Young wanna' be Ranger. When an assignment is issued you should hop all over it. The fact that you did not belly up to the bar on this reflects poorly.
Unless you begin to seek and assume responsibility you will never be successful at becoming a Ranger. You will repeat this assignment in solo mode. If your final product is not to standard I will RFS (Relieve for standards) you from my mentorship program! No second chances to fail!
MPC READ THIS!
Moderator: Site Admin
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Ranger Gronk, knocking them out.
Comparisons of each Ranger leader:
-All four leaders emphasized attacking by striking quickly and violently to disrupt the enemy’s lines of communication and their rear.
-They all made extensive use of small patrols to first gather intelligence before attacking.
-All four were innovative leaders who led from the front.
Contrasts of each Ranger leader:
-Both Mosby and Marion had the advantage of fighting on the familiar ground of their home states. Marion would often retreat to the swamps and marshes of South Carolina while Mosby operated among a friendly civilian population.
-In comparison Darby and especially Merrill didn’t have this advantage. Merrill operated deep behind enemy lines in the jungles of Burma without the support of a friendly population.
-Mosby, and Marion largely operated independently of a higher command whereas Darby’s force was mainly used as part of a larger operation. Marion in particular operated alone as he was the only force in South Carolina for over a year (1780-1781). Merrill’s force also operated independently of larger supporting units.
-Marion and to a lesser degree Mosby didn’t command permanent forces. Marion had a small core of men that he supplemented with local militia, this made it necessary for Marion to use his personal leadership abilities to convince them to fight under his command.
-Darby and Merrill on the other hand commanded permanent forces that were organized as part of the US Army rather than as independent forces.
-Mosby and Marion were constantly on the move. Mosby in particular never had a permanent base that he would be tied down to and forced to defend, this was based off of advice given to him by his mentor Jeb Stuart.
-Mosby was often distrusted by other Confederate generals and civilian officials, who thought partisans were ineffective, although he was supported by both General Lee and Stuart.
-In Lock's book I came across frequent references to Marion employing sharpshooters to harass the enemy. This was unusual for the time because the musket's short range usually forced soldiers to fire in volleys.
-Darby also emphasized marksmanship by training his men in live fires, this type of training was based off the experiences of British commandos in whose model Darby's Rangers were created.
-The size of Mosby and Marion’s forces were usually much smaller than Darby’s and Merrill’s and they operated in more of a guerilla fashion.
-Darby’s forces were sometimes used in conventional roles, such as at Anzio which led to high casualties because they lacked the heavy weapons of conventional units.
-Merrill operated deep behind enemy lines, eventually marching over 1,000 miles. In comparison Darby usually operated near or on the main American line and Mosby and Marion operated in comparatively small areas with which they were familiar.
I’ve selected Brigadier General William O. Darby as the Ranger leader that has most impacted the Ranger Regiment. There are several major traits that he instilled his men that are still found in the modern Regiment. These include recruiting an all volunteer force, the use of a selection to screen volunteers followed by realistic training, especially live fires. Darby also developed the “Ranger buddyâ€
Comparisons of each Ranger leader:
-All four leaders emphasized attacking by striking quickly and violently to disrupt the enemy’s lines of communication and their rear.
-They all made extensive use of small patrols to first gather intelligence before attacking.
-All four were innovative leaders who led from the front.
Contrasts of each Ranger leader:
-Both Mosby and Marion had the advantage of fighting on the familiar ground of their home states. Marion would often retreat to the swamps and marshes of South Carolina while Mosby operated among a friendly civilian population.
-In comparison Darby and especially Merrill didn’t have this advantage. Merrill operated deep behind enemy lines in the jungles of Burma without the support of a friendly population.
-Mosby, and Marion largely operated independently of a higher command whereas Darby’s force was mainly used as part of a larger operation. Marion in particular operated alone as he was the only force in South Carolina for over a year (1780-1781). Merrill’s force also operated independently of larger supporting units.
-Marion and to a lesser degree Mosby didn’t command permanent forces. Marion had a small core of men that he supplemented with local militia, this made it necessary for Marion to use his personal leadership abilities to convince them to fight under his command.
-Darby and Merrill on the other hand commanded permanent forces that were organized as part of the US Army rather than as independent forces.
-Mosby and Marion were constantly on the move. Mosby in particular never had a permanent base that he would be tied down to and forced to defend, this was based off of advice given to him by his mentor Jeb Stuart.
-Mosby was often distrusted by other Confederate generals and civilian officials, who thought partisans were ineffective, although he was supported by both General Lee and Stuart.
-In Lock's book I came across frequent references to Marion employing sharpshooters to harass the enemy. This was unusual for the time because the musket's short range usually forced soldiers to fire in volleys.
-Darby also emphasized marksmanship by training his men in live fires, this type of training was based off the experiences of British commandos in whose model Darby's Rangers were created.
-The size of Mosby and Marion’s forces were usually much smaller than Darby’s and Merrill’s and they operated in more of a guerilla fashion.
-Darby’s forces were sometimes used in conventional roles, such as at Anzio which led to high casualties because they lacked the heavy weapons of conventional units.
-Merrill operated deep behind enemy lines, eventually marching over 1,000 miles. In comparison Darby usually operated near or on the main American line and Mosby and Marion operated in comparatively small areas with which they were familiar.
