Why doesn't the US have a fourth or more Ranger battalions?

Why doesn't the US have a fourth or more Ranger battalions?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why isn't the whole Army just Rangers?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Presumably it would be too costly for too little benefit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not enough black box material.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's called the US Marine Core

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bait

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I appreciate that they gave it a bit of extra effort by misspelling "corps"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sort of. The Marines are ideal assault forces, lighter than the Army and ready to roll into your toughest jobs. However, until the recent moronic shake up, the Marines were prepped to have a more expensive role, since they had their own armor, etc.

        The Marines were a more mobile land component that could also do amphibious assaults, an expeditionary force that nonetheless do the heavy lifting of urban sieges and major battles.

        Now they are trying to turn the Corps into some sort of neutered sea Rangers. Marines need armor though, they need their aviation, and their artillery.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They still have armored vehicles, just no outright tanks. It's a refocus on maritime / island operations a la China and the Abrams did not fit the bill.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Larping as a boomer is a real weird thing to do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      rangers are meant to be a leaner, more mobile force than its equivalent rifle unit
      so more fighting men, fewer support personnel, and less heavy equipment

      so rangers are, as the name special forces imply, for special tasks where you want an infantry unit with lots of firepower in a small space and high operational mobility
      while a rifle company would have more staying power and more attached units like artillery for engaging and destroying the enemy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean not really. Unlike our regular platoons they have an entire weapon squad of 240's and they have an entire sniper platoon instead of a sniper squad as well as having JTACs and combat controllers embedded for call for air support. So they pack a lot of firepower. And they do have strykers with .50cals and mk19s for heavy weapons and carry a frickton of carl gustav ammo.

        But they do focus on having a smaller signature than a regular infantry batallion to avoid detection behind enemy lines. Just very concentrated firepower.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >as well as having JTACs and combat controllers embedded for call for air support

          Regular Army units have those too.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Regular Army dicks have JTACs and CCTs embedded when deployed. Ranger Regiment platoons are way more heavily armed than a typical light platoon in other regards, but in this specific aspect, there isn't a practical difference.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's largely an affirmative action jobs program.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It would be absurdly expensive for no practical benefit. Ranger Regiment isn't good just because Rangers are motivated or there's some special esoteric Ranger knowledge being taught. Ranger Regiment is shit hot because they have basically unlimited money and training time between deployments.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No point in maintaining that many high speed soldiers. You just need the bare minimum amount for everyday operations.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You just need the bare minimum amount for everyday operations.
      Eh?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This wasn't a shitpost. I was legitimately wondering if three battalions could meet the needs of the ongoing War on Terror and potential conflicts in Korea/China/Russia.

      Though I imagine they would expand the number if they had to, I was wondering if they'd be proactive and train a 4th Battalion now.

      Finding people that can pass RASP is hard. It has a very high attrition rate.

      Lets say they find a enough people for another battalion. Rangers depend on SOAR to get around so they'd also have to increase the personnel in SOAR. That means buying new aircraft, building new hangers, training new people etc.

      They also have to make new barracks and training grounds said Rangers and SOAR. They have to do a lot more stuff, but you should get the idea making a new battalion means adding more personnel in other units, making new infrastructure, and buying new equipment. We are not currently at war so all of this is unnecessary.

      The average American Infantryman has the same amount of training as a Russian mobik. Mutts have always relied on human wave meatbag attacks supported by billions of dollars in air support. Just look at America’s performance in every war they’ve fought in. Mutts will lose tens of thousands of soldiers per campaign in comparison to Commonwealth countries who will deploy just as many troops and lose hundreds whilst fighting 20:1 odds with 1:100th of the logistics and air power.

      Small professional Armies in Europe train their Infantrymen to a much higher standard, you see this when foreign soldiers attend US selection courses and excel despite not even speaking English as a first language. Your average Dutch Infantryman would easily pass RASP. Most Norwegian or Swiss conscripts would pass RASP.

