History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSpecial Forces

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Poll Question: Who do you think was/are the most highly trained special forces units?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [3.70%]
25 [46.30%]
15 [27.78%]
3 [5.56%]
9 [16.67%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 354
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 18:08
Seal Team 6 has been reformed into DEVGRU, essentially a training and development group but its suspected they still maintain the same function.  Look bud Im sorry if I was a little confrontational and although Im not trying to stir up the international pissing contest already going on in this thread.  Anyways if you're going to make an assertion  try to back it up with evidence, or at least provide more concrete reasoning, you know IF-THEN.  As for Portugal's special operations unit capability it should be noted that Portugal doesn't have the sort of Defence needs as some of the larger nations on the list and consequently has a much smaller pool of trained military professionals to turn into Special Forces Recruits.  Yet Portugal's Special Forces have repeatedly distinguished themselves, in it's Colonial Wars as well as more recently in places such as Afghanistan. 
 
BTW did you think of including Grupo de Operações Especiais, from what I've just read they train with the 22nd SAS and Delta Force and have participated in the evacuation of Portuguese citizens abroud.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 20:31

SAS. If I had a choice, I would go for Delta Force...

     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Christ-Knight View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Apr-2007
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Christ-Knight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 21:18
Originally posted by Laelius Laelius wrote:

Seal Team 6 has been reformed into DEVGRU, essentially a training and development group but its suspected they still maintain the same function.  Look bud Im sorry if I was a little confrontational and although Im not trying to stir up the international pissing contest already going on in this thread.  Anyways if you're going to make an assertion  try to back it up with evidence, or at least provide more concrete reasoning, you know IF-THEN.  As for Portugal's special operations unit capability it should be noted that Portugal doesn't have the sort of Defence needs as some of the larger nations on the list and consequently has a much smaller pool of trained military professionals to turn into Special Forces Recruits.  Yet Portugal's Special Forces have repeatedly distinguished themselves, in it's Colonial Wars as well as more recently in places such as Afghanistan. 
 
BTW did you think of including Grupo de Operações Especiais, from what I've just read they train with the 22nd SAS and Delta Force and have participated in the evacuation of Portuguese citizens abroud.
 
yes, you are right. We do not have the needs that US have. Not even close! But we still have lots of black ops on the ancient colonies in Africa, and no also...
 
The Grupo de Operaçoes Especiais are from Police, like Swat. But they only can be there if they were from a special force in the past.
 
Our best units in colonial war were the Commandos. I'm about 100meters from the main gate of his old headquarters in this momentSmile. They have a statment that is... "Quem faz do perigo seu pao, do sofrimento seu irmao e da morte sua companheira..." it means that Who does the danger his bread, the suffering his brother, and the death his loyal friend...
 
They were deactivated during 8 years, beacuse of the high rank of deaths during the course, but they are operating now, for example in Afeghanistan. They are like the "heavy infantry".
 
Our best units are : DAE (Detachment of Special Actions - Marines) and Operaçoes Especiais (Army Special Forces).  They have cover missions and they are specialized in counter guerilla, sabotage, and search and rescue operations. 
They only can act under the direct order of President of Republic. No one can send them to anywhere. Not even the Defence Minister.
 
Commandos:
 
 
 
 
Anyone want to know more about Portuguese Special Forces? Smile Be my guests...
 
Back to Top
Phoenician2112 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phoenician2112 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2007 at 23:58
The SAS are the finest special forces in the world becasue they have a wide range of speialties eg reconnasiance, raids, counter terriosm
They are best at reconnasiance because of the small units of 4 men which are all cross trained whth each others specialties, they are excellent at concealment, they have great dicipline and can adapt for many missions.
The SAS are kown for their daring raids. They proved they are a great assest for counter terroism (Irainian embassy). They are also very proficiant in the bodyguard business and train many details in the middle east, africa and some european nations.
They have one of the hardest selection courses (apart from a german mountainiring miltary unit which i can't recall the name of)
“Si vis pacem para bellum”
Back to Top
Chwyatt View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Mar-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chwyatt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2007 at 06:40

During the initial invasion of Afghanistan, the US requested and got special forces support from German and Norwegian special forces for their mountain warfare skills; New Zealand SAS as they are considered to have amongst the best trackers in the world; and Australian, British, Canadian and Danish special forces for their all round skills.  

