Well the SAS were in that situation... and since they are specially trained for desert combat and are arguably the most reliable special forces group in the world, one could assume that they would do the best job... and this speculative post is offensive and ridiculous.
"Kevlar is for pussies"
[deleted]
[deleted]
Real special ops folks tend to agree: Any SEAL team would have done
better in that situation. Not because the men in the SEAL teams are
"better," but because their comm equipment in the first Gulf War was
far more reliable, and SEAL doctrine is to carry redundant comms.
Also, U.S. Navy doctrine generally covers lost communication scenarios
in more detail during mission planning than SAS groups typically
would.
That whole debacle was more a failure of command and control than of
anything the poor bastards in the field did or didn't do.
[deleted]
No - He's right. It didn't really matter in the end how good the Bravo Two Zero guys were at being soldiers. They could have been the best soldiers in the entire world, but they were still let down by knackered equipment, bad intel and bad Command / Control / Support.
An interesting question to ask would be: What would have happened if the mission had been tasked to SAS soldiers, with the SEALs' resources? They probably could have won the whole war all on their own ... ;o)
--Myk
Oh come on, I have seen HUNDREDS of "which is the better unit?" or "who could handle themselves better?" topics...
"6- the SAS are better than delta because delta have to pass the selection process to serve with the SAS on attachment. Also 1para beat the delta record on delta's own assault course"
Should imagine SEAL training is not vastly dissimilar
to DELTA - they're both Special operatives so there we are.
Definitely the SAS, what unit has had so much experience, the British Army has been on operational duty for a long time now. The Navy Seals are good, but most Yanks I know agree that Delta is better, the maker of Delta forces served in the SAS and made Delta with the same structure as the SAS. The real question is which unit has had the most experience, I still think the SAS.
shareIt really is kind of like comparing apples to oranges, SAS and SEAL's really aren't in the same category as far as training and mission capability. SAS is on a different level, the only US special forces unit you can compare them to is Delta Force because Delta was set up to be on par with the SAS as far as training and mission capability. Comparing SEAL's to SAS is like comparing Rangers to SEAL's, one is set up, and trained, from the outset to be on a 'higher level' than the other.
share[deleted]
Well, Edward, I'm 20 years of age and I don't think you know s--t about any of the worlds SF, you probably know as much as me about them, first off the iranian hostage cock up you are referring to happened in 1979 and was the first ever op of delta, great you've met a few ex-SAS and SBS, hell I met one door man who told me he was an ex-royal marine, another guy thought he was a para.
Whether you think SEALS are not widely respected outside of the US, special forces are not in the business to be respected or liked but to get the job done.
People who have served in the SAS would be wise not to go blabbing their mouth off because its not the kind of thing you want your friends knowing.
And you can't do a comparison of any military unit unless you know EXACTLY what they are capable of and their capabilities.
Any of you saying "the SEALS would do better" or "The SAS would do better" or whatever are idiots. Situations like these aren't about what unit you're a part of, or how hard your training is, or whatever.
Who would do better laying in a creek bed during the freezing cold weather all day? Whoever has the most personal strength, it could be a member of the SAS, it could be a school teacher or a garbage man, it doesn't matter. Tactics, training, planning, all that stuff is secondary to the strength of the people involved. Sure, SEALS, SAS and the like go through some difficult training, but that doesn't serve as an indicator to how the troops will respond in this type of situation. There are SAS men who would panic and give up, there are SEAL men who would panic and give up. Just like there are men in both who probably would have done extremely well, some possibly better than the ones from the actual situation.
You can't say "the SAS are the best regiment in the world" or "SEALs or DELTA are the best" because there's no solid way to compare. Delta on any given day could be successful in a mission that would completely baffle the SAS. The SAS one day could thrive in a mission that the SEALS wouldn't. There's no comparison.
The only thing that i'll say about these different units is that when it came down to a firefight...SEALS or SAS...i'd rather have them on my side.
Who would've done better?
The Americans of course. They have more money and more equipment.
Now, for the real discussion. Who would win: Pirates or Ninjas?
Don't all of the various Special Forces cross train with each other anyway?
I remember reading several accounts or stories by Andy McNab, Chris Ryan and Demo Dickie among others of SAS guys visiting Delta or SEAL bases, or of American operators doing SAS selection or climbing mountains with GSG9 or jumping out of or onto aeroplanes with GIGN or whatever else.
It seems to me that there's very little competition, or talk of who's *best* between each Special Force - rather that they're all ready and willing to learn from each other's methods and training.
