2RHPZ
05-17-2004, 04:00 AM
Well, I have made an excerpts from this forum - here are just KDīs post, that are interesting:
SAS,SBS, NZSAS, SASR, US Navy Seal Teams, DEVGROUP(Seal Team 6), US ARMY SPECIAL FORCES (Green Berets), Delta, US ARMY Rangers, US Marine Force Recon, GIGN, Irish Ranger Wing, ROK Special Forces, 707th Special Missions Battalion, German KSK etc.. are all experts at their stated mission.
If I had to choose who I would assign a mission:
Water born takedown (Boat or oil platform) - I'll Take Devgroup or the British SBS.
CQC (In building or City situation) - I'll Take Delta, SAS or the 707th.
Jungle ambush & Patrol - NZSAS, Green Berets or SAS (Air troop).
Hand to Hand - 707th or Russian Spetnaz
Airport takedown - US Rangers
Recon & Small Raids (water) - SBS, US Marine Recon, SEALS or GSP.
Desert warfare - Israeli Special Forces, SASR, SAS, Delta.
Airplane Takedown - GSG9 or Delta
Force multipliers - Green Berets, hands down.
There are many units who could do these missions as well as each other but these would be my preference since I have intimate knowledge of each groups abilities.
This crap about the Yanks not being able to fight... a line of crap. The Americans have lost many special ops troopers fighting terrorism but they are more willing to inform the press as to the units that these casualties come from. In Northern Ireland the SAS lost men but because the British government refused to admit that the SAS were operating in NI, they would list the casualties among other units. Also remember that the Yanks were the close air support for probably 90% of the battles, in an area where identification of friend or foe or even battle lines are difficult at best. These circumstances can lead to friendly fire incidents. While these loses are horrible they are also expected in any real war.
The NZSAS, SASR, SAS, SBS, Delta, US Army Special Forces, SEALS, GSG9, 707th etc... have exchange programs with each other to share knowledge. Members of these elite teams consider themselves brothers. They have more in common with each other than their own regular army.
Posted by KD at July 2, 2003 04:15 PM
The cornerstone of Ranger missions is that of direct action. More specifically, Rangers are the premiere airfield seizure and raid unit in the US Army. In order to remain proficient in all light infantry skills, Ranger units also focus on mission essential tasks that include movement to contact, ambush, reconnaissance, airborne and air assaults.
A typical Ranger Battalion or Regiment mission would involve seizing an airfield for use by follow-on general purpose forces and conducting raids on key targets of operational or strategic importance. Once secured, follow-on airland or airborne forces are introduced into theater and relieve the Ranger force so that it may conduct planning for future SOF operations.
The Army maintains the Regiment at a high level of readiness. Each battalion can deploy anywhere in the world with 18 hours notice. Because of the importance the Army places on the 75 th Ranger Regiment, it must possess a number of capabilities. These capabilities include:
? Infiltrating and exfiltrating by land, sea, and air
? Conducting direct action operations
? Conducting raids
? Recovery of personnel and special equipment
? Conducting conventional or special light-infantry operations
They are the backbone of the US Special Operations command.
In fact US Marine Force Recon (marine equivalent to the SEALS) candidates are sent to Basic Reconnaissance Course, Airborne School (Run buy Ranger Jumpmaster DI's, the Marine Combatant Diver School, and SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) School (Run buy the Ranger training Cadre). Upon completion of their first float Marines are selected to attend the advanced schools such as Ranger and Pathfinder. Many of the actual fighting skills taught to Martine Recon are learned during their Ranger School phase.
Did you ever see the movie "Heartbreak Ridge" starring Clint Eastwood as a Gunnery Sgt. in a Force Recon Unit. The mission shown was actually missions carried out by Rangers in Grenada. Hollywood changed the units because the Army would not allow them the access to equipment and the Marines did. The Rangers are trained for a different mission than the SAS, Delta etc..., In fact the LA Swat teams or the FBI HURT Group are better qualified to storm a building than many "elite SF teams" but I would not send them to take down an enemy held airport since they are not trained for it.
Oh and by the way, the Rangers invasion of Grenada involved a live combat drop at 500 feet at Point Salinas Airfield on the island of Grenada. They took down the airport then proceeded to engage Cuban Regulars, Cuban DGTE Forces and Russian Military Advisors (Spetnaz). The Russians were captured and allowed to leave the island by a Soviet Submarine before the US allowed the press to enter the Island 3 days after the invasion. The Rangers performed wonderfully. Very few units could have performed so well and so quickly when called upon.
Posted by kD at July 22, 2003 09:39 PM
It does not surprise me that this may have occurred since the about half of the Irish Ranger Wing are qualified snipers (not marksman, but actually trained snipers). The Irish Rangers are excellent and they have a great deal of practical operational experience since they have been supporting various UN missions around the world.
I would be shocked if the US special operators included Delta. Delta, to the best of my knowledge, have never lost in shooting competitions and have only have one draw against the US Secret Service Sniper detail. One the other occasion the Secret Service shot against them, Delta destroyed them. The Delta and Seal Team 6 (Devgroup) have huge financial backing, in fact each of these teams have greater live fire budgets then the entire US Marine Corps. They shoot and blow things up everyday when they?re not on actual missions.
I know the Aussies were very happy to have the Irish Rangers with them in East Timor. They received high praise from their New Zealand, Canadian and Australian counterparts for their abilities and professionalism.
The Rangers train with, and have exchange programs with the Royal Dutch Marines Commandos , the French GIGN, the Italian CIS, the German GSG9 and the Swedish SSG, US Army Rangers, British SAS, Australian & NZ SAS.
Posted by KD at August 13, 2003 04:39 PM
One SAS trooper was killed in Vietnam. The web page:
http://www2.ozland.net.au/users/marshall/sas/sas02.htm it states that on January 1967 a Australian SAS patrol became engaged in fire fight with a large enemy group and one SAS patrol member was wounded. The patrol was extracted under fire. The injured soldier was returned to Australia for treatment, but due to complications he died. He was the first SAS and only Australian SAS to die from enemy action. In fact the Viet Cong had a bounty of $5,000.00 US for the capture of a member of the SAS dead or alive. Then again the Viet Cong offered $10,000.00 US for any SEAL. Does that mean that the enemy thought that SEALS were worth twice as much as the SAS? Sure more SEALS, Green Berets, and Marine Force Recon personnel were killed in Vietnam, but that had more to do with the numbers of American teams deployed and the far greater number of missions conducted by said units. The NZ and Aussie SAS performed very well in Vietnam as did their American counterparts, but the most feared troops deployed to Vietnam were the Korean Marines. The VC tried to avoid them at all costs due to their professionalism and the brutality for which they were famous.
You seem to think that the British and Australian SAS are the only folks with practical real world experience. All of the non-coms and most of the officers who served in Vietnam are gone from the ranks of today?s armies. So if involvement has not taken place in the last 10 to 15 years, it really is not relevant. The U.S. Military has also been sending advisors around the world to instruct and sometimes "assist" the other nations with their military problems. During the 80's and 90's the U.S. had more special forces (Green Berets, SEALS, Rangers, CIA Paramilitary Units etc...) training and running operations in Central and South America than the Australian, British, or SAS had in their ranks combined. Don't knock the Yanks. Their Delta and Devgroup teams are the best trained and best funded counter terror groups in the world. With all things being equal (Intelligence, fitness, skills etc..) who would you want attempting a hostage rescue involving your family, the team who got to blow apart and storm an airplane once or the team that got to storm one once a week?
