"These Females must be some very Tough Mutha's" Topic

Wow ! I had some Ranger training but not good enough to qualify and wear coveted the Ranger tab. But recently, many females have become Ranger qualified. SEALs are the only US Spec OP unit that has not qualified females.

From the link below :

According to Navy Capt. Jason Birch, former commanding officer of SEAL Team 10, one woman serves as a Naval Special Warfare operator; three have graduated from the U.S. Army Special Operations Qualifications Course; the first female Green Beret graduated in 2020; and women have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment. The Air Force graduated its first female special tactics officer in June.

link

Again these must be some very tough females …

I have heard the standards at Ranger training may have been lowered but I have heard nothing official … Or probably won't ?

link

This is entirely the US Army's fault. The Army treats Ranger school like some kind of leadership school instead of a school to make Rangers. The first two women to supposedly complete Ranger school were an Apache Pilot and an MP Officer; why the Hell are Pilots and MPs going to Ranger school. Why is anyone going to Ranger school that isn't going to a Ranger Battalion. I've never been a fan of Officers most in my experience are hack ladder climbers who know how to play inter service politics, and in the case of a General it's even worse, they don't care for their service organization or their subordinates just themselves.

Good link Dragon … I have heard similar …

Irish Marine and others FYI, FWIW – In the US Army many officers, NCOs, and enlisted can go to RANGER school. IMO it is the best training for dismounted Infantry ops and patrolling. Along with leadership. No, you don't have to be going to a RANGER Bn. These RANGER trained soldiers are found in many combat arms branches. Infantry, Armor, FA, CEs, etc.

Note: Also SEALs & USMC go to ARMY Parachute School and RANGER school. They were with us when I went to Airborne school.

This training only makes your unit stronger, more capable, etc. with RANGER Qualified personnel in it. From my experience I know there are many RANGER qual'd officers, etc. in every Infantry unit I served in. I.e., 4 Inf Bns – one Air Assault and 3 Mech.

As well as some RANGER Quail'd in Armor, FA, etc.

Many Inf 2LTs come to their first unit after graduating from RANGER school. I sent some of my troops to RANGER school when I commanded an M113 Mech Co. with a Mech Hvy Bde at Benning, part of the 18th ABN Corps.

Also as a Co. Cdr, being at Benning, I sent one of my LTs who requested it, to go to Pathfinder School and many of my troops to Sniper school and/or Airborne. So again, all this specialized training makes better skilled soldiers and in turn a better unit. Plus better prep'd to go to war, IMO.

Being RANGER qual'd also makes the soldier able to rotate to a RANGER unit. When their time in their current unit is over. And move to another unit.

Just like with Airborne and even now Air Assault School. You don't have to be going to an Airborne or Air Assault unit to go to those schools. Today Air Assault School is not only at Campbell as when I got qualified. But Benning and Bragg. Also, being Airborne qualified means, you can be assigned to a Parachute unit too. E.g. 82d, 173d & now the 11th …

Let me again send a disclaimer to all : I had RANGER training but was not good enough to be RANGER Qualified. Which meant as both an LT and even CPT I had to prove myself sometimes. But I proved capable, effective, etc. Or so my evaluations and metals say ?

I've never been a fan of Officers most in my experience are hack ladder climbers who know how to play inter service politics,

Things may work differently in the USMC ? But that has not my experience in the US ARMY in 10+ years on active duty. Not only with 4 Inf Bns but a CBT SPT Bn and Bde HQ staff.

Almost every day in the US Army at Benning you have parachutes opening in the sky next to the Infantry School over Fryer DZ. And those jumping are from all branches of the ARMY. As well as RANGER, Air Assault, Sniper, or Pathfinder, etc. schools are going on. Albeit mostly combat arms Officers, NCOs and enlisted.

The US ARMY's feeling is as I said I felt, the more schools, courses, etc., you send a soldier to. Only makes better trained, experienced, qualified troops of all ranks.

E.g. I as an 1LT with the 101. Was sent to Little Creek with a 101 Inf Co. and Sct Plt for USMC Basic Amph. Training(BAT).

I was also sent to USAF Air/Ground Ops school at Eglin. As I after I completed my time as a Rifle & at times 81mm Mortar Ldr. I was assigned to be the Bn Air Ops Officer in an Air Assault Bn in the 101.

Again, all this training only makes better troops and in turn better units. Better prep'd for a conflict.

FWIW – The only ladder I remember climbing was on the ramp of a hovering CH-47 at about 70ft, IIRC.

FYI – Irish Marine – I'm not discounting your opinion but add my POV based on my experience, etc.

So no harm … no foul …

Some of my USAF guys went through Air Assault and Airborne schools. We were assigned to the 10th Mountain. I had a bunch that had been over in Mogadishu during Black Hawk down. In extreme situations the more training folks have the better.

Yes, that is what it's all about. Training troops to prep and go to war. The more training the better. Better to have well trained troops than otherwise as we have seen sometimes in the past.

A leadership school is exactly what it is, and what is was designed to be during the Korean War.

The Army has tangled repeatedly with the question of who and why. In the nineties, when I went, openings were limited to infantry and certain other positions (e.g., FIST teams) that were coded for the skill designator associated with completion of the school. Everyone in the Ranger battalions went, sooner or later, or they didn't stay.

As to how hard it is now……I couldn't say. I only know what I have heard, and it's not often that old-timers think things get harder.

Yes, I agree with most of that … As I said, IMO it is the best training for dismounted Infantry ops and patrolling. Along with leadership. The lessons and training in dismounted Inf Ops and patrolling at RANGER School are what all Infantrymen need become very good at. The tactics, techniques and procedures are the bottom line, IMO. Again, along with leadership. It becomes synergistic.

As to how hard it is now……I couldn't say. I only know what I have heard, and it's not often that old-timers think things get harder.

Yep, I'd go with that …But I'm sure much of it is still a Muth'a !

Here's a question: If it's good for anyone why isn't everyone going? I know money, facilities, physical requirements, etc but if it is training soldiers (and other services) to be better when their primary job comes up – fighting – it would seem that if all soldiers did it then they'd be that much better instead of some being better and some being blah, or not good. Yes it would mean less head count but better service. There seems to be a recurring theme in most periods that better trained people fight better.

If that's the case why not make Ranger School into Infantry Training School? Again, it's a leadership school and points for promotion, or you wouldn't be wasting money on Tankers, pilots and MP's going to that school.

Here's a question: If it's good for anyone why isn't everyone going? I know money, facilities, physical requirements, but if it is training soldiers (and other services) to be better when their primary job comes up – fighting

Many can't go for physical requirements. As noted, and we competed for slots at the Infantry Officer Basic Course.

Plus many don't want to go. But yes, it is open to all branches of the US ARMY. Mostly Infantry but some CEs, FA & Tankers, etc. E.g. Our NBC Officer in the ROK was Ranger Qualified. As was our Bde Sct Plt Ldr who was MI.

If that's the case why not make Ranger School into Infantry Training School?

The dismounted Infantry and Patrolling skills learned at Ranger school. Are good for training fieldcraft, etc. That can be used by all branches. Not just Infantry. However, most in a Ranger Class are Infantry.

E.g.:

Combat Engineers go into the assault with Infantry.

Field Artillery provides FOs, to Infantry units. And provide their own security.

Tankers may end up fighting dismounted if they lose their vehicle. Armor branch has a Scout designation too.

MPs can actually get into firefights. They just don't direct traffic. E.g. Read about MP SGT Hester in Iraq. She kicked some Iraqi butt with a .50.

Etc., etc.

And again, it is the best school for dismount Infantry & Patrolling ops I know of. Plus a leadership school. Army Rangers came about in WWII copying the UK Commandoes. They performed special missions as well at times standard Infantry Ops. Just like Paratroops … Then & now …

I was an Infantry Officer, I know how important those Ranger skills are to combat units and even others units. IF anyone has a Ranger Handbook you'd see that. I still have mine. Or at least one of them.

A Ranger trained Officer or NCO can use the Ranger techniques in the handbook to train his Plt.

Plus the intense training does make you a better leader. Leadership positions rotate in your Ranger Sqd. And you are evaluated on everything.

Again, it's a leadership school and points for promotion, or you wouldn't be wasting money on Tankers, pilots and MP's going to that school.

