.

The article makes sense; the Ranger Course is, primarily, a leadership course.  One could make a strong case in saying 12 month in a corner of Afghanistan gives one more training on leadership than 61 days of patrolling and starvation in a training environment.

One tangent benefit to the course from my experience is the fellowship of those who wear the tab.

When I was working with Ranger qualified Americans they were professional and great to work with. When a buddy of mine who is Ranger qualified (Canadian) joined us the Americans made us feel like we walk on water.

While my buddy was not on the same course as those we worked with, that little Tab appeared to change the whole dynamic of our teamwork for the better.

After that work experience, for the first time I contemplated Ranger. I later asked my buddy if he would do Ranger again, he said hell no but he was glad he did it anyway

 

[dapaterson]

There's also the difference between experience using some of the tools that you are trained for and training to provide you with a full toolset.  As the grandson of a few well-known Canadian military figures stated repeatedly, "Afghanistan is a war, not the war."

There are skills and abilities not used in current operations that are needed to have a capable military, able to respond to the spectrum of conflict.  To play down or belittle training is popular in some circles, but foolish.

 

[Jed]

There's also the difference between experience using some of the tools that you are trained for and training to provide you with a full toolset.  As the grandson of a few well-known Canadian military figures stated repeatedly, "Afghanistan is a war, not the war."

There are skills and abilities not used in current operations that are needed to have a capable military, able to respond to the spectrum of conflict.  To play down or belittle training is popular in some circles, but foolish.

 

[GAP]

Jed.....was the a purpose to you quoting without comment?

 

[Jed]

No, just a finger problem.  I agree with dapaterson's comment. I believe training ala Ranger Course, or CMTC for Canada (although hardly in the same ball park) is very important. Also, we need the experienced pers to carry on with our essential training.

 

[Infanteer]

There are skills and abilities not used in current operations that are needed to have a capable military, able to respond to the spectrum of conflict.  To play down or belittle training is popular in some circles, but foolish.

To an extent yes, but this has nothing to do with different skills.  The measure of a combat leader is (or should be) his ability to lead soldiers in combat.  In peacetime, formal courses are more prevalent in evaluating one's potential.  But, now-a-days, when it comes down to it, a good indication of a leaders ability to lead soldiers in combat is his past history of leading soldiers into combat.  This will undoubtedly carry more weight than badges or a long MPRR.

 

[dapaterson]

To an extent yes, but this has nothing to do with different skills.  The measure of a combat leader is (or should be) his ability to lead soldiers in combat.  In peacetime, formal courses are more prevalent in evaluating one's potential.  But, now-a-days, when it comes down to it, a good indication of a leaders ability to lead soldiers in combat is his past history of leading soldiers into combat.  This will undoubtedly carry more weight than badges or a long MPRR.

It's not merely demonstrated ability - it's knowledge of the tools and of the skills as well.  There has to be a balance - because the TICs of Panjawai are not the same as the battles for Pyongyang (to give one potential example).  Promoting someone because they fight well in grape fields against insurgents builds an army that can fight in grape fields against insurgents - but not necessarily one that can fight in cities against a peer or near peer.

Practical experience and demonstrated ability are important; we need to avoid the traditional CF knee-jerk over-reaction of placing all emphasis on those at the expense of the skills and knowledge needed but not used in Afghanistan.

(Much like we ignored booby traps for years; now, rather than explosive booby traps we call them "IEDs" and spin our wheels re-inventing TTPs and rebuilding knowledge we previously had, but discarded.)

 

[Franko]

(Much like we ignored booby traps for years; now, rather than explosive booby traps we call them "IEDs" and spin our wheels re-inventing TTPs and rebuilding knowledge we previously had, but discarded.)

Remember the days when the tank and the combat team were obsolete?

Everything is coming full circle again....and it will come back that the be all/ end all courses to assess someone's potential/ performance in the Infantry world will be the Ranger course yet again, once the Afghanistan dinosaurs retire.

Regards

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I remember being ordered to toss those little blue Canadian Army booklets on booby traps, CD rescue, field fortification, etc because they were useless in modern war. I kept a few, wish I had kept the whole set.