-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
no, but it goes a long way to enlightenment. Comparing orgs that are generally secretive is like discussing a book that you have never read, but have seen the movie. You don't get the full story IMHO
Well they eat alot of spinach
in fact
spinach = spenat (swedish) = Spetznaz (russian)
SF will often operate behind ennemy lines or in places they aren't supposed to be. They also often operate in close coordination with intelligence agencies.
example:
Of the two French spies arrested in NZ following the Rainbow Warrior bombing, the guy was actually SF, not intel.
I see intelligence agencies as trying to affect the political situation, and SF as working on the military aspects. While they can be closely related there are differences in organization and weapons used.
Being British and all (as if you couldn't tell 
) I find myself a little biased. However, I'm going to insist that it would be fairly niave to be able to lump any one organisation in any top spot, espicially as Trooper fervantly mentioned, if you aren't in the know. Nevertheless, my theory is that Blighty is good because of the experience, my (canadian) history teacher told us that Britain was a tiny, shitty little island full of maniacs who practically conquered the world I'd like to agree wit that.
On a less serious note, who knows what honest-to-god clandestine organisations are out there? Makes me all tingly thinking about it
) I find myself a little biased. However, I'm going to insist that it would be fairly niave to be able to lump any one organisation in any top spot, espicially as Trooper fervantly mentioned, if you aren't in the know. Nevertheless, my theory is that Blighty is good because of the experience, my (canadian) history teacher told us that Britain was a tiny, shitty little island full of maniacs who practically conquered the world I'd like to agree wit that.On a less serious note, who knows what honest-to-god clandestine organisations are out there? Makes me all tingly thinking about it
Trooper makes a good point about us not knowing the reality. Some of us on here have military experience, some of us have a reasonable academic background in the subject and some of us saw the movie and bought the T shirt. But hey it's not terribly serious, so long as we don't start throwing bricks at each other.
Regarding the nature of "special forces"; special forces by and large have no real connection with civil intelligence. In Britain at least the ethos is that they are just very, very well trained soldiers (though the army has it's own intelligence gathering machine for military purposes). I think a lot of army blokes would take extreme umbrage at the ides of them being linked to "spooks". The SAS operated covertly in Ulster, along with the RUC and the Security Service. One of Britain's major problems was that the three forces did not co-operate well. The RUC didn't trust MI5 and thought the Army was muscling in on it's territory. The SAS thought MI5 were a bunch of effete idiots who lived in ivory towers and MI5 thought the rest of them were nuts. But the idea that special forces are effectively government spooks in uniform with flashy guns is largely not the case.
But hey it's not terribly serious, so long as we don't start throwing bricks at each other.Regarding the nature of "special forces"; special forces by and large have no real connection with civil intelligence. In Britain at least the ethos is that they are just very, very well trained soldiers (though the army has it's own intelligence gathering machine for military purposes). I think a lot of army blokes would take extreme umbrage at the ides of them being linked to "spooks". The SAS operated covertly in Ulster, along with the RUC and the Security Service. One of Britain's major problems was that the three forces did not co-operate well. The RUC didn't trust MI5 and thought the Army was muscling in on it's territory. The SAS thought MI5 were a bunch of effete idiots who lived in ivory towers and MI5 thought the rest of them were nuts. But the idea that special forces are effectively government spooks in uniform with flashy guns is largely not the case.
Originally posted by Top Cat
Trooper makes a good point about us not knowing the reality. Some of us on here have military experience, some of us have a reasonable academic background in the subject and some of us saw the movie and bought the T shirt.
I did not mean to come across as condesending on the topic, it just seemed that some people thought only they knew the truth. You are right Cat, it is just fun and prople are only expressing their opinions are they are always welcome (no matter how flawed and uneducated
).
I think it's hard to say who is the best or worse. But will say that the SAS is the "mother" of most special forces, as they have trained forces in many countries.
For most of the people on this thread, there's been a fundamental misunderstanding about what special forces are. The SAS in Britian is a special forces anti-terrorism unit. In the U.S., Army Delta Force, Navy S.E.A.Ls, Marine Force Recon, and Air Force Combat Control are NOT special forces. The only special forces in the U.S. military are the Army Green Berets.
Also, the only anti-terrorism units in the military are Delta Force and S.E.A.L. and S.E.A.L. is not generally trained in anti-terrorist operations, but rather in infiltraion. Delta Force is the only unit comparable to SAS, and they usually work WITH the SAS. Also, most of their missions remain classified, and the Pentagond officially DENIES THEIR EXISTENCE.
Combat Control is trained for painting targets and air assault to take over airfields for use by the Air Forces other assets.
Force Recon is used to disrupt enemy emplacements, command and logistics infrustructure, in preperation for a forced landing.
The REAL special forces, the Green Berets, are trained to go behind enemy lines, train insurgents, and disrupt the enemy. During Vietnam, they had a kill ratio upwards of 1000/1, not that kill ratios win wars. In Afghanistan, they were instrumental in preparing the Northern Alliance in it's operations against the Taliban. You must speak two languages fluently just to be considered for entry into the Green Berets and you cannot apply. You are chosen. They are made up of the best of all other services, save the spec ops (which, by the way, is the designation for the Delta Force, S.E.A.L.s, Combat Control, and Force Recon). What follows is over a year of some of the most intenst training in the world.
