It has in the past been doctrine to use special forces like this, moreover they have been used in similar ways.
During the Cold War, US special forces such as Rangers and others, trained to engage the enemy after the first Soviet echelon had passed them.
The Soviets definately had a doctrin to use at least battalion to regimental formations of special forces in heliborne operations to seize bridges etc.
And, during the Falklands War, when the Parachute Batalion's attack on Goose Green was going pear shaped, the sizable SAS support significantly contributed to helping that attack out.
I definately think several special forces units should be left in the game. If they were going to be limited in any way, perhaps the total ammount of special forces should not exceed a percentage of your total force, as they are suppposed to be the cream. But some doctrinal research could increase this; as US and UK armed forces might actually go this route.
Special forces & JSTARS
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
dust off
- General
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Sep 23 2003
- Location: UK
-
Ashbery76
- Major
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: England.
I dont class the rangers as special forces they are elite!, special forces like the Spetsnaz,seals,S.A.S are very small teams that do reconnaissance carried out to subvert the political, economic and military potential and morale of a probable or actual enemy. The primary missions of special reconnaissance are: acquiring intelligence on major economic and military installations and either destroying them or putting them out of action, organizing sabotage and acts of subversion; carrying out punitive operations against rebels; conducting propaganda; forming and training insurgent detachments, etc. Special reconnaissance is ... conducted by the forces of covert intelligence and special purpose troops, this will always be the role of special forces as being used in afganistan,iraq at this very moment..
Therefore they should be kept as units on the map but like the civ2 spies, they should be able to sabotage buildings,lower enemy morale,effect supplys and be able to identify enemy units deep behind enemy lines while being invisible to normal enemy units.
Therefore they should be kept as units on the map but like the civ2 spies, they should be able to sabotage buildings,lower enemy morale,effect supplys and be able to identify enemy units deep behind enemy lines while being invisible to normal enemy units.
-
Redshadow
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Aug 09 2003
Humm... everyone look out! Hell has frozen over and the world is coming to an end!
I agree with Ashbery!
The idea of haveing special forces (i.e SEALs, SAS etc..) appear as units, that conduct limited sabotage and destablization missions, that only their owners can see is excellent. If there is time to implement this, it should be done.
That said, Elite Units (thats how I also choose to classify them) such as Rangers or other such units who are designed to fill more of a combat role, rather then just sabatoge (like the Rangers did in World War II, notably on D-Day where they fought along side regulars) should appear as actual units, visable to both sides. They simply should be more expensive, take a longer time to train and have better attack/defense values.
Anyone angree? If not...then your most likely wrong
~Red
(P.S. would somebody anwer my recent question in the General Questions thread already...im gettin antsy!)
I agree with Ashbery!
The idea of haveing special forces (i.e SEALs, SAS etc..) appear as units, that conduct limited sabotage and destablization missions, that only their owners can see is excellent. If there is time to implement this, it should be done.
That said, Elite Units (thats how I also choose to classify them) such as Rangers or other such units who are designed to fill more of a combat role, rather then just sabatoge (like the Rangers did in World War II, notably on D-Day where they fought along side regulars) should appear as actual units, visable to both sides. They simply should be more expensive, take a longer time to train and have better attack/defense values.
Anyone angree? If not...then your most likely wrong
~Red
(P.S. would somebody anwer my recent question in the General Questions thread already...im gettin antsy!
)-
LORD_BUNGLA
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sep 06 2003
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I agree with Ashbery.On 2003-10-05 17:02, Ashbery76 wrote:
I dont class the rangers as special forces they are elite!, special forces like the Spetsnaz,seals,S.A.S are very small teams that do reconnaissance carried out to subvert the political, economic and military potential and morale of a probable or actual enemy. The primary missions of special reconnaissance are: acquiring intelligence on major economic and military installations and either destroying them or putting them out of action, organizing sabotage and acts of subversion; carrying out punitive operations against rebels; conducting propaganda; forming and training insurgent detachments, etc. Special reconnaissance is ... conducted by the forces of covert intelligence and special purpose troops, this will always be the role of special forces as being used in afganistan,iraq at this very moment..
Therefore they should be kept as units on the map but like the civ2 spies, they should be able to sabotage buildings,lower enemy morale,effect supplys and be able to identify enemy units deep behind enemy lines while being invisible to normal enemy units.
