Best Special Forces of Modern Armies
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11641
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 17:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Best Special Forces of Modern Armies
Posted By: raygun
Subject: Best Special Forces of Modern Armies
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 21:29
|
Which special forces is the best in terms of toughness, training and equipment of the modern armies? The Green Berets? The SAS? The Spetnaz? The Israeli Golanis???
|
Replies:
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 16:42
the toughest and most ruthless are most likely Spetsnaz, they are also the best trained in hand-to-hand combat and knife throwing don't believe me, look up "Systema" Spetsnaz are known for having the toughest training. Even British admit that Spetsnaz soldiers are some of the toughest and most ruthless soldiers on battlefield. Also, I heard one Spetsnaz instructor saying how they were training soldiers: first an instroctor twists your arm so that you scream, then another guy comes and starts to hit you with a knife handle, then you have to chose between being stabbed with a knife or have your arm broken. Practicing this in the west simply will not be allowed. Have you guys heard of one of spetsnaz assignments: In 1985, when terrorists took over the Soviet embassy in Beirut, a Spetsnaz strike team infiltrated the embassy, abducted four of the terrorists and sent one of their decapitated heads in a bag to the terrorists' leader. The following day all the hostages were released. link: http://www.spetsnaztraining.com/view/spetsnaz SAS are VERY good too, I saw a video about them, it is one awesome special ops, they have some of the best equipment. British in general take all secret and elite stuf super seriously, their intellenence was one of the most secret in the world. |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 16:48
|
'Tis true..Spetnatz lack loads of equipment but they are very experienced and thier training program is ridiculous to say the least... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 18-May-2006 at 23:55
|
the secrecy and covert nature of these units makes it almost impossible
to judge who is the best. All are extremely well outfitted and all have
premiere training. most of thier missions go unreported. At most, we could dig up a few known missions. But taht isn't enough to adequately judge who is teh best. More importantly, training doesn't determine whose best. Combat experience can make a soldier with less training far better than an unexperienced soldier with no combat experience.
Russia doesn't have a monoploy on intense training. Don't think for a second that the West doesn't train their soldiers in many of the same ways. THe US for example has program (I forget the name) that simulates how a soldier will be treated if captured. It's just as rough as breaking a bone, which by the way is BS. The Spetnatz don't break the arms or stab every recruit. they may be intense, but they can't do that to every recruit because those kinds of actions can injure a recruit permanently making him unable to be a SF soldier Plus, we'd be foolish to assume that Spetsnaz, Delta, SAS, etc...are the most elite units our countries have. There are reports that the US has some units that aren't known about. I'd assume that the UK and Russia has similiar units. but I guess we can only really debate about the units we know exist |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 00:44
Well, if he is injured and can not serve anymore, he is not tough enough, no, that's just joke. Spetdnaz, trust me, is trained in much more brutal way, especially in hand-to-hand combat. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 15:38
|
I like the British SBS. They don't have the high profile of some other special forces but they are some of the most professional soldiers in existance. Like the SEALs not only do they have to master combat on the ground they have to deal with the challenging marine environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service ------------- |
Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 17:28
|
What about red berets?I heard they are more specialised and better than the green berets.
------------- |
Posted By: Roadkill
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 08:41
|
-I'd say SAS on top followed by FSK, then Spetsnaz. FSK is Norway's Special Forces and are top class, but they lack the experience that SAS has. Spetsnaz are crazy people, yes, but that doesn't mean that they are the best. They are reckless and foolhardy. But hey, that's Russia for you.
------------- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 18:02
|
Red berets? If you are talking about the British Paratroops (who started the whole red beret thing and are also known as the Red Devils) then probably not but it isnt for lack of trying, they are tough, tough men.
SBS isnt as good as SAS but they are still quite excellent. Royal Marine Commandos, while not quite a Special forces unit are similarly excellent. -------------
|
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 21:28
I am thinking here, we are arguying about best special forces, and what are the criterions, according to which we are judging? |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 13:25
|
The Red Berets arent special forces (quite).
