Ranger LRRP Effectiveness

LRRP, LRP, RRD, LRSD, LRSU, etc...
User avatar
Silverback
Ranger
Posts: 20099
Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by Silverback »

Brad27 wrote:Ranger Silverback, I am still making a comparison between LRRPs and Modern Ranger Squads correct? Or am I now making or including a comparison between LRS and Modern Ranger Squads?
Your first question was of LRRPs and a Ranger squad. Stick to that!
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"

User avatar
Brad27
Embryo
Posts: 17
Joined: January 28th, 2005, 12:07 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Post by Brad27 »

Will do.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

User avatar
Brad27
Embryo
Posts: 17
Joined: January 28th, 2005, 12:07 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Post by Brad27 »

Irsrangerw8, Ranger Slowpoke, Ranger Chiron, and Ranger trackerteam6,
Thank you for all the information that you have posted up. All of it is very helpfull and appreciated.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

User avatar
Brad27
Embryo
Posts: 17
Joined: January 28th, 2005, 12:07 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Post by Brad27 »

During the 1950's with the Cold War escalating, NATO nations felt that there was a need for military units small enough to conduct passive, deep penetrating intelligence missions to uncover enemy movements were needed. Since there were no global satellites with the high powered cameras to spy on the enemy from a safe distance, tracking troop movements and other important information had to be obtained another way. Thus, the Long Range Patrol (LRP) and the Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols (LRRP, Lurp) were born. Stealth and reconnaissance were these units’ mission, not direct combat.

In 1959-1961, the U.S. Army created the first “Rangerâ€
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

AbnRgr289
Rest In Peace Ranger
Posts: 9145
Joined: March 29th, 2005, 5:30 pm
Location: "Getting kicked in the balls by Life!"
Contact:

Post by AbnRgr289 »

Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:07 pm

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:43 am

A year and a half? :shock:

I'm glad you weren't calling for fire! :roll:
"It's not for us to reason why, it's just for us to Do or Die!"

"S.A.F.R.A.!"

Bco 1/263rd Armor SCARNG. 11/84-7/87
Aco 3/75 Rgr Regt. 1/88-2/90 (Op-JC)
HHC 2/18 197 Inf Bde/3rd Bde 24th ID. 2/90-5/92 (Op-DS/DS)
HHC 4th RTB 5/92-12/95
Rgr class 1&2-89

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

Post by Silverback »

Brad,
If that's the best you can do after such a long period of time, I suggest you do not pursue writing as a career (or anything else that measures time in days)
Last edited by Silverback on September 2nd, 2006, 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"

User avatar
Steadfast
Rest In Peace Ranger
Posts: 20949
Joined: December 19th, 2003, 10:09 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Ranger LRRP Effectiveness

Post by Steadfast »

Brad27 wrote:LRRP Rangers,
your statement (intro): I have been reading this book that I checked out from the School Library called U.S. Rangers From Boot Camp to the Battle Zones by Ian Padden. In this book he states:

my response: The name of the book does not apply to LRRP since we were not guided from boot to RVN to be a LRRP. Being a LRRP meant you were OJT - On the Job Training. Every experience you learned.


your statement "One of the missions that is sometimes associated with the Rangers is that of long-range reconnaissance. It's a nice idea, but it's just not the right utilization of the Rangers."

my response: So what was his idea of the proper utilization of the Rangers? Why omit that?

your statementand also says, "They are trained and oriented to exert enormous effort over limited periods; consequetly, long-range reconnaissance is not an appropriate mission."

my response: Army Rangers from the time before we were a country have always adapted to the needs of the military to accomplish the mission. So time frame* counts not whether we from different time frame are apples and oranges.

your statement: I was kinda thinking "WTF", I mean, Rangers go through some of the hardest training there is in the Military, and was surprised by these statements. When I was thinking about it, I was thinking that LRRPs would be perfectly suited for the Rangers becuase they are independent, can adapt to any situation, and can push farther and harder than the average soldier. He also says that one reason why Rangers aren't suited well for LRRPs is becuase they lack:

my response: I have underlined above one point which is not worded correctly is actually flawed. LRRP on the whole were regular army personnel, but all were volunteers. In my unit all one had to do was say, "I quit" and they were gone at any time. Can adapt - my response: anyone can adapt. can push further and harder than the average soldier- bullshit, we were the average soldier.

why Rangers aren't suited well for LRRP is because they lack - my response: this whole premise is bullshit by the author. Today's Army Ranger is intelligent, highly trained, motivated and can adapt and do things that LRRP's in RVN could not do on average. Today's Ranger is well trained.

your statement""heavy weapons and equipment and indirect fire support. They do not have extra ammunition and thus, staying power."

my response: again more bull. LRRP teams in my unit always carried plenty of ammo**. It always depended on situations and the size of the force you come against if you are compromised. Ability to react effectively initially, pre-planned escape if necessary and what the soundings were, (mountains, rice paddies, water; rivers, creeks, streams) Having a FAC nearby, artillery, off-shore battleships providing artillery support, jets, gun-ships & least but not last - how the weather is & time of day.

your statement: I also got to thinking when he stated this, that a LRRP of Rangers, would not need heavy weapons or equipment, so that they can stay more mobile and undetected and as for the "extra ammunition" he was reffering to, I was pretty sure the point of a Reconnaissance mission was to not have direct contact with the enemy, and not stay in one place to make a stand like the Alamo, therefore not needing the "staying power". LRRP Rangers, what are your thoughts on the authors statements, is this a bunch of bull shit or is there some truth to it and I'm just a dumb fuck?
Any input would be appreciated. Thank you.

my response: see above response.
*Revolutionary War through present day.
** In the rear we practiced how we would disengage from an inpromptu meeting should the enemy be a large force.