Basically, it's foolish to compare Special Forces, because our Special Forces are trained for different reasons then other nations special forces. Delta is not as good as SAS, but it would be very hard to guage their effectiveness since they are the most confidential unit in the U.S. But ultimately, comparisons are futile
Also, the only anti-terrorism units in the military are Delta Force and S.E.A.L. and S.E.A.L. is not generally trained in anti-terrorist operations, but rather in infiltraion. Delta Force is the only unit comparable to SAS, and they usually work WITH the SAS. Also, most of their missions remain classified, and the Pentagond officially DENIES THEIR EXISTENCE.
Combat Control is trained for painting targets and air assault to take over airfields for use by the Air Forces other assets.
Force Recon is used to disrupt enemy emplacements, command and logistics infrustructure, in preperation for a forced landing.
The REAL special forces, the Green Berets, are trained to go behind enemy lines, train insurgents, and disrupt the enemy. During Vietnam, they had a kill ratio upwards of 1000/1, not that kill ratios win wars. In Afghanistan, they were instrumental in preparing the Northern Alliance in it's operations against the Taliban. You must speak two languages fluently just to be considered for entry into the Green Berets and you cannot apply. You are chosen. They are made up of the best of all other services, save the spec ops (which, by the way, is the designation for the Delta Force, S.E.A.L.s, Combat Control, and Force Recon). What follows is over a year of some of the most intenst training in the world.
Basically, it's foolish to compare Special Forces, because our Special Forces are trained for different reasons then other nations special forces. Delta is not as good as SAS, but it would be very hard to guage their effectiveness since they are the most confidential unit in the U.S. But ultimately, comparisons are futile
Hi DesertEagle84
I believe you mix a few things up here. The SAS is a dual-purpose unit with both military and anti-terrorist missions. The same is true for the special forces in most European nations.
Regards,
EoE
I believe you mix a few things up here. The SAS is a dual-purpose unit with both military and anti-terrorist missions. The same is true for the special forces in most European nations.
Regards,
EoE
I would say that the Isrealy SF is among the best in the world. They have seen constant action from Isreals formation to today. They have some of the latest American made equipment AND Isreali Industrie made equipment (they brought you the Uzi an dthe compact Uzi) They've hunted terrorest from Norway to Nazies in Brazil. They've gone deep into eneamy territory to disable launch sites (gulf war) And tehre are a lot of them. There are 4 different ones in the regular army, and then there is a special one (Mossada) that although you can aply (they will turn you down) it is basicly a invite only. And once there you have to go through some of the hardest training (i would like to see you survive in the Nigav desert). They also recruit nomads into there ranks, these nomads survive the grueling desert for there whole life and are normal some of the best shots in the middle east if not the world.
But the fact that i served in the Isreali Defence Force (i joined one of the special forces units called Sayeret Golany it is the best next to Mossada) makes me a little biased.
But the fact that i served in the Isreali Defence Force (i joined one of the special forces units called Sayeret Golany it is the best next to Mossada) makes me a little biased.
of, course ! this is one of the best units!
a side note here: urban warfare is tough even for Sp.forces, as we have seen these last two years..
Dont worry pontypool I dont mind william Paris making personal attacks because thats what id expect from someone like him
I beleive that if you are going to Talk the talk then you have to Walk the walk.
william paris may question courage but he wont even reply to me now and we are on the net! Face to face he would probably run like the coward he accused me of being!
Im not biased but the subtantial amount of evidence shows that US special forces make many blunders.
I praised up the russians and the Israelis so Im not just bragging on about the Brits.
The aussies and New Zealanders are good to.
But in the End you all know that the SAS are the best in the world
Thanks
Captain Anson
I beleive that if you are going to Talk the talk then you have to Walk the walk.
william paris may question courage but he wont even reply to me now and we are on the net! Face to face he would probably run like the coward he accused me of being!
Im not biased but the subtantial amount of evidence shows that US special forces make many blunders.
I praised up the russians and the Israelis so Im not just bragging on about the Brits.
The aussies and New Zealanders are good to.
But in the End you all know that the SAS are the best in the world
Thanks
Captain Anson
I would go with the Israeli spec forces, too, for a simple reason: none of the other SF has had to work under the stress of survival of their nation. They are doing high-risk jobs all the time. When they fail, you usually hear about it in the news (suicide bombings).
And their forces also propably have the highest number of missions per soldier, too.
And their forces also propably have the highest number of missions per soldier, too.
Let's see... Do you want your enemy to fear your Special Forces or think they are crap? If it were me, I'd MUCH rather my enemy underestimate my Special Forces.
And where is the evidence that the US Special Forces make blunders? Yes you have Iran, but that was 25 years ago! Don't you think they would have learned from their mistakes? And if they have had many successful ops, do you think they would publicise them? No, because you don't want your enemies to know what you are capable of.
I guarantee you the US Special Forces have had sucessful missions in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan (and I wouldn't be surprised if you could incluse Bosia and Somalia too). Speaking of Somalia, Black Hawk Down involved MARINES, hardly Special Forces (unless I'm wrong?).
