Ranger teams

[commando1]

Lately I have heard of several "Ranger" teams starting up in surrounding units. What exactly is the difference between a ground team and a "Ranger" team? Would it not only create elitism within a unit? Please, someone enlighten me about this phenomenon! 

[EMT-83]

There is no such thing as a "Ranger Team" in CAP.

Not ever.

[stillamarine]

FLWG has ranger teams....If I recall correctly they are organized as rapid response teams to natural disasters, such as hurricanes and the like.

[commando1]

 EMT-83 Perhaps not officially... ...stillamarine...I believe that would fall under the duties of a Ground Team... 

[♠SARKID♠]

Lately I have heard of several "Ranger" teams starting up in surrounding units. What exactly is the difference between a ground team and a "Ranger" team? Would it not only create elitism within a unit? Please, someone enlighten me about this phenomenon! 

Its a morale title, nothing more.

[FlyTiger77]

Lately I have heard of several "Ranger" teams starting up in surrounding units. What exactly is the difference between a ground team and a "Ranger" team? Would it not only create elitism within a unit? Please, someone enlighten me about this phenomenon! 

Its a morale title, nothing more.

Hmmmmmmm....Then perhaps "Thunderbird Teams" might be more appropriate. At least they would then be drawing their boosted morale from something based in the Air Force.

[JC004]

Hasn't this crap been discussed here a million times?  I'm sure there are more than enough search results on this.   

[DakRadz]

Hasn't this crap been discussed here a million times?  I'm sure there are more than enough search results on this.   

Smiley officially stolen, sir.

Ranger teams? Seriously?
The very nature of such teams of any name of this type is the antithesis of what they are named after.

Ever heard of the "quiet professional"? Well, that's been my experience with both SpecOps-types and regular 4-year PFC "did my time proud and got out" vets. Announcing themselves as Rangers or vets (to me, who is a 3 time cadet and plans to join- and knows them pretty well) doesn't happen much. And not in such a blatant way.

PAWG Hawk Mountain have the potential to actually reflect this attitude in their graduates- I've witnessed that quiet professional a few times. Due to the facilities and resources at Hawk Mt. I give them this credit- the quiet professional graduate of Hawk could do a lot of good.

Others are (generally) merely wanting to-
Bling themselves well up, chaps, I say.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 I find myself wondering if there shouldn't be a Captalk version of Godwin's Law somewhere...

[a2capt]

In keeping with the theme of things .. it should be called Goddard's Law ...

[♠SARKID♠]

Others are (generally) merely wanting to-
Bling themselves well up, chaps, I say.

Isn't it though.

[stillamarine]

EMT-83 Perhaps not officially... ...stillamarine...I believe that would fall under the duties of a Ground Team... 

Sigh.

Yes I understand Ground Teams.

FLWG at least for awhile had preformed ground teams set up for rapid response. I'm pretty sure they were called Ranger teams. These ground teams were designed to be able to deploy together within a specific amount of time and they deployed as a team.

How often are you able to get the same group of members together in a short amount of time? Not to mention the same ones all the time?

[sarmed1]

Florida has "Recon Teams" and it used to have Disaster Response and Ground Teams that were Special Operations capable.  They are/were to handle the State OEM recon mission (damage assessment); 4 person team, 72 hours self sustainig sheltered in place in the impact area to provide visual recon of the damage, and transmit back to the EOC accurate and hopefully photo supported data of the severity of damage to local infrastructure.

PAWG's Ranger Program teaches the Ranger Team Concept: and it is reflected in their draft ES supplement (and I say draft, since it isnt an approved supplement at this time, even though its how most units structure themselves)
So the theory goes:
A ranger team is a 12 person SAR/DR team capable of self sustaining operations for 72 hours.  Capable of performing ELT/DF search, aircraft crash operations, missing person search & rescue, emergency first aid, radio communications,  and low angle rescue.  There is something about any terrain and any season in there too I think.  It spells out specific assignemnts for team members as well, also breaks teams down into specific capabilites based on the level of training of the team members.....both in  skill sets and equipment needs. (like the whole NIMS level I, II & III teams)

I would say unless you are in PA where it is pretty much the rule of the land, anything else is just going for elite sounding name. (unless your wing has chosen to hop on the band wagon and has an actual "Ranger" program)

mk

[JC004]

First, a statement of facts to address the issue of those who seem to think the term is something made up recently to create elite units.  When the idea of CAP ground teams was first coming to be, PAWG established Ranger Teams, set up training, published a manual - all that stuff.  The name pre-dates the national concept of ground teams, so it's wasn't something made up to make elite units on top of ground teams.  It has been used nationwide in different programs, most of which have been closed over the decades. 

Second, to give credit where credit is due - I used to have a copy (maybe still do) of the first ranger manual published by PAWG.  It, for decades, was the first comprehensive SAR training materials in CAP (and quite good - I got it as a kid before I was in CAP and learned a lot about outdoors things) that I've been able to find in any of my CAP history digging.  I didn't dig for this specifically, but it seems to be the case from what I've seen. 