 

There are also special forces units that solely train as combat divers or hostage rescuers (such as police special units) and are excellent at those jobs but not combat troops.

 

If you look at modern western special forces, in particular…

 

Australian SAS

British SAS and SBS

Canadian JTF-2

Danish Jaegerkorpset

Dutch KCT

French 13e RDP

German KSK

Israeli Sayeret Matkal, S-13 and the Duvdevan Unit

New Zealand SAS

Norwegian HJK

Singapore Special Operations Force

South Korean Special Warfare Command

Swedish SSG

US Special Forces, SEALs, Marine Recon

 

…they are all very highly trained with very little between them.

 

The Americans have two advantages. Firstly, larger numbers, so conduct larger operations. And secondly more money to buy fancy equipment. I would not consider US special forces to be better than New Zealand SAS, but the New Zealanders have only about 50-100 troopers compared to several thousand US special forces, so it is unfair to compare them.

 

 

As for the Russians, their screw-ups during the Beslan crisis shows how poor they are now.



Edited by Chwyatt - 23-May-2007 at 06:44
Back to Top
Henry_Ireton View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Henry_Ireton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 11:44
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

S&D is right, both the SEALs and SBS are trained to a greater level than other special forces. They have to be able to operate both on land and in the water. They are also in high demand as security "consultants" when they leave the service.
 
Although the SBS might not have much longer. There is constant pressure from the government that they don't need specialist training or facilities. They can simply use the normal RM ones and maybe borrow of the parras as and when. A couple of years ago there was evan a proposal to move the training centre to a base without any access to water, not even a swimming pool.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 07:44
Originally posted by Christ-Knight Christ-Knight wrote:

The Navy Seals have too much propaganda... They have huge and awsome equipment, but as soldiers... they are nothing special....  Notice that every force that are here in this poll are known... the DAE are unknown... and they have the FIRST place in special forces in the world, I can assure you all! the best forces are DAE, Spetsnaz, French Legion, KSK, SAS, Belgium Commandos. Europe rullezzzz


French Foreign Legion?!?  Please.  Ermm  Have you seen Bear Grylls' 4 part series Escape to the Legion (2005)?  It's really, really good.  12 blokes including Grylls who enter, and 4 actually made it thru.  But the thing is, these guys were flabby old guys, with the key exception of a Grylls, a former S. African soldier and a professional boxer.  The S. African soldier and the boxer left because of typical wear and tear injuries.  Grylls of course is a former British SAS.

The attrition rate for the Navy Seals wannabees is far higher, and they are guys typically from the US Marines, Rangers and so on.  There's a 2002 multipart documentary on the Seals "BUDs" training which is quite entertaining.  If you see this documentary, understand that it is merely the training it takes to get into the SEALS, not the stuff they do when they are already in.

If you just casually compare the two documentaries, i.e. what the would be recruits had to do to get into the US Navy SEALs and the French Foreign Legion, it is clear the SEAL training was far more difficult, far more demanding.  On top of this, they had to endure in in cold water conditions.  The instructors, who are SEALs themselves, said that SEAL training is designed to weed out the cowboys and wannabees, and pushes human endurance to the just to the breaking point.  Why?  Because what doesn't kill you will make you stronger.  And everyone has a breaking point, and there is no point in going that far.  The point is:  SEAL training is designed to test human abilities, endurance, etc., to its maximum limit. 

The American military machinery is not going to lose to anyone.  I don't think the Brits with their so-so performance in the Falklands is anywhere near American military science.  No one could have pulled off the stunningly lopsided success of the 1991 and 2003 conventional, as opposed to the grotesquely catistrophic occupation itself, Gulf War victories.  Look at the Russians in Chechnya! 

Even in during the Vietnam War, there was a raid into N. Vietnam called "Operation Ivory Coast", where the American commander forced his men to undergo months after month of similated raids on a exact copy of the Son Tay POW prison complex they had built.  I can't recall the number of times they practiced it, but it was hundreds of times.  You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivory_Coast

The point is the US special forces are extremely meticulous in their training, science, etc.  Tasks are repeatedly broken down, analysed, reanalysed and analysed again.  Then break the smaller task into smaller tasks, etc., etc...

BTW, there's also a great documentary on the S. African commando police unit.  I can't recall their formal name...  This group of elite cops had an extremely grueling training regimen--for cops anyway, but it would definitely match the French Foreign Legion.

Lastly, in "Escape to the Legion" there was an American guy, little short guy suffering from a Napoleonic complex, who had served 5 years in the French Foreign Legion, then went on to serve 8 years in the US airborne and then went back to the Legion.  All US special forces are tough, but US airborne is not in the same league as the Green Berets, Delta Force, much less the SEALs.







Back to Top
britopinion View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britopinion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 17:04
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

The American military machinery is not going to lose to anyone.  I don't think the Brits with their so-so performance in the Falklands is anywhere near American military science. 
 
Although i agree with the comment that the US military is not going to lose to anyone overall i'm not sure what you mean exactly when you call British military efforts in the Falklands Campaign 'so so'.
 
For any force (and in particular a British force that had suffered repeated cost cutting over the previous 10 years) to travel 8000 miles and carry out a SUCCESSFUL naval, land and air operation in an extremely harsh climate against a numerically superior enemy is an 'incredible' military achievement and not 'so so' in any way.
 
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 17:24
1991: Iraq's armed forces were nothing: crap morale; 60s and 70s Russian weaponry with compramised Western assets; all of its sensitive infrastructure's weakpoints known because those who attacked constructed it; and it was just out of a huge costly 8 year war of attrition.
 
2003: (even worse morale after over a decade's sanctions; the army's top brass save for a few were paid off hence the Iraqi army disbanding;  the Us made sure Iraq had nothing which could threaten it - don't you remember the short range cruise missiles that were decommissioned literally weeks before the attacks at the UN's behest?
 
Anyone with enough men and finance could have pulled off 2003 or 1991.
 
And Chenya?  Well Iraq right now is
a good comparison.
 
 
Back to Top
miki015 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-Mar-2007
Location: Yugoslavia
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote miki015 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 19:37
Ok,I admire to all that special units,but...during the "Merciful Angel",NATO agression to my homeland SAS unit was crush down and eliminated by the members of 63.Airborne brigade of Yugoslavian armyClap...also members of US Green Beretes was captured alive,the whole world could seen that on BBC...So my vote goes to all boys from 63.Airborne that gave their lives for our freedom...





Edited by miki015 - 05-Jun-2007 at 19:57
Sa verom u Boga
za Kralja i Otadzbinu
Miki
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 01:10
Originally posted by britopinion britopinion wrote:

i'm not sure what you mean exactly when you call British military efforts in the Falklands Campaign 'so so'.
 
For any force (and in particular a British force that had suffered repeated cost cutting over the previous 10 years) to travel 8000 miles and carry out a SUCCESSFUL naval, land and air operation in an extremely harsh climate against a numerically superior enemy is an 'incredible' military achievement and not 'so so' in any way.
 
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

I'll clarify my statement with one of your own:

Originally posted by britopinion britopinion wrote:

For any force (and in particular a British force that had suffered repeated cost cutting over the previous 10 years)

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

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

1991: Iraq's armed forces were nothing: crap morale; 60s and 70s Russian weaponry with compramised Western assets; all of its sensitive infrastructure's weakpoints known because those who attacked constructed it; and it was just out of a huge costly 8 year war of attrition.
 
Gen. Chuck Horner (4 star USAF) said that he personally knew some of the Iraqi fighter pilots.  He said they were pretty good.  The Iraqi republican guard were pretty good too. 

But they were simply overwhelmed by American technology and tactics.  They didn't have a chance. 

Having said that, I wouldn't assume the Brits who did "so-so" in the Falklands could take on the Iraqis who have a far larger force.

Remember that the Israeli military which is probably second only to the US, if it is second to anyone, had big problems with Eygpt SAM's in one of their wars.  I don't think the Egytians were better than the Iraqis.  The Israelis are well trained and always combat hardened.  If you haven't noticed, they just got their tails handed to them by Hezbollah's new guerilla tactics.  The American learning curve is steep, the Israelis despite their decades of experience with the PLO and Hamas would do no better than how the US is doing in Baghdad.

In case you haven't noticed, the Brits are currently in the Shia section of Iraq.  They are definitely not in the Sunni Triangle.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


2003: (even worse morale after over a decade's sanctions; the army's top brass save for a few were paid off hence the Iraqi army disbanding;  the Us made sure Iraq had nothing which could threaten it - don't you remember the short range cruise missiles that were decommissioned literally weeks before the attacks at the UN's behest?

True, but US technology and familiarity with desert fighting was even higher in 2003 than in 1991.  Besides, those "short range cruise missiles" didn't do much in 1991 either.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


Anyone with enough men and finance could have pulled off 2003 or 1991.

Easier said than done.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


And Chenya?  Well Iraq right now is
a good comparison.

The Russians were initially beaten in Chechnya back in 1991.  The Chechens humiliated them.  Chechen forces are very small in number.

Lastly, it was the Europeans who wanted so badly to deal with the Balkan situation in the mid 1990's, but they knew without the US, they simply did not have the planning/tactical know-how nor logistical capability to do it without major costs in men and materials.  It was the US that did the job in Bosnia/Kosovo/Yugoslavia.  It was the US that kept the Russians on the sidelines.

No offence, but without the US in WWII, you'd be speaking Geman.  And the French and Germans would be speaking Russian, i.e. the Cold War.  FYI, I'm well familiar with Yankee imperialism and I criticize it just as much as the next bloke, but this doesn't cloud my judgement on their military prowess.

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 01:21
Originally posted by miki015 miki015 wrote:

Ok,I admire to all that special units,but...during the "Merciful Angel",NATO agression to my homeland SAS unit was crush down and eliminated by the members of 63.Airborne brigade of Yugoslavian armyClap...also members of US Green Beretes was captured alive,the whole world could seen that on BBC...So my vote goes to all boys from 63.Airborne that gave their lives for our freedom...


The Green Berets are not the Navy SEALs.  They're probably more like the SAS.  Green Berets can be "fat" or husky.  I've never seen a fat Navy SEAL.  (I mean footage of them on the various History Channel, Military Channel, National Geograhic, and Discovery Channel documentaries, as well as general news stories on CNN and the like.)  FYI, the SEALs literally train for 10-12 hour a day--if memory serves me, whether they have a mission or not.

Any group, special forces or otherwise, if ambushed and overwhelmingly outnumbered, can be defeated.  Remember those 15 Brit sailors?





It's quite likely there are special forces just as good as the SEALs, but better--I seriously doubt it.
Back to Top
britopinion View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britopinion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 06:38
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

Originally posted by britopinion britopinion wrote:

i'm not sure what you mean exactly when you call British military efforts in the Falklands Campaign 'so so'.
 
For any force (and in particular a British force that had suffered repeated cost cutting over the previous 10 years) to travel 8000 miles and carry out a SUCCESSFUL naval, land and air operation in an extremely harsh climate against a numerically superior enemy is an 'incredible' military achievement and not 'so so' in any way.
 
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

I'll clarify my statement with one of your own:

[QUOTE=britopinion]
For any force (and in particular a British force that had suffered repeated cost cutting over the previous 10 years)
 
 
I'm sorry mate by i still can't see how the British military operations in the South Atlantic in 1982 can be described as 'so so'.
 
Surely the fact that British forces in general had suffered swathing cuts in its financing throughout the 70's and early 80's would have made the operation to regain the Falkland Islands far harder and more complicated than if that financing had been available, and as a consequence making British performance even less 'so so'.
 
The fact that even while suffering from the handicap of under funding the British army was able to win every one of the six major land engagements of the war, as well as most of the smaller engagements.
 
The fact that even while suffering from the handicap of under funding the Royal Navy was able to completely dominate South Atlantic waters while still using Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers to destroy over 20 Argentine aircraft with no losses to themselves in air to air combat alone (out of 100 Argentine aircraft lost in the conflict overall) and attack Argentine land targets on the Islands themselves using aircraft and naval gunfire support.
 
The fact that even while suffering from the handicap of under funding the RAF was able to not only successfully deploy land based Harriers aboard aircraft carriers at short notice and with limited amounts of training in the discipline of carrier operations and then carry out combat operations with a very low attrition rate, but were also able to carry out the longest bombing operations in the history of aviation.
 
Sorry but i think the under funding issue that you refer to in an attempt the explain your description of British operations in the South Atlantic as 'so so' ACTUALLY makes the accomplishments achieved by the British forces in 1982 even more 'remarkable' than they would have been if those funds were available.
 
 
 

 
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 11:02
Quote
SBS Chief Killed

Updated: 19:39, Wednesday March 16, 2005

The commanding officer of the Special Boat Service has died following a diving accident in Norway.

Lieutenant Colonel Richard van der Horst was taking part in a training exercise last week when the incident happened.

He subsequently died in hospital in Norway.

According to reports, Lt Col van der Horst had been exiting a swimmer delivery vehicle - a mini-submarine allowing SBS troops to infiltrate enemy territory undetected - during a major amphibious exercise off Narvik.

The Ministry of Defence gave no further details.

Source:   http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13312451,00.html


Oh dear, how embarassing!  Shocked

Lol, sorry you SAS loyalists, but I just couldn't resist.  Embarrassed

Seriously, it seems from some casual reading via wiki and google searches that the SAS is about equivalent to the American Green Berets.  And the SBS is equivalent to the US Navy SEALs.  But since the US has its dirty imperialistic hands everywhere (not that the Brits, the French, or Russian don't either) and because the US spends so much money on warfare, like the more than the rest of the world combined!!!, I'd still give it to the SEALs.

Here's some interesting links I've just found:

1.   http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=1&c=1&t=85616
--- Another forum's debate on the toughest special forces.  Hmm, imagine that!

2.   http://www.ausspecialforces.com/selection.htm
---- Says the Australian SAS and US Navy SEALs have about the same attrition/graduation rate for prospective trainees.  Note that by 1997, the graduation/pass rate goes up for the SEALs.  (This would be consistent with the ever more popular attention (i.e. due to joint Hollywood & Pentagon propaganda films) given to them.  Think of the movie "Topgun" and what it did for the US Navy's recruitment for its fighter pilots.  I know at guy who became a Navy Pilot because of that stupid Tom Cruise/Scientology film.  I also know another guy, and his brother too, who joined the Navy but never made it to aviator status because of "Topgun".)

       http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1042/
----original study/source

3.  Wikipedia's articles:

a.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service
----author claims that only 2-7% graduate/pass and get into the SAS.  But I need to see sources, before I would accept this.

b.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service
---British SBS

c.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_Forces 
-----American Green Berets

d.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEALs
----Claims about 70-80% of a class drops out of the Seals training.  Takes two and a half years of training until a SEALs is combat ready.  Sounds reasonable.

e.  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/MNGOBIPSBK1.DTL
----- A mainstream article on the SEALs.

f.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Special_Operation_Forces
-----All US special forces.

g.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_special_forces_units
----Pretty much all the special forces throughout the world.

h.  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_has_the_best_army_in_the_world
---Way too many ridiculously funny claims by nationalistic blokes throughout the world on who has the best military in general, as opposed to the best special forces.