I'll give you the fact that many of Australia?s Special Forces come from rural areas and that survival skills learned in such areas are a great asset for any recruit. But, Australia has a little over 18 million people (49% male), and 85% of them live in the cities or along the coast. Now the United States has over 290 million people (49% male) and 83% of the population living in urban areas. That would give Australia a pool of 264,000 men of military age to draw from. The Americans who have rural areas consisting of Swamps, Cold climate areas, deserts, mountainous regions etc.., more varied than that of Australia, can draw on a pool of roughly 4,832,000 backwoodsmen to fill their ranks. Do you really think that British and Australian SAS training is any different form that of the US, Korea, Germany etc.., since all of these nations uses similar technologies, equipment and training methods? The United States has the unique situation where it has a huge population, $276.7 billion to spend on its military, and the best training facilities in the world. The United States produces the best athletes in the world for the very reasons listed above. Great Britain spends $31.7 billion on its military and Australia spends $11.39 billion on the military. General Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the US Army, is a former Delta Squadron commander (1978 to 1981), Special Operations Officer at Joint Special Operations Command (1983 to 1984, Delta Squadron commander again (1985 -1988) and Commander of Delta (1989 to 1992). General Schoomaker served as the Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command from July 1994 to August 1996, followed by command of the United States Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina through October 1997. His most recent assignment prior to assuming duties as the Army Chief of Staff was as Commander in Chief, United States Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, from November 1997 to November 2000. Do you understand that Delta and Devgroup always got the budgets they needed but now they will get whatever they WANT. They have one of their own in the drivers seat.
Do I remember operation Eagle Claw, yes I do. Proper coverage of the story can be found at http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm. This mission being scrubbed had nothing to do with the Delta team.
And Grenada.... "a bunch of spirited Cubans lightly armed fought of a bunch of your specials" actually if you looked up the line and saw the previous posts. The Rangers invasion of Grenada involved a live combat drop at 500 feet at Point Salinas Airfield on the island of Grenada. They took down the airport then proceeded to engage Cuban Regulars, Cuban DGTE Forces and Russian Military Advisors (Spetnaz). The Russians were captured and allowed to leave the island by a Soviet Submarine before the US allowed the press to enter the Island 3 days after the invasion. The Rangers performed wonderfully. Very few units could have performed so well and so quickly when called upon. Oh and by the way... The Cuban DGTE Forces have had far more "real world" experience fighting during that time period than either Britain or Australia. The Cubans were all over Central and South America training rebels and fighting to overthrow the democratic governments of the region. They also had a great deal of fighting in Africa.
If you come across someone who claims to be SASR, SAS 22 Regiment, NZSAS, SEALS, etc..., and they put down any of the other units... their wankers and liars. The respect these units have for one another is unbelievable. Unit Pride is one thing... stupidity and ignorance is another. Remember that we are all on the same side.
The main focus of all Special Forces (SEAL, SAS, Green Beret etc...) selection courses is to weed out people who would "Give Up". I know that all members of these select teams are tough individuals who don't even know the word "can't" so I don't think that is a uniquely Australian characteristic. If you believe that this is so I suggest that you travel to areas of the US, New York and Texas in particular, and I believe the locals would change your views very quickly.
Posted by KD at August 22, 2003 03:15 PM
I think that you have a very negative view of special forces that are not British, Australian or from New Zealand.
To state that the average Australian leg is as good if not better than any Ranger makes you sound like an idiot.
Ranger training is far tougher and superior than the skills taught to the US 82nd airborne or 101st Air Mobile. Your unit (the unit you stated to be part of) is more in line with the US 82nd airborne in both training and mission. Many members that apply for Ranger School come from the ranks of the 82nd and 101st. These are already well trained paratroopers who apply; their applications reviewed to make sure that they are fit, and then are sent to a Pre-Ranger course, which ensures they are administratively, physically and mentally prepared before they attend the U.S. Army Ranger Course. About 20% are washed out in this stage usually through injuries. Of the remaining number about 40% graduate from Ranger School. Only the best of these men are assigned to a Ranger Battalion, the rest are rotated back to their old units to spread the knowledge they learned in Ranger School to the regular Army. The best are granted their Tan Beret. After a tour or two (if they are an NCO at the time) these men usually apply for a chance at ARMY Special Forces (Green Berets). The are evaluated, profiled and sent to a Pre qualification course where they are educated on what is expected of them and they go through advanced training in many areas before the are allowed to go to the Robin Sage training. Only 46% of these men pass and are granted the "Green Beret". Some really special members of the Rangers (a very rare few) are sent an invitation to try out for Delta, but most of Delta?s ranks are filled by former Green Berets, many of whom were Rangers also.