Lastly, think what you will about it, but I just wanted to mention what is actually the history here.  There are, in all likelihood, units starting up "Ranger Teams" for elite-sounded purposes, but I think that even if you're going to hate something, you should know the history and facts.  I don't care to be in the debate over what it should be called today or any of that crap, but I think that people should be informed.  I really don't care - I think we have bigger fish to fry.  I think the PAWG Ranger people do too, since they have to work on what their program will mean in a contemporary CAP since its original advantages were taken from it by NHQ when NHQ adopted many of the concepts like actual sign-off sheets instead of something like the old 101T card with just a number of missions, proficiency testing/renewal of qualifications, a tiered structure of qualifications, etc.  When I joined, we had a CRAP ES program with crap training and crap a sign-off system.  I used the ranger qualifications in my unit to train my people to a standard since CAP didn't have one.  After CAP adapted real standards and training materials, we didn't really use that program anymore and used the National program, but that is how we and our unit CC decided to do things.

[stillamarine]

Florida has "Recon Teams" and it used to have Disaster Response and Ground Teams that were Special Operations capable.  They are/were to handle the State OEM recon mission (damage assessment); 4 person team, 72 hours self sustainig sheltered in place in the impact area to provide visual recon of the damage, and transmit back to the EOC accurate and hopefully photo supported data of the severity of damage to local infrastructure.

PAWG's Ranger Program teaches the Ranger Team Concept: and it is reflected in their draft ES supplement (and I say draft, since it isnt an approved supplement at this time, even though its how most units structure themselves)
So the theory goes:
A ranger team is a 12 person SAR/DR team capable of self sustaining operations for 72 hours.  Capable of performing ELT/DF search, aircraft crash operations, missing person search & rescue, emergency first aid, radio communications,  and low angle rescue.  There is something about any terrain and any season in there too I think.  It spells out specific assignemnts for team members as well, also breaks teams down into specific capabilites based on the level of training of the team members.....both in  skill sets and equipment needs. (like the whole NIMS level I, II & III teams)

I would say unless you are in PA where it is pretty much the rule of the land, anything else is just going for elite sounding name. (unless your wing has chosen to hop on the band wagon and has an actual "Ranger" program)

mk

THank you. Recon teams is the name. I stated in my first post that I thought they were called ranger teams but I was wrong. Let me say this, if so many people get upset at them being called Ranger teams than why don't people get upset with them being called Recon Teams? As an old 0321, I don't find it offensive myself.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If it doesn't offend actual Army Rangers that we have in CAP, then why make a stink of it anyways? Even if it does offend actual Army Rangers why the stink isn't a CAP term of Ranger different than an Army term of Ranger? If you were to call (not saying it should be or would be justified) regular Ground Teams Infantry, I know I wouldn't be offended, Even if I were in CAP the term Infantry would mean a different thing than the Army term of Infantry. Simple as that. If CAP has a history of the use of the term Ranger then I think we should get back to it to preserve the history and tradition. Progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing, sometimes you lose what is dear to some. I love history and tradition and think as much as possible should be kept.

[arajca]

The problem with CAP Ranger teams comes from Hawk Mountain and the mostly negative experiences the members have had with it's graduates.

If you want to talk history, you need to take the good AND the bad. When members come back from Hawk, NBB, etc and decide (or have been told) they're special or elite simply because of that training and refuse to work with anyone who hasn't had the same training, you have a problem. BTDT.

If Hawk rangers were the 'quiet professionals' they proclaim to be, these problems wouldn't occur. But they aren't - at least not in my experiences with them. I know folks will defend Hawk, NBB, etc to their dying breath that they tell the students how to behave, but given the results I have seen, it doesn't work.

[JC004]

What sort of people do you play with?  None of the people I've known who went to NBB behave like this.  Being located in PAWG, I know enough people who did the Hawk program to have a pretty diverse view of them and they do as people do - behave in different ways according to their personality.  Some are my friends.  Some are not.  Various people from there got my unit and me situated when I started putting together an ES program.  I was not in their program and they worked with me.  Neither was anyone else in the unit at the time.  So I didn't see them refusing the work with the outsiders.  Some, however, would according to their personalities.  The program has also been different over the years with different staff people.

I'm not involved with that program.  Even when I taught classes there and things, I didn't really do the grade thing (except as an starting-out cadet since there wasn't another program).  So I'm not pushing it and I don't care to play with the constant arguments here that NEVER CHANGE but people repeat over and over and over and over in new and different threads.  Perhaps, though, people should find solutions instead of doing the same old arguments of either "they're evil," or "they're good."

[FlyTiger77]

If it doesn't offend actual Army Rangers that we have in CAP, then why make a stink of it anyways? Even if it does offend actual Army Rangers why the stink isn't a CAP term of Ranger different than an Army term of Ranger? If you were to call (not saying it should be or would be justified) regular Ground Teams Infantry, I know I wouldn't be offended, Even if I were in CAP the term Infantry would mean a different thing than the Army term of Infantry. Simple as that. If CAP has a history of the use of the term Ranger then I think we should get back to it to preserve the history and tradition. Progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing, sometimes you lose what is dear to some. I love history and tradition and think as much as possible should be kept.

From my perspective, words have meaning. Calling a cow a duck won't make it quack. I don't think CAP's use of the term 'Ranger' is as much offensive as it is just a bit silly, in my opinion. Obviously, every one is entitled to their own opinion and this one is merely mine.

[arajca]

Hosetly, I can't say if they've changed in the past few years since everytime I see one headed my way, I leave. My experience is they aren't worth talking to, so I don't. YMMV.