Note:  Look at the respective "selection & training" sections to get a rough idea of what it takes to get into each of the various special forces in the wiki links for the SEALs, SAS, SBS, etc.  But remember, this is Wikipedia.  Any idiot can claim anything.  Wikipedia is just a glorified and overhyped blog!
Disapprove


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

britopinion,

Let me take a look at the Falklands War again.  By the way, I don't really see the Argentinian military as being that great to begin with.  I mean, how battle hardened were they?  When was the last time they got in a war?  (I'm not even sure...)


Edited by TranHungDao - 07-Jun-2007 at 11:05
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 12:01
Originally posted by Chwyatt Chwyatt wrote:

As for the Russians, their screw-ups during the Beslan crisis shows how poor they are now.


If you're going to judge any service as "poor" on a few screw-ups, the US is going to look very poor as well. Eg Operation Eagle Claw - I cannot think of a more spectacular failure on the part of any special forces service. Before even coming into contact with the enemy, they managed to get themselves killed, leave the Iranians with a bunch of military gear to study or use, and left behind intelligence papers which identified a number of American operatives in Iran. And drew attention on the world stage.
Back to Top
britopinion View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britopinion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 18:35
 
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

[quote]

Seriously, it seems from some casual reading via wiki and google searches that the SAS is about equivalent to the American Green Berets.  And the SBS is equivalent to the US Navy SEALs.  But since the US has its dirty imperialistic hands everywhere (not that the Brits, the French, or Russian don't either) and because the US spends so much money on warfare, like the more than the rest of the world combined!!!, I'd still give it to the SEALs.
 
I can't agree with you here either. Using your logic the fact that the US spends more money on its military overall  means that every US unit is better than any similar unit from anywhere in the world just because more money is spent on it. Although finances are very very important when it comes to building a special operations unit in to a capable outfit it isn't the only thing, and in my opinion it isn't the most important thing, that's necessary.
 
To my mind the US navy SEAL's are a fine special operations unit, to suggest otherwise would be stupid, however IMO they suffer from one fundamental disadvantage to the SBS.
 
Undoubtedly all special operations units, including maritime special operations units, involved in the war on terror (or any war at the moment) are far more likely to be used on land than at sea for the time being..
 
The SEAL's take qualified sailors from within the ranks of the US Navy. Those sailors may be qualified radar operators, communications engineers, aviation mechanics, or any number of other specialised trade tasks from within the Navy. Then the Navy sets about training these men to do two main things better than anyone else.
 
On the one hand they set out to train these sailors to carry out underwater warfare (deploying from subs, using mini-subs attacking maritime targets from the sea etc etc) from scratch. Now in this field i would have to agree that the US Navy SEAL's are probably the best in the world. Not because of the fact that they are better trained than many of their counterparts but because they have access to better equipment than many other similar units.
 
On the other hand the US Navy sets out to train these men to be capable, no, highly capable 'commandos' (land based special operations) to a level of the best special operations forces in the world from scratch. Now in this field i think the SEAL's suffer problems.
 
Training to be an infantryman (which is basically what 'commandos' are, elite infantryman) is a very complicated, arduous and particular process developing very particular and hard taught skills. To take sailors from scratch, without any experience what so ever in this field and the field of 'land warfare', and attempt to turn them in to the top 'land warfare' special operations troops in the world is a very tall order indeed. To do it while at the same time training the same sailors to be the best underwater warfare specialists in the world is harder still.
 
In my opinion the US would be much wiser putting it maritime special operation capability in to the hands of the US Marine Corps. Who would take men already highly trained in those basic infantryman skills and then simply build on these already hard learnt skills to create a capable 'land warfare' special operation operator would be a relatively straight forward process. While they are doing this the training to become underwater specialists would be far less complicated than trying to do both from scratch and far more effective in producing troops that are highly capable in both fields.
 
