No sir, it is not too much trouble for me.

Actually, my recruiters are just waiting for an Option 40 with 11B/Airborne to pop into the system, and they will call me up and I'll sign it off, then I'm in.

Son, questions like this make me doubt your ability to successfully negotiate Basic Training let alone join and successfully contribute in a Ranger Battalion. It reflects an attitude that will most likely create a negative, long, painful, and possibly short career in the service. You better start considering two things: There is no "You" and I, this is a team event. Second, it is clear you have not found an answer that you are specifically looking for. This implies linear thinking, and that is the number one reason it is difficult for many old "Bat Boys" to successfully transition to the extremely complicated world of UW.

Your personality is reflective of the 75 to 80% of the privates that were RFS'd (Ranger Failed Standards) during their first 12 months of arriving. Of the 22 new Rangers I arrived with only 4 of us made it to E-4 in the RGR BN mainly due to lack of attention to detail and a poor attitude. You are lacking the former and demonstrating the latter. Others decided it simply was not for them.

Your goal in Basic Training should be Honor Grad, followed by a similar performance in Airborne school, etc. It consistently amazes me that aspiring recruits so completely look past the challenges of transitioning from civilian to military life and totally disregard the vital and necessary BASIC training that they will have to MASTER in order to get to Step One: SFAS.

Statistically speaking SPECTER1 you have already lost.

I personally think that looking to a website as part of your training program is already an indicator. You either want it or you don't, you'll either make the standards or you will not. And if you really want it, then the statistics and what somebody on the other end of your keyboard won't !*&(^%! matter.

Now assume the "Thinking" position ( your back flat against the wall, your feet flat on the ground, your knees bent at a 90 degree angle ) and reread this entire thread again.

Thats a serious question with 2 different implications and or answers........be that as it may, I'm not liking your tone.

ArmyRanger.com is a place for aspiring Rangers. Once you've grown up a little, you may want to relook the whole SF thing.

Oh I've served in Regt, and comparing apples and oranges is just talk of fruit. I like meat and potatoes. Add all that and some bread and you have a well balanced meal. :D

Pfft, there's some outdated opinions on the 75th in here!

As most have said throughout this forum, two different organizations, two different missions, two different mind sets. A lot of the guys that were ranger regiment that we went through the Q-course with quit when they found out SF wasn't DA, DA, DA.

Bennett - I'm sure you'll be disappointed to know this wasn't my experience (I just graduated the Q-Course in April 2012). The Q-Course did not teach me (or even remotely reinforce) the things I learned at ranger school. While I agree that ranger school teaches basic patrolling skills, I would say that it teaches you more about how far you can push yourself and still complete the mission. I'm not bashing the Q-Course, but you can't replicate ranger school, except, well, at ranger school. SUT is an ever changing entity. Most recent, ranger qualified, Q course graudates I know would agree, that if logistically it was feasible, we would be a better tactically trained organization if ranger school replaced SUT (when we graduated the Q-Course, not after years of experience). It's not logistically feasible to send all trainees, so it's a moot point. Currently I work for a BN Cdr that requires all his team leaders to be ranger qualified, and I can't say that I disagree with his logic. Ranger school is certainly not all that it's hyped up to be, but I think any leader, at any level, can learn something from attending.

I have a stick, so I might as well smack THAT hornet's nest.
Who/what give a LTC/BnCdr the right or power to establish the criteria for command? Does he have a Ranger Tab? OF COURSE he does. I think it is a mistake -- to the point of being wrong -- that some believe that to serve them, one has to look like them.
I'm glad I never faced that. Thank God too. The best SF Bn Commander I ever served was an Aviator.

Here is another problem with that idea. Historically, the Ranger School's attrition rate has hovered at 50 percent. Last year, it was 46... * Lots of things go wrong for people at a scvhool that prides it'self in it's injury and attrition rate. I don't think it is wise to spend all the time and effort to develop SF Leaders and then require them to put thier careers at risk to get something they can't use later. Yes. I said "can't use later". When have you ever seen a pair of Crossed Arrows in the Ranger Battalion?
Never, that's when. We're Special Forces Branch. We're not Infantry Branch. AND, every Officer that comes out of the Q has the full-faith and trust of the Commanding General USAJFKSWCS. They have passed the test, jumped the hurdle, etc etc. They are prepared to command, SWC says so.
You raise the bar LTC? Well, fine. There are three other Battalions so BFD.

I can't believe there is a Group Commander who is going along with this. And I can't believe there is a Group 1 who isn't screaming "FIRE!!" in the movie theater. I suspect, hope that (if) the GRP Commander is going along with it, he does so from the standpoint of "Be careful what you wish for."

BTW in the the mid-80's the CG of the 7th Inf Div tried the same thing. I don't think it worked.


* (U.S. Army Ranger School | Maneuver Center of Excellence Blog Mar 11, 2012 ... U.S. Army Ranger School: Making through the cut)

He doesn't seem like that kind of guy, so I seriously doubt it.

By the way, great post, Brother Dozer!

In over four years on this site, that's the first "Pfft" I've seen!

I just read through the entire thread to refresh my fading memory, and admit to never having been in a Ranger Bn, or to Ranger School. So, for my personal edification and enlightenment, would your care to elucidate which opinions in this thread are "outdated"?

Or, I guess you could just let it go with a "Pfft"!

Thanks in advance.

:D)

And I thought Blank Frank retired?:munchin

"I talk in 5.56 and I Yell in 7.62" :rolleyes:

I don't mean this in a detrimental context. But, back in the day, we thought of Ranger School as 9 weeks of Phase I...

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
 

The "young Jedi" is correct, and I eat my words! I even have a name. Tis true. It is not the first time said individual has had such a requirement either, and since MOST aspirants for said positions already possess such Tab, is probably not that big a deal.

Old guys... WTF do we know?:D

Guess things have changed somewhat; the B Tm, C Tm, and Group Cdrs I knew hired and fired Officers on demonstrated competence and focus.

Richard :munchin

Sure, although what I meant is pretty much literally what I said. The majority of opinions of the 75th in here are not very current, though some may be as it is hard to tell. The Regiment is in a state of constant flux, especially so recently, and is even a different beast than it was 4 years ago. While there are some things that have carried over from generations past (easily noticed and also discerned from talking with older guys), there are other things which have most definitely changed.

Obviously (and understandably), there's a weak representation of the modern 75th on this website and so therefore the bias is heavier against it. Analogously, on AR.com there is that same bias just in the opposite direction. I'm just throwing my towel in here for the other side, defending the underdog as it were :lifter I don't particularly like being stereotyped as the young, dumb, regimented, "good at fundamentals" kinda guy that's been alluded to in a few posts in this thread :p. Only at least two of those apply!

I intend to come across friendly, of course.

I'm not sure how ranger school and "competence and focus" are related? If you're implying that people are getting teams and staying in teams because they have a ranger tab, but are lacking other attributes, let me clear that up by saying that's not the case.

This turned into a bash my BN really quickly, and that certainly wasn't my intent. I don't know why any officer or soldier, given the opportunity, would flat out deny the opportunity to at least attempt a school where they can better themselves? As many have pointed out before, the Q-Course is merely the initial stepping stone into SF. Just because you graduated the Q-Course does not make you "too good" to learn something new, and in my opinion, ranger school is certainly not beneath an 18 series qualified soldier/ officer. There's absolutely nothing wrong, in my opinion, of a commander asking his subordinates to do more to better themselves and the organization.