Is this "fake news"? Or maybe blowing out of proportion extent of support? Thanks.

The 75th Ranger Regiment hits the ground in Syria for Raqqa offensive SOFREP Original Content
BY JACK MURPHY 03.06.2017

After months of planning and deliberations, the 75th Ranger Regiment has been deployed to Syria to participate in the war against ISIS as the coalition closes in on the so-called caliphate’s capital city of Raqqa. Yesterday, the first images emerged of Stryker armored vehicles on their way to Manbij. This comes weeks after Rangers deployed to theater with their Strykers and elements of the 75th Ranger Regiment had been passing through Kurdistan.

By looking at the call sign tag on the back of the Stryker, it is evident that this is 3rd Ranger Battalion out of Fort Benning, Georgia, which has been confirmed via other sources. 3/75 has often spearheaded incursions into foreign countries for the Regiment, such as a conducting combat jumps into Afghanistan and Iraq during the invasions. The reason for this is because 3/75 is co-located on Fort Benning with the Regimental headquarters, making planning and coordinating easier since the other two Ranger battalions are stationed at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia and Fort Lewis, Washington.

https://sofrep.com/76380/75th-...ria-raqqa-offensive/

And see photos here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ari...s/838524636828663808

And here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Jos...?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I see elements of 75th Rangers have been in Syria since 2016 - but apparently in support of spec ops...

http://www.talkmedianews.com/p...ations-forces-syria/

Good.

Get some.

Not sure how I feel about this. ISIL is evil and needs to be sent to hell.

But until we help the Iraqis clean up Iraq, we should stay out of Syria. That is Assad and Putin's problem. And I like the idea of sitting back and letting those two deal with their problems.

Rangers in Strikers.........huh? Why not a proper RCT or a Mech Div? Seems like a waste.....or maybe SOCOM won the coin toss

Kick ass boys.

The byline is Jack Murphy from SOFREP. That is a SOF based website/podcast.

Not fake news.

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
Rangers in Strikers.........huh? Why not a proper RCT or a Mech Div? Seems like a waste.....or maybe SOCOM won the coin toss

'Cause we can. 'MERICA!!

SOCOM might as well be it's own branch of the service. The assets that make up that command all train togethet, work together, fight together. Larger regular infantry formations have their uses, but this type of operation is a SOCOM fight.

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
Rangers in Strikers.........huh? Why not a proper RCT or a Mech Div? Seems like a waste.....or maybe SOCOM won the coin toss

Rangers have been using Strykers for over 10-years now. Delta's use of Pandurs during the '03 invasion proved the utility of light-armor given their proper application. Dropping-in heavy mech/armor from a main-line unit, would only increase the footprint and logistics tail, while possibly introducing inflexible unit commanders geared towards larger formations.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Delta's use of Pandurs during the '03 invasion proved the utility of light-armor given their proper application.

The Special Forces/Ranger AGMS (Pandur 1) is a sweet little APC. Armored. All-terrain. Amphibious. Self-inflating run-flat tires. 60 MPH on good streets. Mine/IED-protected. Air-transportable. Capable of being slung under a Chinook. Air-droppable.

Thanks...learn something new everyday

Mechanized Rangers - I've seen it all now...

but to be honest - in that type of wide open terrain - with long range engagements - the Stryker is a huge asset to have at their disposal.

--------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Mechanized Rangers - I've seen it all now...

but to be honest - in that type of wide open terrain - with long range engagements - the Stryker is a huge asset to have at their disposal.

--------------------------

Motorized.

My embed-fu via Instagram isn't so good, so I'll just post this instead

From the Sheriff of Baghdad

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Mechanized Rangers - I've seen it all now...

but to be honest - in that type of wide open terrain - with long range engagements - the Stryker is a huge asset to have at their disposal.

--------------------------

Motorized.

I'm not fluent in Army jargon-Is there a difference or is mechanized not used? <sincere face on>

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Mechanized Rangers - I've seen it all now...

but to be honest - in that type of wide open terrain - with long range engagements - the Stryker is a huge asset to have at their disposal.

--------------------------

Motorized.

I'm not fluent in Army jargon-Is there a difference or is mechanized not used? <sincere face on>

Mechanized has tracks and armor, Motorized has Wheels. The phrase Motorized has fallen out of use in the US and is sometimes used (in this case) to gently poke the Stryker guys.

Mechanized is still very much in use, but it generally refers to Infantry that's rides in M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle like you would find in 3rd ID and 4th ID.

Interesting. I would have labeled Strykers and AGMSs as "mechanized" as well.

My understanding is that "mechanized" infantry have armored vehicles (like APCs or IFVs - primarily tracked but occasionally wheeled), while "motorized" infantry just have soft-skinned vehicles (like trucks). That is, it's the armor on the vehicle that makes the difference, not the presence of wheels vs. tracks.

But then my primary area of interest/expertise is WW2, where the difference between "mechanized", "motorized", and "leg" infantry was likely more distinct than today.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Interesting. I would have labeled Strykers and AGMSs as "mechanized" as well.

My understanding is that "mechanized" infantry have armored vehicles (like APCs or IFVs - primarily tracked but occasionally wheeled), while "motorized" infantry just have soft-skinned vehicles (like trucks). That is, it's the armor on the vehicle that makes the difference, not the presence of wheels vs. tracks.

But then my primary area of interest/expertise is WW2, where the difference between "mechanized", "motorized", and "leg" infantry was likely more distinct than today.

During WWII the Army created a truck mounted motorized infantry division. It never saw combat because it took up the transport footprint of an armored division while having the combat power of a leg infantry unit.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Interesting. I would have labeled Strykers and AGMSs as "mechanized" as well.

My understanding is that "mechanized" infantry have armored vehicles (like APCs or IFVs - primarily tracked but occasionally wheeled), while "motorized" infantry just have soft-skinned vehicles (like trucks). That is, it's the armor on the vehicle that makes the difference, not the presence of wheels vs. tracks.

But then my primary area of interest/expertise is WW2, where the difference between "mechanized", "motorized", and "leg" infantry was likely more distinct than today.

As I said it's an older term and a barb at the Stryker guys. In the Western side motorized meant wheeled and thin skinned as you mentioned. It has also fallen out of use in western doctrine and the US Army doctrine refers to them as Stryker units and not Motorized or Mechanized. Their actual icon set has circles (wheels)on it. Russia still uses the phrase Motor Rifle to describe their Armored car riding and Mechanized Infantry. For example the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle division assigned to the 1st Guard Tank Army in the Western Military District.

I use it as poke or friendly joke because the Stryker was very lightly armed and lightly armored in it's originally fielded form. The Stryker is finally getting the auto cannon and turret it should have had when it was initially fielded. Thanks to the efforts of 2CR. The hulls are also being or have been refit to improve survivability.

Interesting that the Strykers only had slat armor on the front versus 360 as in Iraq. I guess weight and stability issue experienced in Iraq?

Did read a while back that Strykers in Iraq did have premature wear on drivetrain due to extra weight of the 360 slat armor.

I had a 'light infantry' guy on my team in Iraq who was singing the Stryker's praises, including it went from 18 months(or less) from a proposal to a working Brigade, which he was a part of. He was brow beating a guy who came from the M2/M3 Bradley community, and was saying how much better his platform was over the Bradley in every way. It got to a point I chimed in that the reason why the R&D was so short is because the US Marines have been doing it for over 20 years as the LAV-25, and our NATO friends use the same hull in their APCs too.