The Royal Marine Commandos are amongst the most highly trained 'elite infantryman' in the world. It's from this pool of men that the SBS finds its recruits and builds on their already considerable skills to form some of the best special operations troops in the world without a doubt. They then add the skills neccessary to become capable underwater specialist and produce what is amongst the finest unit of its kind in the world.
 
As to wether or not the SBS marine is better than the SEAL sailor. I'd have to say that in the 'land warfare' part of their job without a doubt YES. However in the 'underwater warfare' part of their job without a doubt NO. There are none as capable as the SEAL's in this particular field. Some may be as highly trained but none have the equipment advantages available to the US.
 
 
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

[quote]
britopinion,

Let me take a look at the Falklands War again.  By the way, I don't really see the Argentinian military as being that great to begin with.  I mean, how battle hardened were they?  When was the last time they got in a war?  (I'm not even sure...)
 
Any country that's able to put trained soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen in to the field adequately led and equipped are capable of being a formidable enemy, regardles of how long ago the last full blown coventional war was.
 
Have a look again and then we'll discuss it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 21:17
Originally posted by britopinion britopinion wrote:

I can't agree with you here either. Using your logic the fact that the US spends more money on its military overall  means that every US unit is better than any similar unit from anywhere in the world just because more money is spent on it. Although finances are very very important when it comes to building a special operations unit in to a capable outfit it isn't the only thing, and in my opinion it isn't the most important thing, that's necessary.
 
It's intuitive reasoning, and so the opposite would naturally be counter-intuitive reasoning.

American special forces, including the SEALs, performed missions in 152 countries in 1999.  This doesn't include missions so sensitive they nothing about them is divulged.

Souce:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561295.stm

This should inform you that their missions run the gamut from left to right, up to down, East to West, North to South:  You name it, they do it.

So why would the Pentagon train their special forces to an extent that would make them fall short of their full human potential--for killing, surviving, getting the job done, etc.?!?  The SEALs claim they train their soldiers at a level which nearly reaches the breaking point human endurance and ability, in and overall sense.  (For instance, the best sharp shooters are those guys who work as professional marksmen who can repeately shoot small coins out of the air.  No one in the special forces can do this, but they can do so much more.  Likewise, those professional sharp shooters/entertainers are often flabby old guys who wear thick glasses.)

You don't train people so that you break all of them.  Why?  Because everyone has a breaking point.  But to push the human limit and not cross it is a good thing.  Why?  Because what doesn't kill you will make you stronger.  This is intuitive reasoning.

It is counter-intuitive to say that countries with smaller armies and far lesser budgets should be the best.  Is the British SAS/SBS in 152 countries?!?  (There is a notable exception here, well sort of...  The Israelis are a small country, but they live in a rough neighborhood, and thus are extremely warlike.  They are topnotch at virtually all things military.)

Lastly, all this is kind of incredibly stupid because the only way to really judge the various special forces is to look at all the missions they have undertaken, attempt to categorize these missions according to difficulty, and then look at the success rate.  But the vast majority of these missions are classified by the respective governments/militaries.

Other secondary indicators of how tough these special forces are is to look at their selection, admissions training, attrition/graduation/acceptance rate of trainees, post-grad/active duty training (probably significantly classified).
And some tertiary indicators:

1.  Special Forces Competitions:  But here countries like India, South Africa,Turkey win, rather than being dominated by the US, UK, France, Russia, etc.

Source:  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=13098760

Another competition: 

Quote
Turcain
December 1st, 2004, 06:19 PM

Maybe most of you didny hear about Turkish Special Forces (or as their original name, Bordo Bereliler) won the best special force award at a formal special force competition. Well, they are experienced in Northern Iraq and Southeast of Turkey, also they use nearly the same gadgets with other special forces but I think they differ from other because of their trainings and educations (most of members have at least universty degree and some has master degrees). If I find more data about them and any photo, I can upload here but I have never seen one even on newspapers.

