New LRS unit at Lewis

LRRP, LRP, RRD, LRSD, LRSU, etc...
User avatar
lonergr77
Ranger
Posts: 133
Joined: February 5th, 2008, 12:05 pm
Location: Columbus, GA

New LRS unit at Lewis

Post by lonergr77 »

FYI- I just got back from Lewis and there is a new LRS unit forming. I remember it used to be the 14th MI in the 90's and then they got closed down. It is standing back up currently with NG and then changing to active duty. Not sure of unit designation.
lonergr77

3rd Plt, Cco, 2/75 - Nov '96 to Dec '99
RRD - Dec '99 to Dec '03
TSE Inc - Dec '03 to May '10
RRC Civilian - May '10 -
RC - 3-98

User avatar
Silverback
Ranger
Posts: 20099
Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: New LRS unit at Lewis

Post by Silverback »

lonergr77 wrote: It is standing back up currently with NG and then changing to active duty. .
Explain this part if you are able.
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"

User avatar
lonergr77
Ranger
Posts: 133
Joined: February 5th, 2008, 12:05 pm
Location: Columbus, GA

Post by lonergr77 »

I was given the heads up from a former 2/75 buddy that is now with the Strykers. (?) I guess the unit was the active duty NG school house for NG guys before they went over seas. To my understanding after 4 days on base was that they had a Recon mission overseas for the NG and it was identified as a missing element for the Corp at Lewis.
lonergr77

3rd Plt, Cco, 2/75 - Nov '96 to Dec '99
RRD - Dec '99 to Dec '03
TSE Inc - Dec '03 to May '10
RRC Civilian - May '10 -
RC - 3-98

User avatar
Silverback
Ranger
Posts: 20099
Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by Silverback »

lonergr77 wrote:I was given the heads up from a former 2/75 buddy that is now with the Strykers. (?) I guess the unit was the active duty NG school house for NG guys before they went over seas. To my understanding after 4 days on base was that they had a Recon mission overseas for the NG and it was identified as a missing element for the Corp at Lewis.
I just didn't understand the mechanism or manning swap to turn a NG unit into and AD unit. I guess it's all semantics.
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"

BadMuther
BANNED
Posts: 7970
Joined: March 14th, 2003, 2:13 am

Post by BadMuther »

Silverback wrote:
lonergr77 wrote:I was given the heads up from a former 2/75 buddy that is now with the Strykers. (?) I guess the unit was the active duty NG school house for NG guys before they went over seas. To my understanding after 4 days on base was that they had a Recon mission overseas for the NG and it was identified as a missing element for the Corp at Lewis.
I just didn't understand the mechanism or manning swap to turn a NG unit into and AD unit. I guess it's all semantics.
I think he meant the tasking is currently with ng and then will switch to ad.

When I was LRS @ Lewis F/425 ng "back" us up.....when they deactivated I corps LRS, 425 became the Corps LRS asset.

User avatar
Silverback
Ranger
Posts: 20099
Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by Silverback »

BadMuther wrote:
Silverback wrote:
lonergr77 wrote:I was given the heads up from a former 2/75 buddy that is now with the Strykers. (?) I guess the unit was the active duty NG school house for NG guys before they went over seas. To my understanding after 4 days on base was that they had a Recon mission overseas for the NG and it was identified as a missing element for the Corp at Lewis.
I just didn't understand the mechanism or manning swap to turn a NG unit into and AD unit. I guess it's all semantics.
I think he meant the tasking is currently with ng and then will switch to ad.

When I was LRS @ Lewis F/425 ng "back" us up.....when they deactivated I corps LRS, 425 became the Corps LRS asset.
Thanks for the input but it's not as simple as a "tasking". There is a lot of work when standing a unit up and to multiply that by switching from NG to AD is not as simple as it sounds.
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"

User avatar
lonergr77
Ranger
Posts: 133
Joined: February 5th, 2008, 12:05 pm
Location: Columbus, GA

update

Post by lonergr77 »

I was just talking with 2 former SFC Bat Boys who just came down on orders for the unit. They are to report early November 08 to stand up the unit.
lonergr77

3rd Plt, Cco, 2/75 - Nov '96 to Dec '99
RRD - Dec '99 to Dec '03
TSE Inc - Dec '03 to May '10
RRC Civilian - May '10 -
RC - 3-98

User avatar
rangertough
Ranger/Moderator
Posts: 1675
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 3:02 pm

Post by rangertough »

I wish the Army would make up it's fucking mind regarding LRS. They want it, they don't. It needs to be at Corps, it needs to be at Division, it needs to be at both. I'd be surprised if they even have a decent METL that supports (if anyone actually knows) what they do or is expected of them. It's great that they are bring it back to Ft Lewis but I sure hope they know what the fuck they are going to do with it.

Tough
Rangertough
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
C CO/HHC 2/75 '93-97, Bragg '97-'99, HHC/C CO/A CO 2/75 99'-'01 RS 8-94.

User avatar
K.Ingraham
Ranger
Posts: 6143
Joined: January 25th, 2005, 11:59 am
Location: two days before the day after tomorrow.
Contact:

Post by K.Ingraham »

BadMuther wrote:[When I was LRS @ Lewis F/425 ng "back" us up.....when they deactivated I corps LRS, 425 became the Corps LRS asset.
Tasking is entirely different from activating. F/425 was still NG in state service, no matter who they were capstoned to.
http://www.75thrra.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2d Bn U.D. for 75th Ranger Regt Assn

2d Bn(Ranger)75 Inf 1975-'77
RS 9-76
Former mentor to RANGER XCrunner.

"I am well aware that by no means equal repute attends the narrator and the doer of deedsSallust ‘The Catiline Conspiracy’

User avatar
Silverback
Ranger
Posts: 20099
Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by Silverback »

rangertough wrote:I wish the Army would make up it's fucking mind regarding LRS. They want it, they don't. It needs to be at Corps, it needs to be at Division, it needs to be at both. I'd be surprised if they even have a decent METL that supports (if anyone actually knows) what they do or is expected of them. It's great that they are bring it back to Ft Lewis but I sure hope they know what the fuck they are going to do with it.

Tough
The METL doesn't support the unit the unit supports the METL. I think you might have meant MTOE.
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"

User avatar
Richard Cranium
Ranger
Posts: 3160
Joined: March 27th, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: Putting two in your breathers and one in your sneezer!

Post by Richard Cranium »

I am just a dumb bumpkin' but it seems to me that LRS (D or C) should fall under USASOC or something. NOT B/C I THINK IT IS ALL BADASS AND SUPER HIGH SPEED OR ANYTHING, but b/c I think too many commanders don't know how and/or are scared to utilize them. However, SF can do that mission themselves and Regt. has RRC, so where would/does that leave LRS? Div or Corps level asset that most are unwilling to use or "risk", at least it seems that way, although that is a broad brush stroke admittedly.
"The way of the warrior is in training" ~Sun Tzu

Practice honesty, Fear nothing!




Done a few years in Light, Mech, and Airborne Infantry.

Class 03-07

User avatar
Silverback
Ranger
Posts: 20099
Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by Silverback »

JLTW!!! wrote:I am just a dumb bumpkin' but it seems to me that LRS (D or C) should fall under USASOC or something. NOT B/C I THINK IT IS ALL BADASS AND SUPER HIGH SPEED OR ANYTHING, but b/c I think too many commanders don't know how and/or are scared to utilize them. However, SF can do that mission themselves and Regt. has RRC, so where would/does that leave LRS? Div or Corps level asset that most are unwilling to use or "risk", at least it seems that way, although that is a broad brush stroke admittedly.
The problem is that "LRS" as it was manned and executed during the cold war era is no longer a viable concept. There are some obvious mission overlaps but things have changed considerably (says Lothar "Master of the painfully obvious").

The thought of a six man team conducting a static line infiltration into enemy controlled territory is a romantic thought, but reality is...nearly the same surveillance or reconnaissance can be conducted remotely these days and without the risk to personnel and manned aircraft.
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"

User avatar
rangertough
Ranger/Moderator
Posts: 1675
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 3:02 pm

Post by rangertough »

Silverback wrote:
rangertough wrote:I wish the Army would make up it's fucking mind regarding LRS. They want it, they don't. It needs to be at Corps, it needs to be at Division, it needs to be at both. I'd be surprised if they even have a decent METL that supports (if anyone actually knows) what they do or is expected of them. It's great that they are bring it back to Ft Lewis but I sure hope they know what the fuck they are going to do with it.

Tough
The METL doesn't support the unit the unit supports the METL. I think you might have meant MTOE.
SB,

I see where you are coming from but I meant METL. What I meant is I hope that the unit is given the oportunity to execute a METL that fits more closely with what a LRS unit is designed for. Lets face it a LRS isn't designed for running and gunning on convoys, nor are the designed to fill a scouts role either. LRS units have been treated as bastard children for a long time. First, because a lot of DIV/CORPS Commanders want to depend on ELINT and Imagery from drones than on the word of some lowly private in a survalence position. Second, Commanders are just not informed of what their LRS are capable of.

Tough
Rangertough
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
C CO/HHC 2/75 '93-97, Bragg '97-'99, HHC/C CO/A CO 2/75 99'-'01 RS 8-94.

User avatar
Richard Cranium
Ranger
Posts: 3160
Joined: March 27th, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: Putting two in your breathers and one in your sneezer!

Post by Richard Cranium »

rangertough wrote:
Silverback wrote:
rangertough wrote:I wish the Army would make up it's fucking mind regarding LRS. They want it, they don't. It needs to be at Corps, it needs to be at Division, it needs to be at both. I'd be surprised if they even have a decent METL that supports (if anyone actually knows) what they do or is expected of them. It's great that they are bring it back to Ft Lewis but I sure hope they know what the fuck they are going to do with it.

Tough
The METL doesn't support the unit the unit supports the METL. I think you might have meant MTOE.
SB,

I see where you are coming from but I meant METL. What I meant is I hope that the unit is given the oportunity to execute a METL that fits more closely with what a LRS unit is designed for. Lets face it a LRS isn't designed for running and gunning on convoys, nor are the designed to fill a scouts role either. LRS units have been treated as bastard children for a long time. First, because a lot of DIV/CORPS Commanders want to depend on ELINT and Imagery from drones than on the word of some lowly private in a survalence position. Second, Commanders are just not informed of what their LRS are capable of.
Tough

Ain't that the truth!
"The way of the warrior is in training" ~Sun Tzu

Practice honesty, Fear nothing!




Done a few years in Light, Mech, and Airborne Infantry.

Class 03-07

User avatar
rangertough
Ranger/Moderator
Posts: 1675
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 3:02 pm

Post by rangertough »

Dammit SB you posted before I hit the freakin' send button. What you just said is what I am talking about. You just said it better.

Tough
Rangertough
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
C CO/HHC 2/75 '93-97, Bragg '97-'99, HHC/C CO/A CO 2/75 99'-'01 RS 8-94.

Post Reply

Return to “Reconnaissance”