"Once again Ranger school is nonsense." Topic

I've never held Ranger School in high opinion once years ago I discovered, pilots, MP's, and other non combat MOS's were going through, only because it's a "Leadership School". Now Space Force has its first member graduating. What the Hell does Space Force need to go through Ranger School, the school should be shut down at this point, the Army just needs to butch up its NCO and Officer school, if that's what Ranger School is going to used as a leadership school.

You need to listen to some of the Infantry Association podcasts with high profile soldiers lost my respect for Marine policy when I attended a DoD school on RREO and every branch and Guard level was represented but the Marine Corps who told the DoD that they never had such problems. Lost my respect.

Maybe a jarhead may not know how to work a radio. Lol. I had a Marine Lt as roommate at the Armor basic school.

Irish Marine:
in my service time, 30 plus years ago, that's exactly how Ranger school was billed: "hard leadership course/gut-check." That changed happened quite a while ago, likely only a few years after its re-creation in the 1970s.

For those of us with a combat arms background (especially infantry), Ranger school has always been somewhat of an ironic joke; you can serve your whole career as a infantryman with highest marks, but fail Ranger school, and you suck….yet passing is often highly subjective, with injury taking a toll almost as great as the RI (or even worse, your peers) who just decided you won't be passing…

I'd argue its value is more emotional than real; its original purpose: one, that of creating and staffing Ranger battalions and Ranger LRRP companies and two, that of ex-Vietnam vets wanting to pass on their hard earned light infantry/LRRP/COIN skillset on to a generation of new infantry officers and NCOs whose focus was on the fictional armored might of the Soviet Union, was quickly changed into the "leadership school" mentality very quickly in an effort to disseminate that skill set Army wide.

The problem and gross inefficiency is that skillset is trained in multiple different venues in the Army: IOBC, AOBC, AROBC, BNCOC, ANCOC, West Point, ROTC….Ranger school is redundant in that role. In addition, many combat units run their own version of Ranger (or Pre-Ranger) school, often titled "Recondo." Same skill set taught, same grueling conditions, same outcome in a shorter period (and definitely not effective in turning out Ranger school graduates any more than normal service).
I always thought it was incredibly wasteful of Army resources to spend years training Point and ROTC cadets leadership skills in the light infantry environment, then send a new LT to IOBC to train those skills again, then send them to Ranger school….to learn effectively the same thing…again…but if you failed Ranger school then the previous 3-5 years was wasted as your promotion potential in combat arms just tanked…

So, Ranger school no longer was used to induct new LRRPs/Recon/Ranger battalion soldiers, is redundant in the leadership training role and the combat skills it teaches otherwise are often learned fairly quickly by new recruits in any active light infantry battalion… so what value does that leave it? Well, it was a great way to differentiate promotion paths for 2 generations of combat soldiers (late 1970's to early 2000's), the overwhelming majority who never saw combat.
And that's it…if a good troop went to Ranger school and failed, he came back a good troop who could write an OPORD in record time; if a bad troop went to school and passed, he came back a bad troop who could write an OPORD in record time, and now was at the top of the E5/E6 list.

As the combat in the Middle East took a more intense turn, my personal experience was that fewer and fewer soldiers needed that skill set supposedly taught in Ranger school-they learned it the hard way, hence further devaluing a school that I argue lost its purpose within just a few years of its "re-creation." Look at your MoH and high medal earners in the last 20 years..no Ranger tab needed…

In the end, the training done at Ranger school should just be done in the infantry schools or basic courses. Make the courses harder so we don't need a "special school" to teach those skills, all over again.

But…as we enter a period of relative peace…how will we differentiate those to promote and not….guess we need a school for that…

"yet passing is often highly subjective,"-Maggot

"Peering" is why I chose not to go, I don't win popularity contests. I saw far too much "good ole boy" favoritism when I was in. Entertaining your teammates and superiors while sharing less than wholesome activities was valued more than being a good soldier!