And if i remember correctly, in the russian army, one Spetsnaz soldier is placed in each battalion, (the idea was that he would do most of the killing)so maybe you could have that in your game too, except every country has that option.
I think thats a bit unfair for the european countries that don't have rangers, becuase units like Alpha have actually proven themselves in the field in extremely dangerous CQB conditions, like in the 70s when they killed the afhgan president and during the theatre siege. And Europe has some really elite CQB teams too.Special Forces are already in the game. We've been using them primarily for air drops. Using air drops or helo insertions allows them to get in behind enemy lines and hold out for a long time. This is because Special Forces have a very low rate of supplies consumption. It's assumed that they all have the "McGuyver" gene allowing them to make bullets out of shoe laces if they have too...
As for attacking structures, they have a good fortification attack value but "Ranger" units would do this a little better. We've actually used four types of Special Forces in the game.
- Special Forces; best at holding in unsupplied territory
- Green Berets; Best at "close quarters" fighting
- Rangers; Best at demolishion missions
- Elite Forces; sort of a "poor countrie's" Special Forces. weakest of these.
The Rangers are only available to US regions but Green Berets and Special Forces can be used by European and Israeli regions based on the fact that they have their own versions of these. Elite Forces was added in case the player starts somewhere that wouldn't have such units. Elite Forces gives them something they can research that is similar though not quite as good. All of them have a reduced profile making them harder to spot.
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Well, we seem to have gotten some excellent comments on this issue, but Redshadow hit it on the nose with "if there is time to impliment". I still think that the problem is that what we're calling special forces should perhaps use another name, but I'll take all this back to the rest of the team and see what we get. There likley won't be a solid answer on this until the Beta Testing starts. Hope everyone can wait...
-
dust off
- General
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Sep 23 2003
- Location: UK
I can see Ashbery's & Redshadow's point that much, if not most of special forces work is conducted in small groups. However, I have 2 points to make: firstly I would like to avoid a semantic argument but there is a case to be made for defining special forces by the task units are given & their ability to carry it out. "Elite" often refers to the experience/training a unit has had. It is conceivable to have green, elite or veteran special force; hence most organised countries select only serving soldiers to their special forces. And several many sources group rangers and green berets as special forces. (seewww.specialforces.com)
Secondly, there are many intances of special forces being used directly against enemy teeth arms, as follows:
'...Bill Stirling spent much of his trying to convince Allied HQ to use the SAS resources more effectively, arguing that using 100 men instead of just 13 could have meant major disruption for enemy troop movements.' During the Italy and Normandy campaigns the SAS were used to attack reserve units moving to the front. And here is a short description of a battle on the front line:
For the rest of September they were reporting enemy positions, harassing convoys and helping with the 8th Army advance. On October 2nd the situation changed dramatically as SAS regiments were involved in a battle at Termoli, which having been taken by allied forces was under attack by the 1st German Parachute Regiment determined to retake the town. The defence of the town was far from simple, a shortage of ammunition and the German attempts to draw fire from small groups of Bren gunners meant cold and uncomfortable nights enduring motaring and shelling. Farran's position in a rail yard had been shelled heavily, they later found an engine and truck parked close by packed with high explosives that had miraculously survived the mortar fire.
At around 14:30hrs on the 6th October the squadron was finally given orders to open fire on enemy positions, the two groups of Bren gunners inflicted many casualties, more allied troops from combined Commando units attacked the enemy flank at the same time. They were very satisfied to see large numbers of German infantry withdrawing in some confusion from their positions less than 2 ? hours later. By 18:00hrs Farran's squadron was relieved, they had taken only 3 casualties. His men were moved to comfortable billets, well fed and issued with new uniforms, General Montgomery inspected the squadron five days later. Despite the rewards for their efforts Farran later noted it was his only pure infantry battle he fought in the war, and he never wanted to fight another
Meanwhile the US rangers were alloted a special task at OMAHA, of scaling cliffs and attacking artillary positions. During the Granada op, a ranger batalion bn, took an airfield and the day after two ranger bns attacked barracks at Calvigny. They were used as a reaction force during Desert Storm.
