PDA

View Full Version : Evolution Of LRRPs


hist2004
08-18-2004, 10:43 AM
The LRRPs were a link to America's military past, but they would also become a bridge to its future.

By Gary P. Joyce

"Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch. Then let him have it and jump out and finish him off with your hatchet." That was one of the standing orders for Rogers' Rangers in 1759 for combat operations during the French and Indian War in the forests of New England. More than two centuries later, that same approach would serve their successors well during combat operations in the jungles of Vietnam.

Hunters And Trackers

The long-range reconnaissance patrols (LRRPs) of the Vietnam War operated in a silent netherworld of dark green shadows where error could mean death and where the extraordinary was commonplace. Traveling in small groups -- often only three or four men -- far from friendly forces, they strove to look, smell, move and act as much as possible like the enemy they sought in the depths of the jungle. LRRPs were hunters and trackers, and their elusive prey was the NVA and VC.

They were adept at the art of ambush, the quiet kill, unseen movement and survival. They wafted through the jungle like a solitary breeze, briefly felt, quickly gone. They were the eyes and ears of a roaring, earth-splitting, technological typhoon of destruction -- the killing machine that was the U.S. military in the Republic of Vietnam.

The LRRPs -- a small, unheralded, elite force of specialists in guerrilla warfare -- were an all-volunteer group of soldiers with a minimum of formal training in the skills of covert counterinsurgency operations. Nevertheless, they had an effect on the overall military operations in Vietnam that was completely out of proportion to their number.

Adopted Tactics

The war in Vietnam presented the American military with a task it was initially not prepared to carry out. Focused on the Cold War and conventional conflict with the Soviet Union, military strategy during the years preceding Vietnam had depended largely on high-tech weaponry, where the tactic was to throw enough money, equipment, troops and firepower at an enemy to overwhelm him. Faced with the prospect of protracted jungle warfare in Southeast Asia, America's military leaders were forced to return to less conventional tactics -- some of which had been pioneered long before the 20th century.

The long-range patrol concept -- sending small groups of men far into enemy territory to harass, interdict, wreak havoc and gather intelligence while remaining undiscovered -- was not new. In American history, it can be traced back to the beginning of the French and Indian War in the mid-1750s, when then-Colonel George Washington wrote, "Indians are the only match for Indians." New Hampshire woodsman Robert Rogers joined a scout company during the French and Indian War and was eventually promoted to major and commander of nine so-called "ranger" companies. Using marching orders that are still issued to U.S. Army Rangers today, the original Rogers' Rangers were successful in their harassment of the French along the Hudson River because they adopted the Indian skills of stealthy approach, ambush and woodcraft during their raids.

America's Ranger Heritage

Those same unorthodox tactics were espoused by contemporary military men from other nations, as well. Colonel Henri Bouquet, a Swiss mercenary employed by the British, wrote that the war fought in the wilds of the New World required that "troops destined to engage Indians must be lightly clothed, armed and accoutred...." Although Bouquet was speaking of troops in company-size strength, the new tactics -- considered heretical in an era of massed troop formations -- were catching on. To fight natives on their own soil, do as they do -- act like them.

The American Revolution saw fast-moving, lightly equipped guerrilla forces led behind British lines by men such as Colonel Francis Marion (the famed "Swamp Fox"), Thomas Sumter and Andrew Pickens. As would happen again and again in future wars, those irregulars were laughed at and virtually ignored by the conventional military early in the conflict. But it would be the guerrilla raids of Patriot partisans between 1780 and 1781 that eventually countered the British strategy in the American South and led to the surrender at Yorktown.

Some 80 years later, during the Civil War, the Confederacy put irregular forces to use on a regular basis. Southern leaders such as John Hunt Morgan, John Mosby and Nathan Bedford Forrest frequently ranged along the flanks of and far behind the Union forces. Asked about his tactical successes, Forrest replied succinctly, "I always make it a rule to get there first with the most men."

The Indian Wars brought to public notice Indian leaders such as Sioux warrior Crazy Horse, Nez Perce warrior Yellow Wolf and Apache warriors Mangas Coloradas, Cochise, Nana, Victorio and Geronimo -- skillful fighters who knew how to make use of guerrilla tactics better than any of their white opponents. On the whole their forces were too fragmented to put forth a cohesive effort, but even though they were constantly pursued, usually outnumbered and possessed inferior arms, some groups still managed to hold out against U.S. Army Regulars into the 20th century.

Modern Ideas About Patrols

World War II brought the concept of patrols working and living in the backyard of the enemy into the modern era. "Twenty men is a good number to work with, but 15 is better than 20, and at night 10 is better than 15," declared British Brigadier Orde C. Wingate, organizer of the so-called Gideon Force, a fast-moving commando unit that adopted hit-and-run tactics during the North African campaigns early in World War II.

Wingate's mercurial personality kept him at odds with the military establishment of his time, but the successes of the Gideon Force against the Italians in Sudan and Ethiopia proved to many that the concept of a lightweight force worked. Many military strategists of the time, firmly rooted in traditional warfare tactics, disregarded Wingate's methods, but the British commando leader pursued the concept nevertheless. After he outlined his ideas on what he termed "long-range penetration" in a formal paper to the British high command, he was given another opportunity to put the concept into action in Burma in 1942.