Example…

I like that alcoholic beer swilling, smoking, adulterous skirt chasing guy he is a real man just like me! Lets promote his BLEEP.

Well I have to disagree with some of the comments here. Albeit I was not good enough to get a Ranger Tab. However, I've served with too many great soldiers who were Ranger Qualified. Here is what I know being a former Rifle/Mortar Plt Ldr in the 101 and later a Mech Co. Cdr with a Mech Heavy Bde. That was part of the 18th ABN Corps.

I.e.: Some may say the Ranger training is redundant in some ways. However, again being a former PL and Co. Cdr. I am a very strong proponent of as long as the training is well done and "good" training plus the soldier actually get more skills and improves those skills. It serves its purpose. IMO that is so very important to soldiers and officers. Plus, IMO there is nothing wrong with redundant training. From the Fire Tm thru Co.

E.g. I went with my Air Assault Bn and deployed to Jungle School 3 times in Panama. Twice as a PL and once as a Bn Air ops Officer[S3-Air].

Had 2 tours on the ROK's DMZ.

Went to the NTC twice, once in the CBT SPT Bn. Then once as a Mech Co. Cdr.[got my butt kicked along most of the rest of the Bn].

The more training you do the better. And in most cases I don't care how many times you and/or your unit goes thru certain training.

FWIW – I was awarded US Army Airborne and Air Assault wings, plus an Expert Infantry's Badge. But again, I was nothing special, really. I am not bragging. There really is not that much to brag about. Compared to some of my comrades who were not only Airborne Rangers but then Green Berets also.

I was a grad of ROTC, ROTC Recondo training, IOBC, IOAC, plus numerous other schools. Including USMC/USN Basic Amph. training a Little Creek. As well as USAF Air/Ground Ops school at Eglin USAF Base. Note: again, I was nothing "special", the US Army produced many Infantry Officers as we may have had to fight the USSR/WP in Europe, the North Koreans in the ROK, etc., etc. Infantry generally takes heavier losses, as we know.

Now back in the day when I was in the US Army Infantry, '79 to '90. To most Infantrymen the coveted Ranger Tab was sign of your abilities as an Infantryman plus learned all the tasks to be able to wear the Tab. As well being able to push your limits. Both physically and mentally. IMO to down grade Ranger Qualified soldiers is a bit insulting. Unless one was there and got the Tab. Most can't. I know …

The US Army Rangers is integral to the Army's linage, and mission. Not just to fill the slots in the Army's 3 Ranger Bns of the 75th Ranger Rgt. That Rgt can trace its linage back to Roger's Rangers[yes Rogers was a Tory during the AWI], and Merrile's Marauders.

Having Ranger qualified NCOs and Officers makes that unit a little more effective. And those Ranger qualified soldiers can train those members of his unit.

Of course, those soldiers who have actually been in combat. Their knowledge and skills they bring to the unit is also very useful. I served with and was trained by many Combat Vets who had 1-2+ tours in SE Asia. That is an important distinction.

Now today many females have successfully passed Ranger School. I'm still not sure about that. But I have to give them some respect. Is Ranger School different now than when I was in the Army ? Maybe ?

Females have always gone to Airborne and Air Assault School. I didn't see them getting any special training. Save for the pull up bar. Their bar was about 2 Ft above the ground. And they pull themselves starting on their backs. Yes, females don't have the upper body strength that males do. So, I am told.

So I've probably already said too much on this topic. However back when I was on Active Duty, those with a Ranger Tab were considered some damn good soldiers … Regardless of their branch e.g. Tankers, FA, CEs MPs, MI, etc. It just made them better soldiers …

Oh, BTW I never heard Ranger and nonsense in the same sentence. At least AFAIK …

Because in the next war, the Space Force are going to insert pathfinders from REALLY high up.

Space Rangers?

Way too many acronyms and abbreviations from ex-Military types on these posts for a lifetime civilian to follow easily, which is a shame because it seems an interesting, well informed discussion..

DBDD

"Way too many acronyms and abbreviations from ex-Military types on these posts for a lifetime civilian to follow easily, which is a shame because it seems an interesting, well informed discussion.."

Yes, rather a lot of Yankee military terminology has been used.

The one that got me was, "we may have had to fight the USSR/WP in Europe".

Now, I'm fine with the "USSR" but "WP"?

I know in texting "WP" is for "What's popping"? but that doesn't seem germane. In football, we use the term 'WP' for matches won & points gained which could put a surreal sport's spin on WW3 but maybe not. Winnie the Pooh? Wild Pokemon? I'm obviously grasping here.

Then I got it: "Wrong Person". This makes sense given the unfortunate tendency in warfare to accidentally kill innocent people who, for whatever reason, get in the way. Sad, even tragic but nice to know an effort is made to keep track of the numbers.

WP in the Cold War context probably means Warsaw Pact.

However, in some contexts it can also stand for White Phosphorous ammunition.

Thank you for your information.

Sadly, satire seems to be a dying art.

Wasn't going to comment but, what the hell…

I graduated Ranger School in October '85. As Maggot points out, it was not a school for _learning_ skills. I didn't learn any techniques or tactics there that I didn't already know. Once the first six days ("City" phase) were over, it was an unvarying routine of Ambush Patrol one night, Raid Patrol the next night, over and over again, using the same SOPs time and again.

I didn't learn any techniques because learning was, by design, impossible. For 58 days we averaged 1.8 meals and ~2.5 hours of sleep per day, while conducting long cross-country movements both before and after the actual mission objective. The goal of the school was to put as much stress and as many kinds of stress – physical fatigue, sleep deprivation, hunger, nocturnal existence, time pressure, grade pressure, etc etc – on the Ranger student as possible. Why? Because short of shooting at students it is the closest we can come to testing their likely performance under fire.

I said I didn't learn any techniques or tactics, but I sure learned something about myself. And I can tell you I'd rather have a Ranger School grad next to me in a crisis than someone who has loads of skills but no tab. Of course the ideal would be both.

As for the peer evaluation, the way it worked was that each Ranger squad, at the end of each 2-week phase, would secretly vote on what squad member was the worst. In a good squad where everyone was pulling their weight, you'd just all agree to spread the votes around so that nobody was identified as a problem. But if there was a "sunshine Ranger" – the sort of student who performed at 100% when the Ranger instructors were watching or his own performance was being graded, but who slacked off and took care only of his own needs once the RIs weren't watching – then the peer review was the students' way of letting the RIs know that this was the case. If a student was revealed in this way, he wasn't dropped from the course immediately but instead was transferred to another squad where he had one more chance to make good. Two peer failings, though, was cause to be dropped from the course no matter how highly he had scored on evaluations. Pretty good system, IMHO, and one that I've wished I encountered in other organizations in my life.

Wasn't going to comment but, what the hell…

I graduated Ranger School in October '85. As Maggot points out, it was not a school for _learning_ skills. I didn't learn any techniques or tactics there that I didn't already know. Once the first six days ("City" phase) were over, it was an unvarying routine of Ambush Patrol one night, Raid Patrol the next night, over and over again, using the same SOPs time and again.

I didn't learn any techniques because learning was, by design, impossible. For 58 days we averaged 1.8 meals and ~2.5 hours of sleep per day, while conducting long cross-country movements both before and after the actual mission objective. The goal of the school was to put as much stress and as many kinds of stress – physical fatigue, sleep deprivation, hunger, nocturnal existence, time pressure, grade pressure, etc etc – on the Ranger student as possible. Why? Because short of shooting at students it is the closest we can come to testing their likely performance under fire.

I said I didn't learn any techniques or tactics, but I sure learned something about myself. And I can tell you I'd rather have a Ranger School grad next to me in a crisis than someone who has loads of skills but no tab. Of course the ideal would be both.

As for the peer evaluation, the way it worked was that each Ranger squad, at the end of each 2-week phase, would secretly vote on what squad member was the worst. In a good squad where everyone was pulling their weight, you'd just all agree to spread the votes around so that nobody was identified as a problem. But if there was a "sunshine Ranger" – the sort of student who performed at 100% when the Ranger instructors were watching or his own performance was being graded, but who slacked off and took care only of his own needs once the RIs weren't watching – then the peer review was the students' way of letting the RIs know that this was the case. If a student was revealed in this way, he wasn't dropped from the course immediately but instead was transferred to another squad where he had one more chance to make good. Two peer failings, though, was cause to be dropped from the course no matter how highly he had scored on evaluations. Pretty good system, IMHO, and one that I've wished I encountered in other organizations in my life.

Now Space Force has its first member graduating.

As I have said, all branches would profit from going to Army Ranger School. Even the newest Space Force … Learning basic and advance skills of soldiering seems to me like a good idea. Why would Space Force not be allowed to go ? Space Force's mission is not like Starship Troopers … yet.

However, my MOAA[Military Officers' Assoc of America] Chapter, got an unclassified briefing from an Space Force Officer(CPT) a while ago … They do have a mission … However, they do classified operations/missions often… With tech advancing rapidly Space is becoming more and more "the new frontier". Just ask the Russians or PRC/CCP. Why would the USA let them get an advantage in Space anymore than on the sea, on land or in the air ? To be late to the game would could prove disastrous … yes ? Space is the real "high ground" …

What if the US Military did not get tanks or aircraft in their inventories after WWI ? As many of the other nations did …

The USAF was the US Army Air Corps, until '1947. The missions in the air expanded enough for USAAC to have its own branch.

Space Force is the same … and not only IMO …

the school should be shut down at this point,

Well … they will shut down the Army Ranger School about the same time they shut down the USMC … which will probably never happen, in either case … AFAIK.

Way too many acronyms and abbreviations

Sorry Darrel, or anyone else when in doubt please ask. FWIW – it is easier and quicker to write IOBC = Infantry Officers Basic Course, than spell it out every time. The Military loves expediency …

ex-Military types

But yes, I had expected knowing such basic terms when talking about military topics would be a given … But again just ask …

rather a lot of Yankee military terminology has been used.

Yes cause I'm a "Yank" Vet … 😲😎

USSR/WP = the WP means Warsaw Pact … everyone here should know that ? The WP were "allies" of the USSR during the Cold War. FWIW – Many are now members of NATO … During the Cold War we were trained to kill them if war broke out. As they were us and NATO.

in some contexts it can also stand for White Phosphorous ammunition.

Yes … but not when written with USSR/WP …

Also White Phosphorous was called "Willy Pete" by GIs … I think that came about during Vietnam. As I was instructed, trained and served with those in the Army that fought in Vietnam, we'd pick up some of the "terms", nicknames, etc. from those who were there.

⭐ Eumelus your input is very welcomed. As you were Ranger qualified … something I was not as I said.

"You're a better man than I."

Sad, even tragic but nice to know an effort is made to keep track of the numbers.

FWIW – Really has nothing to do with the topic. We all know how costly and wasteful war is. Our elected & appointed officials should remember that …

I have gradually learned a bunch of military acronyms here, but there are a lot of them, so I always appreciate explanations. Thereafter, you don't have to write it out.

As a retired government official, I was accustomed to our own big bunch of acronyms and nicknames, along with those of other agencies. Better than any code, nobody 1 degree removed from us ever knew what we were talking about. Nobody does bureaucracy quite like the US government, including the military.

Thank all you vets for a good discussion, and for your service. 👍

Sorry Darrel, or anyone else when in doubt please ask. FWIW – it is easier and quicker to write IOBC = Infantry Officers Basic Course, than spell it out every time. The Military loves expediency

Thank you, Sir… I've long enjoyed your posts sharing your experience and have intendedt o raise this question – you do throw the abbreviations around although I totally understand why.

But yes, I had expected knowing such basic terms when talking about military topics would be a given …

With respect, a lot of the abbreviations on this topic are not "basic". Also, many Wargamers don't extend their interest into 20th century and later, so these terms are not part of their area of knowledge. And many, like me, have never been in any branch of the military so have not been exposed to these terms as part of their day-to-day experience. Having said that, I'm a big fan of your posts so don't take this as negative observations. And I didn't really like that reference to "Yankee military terminology" that someone made. It sounded a bit "off".

DBDD

My experiences echo Eumelus's: it's less a school that you go to to learn basic skills, than it is an opportunity to see whether you can do the things you were taught to do under conditions that reach a degree of extremity most people – including most service members – never see.

At some point, the Army figured out that fatigue was itself a potential training tool: if you get men tired enough, they behave in the same way they behave when they're badly frightened. Ranger school is both a test to see whether a leader can function under those conditions, and whether he can lead people who are also suffering from them. The training centers do something similar, albeit in abbreviated form.

When I was a cadet at West Point, Barry McCaffrey came to talk to us. I don't remember a lot of what he said, but one thing stuck with me- he said, "Ranger School is harder than war." And he left half a leg in Vietnam, which gives that judgment some interesting authenticity.

With respect, a lot of the abbreviations on this topic are not "basic".

Yes DBDD, you are correct, I sometimes take some war gamers experiences for granted. I will make it a point to remember this. I appreciate that you said with "respect", but you didn't have to. But thank you anyway ! 👍👍

And many, like me, have never been in any branch of the military so have not been exposed to these terms as part of their day-to-day experience. Having said that, I'm a big fan of your posts so don't take this as negative observations.

Many thanks again, DBDD. I did not take anything as negative. And I am glad you like my posts. As I do want give some war gamers, etc. an idea of my training and experiences in the Army. That may help them understand and have a better appreciation for the war games they play, etc. Plus, I am a big fan of history, so I guess my time in the Army was so long ago it is now history !

And I didn't really like that reference to "Yankee military terminology" that someone made. It sounded a bit "off".

Well I know who said that is from Australia, IIRC. So, to me and others being called a "Yank" or "Yankee" is no big deal. I've been called worse ! 😃

But again you and others please let me know if I go too "military" when I post … Old habits …

Eumelus being Ranger qualified gives him a much better perspective, knowledge, etc. of the school. As I said, many of the officers and even NCOs were Rangers in the units I served with. So, I can only give my POV on the subject from my experiences, etc. Working with them in the field and in garrison was a very good experience. And yes, not being a Ranger, I felt I had to prove myself at times. But they never gave me any about it. And some were very good friends.

And I can tell you I'd rather have a Ranger School grad next to me in a crisis than someone who has loads of skills but no tab.

So, IMO Eumelus is the guy to tell anyone about Ranger School as he was there, and I'm not Ranger qualified. As I have much respect for that. And what he said there is very true. As I'd would rather have a Ranger next to me than not. For obvious reasons.

TimePortal, Dragon Gunner, Maggot and Nine pound round, being Vets they have made very good comments. And they are very much "qualified", etc. to make those comments, etc.. And again, I very much have respect for them and what they did, etc. As they are fellow Vets. Our experiences in some cases may be a little different, as our opinions may be. But from what they post on TMP they seem to know their stuff. Their POVs are worth reading. And thank you all for your service.

As with nine pound round, Eumelus' remarks match my experience as well. I graduated the course in January '88. It was a 58 day gut check that challenged me physically and mentally every day. I appreciate to outsiders that elements of it appear to be redundant to other schools. But no other Army course provides such an intense practical exercise in leadership as Ranger school. Space Force is trying to development its identity and develop its ethos. Having a few members earn the Ranger tab can't hurt that process.

My concern is that some Army NCO or Officer in a billet where Ranger school might be more appropriate or even required did not get to go because this Space Force captain attended the course. The school's capacity is limited.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if he was going to a JSOC billet, and someone thought it might help him to have the experience. It used to be that a lot of non-infantry billets were Ranger-coded, if they supported infantry units (eg fire support teams for rifle companies).

