|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
01-12-2011, 03:39 AM | #14671 |
I.O. SpecOps
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In a secret underground bunker.
Posts: 4,404
|
I believe they usually secure the perimeter, when Delta/CAG/AWG clear buildings during hostage rescue situations. Otherwise they're known for seizing hostile airfields. That job is starting to be shared with the USAF Special Tactics Teams. Rangers can also be tasked to do alot of standard infantry missions, but can be deployed worldwide on a lot shorter notice.
__________________
Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery? http://www.hisstank.com/forum/g-i-jo...r1s-b-s-t.html |
01-12-2011, 04:30 AM | #14672 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Army Field Manual 7-85, Chapter 1
NATO/DoD defines special operations as such (paraphrasing by me): Operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations often require covert, clandestine, or low visibility capabilities. Special operations differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, mode of employment, independence from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets. The 75th Ranger Regiment's designation as a "special light infantry" unit conflates the concept of light infantry with that of special operations. Depending on the specific context of usage, the term "special light infantry operation" as used in Field Manual 7-85 can either refer to a conventional light infantry mission conducted in support of special operations or it can refer to an independent light infantry mission that is executed with the features ascribed to special operations. Last edited by zuludelta; 01-12-2011 at 05:05 AM.. Reason: edited for clarity and formatting |
01-12-2011, 04:50 AM | #14673 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Also, in recent years, there's been some blurring of the distinction between the tasks primarily performed by the 75th Ranger Regiment (a special light/airborne infantry unit), the conventional light infantry battalions under the 10th Mountain Division, and the conventional airborne infantry battalions under the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team and the 82nd Airborne Division. More and more, conventional light infantry and conventional airborne infantry are conducting missions that would be considered at least on some level as "special operations" or "special airborne infantry/special light infantry" missions.
This has to do with the changing face of warfare. The lines that used to divide conventional warfare/conventional operations and unconventional warfare/special operations aren't so clear cut anymore in the current age of small wars and insurgencies (the argument can be made that the distinctions began blurring during the Vietnam War and that the definitions currently in use do not fully reflect the realities of post-Cold War conflicts). This ties into a current argument about whether or not these conventional infantry units have sufficient training to be doing some of the tasks they're being assigned to do in the greater Southwest Asia region (I'm not even going into that argument, suffice it to say that there are merits to both sides of the discussion). Last edited by zuludelta; 01-12-2011 at 05:07 AM.. |
01-13-2011, 12:43 AM | #14674 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,235
|
Quote:
watching the Military Channel the other day, I had some random thoughts pop into my head about Stalker and his Green Beret status. And while the file cards give no definitive answer, some points to consider:
1) He is often shown wearing a green beret. (And when he isn't, he is wearing a "special forces thermal cap" 2) He is listed as proficient with the M3A1 and M32--often associated with SOG and GB in Vietnam. 3) His first figure (and others) show him in an "unofficial" camouflage pattern, which may have been an attempt to depict the tiger-stripe came used by SF in Nam. Or it could be an indication of wearing a "third party" pattern/uniform for deniability, another common SF practice. *Interestingly, Stalker, Scarlett and Snake Eyes are the only original Joes not in "uniform." Makes me wonder why. Stalker is also the only "beret" on the team at that time. Technically, (barring SE) the only "Special" trained (Ranger or SF) at the formation of the Joes. Of all the figures, his seems the most "taken out of a Green Berets in Vietnam history book." if you know what I mean. 4) He is originally equip with a Finnish (?) M-32 SMG, a non-American weapons, following the plausible deniability theory (like the uniform). 5) P/SMS: Infantry and Medic/Interpreter. A very interesting combo, that follows Special Forces multi-discipline training policy/strategy. I don't know what to make of his "EOD" Primary days, but even so, the theory stands. He also has Intelligence School training according to most cards. Conclusion: I think Stalker was originally based on a Green Beret illustration or historic photo and was intended to be a GB, but because the Joe teams was suppose to be "Delta Force," the downplayed it so as not to confuse the kids, or to have silly fanboy questions asked like "Why are none of the other Joes GBs?" etc. For my universe, Joes are a Delta like unit, with a separate selection and training process. That's why you can have GBs, SEaLs and former Delta operators join. Due to the classified nature and the need for unit security, other non-SO trained people are accepted to fill various duties. Stalker is an old-school GB/SOG/MACV operator. (I am old enough remember when the Joes' history in Nam was feasible and despite the discontinuity, I still kind of play by it.) |