You seem to not understand about Ranger Training ? The training I mentioned already. As well as I talked about before. Ranger qualified personnel in your unit makes a better unit. As I saw and already mentioned as a Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co. Cdr. In those leadership positions you are concerned not just about your training schedule, but Bn's, Bde's etc. requirements. But the training you can send your troops to, to make then better soldiers. As I have said already.

The Ranger qualified soldiers have skills and train others in those skills. Whether you are an Infantryman or even an Armor branch Scout, etc.

If you just go to Ranger school for points, you are missing the point. It is a grueling, dirty, gritty, intense training school. You probably won't make it. Up to 60% don't.

By only letting Infantrymen go to the school albeit most in the course are Infantrymen, does not spread the training across the other branches. That will only make them better soldiers and better units. As I mentioned CEs, FA, Tankers, etc. It is not a waste of money if for only that reason.

Now also note, brand new troops coming from Basic Training have basic skills. But when they get to their first unit they get additional training in collective, etc. skills.

Now All Infantry Officers are going to Ranger school. It is a requirement, if I understand it correctly. But yes, other branches still can go. However, it is still an Infantry majority course.

As I said, I am Parachute, Air Assault Qualified and awarded the Expert Infantryman's Badge. I have a number of metals. I don't know if I got points for promotion ? I can't remember if officers got points for promotion ? Was not my concern, I knew what my concern was as I mentioned many times before in this thread.

Hope I explained this well enough for all to understand. Irish Marine I take it you were an E-6 or E-7. I respect that. I being an 02/01 Plt Ldr and then later an 03 and Co. Cdr I may see things from a different level.

Any proper training is Good Training … And the US Army has many training courses available. Besides Basic and Advanced courses. I mentioned some here …

Very informative, thank you Legion and the rest.

I will say that I think it does us no favors to cut any participants some slack just to look diverse and I hope that is not what happened.

I still consider myself a Gunnery Sgt. I was an 0311 (Rifleman) 0351 (Demolition/Assault) 0369 (Infantry unit leader) and 8154 (CQB member), I think there one or two more MOS that I'm trying to remember. I also bodyguarded two different four star Admirals (that sucked), did a stint as a Counter Intelligence Marine. I understand training but I forget there is two Armies; The regular Army and SF and I forgot you guys get all wrapped up in who has what tab, patch or whatever. As I've said before it's a leadership school but I guess with a gut check that's it. The five paragraph order doesn't differ nor does land navigation, if Ranger school's five paragraph order is better than why isn't that one taught first and only, do they do land nav differently?

I've been to mountain warfare school three times the only units that go as far as I know are combat arms, we aren't taking the chance of damaging our pilots like the female Apache pilot at Ranger school. We have Amphib Recon school only a very small amount of non Recon Marines are allowed to go because Recon school is for Recon Marines and it's a ball buster of a course. The Marine Corps doesn't send everyone through Amphib Recon school because we tighten up our other schools. OSC for Officers is a ball buster and also a leadership school at the same time. Again it's just a leadership school now and a Tab to wear.

-> Legion. I work with a guy that was air assault, I thought your training was they tilted the helo and they just kicked you guys out?

(I kid 'cause I love)

You sound very well trained and capable Irish. Very respectable.

The regular Army and SF and I forgot you guys get all wrapped up in who has what tab, patch or whatever.

Not necessarily, tabs, badges, etc. designates a soldier's skills and training. That is the way the Army operates. When you show up at a new unit, those show your skills & training. Without even having to ask. You are expected to perform at a certain level of capabilities based on your training qualifications, etc. Then you just have to live up to the those expectations or exceed them.

As I've said before it's a leadership school but I guess with a gut check that's it.

Yes, along with a great school for, again, dismounted Infantry ops & patrolling. The RANGER handbook is all about that. Leadership is part of the package. Troops are not sent to RANGER school just for the leadership training. Nor just for a tab. You have to be qualified to wear that tab or the SF tab for that matter. As I said, up to 60% don't make it and/or get recycled.

Again it's just a leadership school now and a Tab to wear.

Again, Gunny, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Again, look at a RANGER Handbook, you'd see what I mean about dismounted Infantry and patrolling course as well as leadership.