Wingate believed that small groups of troops (small connoted brigade-size at that time), working in the rear of the enemy, supplied by air and in communication with main force commanders, could tie up enough enemy manpower to aid regular military operations within the theater. Wingate's Raiders -- more commonly known as Chindits -- put his theory into practice during their operations against the Japanese in northern Burma in 1943. During this period the acronym LRP -- long-range penetration -- showed up in military parlance for the first time.

Some strategists maintained that the Chindits failed to sufficiently weigh the operations in which they were involved -- at least to a sufficient degree to convince traditionalists of their effectiveness. Certainly the Chindits' success was achieved at a high cost, since many lost their lives in Burma. But their actions proved to many that quasi-guerrilla forces were an operational necessity in certain theaters of war.

Independent Raiding Companies

As the Chindits slogged their way through the tortuous terrain of Southeast Asia, the British army started forming independent raiding companies, forerunners to the British Commandos, immediately after Germany overwhelmed France in the spring of 1940. In the Pacific Theater of Operations a cadre of Anzac (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) instructors, together with a small British army training contingent, formed a company out of the Dutch and Australian forces stationed on the island of Timor -- the 2/2 Independent Company. One of the British soldiers, Captain F. Spencer-Chapman, said that the six weeks of special training taught the volunteers "how to get...from A to B and back...in any sort of country...what to wear, what to take and how to carry it...tracking, memorizing routes, and how to escape if caught by the enemy."

Organized as a 350-man-plus company-scale operation, the 2/2 Independent Company confronted a 14,000-man Japanese invasion force on Timor in February 1942 and was overwhelmed. Instead of disbanding or surrendering, however, the never-say-die Australians fell back, regrouped in the hinterlands of the island and started working against the Japanese in groups as small as two, three and four men. In 13 months of operations following the invasion, the 2/2 killed more than 1,500 Japanese soldiers while losing only 40 of its own.

Merrill's Marauders

In 1944, the Americans formed an LRP group to which Vietnam War LRRPs officially trace their lineage. Merrill's Marauders -- the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional) -- had originally been assigned to Orde Wingate but were transferred back to American command under General Joseph Stilwell. Then-Colonel Frank Merrill headed up the unit. In a joint offensive with Stilwell's Chinese troops, the Marauders circled 100 miles behind the Japanese stronghold in Burma, cut supply lines, captured part of a Japanese division, and reached the main Japanese base atMyitkyina. There, they captured the airfield and, after joining with Stilwell's troops, secured the town. The regimental-strength Marauders experienced the same difficulties that the Chindits had faced in the terrible climate and topography of the Burmese mountain jungle. Merrill himself was evacuated twice, once for heart problems and once for malaria, and the rigors of moving a large force through the Burmese terrain severely debilitated his troops. The unit operated for just over three months before being deactivated.

Despite their limited successes, the Marauders, Chindits and Independents planted the seeds that would eventually come to fruition in Vietnam. The LRP concept had proved successful. Although all three groups were organized as large-scale, behind-the-lines forces, the 2/2's jungle-fighting preparation was of a considerably higher quality. The Chindits were better trained specifically for the jungle than the Marauders were, but both Chindits and Marauders used regular infantry conscripts who had a minimal amount of jungle warfare training. The Chindits and Marauders tended to maintain the regimental size of their units rather than disperse into smaller operational groups as the 2/2 Independent Company did. As those units' missions in the mountain jungles of Burma and Timor came to an end, other small-unit strategies were implemented.

The Jedburghs

In the European theater, Jedburgh units, comprised of two officers and a sergeant radio operator -- either French, British and/or American -- were dropped behind enemy lines to train and assist French Resistance forces prior to the Allied landings in Normandy. Another type of unit, known as Operational Groups (OGs), infiltrated 32-man airborne commando units into France that operated in eight-man teams. Jedburghs and OGs were most active before the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944, and both types of operations were fairly successful.

The idea for both units came from the Special Operations Executive (SOE), Britain's version of the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of today's Central Intelligence Agency. Both units proved that small-unit operations were, indeed, able to succeed. But although their employment of the small-unit concept was a plus for the Allies during World War II, both the SOE and the OSS were also partially responsible for other postwar phenomena that would plague the West for decades. The SOE and OSS considered themselves nonpolitical organizations; their World War II objective had been simply to beat the Axis forces. Consequently, they armed any and all groups that would fight the Germans or Japanese, regardless of their political complexion. In so doing, they helped several Communist insurgent movements that they would have to fight after the war. The SOE, for example, gave weaponry to Communist-oriented insurgents it would eventually have to battle in Burma and Malaya. The OSS was no less generous to Mao Tse-tung in China, and it also armed the followers of a well-educated Communist and nationalist named Ho Chi Minh in the French colony of Tonkin.

Wars Begin In Indochina

On September 11, 1945 -- nine days after the formal surrender of Japan -- the first of three modern wars began in Indochina. The first, called the August Revolution by the nationalist and Communist Viet Minh, is historically interesting if only for its brevity and anonymity. The British Gurkhas -- Nepalese troops who were excellent irregular jungle fighters in their own right -- of the 20th Indian Division, together with rearmed Japanese troops, decimated a Viet Minh nationalist force that had tried to assume power in the absence of any occupation force organized by its former French colonizers. That conflict saw the capture of the first Soviet adviser to the Viet Minh (who later disappeared after being turned over to the French Sūreté).