--Myk
Exactly.
shareThey are all as good as each other, some just have different roles. I don't think anyone should comment on their skills until they try some of their training. Why don't you try the Potential Officers Course for the Royal Marines, how fast can you run 9 miles in?
shareIt was said by some British military leaders that they do not like other units where ever traning with the SAS
shareA couple of points gentlemen,
Regiment Squadrons do very little training with outside forces, they do however, send "advisors" to some allied forces to "advise" on a particular tactic or modus operandi. Example of this was the munich air siege, "advisors" assisted GSG9 in the annihilation of the terrorists.
On the B2O points, it was not the only patrol out that night.
I think that there are loads of holes in all the stories you hear, but are they deliberate lies? probably not, imagine this... you have been dropped into enemy territory, its cold, damn colder than you expected, and pitch dark, and silent, you are walking to your planned LUP an hour or so goes by, you are cold and bored, you might see your mission as a bit pants, after all, the air force is pounding the *beep* out of everything that moves, and you are on a political mission to help stop israel entering the war...... another half hour goes by then the first thing you get is a great flash and a lot of banging, you snap off a double tap and dive down for cover, your own shots have deafened you and your muzzle flash has taken your night vision away which will come back in about 20 seconds or so. one ak47 can fire 800 rounds per minute, chuck in a couple of old rifles firing from different positions and your nerves will probably tell you you are under attack from an enemy unit... after all, you are behind enemy lines arn`t you? you have been walking for an hour and a half! how far is that? how far do you normally walk in an hour? probably 3 miles or so? tabbing, even with cemo kit will cover 5 miles an hour.
so what i am saying is that these inconsistencies in various books are explainable, look at how police evidence varies so much between different witnesses to a minor crime or car accident, and this is from people that are not under threat and are going to work, home etc.
The Queen of England gave McNab the MM. Unlike the USA it is quite hard getting medals in the British Forces, and medals of bravery or exceptional conduct are given only after a very indepth investigation to ascertain which medal is deserved. Maybe the MOD should have waited until that ridiculous TV program that was aimed at being politically correct in order to help appease Iraqi attitudes until they decided to give McNab the MM,
And yes of course andy and chris are going to slag each other off,, chris will be pissed off that andy stood up to interrogation and proved himself and he didnt get the chance, and andy will be pissed at chris cos he escaped and tabbed 160 clicks home proving he was a double hard b**tard. They have both written their stories and made a wad of cash out of it, good for them both.
that last bit might sound a bit weird guys, but that is the sort of attitude of the blokes in the regiment, or any good unit for that matter.
One thing you cant dispute,,, they were there,, they did it,, where were you guys at the time? at work? at home? at school? and of course they get slagged of back at the regiment cos yes everyone would love to make a couple of million quid, after winning a military medal and having sean bean play them in a film.... great stuff.
And yes, without any doubt, the SAS are now the best, there was a unit that was better in desert and insurgent warefare but they have been disbanded and no longer exist. Rhodesian Selous Scouts. check their history and training.
I think that when trying to compare units as to who is the best, you must ask yourself best at what?
If you were a leader of a country and wanted a regiment to protect your interests who would you choose? one regiment only. to be able to do the following;
Desert warfare
Arctic warfare
Jungle Warfare
Amphibious Warfare
Mountain Warfare
Temperate climate warfare.
Urban Siege, FIBUA. any global location.
Close protection, "bodyguarding to you romantics"any global location
Hostage Rescue.any global location
Intelligence gathering, any global location.
Ability to use, clean and maintain any of the worlds small arms.
Counter terrorism
Counter insurgency
HALO and HAHO deployment.
you will find that arguments like this about seals, can only really be discussed in one or two theatres, maybe they are better or equal to the SAS in amphib, but how many seals have done Hostage rescue, or mountain warfare for instance.
Hello Lee, I agree that this thread is stupid and that it depends on the mission. But the cross training thing isnt totally correct, there is loads of cross training but the regiment lads and us cross train whilst maintaining our troop cohesion. We dont send a single bod or a split team, as usually we gain the most from something when we keep our relational integrity.
Desert warfare
Arctic warfare
Jungle Warfare
Amphibious Warfare
Mountain Warfare
Temperate climate warfare.
Urban Siege, FIBUA. any global location.
Close protection, "bodyguarding to you romantics"any global location
Hostage Rescue.any global location
Intelligence gathering, any global location.
Ability to use, clean and maintain any of the worlds small arms.
Counter terrorism
Counter insurgency
HALO and HAHO deployment.
Lee, I would argue that we are every bit as competant as our Regiment mates at any of the above. Possibly the desert would be a push! but the amphib and the rest mmmm!
I have to say that our US colleague have a obvious edge when it comes to equipment. as when are lucky enough to try some and if we like it, we then have to beg and grovel to the mandarins to get it for us. The SEALs kit is superb for amphib and the US com equipment is tops. We are always catching up. Budgets!
And to myk-harwood you beat 18 mins and we give you a lolly!
I have no morals, but I'm a very moral person. (Voltair)
Huh? What do I have to do to win my lolly?
I'm quite excited now - is it an SAS lolly?
--Myk
The special operations units of Western nations are equally well trained and equally staffed with dedicated professionals. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is just getting caught up in nationalist chest thumping and overhyping the home team.
When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...share
Yeh man, I read about the huge distance they had to cover in the falklands when the ship carrying all the transport helicopters was sunk. How many miles was it? My school is making us do a 50 miles walk in 24 hours and the end of our As-levels, a lovely school tradition :( , still i bet the paras had to walk twice that distance in less time
share I don't understand where the Brits get this idea that Americans are pansies who couldn't do half the stuff that the British special forces/military can do. And to blame it on superior technology and funding is just a BS excuse in my opinion. I guess you could argue that American wrestlers dominate the Olympics too because of their superior training technology and funding. Right. Sure SEALs are trained to PRIMARILY work in maritime environments but has anybody heard of Seal Team 6? Hello!? I believe they MIGHT dabble a BIT in counter-terrorism and non-maritime environments. It's probably fairly obvious that I'm an American and I'm biased, but I'm not in the position to make the SEALs/SAS call either. Probably no one is, unless there is someone who has been both a SEAL and an SAS. They would probably have some credibility.
And to base it on the mortality rate of the SAS in training is probably a bad argument too. I could argue that SAS traing methods are inferior and not as professional, and are thus more prone to deadly mistakes than SEALs training. Heck, maybe it's not a good idea to use live ammunition for sound effects when blanks would serve just as well. And where you could argue that the SEALs seem to get more credibility because they are glorified in the media by Charlie Sheen/Chuck Norris/whoever, I could argue that because of this glorification, they recieve more potential candidates, which in turn, creates a bigger pool of more qualified applicants and ensures a higher quality solidier, just due to statistical probability of having more quality applicants in a larger number of people.
But to tell you truth, I don't think any SEAL or SAS would really care, and would probably laugh at the question. And I wouldn't compare Royal Marines to SEALs, I would definitely say SEALs are way more elite; that is unless you want to compare Royal Marines with the SAS ;-) I would say they are more equivalent to Rangers. And here comes the barrage...
Who really gives a rat's hairy bum ?
shareIn other words.....
the USA are independant and dont need anyone else.
Just why do they keep asking for help, the british or german for example.
A few yrs back, there was this multinational training exercise in which different armed forces from different NATO countries took part.
The french foreign legion stuck out completely but were humble with the fame.
One thing one could easily figure out. The US Marines came into the jungle with a big noise in their helicopters, while the french legion was already there....for a day after a 5 day walk through the jungle with all their gear.
I know....USA rulz....who helped them get into space? Wernherr von Braun...of course...he was american...after the US captured him and told him he should never be a nazi again.
guys...come on...
don't be jealous because the USA rules, only losers complain, and I don't hear the US complaining.
But I think this thread is ridiculous and pretty disrespectful to try and compare these two highly elite forces
[deleted]
Meaning No disrespect 2 the americans risking their life but the bottom line is that the SAS take only the fittest men to begin with and has one of the harshest training regimes in the worlds SF i believe it is disrespectful to compare the SEALs to the men in 4cdo RAR in australia as the men there are mainly reserves or instrucors and the seals are regular US Navy troops however in the end i must agree with a previous post which stated "when it came down to a firefight...SEALS or SAS...i'd rather have them on my side. " because the bottom line there is they're there to Kill their enemy and they're traind for exactly that job but thats just my 2 cents and if u disagree feel free to rip it to shreds
shareI don't claim to be a complete expert on the military. I'm not. Due to past physical injuries, I would be unable to join any military unit, let alone a Special Forces unit, unless they required an outside observer or researcher or something like that. But I do possess a pretty good analytical mind, and am rather skilled at digging up all sorts of obscure information.
First off, you say 'the USA rules, only losers complain, and I don't hear the US complaining.' Then you start on about how the thread is ridiculous and disrespectful. How do you describe that earlier comment, then? I'd rate it as extremely childish, myself.
Second, in reference to one of your earlier comments (my apologies if I'm thinking of someone else), yes SEAL Team Six do train for a variety of environments that the mainstream SEAL Teams don't. However, there are a number of flaws in general US military training doctrines, and those of US special operations forces in particular. A number of accounts written by retired members of the British Army and Royal Marines, including those of ex-SAS and SBS members, make references to cross-training exercises with the US military, and Special Forces units like the SEALs and Delta Force. One of the key criticisms levelled time and time again at American Special Forces units is that their members tend to focus their personal physical training in the wrong direction, preferring to develop their upper-body muscle as much as possible. This isn't something widely practiced in the British Army. Muscle tissue is HEAVY. If you haven't got a heart and lungs to carry it, you're effectively weighing yourself down with deadweight.
Here is an example of the problems this causes. During a large-scale training exercise between Delta and 22 SAS in the late 1980s, several of the helicopters landed during the exfiltration and the troops onboard - a mix of Delta and SAS - were told to disembark. They were met by a group of US Army officers who informed them that for the purposes of the exercise, the choppers had been classified as being 'shot down' by enemy forces. The troopers had to return to base on foot, with crocodile-infested swamps to the south, a load of hillbillies straight out of "Deliverance" to the north-west, and the 82nd Airborne Division on their tails. Tabbing over a couple of hundred kilometres to friendly territory, not one SAS soldier was caught by the 82nd. Only TWO Delta troopers (out of more than TWO DOZEN) made it to safety; the rest were captured and had the living daylights beaten out of them by the 82nd. Out of around fifty troopers, all the SAS lads made it back to base, whilst most of the Delta boys got their teeth kicked out (literally in some cases) by the 82nd Airborne.
Now, those Delta troopers were all big, tall, burly macho he-men. The SAS troopers were typical for the Regiment: all shapes and sizes. None of them bothered to specifically develop upper-body muscle; all of them were very much 'racing snakes' - guys who could tab anyone the US military could put up to compete against them into the ground.
Yes, the US military does get more kit and better kit. However, having analysed as much material as I can find, including some bits and pieces not widely found in the public domain (no, I don't mean classified stuff, just things that didn't circulate much or lost funding from publishing companies) it would appear that the problems Bravo Two Zero experienced with their radios wasn't anything to do with the radios themselves - the wrong frequencies were issued, and 'McNab' failed to make last-minute checks that they worked (or not, as the case may be). Considering that this was his first command during a full-scale war, it was a serious mistake, but under the circumstances a rather understandable one. The problem wasn't with the radios themselves - they were perfectly serviceable pieces of kit - but with the frequencies themselves, and with one of the few little mistakes that 'McNab' himself made.
For more recent events, take a look at this link;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/24/nparas24.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/24/ixhome.html
If the US is so all-powerful, how come that we're always the ones you turn to when the brown sticky stuff hits the electrically-powered rotary cooling device? If the US was anywhere near as perfect as has been espoused by yourself and others on this thread, we'd be able to sit back and watch the news footage on the telly before turning over to another channel to watch the World Cup. Your troops can't even handle Baghdad on their own - even now, the SAS and Paras are doing hard jobs that American troops and commanders are either incapable or unwilling to handle. Seriously - grow up, mate. I agree that this thread is ridiculous, but honestly, being that hypocritical and sounding so childish isn't going to impress anyone.
[deleted]
navy. def not. delta possibly. i remember an interview with McNab and he was asked to rate the worlds special forces/secret units. he rated mossad 1st, closely followed by SAS and SBS. Then delta. then the french bunch (forget their name).. But anyway the point he really wanted to make was he found the question insulting. he considers all them in the highest regard. Not my opinion but his. My opinion SBS are best trained, Delta best equiped. Mossad just nutters.
shareIn war you cannt teach a man to sidestep a bullet, you need to keep a perspective on this mission, the intel, weather, Iraq's, and most of all Mr. Murphy himself along for the ride. caused this to become in total *beep* Had any oter team, SEAL's, Delta, Recon,anyone, been faced with the problems that Andy and his team faced, I feel that they would have had the same problems. The SAS has been the most elite force to date, fighting in ALL major conflicts, and some not seen or told to us by CNN. The SAS fought in WW2 in the desert, Oman in the 60s and 70s, Iraq in the 90's and 00's, so they have had a lot of 1st hand experince with life, and war in the desert. This is not a put down on anyone, on any elite teams, SAS,Delta, Recon, SEAL's, we are faced with incredible odds everytime we go out, and the only winners are tose who come back, but the scars we carry are with us forever.
shareSAS
the only reason people think that the seals are so good is because of the media (ie. movies and games) not to rag on the seals but the SAS are far more superior in any situation, the sas are the special forces unit in which most if not all are based on (ie. canadian JTF-2, American Delta force and German KSK). the sas cover all forms of terrain with the use of their four sabre units air,mobility,mountain and boat.
share[deleted]