Rangers are the backbone of the U.S. Special Operations Command and for anyone not to think they are not Special Ops makes them sound rather ignorant. The Ranger Units when formed during WWII and the units were designed just like the British Commando units. The reason that they are called Rangers is because Americans had "commando Style" units in its past that used the name "Ranger". If not they would have been called Commando just like your units. I guess having the word Commando makes them better in your eyes. The Rangers and LRRP's wrote the book on ambushes during Vietnam and most western armies use this handbook today to train their armies. If they Rangers are such a bunch of second rate soldiers, why do so many foreign armies send their students to the school and then set up similar programs at home to try and duplicate this training.
The comment about having all the toys makes you sound a little bit jealous... I know I was when I saw the amount of stuff that they had. In an interview Chris Ryan (ex British SAS) stated that all things being equal, if the Americans and British got into it the Americans would win because of their technology factor, the men being equal and all. So why would you knock the technological advantage that they have? Maybe you should embrace it and try to emulate it... it may keep you from getting your ass shot off. By the way... the Irish Rangers thought that you Aussies were spoiled with all the equipment that you had in East Timor, does that make you less as soldiers and Special Forces operators? You with your fancy specialized vehicles and all, you should be ashamed of yourselves (lol).
Having played with many of the Special Forces groups worldwide I can tell you that all of the units I have listed are Special Operations. I am not trying to knock anyone, their country or their units. Some of you seem to confuse your own units. Your SAS is not like Delta, your TAG (B Squadron) unit within the SAS is like Delta. Not all Australian SAS are trained for counterterrorism/ Hostage rescue. The Aussies do not rotate all of their personnel through "TAG" training like The British SAS does. I tend to like the Australian "specialized ?approach better than that the British philosophy of "Jacks of all trades". Your Offshore Assault Team (OAT) is like a version of the British SAS Boat Troop. The rest of your SAS squadron tends to operate very much like the American Special Forces.
Don't underestimate anyone at anytime. To think that you are superior to another unit that you have probably never trained with or had limited exposure to makes you sound a little silly.
Posted by KD at August 28, 2003 03:47 PM
The Delta training course is 98% based on the British SAS Model. Delta?s original commander was Charging Charlie Beckworth who had completed an exchange program with the SAS. The SAS (British) and Delta have the same roll and they cross train with each other all the time. Seal Team 6 (DevGroup) is as good as Delta or the SAS or SBS. In fact at one point the DevGroup (under Commander Richard Marcinko) was considered by many to be the best "shooters and looters" on the planet. I would say that all of the Allied teams are equivalent in basic training and skills. The Yanks have the technological edge in some ways but units like Delta, DevGroup, GSG9, TAG, Korean 707th ...etc are all on par with each other. As stated above if my ass was on the line and I needed doors kicked in, these would be my choice of units if I could pick:
Water born takedown (Boat or oil platform) - I'll Take Devgroup or the British SBS.
CQC (In building or city situation) - I'll Take Delta, SAS or the 707th.
Jungle ambush & Patrol - NZSAS, Green Berets or SAS (Air troop).
Airport takedown - US Rangers
Recon & Small Raids (water) - SBS, US Marine Recon, SEALS or GSP.
Desert warfare - Israeli Special Forces, SASR, SAS, Delta & the US "Green Berets".
Airplane Takedown - GSG9 or Delta
They are all great units but the standard to judge all other counterterrorism units would be the British SAS, Delta, KSK or Devgroup. Their training, real world experience and massive budgets make them just a hair better than the rest; in my opinion.
Seal Team 6 recruits mostly from the the US Navy Seal Teams, and some Force Recon Marine Units. A few members were from the US Army but had certain skills the unit wished to posses.
Delta gets most of their men from the US Special Forces. This gives them the unique position of having soldiers who usually have served in the 82nd Airborne, Rangers and Green Berets. That would make their personnel five time volunteers. First they volunteered for the Army, then jump School, then Ranger School, then Robin Sage, then Delta. I think that anyone who can pass these selection courses and schools would be first rate in anyone's book.
The cross training and exchange programs have made these units so familiar with each other in many cases you could take personnel from a Delta, TAG, GSG9, KSK, SAS, JTF2 (Canadian Counter terrorism team) and put them on any of these teams and the unit would not miss a beat. Even some members of the British SAS and SASR were assigned to work with Task Force 20 in Iraq since Delta, SAS, Devgroup and the SASR are so used to working together it made the merger of these elements very smooth.