The Soviets used special forces in Afghanistan in large operations to outflank enemy forces. General Newroz & LTC Grau have this to say: 'Enveloping detachments (obkhodiashchii otriad) were used frequently in Afghanistan. Battalion or company-sized forces were split off from the main body and sent on a separate route to the flank or rear of the mujahideen to support the advance of the main body, perform a separate mission, prevent the withdrawal of mujahideen forces, or conduct a simultaneous attack from one or more unexpected directions. If the enveloping detachment was dismounted, it was usually composed of airborne, air assault or reconnaissance forces. If the enveloping detachment was mounted, it was frequently just the unit's bronegruppa. ...Airborne, air assault and SPETSNAZ forces were refitted with roomier BTRs and BMPs instead of their BMDs. Forces were up-gunned with extra machine guns, AGS-17 and mortars. The Soviets used these new formations as a test bed and the post-Afghanistan force structure for the Russian Army currently envisions a mix of corps and brigades for maneuver war and non-linear combat and divisions and regiments for conventional, ground-gaining combat
Finally, I do agree with Lord Bungla, some Europeans do have units similar to rangers. The three bns of British Royal Marine Commandos spring to mind.
Secondly, there are many intances of special forces being used directly against enemy teeth arms, as follows:
'...Bill Stirling spent much of his trying to convince Allied HQ to use the SAS resources more effectively, arguing that using 100 men instead of just 13 could have meant major disruption for enemy troop movements.' During the Italy and Normandy campaigns the SAS were used to attack reserve units moving to the front. And here is a short description of a battle on the front line:
For the rest of September they were reporting enemy positions, harassing convoys and helping with the 8th Army advance. On October 2nd the situation changed dramatically as SAS regiments were involved in a battle at Termoli, which having been taken by allied forces was under attack by the 1st German Parachute Regiment determined to retake the town. The defence of the town was far from simple, a shortage of ammunition and the German attempts to draw fire from small groups of Bren gunners meant cold and uncomfortable nights enduring motaring and shelling. Farran's position in a rail yard had been shelled heavily, they later found an engine and truck parked close by packed with high explosives that had miraculously survived the mortar fire.
At around 14:30hrs on the 6th October the squadron was finally given orders to open fire on enemy positions, the two groups of Bren gunners inflicted many casualties, more allied troops from combined Commando units attacked the enemy flank at the same time. They were very satisfied to see large numbers of German infantry withdrawing in some confusion from their positions less than 2 ? hours later. By 18:00hrs Farran's squadron was relieved, they had taken only 3 casualties. His men were moved to comfortable billets, well fed and issued with new uniforms, General Montgomery inspected the squadron five days later. Despite the rewards for their efforts Farran later noted it was his only pure infantry battle he fought in the war, and he never wanted to fight another
Meanwhile the US rangers were alloted a special task at OMAHA, of scaling cliffs and attacking artillary positions. During the Granada op, a ranger batalion bn, took an airfield and the day after two ranger bns attacked barracks at Calvigny. They were used as a reaction force during Desert Storm.
The Soviets used special forces in Afghanistan in large operations to outflank enemy forces. General Newroz & LTC Grau have this to say: 'Enveloping detachments (obkhodiashchii otriad) were used frequently in Afghanistan. Battalion or company-sized forces were split off from the main body and sent on a separate route to the flank or rear of the mujahideen to support the advance of the main body, perform a separate mission, prevent the withdrawal of mujahideen forces, or conduct a simultaneous attack from one or more unexpected directions. If the enveloping detachment was dismounted, it was usually composed of airborne, air assault or reconnaissance forces. If the enveloping detachment was mounted, it was frequently just the unit's bronegruppa. ...Airborne, air assault and SPETSNAZ forces were refitted with roomier BTRs and BMPs instead of their BMDs. Forces were up-gunned with extra machine guns, AGS-17 and mortars. The Soviets used these new formations as a test bed and the post-Afghanistan force structure for the Russian Army currently envisions a mix of corps and brigades for maneuver war and non-linear combat and divisions and regiments for conventional, ground-gaining combat
Finally, I do agree with Lord Bungla, some Europeans do have units similar to rangers. The three bns of British Royal Marine Commandos spring to mind.
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Oh, I forgot to address that European Ranger issue, sorry.
Since there are some Ranger type units active in Europe currenlty I'll add Europe to the list of regions that can use them, but I'll likely leave them unresearched for many regions. Which countries in particular are making use of these types of units? I'll be sure to put a few in those countries opening inventories.
Since there are some Ranger type units active in Europe currenlty I'll add Europe to the list of regions that can use them, but I'll likely leave them unresearched for many regions. Which countries in particular are making use of these types of units? I'll be sure to put a few in those countries opening inventories.