This is the best advice you could possibly receive from a Ranger:
Silverback wrote:Brad,
If that's the best you can do after such a long period of time, I suggest you do not pursue wrting as a career (or anything else that measures time in days)
RLTW
Steadfast

4/325 82d DIV 68-69
2nd Bde HHC (LRRP), 4 ID
K Co (Rgr), 75th Inf (Abn), 4 ID
69-70
I cooked with C- 4

User avatar
H75thRangers
Ranger
Posts: 214
Joined: May 28th, 2005, 1:26 pm
Location: Mid-West

Post by H75thRangers »

I don't know about the "scentless soap" part, most of my guys just naturally smelled like the jungle. 8)
H Co(Rgr) 75th Inf(Abn) 1st Cav RVN 9/69-5/72
3d Bde (Abn) 101st Abn Div Ft Campbell '72-'74
CENTAG, Seckenheim, Germany '74-'77

If you kill for pleasure, you're a sadist...
If you kill for money, you're a mercenary...
If you kill for both, you're a RANGER!!!

B5R
Egg
Posts: 4
Joined: September 5th, 2006, 12:47 am

Re: Ranger LRRP Effectiveness

Post by B5R »

Brad27 wrote:

I also got to thinking when he stated this, that a LRRP of Rangers, would not need heavy weapons or equipment, so that they can stay more mobile and undetected and as for the "extra ammunition" he was reffering to, I was pretty sure the point of a Reconnaissance mission was to not have direct contact with the enemy, and not stay in one place to make a stand like the Alamo, therefore not needing the "staying power".
I wasn't a LRRP and I wasn't a Battboy... and since this is my first post on this forum, an introduction is in order before I respond.
I served in the 101st ABN, first as a nasty leg infantryman (B/3/327) til 1986, and then in the division's LRSD back when it was attached to the 2/17 Cav til 1988.

To the above statement you made, LRSD teams, like the LRRPS before them, were the eyes and ears and our primary mission was to gather intelligence behind the lines and avoid contact. If contact was made, we were, if possible, to break contact and E&E. As to the extra ammo... well it takes a hell of a lot of ammo to break contact.

When I first reported to the LRSD, I went to CIF and got my special issue gear, including extra ammo pouches. I carried more personal ammo in the LRSD then I did when I was in the line infantry. Our requirements and SOPs were based on the logistics of our mission (lack of resupply) and on practical lessons learned from the LRRPS of Vietnam who clearly felt from experience they needed the extra ammo.

You wrote that we don't need extra ammo if we're not planning on making contact... but that's like saying a soldier doesn't need a bullet proof vest if he's not planning on getting shot.

As to what you've written about the drastic change in the mission of the Rangers from stealthy small team reconaissance to battalion sized raids... it's actually not that drastic of a change for the Rangers. It's actually more of a return to the original US Army Ranger missions of the WW2 Ranger Battalions. Of course that's an incredible understatement to what today's Ranger batts are capable of.

AbnRgr289
Rest In Peace Ranger
Posts: 9145
Joined: March 29th, 2005, 5:30 pm
Location: "Getting kicked in the balls by Life!"
Contact:

Re: Ranger LRRP Effectiveness

Post by AbnRgr289 »

B5R wrote:
Brad27 wrote:

I also got to thinking when he stated this, that a LRRP of Rangers, would not need heavy weapons or equipment, so that they can stay more mobile and undetected and as for the "extra ammunition" he was reffering to, I was pretty sure the point of a Reconnaissance mission was to not have direct contact with the enemy, and not stay in one place to make a stand like the Alamo, therefore not needing the "staying power".
I wasn't a LRRP and I wasn't a Battboy... and since this is my first post on this forum, an introduction is in order before I respond.
I served in the 101st ABN, first as a nasty leg infantryman (B/3/327) til 1986, and then in the division's LRSD back when it was attached to the 2/17 Cav til 1988.

To the above statement you made, LRSD teams, like the LRRPS before them, were the eyes and ears and our primary mission was to gather intelligence behind the lines and avoid contact. If contact was made, we were, if possible, to break contact and E&E. As to the extra ammo... well it takes a hell of a lot of ammo to break contact.

When I first reported to the LRSD, I went to CIF and got my special issue gear, including extra ammo pouches. I carried more personal ammo in the LRSD then I did when I was in the line infantry. Our requirements and SOPs were based on the logistics of our mission (lack of resupply) and on practical lessons learned from the LRRPS of Vietnam who clearly felt from experience they needed the extra ammo.

You wrote that we don't need extra ammo if we're not planning on making contact... but that's like saying a soldier doesn't need a bullet proof vest if he's not planning on getting shot.

As to what you've written about the drastic change in the mission of the Rangers from stealthy small team reconaissance to battalion sized raids... it's actually not that drastic of a change for the Rangers. It's actually more of a return to the original US Army Ranger missions of the WW2 Ranger Battalions. Of course that's an incredible understatement to what today's Ranger batts are capable of.
You need to post an Intro in the proper forum.

----> viewforum.php?f=26
"It's not for us to reason why, it's just for us to Do or Die!"

"S.A.F.R.A.!"

Bco 1/263rd Armor SCARNG. 11/84-7/87
Aco 3/75 Rgr Regt. 1/88-2/90 (Op-JC)
HHC 2/18 197 Inf Bde/3rd Bde 24th ID. 2/90-5/92 (Op-DS/DS)
HHC 4th RTB 5/92-12/95
Rgr class 1&2-89

B5R
Egg
Posts: 4
Joined: September 5th, 2006, 12:47 am

Re: Ranger LRRP Effectiveness

Post by B5R »

AbnRgr289 wrote: You need to post an Intro in the proper forum.

----> viewforum.php?f=26
My bad. I thought introduction just had to be with first post. That's what I get for reading to quickly. Posting in the proper place now.

User avatar
Brad27
Embryo
Posts: 17
Joined: January 28th, 2005, 12:07 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Post by Brad27 »

Silverback wrote:Brad,
If that's the best you can do after such a long period of time, I suggest you do not pursue writing as a career (or anything else that measures time in days)
Your right, i suck at writing. Thats all there is to it. But, after putting it off for more than a year and a half, i decided to just pull an all nighter and get it done. So thats what i did. Im sure the results show for it. Sorry im no shakespear. I will now humbily leave to let the guys who know their stuff take over. I wasnt there: then or now, so to speak from experiance is moot.

Ranger Steadfast, Ill take your word over any internet thing i read to put this "peice of shit composition" together. Im sorry if I offended you in any of my ignorance. But thank you for opinions, suggestions, and guidance.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

User avatar
Lurp Eyes
LRRP/Ranger
Posts: 9
Joined: September 12th, 2006, 7:18 pm
Location: Central Florida

Misconceptions

Post by Lurp Eyes »

I would like to point out a few misconceptions that this thread has taken. First is that LRRP was only Reconnaissance. while most mssions were "sneek and peek", there were many missions that were "snatch" in nature, therefore direct contact.
The next misconception is that of lineage, present day Rangers lineage goes to WWll, with Darby and Merrill. In the "argument" papers switching LRRP/LRP to Ranger, the lineage goes back to Roger's Rangers, because the first companies, were used for Reconnaissance.
As far as "sentless soap", I don't know about later , we didn't have any, also the concept that we were ojt, might have been right when we first started, but Recondo school, became the norm for new guys.
173rd Abn (Sep) LRRP 66-67

User avatar
rangerrg_c75
LRRP/Ranger
Posts: 213
Joined: January 29th, 2006, 6:31 am
Location: Gilmer ,Texas
Contact:

Post by rangerrg_c75 »

LRRP(Long Range Recon Patrol)/LRP(Long Range Patrol) desinates two different missions. One was primarily to do recin and bring in larger units on targets. The other was to do ambush's, POW snatch, targets of opportunities. Usually same size force (4-6), although there were instances of 12 man teams being used/or two teams conducting link-ups. What equipment and amounts of ammo was dictated by type of mission. On my team the standard for any mission was 24 (18 rnd) magazines,3 claymores, 1block C-4, 100" det cordw/blsating caps attached, 1 spare PRC-25 battery and 100rnd M-60 if one was carried,plus poncho liner, 4 or 5 rations and 6-8 quarts water.
MACV Recondo school was like a finishing course for new guys. If ya failed it welcome to a line unit. Still remember my Recondo Instructor and my roster number. How can you forget someone who starts the day with Roster #20 drop and give me 50.

I know that Charlie Company only pulled hunt and kill missions, some of the other "Old Timers" can enlighten you on what type mission they usually pulled.
Served: 1st Plt C/75 1969-71
MACV Recondo Aug '69
RS 6-78
C Co 2/75th 78-81 B Co/HHC 7th RTB 91-93 (Retired)

User avatar
Lurp Eyes
LRRP/Ranger
Posts: 9
Joined: September 12th, 2006, 7:18 pm
Location: Central Florida

Just Rumour

Post by Lurp Eyes »

The reson that LRRP was changed to LRP, was because the clerk typists had a problem spelling, Reconnaissance.
I don't know about "C" company, but I don't think the mission chaged for the Herd Lurps ,when they became the 74th LRP. Maybe someone who was there for that transition could clarify this.
173rd Abn (Sep) LRRP 66-67

Post Reply

Return to “Reconnaissance”