The war began when the Viet Minh attacked the Gurkhas at a village called Tan Son Nhut and ended when the British handed the country back to the French in early 1946. In five months, British forces killed an estimated 2,700 Viet Minh while suffering minimal casualties.

Two organizations that spanned the next two Indochina wars also left their imprint on the LRRPs. One was the French army's Groupement de Commandoes Mixtes Aeroportes (GCMA), or Composite Airborne Commando Group. After December 1953, it was known as the Groupement Mixte d'Intervention, or GMI, and it directly influenced the operations of the American 1st Special Forces Group, the famed Green Berets, of the Second Indochina War. The Special Forces, along with Anzac Special Air Service (SAS) troops, added their concepts to the LRRP tactical mix.

New, Guerrilla-Like Mode

The GCMA functioned in a more guerrillalike mode than any other organization. Its members were dropped into enemy territory to organize local mountain tribesman to fight the Viet Minh. The unit eventually grew to some 15,000 troops, which meant that more than 300 tons of airlifted supplies were required per month. Unlike the Chindits and the Marauders of WWII, the GCMA's job was to remain permanently behind enemy lines. Each company was led by two or three French officers or noncommissioned officers -- the remainder were native tribesmen.

The GCMA tied down 10 battalions of Viet Minh troops, and by the end of the French Indochina War the 5,000 remaining GCMA members were being hunted by 14 Viet Minh battalions. The long-range penetration principles Wingate had espoused nearly 15 years earlier had finally been convincingly proven effective.

The GCMA saga ended in a July 1954 cease-fire between the French and the Viet Minh. The last French troops left the area in April 1956. Two years after the cease-fire, a GCMA leader's radio plea was monitored, requesting "at least some ammunition, so that we can die fighting instead of being slaughtered like animals." As late as 1959, a GCMA trooper made his way out of North Vietnam, but the rest of the French troops trapped behind the lines fought to the death, and their final resting places were never discovered by the French government. (See "To Die Alone in the Silence," by Robert Barr Smith in the October 1992 Vietnam.)

America's Special Forces

The GCMA proved that irregular warfare could work. The American 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam took the lessons learned by the GCMA and the WWII guerrilla units, refined the techniques and put together a highly successful military operation.

The Special Forces were initially conceived as a GCMA-like guerrilla group. It was not until President John F. Kennedy took a shine to the counterinsurgency principles of modern warfare and discovered the Special Forces, which had been lingering in military obscurity throughout the 1950s, that the role of the Special Forces was changed to include something for which it had not been designed -- training.

Men of the 1st Special Forces Group arrived on Vietnamese soil on June 24, 1957, and began training 58 South Vietnamese soldiers at the commando training center in Nha Trang. Those trainees would form the core of the first Vietnamese Special Forces units. Nha Trang would eventually become the Special Forces main base, and the commando school would later be used to train LRRPs.

Preparing The "Savages"

The Special Forces began preparing the Republic of Vietnam for the soon-to-burgeon conflict in May 1960 and were given the counterinsurgency mission by presidential directive in 1961. Taking another lead from the French GCMA, the Special Forces focused their organizational effort on Vietnam's mountain tribesmen and brought in troops from Fort Bragg, N.C., to train them.

The Montagnard tribes in South Vietnam -- five main groups of 500,000 to 700,000 people each -- contained some 20 distinct ethno-linguistic elements. Some tribes could not speak the language of their immediate neighbors, though all were tagged with the generic montagnard (French for "mountaineer"), since the tribes were essentially hill people. Lowland Vietnamese called them moi -- "savages." Most Montagnards lived in the Annamese Highlands of both the North and South. The principal tribes in the South were the Rhade, Jarai, Bahnar, Sedang and Bru. There were also tribes that had fled or emigrated from the North. (See "Tough Recondo School," by Larry Chambers, in the August 1993 issue.)

Special Forces troops approached the Rhade community in October 1961 and formed the first Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) at Pleiku. The concept of the CIDG program was similar to the GCMA, with an American leadership group usually comprised of a 12-man Special Forces A-Team. The units were stationed around the country and working out of their own fixed bases.

Reconnaissance And Intelligence

The A-Teams patrolled alone as well as with the company-strength Mike (mobile strike) Force units of the CIDG. It soon became apparent that intelligence-gathering was of supreme importance in Vietnam, and to that end the Special Forces organized several different types of units based on the A-Team concept to handle the long-range patrol missions required in gathering intelligence. For example, reconnaissance training for Project Delta, code-named "Leaping Lena" (a 1964 mission in which Vietnamese reconnaissance teams parachuted into areas near the Laotian and North Vietnamese borders to survey the Ho Chi Minh Trail), led to the development of similar units, including the Studies and Observation Group (SOG), Project Omega, Project Sigma, Project Gamma and the B-53 and B-55 detachments.

