Military questions

[Shadowdancer]

Since I've never been in the military, I have some questions for those who have. Some relate to the real world, some relate to the OTU.

Is the Marine Force Recon basically the Marines' version of the Navy SEALS? Or does its mission focus differ?

What is the organizational makeup of the SEALS and Force Recon? (How many men in basic unit, how are basic units combined into larger units, etc.)

In OTU, does the Imperial Navy have an equivalent force to our Navy SEALS, or is that role filled by a Marine force -- either a Force Recon-type unit or a Marine commando unit?

 

[themink]

OK - keeping away from the american military and particular units:-

Recon is a long established role in the military and breaks down into four distinct groups:-

1) Sneaky Bastards - This is variously called Long range reccon - it consists of small units operating without any real support for months at a tme far behind eneamy lines. The Australian SAS are the Premier examples of this (rather than those English Poofters). The emphasis is on total avoidance of detection, breaking contact and the occassional demolition or assassination

2) Sneaky bastards with guns - This is Medium Recon. Well in front of the battle lines, units which can strike deeply into enemy territory and mooch arround causing havoc wherever they can. They don;t have the firepower to survive if located, however they can offer ambush and battle as long as they can escape before a decent reaction force arrives. The Gukhas may well be the best in the World.

3) Sneaky bastards with guns and wheels - This is Force Recon. If a large group is heading this way, force recon goes ahead of it to take and hold strong points, delay reaction forces, report on enemy positions and generally get in the way of enemy forces. Either The American Marine Force recon or the English Paras are the premier example in the modern world. They don't have to beat everything they see, just hold out till the main force gets their - emphasis is on guts and clinging on for grim death. (Force recon take and hold the bridge stopping the enemy blowing it up while the main force dashes forward)

4) Bastards with Guns. Close recon is carried out by every infantry unit in the world - This is recon out from arms length to the edge of artillary support. The emphasis is on finding and locating the opponent and then either bringing force to bear, channeling attack or distracting. Everyone does this, picking someone would be even more contentious than the above ones.

There - I included the examples forces to give a reference (and possibly to spark debate). Every environment has it's own "best practice" group - for Example american SEALs operating in the sahara would have their heads handed to them.

Aside - All the above is addressing solely infantry recon - vehicles in various forms do a decent amount of recon also.

OTU, I don;t know

MTU - Yes, there are examples of each of these types of recon. Everything from the 2/2 Commandos who infiltrate onto a world dressed as salesmen months in advance to scout out positions (Long range Recon) through to the lead scout in a Marine Regiment.

 

[Libris]

Very astute observations, especially about the Ghurkas.

However, I would humbly point out that England is but part of Great Britain and it is in fact the British Paras thank you very much.

John Robertson (from Scotland)

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:

1)Is the Marine Force Recon basically the Marines' version of the Navy SEALS? Or does its mission focus differ?

2)What is the organizational makeup of the SEALS and Force Recon? (How many men in basic unit, how are basic units combined into larger units, etc.)

3)In OTU, does the Imperial Navy have an equivalent force to our Navy SEALS, or is that role filled by a Marine force -- either a Force Recon-type unit or a Marine commando unit?

_________________________________________________

1) A: Force recon IS not the Marines version of SEALS. They are more akin to US Army rangers is the SFOP type troops, acting in advance of marine line units, as light Infantry (amphibious/airborne). They would be employed during actual conflict (War time).
SEALS are the navy's version of the US ARMY Green beret's SF troops, whose sphere is SEa, Air or Land. While under the SPECOPS command at the Pentagon, they primarily answer to the US Admiralty for missions (Black Ops, etc). SEALS and Army SF maybe employed in "peacetime/ cold war/ hot war missions".

2) I'm an Army fellow (Navy Brat though). SEALS organization would be small cohesive 6-14 men units, my best SWAG on that. Force recon, like other Light Infantry would be in the Marine traditional unit matrix of company, platoon/ squads. What the ratio in a line Marine Regiment is say to FR, is a question to ask our Former Marines out here...

3) OTU, I think the Marine Commandoes of the Imperium fill this role fror the Imperial Navy (that of SEALS/Force recon), combining both roles.

There are also I would think those specialized marine units for boarding operations, trained in taking control of ships, just as there are today.
My .000000125Mcr. YMMV

PS: Opinions aside, the Austrailian SAS are better at Jungle warfare than the British SAS. Conversely, the British SAS beats em hands down for Urban warfare/ counterguerilla warfare. Theatre of operations/ terrain etc.

As for SEALS in the desert...No comment. I'll let someone else get that gauntlet off the floor.
Thats why the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces regiment specializes in SW ASia, Mink.

The Gurkha's are the finest regular irregular line unit I have ever worked with, and while it was only one time, they are the quietest moving guys I've ever seen in kit! (And we wreaked havoc as Opfor on the 24th British Airmobile in that exercise with them in March of '95!).
God bless them, the King's Own Scottish Borderer's, and the Highland Grenadiers!

