Best Special Forces of Modern Armies

Originally posted by Al Jassas Please, read history not propaganda, the operation was a complete faliure, the aim, kill or capture Aidid and distroy his militia. Two month after the operation he became virtual master of Mogadisho and his position actually got stronger.

The Navy Seals claim a kill ratio of 200 to 1 in Vietnam.  I find this estimate at once both highly plausible and suspect.  It is plausible in the sense that they were directly or indirectly responsible for that many VC (Vietcong insurgents) and NVA (N. Vietnamese Army infiltrators into S. Vietnam) dead.  I find it highly suspect because the SEALs also had tactical air support as well as tactical air insertion/extraction.  Who gets credit for kills done by US bombs and AC-130 gunships?  Are they gonna count civilians as combatants, because if so there is less explaining to do.  What would the kill ratio be if the SEALs were left on their own, because sooner rather than later, they'd be surrounded by VC and NVA since they were constantly working behind enemy lines?

But the real point here is that the SEALs, US Marines, Army Rangers, 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, can kill as many VC and NVA as they want, they still lost.  Indeed, Aidid, Saddam, the Taliban, Iran all cite(d) Vietnam as a warning to the US not to invade.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Please, read history not propaganda,

No one really knows how many Somalis were killed in Mogadishu.  But it is undeniable that the kill ratio favored the Americans--BIG TIME!   Keep in mind too that many of the 18 who were killed were killed due to the Blackhawk that was shot down.

And for your information, Chuck Horner, the architect of the air war in Iraq in 1991 spuriously claims the US only killed 10,000-20,000 Iraqis even though they bombed the hell out of Bagdad, destroyed 42 Iraqi divisions, etc., like it was as easy as "shooting fish in a barrel".  This is pure garbage, the Pentagon is deliberately low-balling the figures by a factor of 10.  It's more like 100,000 - 300,000.  Again, nobody really knows because nobody, neither the US nor Saddam wanted to admit it.  They could have EASILY killed a lot more.

The US only lost 300 in 1991, and probably half of that was from "friendly fire".  One lucky scud killed about 78 US soldiers in a rear base in Saudi Arabia.

So what was the kill ratio in 1991?  1000:1 ?   2000:1 ?

And what was the kill ratio in Somalia?  100:1 ?   500:1 ?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Only 130 militia people died and 300-500 civilian not 10 000 as the Americans said. The Mogadisho incident shows that skill are far more important than being tough with big muscles. If the Americans made an approach similar to the one taken by the SAS in Operation Barras or the SAS operations in Borneo success might have been on their side but they didn't. They just jumped in being the strong and fearless Americans who's enemy should through their weapons on sight of them and bow and not try to resist.

Repeat, the official Pentagon stats put it nowhere near 10,000 in Somalia or 300,000 in Iraq in 1991.  They low ball this figure.  I'm getting my estimates from people who condemn what the US did in Iraq and even Somalia.

And mind you, although the US intervention in Somalia turned into a total nightmare, but still saved hundreds of thousands of liveds, if not millions.

Further, African soldiers, or militia men fighting for brutal warlords are of very low quality.  They are merely thugs with guns and have very little training.  Take for instance Sierra Leone in 1995, when that diamond rich country hired Executive Outcomes, a S. African mercenary organization, a small band of Executive Outcomes' commandos were easily able to route the murderous rebel forces who overwhelmingly outnumbered them.  It was a stunning success in every measure, and these bloody mercenaries ended up doing a good thing:  They saved 10's of thousands of innocent Africans from literally being butchered by the rebels.



Peace activists thoroughly condemned the government of Sierra Leone for hiring mercenaries, even after the spectacular outcome.  This was a shame because the rebels came back with a vengence once Executive Outcomes was let go along with its much needed services.  The UN was totally toothless in this Sierra Leone like it is in so many other places.  (Of course the UN's toothlessness in in large part due precisely to the nefarious efforts of the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, etc., who deliberately keep it weak! )  However, a positive thing that resulted in the end was that the rebels knew that they were most certainly beatable, which brought them to the negotiating table.

Mind you, I'm not for mercenary groups at all.  It's simply a dangerous precedent to use them, since they can be used for diabolical purposes as well, which is certainly is the common case.  BTW, I'm for giving UN or African Union troops far more firepower.

Lastly, this is not to say that Africans or blacks can't fight, for they certainly can.  The most decorated unit in the Spanish American War was the "Buffalo Soldiers" regiment.  The best American fighter pilots, i.e. bomber escorts, of WWII were the famed all-black Tuskeegee airmen.



The best US tank unit in WWII was 761st "Black Panthers" Battalion:




That's Patton on the left, btw.
 
---------------------------

Executive Outcomes, that mercenary organization from S. Africa hired by Sierra Leone, also has native African (black) commandos in its ranks. 

Al-Jassas,

I'm not familiar with the Ramadi incident.  However, you should know that a lot of the insurgents are themselves Republican Guard commandos, Saddam Fedeyeen, and so on.  BTW, what do you think would have happened if you were to put in Red Berrets, French Foreign Legionaires, British SAS/SBS, Spetnatz, etc., instead?

During the 1989 invasion of Panama, a small team of US Navy SEALs were surrounded at an airport, where they were supposed to have sabotaged Noriega's private jet, and were all killed.  If you're surrounded and overwhelmingly outnumbered and have no air support, then you're dead meat!    No if's,  and's, or but's about it.

As for the Somali incident, or the battle of Mogadishu in 1993 ("Black Hawk Down" incident), the Americans killed about 1,000 - 10,000, but lost only 18.  That's a staggering kill ratio.  No one really knows how many were killed.  The kill ratio in both Somalia and Iraq (1991 and 2003) were so bad that the Pentagon goes out its way to concoct ridiculously low bogus numbers.  No doubt, they fear the stigma of "genocide" and Yankee imperialism.

loneone,

I'm familiar with that article.  But it doesn't say which US special forces guys showed up. 

But as Al Jassas messianically proclaims, toughness is "irrelevant"...

So India and Turkey can win these competitions, but are they the best?

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

Originally posted by Al Jassas Tough training is irrelevant. The Egyptians have one of the toughest training programs anywhere in the world yet the operational record for these special forces is appalling. They never pulled and operation correctly. cypriot police masscred them in the 70s and Palestinians did the same in Maltese fiasco back in the 80s.    what really matters for special forces is skill first and foremost. Shooting skills, Camoflage skills, survival skills etc. Muscularity and strength are simply irrelevent.

"Tough training is irrelevant"?  Rhetorically correct.  Literally?  Wrong!

In the case of the SEALs and holding their ability to hold their breaths, they really do need to be able to swim for extended periods of time underwater.

Like I said above, I agree your statement in rhetorical sense:  After some minimal level of considerable fitness, operational skills are most important.  For instance, a flabby guy who can handle a gun can easily shoot and kill 7 time Tour de France champ, Lance Armstrong.

Rest assured, the SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force can do a lot of things.  They have plenty of operational skills and no doubt they've developed a plethora of operational protocols (special forces combat techniques) on top of their extreme conditioning, this is particularly true of the SEALs.


Edited by TranHungDao - 26-Dec-2007 at 17:38

Hello Tran

Originally posted by Batu they hold a competetion every year to find out who is the best already.havent you heard?( i am serious )�1.vehicle rescue� 2.defusing a bomb� 3.navigation� 4.etc.�last two years Red Berets of Turkish Army won :).they are the best

But who shows up in these competitions?!? British Royal Marines or SAS/SBS? US Marines or US Navy Seals? Do the Americans or British even show up at all?

I recall the South African SF winning one year and India's SF winning another year.

Originally posted by Laelius I'd go with units like the 22snd SAS, Delta Force, and Seal Team 6. These units are the cream of the crop, according to the founder of Delta they would take 60 men from Army Special Forces, Rangers, Airborne each of which was already a crack soldier in his own right and then pick maybe 2 or 3.

SEAL Team 6 is legengary in reputation. They are the cream of the SEALs. Former members say the first year they were formed, they trained 15 hours a day or more everyday, but for Thanksgiving and Christmas. They said they came up with numerous combat protocols, which previouly never existed for all types of scenarios.

Note that the regular SEAL training is so tough it pushes the limits of human endurance. You can see this in the Military Channel's 2002 six part documentary on the SEAL's BUDs training, where the recruits are forced to swim the length of an olympic sized swimming pool and back while completely under water without any breathing equipment whatsoever. Many of the would-be SEALs passed out just as they hit the wall of the pool on their return trip.

Originally posted by Laelius I'd go with units like the 22snd SAS, Delta Force, and Seal Team 6. These units are the cream of the crop, according to the founder of Delta they would take 60 men from Army Special Forces, Rangers, Airborne each of which was already a crack soldier in his own right and then pick maybe 2 or 3.

One can make an argument that the SAS/SBS, Brit or Australian, is equivalent to the SEALs, Delta Force, Green Berets, etc., for they are the cream of the crop. However, SEAL Team 6 is a notch higher: The are the cream of the cream of the crop.

Perhaps the 22nd SAS unit is equivalent to SEAL Team 6. Or maybe not!

Originally posted by Batu I have read that in 1970's 3000 spetnaz were deployed in the border of Pakistan.300 Pakistani commando plus 500 mujaheeden beats the spetnaz force in 27 days.have you heard about that?

Guess we'll have to scratch the Spetnatz off the list.

There's no way that 3000 US Army Rangers or Marines would lose to 300 Pakistani commandos + 500 rag-tag Mujahedeen fighters. (Recall that the Pakistanis have lost at least two wars with India which they themselves started. It's a no brainer that Pakistani commandos were involved in those Pakistani initiated wars.)

The quality of the Mujahedeen fighters is no different from that of Vietcong guerillas. The only difference is that the Afghan moutainous terrain is even more advantages than South Vietnam's jungle terrain. This is why the so called "Lion of the Panshirs", Ahmed Shah Masood, was able to repeatedly humiliate his Russian opponents. Of course, the Afghans got their rear ends kicked by the Russians until the US gave them Stinger missiles, with which they used to easily shoot down Russian fighter-bombers as well as transport and attack helipcopters. I don't think Masood, as amazing as he was, could do jack against the US, be it in the 1980's, and especially now.

Edited by TranHungDao - 26-Dec-2007 at 08:19

Originally posted by Batu I have read that in 1970's 3000 spetnaz were deployed in the border of Pakistan.300 Pakistani commando plus 500 mujaheeden beats the spetnaz force in 27 days.have you heard about that?

Yes, that's right. I've just discovered some original footage from that battle:
WATCH

IMO Australian SAS is the best and I quite like SEAL Team Six and Germanys GSG-9 (is it actually a spec force or just a CT of their police cause I can't remember)

Originally posted by Dampier   You also have to look at their opponents, the backround, political situation, flexibility (for example Spetnatz do not have a glorious history when it comes to hostage situations) etc.

Russians have diferent approach when it come to hostage situation. For them it's like "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" and that includes the hostages.

Only them would decide to atack the theathere full of hostages and chechen terorists with never tested gas, or to start a fire fight with terorist hiding inside the school and threathing to blow it up...

Hizbolla as an arm of thr iranian army ? Would they qualify? Surely they are very efficient.

Before bulgarian special forces GRANIT were one of the best in the world.Its a pity that they dont exist anymore.