Major General Joseph A. McChristian, MACV assistant chief of staff for Intelligence under General William C. Westmoreland, said that the role of ground reconnaissance could not be overemphasized. Westmoreland himself believed that it "not only can provide timely and accurate information on all aspects of the enemy and the area of operations, but also can report on where the enemy and his influences do not exist." The training of division-level LRRP teams was handed over to the 5th Special Forces at Nha Trang by General Westmoreland. The Special Forces had established the MACV Recondo School there in September 1966 and started training Regular Army unit volunteers in the long-range patrol techniques that it had learned in previous years from its Proj-ect Delta experiences.

Training LRPs

The Recondo (a name derived from the combination of reconnaissance and commando) course started out with 60 students per week in September 1966 but doubled by January 1967. It would train nearly all of the LRRPs who served in-country until it officially closed on December 19, 1970.

Also of importance to LRRP training at this time were instructors whose military heritage traced to the 2/2 Independent Company of WWII and the Anzac Special Air Service. Some LRRP units copied Australian tactics, others those of the Special Forces. The primary difference between the two appeared to be team sizes: Anzac training suggested three- and four-man teams, while SF trainers tended to form groups as large as six, eight and more.

The first provisional long-range patrol (LRP) units were formed in 1965 and 1966 at the divisional level, but it was in 1967 that the LRRP organizations flourished and became formally established. The acronyms LRP and LRRP soon were interchangeable, though most orders of battle refer to the units as LRPs. Most often, the men fighting in the Vietnam War referred to themselves as LRRPs ("Lurps"). Every integral Army group in-country, whether brigade or division level, had its own LRRP unit.

Major General William R. Peers, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, noted in 1967: "Every major battle the 4th Infantry Division got itself into was initiated by the action of a Long Range Patrol; every single one of them. That included the Battle of Dak To, for the Long Range Patrols completely uncovered the enemy movement. We knew exactly where he was coming from through our Long Range Patrol action."

Dangerous And Uncomfortable Job

Lieutenant General John H. Hays, Jr., who commanded the 1st Infantry Division from February 1967 to March 1968 and went on to become the deputy commanding general of II Field Force, serving until August 1968, said that the LRRPs were "generally considered to have the most uncomfortable and dangerous job in Vietnam," but also noted that "the way in which the long range patrols were used was one of the most significant innovations of the war."

The typical unit consisted of 118 men -- 115 enlisted and three officers divided into two platoons of six- to eight-man teams, with the remainder being support people. The numbers varied widely -- from units with as few as about 60 men to as many as 230 -- as did the company makeup, the length of missions and the size of teams. Some operated in two-, three- and four-man teams, some 10. Some companies used a tracker. Montagnards were favored by most, but some used Vietnamese Rangers, scout dogs or Chieu Hoi scouts. "Chieu Hoi," meaning "open arms," was the name given to a program that induced enemy troops to surrender, retrained them and assigned them as scouts for infantry units -- a tactic drawn from guerrilla wars fought in the Philippines, Malaya and Kenya. Terrain and operational requirements also affected the practices of the individual LRRP units.

The missions of the units encompassed other activities besides pure reconnaissance work. Setting ambushes, snatches (kidnappings), sniping, stay behinds (remaining on firebases after U.S. troops evacuated from them), on-ground photography and bomb damage assessment were all part of the LRRP repertoire.

Exemplary Record

A typical operation in which LRRPs were involved was Operation Uniontown III-Boxsprings, in which Company F LRRP, attached to the 51st Infantry (F/51), was working in conjunction with the 199th Infantry Brigade (Light) between the towns of Bien Hoa and Xuan Loc near Saigon in February and March 1968. In the course of 117 patrols, LRRP teams sighted enemy troops 91 times, required 40 emergency extractions, and exchanged fire with the enemy 33 times. The 199th exploited F/51's enemy contacts with reaction forces 10 times. F/51 was credited with 48 enemy KIAs, 26 probable KIAs and 18 POWs -- all while suffering no losses of its own.

Divisional LRRP units achieved an exemplary record throughout the Vietnam War, and MACV recognized their success by changing their name. On January 1, 1969, General Westmoreland brought the 13 different LRRP units under the umbrella of the 75th Infantry Rangers, linking them to the 75th Infantry of 1954 and the 475th Infantry of 1944 and that unit's 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional) -- Merrill's Marauders -- whose regimental patch the Rangers would wear. The LRP/LRRP companies would be designated from then on as companies C through I and K through P, 75th Infantry Rangers.

As direct American involvment in the war approached its conclusion and the manpower commitment of the military waned, the Ranger units began being sent home and deactivated with the units to which they were attached. First out was Ranger Company E of the 9th Infantry Division on August 23, 1969. Company L, the last Ranger unit in Vietnam, assigned to the 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), was officially deactivated on December 26, 1971.

Regards,
Hist2004

RFSU
08-18-2004, 11:37 AM
Tough men, no doubt! and who taught them? AUSSSIES!

wiggle
08-19-2004, 06:08 AM
The GCMA saga ended in a July 1954 cease-fire between the French and the Viet Minh. The last French troops left the area in April 1956. Two years after the cease-fire, a GCMA leader's radio plea was monitored, requesting "at least some ammunition, so that we can die fighting instead of being slaughtered like animals." As late as 1959, a GCMA trooper made his way out of North Vietnam, but the rest of the French troops trapped behind the lines fought to the death, and their final resting places were never discovered by the French government. (See "To Die Alone in the Silence," by Robert Barr Smith in the October 1992 Vietnam.)

****ing A...... :cantbeli:

Whisper
08-19-2004, 06:48 AM
I serve in one of the only LRRP/LRSD units still active in the military. 135th LRSD (Airborne), Crete, Nebraska. Second best unit i have ever served in.

Deuterium
08-19-2004, 10:49 PM
Darn I thought we were going to talk about chow... Mmmmmmm spagheti

Flagg
08-19-2004, 11:36 PM
My kingdom for a bowl of capellini or baked ziti

David
08-21-2004, 03:13 AM
i'm serving in e co 51st, lrs. its cool.

Whisper
08-21-2004, 04:22 AM
Stay LRRP stay alive!

2RHPZ
11-25-2004, 03:47 AM
Long-Range Surveillance Operations In Kosovo-Complementing Existing Capabilities

by Robert L. Chamberlain, Ralph Kluna

As the snow in the mountains over-looking the Kosovo-Serbia border began to thaw in late March 2000, the newly arrived U.S. contingent to the Kosovo Force (KFOR) Task Force (TF) Falcon began receiving reports of potential insurgent activity in this highly contested border region. Despite the TF's efforts and complement of highly sophisticated and diverse intelligence collection assets, they did not have a much-needed 24-hour, all weather, real-time collection and reporting capability to confirm insurgent activity.

In early March, the TF Commander personally requested Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR)to provide such a capability. In response to a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) deployment order, V Corps tasked the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade to deploy its Long-Range Surveillance Company (LRSC), E Company, 51st Infantry 165th Ml Battalion, to Kosovo. This article tells the story of the LRS Company from its notification to its deployment, employment, and redeployment. It will detail some of the lessons learned in the six months these soldiers spent in the hills of this highly contested region.

Deployment

Preparing for a real-world mission is never a simple task. When the LRSC was notified of a possible mission in Kosovo in March 2000, it became a battalion effort to prepare the Company for deployment. The Battalion established a weekly in-progress review (IPR) schedule focused on the expected mission requirements developed in discussion with the Brigade and Corps. In mid-April the Brigade received the mission to deploy LRSC to Kosovo and to be operationally ready by mid-May. The Company immediately began preparations, readying equipment, conducting rigorous physical training, and honing their skills.

With the remainder of the staff and company heavily involved in the standard details of pre-deployment preparation, the Battalion S3 assembled a small Advance Team, for immediate deployment, to solidify the requirements onsite with the TF Falcon Commander. The Advance Team consisted of the S3, the long-range surveillance (LRS) operations Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), and two intelligence analysts. Their tasks were to refine the mission, identify the specific operational requirements, and establish a presence for the LRSC.

During their ten-day deployment, theAdvance Team addressed the following five critical requirements.

* Defining a working relationship with the TF Falcon staff and units operating in Multinational Brigade-East (MNB-E). The LRS operations NCOIC determined the best way to integrate their procedures into the TF operational procedures. This presented many challenges, because TF Falcon's organization is not doctrinal.

* Establishing a tactical operations center (TOC) and an isolation facility (ISOFAC). The LRSC TOC needed to be in proximity to the TF TOC and have access to a large open space to serve as an antenna field. Due to the nature of the site, property and space were at a premium on Camp Bondsteel. Additionally, no facility existed on the camp that would serve as an ISOFAC, so we had to construct one from the ground up.

* Establishing a command and control ([C.sup.2])relationship between the LRSC and TF Falcon. The LRSC would be under operational control (OPCON) of the TF and under administrative control (ADCON) of the Military Intelligence (Ml) task force (TF 101 Ml and later TF 501 Ml).

* Developing an in-country mission rehearsal exercise (MRE). This proved to be one of the biggest challenges the unit faced. It was critical to the overall success of the unit because it provided for training tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) with important elements of TF Falcon on some of the very terrain on which the LRSC would be operating. The TF Falcon wanted the LRSC to be operational as soon as possible, but an MRE was necessary before the company could assume any missions.

* Initiating the development of a focused intelligence database, geared specifically to the requirements of the LRSC, established a solid working relationship between the analysts of E Company and the TF Falcon analysis and control element (ACE).

Upon completion of their immediate mission, the Advance Team redeployed, except for the Battalion S3, who remained in Kosovo addressing the upcoming support and sustainment issues. He coordinated the terrain and support allocated to the company and the needed facilities, like the ISOFAC, for the company's arrival. He was joined briefly by the battalion's property book officer who conducted critical onsite coordination for supply management, maintenance, and property accountability.

As the deployment date grew closer, the Company deployed an advance echelon (ADVON) consisting of the communications platoon leader, a supply specialist, and representatives from each platoon. This ADVON ensured the completion of all logistical requirements and the implementation of a Kosovo-focused orientation program. The ADVON had to draw a number of equipment items through the installation and es-tablish accounts before the Company's arrival. They had to sign for up-armored high-mobility multipurpose, wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs), individual body armor, ammunition, and barracks from Camp Bondsteel and then prepare for individual soldier issue. The orientation training was to familiarize the unit and soldiers with the forces and types of equipment conducting missions in the area of operation (AO). The company also conducted extensive mine awareness and rules of engagement training.

Arrival in Country

After several intense Battalion IPRs, a scheduled five-day field training exercise (FTX), and a block-leave period, LRSC was ready to deploy. The Company arrived at Camp Bondsteel on 25 April 2000 and immediately began three days of equipment issue and orientation training. The atmosphere was intense, and there would have been total pandemonium if not for the Battalion's advance preparations. The TF was eager to begin operations, but the Battalion had to conduct an MRE. USAREUR requires MREs because they are critical to allowing the TF and the unit to practice a host of procedures (from insertion and extraction to emergency procedures and quick reaction force [QRF] response).

Mission Rehearsal Exercise

The LRS operations section planned, coordinated, and executed the MRE. The TF wanted the exercise to mirror future operations, as well as to provide some operational intelligence with a reduced risk to the soldiers. TF Falcon's concept for the MRE was that it would take place in the TF Falcon AO mirroring the rugged mountains where the teams would eventually operate. Furthermore, it should validate planning and synchronizing the TF Falcon staff in order to support the LRSC with aviation, fire support, a QRF, and C [2].

The MRE lasted five days and involved nine teams that operationally deployed to gather intelligence. The LRS operations section developed battle drills for every possible contingency and tailored them to integrate into TF Falcon's operations. This exercise involved all LRS assets and validated the relationship between the LRS C [2] elements and the TF Falcon staff. This exercise proved the value of in-country MREs for elements deployed after the main body. It was essential in that it developed a working relationship with the other supporting units and oriented the unit to the AO in which it would be operating. The soldiers quickly realized that the numerous animals grazing in the area could constitute a considerable risk. A countermeasure of red pepper sprinkled enroute and in the vicinity of their hide site quickly neutralized this potential risk.

Mission Profiles

The company began executing missions 48 hours after the MRE. The missions were to provide intelligence data to the TF by conducting reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S) operations. Over the next 6 months, the company conducted more than 21 LRS operations, consisting of 48 team missions.

The basic team mission profile consisted of five phases over seven days:

* Phase I - Isolation and planning.

* Phase II - Insertion and infiltration.

* Phase III - Actions on the objective.

* Phase IV - Exfiltration and extraction.

* Phase V - Debrief and recovery.

Every team followed this profile for all missions executed. The company also established a battle rhythm, and each platoon assumed either mission, training,

or QRF cycles accordingly. Each cycle ensured continuous LRS coverage throughout the KFOR rotation. Mission cycles normally ran seven days and consisted of planning, rehearsing, and conducting the actual mission. The training cycle provided ample time to reinforce mission standards and conduct recurring training such as ranges, physical training, reaction drills, and emergency extraction techniques. The QRF cycle provided team leaders with the time to recover equipment used during the mission cycle and to prepare for the upcoming training cycle.

R & S Planning

We developed the geographic areas and general objectives for LRS R&S missions within an overall TF Falcon targeting process. This general information, consisting sometimes only of specific information requirements (SIR), with respect to one or more geographic areas, was then refined by a robust LRS operations cell into a target or set of targets for an LRS operation. Within the LRS operations cell, this process began with the TF Falcon ACE providing all available intelligence on the area designated by the TF Falcon G3 or G2. The LRS Operations Section would then further develop this data, conducting more detailed IPB in support of the potential LRS missions. Based on the IPB (which had to consider line-of-sight, ability to infiltrate and exfiltrate, local activity, mines, and ability to execute emergency actions in the area), two to three options for coverage were available for planning approval.

Once the operations section received planning approval on the targets, more detailed planning began, with continuous IPB throughout. After developing the plan, the LRS operations section prepared a mission approval brief for the TF Falcon Commander. (This was one of the many safety checks built into the system to mitigate potential problems.) This brief consisted of both a synchronization matrix and graphics to be briefed to the TF Commander 24 to 36 hours before the isolation phase begins. With the mission approval, the operations section completed the necessary mission planning folders and issued a warning order to the teams.

This process ensured the input of crucial players into the "targeting" process and resulted in a fully coordinated plan within the TF. It required a robust and highly competent LRS operations section.

Rehearsals

After extensive planning sessions, and while in isolation (Phase I), the teams conducted rehearsals for every facet of the mission. Rehearsals were paramount to success with at least review and conduct of medical evacuation (MEDEVAC), QRF, communications, and actions on the objective procedures for each mission reviewed. The teams and LRS operations staff in coordination with every unit involved in the operation participated in the rehearsals. Since no units had habitual working relationships and personnel changes occurred often, we had to reinforce and practice standing operating procedures (SOPs) constantly to ensure successful missions.

Communications

Communications in Kosovo present a unique array of challenges. The rough terrain and the limited availability of tactical satellite (TACSAT) frequencies impeded communications with the teams. The communications architecture used by the Company during the deployment encompassed all systems organic to the unit. The primary means of communications between the teams and LRS Operations was the AN/PRC-137 high frequency (HF) radio in digital mode. The alternate method was the AN/PSC-5 TACSAT in digital mode, with a contingency in voice mode. The AN/PRC-119 Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) had the ability to be used in the voice mode in emergencies to contact aircraft or the ground QRF. With redundancy, ingenuity, and resilience, we overcame the communications challenges, and they did not prevent the execution of a single mission.

Insertions and Extractions

Once the teams completed detailed planning and rehearsals, the next challenge was getting the teams to the mission site. Insertions and extractions were conducted using both air and ground platforms. The threat situation and terrain dictated the appropriate platform, and these operations would always take place during hours of limited visibility. A critical challenge to the success of the insertions and extractions was the constant rotation of the supporting units. The only way to mitigate this was to assign a liaison officer (LNO) to the insertion package and conduct detailed rehearsals with the crews.

The air insertion and extraction package consisted of a [C.sup.2] aircraft (if available), company medic, and an LNO. The company QRF element usually conducted ground insertion. This consisted of two vehicles per team, a QRF escort, and a communications vehicle.

Once a team arrived at the operational area, foot infiltration into the hide-sites proved challenging. Because of the rugged, mountainous terrain and heavy soldier loads, foot infiltration into the hide-site was only one to three kilometers from the drop-off point. Planning speed for foot infiltration was 300 to 500 meters an hour. The team tailored soldier loads as much as possible; however, water, ammunition, and batteries were all weight-producing requirements that we could not remove from the soldier's load.

Training

Throughout the deployment, the company continued to lose and receive soldiers. We could use neither stop-loss programs nor involuntary extensions for the soldiers. This presented the unit with the challenge of sustaining mission capability throughout a lengthy deployment that would see skilled soldiers and leaders depart, and new, untrained soldiers arrive. We had to conduct training throughout the deployment to ensure that the teams were always mission ready. The Company integrated a detailed training program into its battle rhythm. This program was centralized at the company level for planning, and decentralized at the team level for execution. We focused this training on reinforcing those tasks needed to execute the LRS missions.

A two-phased training program was necessary. Phase I began immediately after a soldier arrived at the unit at home station in Germany. The rear Detachment began an arduous process of preparing the soldier physically and mentally and teaching unit SOPs and basic LRS skills. This phase could last up to 30 days. Phase II began when the soldier arrived in Kosovo. It consisted of a two-week orientation program conducted by the Company leadership. A new soldier joined a team only after certification by the orientation cadre, and participated with a team mission only after approval of the platoon and team leadership.

This training program was one of the major successes of the operation. It was the principal reason the company was able to sustain a high level of performance throughout the mission, despite the loss of numerous soldiers and leaders.

Mission Success

The LRS Company's high mission-success rate was a tribute to thorough training, planning, and small-unit leadership. Several missions stand out as noteworthy in the intelligence they produced. On one of these missions, a team inserted in the early morning hours near a suspected cache location near the Ground Security Zone (GSZ). Within 24 hours of insertion, the team was providing reports of insurgent activity: it reported several armed men moving weapons and supplies into and around a small building. Upon receiving these reports, the TF dispatched a QRF infantry company (-) to the location. Using frequency modulation (FM) communications with the QRF, the LRS team vectored the QRF to the location, directed them to the cache locations, and singled out those individuals that had taken part in this illegal activity.

Another particularly successful mission resulted in the actual filming of insurgents' firing mortars and other weapons inside the GSZ. KFOR use this "evidence" to confront insurgent leadership when they denied engaging in such activities.

Overall, the LRSC missions -- even those that produced "negative intelligence"--were extremely successful. The unit used doctrinal methods throughout, and they preserved the covert nature of their missions. After the MRE, we discovered that animals were a problem in compromising hide and surveillance sites; there were only seven instances during 45 missions when animals compromised the team's positions. (This was due to shepherds and mushroom pickers actually walking into the sites.)

Moreover, as is the measure with any intelligence operation, the information gathered during these operations produced usable operational intelligence that resulted in the confiscation and apprehension of personnel and equipment. The information also provided confirmation of insurgent activity, or lack of activity, in areas that we had not adequately investigated before.

Redeployment and Reintegration

As with the initial deployment, the redeployment required support from the entire Battalion. The Battalion began the redeployment preparation in late August, conducting IPRs and video teleconferences (VTCs) with the Company in Kosovo. Besides preparing soldiers and equipment for the deployment back to Germany, the Company had to prepare the soldiers' families for their return.

By the first of October, LRS missions supporting TF Falcon had ended. A Company advance team departed Kosovo for Germany to prepare for the arrival of equipment. During this transitional period, units provided classes for both spouses in the rear and deployed soldiers to prepare them for the reintegration with their family members after a six-month separation.

Upon arrival in Germany, the first priority was equipment accountability. After two weeks of recovering deployed equipment, using a half-day schedule that allowed for measured integration back into garrison and family life, the company received a three-week block leave. The two weeks devoted to equipment recovery not only gave the soldiers time to adjust to garrison and family life after a long absence but also gave the chain of command time to see soldiers during the adjustment period and identify any potential family or other problems. This program worked extremely well-there was not a single disciplinary incident during the first six months after returning from the deployment.