Link:  http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1913.html 


The above is merely a claim from some Turkish blogger.  But it sounds legit.

Of course, the article/links don't specify which special forces showed up from the US, UK, Russia, etc.!!!  SEALs or just US Army Rangers?  SBS or just the Royal Marines?!?

2.  US Navy SEALs number about 2,450.  America is a country of 300 million.

Source:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/MNGOBIPSBK1.DTL

The SAS numbers about 1,000.  UK is about 61 million. 

Source:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4857704.stm

Do the math! 

America vs UK

Population ratio          5:1
SEAL vs SAS ratio    2.5:1

Now, this is a minor point, but even in this respect, the intuitive reasoning points in the direction of the SEALs as tops.

3.  Spending per soldier is also a good indicator:

SAS/SBS spending is about £2 million per soldier.
Source:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4857704.stm

And SEAL spending per soldier?  I don't have any figures...





 
 
 



Edited by TranHungDao - 07-Jun-2007 at 21:19
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 21:56
Even more intuitive reasoning:

1.  Ever heard of "form follows function"?  If the US has its dirty imperialistic hands in 152 countries, i.e. special forces (SF for short) missions in 152 countries, then these SF's do every kind of mission imaginable.

2.  The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.

Thus they have the both the raison d'être (actual missions) and the resources (cold hard cash) to make their  SF's (Navy SEALs) the best that human abilities will allow.

Millions of years ago, the sabre-tooth tiger evolved big--and I mean really big--canines.  Why?  Because it had both the raison d'être (wooly mamonth and whatnot with big juicy thighs) and the resources (feline genetics, darwinian evolutionary pathways, etc.) to do so.

3.  Parallels between the 13th century Mongols, WWII Nazis, and the current US military juggernaut.

The Mongols:  Their secret was the mounted archer with the composite bow.  That is their trap-setting & feigned retreats tactics was based on their use of horses and their composite bows.

The Nazis:  Their blitzkrieg tactics was based on the combined use of heavy ground armor and their then advanced airplanes.

The US, 1991 and 2003:  Aircraft carriers, smart bombs, satelites, night vision, infrared vision, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, etc., etc., etc.

Question:  What is the common thread here?!? 

Answer:  Form Follows Function.  Their respective technologies without question defined their strategies, tactics, and logistics.  That is, if all three of these war mongering outfits want to maximize their respective technologies exhausting them to their limits, they had to develop and hone far more sophicated strategy, tactics, and logistics.  And in the process, they became something that was head and shoulders above the rest.  Or equivalently, they evolve giant canines.

This isn't by any means proof the SEALs are the best, but it most certainly is intuitive logic.  Like me, you have no proof.  But unlike me, you are being counter-intuitive.   I'm not saying your assertion about the SAS/SBS is wrong, just that your argument doesn't hold water.

--------------------
And one more thing: 

The SEALs get their soldiers from all branches of the miltiary, not just the Navy!


So with all due respect, you can junk that extensive logic about the SBS being superior to the SEALs.  Believe you me, your logic is counter-intuitive.  I have no proof as to which SF is the best, but then again, as I said in my previous post, the only real way to compare these various SF's is to look at their missions and the respective success rates thereof.  But these missions are virtually and universally all classified by the respective governemnts.

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 22:00
Originally posted by britopinion britopinion wrote:

Any country that's able to put trained soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen in to the field adequately led and equipped are capable of being a formidable enemy, regardles of how long ago the last full blown coventional war was.
 
Have a look again and then we'll discuss it.


Sure, but I think we'd better start a new thread for it.  Ermm
Back to Top
Red_Lord View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 19-May-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 166
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Red_Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 04:53
No doubt,can't you see that specnaz is one lever higher than all other special forcesStar
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.