Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Special Forces > Deactivated SF Units

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-25-2009, 08:28   #1
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,489
Why a 4th BN ?

I always wondered why they dident just reactivate groups, But instead made a 4th BN in each group. Wouldent it have been easyer to just reactivate a group and fill it Would you not be accomplishing the same thing. More SF, More command positions, Easyer to equip a already established system, No need to restructure team numbers and add confusion, Place the reactivated group in a new location would mean less building and save money.
It would also bring back a piece of history and pride.
Any thoughts ?
__________________
"Make sure your plan fits the terrain or you will be slurping mud puddles”

"Me"
7624U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 08:38   #2
Pete
Quiet Professional
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 13,080
A Star?

A Star?
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 08:43   #3
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
A Star?
Ive seen that posted internaly with us pete, But it hasent happened no Star at group.
__________________
"Make sure your plan fits the terrain or you will be slurping mud puddles”

"Me"
7624U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 09:35   #4
Dozer523
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mmands_map.png I think it has to do with providing a dedicated Group to the Combatant Commands. Where teams actually go? DOTS.

(JIC, I defer to The Reaper)
Dozer523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 09:53   #5
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,829
Allegedly, it made more sense to meet the requirements to the regional combatant commands and was simpler than trying to add a Group that could easily be eliminated during cutbacks.

I actually had a former USASFC and SWCS CG tell me that he never thought we could fill the 4th battlions with SF, the extra positions were actually there to allow for SF to expand with non-18 CMF support personnel without having to ask DA for additional authorizations.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 03:08   #6
GreenSalsa
Quiet Professional
 
GreenSalsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Posts: 503
As someone in one of the new 4th battalions...

it is exponentially harder to stand up a new GROUP as opposed to standing up a new BATTALION. Establishing the new BN makes it easier to "cross load" personnel from the existing three BNs without compromising AOR integrity that would almost certainly would have happened if a new group was established.

however if my line of logic were taken further...why didn't we establish a "Delta" company under each of the existing BNs in every group--it would have made it a lot easier to bring three companies "on line" vice standing up new commands and staff sections.
__________________
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't"
GreenSalsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2010, 00:57   #7
Basenshukai
Quiet Professional
 
Basenshukai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper View Post

I actually had a former USASFC and SWCS CG tell me that he never thought we could fill the 4th battlions with SF, the extra positions were actually there to allow for SF to expand with non-18 CMF support personnel without having to ask DA for additional authorizations.

TR
I was told the exact same thing by an SF senior officer currently in an active group.
__________________
- Retired Special Forces Officer -
Special Forces Association Lifetime Member
Basenshukai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2010, 13:00   #8
WarriorDiplomat
Quiet Professional
 
WarriorDiplomat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,051
Response

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7624U View Post
I always wondered why they dident just reactivate groups, But instead made a 4th BN in each group. Wouldent it have been easyer to just reactivate a group and fill it Would you not be accomplishing the same thing. More SF, More command positions, Easyer to equip a already established system, No need to restructure team numbers and add confusion, Place the reactivated group in a new location would mean less building and save money.
It would also bring back a piece of history and pride.
Any thoughts ?
Good question, here are some thoughts from an SF guy who just helped stand up a 4th Bn which should flag in August. Higher does not seem to be set in stone on the future of the Bn they are just tasked to produce it. There has been conjecture that the Bn will be simply a Special Troops type Bn with all the support packages placed into and that the line companies would become D Co. of the first three Bns. We have all asked the questions as to how they have done it why not a Delta Co?? or why not bring back one of the Groups 11/12th and the first real question was was since all the ODA's are still not fully manned why not fill them first and see what are needs are then?? The bottom line is it boils down to politics SF has evolved and morphed so many times in its history this isn't new. As of today the new Battalion will allow us to do more without the back to back deployments of tired SF guys and their families even if the manpower is the same or the quality bad the numbers on some power point says we have 4 functioning battalions.
WarriorDiplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:17.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies