SF and partisans

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Nov 09 2003

OK, Ok, one more thing... I'm not sure if this was covered or not (forgive me if it was), but on the topic of SF, or "Green berets", or whatever you want to call them... Although SF has the reputation for being snake eating killers, they're really not. If you want killing, call the Rangers- that is all they do (in one form or another). SF has 2 primary missions (standard US Army SF groups). 1. Strategic, or "long range" recon. Basically going way behind the lines to find important enemy assets and (maybe) marking them for airstrikes (like scud TELs). That is pretty clear. BUT, actually, a bigger mission is that of going way behind the lines to link up, organize, and train partisan units (rebels, "Gs", whatever). I think this would add a lot to the game if you could drop in an SF unit behind the line and they could "spawn" partisan units (nothing crazy, maybe one G unit/ SF unit for gameplay). That would reflect their real capability as demonstrated by what happened in Afghan. when they hooked up with the N. Alliance guys. Granted, the NA was pretty well organized, but SF is capable of doing that in most parts of the world without an pre-existing partisan force- hence the long, painful process of language training for SF. This ability is pretty unique to specific types of Spec. Ops units. Army SF, French Foreign legion, British SAS... Yes. Rangers, royal commando's, other "elite" units... no. Just a thought- again, something small that would add a touch or realism and a little fun.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 09 2003

On 2003-11-09 02:01, Shutzen wrote:
. This ability is pretty unique to specific types of Spec. Ops units. Army SF, French Foreign legion, British SAS... Yes. Rangers, royal commando's, other "elite" units... no. Just a thought- again, something small that would add a touch or realism and a little fun.

I dont understand why so many people have the wrong idea about rangers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ ... tack01.htm

A few choice qoutes from this article in case you dont like to read long articles.

" Army. The Delta Force, Green Berets and Rangers do everything from rescuing hostages to training rebels to parachuting into hostile territory from high altitudes."

"The commandos also are training anti-Taliban rebels to launch an offensive, possibly within days, against the ruling regime as U.S. bombing raids taper off."
^About british forces in afghanistan.

Marine and Ranger groups out of Okinawa are currently assisting in the training of the Philippine Scout Rangers.
Rangers DO train others,its simply not thier primary role.

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Nov 10 2003

Quote- "I dont understand why so many people have the wrong idea about rangers."

I appreciate what the media and Army recruiting has to say about the Rangers. However, I spent over 9 years in the Army. I started with the 82nd Airborne Division and served in 2 Special Forces Groups before I got out. That includes joint training with SFOD-D (Delta) and the Rangers (2nd and 3rd. batts). So, trust me when I tell you that Ranger's do not have the ablitity to go deep into enemy territory to train and lead Guerilla units. Whether they do it in the Phil. is not really the issue. I'm talking about going deep into ENEMY territory and using training techniques and LANGUAGE SKILLS that the Rangers do not possess.

There is nobody better at taking enemy airfields than the Rangers. That is what they do. That is what they are equipped for and that is what they are trained for. Again, trust me, I did it with them on several occasions (joint training) and their efficiency and speed was incredible. US Army SF ("green berets") cannot do that. Likewise, I have been on the ground in Africa training non-regular troops as part of a SF team. US SF can do that, Rangers can't. Perhaps Rangers can train people in secure and friendly countries- I don't doubt that, they are very proficient at what they do. However, I'm talking about going in unannounced behind the lines and raising a Guerilla force. US SF can do that. SAS can do that. The French Foreign Legion can do that. Rangers cannot and do not do that. It simply is not their mission and they do not do it.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 10 2003

So the sending of a ranger team into bosnia to train local forces on feb 25 1999 doesnt count either ?

And qoutes like this about socom-which rangers are part of are wrong ?

"Special Forces soldiers are carefully selected, specially trained, and capable of extended operations in extremely remote and hostile territory. They train to perform five doctrinal missions: Foreign Internal Defense (FID), Unconventional Warfare (UW), Special Reconnaissance (SR), Direct Action (DA) and Combating Terrorism (CBT). While Special Forces soldiers are capable of performing all of these missions, an increasing emphasis is being placed on FID and coalition warfare/support. FID operations are designed to help friendly developing nations by working with host country military and paramilitary forces to improve their technical skills, understanding of human rights issues, and to help with humanitarian and civic action projects."

Saying rangers cant and or dont train is like saying seals dont seize airbases.
While niether is the norm for either both have and do.
Simply because rangers specialize in DA-doesnt mean they dont or cant do other mission types.

By the way, i want to say im sorry if i derail this thread from its topic.

I find your idea of sf in game being able to cause the spawn of rebel/partisan
/gurilla(sp)/ect.. units a very good one.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2003-11-10 13:18 ]</font>

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Nov 11 2003

OK, dude, you got me. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Despite having served in 2 SF groups as well as conducting multiple joint training missions with 2 of the 3 Ranger batts, I really don't know what SOCOM units are trained for and are capable of. In fact, I now see how silly it is for me to count on my real-life experience and that of my teammates (several of whom started as Batt. boys) to question the stone cold reality of press reports and official goverment statements (read- recruiting efforts). I'm not going to make this personal- I have read many of your other posts and know you are very well versed on military info. However, don't believe everything you read. I'm sure I won't change your mind about what you have read, but I've been there and I've done it. The reality of the situation is how I described it. You can believe and post whatever you want to- Freedom of speech and all.