Eumelus,
in regards to the "peering," the perception for those of us on the enlisted side in my time (and I stress "perception," as I doubt it's backed by any real fact) was that many an 11B lost his shot at a tab because they felt that a pack of IOBC graduates (who already knew and were friendly with one another, and attended Ranger school and IOBC together) would use that method as self protection to "get rid of the competition." Their moralization was: "I need the tab to succeed in my career more than an enlisted troop who still can make E7/8 and maybe even 9 without a tab. A combat arms officer won't make 04 without it."
Hence they would use the peer process, or even more insidiously, just not help the enlisted guy in the squad, causing a failure through peering or failing a leadership post during a patrol rating. I heard this "concern" from enlisted men, both graduates and failures of the course, on many occasions. Whether real or perceived, it jaded quite a few enlisted from even trying, or gave a convenient excuse for failure.

I'd also wager that a natural rivalry exists between two groups attending the school: a group of LTs with no practical experience, but lots of training, against enlisted men with far more practical experience, but alot less academic training.

Nonetheless, I don't see the course going anywhere; it's ingrained in Army culture, and no one can deny the positive effects of the "Ranger ethos" of a few tabbed troops in a platoon, of any branch.

At the end of the day, my most important rules for my battle buddies was: will you carry the same load as me? Will you keep up with me? Will you help the rest of us? Can you keep the barrel of your weapon in the right direction? And finally, will you stay your a@@ awake on sentry after 5 straight days in the field so I can catch one or two hours of ZZ's? Cause Ill do the same for you, regardless of what pretty tabs and badges you got on your chest and arm.

Thanks all who shared their experiences in this thread.

LEAD THE WAY.

The easy answer to the "Peering" issue is to do away with it. Have a measurable standard and if the candidate succeeds they pass. Mandatory peer selected failing of candidates invites all kinds of Satanic Machiavellian plotting and back stabbing. This is supposed to be a leadership school not the Reality TV show Survivor. The thought my career path could be decided by a couple of plotting BLEEP good ole boys infuriated the hell out of me. I was told if I wanted to make E-6 I had to pass Ranger school.

I once asked a peer why a particular sergeant didn't like me I was told because the sergeant can't bum smokes off of you in the field or free drinks at the bar. So to avoid crap details and Saturday Charge of Quarters duty in garrison I had to subsidize his addictions and become his designated driver for free. You have enough experiences like this and I have too many to list you begin to lose faith in any Army institution.

That out-group thing was conventional wisdom for any group going through Ranger School; the infantry lieutenants coming from Benning said it about the bat boys coming from the Ranger Regiment, and the bat boys said it right back. In that environment, how you do in peers has a lot less to do with whether you're someone's buddy than it does with what load you can carry.

I would agree overall Ranger qualified soldiers were better soldiers over all. I am not attacking you guys but I will tell you what I thought every time I saw a Ranger tab. To get that tab how many peers did he screw over and vote off the island to secure his spot at graduation? What unholy deals were made in the dark behind his peers back?

Well, you can think that all you want, but it's pretty clearly uninformed by the actual experience of going through the course.

My thoughts and questions still stand.

Nine Pound Round how many people did you peer to secure your spot at graduation?

Did you ever discuss with the other candidates who to peer out?

Since I was an odd man out myself, I can assure you I didn't "peer anyone to secure my spot at graduation." What a ridiculous assertion- and one that says a lot more about you than it ever could about me. They don't make Rangers out of men who are afraid of the peer system.

I've heard too many horror stories from people that attended the school about Ranger Battalion guys forming voting blocks. Of West Point Ring knockers ganging up on enlisted or ROTC officers. I would say their experiences were valid.

Not interested in your pop psychology or shaming attack, I could care less.

Look, if you want to build your view of the world on the stories people tell to excuse their failures, that's your own sad, sordid business. But you don't need to come on TMP and slander people who made it through a course you never had the courage to try.