I’ve selected Brigadier General William O. Darby as the Ranger leader that has most impacted the Ranger Regiment. There are several major traits that he instilled his men that are still found in the modern Regiment. These include recruiting an all volunteer force, the use of a selection to screen volunteers followed by realistic training, especially live fires. Darby also developed the “Ranger buddyâ€
"And then I heard the Lord say, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' And then said I, here am I, send me." Isaiah 6:8
-
Spartan
Not bad MPC, although the one thing I noted that was incorrect was your assertion that:
Merrill had the assistance of the local Kachin Indian natives who were very effective as scouts and operated on the outside of where the Marauders fought, which had the effect of deceiving the Japanese of the size of the Marauder force - the Japanese thought they were a division in size, or a couple of Regiments at least.-In comparison Darby and especially Merrill didn’t have this advantage. Merrill operated deep behind enemy lines in the jungles of Burma without the support of a friendly population.
Source: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/m ... ers-fw.htmBack at Hsamshingyang the 3d Battalion spent the night patrolling all avenues of approach to the air strip. One group of Japanese that tried to circle northward to the rear of the field was hit hard and turned back. Kachin guerrillas, busy scouting around the strip, frequently ambushed small enemy parties. The Kachins were probably of more assistance than anyone realized, by creating in the minds of the Japanese an exaggerated idea of the size of the area held by the Marauders and of their strength.
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Ranger Gronk,
I had difficulty finding a situation in which the failure of a Ranger led to an unsuccessful mission, however I was able to find an example of a failure that led to an almost fatal injury. If this is not satisfactory I’ll knock them out and repeat the mission, however I will not have access to a pc from 5/21 to 5/30.
On December 3rd, 2003 PFC Justin Johnson was participating in a force on force training exercise conducted by the 3rd Ranger Battalion while in RIP holdover. A member of the 3rd Ranger Battalion expended all of his blank ammunition and inadvertently loaded a magazine of live ammunition. Shooting live ammunition caused the blank firing adapter to break, this was reported to an officer who told him to discontinue shooting his weapon. The soldier disobeyed orders however and attached another blank firing adapter to his weapon. He then fired his weapon at PFC Johnson shattering his right femur and severing his artery. Once the soldier realized he had shot PFC Johnson he replaced the live ammunition with a blank magazine, hiding the live magazine on his person until he was able to throw the magazine of live ammunition into a wooded area according to an Army report that states:
"He failed to inspect his equipment and the equipment of his team. He fired live ammunition through his weapon and failed to recognize indicators that live ammunition was loaded into his weapon. He made false statements to his chain of command immediately following the incident and hid evidence."
Although accidents occur in the realistic training that Rangers undergo this particular incident was preventable and the actions of this Ranger, particularly after realizing he shot PFC Johnson, do not live up to the standards of the Ranger Creed. He disobeyed standard safety protocols and the order not to continue firing his weapon. This Ranger also did not keep himself “morally straight,â€
I had difficulty finding a situation in which the failure of a Ranger led to an unsuccessful mission, however I was able to find an example of a failure that led to an almost fatal injury. If this is not satisfactory I’ll knock them out and repeat the mission, however I will not have access to a pc from 5/21 to 5/30.
On December 3rd, 2003 PFC Justin Johnson was participating in a force on force training exercise conducted by the 3rd Ranger Battalion while in RIP holdover. A member of the 3rd Ranger Battalion expended all of his blank ammunition and inadvertently loaded a magazine of live ammunition. Shooting live ammunition caused the blank firing adapter to break, this was reported to an officer who told him to discontinue shooting his weapon. The soldier disobeyed orders however and attached another blank firing adapter to his weapon. He then fired his weapon at PFC Johnson shattering his right femur and severing his artery. Once the soldier realized he had shot PFC Johnson he replaced the live ammunition with a blank magazine, hiding the live magazine on his person until he was able to throw the magazine of live ammunition into a wooded area according to an Army report that states:
"He failed to inspect his equipment and the equipment of his team. He fired live ammunition through his weapon and failed to recognize indicators that live ammunition was loaded into his weapon. He made false statements to his chain of command immediately following the incident and hid evidence."
Although accidents occur in the realistic training that Rangers undergo this particular incident was preventable and the actions of this Ranger, particularly after realizing he shot PFC Johnson, do not live up to the standards of the Ranger Creed. He disobeyed standard safety protocols and the order not to continue firing his weapon. This Ranger also did not keep himself “morally straight,â€
"And then I heard the Lord say, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' And then said I, here am I, send me." Isaiah 6:8
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
MPC,
Your lack of a PC will give me more time to add to this assignement. Ok here we go. Research and explain the controls implemented in a normal live Fire Exercise (LFX) that should have precluded this incident from happening. Then act as if you are investigating this incident and tell me who is culpable. All futher information should be sent to the email address you have. Let this thread die.
Your lack of a PC will give me more time to add to this assignement. Ok here we go. Research and explain the controls implemented in a normal live Fire Exercise (LFX) that should have precluded this incident from happening. Then act as if you are investigating this incident and tell me who is culpable. All futher information should be sent to the email address you have. Let this thread die.
RC 2-87
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"
3-75 84/85, 95/97
"thnks 4 pratn merku!"
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
-
Silverback
- Ranger
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: March 7th, 2004, 11:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