 

[themink]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:

PS: Opinions aside, the Austrailian SAS are better at Jungle warfare than the British SAS. Conversely, the British SAS beats em hands down for Urban warfare/ counterguerilla warfare. Theatre of operations/ terrain etc.

In truth, Even in the jungle, I'd probably bet the British SAS.

On the other hand, Aussies have bigger teams than they do (5 compared to 4) so Aussies may be better at the "killing things" side - but that isn;t the role.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by The Mink:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam Devlin:

PS: Opinions aside, the Austrailian SAS are better at Jungle warfare than the British SAS. Conversely, the British SAS beats em hands down for Urban warfare/ counterguerilla warfare. Theatre of operations/ terrain etc.

In truth, Even in the jungle, I'd probably bet the British SAS.

On the other hand, Aussies have bigger teams than they do (5 compared to 4) so Aussies may be better at the "killing things" side - but that isn;t the role.</font>[/QUOTE]-------------------------------------------------
Well, on the shooting side of things, at the Wilson Match we held here in US of A where the Austrailians and Brits sent teams to...The Brits consistently took top-5 places in team and individual shootings over 9 days. (See Random Static-Wilson Matches)...And they had SAS members on both sides.

 

[themink]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mink:
In truth, Even in the jungle, I'd probably bet the British SAS.

On the other hand, Aussies have bigger teams than they do (5 compared to 4) so Aussies may be better at the "killing things" side - but that isn;t the role.

-------------------------------------------------
Well, on the shooting side of things, at the Wilson Match we held here in US of A where the Austrailians and Brits sent teams to...The Brits consistently took top-5 places in team and individual shootings over 9 days. (See Random Static-Wilson Matches)...And they had SAS members on both sides.</font>[/QUOTE]Not quite what I meant. It's a usage difference.

The British SAS are probably better at the "Role Of SAS" if only because they field smaller teams (4 men) so have a lower footprint.

The Australian SAS as probably better at mayhem for exactly the same reason (ie 5 man teams can hump more gear than a 4 man)

So in the "role" that we were talking about (Long Range recon), I think British SAS are probably better than Aussies despite my chauvanism.

PS I am an ex-pom

 

[Liam Devlin]

Mink posted-"Not quite what I meant. It's a usage difference.

The British SAS are probably better at the "Role Of SAS" if only because they field smaller teams (4 men) so have a lower footprint.

The Australian SAS as probably better at mayhem for exactly the same reason (ie 5 man teams can hump more gear than a 4 man)

So in the "role" that we were talking about (Long Range recon), I think British SAS are probably better than Aussies despite my chauvanism."
_______________________________________________
Wilco, Mink. Thanx fer clearin' that up.
________________________________________________
PS I am an ex Pom."
________________________________________________
I shant hold it against you, being Irish n all meself.

 

[themink]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
________________________________________________
PS I am an ex Pom."
________________________________________________
I shant hold it against you, being Irish n all meself. [/QB]

Liam - a good solid American Name.

I work with a group of genuine Aussies with names such as Gyiang, Chen, McCormick and Duffy.

Love living in a multi-cultural universe.

 

[Liam Devlin]

And isn't it a funny Old world?

 

[Uncle Bob]

Force Recon is a poorly understood unit. "Force" does not refer to the use of force but because it is the eyes of the marine corps as a whole and not for a particular unit. They are less appropriate for direct action missions than either Delta or the SEALs, being deep recon more like the Royal Marine SBS.

From http://www.specialoperations.com/USMC/Recon/default2.html
Within the USMC there are Recon Battalions and Force Recon Companies. The Recon BN's work in support of the Division gathering intelligence to something like 10 miles past the forward edge of the battle area. The Force Recon companies gathere all intelligence past this 10 mile limit. The Force Recon company having this mission is trained in more elaborate insertion / extraction methods such as jump / scuba / SPIE rig etc.

from http://www.wlu.edu/~tilitzen/ForceRecon/#setup
Force Recon Company (officers-12, enlisted-145)

Company HQ (officers 5 enlisted 26)
Supply Service platoon(officers 1 enlisted 35)
Six Recon platoons (officers 1 enlisted 14 each)

The SEALs are organized into forteen-man platoons, each divided into two squads (seven men just fit in a rubber boat). Eight platoons and a headquarters elelement make up a SEAL Team commanded by an O-5 (Commander). There are currently seven SEAL teams.

That means that there are about 8-900 SEALs and about 300 Force Recon. The least well known of the current American Special Forces are the Air Force's Special Tactics Group.

