SOF in T2K

[Rainbow Six]

When I was actively playing (which is now well over ten years ago), we didn't have any PC's that were current SF in our regular campaign, although we did have one US Army Sergeant First Class who was Ranger qualified (he broke both his legs in a parachute jump that went wrong in 1996 and the docs said he couldn't jump again, so he was transferred out of the 75th Ranger Regt and into the 5th Dvn just in time for the War in Europe) and one NPC who was a West German Fernspahtruppe.

There was no specific ban on Green Berets, SAS, and such like, it just never happened...(players were expected to come up with a plausible back story as to how their character ended up in Kalisz in August 2000 so that might have had something to do with it...personally I'd struggle to justify a realistic reason why a Green Beret Lieutenant Colonel (for example) would end up with a squad of 5th Dvn riflemen).

The group very occasionally encountered NPC SF types (such as a US Army Green Beret Captain who was working with one of the Polish Free Legions - the one that was in the north, I think the 2nd), but I always tried to make such encounters rare, so that meeting a SF soldier was something that would stand out as something a bit diifferent...

Our Persian Gulf campaign was a little different (which was the intention to be fair)...SF types were much more common, both PC and NPC. Mind you, the Persian Gulf games always seem to run out of steam relatively quickly and we'd abandon our munchkins to come back to Europe and the more fleshed out, rounded characters we had there).

For the bigger picture, I go along with the view that in the year 2000 any remaining SF characters who have gone through all the required pre War qualifications, etc would be kept in reserve to be used as a strategic asset by Corps / Army HQ (or higher - I don't think it's too much of a stretch that any existing SF in CONUS might report directly to the Chiefs of Staff).

[pmulcahy11b]

A possible consequence is that special ops training is going to get more diluted, and will be more and more OJT. Today, it takes a long time and a lot of money to produce a newbie special ops troop -- for an SF medic, for example, its about 14 months of training and close to $3 million. As the war goes on, that kind of time won't be available any more, but paradoxically, the need for special operators will increase.

I think that this will lead to "poaching" -- the best troops from regular units being drawn off and put into an accelerated special ops training in the new unit coupled with lots of OJT in their new unit.

Another effect will be that airborne-qualified special operators will decrease -- the qualification will be needed less and less as the war goes on and fuel and aircraft stocks decrease. By 2000, you'll have a bunch of guys with silver wings that may not even remember how to do a proper PLF anymore...

[Raellus]

I'm not sure that SF troops would have survival rates that much lower than other troops. Sure they get sent on very dangerous missions but they are also damn good at what they do and they are some of the toughest and most resourceful troops. I think their survival rates would be on par or even slightly higher than line infantry.

Perhaps. My assertion was based on the fact that in some of the SOF groups I've studied extensively (Vietnam era LRRPs/Rangers & SOG recon teams, WWII Allied airborne- not SOF, but certainly "elite"), unit casualty rates often exceeded 100%. Vietnam era SEALS did not, but they tended to be operating against the more isolated and poorly equiped VC in the Mekong delta (which became even more rag-tag after the '68 Tet offensive) rather than the better equipped and organized NVA. Only the WWII era-airborne troops were regularly involved in direct action missions. Green Berets leading irregular indigenous direct action units (Mike Forces & CIDGs) in the field, as well as manning SF camps, also had very high casualty rates. I'm not necessarity talking KIA here- a lot of the casualties were WIA and many returned to their SOF units where they were WIA again (or KIA). But, if you're WIA badly or often enough, you're not likely to be put back into the field. To support my idea for divisional/corps level provisional "Ranger" (LRRP) units, these folks could make up the training cadre for the army level Recondo school that would train these provisional Rangers.

On the other hand, in WWII at least, some conventional units also approached or even met the 100% casualty ceiling. In general though, per capita, in WWII and Vietnam, SOF (and Airborne) units had significantly higher casualty rates than conventional combat units. So, it's by no means a hard and fast rule that SOF casualties would exceed those of conventional forces, but there is some convincing recent evidence to support this.

One boon/bane (depending on how you look at it) is that it is so easy to explain the presence of SOF in T2K campaigns (at least in Europe). Since SOF often operated behind enemy lines, it makes sense to be meeting up with onesies and twosies. In some cases, it's more difficult to explain the presence of conventional forces deep behind enemy lines. For example, my PbP is currently set near Warsaw in mid October 2000. As far as I know, no NATO conventional forces were operating in that area in the summer of 2000. SOF, on the other hand, could have any number of reasons to be operating there, even that late in the war.

[Abbott Shaull]

I think by 2000 many Corps, Armies and Army Groups HQ would have their own 'Funnies' as such units were called in WWII in the British Army. With the fact that in Europe and Iran both side would have several levels of Special Operation units operating. Not sure what would be happening in Korea since GDW never got to make any module of there.

Many of the last properly train Green Berets, Rangers, and Seals would still be on the CONUS. First the SF and Seal units would be used to help with disaster relief. Then they would be needed in the Northwest and then in the Southwest. By 2000 some units would started to be diverted to deal with New American threat.

Much like the Soviet Special Force team roaming Southern Poland to keep an eye on what the Czechs were doing to the south as well the Free City of Krakow and the Kingdom of Silesian as well keep eye on what the Soviet unit that had stop obeying orders and were either operating as marauders or heading home.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The Funnies from WW2 refers to a number of tanks modified for the invasion of Normandy, they weren't special forces.

[simonmark6]

I'm not sure about WW2, but British units from 1946 to about the mid Sixties were involved in lots of counter-insurgency operations as teh Empire was disbanded. The SAS and other British elite units were involved in lots of Black Ops and undercover work, including "keenie meenie" (snake in the grass operations).

In one instance, British soldiers out in local towns were being targetted by terrorists. The SAS started to send out single soldiers in uniform followed but a disguised hit team (apparently a prerequisite of being on the team was that they could quick draw a HP-35 and empty the magazine into a target the size of a playing card -I don't know how far the target was from the shooter). The target soldier would get into trouble and the disguised team would get the terrorists.

Individual Regiments started to copy this technique and there were several instances of the SAS being ambushed by Regular soldiers and vice versa.

This would suggest that units would start copying succesful special ops tactics by forming their own units, these wouldn't be as effective or well trained but might provide some service.

As for the best men being siphoned off tor SOF work, this might happen but you can bet that lots of units would be hiding their best troops in order to keep their own units effective.

[weswood]

I was going to bring up Battalions having thier own incountry recondo schools but Rae beat me to it. I know for a fact 101st AB did this, my father was one of the LRRPs for a while, and I've read a couple books about it.

As far as "siphoning off the best men", the Bn asked for volunteers and the recondos were chosen from them.

Pop told some wild stories about 4 man recon patrols, and I don't know if it was while he was with the recon unit, but he was also an advisor to an ARVN unit.

[Raellus]

I was going to bring up Battalions having thier own incountry recondo schools but Rae beat me to it. I know for a fact 101st AB did this, my father was one of the LRRPs for a while, and I've read a couple books about it.

I've read a couple of memoirs by 101st ABN LRRPs. I wonder if your dad was mentioned.

[weswood]

I've read a couple of memoirs by 101st ABN LRRPs. I wonder if your dad was mentioned.

None of the ones I've read. Although I have pictures of Tim Garner and this big black dude whose name I've forgotten who was mentioned in one book.

[jester]

I can see this happening in various units, especialy those who who have established their own catonments. However, it is true that alot of units at the company level will keep their best men back so they can look good to the comand. As for "volunteers" well there is volunteer and "volunteer" or "volunteered" which is often a way for units to get rid of problem children and make them someone else's headache. Sure the trooper may be good, but, if they are a non traditional type this often IRKS the standard leaders so they are happy to see them go. On the other hand someone who is non traditional is perfect for the unconventional forces since they tend not to be "yes" men and act independantly, tell an officer to piss off if they are messed up and do it not the book way but do things how it will actualy work.

However, I can see alot of units certainly at the division level and probably at the Regimental Level opening their own if not schools at least training programs to bring support personel up to speed, the Air Force and Navy personel and the untrained replacements from the States up tp speed.. As well as bringing the personel new and existing versed in enemy equipment or tactics or new developements, as well as regular training like a leadership program for new NCOs, an OCS program converting seasoned NCOs into much needed officers, maybe even transfering MOSes turning out engineers, medics and reconassance specialists from clerks, regular infantrymen and even men from mechanized units who no longer have a job.

One thing to consider, is alot of forces and nations still rely on the Regimental System, the US Army was focused on the Divisional system although they are going to the modular thing which is focused on the Brigade system which really is nothing more than a reinforced brigade, but the mindset is still being created and has yet to exist.

[Adm.Lee]

I agree with those who say that most formations will form their own informal recon schools, to keep their scout units full-strength (or as near as anyone can). I think a lot of these may be the first to convert to horse cavalry. Long-range patrols may look like Vietnam War LRRPs and Rogers' Rangers of the Seven Years War, mounted or not. This is what I see in most adventures written in modules or magazines.

'Striker' style units, aka commandos who blow up stuff in the night, will be much more rare, as the intelligence and rapid-insertion capabilities of even WW2 disappear. Instead, raids may be much more short-ranged, and resemble WW1-style trench raids, and assembled on the fly. The need for direct-action SOF will fade away, and be replaced by infantry or cavalry forces, perhaps volunteers or handpicked or just assigned.

In summary: SOF not so much anymore, except for scout-rangers.

[Webstral]

The ability of a given force or cantonment to support specialized training will vary wildly from setting to setting. At one extreme we might find Colorado, with its large and fairly stable population, food, and plenty of men with rifles. Colorado might be able to train something along the lines of the pre-war Special Forces or just Special Operations. At the other end will be innumerable tiny cantonments incapable of providing more than rudimentary training to their scouts. Once again, the larger and more stable cantonments will have certain advantages over the smaller and more tenuous ones over the long haul.

To some degree, marauders might be able to tap into inherited skills. Some of their number might be hunters, former military, or otherwise talented in recon, intelligence gathering, or what have you. In most cases, these people aren't going to be able to pass much on. The marauder's life seems rather sketchy.

Warlords, on the other hand, might have some success in training their own LRS. Whether a warlord in 2001 would see any advantage in having SF-type troops is an open question. I could certainly see a warlord wanting informants in place in the surrounding communities. I don't know if that means moving ahead to more specialized troops.

The Soviets in Alaska might be in a good position to assemble Special Operations teams. They are marooned in Anchorage with a lot of troops and (presumably) little in the way of supply. SO types might be the best way for them to make the most of their abundant manpower and limited supply. They might also be the best way to take the war to the Americans.

Webstral

[jester]

Long Range Raids would be used. I can see two versions used.

The short instant raids on enemy supply depots and other vital areas in the immediate area.

Long Range raids like the plot from the John Wayne classic "Horse Soldiers" based on Griersons raid, or even Shermans march. You are sneaking into enemy territory, and striking deep into the heart of the enemy doing more than a specific mission in support of a specific operation. But the long range mission would disrupt the enemy on multiple levels, supply, transit, local populations and reducing their numbers available to fight as they would need more troops in the rear to guard against further raids.



SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES:

We can develope troops with special skills for special operations. That would be pretty easy since the forces would simply train for the specialty that the area they are in provides.

Colorado <as was mentioned> would be the place you could train some kickass mountain troops, with plenty of oportunities for winter training like skiing, winter survival and fighting, mountain training, rock climbing, rapelling, and lots of forced marches for conditioning.

As well as recon and scouting as they apply for that terrain and climate.

Coastal areas, would involve lots of swimming and water operations, infiltrtion and scaling rocky beach cliffs.

Iowa or Kansas or similiar plains areas would require scouting both on foot and via horseback as well as camping out under wide open skys, but also how to operate in a open savanah or grassland infiltration and similiar skills as well as long range shooting would be good skills that would be natural ones for those regions as well as well needed.

Some things would be almost universal, trench, urban would be easy to set up almost anywhere, as would alot of the basics.

[pmulcahy11b]

I can't remember who said it, but the saying "Make the enemy fear his own home," comes to mind. This would be a good use for such troops, though these would be troops who would have to slowly infiltrate enemy territory instead of a quick insertion. They would also have a good use for enemy equipment, especially weapons and uniforms.

[Legbreaker]

Having served in both reserve and regular units, I'd have to say the best suited to a T2K situation would be the reservists.

Although usually lacking in strictly combat skills, they often have a much broader range of survival skills to draw from. Depending on where they're originally drawn from, you can almost guarentee a plattoon will include somebody who knows something about a task. For example in one reserve plattoon I was in, we had a mechanic, banker, several farmers, builder, ex navy comms specialist, locksmith, train driver, pilot (small single engines), and ambo (paramedic). Most were also keen fishermen, hunters, etc in their spare time.

I can see this type of unit almost being tailor made for some SF missions. Giving them a month or so of intensive military and fitness training might actually be quicker than training a military unit in all the technical skills they might need.

Of course in a purely combat sense I'd rather have the professionals who'd been training in nothing else for the past few years...