Criterions would be stuff like; training, equipment, experience, special skills/abilities -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 19:55
apt enough hence......RANGERS lead the way..but any of those nominated and discussed can equaly claim so........lets talke mountaineering for example in a tactical situation....what say you now........? ------------- |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 18:22
|
Umm...all SF units do mountain training...obviously certain units would be better than others (Alpini) but thats the same as comparing the SBS and Delta Force- SBS are maritime specialists, that why you need generic criteria. -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 14:11
|
I see your point clearly and perhaps i stated mine poorly...RANGERS for example also recieve maritime type insertion training but not to the degree that an SBS person or SEAL might....but in general their fields of expertise were and remain.
1. Mountains.
2. Jungles.
3. desert.
4. anti-insurregency ops.
5. long range reconn.
6. combat raids/ambushes.
7. military advisors for friendly spec/ops forces in transistion or formation.
all obviously from the strategic mission/ops perspective....thanks for your reply  ------------- |
Posted By: raygun
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 13:08
|
Thks for all replies guys. My personal choice wld be the Spetnaz. I've read Victor Suronov(sp?) book on Soviet's special forces and it seems that the Spetnaz were REALLY tough. They had to do a 40km marathon non-stop wif gas mask on cross-country. Talk about gasping for air!
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 17:09
| 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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 22:23
| The overuse of hand to hand combat can be quite dangerous. Hand to hand combat is usually used as a last resort once you have ran out of ammo and can't get back up. And for the best special forces.........the one we don't know of. Delta, SEALs, and Force Recon are quite good though. |
Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 08:43
|
Best Special Forces of Modern Armies????? This Question is impossible to answer, unless every Special Forces from every Army in the World competes against each other in some kind of a "World Cup" (shall we say) of Special Forces. Some of the competitions could include: Fitness, Marksmanship, Rapid Incident Response,Recconnaisance...etc... only then can we know who is the best. My money is on the Australian Special Air Service Regiment, and the 2nd French Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment (2eme REP) 
------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 06:27
ssh gargoyle its better noone knows
|
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 08:19
You Aussie copy cats, just because you want something as good as the British SAS!
 (I jest, there were after all many Aussies in the original WW2 SAS regiments). -------------
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 22:21
|
The SAS,Delta and Seal Team 6. While the Spetznaz is learning to kill people with shovels these guys are shooting lasers out there eyes and flames out their rear ends. Their funding is practically unlimited and equipment unreal.
Grey Fox seems to be the new buzz of these type units. Not sure what the scope of their missions are though. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 12:29
|
Who exactly are Grey Fox? (Gray Fox, hah, no Americanisms for me!) -------------
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 13:25
To be honest who knows lol. There alot of articles on them but you cant really say which ones actually hold water. Seems to be mostly an intelligence unit with maybe a little killing and kidnaping on the side. Very elite and maybe the best of the best for the U.S.. I'm sure the British and the rest of the world have them too. With all there little funny names Centra spike,Royal cape, The Activity etc. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 18:56
| I just hope he isn't referencing the character from Metal Gear... |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 19:28
haha or the animal,movie,web design etc... ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 13:41
Ah, thanks. Yeah, everyone has these, just a question of whether they work for the Intelligence services or military. -------------
|
Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 19:38
|
I don't think there is much difference in quality between special forces within NATO, Israel, and Russia. ------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 03:12
|
What would be the French special forces? The Foreign Legion or the Dragons?
