US Marauder Companies

[James Langham]

Another short essay, feel free to comment.

US Army Marauder Companies

In early 1997 SACEUR authorised the creation of divisional level long range reconnaissance and raiding companies. Initially intended to be called LRRRCs the name was changed in mid training as a deception plan.

Strength was authorised as 5 officers and 114 men broken down into three platoons of 1 officer plus 36 men. This further broke down into 3 sections of 8 plus three mg teams of 3 plus an NCO forming a weapons section. Few units however reached this level of personnel, most being at perhaps half strength.. All support matters other than medics were provided from divisional staff.

Training was conducted at Bad Tolz by members of the 10th Special Forces Group with the first course starting in May 1997. Training lasted ten weeks and covered physical fitness, weapon handling of foreign and support weapons, land navigation, forward observation, vehicle handling and vehicle maintenance. In July the course was reduced to four weeks with the personnel being assigned a speciality instead of covering the broad spectrum.

It was proposed to equip the Marauders with HMMWVs but there were never enough to go round (although many units “liberated” them) and M151s were often issued. Also seen were FAVs. Very occasionally light armour could be encountered The best known example was is the 8th Division's Marauder company with two Wiesels that were traded from the German Army. These were both lost in action during the 8th's drive through Poland in the summer of 2000.

Most divisions in Europe used Marauder Companies. The name however led to problems as the term marauder had by now become synonymous with bandits (it has been suggested that this is due to the first bandits being mistaken for Marauder Companies). From 1st January 2000 they returned to the name LRRRCs.

The idea has also been adopted in the US after Operation Omega under the name (Rapid Deployment Groups – MILGOV and Mobile Strike Companies - CIVGOV) .

CENTCOM has generally not used the concept as the higher proportion of light units have meant that they are not needed to the same level.

[Raellus]

I like it. I've proposed a similar in-theatre Recondo school for training divisional LRRP companies for long-range reconaissance patrolling.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...hlight=recondo (see post #10)

I've also proposed a similar multinational [NTO] "raider" unit for use by Corps level HQ (1st Interallied Commando).

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...t=inter-allied

For your concept, I would change the name to Raider Companies. There's precedent in the U.S. armed forces for use of this term. Marauder is synonymous with lawlessness and banditry. It sounds cool, but after about '98, it would become confusing. Maybe the units started out designated "marauder" and then changed to "raider" later on.

[Benjamin]

Historically, the term Scouts or Rangers would make a bit more sense. The US Army had long used scouts (not just Indian but local colonials in the pre-Revolution era and local militia during the War of 1812 and Civil War). Of course the term Rangers was already taken by the 75th Regiment but there were no official "Scout" units (except perhaps the 207th Infantry Group, Alaska Army National Guard, mislabeled and enlarged in the U.S. Army Vehicle Guide as the 1st and 2nd Infantry Brigades (Arctic Recon)).

Either way it's still a very good write up. Thanks.

Benjamin

[Adm.Lee]

Would these be in addition to the LRP (or is is LRSU?) unit in the divisional Military Intelligence battalion? IIRC, those guys had a lot of Ranger-qualified individuals, but I can't remember if it's a platoon or company. They were definitely scouts and not raiders, though.

I remember this, from when the Black Beret was instituted to give morale. I had a pal in the EW side of an MI battalion, who told me the big and burly-looking fellows in his unit were not happy to be giving "their" berets to the geeks and paper-pushers of the rest of the battalion.

To my mind, '97 may be too early, but around '98, when things break down and the front goes static, I could see SACEur (wearing his Seventh Army CG hat) setting this up to give his division commanders more recon assets at their disposal. I'd think these might be the first guys to get access to horses, and/or the last ones to lose access to helos.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I remember this, from when the Black Beret was instituted to give morale. I had a pal in the EW side of an MI battalion, who told me the big and burly-looking fellows in his unit were not happy to be giving "their" berets to the geeks and paper-pushers of the rest of the battalion.

Ironically, the Rangers are getting their black berets back, now that the rest of the Army has decided to switch back to patrol caps.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Ironically, the Rangers are getting their black berets back, now that the rest of the Army has decided to switch back to patrol caps.

Last I heard (since the switch was announced just prior to 06/14) is that the black beret is going to remain the army wide head gear for Class As, just not for use in ACUs unless specially directed by local commanders.

Always was a silly idea, in any case. Hopefully I'll have orders by the end of the month letting my put my red one back on.

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Would these be in addition to the LRP (or is is LRSU?) unit in the divisional Military Intelligence battalion? IIRC, those guys had a lot of Ranger-qualified individuals, but I can't remember if it's a platoon or company. They were definitely scouts and not raiders, though.

The term is LRSU (unit) or LRSD (detachment) or LRSC (company). When the Army organized the LRSC's in the late 80's all officers and NCO had to Airborne, HALO and Ranger Q'd. Enlisted personell had to be Airborne and pre-Ranger Q'd. More often than not all most all the early teams consisted entirely of Ranger Q'd (or tabbed if you prefer) personell.

I like the Idea of fast moving raiding parties to harass the enemy or disrupt thier supply lines. Sir James you are a madman! All of your write ups are excellent.

[Legbreaker]

If they weren't organised until post nuke, then I'd imagine the requirement for airborne/parachute/halo qualification would be dropped.
Emphasis would be placed on physical fitness, long distance marching, horse riding, and vehicle skills, in addition to rifle, machinegun, demolitions, boobytraps and mine warfare.
I see their role being similar to that of the Finnish Sissi units - stay behind the lines acting as guerrillas and saboteurs, living off the land and whatever they capture from the enemy.

[James Langham]

The article fully fleshed out.

[Raellus]

Great stuff, James. Your work on organization, equipment, and training is really cool. Being a v1.0 afficionado, I just can't divorce the term "marauder" from the eponymous criminal/military elements of the T2K verse. I'm going to use your unit concept but call it a Raider Company instead.

[Adm.Lee]

I like it.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Great stuff, James. Your work on organization, equipment, and training is really cool. Being a v1.0 afficionado, I just can't divorce the term "marauder" from the eponymous criminal/military elements of the T2K verse. I'm going to use your unit concept but call it a Raider Company instead.

No problems with that, I am not writing canon and EVERYTHING I write is intended for others to modify to suit their own campaign.

I still plan to use the term marauder as it gives a possible origin for the term later in the war as it feels an odd term to have been used to me. I would have thought bandit was more likely in real life.

[Legbreaker]

Personally I always disliked the term "marauder" as used in T2K. Bandits, thieves, ruffians - they all seemed more fitting, but that's probably just me.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by James Langham

I still plan to use the term marauder as it gives a possible origin for the term later in the war as it feels an odd term to have been used to me. I would have thought bandit was more likely in real life.

That makes sense. I imagine that "marauder" companies would still be around later in the war and using the term to describe both friendly forces and bandits could cause some potentially disastrous confusion. It could lead either to friendly fire incidents or to hostile forces being given a pass, as it were. That, and the fact that I've associated the term marauder with bandits ever since getting my hands on the v1.0 box at the tender age of 11, is why I'd prefer not to call the type of units you've so brilliantly described marauders.

[Medic]

James, you got to stop giving me ideas! Got three online campaigns running and I play in more than I should. And awesome work, by the way.