I am curious about a major difference in the way the Navy structures its Spec Ops assets compared to the way the Army does things. It seems to me that Navy Special Warfare concentrates its combat-side (combat-side as opposed to those NSW support groups that don't foray downrange) Spec Ops skills into two groups: the SEALs and the special boat crews (RHIB drivers, SDV crews, etc.). The Army seems to spread its skills across several groups (with some overlap, to be sure): Rangers, SF, Delta Force, etc.
I recognize that there is some correspondence between the Army's structure and distinctions within Naval Special Warfare (e.g. DEVGRUP would correspond with Delta Force; only some SEALs go to Freefall School, just like only some Rangers receive that training). However, I don't feel that this entirely accounts for the major difference in their Spec Ops structures.
I don't expect many responses regarding the Navy side of things (if you can, please do), but if anyone can offer insight into why the Army structures things this way, I would appreciate it.
Diff. b/w the spread of Spec Ops assets in Navy vs. Army
-
Spartan
I think that when many look at TF160 and Special Boats they think 'Transportation' but they are more than transportation - each of these units use very specialized and hardened vehicles with a great array of weaponry including miniguns and missiles. These craft are capable of completing missions which meet profiles in which their assets can be used to complete them, and without having anything to do with carrying either SEALs, Rangers, or other shooters.
Just like Desert Sloth said, the Army has a great wider array of mission profiles for a reason - it is the land on the earth that is populated, not the sea, and therefore, most conflicts will be decided on land, not at sea.
It's not like the USN would have a reason for practicing Foreign Internal Defense missions or Counter-Insurgency, which are Army Special Forces missions, at sea. These missions are all land based because that is where the people are.
Just like Desert Sloth said, the Army has a great wider array of mission profiles for a reason - it is the land on the earth that is populated, not the sea, and therefore, most conflicts will be decided on land, not at sea.
It's not like the USN would have a reason for practicing Foreign Internal Defense missions or Counter-Insurgency, which are Army Special Forces missions, at sea. These missions are all land based because that is where the people are.
I got thrown for a loop the first time I heard TF 160 reffered to 160th SOAR. I was like, wow, there are two high speed aviation units?Spartan wrote:I think that when many look at TF160 and Special Boats they think 'Transportation' but they are more than transportation - each of these units use very specialized and hardened vehicles with a great array of weaponry including miniguns and missiles. These craft are capable of completing missions which meet profiles in which their assets can be used to complete them, and without having anything to do with carrying either SEALs, Rangers, or other shooters.
Just like Desert Sloth said, the Army has a great wider array of mission profiles for a reason - it is the land on the earth that is populated, not the sea, and therefore, most conflicts will be decided on land, not at sea.
It's not like the USN would have a reason for practicing Foreign Internal Defense missions or Counter-Insurgency, which are Army Special Forces missions, at sea. These missions are all land based because that is where the people are.
B Co 3/75
1989-1990
Just Cause Airlando Commando
1989-1990
Just Cause Airlando Commando