The leadership comes in with the intense training, tough standards, mission accomplishment, peer reviews, etc., etc. There is one block of instruction on leadership taught at RANGER School. However, the rest, e.g. dismounted formations, crossing danger areas, Air Assault ops, booby traps/IEDs/demo, rubber boat ops, hand to hand combat, land nav, night ops, patrols – Recon, Raid, Ambush, etc., etc. Parachute insertions[if airborne qualified], etc. And the list continues and is long … SEE BELOW …

So again, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I pick up from your posts you don't like many officers. I get it … Regardless I'm sure you'd have fit in with little problem in my Rifle Plt or even Mech Co. You seem to be well trained and capable.

FWIW – Also note my units have had former Marines in its ranks. My Mech Co. even had a former USN SEAL and a former USN Salvage/Hardhat Diver. As well as RANGER, Parachute, Pathfinder qualified officers and troops. We always seemed to get the job done. Maybe that is why the Bn Cdr usually sent us in first and/or attached us to a Tank Bn ?

I'm sure it is similar in the USMC. But I was never a Marine and you never a US ARMY Infantry Officer, we come from different points of view, training and experience, for the most part.

FYI- FWIW :

SH 21-76 Ranger Handbook February, 2011.

TABLE OF CONTENTS RANGER CREED i

STANDING ORDERS ROGER'S RANGERS i

RANGER HISTORY ii

PREFACE vi CHAPTER 1 LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES

1-1 DUTIES. RESPONSIBILITIES. AND ACTIONS

1-2 ASSUMPTION OF COMMAND

1-8 CHAPTER 2 OPERATIONS TROOP-LEADING PROCEDURES

2-1 COMBAT INTELLIGENCE

2-5 WARNING ORDER

2-6 OPERATION ORDER

2-10 FRAGMENTARY ORDER

2-14 ANNEXES

2-17 COORDINATION CHECKLISTS

2-25 TASK, PURPOSE, OPERATION

2-30 TERRAIN MODEL 2-31

CHAPTER 3 FIRE SUPPORT BASIC FIRE SUPPORT TASKS, TARGETING, AND INTERDICTION

3-1 CAPABILITIES

3-2 RISK ESTIMATE DISTANCES

3-2 TARGET OVERLAYS

3-3 CALL FOR FIRE

3-5 CLOSE AIR SUPPORT

3-8 CLOSE COMBAT ATTACK AVIATION

3-10 CHAPTER 4 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MILITARY RADIOS

4-1 MAN-PACK RADIO ASSEMBLY (AN/PRC-1 1 9F)

4-4 AUTOMATED NET-CONTROL DEVICE

4-5 BASIC TROUBLESHOOTING

4-6 ANTENNAS REPAIRS

4-6 CONSTRUCTION AND ADJUSTMENT

4-7 FIELD EXPEDIENT (FE) OMNI DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS

4-8 ANTENNA LENGTH PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

4-12 CHAPTER 5 DEMOLITIONS INITIATING (PRIMING) SYSTEMS

5-3 DETONATION (FIRING) SYSTEMS

5-4 SAFETY

5-4 EXPEDIENT EXPLOSIVES-IMPROVISED SHAPED CHARGE

5-4 EXPEDIENT EXPLOSIVES-PLATTER CHARGE

5-5 EXPEDIENT EXPLOSIVES-GRAPESHOT CHARGE

5-6 DEMOLITION KNOTS

5-7 MINIMUM SAFE DISTANCES

5-8 BREACHING CHARGES

5-8 TIMBER CUTTING CHARGES

5-11 CHAPTER 6 MOVEMENT FORMATIONS

6-1 MOVEMENT TECHNIQUES

6-1 STANDARDS

6-4 FUNDAMENTALS

6-4 TACTICAL MARCHES

6-5 MOVEMENT DURING LIMITED VISIBILITY CONDITIONS

6-6 DANGER AREAS

6-7 CHAPTER

7 PATROLS PRINCIPLES PLANNING

7-1 RECONNAISSANCE

7-1 SECURITY

7-1 CONTROL

7-1 COMMON SENSE

7-1 PLANNING TASK ORGANIZATION

7-1 INITIAL PLANNING AND COORDINATION

7-3 COMPLETION OF PLAN

7-3 RECONNAISSANCE PATROLS FUNDAMENTALS OF RECONNAISSANCE

7-5 TASK STANDARDS

7-5 ACTIONS ON THE OBJECTIVE. AREA RECONNAISSANCE

7-5 ACTIONS ON THE OBJECTIVE, ZONE RECONNAISSANCE

7-8 COMBAT PATROLS PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

7-9 AMBUSH

7-10 HASTY AMBUSH

7-11 DELIBERATE (POINT/AREA) AMBUSH

7-12 PERFORM RAID

7-15 SUPPORTING TASKS LINKUP

7-18 DEBRIEF

7-18 OBJECTIVE RALLY POINT

7-19 PATROL BASE

7-20 MOVEMENT TO CONTACT TECHNIQUES

7-23 TASK STANDARD

7-24 CHAPTER 8 BATTLE DRILLS REACT TO CONTACT (VISUAL, ED, DIRECT FIRE [RPG]) (07-3-D9S01)

8-1 BREAK CONTACT (07-3-D9505)

8-6 REACT TO AMBUSH (FAR) (07-3-D9503)

8-9 REACT TO AMBUSH (NEAR) (07-3-D9502)

8-12 KNOCK OUT BUNKER (07-3-D9406)

8-15 ENTER AND CLEAR A ROOM (07-4-D9509)

8-18 ENTER A TRENCH TO SECURE A FOOTHOLD (07-3-D9410)

8-21 BREACH A MINED WIRE OBSTACLE (07-3-D9412)

8-25 REACT TO INDIRECT FIRE (07-3-D9504)

8-28 CHAPTER 9 MILITARY MOUNTAINEERING TRAINING

9-1 DISMOUNTED MOBILITY

9-1 TASK ORGANIZATION

9-1 RESCUE EQUIPMENT

9-2 MOUNTAINEERING EQUIPMENT

9-3 ANCHORS

9-5 KNOTS

9-8 BELAYS

9-13 CLIMBING COMMANDS

9-15 ROPE INSTALLATIONS

9-15 RAPPELLING

9-22 CHAPTER 10 MACHINE GUN EMPLOYMENT SPECIFICATIONS

10-1 DEFINITIONS

10-2 CLASSES OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS FIRE

10-3 OFFENSE 10-8 DEFENSE

10-9 CONTROL OF MACHINE GUNS

10-10 AMMUNITION PLANNING

10-11 CHAPTER

11 CONVOY OPERATIONS PLANNING

11-1 FIVE PHASES OF TRUCK MOVEMENT

11-1 CHAPTER 12 URBAN OPERATIONS AN URBAN PERSPECTIVE

12-1 STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF URBAN AREAS

12-1 MODERN ARMY URBAN OPERATIONS

12-1 TASK ORGANIZATION

12-1 FULL SPECTRUM OPERATIONS

12-1 PREPARATIONS FOR FUTURE URBAN OPERATIONS

12-2 CONDUCT OF LIVE. VIRTUAL. AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRAINING

12-3 RANGERS – URBAN WARRIORS

12-3 PRINCIPLES

12-4 METT-TC

12-4 CLOSE QUARTERS COMBAT

12-6 REHEARSALS

12-6 TTPS FOR MARKING BUILDINGS AND ROOMS

12-8 CHAPTER

13 WATERBORNE OPERATIONS ROPE BRIDGE

13-1 PONCHO RAFT

13-4 OTHER WATERCRAFT

13-5 CHAPTER

14 EVASION/SURVIVAL EVASION PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

14-1 INITIAL EVASION POINT

14-1 EVASION MOVEMENT

14-1 ROUTES

14-1 COMMUNICATIONS

14-2 HIDE SITE

14-2 HOLE-UP AREA

14-2 CAMOUFLAGE

14-2 SURVIVAL MEMORY AID

14-3 SURVIVAL KITS

14-3 NAVIGATION

14-3 TRAPS AND SNARES

14-11 PROCESSING OF FISH OR GAME

14-15 SHELTERS

14-19 FIRES

14-21 METHODS

14-23 CHAPTER

15 AVIATION REVERSE PLANNING SEQUENCE

15-1 SELECTION AND MARKING OF PICKUP AND LANDING ZONES

15-1 AIR ASSAULT FORMATIONS

15-2 PICKUP ZONE OPERATIONS

15-6 SAFETY 15-9 REQUIREMENTS

15-9 DESERT

15-11 MOUNTAINS

15-12 OBSERVATION HELICOPTERS

15-13 ATTACK HELICOPTERS

15-15 UTILITY HELICOPTERS

15-17 CARGO HELICOPTERS

15-19 CHAPTER

16 FIRST AID LIFESAVING STEPS

16-1 CARE UNDER FIRE

16-1 PRIMARY SURVEY

16-1 AIRWAY MANAGEMENT

16-1 BREATHING

16-2 BLEEDING

16-2 SHOCK

16-2 EXTREMITY INJURIES

16-2 ABDOMINAL INJURIES

16-2 BURNS

16-2 HOT WEATHER (HEAT) INJURIES

16-4 POISONOUS PLANT IDENTIFICATION

16-7 FOOT CARE

16-7 LITTER

16-7 HYDRATION AND ACCLIMATIZATION

16-9 WORK, REST, AND WATER CONSUMPTION

16-9 APPENDIX A

RESOURCES REACT TO INDIRECT FIRE

REACT TO CONTACT REACT TO A NEAR AMBUSH

REACT TO A FAR AMBUSH

BREAK CONTACT FORMATIONS AND ORDER OF MOVEMENT

LINKUP

LINEAR DANGER AREA

LARGE OPEN DANGER AREA CROSSING

A SMALL OPEN AREA

SQUAD ATTACK

RAID BOARDS LEFT

RAID BOARDS MIDDLE

ACTION ON OBJECTIVE

RAID BOARDS MIDDLE

TASK ORGANIZATION

RAID BOARDS RIGHT

SOP AMBUSH BOARDS

LEFT SOP AMBUSH BOARDS

MIDDLE LEADER'S RECONNAISSANCE AMBUSH BOARDS RIGHT

SOP APPENDIX B

QUICK REFERENCE CARDS

CASUALTY FEEDER CARD

GTA MEDEVAC AND AIRCRAFT REQUESTS

IED/UXO RANGE CARD –

PDF RANGE CARD –

FPL STANDARD RANGE CARD

OBSERVED FIRE REFERENCE CARD AND RULER (INSIDE BACK COVER)

9-LINE MEDEVAC GLOSSARY INDEX

Also note many/most of those skills in the RANGER Handbook and RANGER Course you learn at other schools and courses as well. I was issued a RANGER Handbook in ROTC going thru Recon training.

Again, well trained, capable, qualified troops at all levels make a better more effective, etc. unit.

Better troops make better units …

I work with a guy that was air assault,

Tell him I said AIR ASSAULT !!!! 🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁

I thought your training was they tilted the helo and they just kicked you guys out?

Sometimes it certainly appeared to be the case !

(I kid 'cause I love)

I get it !!! 🥰🥰

Irish Marine posted

The five paragraph order doesn't differ nor does land navigation, if Ranger school's five paragraph order is better than why isn't that one taught first and only, do they do land nav differently?

They are the same. Sounds like you also don't like the ARMY or RANGERs ?!??! 😲 Who would have thought !!!! I'm shocked ! Shocked I tell you !!! 😧

Nope, I've worked with the straight leg Army, Rangers and SF, I thought they were ok and got along with them even though we each worked differently. We have the same stuff in our 6-5 it's the Bible for squad leaders. PDF link

Now I just picked that one at random so it's probably not the current issue. Yes, I couldn't agree more training is essential for all my past deployments we had what we called a work up; A month at CAX for battalion, company, platoon and squad live fire not counting calling for arty, mortars and air, then a month at mountain warfare school and if your unit is super freaking lucky you did both winter and summer ( fell down a cliff face on one trip) jungle phase were we went to Fort Sherman in Panama did patrols and dodged black palm, and our blue water work up where we did Amphib training each for month, not counting going to the field each week for regular training. And in between all that squeezing in PME ( professional military education) schools when you can. I turned down Ranger School and jump school twice because it didn't do anything for my PME towards retention especially in the early 90's when they were trying to get rid of everyone, I needed Squad Leaders school and NCO School to stay in the Marine Corps. Again if Ranger school is that valuable training soldiers to be better soldiers than it should replace your Infantry training school. And as far as a leadership school is concerned I don't know how it teaches that, leadership is taking care of your people, yes mission comes first but to take care of your people you need to be with your people. You don't learn leadership doing a 5 paragraph order in knee deep swamp water worrying if you going pass the school. You learn to a good leader in garrison and the field not one extreme.

We think the same on many things on being in the Infantry. BTW, I also went to the Jungle School with the 101 3 times at Ft. Sherman. I always was careful to avoid Black Palm, and many of the critters that are denizens of the Jungle. We are literally in their backyard.

Again if Ranger school is that valuable training soldiers to be better soldiers than it should replace your Infantry training school.

It reinforces all the basic Infantry Training skills taught in the Army. And adds to it. It is like a grueling 8-9 week FTX. With few breaks, etc. And little slack.

Again, RANGER Training produces individuals who can go to the RANGER RGT, and most that go to the many Infantry Bns[and other Combat Arms units], in the ARMY. It shouldn't replace anything … it adds to the soldier's capabilities who pass and get tab qualified.

And as far as a leadership school is concerned I don't know how it teaches that, leadership is taking care of your people, yes mission comes first but to take care of your people you need to be with your people.

It produces a better trained soldier and leader to be better at their job. And in turn train their troops. However, many times RANGER School is between postings. E.g. before an LT goes to his first Bn, after Infantry Officer Basic, during ROTC, etc., etc. And yes, being a Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co. Cdr I know & understand very well about taking care of your soldiers.

You don't learn leadership doing a 5 paragraph order in knee deep swamp water worrying if you going pass the school.

That is part of the stress and a capable tough RANGER candidate does not let that interfere with his mission in his Squad. Under stress, tired, wet, hungry, etc. shows who the leaders are. I'm sure you understand that.

You learn to a good leader in garrison and the field not one extreme.

You learn how to be a good leader anywhere, in garrison and in the field. Again, as a Rifle Plt leader in the 101 then later a Mech Co. Cdr, in a Mech Hvy Bde. I understand about taking care of your troops. And training them be effective soldiers. I didn't do it on my own of course, but along with my PSG/1SG & Sqd Ldrs. You were a Sqd Ldr & PSG, you know that as well as I do.

My experience, with Marines attached to our Bn in the ROK, and BAT at Little Creek, etc., etc. Demonstrated to me they were generally pretty good well-trained troops. But so are most ARMY soldiers. IMO … Biased as some may think …

Seems we will NEVER agree about the value of ARMY RANGER School. But I know from experience and training in 10+ years as an Infantry Officer on active duty, '79-'90. Again, RANGER trained personnel make more effective soldiers and leaders. And they are in many combat arms units, mostly in Infantry Bns, etc. But in Armor, FA, etc. units too. As well as a few combat support branches, e.g. CEs, MPs, MI, etc.

The RANGER School is much too grueling for many soldiers in combat arms units and otherwise to pass. That is what makes the tab so coveted. The skills I posted from the RANGER FM along with the difficult nature of the training is great ground combat training and in turn makes better troops and leaders.

As I have explained. Along with many/most of those RANGER Skills are taught in other courses. I know I was trained in most of those skills. But not in the tough stressful environment of the RANGER school. I believe if a USMC Plt went to RANGER school many would not make it thru and earn the tab either. However, many Marines have as well as SEALs.

So agree to disagree … that is all I can say.

nine pound round

The Army has tangled repeatedly with the question of who and why. In the nineties, when I went, openings were limited to infantry and certain other positions (e.g., FIST teams) that were coded for the skill designator associated with completion of the school. Everyone in the Ranger battalions went, sooner or later, or they didn't stay.

Again, that sounds right to me. I ETS'd APR 1990.

You went to RANGER School I take it ?

You were an 11B ?

I'm just posting the way it was from '79-90. What I experienced, remember, was taught, learned, etc., but not being RANGER Qual'd. But again, many Infantry Officers, some NCOs in the 4 Infantry Bns I was part of were RANGER Qual'd.

If I understand it correctly … Today all Officers branched INFANTRY go to RANGER School.

I will not comment on the Ranger affirmative action program the link I provided says enough!

"Here's a question: If it's good for anyone why isn't everyone going?"

I will answer this based on my own experience in the 82nd Airborne from 1984-1988. Every infantryman was asked at least once a month to attend Ranger school with a guaranteed placement. I was a Sergeant E-5 and was told I would not be considered for Staff Sergeant E-6 unless I had the Ranger tab. The number #1 reason I chose not to attend…

"PEERING" Your squad mates vote and pick a member of the squad they deem unfit to advance after each cycle. The "Peered" Ranger candidate must now recycle through the "failed" portion of the school. The school could now become an extra month longer or you can give up and quit. Recycle twice and you are kicked out.

It has been my experience in life that getting "Peered" in ANYTHING is like the TV Reality Show Survivor. It has nothing to do with your ability, it is a popularity / political contest or should I say bullying ordeal… There was no way I was going to torture myself, do everything right only to have my fate decided by some good ole boy tards… (I could comment a lot more…)

Now I will list some of the other reasons people don't attend…

1. Alcoholics won't have access to alcohol.

2. Prolonged period away from girlfriend or wife.

3. Physically cannot make the standards.

4. They know they were carried by the other guys in the platoon in some way (i.e., land navigation). You can be incompetent in some respects as an infantryman and your team will carry you but that will not fly in Ranger school.

5. They hate the Army, want to do as little as possible and ETS.

6. The thought of reduced rations and lack of sleep for months on end is not worth it. (Guys that attended Ranger school return to the 82nd looking like concentration camp survivors)

7. PEERING

8. It is not a ticket to one of the prestigious Ranger battalions.

9. They don't care about bling on their uniform and what other people think.

All very good points and very true Dragon … As we see and I tried to make clear, Not everyone can qualify to go to RANGER School. For a number of reasons … Or want to go. You & I both being in US ARMY Light Infantry units, you Airborne & I Air Assault we have a better understanding the "dynamics", etc., of going to and passing RANGER school, etc., etc., etc. Then some who were not in the US ARMY, etc.

I wish I was good enough to get a RANGER Tab but I was not … One of my failings in the US ARMY, that still haunts me at times. [Went one ages you sometimes look back on your life … both the good & bad.]

And sadly, yes, it appears based on number of things affirmative action has gone to RANGER school.

My battalion was sent to Elgin Airforce base to be the OPFOR for the Ranger school during swamp phase. We were told to we could dress up in a mix of civilian and military clothing to simulate being insurgents (i.e. guys running round in John Deere hats) Our job was to get shot up and killed by the Rangers during their FTX.

I saw how emaciated the Ranger candidates looked and went out of my way to stuff my pockets with extra MREs, oranges, apples and candy. I was like a giant food pinata to them! They would whisper, "Can I have your food" while searching me after I had been killed. I would whisper back, "Take it, it is all for you". They would swarm around me like a pack of wolves feasting on a buffalo with tears of joy in their eyes.

@Dragongunner. That is very considerate of you, good man. I once did the opposite. A 2lt who was despised by almost everyone for being fat, lazy , egoistical,,self centered and incompetent once sneaked a large bottle of coke to a survival exercise. He would sneak away to drink but I noticed. So when he was away for a while I poured it out and replaced it with swamp water. He was royally pissed but could not say anything.

No, I was an FA officer: 13A5S, after Ranger school. By the mid-90s, when I went, they had narrowed the school to infantry (all OBC grads were going in those days) and jobs that worked with the infantry. I went as a FISTer. They made no bones about why it had gotten so narrow: they were trying to avoid having to open it to females.

Good intel Nine pound round. As both a Rifle Plt Ldr & Mech Co. Cdr. I had a FIST. Glad to have them too ! Respect for you getting RANGER qualified. I can see based on what is reported going on now why they didn't want females in RANGER school. More like affirmative action, as noted. However, I'm not there so … but have heard similar from other sources outside of this site too. But I don't know who to believe … at times …

Dragon +1, great job taking care of the other guy(s). I'm sure they appreciated it. 👍👍

Soledad …

A 2lt who was despised by almost everyone for being fat, lazy , egoistical,,self centered and incompetent once sneaked a large bottle of coke to a survival exercise.

Too bad you had to serve under such a substandard officer. But it does happen, I doubt he went very far. At least I hope not … Never ran into such a poor excuse for a leader.