Back to the game though... it is up to the developers on how to implement the idea- if they are interested in it at all. I honestly don't care if they call units with this capability SF, SAS, or Special Helper Elves. I just think it would be a cool part of a great looking game. I'll leave the details to you. Cheers.

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Nov 11 2003

OK, I see the problem. There is a little confusion about terms. Let me explain..

Your quote- And qoutes like this about socom-which rangers are part of are wrong ?

"Special Forces soldiers are carefully selected, specially trained, and capable of extended operations in extremely remote and hostile territory. They train to perform five doctrinal missions: Foreign Internal Defense (FID), Unconventional Warfare (UW), Special Reconnaissance (SR), Direct Action (DA) and Combating Terrorism (CBT). While Special Forces soldiers are capable of performing all of these missions, an increasing emphasis is being placed on FID and coalition warfare/support. FID operations are designed to help friendly developing nations by working with host country military and paramilitary forces to improve their technical skills, understanding of human rights issues, and to help with humanitarian and civic action projects."

You need to understand the distinction between Special Forces and Special Operations Forces. SOCOM is composed of many types of soldiers- as you know. SEALS, Rangers, Psyop/ Civil Affairs, AIr Force Combat Cont., ... and Army Special Forces. Your qoute is describintg Special Forces. When the term is Special Forces, it means US Army Special Forces (commonly referred to as Green Berets). If they want to talk about Rangers, they say Rangers, Seals.. Seals. If they discuss SOF units in a collective or general sense, the term is Special Operations Forces (Not Special Forces). The quote you provided describes Special Forces- as in US ARMY SPECIAL FORCES, not Rangers. In fact, the list provided is exactly what US ARMY SPECIAL FORCES Teams do.

Unfortunately, it is a complicated issue made more difficult by similar terms - Special Forces (US ARMY Type, "Green Berets"), Special Operations Forces (SOCOM units- including Special Forces), and special forces (notice the lack of capitalization)- a term generally used by the media or at times when Special Operations Forces would be more accurate.

Your quote is exactly the point I am trying to make. Those missions are Army SF missions. And, even though it lists Direct Action, I can assure you that US ARMY SF DA missions (outside of team-led "foreign" units) are pretty limited in size and scale. That is just one example of how specific units have specific capabilities that may be distorted by "official descriptions" or press reports. SF groups do have teams that focus on DA- but not many. And, think realistically about how much a 12 man team can do (without the 200 man indigenous force they trained). That is why Army SF (and, yes, SEALS) do not seize airfields (Not to say that they can't help the Rangers or 82nd do it, but they do not drop battalion sized elements like the Rangers do).

OK, that's enough. I hope this clears up the issue. Man, I'm tired of debating semantics.

I just want to check out the great ideas being suggested for the game. Relax and enjoy.

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 11 2003

Well, I've gotta say, I sorta skimmed some of this post as it was going over my head, but I got the general idea. We like it and have made not of it, but this will be a late implementation item. It would also be tied to the loyalty model. So insertion of *insert semantic term* into enemy territory with loyalty problems would have a high probability of â€œspawningâ€ a Partisan unit that the player could control.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 12 2003

I can point out an airfield that was seized by seals,multiple teams working on the one goal together.

Okay,as for the rest ,im a little lost now myself.
Is it okay Shutzen, if we move this to private messages?
Id like to continue this conversation.
Some of what your saying really makes sense about the terms,but some of it doesnt seem to fit at all.
So ,would you mind a conversation on this in messages ?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2003-11-11 22:02 ]</font>

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Nov 12 2003

Sure, where? (Sorry for taking up so much space on this thread!). Let me know where and we can continue the chat there.

ardem · Post by **ardem** » Jan 22 2004

I have read many of the Sf post on here and not to wade to deeply, I see many points of view, I see rangers in the same vien as I see many other special forces.

As many of the commando units worldwide they are more trained then you regular units to do a variety of tasks the regular army doesn't do. Looking at the post there seem to be two types of units.

etc Elite Force such as Rangers/Commandoes/Spetnaz/French Foriegn Legion
Commando style special forces, they fight in larger formations for intermediate behind the line tasks.

and

Long Range Small Recon and Demo forces that use small groups for recon and small demo work.

SAS, G9, Seals etc.

Perhaps it another way of looking at it, for game style scenario.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jan 23 2004

Whats G9 ? I dont think ive heard of them.

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 23 2004

German special forces: did some anti terroist ops. Not sure but I think they messed one up badly and got their act together after seeking SAS advice and stormed a plane successfully.

Hellfish6 · Post by **Hellfish6** » Jan 23 2004

GSG9

Empier4552 · Post by **Empier4552** » Jan 24 2004

GSG9 is not army though last I checked they were internal units IE For use within ones country to combat terrorism and high risk crime busts etc etc not for front line duty or behind enemy lines in other countries

ardem · Post by **ardem** » Jan 26 2004

Sorry I tend to shorten the offical name to G9.
I thought they were army but I suppose the German army is a bad example to use anyway since there constition doesn't allow for forces to be sent abroad. I sure if I did a bit of research, I could find equivilants in every country around the world to demostrate LRRP with small groups.