At the completion of block leave, the company began the long task of consolidating the unit property book (reintegrating the deployed equipment with the equipment that had remained in the rear). By mid-January 2001, all the administrative actions were complete, and the company was ready to initiate a three-month training cycle to become fully mission capable again. The focus of this training was on tasks from the mission-essential task list (METL) that we were not able to execute during the deployment, culminating with the Operations section planning missions for an upcoming Warfighter exercise.

Lessons Learned

As with any military operation, there were numerous lessons learned from the experience. Many of these lessons were of a very practical and detailed nature, and many relate directly to the execution of LRS missions. The unit has codified these lessons in a revamped SOP. These are some of the other larger lessons to come out of the deployment (see Figure 1).

Why did TF Falcon use the LRS Company? The LRSC was able to provide the TF with a capability that no one else could replicate. R&S is E Company's is primary mission. The company gathered critical intelligence, focused purely on answering the commander's priority intelligence requirements (PIR)--not available by any other means--and reported it directly to the TF Falcon command group. The LRS Company proved to be a valuable asset, with the flexibility to modify standard high-intensity conflict TTP in order to operate and succeed in the support and stability operational environment.

The resounding mission successes in Kosovo are attributable to the skill, training, and leadership of all the soldiers in LRSC who faced the challenges and hardships daily. The LRS Company's overall operational success supporting Task Force Falcon was due to the planning, support, and execution at all levels of command within the Company and TF Falcon.

As Brigadier General Dennis Hardy, a former TF Falcon Commander said-

In Kosovo, the Long-Range Surveillance Detachment performed vital reconnaissance and surveillance missions against a persistent, elusive paramilitary threat who had the home-field advantage--able to blend into the local countryside and population. In such situations, the tremendous intelligence capability [that] a well-trained, cohesive team offers is irreplaceable; reinforced but not replaced by modern technology Using a combination of human ingenuity, stealth, and patience to develop real-time, actionable information, the LRS teams operated in both populated rural areas, as well as in unpopulated, rugged, densely forested terrain. Using their inherent warfighting skills and doctrine, the LRS detected and, most importantly, documented a wide variety of real-time, subversive activities, including actual cross-border, guerrilla-type offensive operations, weapons and small unit training exercises, illegal smuggling and weapons caches. Along the Presevo Valley sector, between Kosovo and Serbia, the LRSC's survei llance and documentation of weapons and insurgent training activities provided senior commanders the first reliable confirmation of suspected insurgent operations; information which was used to direct major interdiction efforts; information which played a major role in the eventual reduction and elimination of a potentially strategic threat-a clear example of a tactical operation with strategic significance.

Major Bob Chamberlain is currently the S3 for the 165th MI Battalion. He deployed with the ADVON to TF Falcon and prepared the company for the MRE and the initial missions. Major Chamberlain has served in numerous command and staff positions in airborne and light infantry units, and served also as a senior intelligence Observer/Controller at the JRTC.

First Sergeant Ralf Kluna served as the LRS operations NCOIC and then First Sergeant for E Company during the KFOR deployment. 1SG Kluna has served in numerous Ranger, LRS, and light infantry units. He is currently attending the Sergeants Major Academy at Fort Bliss Texas.

Figure 1. LRS Lessons Learned in Kosovo.

* LRS employed in a doctrinal manner is a viable and valuable capability that has tremendous utility in small-scale contingency operation like Kosovo. The current U.S. Army Training Doctrine Command (TRADOC) LRS doctrine, TTPs, and training work when adapted to unique characteristics of the terrain and mission The LRSC's use of the current LRS doctrine and training ensured success.

* The employment of LRS requires the full participation of the controlling headquarters (in this case, TF Falcon Headquarters [HQ]). The employment of LRS teams is asset-intensive and requires detailed planning and coordination by the headquarters that owns "supporting" assets medical engineer aviation QRF) to ensure success.

* Units must fully integrate LRS assets into the C[2] intelligence architectures. The ability of the TF to receive reports using various and compatible means is critical in allowing the LRS to provide timely intelligence. On numerous occasions, the LRS provided the initial report later handed off to a complementary intelligence system for monitoring and exploitation. The use of LRS as an intelligence tipper was highly successful.

* More work needs to be done to outfit LRS units with the best possible optical and communications equipment. Although our LRS deployed with a Mini-Remote Imagery Terminal digital video capability they could not use it to its full capability due to its incompatibility with, and lack of dedicated access to the TF communications network. Even though the LRS teams were successful in sending back video and insufficient proof of GSZ violations, the quality was too poor to allow for "real time" use of the video, and insufficient bandwidth was available for continuous live video reporting.

* Critical to sustaining any deployed force is the unit's ability to rapidly integrate and train new soldiers. During the six-month deployment, our LRS Company conducted a successful turnover/integration of more than 15 percent of their soldiers. The success of the unit was clearly attributable to the development and execution of a training program that rapidly but deliberately integrated new soldiers into the LRS organization.

* Finally, a well-thought out reintegration plan was critical to the well being of soldiers and families once soldiers returned from Kosovo. This program started in Kosovo, eased soldiers back into garrison and, family life on return home, provided for block leave after an adjustment period, and then re-focused the unit through rigorous training.