Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: LRRPs
Keywords: doctrine vs neccessity
Message-ID: <5237@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 30 Mar 89 05:00:58 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: The Boeing Co., BAC MMST, Seattle, WA
Lines: 37
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt)

  >...it is incorrect to state that the US Army does not train troops 
  >specifically for LRRP......

  Well, to clarify:  By current Table of Organizations, the
  US Army does not have a TO&E LRRP unit.  By doctrine they should exist
  at Corps-level.  But, today - non exist.  

  But you are correct in stating that units organize their own LRRP 
  capabilities and train for LRRP operations.  It's done by necessity.
  We did it in the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division - and also in the
  3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division.  Some battalions create a LRRP
  capability out of their Scout Platoons.  At one point in the development
  of 'doctrine' and 'organization', divisions had LRRP platoons organic to
  Combat Intelligence Companies (I commanded one such company in the 
  1st Div).

  There's always been a doctrinal conflict between the Infantry School and
  the Intelligence School about where LRRPs should be.  Since their mission
  is (should) be pure intelligence collection, Intel has always wanted them
  to be with Intelligence Units.  However, since LRRPs are basically 
  infantrymen - Infantry shudders at the possibility of infantry under 
  control of someone else.  Then, you give a commander a unit of infantry
  with some combat power - and he employs them as a combat unit - not as
  LRRPs.  That's been my experience.  

  NATO LRRPs, on the other hand, will work for nobody but the Corps G-2.

  
  major

                             "Scouts out!"