Clearly you are proud of your accomplishment and feel a need to defend it. I expect others that have attended Ranger school and received the tab will rally to your side in the near future in some kind of fraternal brotherhood like West Point Ring Knockers.. As I already stated I think Rangers make superior soldiers.Attacking me does not change anything I have said. Do you have anything else to add other than more insults and pop psychology? As far as slander nice attempt to cast yourself as a victim , Ranger….

Nothing aimed at Dragon Gunner. I was proud to have them in my Cavalry platoon. We also had Ranger Tabs, foreign soldiers, and ex-Marines (my PltSgt was one. The platoon next to mine was commanded by a ring knocker, lol. It was an experience.
Anyway according to a Staff member from Fort Moore, the Ranger program is a small unit leadership course. There is a distinct difference between the school which they use the term only for administration, between them and the Ranger Battalion. A combat ready unit ready to deploy at any crisis.

He gave props to the Marine Crucible course as a leadership building block.

Some very good comments from Vets … As I said, I was not good enough to get Ranger Qualified. But I was fortunate to have served with some great Ranger qualified Officers and some NCOs.

As I said, my experiences in the Army and not earning a Ranger Tab, my POV may vary from other Vets. Rangers or not, officers or NCOs. I can only speak to what I saw with 4 Inf Bns I served in.

Many of my friends and comrades were Rangers. ROTC and West Point. I did not see some things in that situation as others may have. Some of them were my best friends in the Army. I was never berated for not being a Ranger, AFAIK.

I will admit most of the time I did have to work a little harder to prove myself. As I believed I was not good enough not being Ranger. That was probably a good thing. Most of the officers that I hung around with after duty hours, etc. were Rangers. I was glad they accepted me, not being a Ranger, so to speak.

I can tell you I'd rather have a Ranger School grad next to me in a crisis than someone who has loads of skills but no tab.

I may be that non-Ranger qualified soldier that was mentioned ? And I do get it. I hold not malice for those that believe that. It is probably true … But again, I worked with, knew and had many friends that were Rangers.

Nonetheless, I don't see the course going anywhere; it's ingrained in Army culture, and no one can deny the positive effects of the "Ranger ethos" of a few tabbed troops in a platoon, of any branch.

I agree completely … Better to have the Ranger school than not. Regardless of what the Marines say ! 😎

As a Mech Co. Cdr, I had some of my LTs that were Rangers, even had a former USN SEAL that went thru Army ROTC and went to Ranger school as well. Also had a former USN Salvage Driver who went thru ROTC too. I was glad to have all of them as they were pretty good LTs. I had a few NCOs that were Rangers too.

By that time, I didn't feel "less than" too much for not being a Ranger. Having served with the 101 and 2ID, etc. So, I had a lot of good training and experience plus some good mentors. They were Rangers too.

Something that may agree with some comments here about not having to be Ranger qualified to be a good soldier. Again, with my unit in the 101 I went Panama/JOTC 3 times. And went thru USMC/USN Amph. training as well as USAF Air/Ground ops school.

Sent 22 months with a forward deployed Mech Bn with the 2ID. A few klicks behind the DMZ. With two tours on the DMZ.

Two deployments to the NTC.

All good training and experiences … Well yeah … it sucked sometime.

As Co. Cdr many times my Bn Cdrs had cross-attached my Mech Co to a Tank Bn. Any training that involved river crossings, etc. my Co. was sent. And often my Co. was sent to "additional training".

E.g. we were flown to the Ranger Camp at Elgin USAF Base. My 1st Plt was attached to an SF unit as OPFOR for the El Salvadorians training there.

My other troops and I were working with an SF unit. We trained them on how to use the M47 Dragon MAW, they trained us to use Zodiac rubber boats, Fast Roping, etc. We ran patrols and were OPFOR for them. Some really great training.

So maybe even not being a Ranger didn't influence my superiors and peers opinions, as they were Rangers ? Maybe my training and experiences were the reasons why my Co. did a lot of things the other Cos. didn't. And most of the other Co. Cdrs were Rangers ?

Or maybe I'm just trying to convince myself that even not being a Ranger I was still a good Infantry Officer ?

Maybe I should see a shrink at the VA ?!?!? 🤔😮😮

Where the Hell is Doctor Phil when I need him ?!?!? 🤯😭🤪🥴🤩

My experience is a bit less comprehensive than Legion 4's but while I was in (enlisted 11B went to Federal OCS and became an infantry officer) I felt Ranger School was probably more of a gut check and test of how much misery someone could endure while staying mission focused and getting the job done. Personally, and at the time professionally, I think in those regards it had significant value to combat arms personnel who were motivated to attend and give it their very best effort.

I opted not to go after the infantry officer basic course and airborne school for personal reasons that at the time I felt would limit my ability to focus and give it that very best effort.

When I arrived at the 101st and became a rifle platoon leader, among the officers only the executive officer and commanding officer were Ranger School graduates.

There may have been one or two enlisted guys who were graduates but I don't recall any in my platoon. The company was made up pretty much of everyone who had deployed and gone through Desert Shield/Desert Storm. My platoon sergeant was also not a graduate. The other two platoon leaders went back to attend Ranger School while I was assigned to the company. I never felt like I was looked down on or thought of in a negative light by my fellow officers or my men.

Being prior enlisted I think helped me gain their respect and I always learned and listened to my platoon sergeant. He had been in Grenada with the 82nd and then the Gulf with the 101st, so he knew his stuff. He confided in me that he worried that his lack of a Ranger Tab might limit his career opportunities but it didn't seem to. He took early retirement a few years later as a E-8 1st Sergeant.

One of my later platoon sergeants had been a Ranger Instructor and he told me one time not worry about the tab because he thought I was already a good leader and knew my stuff.

I never went back to Benning for Ranger School because I decided not to make the army my career. When I was getting close to getting out my company commander (West Point and Ranger School grad) tried to talk me into staying in the army. I think my only regret when I think about that time is not testing myself at the school. Do I think it would have made me a better officer or leader? No, when I left the army I never felt those were two things that I would have improved by being a graduate. Would it have shown me some things about myself that it would have been useful to know then and later in life? Possibly.

During my time in it was recommended and pushed pretty hard for all infantry lieutenants to go. There didn't seem to be very many slots available for enlisted guys to go, which I thought was a mistake.

I do believe that it still has it's uses and can help soldiers dig deep within themselves to see if they have the right stuff when the crap hits the fan. However, for over twenty years our armed forces were tested in actual combat operations that made any peacetime training experiences, including Ranger School, pale in comparison.

My experience is a bit less comprehensive than Legion 4's

Yeah … I think I said too much, started repeating myself, started rambling, etc. 🥴

Nevertheless, Russ, I thought your post was pretty insightful. And in some instances, our times as Infantry Officers were similar.

However, for over twenty years our armed forces were tested in actual combat operations that made any peacetime training experiences,

Yes that really is the bottom line. As I said in an earlier post, Of course, those soldiers who have actually been in combat. Their knowledge and skills they bring to the unit is also very useful. I served with and was trained by many Combat Vets who had 1-2+ tours in SE Asia. That is an important distinction.

FYI – In an interesting consequence … I saw on FOX News today. The Best Ranger Comp is going on at Benning[now Moore] for the next few days.

The footage of the current Comp. was of a female Ranger going out of the 34 Ft. Tower at the Jump School. I guess they are doing a Jump refresher ?

** Also a loud shout out to Rakkasan who posted here earlier. I think I told him this before ? . I was a Rakkasan '80-'83 with B Company 3d Battalion 187th Infantry Regiment and then Headquarters & Headquarter Company. In the 101 Air Assault Division[trying to keep promise of not using too many abbreviations].

My son was involved with several competitions covering different groups. He worked with the Infantry Museum and the Infantry Association which is how he got involved with various tasks. He still does the Infantry podcasts though he now works on the active duty side as a civilian.
He is at Fort Dix doing evaluations for a competition now.

Certainly, a son to be proud of ! 👍👍