------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: pogy366
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 08:53
|
... brutality can overcome plenty of things but it will eventually fall short so while Russian SF may be physically tough and ruthless, it doesn't mean they're the best, hands-down. Why use a battle axe when a single thrust with a dagger can accomplish the same end result? All SF forces put their operators through training that tests their mental and physical abillities. Each has their own method but in the end they all work to ensure that the candidates have what it takes. Saying that one is tougher than the other seems like a moot point. But above the physical challenge, its the mental tests applied to the candidates in time of physical stress that is key. Go ahead and beat the $%&@ out of a guy. Break his arm or stab him. Great, he can take it. But can he make sound, intelligent decisions quickly while getting &%@#$ up? To be honest, i don't know the Russian program, but looking at the SAS selection (or the Delta selection based on the SAS) is pretty tough, but not because someone is standing there beating you with a shovel. Being pushed to the very edge of physical and mental endurance and then having to continue using your head to maintian course and time, while being isolated from others, is an incredible challenge to say the least. And that's just to make it past the first stage. Like it was said in an earlier post, it's damn near impossible to give credit to the world's best SF unit. But you can say that they all kick ass. That's an easier call to make. ------------- 
"Better to be a geek than an idiot. " |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 09:38
|
What would be the Spanish and Italian Spec Ops units? ------------- |
Posted By: pogy366
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 09:51
|
Spain Grupo Especiale Para Los Operaciones (GEO) - equal to SAS or Delta Unidad Especial de Intervencion (UEI) - equal to a police SWAT team Italy Gruppo Invervento Speciale (GIS) - equal to the SAS Commando Raggruppamento Subacquei e Incursori (COMSUBIN) - equal to the US Navy SEALs -------------
"Better to be a geek than an idiot. " |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 13:37
|
Thanks! ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 05:58
|
But I like best, Turkish Red Berrets ------------- |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 12:46
|
IMO Special forces can be divided into SF and SOF. SF are things like paratroopers, rangers ans marines while SOF are things like Seals, Spetznaz, SAS, etc.
Don't forget the Italian "Bats". Their role is to infiltrate into the enemy's rear and then communicate to base in order to give Italian forces good targets to their missiles/planes. They must be so stealthy that the job is well done only when they're not detected and don't use their weapons, not even once.
Don't forget also the Portuguese Comandos (equivalent to US Rangers) and Fuzileiros (Marines), plus the Fuzileiros' Destacamento de Acções Especiais (DAE), the best unit in the Portuguese armed forces, equivalent to SEAL and SAS/SBS. They participated in numerous semi-reported actions in Africa plus seizing drug ships "a la" Royal Marine Commandos.
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 15:05
|
Well, for some time I've been in the SF/SOF or whatever. I'll just stick to our USLA boys.
USLA=Unitate Speciala pentru Lupta Antiterorista => SATFU=Special Anti-Terrorist Fighting Unit.
*btw I met some Spetz, they were great. But still yhere is no way I could compare them with the SAS or the DElta or the others. Nevertheless cpt. "Rudevsky" spoke highly about the SAS.
|
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 08:53
|
http://www.forces-speciales.org/armees,defense,armee-francaise,page,index,mod,france-armee.fr.html - http://www.forces-speciales.org/armees,defense,armee-francaise,page,index,mod,france-armee.fr.html For those interested, a good source on the French Special Forces (but in French). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 05:25
Indeed. The British Parachute Regiment are not regarded as "special forces" but the fact that a high proportion of SAS soldiers are ex para's says a lot I think. Royal Marine Commandoes are also not officially "special forces" either but they are "special". Every Royal Marine (except the band) is also a fully trained commando!!.
Other countries have Marines who are simply "Naval" soldiers (very tough and good soldiers but simply soldiers non the less). In other countries you can be a Marine but not a commando, In the UK you can't be a Marine without being a Commando!!!
Having said that, it is a crying shame that due to overstretch in the British Army our specialised Marine Commando units are being deployed and used as infantry in Iraq & Afghanistan.
As for the SBS? they are based in Poole! I live in Poole!! and would not like a visit!!!  so hey you guys, you are the tops  ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 00:18
|
This list is really by no means fair in many senses because each has a unique and out standing mission profile and training which is why i'm damn glad we have a 'joint spec ops cmd' that can integrate and cross organise now to include NATO mission requirements except for number 6.... but here ya go. 1. SAS/SBS/Seals..deadheat 2. US Rangers/Fleet Marine Reconn/Royal Marine comandos..deadheat 3. USAF SAR/British SRR 4. French RPIMa and GROUFUMACO
5. special nods to the German KSK...Israeli's and Norwegians.
6.Spetznaz
anybody else patterns their stuff on these guys imo
best
CV ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: reis
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 14:05
|
what do you know About Turkish red berets. I think nothing. Dont forget they r the best in the world.They won all SF competition with being first expect for two competition.They are trained about Delta force,Ranger ,kontr geurilla..They teach other country's SF . and most of American specialist says Turkish special forces better than us.. by the way ı registered two minutes ago. ı m your new friend :-)) |
Posted By: reis
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 14:12
|
by the way most of SF commandos are good trained but they are trained with artificial tests. they r far from real enemy. they havent any experiance about real war. no education prepare you this moment. but Turkish red berets are trained in real war . you know Turkey has a big terörism problem.South of the Turkey there are much rebel who attacks ppl. so the last part of red berets training is done in real war. what do you know about confidence shooting fire |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 15:17
|
It is too hard to tell who is the best. The formula for creating ultra skilled special forces was first created by the Brtish and gave rise to the SAS. Since then, the formula has spread through out the world and many nations have identical forces.
The formula is....
A. Pofessional Officers and Professional NCOS are selectedby their peers for their fitness and intelligence
B. They go through a very well thought out and very demanding training program
C. The Special Forces unit is allowed to independently develop tactics, skills, strategies etc.
D. An incredible amount of money is spent on training, hi tech weapons, and hi tech equipment.
E. Institutional knowledge is passed on to the next generation.
The result is SAS, Spetsnaz, Seals, GSG-9, Saryet etc. etc.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 08:40
|
i read that spetnaz are more like crack troop/commando's ratther than the SAS or seals spec opps.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 10:34
I think you are right. This is probably because the Russians don't have enough money for part D of the "formula". At one time, Seal Team 6 alone was shooting more pistol ammunition that the entire U.S. Marine Corps. Then add the expense of the daily /nightly helicopter and aircraft usage, travel to training sites etc. etc.
|
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 00:49
|
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 ------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 19:28
| spetnez and sas.that it. every thing elese sucks.other countries just copied the british and germans |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 14:01
Umm, Spetnatz is Russian...
Not only that but the German SF has generally been weak. Skorzenys men were good but based around a charismatic figure (like the British Chindits). The Brandenburgers ended up often being wasted as bog standard infantry on the Eastern front. America however has a long history of SF such as Rangers, Merills Marauders, OSS Detatchment 101, Marine Raiders, Amphibious Scouts.... -------------
|
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 12:13
| My opinion is that the best special forces in the world are russian and especially VYMPEL and ALPHA.For the statistic i will say that alpha losses are only 7 since their creation and for vympel i dont know,there are no reports.My arguments are many.They are very tough,dont rely on modern advanced systems and technologies and they get used to poor life and lack of resources.Most of their recruits are childrens who are trained during their whole life.The fact that every man from these forces can shoot with AK perfectly(it is very unaccurate weapon)only shows their skills. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 05:19
desimir ive never heard of them. can you post a link?would like to know more.
-------------
|
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:14
| http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/20-08-2004/6631-alpha-0 |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:15
| There is more in Wikipedia |
Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 09:36
U guys seen the serbian SAJ they are pretty good 
|
Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 09:40
| True desimir i agree with you nobody can match the ALPHA brigade, but sadly they only work within russias borders. However there is VIMPEL in the other case, for carrying out opperations outside russias borders. In my oppinion and just as many bulgarians see it ALPHA and VIMPEL are the worlds most elite fighting forces. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 10:51
|
Before bulgarian special forces GRANIT were one of the best in the world.Its a pity that they dont exist anymore. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 12:52
Never heard of them. Knowing the serbian military tradition, let me take a guess..... mafia controled bunch of local bullys armed to the theet riding around in black Mercedes G class and looking realy tough? |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 01:02
|
Hizbolla as an arm of thr iranian army ? Would they qualify? Surely they are very efficient.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 16:21
But...
1. Check other units losses. They too are small. Then compare what eneies they fought, for what length of time, where, how etc.
2. Not relying on modern technologies is something other units can. Just thinking of a populist example but look at the SAS in Gulf War 1- they used little tech and were incredibly successful. However almost all SF units use modern equipment because its benefical to them. Spetnatz dont use it because they dont have the funds.
3. Many SF come from tough backrounds too. I'm not sure about "trained...their whole life" though. As far as I know they do conscription and then sign up, they arent trained from say age 12.