      “Rangers” don’t exist in any other Army because it’s just called an Infantryman with a parachute qualification

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        unironically kys or at least castrate yourself to prevent moronation from spreading in the human population

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No they don't lmao. And rangers and regular infantrymen have different purposes. Rangers are more highspeed than regular infantry. European militaries, as much as they train, are not that good except for a few.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What a strange angry little brown person

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't even know why rangers exist when we already have Marines.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It used to mean something but they decided DEI should include women in light infrantry so now it’s an easier marine corps boot camp but they at least get to do jump school

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. boot Marine
      Rangers are not comparable to Marines.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Throwing a brick in a pond doesn't count as bait.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This wasn't a shitpost. I was legitimately wondering if three battalions could meet the needs of the ongoing War on Terror and potential conflicts in Korea/China/Russia.

    Though I imagine they would expand the number if they had to, I was wondering if they'd be proactive and train a 4th Battalion now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A war with Korea, China or Russia would get the big green weenie war machine going and one or two extra ranger battalions would hardly make a difference.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Regiments in the United States Army generally consist of three battalions. Forming an additional Ranger Battalion would require forming another Ranger Regiment and the 75th doesn't want to give up that title to anyone else.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >just make the regiment over strength and add another operational battalion
      >no we'd have to make another entire ranger regiment
      the army unironically thinks this way, that's why there's moronation like 3895th such and such company or the fricking 501st airborne regiment
      just stand the old colors back up, jesus christ

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      then why not just rename it the 75th ranger division and add multiple regiments?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because “Ranger Regiment” sounds cooler than “Ranger Division”

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong; no.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Finding people that can pass RASP is hard. It has a very high attrition rate.

    Lets say they find a enough people for another battalion. Rangers depend on SOAR to get around so they'd also have to increase the personnel in SOAR. That means buying new aircraft, building new hangers, training new people etc.

    They also have to make new barracks and training grounds said Rangers and SOAR. They have to do a lot more stuff, but you should get the idea making a new battalion means adding more personnel in other units, making new infrastructure, and buying new equipment. We are not currently at war so all of this is unnecessary.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Rangers don't only use SOAR, when we were training with 2-75 they used 16CAB for their task force training. But their use for taking out TI's or show of force missions is pretty limited so they mainly rely on regular army for numbers and focus on smaller objectives.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The rangers are like a glorified SF petri dish where future green berets are cultivated. They have a high turnover to SF and other army infantry units so the number of rangers serving is greater than just the 75th. They could probably man a 4th battalion but they really soak up a lot of training dollars that would probably be better spent on SF units that have broader missions.

    The USMC recon battalions in theory are very valuable the Marine Infantry Regiments/MAGTF but they've also become a quasi pipeline unit to marsoc (even though marsoc is not really needed in the magtf and they report to socom/jsoc). Even in spite of this and a need for future marsoc operators there's only three recon battalions.

    I feel like recon and rangers are both sort of cucked because theres a vast number of SF spread across the DoD competing for the same jobs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The rangers are like a glorified SF petri dish where future green berets are cultivated.

      I recently learned that when a soldier becomes an NCO in the Ranger Regiment, he has to go the regular Army and be an NCO there for a while before coming back to the Ranger Regiment. The regular Army is so terrible to these guys that they instead try out for Special Forces or Delta Force.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's not true until you hit E7 because ranger slots are really hard to find at that rank. The only E6 I saw with a ranger scroll was our sniper that got a hernia during SFAS so he got kicked down to the line units. Other than that i only saw my captain and first sergeant that used to be in the regiment because when they got promoted they just didn't have slots for them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's what I heard on SF and Delta interviews. Jack Murphy was E-5 when he tried out for SF. He wanted to stay in the 75th, but they forced him to leave.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A ranger battalion gets BTFO'd against a normal line battalion an open field battle.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They stood up a 4th rifle company in each of the battalions in 2010. Once the war tapered off a bit and the extra line company wasn’t needed for rotation, D company was turned into the sorta combat support company it is today

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you watch the news you'd see that the Army can't even get enough people to enlist every year.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Peak shill post. You homosexuals don't know how to fit in.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They have 4 Battalions. The intel battalion just slips everyones minds. This also isn't mentioning the other units attached to the 75th like 17th STS and 8th POG.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regimental_Military_Intelligence_Battalion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *