My name is Steve and I go by Dirtpro in the Milsim world. I belong to - - PDF document

▶

Apr 23, 2023 151 likes •213 views

My name is Steve and I go by Dirtpro in the Milsim world. I belong to the Oklahoma Badland Regulators Milsim team, which was formed at Oklahoma Invasion 5 in 2010. From the beginning we have strived to push the authenticity of the Milsim label and

SLIDE 1

My name is Steve and I go by Dirtpro in the Milsim world. I belong to the Oklahoma Badland Regulators Milsim team, which was formed at Oklahoma Invasion 5 in 2010. From the beginning we have strived to push the authenticity of the Milsim label and genuinely desire more than the average Milsim game provides us. We have enjoyed quite a bit of success throughout our history and continue to push ourselves to new levels, but over the past few months we have undergone some significant personnel changes and have altered our primary mission to reconnaissance work. For these reasons we would like to attend East Wind as a Long Range Surveillance Unit. Obviously we are new to the East Wind scene and have a lot to learn. It is not our intention to change East Wind or to promote ourselves as a special unit in any way. We fully understand that we have the responsibility to prove ourselves in the East Wind world before being granted our request and that it may not even be granted at all. Be that as it may, in response to your thread on accepting new types of units to EW we have done extensive research on the surveillance units that were in Germany during the time frame of East Wind in an attempt to lessen your workload. We are also prepared to furnish the appropriate equipment including our own radios as needed. According to our research, four Long Range Surveillance Units served in Germany between 1985 and 1995. The first was Echo Company of the 51st Infantry Battalion. E Company, Long Range Surveillance (Airborne). E/51st was attached to the 165th Military Intelligence Battalion in Germany from September of 1986 until November of 1989 (Source 1). They were later disbanded in 1991 after serving in Iraq (Source 2). While in Germany they served under LTC Nicholas O’Dawe (Source 3) and operated out of a base in Weisbaden, moving to Darmstadt later in their deployment (Source 1). A relatively new unit, they initially struggled to obtain access to land and supplies in order to train their men but in the end became

ne of the most requested units to attend various large scale training exercises all over Europe. The unit

greatly benefitted from the International Long Range Surveillance School in Weingarten and the relationships developed with allied servicemen as a result of it (Source 1). However, E/51 is not the only LRSC that was deployed to Germany during the East Wind time block. Foxtrot Company, Long Range Surveillance (Airborne) of the 51st Infantry Battalion has a long legacy of reconnaissance excellence reaching back to numerous missions in Vietnam. F/51st was activated in Germany on 16 December 1986 (Source 4, 5) and served in the first Gulf War in 1990. While in Germany, F/51st was assigned to the 511th Military Intelligence Battalion and were transferred to the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion out of Fort Bragg 2 weeks prior to their disbanding November 1991. They were reactivated in 1995 as part of the 519th and have served in the Middle East since their reactivation (Source 6).

SLIDE 2

In addition to our information on these units, we were able to obtain a copy of Eyes Behind the Lines, designated “Occasional Paper 10” by Major James F. Gebhardt (Retired). This along with the personal experience of some of our teammates gave us in depth insight into the mission and equipment

f the LRSU soldier. According to Major Gebhardt, the last LRRP unit left over from the Vietnam War was

disbanded in 1974. In 1978, plans were made to study the need for specialized troops in the Army. Out

f this study came the directive that two long range surveillance companies be sent to Germany where

they would become organic attachments to Military Intelligence units. In 1984, Army Pamphlet 525-42, US Army Operational Concept For Long Range Surveillance Units was published. This pamphlet renamed the reconnaissance units as surveillance units and gave them the following mission tasks:  Conduct long-range intelligence collection through reconnaissance and surveillance  Determine and report location, strength, equipment, disposition, organization and movement of enemy forces; determine the location of high value targets, to include nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapon delivery systems, nuclear weapon storage sites, reserves, command-and-control elements, and key fixed and mobile instillations.  Conduct damage assessment and NBC monitoring  Emplace and employ unattended sensors and electronic intelligence, target acquisition and designation equipment  Obtain information on possible drop and landing zones  Conduct pathfinder operations  Assess indigenous communications facilities for possible future allied use Field Circular 7-93, Long Range Surveillance Unit Operations (July 1985) and subsequent Field Manual 7-93 by the same name (July 1987) further detailed the position and purpose of the new Long Range Surveillance Units. These units would be capable of conducting patrols up to 150 kilometers away from their Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) on an 8 day patrol and up to 50 kilometers on a 6 day patrol. They were organized to

perate in full companies or as separate detachments (6 men)

much like the LRRPs, but had some differences in their missions according to their new field manual. Although FM 7-93 attached LRSUs to Military Intelligence battalions to keep them out of front line contact, it also lacked the verbiage of the 1967 publication stating that surveillance troops would only use their weapons in self defense. The core missions of surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition and damage assessment had not changed but the emphasis was now on static observation and limited movement rather than active patrolling. Similar documents in the late 60s had attempted to limit the movement of the LRRP units in Vietnam but they were still significantly more mobile on mission than the new LRSUs. Finally, the new list of examples for targets of LRSUs has some interesting omissions from those designated for the LRRPs. They are as follows:

SLIDE 3

 Critical points along avenue of approach  Critical points along key lines of communication  Airfields  Bridges  Rail junctions  Ordinance and logistical depots  Rail yards  Known enemy command posts or headquarters  Assembly areas The omissions are “special weapon delivery means” and “enemy reserves,” which were pivotal targets for LRRP units. Finally, while LRRP units frequently used radio relay units to keep in contact with their LRRPs; LRSUs rarely did so. AM/SSB AN/PRC 70 high frequency radios with burst transmission equipment were used as a primary communication tool within the LRSUs and AN/PRC 90 FM radios were used as back-ups. The concept of a separate base camp and observation post are resurrected in this field manual. This is quite different from the LRRP’s practices as they generally stayed as a group for the duration of the mission. When mission planning, LRSUs were put in isolation until they were ready to leave for their insertion

point. LRSUs used multiple avenues to get to their AO and all were to be airborne qualified. HALO,

HAHO, surface craft and submersible craft insertions were all authorized, but rotary wing assets or foot patrol were the primary methods of insertion. Combat support was handled by rotary wing assets along with fire support, air defense artillery, engineer and medical support. Emergency helicopter extractions including the use of STABO rigs and jungle penetrators were also used but each patrol had a contingency plan to walk out whether as a group or individuals (Source 7). The first use of these new LRSU forces was in Operation Urgent Fury. LRSUs performed a handful

f reconnaissance missions and a search and destroy
mission. The next deployment of the LRSU would be

to Germany and involved the above mentioned E and F companies of the 51st Infantry. On paper, each LRSU soldier was armed with an M16 rifle and each unit was given a still camera, infrared viewer, two PVS-4 scopes and two radiac meters. In reality, LRSUs were much more heavily

armed. I interviewed a former LRSU member who prefers to remain anonymous at this time. He gave

me the following equipment list for a 6 man LRSU.  Unit carried 3 M249 SAWs and 3 XM177E2s or M16s with attached M203 grenade launchers  Mission dependent, one of the SAWs would be replaced with an M25  Some teams used the M60 in place of the M249

SLIDE 4

 Each rifleman carried 12 magazines, 4 canteens and a butt pack using an LC-2 belt and Y harness or shoulder straps from an LBV-88 He also carried two bandoliers of 40mm rounds.  Each SAW gunner carried 2 SAW magazines on his belt.  Each member carried a medium Alice ruck with sustainment items, extra ammunition and equipment.  Body armor was not worn, and each member used a patrol cap or boonie hat (Source 8). If allowed to portray a LRSU at East Wind, we would like to do two 3-day patrols with the mission of infiltrating the Warsaw Pact rear lines to obtain detailed information such as the following:  Location and layout of camps (drawings and map locations)  Troop types and numbers  Vehicle types and numbers  Check point locations (drawings and map locations)  Troop movements and dispositions (via radio contact)  Any other intelligence deemed appropriate by our unit commander We plan to arm ourselves according to the East Wind requirements with M16 rifles and M249 SAWs. We will purchase all required items on the list including armor and helmets for garrison use but would not use them on patrol. We would bring our own GP medium tent and would be happy to share it with whoever desires. We could purchase our own MREs to consume in the field as we realize they are more expensive than bulk food items prepared in a kitchen. Finally, as mentioned above, we are also willing to bring our own communications equipment. Fortunately, the LRSUs in Germany never had to perform their duties in combat. That said, one could argue that they would have been invaluable in the event of the Cold War turning hot. Yes, normal infantry units have (and always will) scout but the LRRPs and LRSUs left a legacy unlike any other. OBR realizes that we do not have all of the training or experience that these warriors brought to the table but we would be honored to be given the chance to follow in their footsteps, even if this is a reenactment. We thank you for your serious consideration of allowing us to play this part at Operation East Wind.

SLIDE 5

Cited Sources:

1. Siaz, SGM Robert. “Reactivation of E Company, 51st Infantry Regiment.”

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/utils/getfile/collection/p15040coll2/id/5385/filename/5386.pdf.

2. “Inactivation Marks a Sad Day”. http://www.stripes.com/news/inactivation-marks-a-sad-day-

1.62969.

3. “E Co 51st Infantry and Battalion Move From Weisbaden to Darmstadt”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tDUqTw8Sh0.

4. “51st Infantry Regiment (United States)”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States).

5. “Department of the Army Liniage and Honors Company F, 51st Infantry Regiment”.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0051in-cof.htm.

6. http://www.i-served.com/.
7. Gebhardt, Major James F. Eyes Behind the Lines.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gebhardt_LRRP.pdf.

8. Unnamed Source. Personal interview. July 2012.

Other E/51st Sources:  “Brasso”. Post number 14. http://www.armyparatrooper.org/dropzone/showthread.php/26999-E-Co-51st-Inf-(LRSU).  “Pruden Competition Photos: Germany”. http://www.lrrpranger.org/featurearticle/germany/index.html.  “E Co 51st Infantry Jump Status Activation Ceremony”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPvwiKHZHxo. 1989. Other F/51st Sources:  “Fco 51st Inf (LRSC)”. http://unitpages.military.com/unitpages/unit.do?id=734607.