Special Forces

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. 

Originally posted by Laelius 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 Opera��es 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.

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

Originally posted by Christ-Knight 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.    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.

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.

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

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

Originally posted by Zagros 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 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 Anyone with enough men and finance could have pulled off 2003 or 1991.

Easier said than done.

Originally posted by Zagros 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.

Originally posted by TranHungDao Originally posted by britopinion 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)

Originally posted by Chwyatt 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.

Originally posted by britopinion 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: 

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...

Originally posted by britopinion 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.