01-13-2011, 04:14 AM | #14675 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
watching the Military Channel the other day, I had some random thoughts pop into my head about Stalker and his Green Beret status. And while the file cards give no definitive answer, some points to consider:
1) He is often shown wearing a green beret. (And when he isn't, he is wearing a "special forces thermal cap"... ... His first figure (and others) show him in an "unofficial" camouflage pattern, which may have been an attempt to depict the tiger-stripe came used by SF in Nam. Or it could be an indication of wearing a "third party" pattern/uniform for deniability, another common SF practice. Also, if you take a look at the the 1982/1983 card art, it seems like the design was for Stalker to be wearing a two-toned camouflage beret, and not the deep jungle green beret that US Army Special Forces soldiers are more commonly associated with. I have a suspicion that the toy's beret was supposed to be coloured in a pattern reminiscent of Vietnam War-era ERDL Woodland, but given the limitations of paint application technology at the time, Hasbro just went with a solid green colour. The thing is, if we're to take the Stalker design as being inspired by non-standard Vietnam War-era uniforms worn by special operations forces, he could be anything, from a Green Beret, to a Ranger, to a Navy SEAL, to Marine Force Recon, all of whom wore ARVN tiger-stripe or US Army ERDL woodland camouflage patterned BDUs and berets while working as scouts and ARVN advisers. The ERDL Woodland beret + ERDL Woodland/ARVN tiger-stripe BDU combination was especially common among SEALs operating in the Mekong Delta: Left: SEAL HM2 Clarke Long wearing ERDL Woodland beret and USMC "duck hunter/frog-skin" patterned scarf, picture dated 1967; Right: unidentifed SEAL, wearing ERDL Woodland beret and ARVN tiger-stripe BDU, on patrol along the Mekong River Delta, picture dated 1968 Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Stalker was intended by toy designer Ron Rudat to be a Navy SEAL, all I'm saying is that it's not even close to a certainty that he was intended to be a Green Beret by Rudat based solely on the colour of the toy's headgear and the patterning on his uniform, especially if we take into consideration that this was a Vietnam War-era inspired design and that Rudat put in a lot of visual research with the earlier Joes. This also means that the colour of the toy's beret and BDU camo pattern doesn't invalidate Hama's decision to write Stalker as a Ranger, and not as a Green Beret, since ERDL Woodland and ARVN tiger-stripe berets and BDUs were also commonly worn by non-SF provisional LRRP units and the later 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) LRRP units during the Vietnam War: Left: Unidentifed 3/506 Infantry LRRP marksman, wearing ERDL Woodland beret and ARVN tiger-stripe BDU, undated (circa 1968?) picture taken by Dan Roberts Right: 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) LRRP team, undated (circa 1969?) photo; standing (from L-R) John Bedford (wearing ERDL Woodland beret and ARVN tiger-stripe BDU), Steve Curtis (wearing ERDL Woodland BDU); kneeling (L-R): unidentified Kit Carson scout (wearing ARVN tiger-stripe boonie hat and BDU), Mike Blymer (wearing ARVN tiger-stripe boonie hat and ERDL Woodland BDU) I guess what I'm saying is, the fact that Stalker is depicted wearing a two-toned camouflage beret (at least in the original 1982 card art) does not contradict the Ranger background ascribed to him by Larry Hama, nor does it mean that he is SF, since ERDL Woodland berets were commonly worn by non-SF special operations units such as the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) during the Vietnam War. Last edited by zuludelta; 01-13-2011 at 12:46 PM.. Reason: edited for clarity, pictures added |
01-13-2011, 05:27 AM | #14676 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
From the comics we've already deduced that Snake Eyes worked for SOG because of the classfied SOG document that is on the front cover of one of the issues. As for Stalker, it's not certain but if he did work recon for SOG then that pretty much guarantees that he was SF.