-
Ashbery76
- Major
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: England.
It must be an american thing calling rangers special forces,in britain special forces are called that for a reason!, because they recieve specialist training and very few people are good enough to be in the club,the rangers are no better trained than the royal marines,in fact they are not as good.
The S.A.S in WW2 are a totally different body to the special+special forces of today.The largest operation the S.A.S have done in modern times was the torabora mountains against the taliban, they had 100 soldiers fighting there, but that is still to small to stop anything on the divisional scale.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ashbery76 on 2003-10-07 10:35 ]</font>
The S.A.S in WW2 are a totally different body to the special+special forces of today.The largest operation the S.A.S have done in modern times was the torabora mountains against the taliban, they had 100 soldiers fighting there, but that is still to small to stop anything on the divisional scale.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ashbery76 on 2003-10-07 10:35 ]</font>
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
Well, id guess some of us think of the rangers as special forces becuase they are part of the S.O.C.
"The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is one of nine unified combat commands. It was activated in April 1987 to provide command, control and training for all special operations forces (SOF) in the United States. The command has approximately 47,000 active, National Guard and reserve forces.
SOCOM headquarters is at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. Its components include the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.; the Air Force Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Fla; the Naval Special Warfare Command, Coronado, Calif., and the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. The John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School, and the Naval Special Warfare Center are also assigned to the command."
Or in other words becuase the U.S. miltary considers them so.
They probably consider them so becuase they recieve special training,special weapons and special missions.
Also like all special forces I know of you have to qualify for them and they only take the upper percentage of people who try(and succeed).
As to who's better between the royal marines or the rangers.Well,that would be mostly opinion and likely to show some bias.
"The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is one of nine unified combat commands. It was activated in April 1987 to provide command, control and training for all special operations forces (SOF) in the United States. The command has approximately 47,000 active, National Guard and reserve forces.
SOCOM headquarters is at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. Its components include the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.; the Air Force Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Fla; the Naval Special Warfare Command, Coronado, Calif., and the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. The John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School, and the Naval Special Warfare Center are also assigned to the command."
Or in other words becuase the U.S. miltary considers them so.
They probably consider them so becuase they recieve special training,special weapons and special missions.
Also like all special forces I know of you have to qualify for them and they only take the upper percentage of people who try(and succeed).
As to who's better between the royal marines or the rangers.Well,that would be mostly opinion and likely to show some bias.
-
Ashbery76
- Major
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: England.
What special training? the S.A.S have special training , the royal marines are well trained but are in no way special forces, now tell me about this special training that 47000 people and reserves do that put them in the same league as the S.A.S,seal,delta,etc,etc.On 2003-10-07 11:02, tkobo wrote:
They probably consider them so becuase they recieve special training,special weapons and special missions.
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
We will forget for the moment that the modern US ranger force was created by specific training with the UK commando forces in the 1940s.
Instead of focusing on that,i will give you some reading to do.Enjoy.
http://www.geocities.com/blade1413/rang ... index.html
http://www.benning.army.mil/rtb/new_lrsc/default.htm
http://www.goarmy.com/job/branch/75th/officer.html
http://globalspecops.com/ranger.html
Instead of focusing on that,i will give you some reading to do.Enjoy.
http://www.geocities.com/blade1413/rang ... index.html
http://www.benning.army.mil/rtb/new_lrsc/default.htm
http://www.goarmy.com/job/branch/75th/officer.html
http://globalspecops.com/ranger.html
-
Redshadow
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Aug 09 2003
Great reading, Tkobo.
Like I asserted earlier, in my humble opinion, there is a difference between Elite and Special Forces.
Frankly, the US Army Rangers are an Elite brach of the American military.
"Elite"- a:Most skilled members of a group b:A Small but powerful group
Using that definition, I think it is fair to call Rangers elite. They are more highly trained then normal Army soldiers. You simply can't debate that.
Would I classify them as Special Forces..not really, although they AT TIMES do preform SF operations (Rangers have and do conducted sabotage and such missions).
As for SOCOM...the US military likely added them to it simply because they can be rapidly deploid for specialized missions.
So, to conclude this hackneyed and obviously boring messege, Rangers and Elite, and should be entitled as such, but although they have preformed in SF type roles at time it is simply not their PRIMARY role.
I think this sounds rather accurate....
...your opinions?
~Red
Like I asserted earlier, in my humble opinion, there is a difference between Elite and Special Forces.