 

[themink]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Force Recon is a poorly understood unit. "Force" does not refer to the use of force but because it is the eyes of the marine corps as a whole and not for a particular unit. They are less appropriate for direct action missions than either Delta or the SEALs, being deep recon more like the Royal Marine SBS.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> From http://www.specialoperations.com/USMC/Recon/default2.html
Within the USMC there are Recon Battalions and Force Recon Companies. The Recon BN's work in support of the Division gathering intelligence to something like 10 miles past the forward edge of the battle area. The Force Recon companies gathere all intelligence past this 10 mile limit. The Force Recon company having this mission is trained in more elaborate insertion / extraction methods such as jump / scuba / SPIE rig etc.

from http://www.wlu.edu/~tilitzen/ForceRecon/#setup
Force Recon Company (officers-12, enlisted-145)

Company HQ (officers 5 enlisted 26)
Supply Service platoon(officers 1 enlisted 35)
Six Recon platoons (officers 1 enlisted 14 each)

The SEALs are organized into forteen-man platoons, each divided into two squads (seven men just fit in a rubber boat). Eight platoons and a headquarters elelement make up a SEAL Team commanded by an O-5 (Commander). There are currently seven SEAL teams.

That means that there are about 8-900 SEALs and about 300 Force Recon. The least well known of the current American Special Forces are the Air Force's Special Tactics Group.</font>[/QUOTE]So Force Recon is just normal medium recon (ie recon out past artillary range) rather than recon in front of an advancing force?

ie sounds like I was totally wrong.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
The least well known of the current American Special Forces are the Air Force's Special Tactics Group.

Is this the group portrayed in the "Stargate" movie?

Thanks for the info on the other units, Uncle Bob.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
The least well known of the current American Special Forces are the Air Force's Special Tactics Group.

Is this the group portrayed in the "Stargate" movie?

Thanks for the info on the other units, Uncle Bob.</font>[/QUOTE]Your welcome.
I think it may be the group O'Neil was supposed to come from, but O'Neil is a pilot and I have seen no role for a fighter pilot in the Special Tactics Group. OTOH, information is very scarce. For example I know the group existed in the 1980s but I didn't hear the name "Special Tactics Group" until last year.

 

[Ellros]

Marine Force Recon can also be likened to the WW2 Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT's). The are the ones to scout invasion beaches for Marine landing forces. Checking for and disposing of mines. anti-tank obstacles, suitability of the sand for tracked vehicles, etc.
They have been trained as mentioned above for insertion by parachute/scuba/etc, and I'm sure they are trained as commando type forces for raids behind enemy lines. Each branch seems to have a group trained as such.
When I ran Twilight 2000 a few years ago, all the literature we would read would allude to this option for Force Recon characters. Trained for long range reconnaissance and raids behind enemy lines.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by The Mink:
So Force Recon is just normal medium recon (ie recon out past artillary range) rather than recon in front of an advancing force?

ie sounds like I was totally wrong.[/QB]

It starts beyond artillery range, but I would call it deep recon. They are often the first troops in a theatre. All are trained divers and their roll is similar to the British SAS and SBS.

 

[themink]

Originally posted by Ellros:
Marine Force Recon can also be likened to the WW2 Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT's). The are the ones to scout invasion beaches for Marine landing forces. Checking for and disposing of mines. anti-tank obstacles, suitability of the sand for tracked vehicles, etc.

Which makes them force recon rather than Medium recon.

They are two very different roles.

Now I'm confused.

The UDT didn't really mind being traceable, their job was to pave the way for the upcoming invasion.

So my understanding of Force Recon is moving in front of a force and "preparing". This includes a mix of Recon, Sabotage and misdirection. Teams "base" with the main force and head out in front of it.

Compare that to my understanding of Medium recon whose main role is to find out what troops make up the oppositions line and where the reaction troops are (with a little Sabotage/ambush thrown in against particularly juicy targets).

So now I don;t know the Answer.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Mink, I think Force Recon Companies are Force Recon by your definition. Medium recon is handled by the Divisional Recon Battalions.

Although a lot of the direct action/sabotage is handled by SEALs who work at about the same depth.

 

[themink]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Mink, I think Force Recon Companies are Force Recon by your definition. Medium recon is handled by the Divisional Recon Battalions.

Although a lot of the direct action/sabotage is handled by SEALs who work at about the same depth.

Thank you.

One of the reasons that I get confused is that, in actual practise, everything gets smeared arround a bit.

I used to play with a medium Recon Regiment. If we were attached to a brigade which was advancing, then we'd become Force Recon (badly, it's hard to air drop M113s). If attached to a withdrawing brigade, we might be read gaurd demolition (Please god NO). A Defending force might use as Security elements or Reaction Force or Close Recon.

But our "prime" mission was to head out past the front line and "look see" out of range of support.

So in practise the lines probably aren't as clean as I'd like.

And my definitions are only my definitions. They help me build armies that I use for RPGs but when actually placed in the real world, definitions are less helpful than actually using them and seeing what they are good for vs their costs.

the Mink

"The difference between theory and practise is bigger in practise than it is in theory"

 

[Liam Devlin]

Thanx Ellros!
UDT goes back to WW-2. A precursor unit to SEALS, manned by the Navy for pre-invasion work in the pacific theater. "Frogmen" as opposed to Hard-hat "Navy Divers" (ala Men of Honor).

My dad tried out for the (then still UDT) in 1955 when he entered service at 17. He didn't have 20/20 vision-passed all the other tests, and had to choose another MOS/ Job listing. Went Crypto-technician (codes/commo).btw...