But just because they trained with MACV-SOG doesn't mean that they were Special Forces. While the provisional infantry LRRP units (of which Snake-Eyes, Stalker, and Storm-Shadow were members) sent for MACV-SOG training post-1966 received what basically amounts to functional SF training, they weren't Special Forces in an administrative and organizational sense. The provisional LRRP units might have been trained by MACV-SOG Special Forces personnel, but they weren't a part of MACV-SOG and they didn't "work for" MACV-SOG. After MACV-SOG training, the majority of LRRP soldiers returned to their parent infantry battalions, their MOSes unchanged (MACV-SOG wasn't a "MOS-producing" school). What happened next is that in 1969, these MAVC-SOG trained LRRP units were reorganized and consolidated into the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger). Take note that the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) is different from the current 75th Ranger Regiment (Airborne). The latter was formally established in 1986 and although it was assigned the lineage of the former (which was inactivated soon after the end of the Vietnam War), they are functionally different. I'm pretty sure that the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) is where Larry Hama derived Stalker's "job" of being a Ranger from. When he wrote the original 13 filecards in 1980/1981, it was a full five or six years before the current 75th Ranger Regiment (Airborne) was formally created. So Hama's idea of what a "ranger" does is most likely based on the duties performed by the MACV-SOG trained, non-SF LRRPs of the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) during the Vietnam War (Hama is a Vietnam vet, after all). These days, the operations formerly performed by the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) would probably be classified as missions that are more suitable for the Military Intelligence Corps' BfSB LRS Troops, and not the modern 75th Ranger Regiment (with the exception of the Regimental Reconnaissance Company, I suppose). Last edited by zuludelta; 01-13-2011 at 01:44 PM.. Reason: edited for clarity |
01-13-2011, 01:24 PM | #14677 |
File Name: CLASSIFIED
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Myrtle Beach
Posts: 259
|
Quote:
From the comics we've already deduced that Snake Eyes worked for SOG because of the classfied SOG document that is on the front cover of one of the issues. As for Stalker, it's not certain but if he did work recon for SOG then that pretty much guarantees that he was SF.
|
01-13-2011, 01:51 PM | #14678 |
File Name: CLASSIFIED
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Myrtle Beach
Posts: 259
|
Quote:
I wouldn't put too much stock in the toy's beret colour and BDU camo pattern as an indicator of which branch of the Army Stalker came from....
...I guess what I'm saying is, the fact that Stalker is depicted wearing a two-toned camouflage beret (at least in the original 1982 card art) does not contradict the Ranger background ascribed to him by Larry Hama, nor does it mean that he is SF, since ERDL Woodland berets were commonly worn by non-SF special operations units such as the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) during the Vietnam War. I did see the two-tone beret art and wondered about that. I thought it might have been artistic license because I wasn't aware of camo berets prior to the proposed (but unused) uniform design circa 1988. Thanks for the intel dump. Your points on the uniform are valid, although I think my theory still has a bit of wiggle room and the uniform cues are just part of my theory. On a sidebar, I did think I read somewhere on the history of the Green Beret, that MACV/SOG trained troops were "patched-over" (to use a biker term) and allowed to wear the green beret...(although I can't find the reference right now)... |
01-13-2011, 01:56 PM | #14679 |
File Name: CLASSIFIED
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Myrtle Beach
Posts: 259
|
Quote:
IIRC, in a flashback shown in issue #94 of the original Marvel series, Stalker and Storm-Shadow (along with Snake-Eyes) were supposed to report to MACV-SOG training in January of 1968....
...Military Intelligence Corps' BfSB LRS Troops, and not the modern 75th Ranger Regiment (with the exception of the Regimental Reconnaissance Company, I suppose). |
01-13-2011, 02:20 PM | #14680 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Heh. Thanks again. For my money, I think the LRS Troops/Companies attached to the MI Corps BfSBs are the "spiritual successors" of the Vietnam War-era 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) LRRP companies. I say this with no offense meant to people who have served and continue to serve with the 75th Ranger Regiment (Airborne), of course. But in terms of their function, the LRS Troops'/Companies' mission seems to embody that of the 75th Infantry Regiment's LRRP mission more than the 75th Ranger Regiment's direct action one. Last edited by zuludelta; 01-13-2011 at 02:24 PM.. |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Please Help! Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 2 | 10-26-2008 06:14 PM |
Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 18 | 10-24-2008 09:17 PM |
Filecards Wanted!!!! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-17-2008 10:25 PM |
Filecards Wanted! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-05-2008 04:15 PM |
Quaid Spills Secrets on "G.I. Joe" | HissCommander | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 108 | 10-01-2008 11:23 AM |
|
|
Recent Off Topic Threads |
What song are you listening to? |
1:18 Airwolf kickstarter |
4" Fortnite from Jazwares |
JazWares 18th Halo |
Marvel Universe 3.75" figures |