4. Other forces dont use AK's (or have and had similar accuracy) because there is better equipment. If it saves lives and does the job better they use it.
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. -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 05:36
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... 
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 09:24
|
actaully i dont think they started the beslan fire fight, it was simply chaotic and the locals with guns started get involved and take shots. There didnt even make a proper cordoned of area which they would control the situation, absolutly shameful.
-------------
|
Posted By: Balaam
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 10:02
|
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) ------------- |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 14:43
|
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? ------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 05:18
Yes, that's right. I've just discovered some original footage from that battle: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OPscYR3O1A0 - WATCH |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 09:09
|
What were they fighting for?
------------- God is not great. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 08:04
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.
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.
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! 
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. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 08:05
Something not worth fighting for. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 09:10
|
Hello Tran
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.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 10:18
You are right it is a limited competition and Indians won it back in 02.
but US was there and so was UK and South Africa and France and some African countries but notably missing was Israel, Russia and others who may be considered top notch.
News clip
-------
NEW DELHI: Mention ‘Special Forces’ and the intrepid Israelis, the gung-ho Americans or the secretive British come to mind. But, it appears that it is the Indians who are the toughest of them all. This is what a gruelling contest determined last week.
The Israelis were not there, but a team of India’s 10 Special Forces (SF), led by Captain Krishnadas, outshone their counterparts from the US, South Africa, U.K., France, hosts Botswana and a clutch of African nations in the Kalahari desert. The second Indian team came fifteenth, out of the 28 that participated in the annual event that took place between 8-10 June. In addition, the two teams won a number of individual prizes. A proud Special Forces officer says this is all the more creditable since the teams, each comprising of an officer, a non-commissioned officer and three paratroopers “were pulled out of active duty and given just two months to prepare.” This is the first time India has been invited to participate in the event. Last year’s competition was won by the South African Special Forces. The event required a trek of 87 kms over three days with full combat load of 50 kg, all the activity being conducted under the desert sun during the day. The contest was kicked off on June 8 by a paradrop of the teams close to the border with Namibia. The events then progressively moved them east towards the Okavango Delta. Here the team led by Major Animish Ranade suffered a mishap at the outset when Commando Mool Singh’s parachute did not open and his emergency parachute landed him so hard that he fractured his ankle. Despite the mishap that cost the team points, it won the individual prize in the 35 kms endurance march that followed. On June 9, Capt Krishandas’s team, scored with the individual prize for the navigation segment where the commandos have to move through 20 kms of trackless desert with just a compass, Ranade’s team stood second. This was topped by a casualty evacuation exercise that required them to carry a 50 kg deadweight, simulating a casualty, for 10 kms. Krishandas’ team stood first and Ranade’s second. On the last day the teams did a 17 kms speed march and Krishandas’ team again scored a first. The Indians performed well in the other elements of the competition as well. These included a rifle and pistol firing competition, a 400 metre an observation lane exercise requiring them to spot seven targets and a final 5 kms home run that makes the grand finale of the gathering. A senior officer told TNN that such competitions “which deal with our core business,” are a great boost for the professional elan of the force. India currently has four SF units that have traditionally been asked to do the toughest jobs in the battlefield. Currently they specialise in counter-terrorist work where using their own intelligence, they operate independently against terrorist concentrations in remote mountain and jungle regions in Kashmir and the Northeast. ------- Another thing to note is that the competition has a pre arranged format which may be very different then either real life or training. But it is an open competition.
What really matters at the end is real time experience, and not how many days you can go hungry or how many bottles you can smash with your forehead. We know who is getting most real world experience.
In the end, the special forces are no match for a prepared infantry unit who can demolish or damage more in the open.
Information on special forces from most of the countries around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_special_forces_units - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_special_forces_units
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 17:34
|
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? --------------------------------
"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. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 21:40
|
Somalia, Ramadi (four Rangers tracking a sniper, non returned alive), and the mother of all, operation red wing are great examples on how tough training of US special ops work.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 05:18
|
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. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 10:15
|
Hello Tran 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. 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.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 15:12
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.
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 ?
 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. |