Frankly, the US Army Rangers are an Elite brach of the American military.
"Elite"- a:Most skilled members of a group b:A Small but powerful group
Using that definition, I think it is fair to call Rangers elite. They are more highly trained then normal Army soldiers. You simply can't debate that.
Would I classify them as Special Forces..not really, although they AT TIMES do preform SF operations (Rangers have and do conducted sabotage and such missions).
As for SOCOM...the US military likely added them to it simply because they can be rapidly deploid for specialized missions.
So, to conclude this hackneyed and obviously boring messege, Rangers and Elite, and should be entitled as such, but although they have preformed in SF type roles at time it is simply not their PRIMARY role.
I think this sounds rather accurate....
...your opinions?
~Red
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
It really doesnt matter though what you,I,Ash or anyone but the U.S. Army thinks of the rangers.
The U.S. Army calls them special forces.
The one link i put in that list, i put there purposely because its the recruiting link for special forces by the army and it specially calls the rangers special forces.
The U.S. has somewhere around a dozen special force units that I know of.
Delta force
Seals
SOAR
Rangers
Para Rescue
SOWT
Force Recon
CIA
Alpha
Green Berets(i almost forgot these guys
)
Add to the list if you can think of more.I know theres a "special boat unit",but cant think of its name.
I dont think simply calling them "elite" is fully accurate.Arent ALL special forces elite ?
The only difference i can see that might make the rangers non-specail forces is that they have a dual-purpose structure.
The ranger force is meant not only for small team recon,sabatoge,etc.. but also for full combat missions.So is Force recon.
Does having the manpower and the task of full combat missions in addition to special ops somehow make them NOT special forces ?
Well the U.S. Army doesnt think so.The U.S. Army clearly calls the rangers special forces.
Now if for some game oriented reason -the rangers need to be classified differently -fine.I dont have a problem with that.
But dont confuse the games needs with real life.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2003-10-07 17:39 ]</font>
The U.S. Army calls them special forces.
The one link i put in that list, i put there purposely because its the recruiting link for special forces by the army and it specially calls the rangers special forces.
The U.S. has somewhere around a dozen special force units that I know of.
Delta force
Seals
SOAR
Rangers
Para Rescue
SOWT
Force Recon
CIA
Alpha
Green Berets(i almost forgot these guys
)Add to the list if you can think of more.I know theres a "special boat unit",but cant think of its name.
I dont think simply calling them "elite" is fully accurate.Arent ALL special forces elite ?
The only difference i can see that might make the rangers non-specail forces is that they have a dual-purpose structure.
The ranger force is meant not only for small team recon,sabatoge,etc.. but also for full combat missions.So is Force recon.
Does having the manpower and the task of full combat missions in addition to special ops somehow make them NOT special forces ?
Well the U.S. Army doesnt think so.The U.S. Army clearly calls the rangers special forces.
Now if for some game oriented reason -the rangers need to be classified differently -fine.I dont have a problem with that.
But dont confuse the games needs with real life.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2003-10-07 17:39 ]</font>
-
Redshadow
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Aug 09 2003
Tkobo,
First of all, don't take what I was saying as dissagreement. Frankly, Tkobo, I agree with you.
However, what I was attempting to do was make some sort of distinction between groups like SEALs and Rangers (I do believe there is at least SOME difference between the two. I am not aware of many situations where SEALs fought in normal combat situations, i.e. major battle, with basic grunts) for the sake of the game.
Assumeing we could use the style suggested by Ashbery (hidden SF) then I would have SEALs be concealed, and Rangers be seen, but actually fight in Combat (while SEALs would not).
Again, Tkobo, I agree with you that Rangers are a form of SF. But, for the sake of the game classificatio, I'd call them "Elite".
Regards to all,
~Red
First of all, don't take what I was saying as dissagreement. Frankly, Tkobo, I agree with you.
However, what I was attempting to do was make some sort of distinction between groups like SEALs and Rangers (I do believe there is at least SOME difference between the two. I am not aware of many situations where SEALs fought in normal combat situations, i.e. major battle, with basic grunts) for the sake of the game.
Assumeing we could use the style suggested by Ashbery (hidden SF) then I would have SEALs be concealed, and Rangers be seen, but actually fight in Combat (while SEALs would not).
Again, Tkobo, I agree with you that Rangers are a form of SF. But, for the sake of the game classificatio, I'd call them "Elite".
Regards to all,
~Red