Posted by kd at August 28, 2003 04:58 PM
No, I have not heard of this competition taking place. I would be surprised that SAS, SASR, Delta, DevGroup, NZSAS, JTF2, KSK, or GSP were " afraid of losing", I think they are just a little bit busy at this time with most of their teams deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as training other special operations units around the world to combat terrorism. Right now the Special operations teams of many western nations are spread a bit thin. I heard a few years ago of a similar competition was held and that the British SAS finished first, another year Delta won the competition.
Another competition was held in Germany consisting of hostage rescue in urban settings and a SWAT team from one of the German metropolitan police departments finished first since this was what they trained mostly for. They even beat a couple of the vaunted Special Operations teams in the competition. These competitions are great to see how each team attempts a mission but these competitions are very limited in scope. Sure, maybe the Hamburg Police SWAT team can storm and clear a room as well as Delta or the SAS if it is in their own backyard but what if they had to fly 3,000 miles, jump out of a plane at 25,000 feet, march 20 miles with a full bergen of equipment while hiding during the day and then perform at the same level while shooting and looting as well as coordinating their evacuation from the target site. I don't think so.
It is easier to take down a building where you know many of the factors, how many tangos are at the site, you have access to the building blueprints, the ability to have the power cut to the premise on demand as well as sewer access. To do what the SAS, Delta, SASR, Devgroup etc do for a living requires skills, deployment training and coordination, as well as mental strength far beyond what most men, even well trained soldiers or police tactical teams possess.
The Navy SEAL teams are excellent on land, sea or air. They are the warrior elite of the US Navy and perform the same mission as the British SBS. They are every bit as good as any other unit in the world. Most people will tell you that BUDS training (Basic Underwater Dive School) is the toughest training in any military, anywhere in the world.
Devgroup (formerly referred to as Seal Team 6) is as good as Delta or the SAS at shooting and looting. You have to understand that Special Operations teams run into trouble when the decisions on operations are made by someone without special operations experience. Throughout history these units been misused by senior military officers who use them as ?super infantry? or shock troops. Seals are meant to operate in platoon consisting of 16 operators. This group is usually broken down into four chalks of four seals each, much in the same way that the SAS operate. If you were to take six platoons of SEALS and ask them to take down an airbase 30 miles inland it would not be a mission for the seals, and more of a Ranger mission. If you want to send in eight seals to an airbase four miles from the ocean and have them take out specific targets (Planes, towers, hangers,) or cause a large diversion so that many enemy forces will be rushed to the base so that real primary targets are ?softened up?, the Seals are your men. The First British SAS teams in N. Africa were misused in the same ways, five teams inserted by parachute when they should have just been driven in (as they were later) because some idiot in strategic command made the plans. Senior brass should provide an objective to the operators, let them formulate the best plans and then give the operators what they ask for so that the mission can be accomplished. Missions fail usually because of politicians waiting too long for the ?go? order, poor planning by senior brass, asking special operators to complete missions that they are not trained for, or failed intelligence gathered by the intelligence (that?s funny) agencies of each nation. Very rarely are the operators themselves to blame.
In my opinion the US Navy Seals are the finest trained amphibious commandos on the planet today. They are experts in all aspects of fighting on land, in the snow, desert, jungles, swamps or in a city street. They are HALO qualified for air insertions as well as being able to reach objectives by a multitude of waterborne insertion techniques. They are the warrior elite. SEAL platoons can destroy or sabotage enemy shipping, port and harbor facilities, bridges, railway lines, communications centers and other lines of communication in and around maritime and river environments. They can infiltrate and exfiltrate selected personnel by submarine, surface vessel, aircraft or land vehicle. They can conduct reconnaissance and surveillance in multiple environments. They can organize, train and assist US, allied and other friendly military or paramilitary forces in the conduct of special operations.
If you want a good look at SEAL training (especially BUDS) and SEAL operations, you should read :
?THE WARRIOR ELITE: The Forging of SEAL Class 228? By **** Couch.
?Rogue Warrior? and ?Red Cell? by Cmdr. Richard Marcinko USN (Ret.)
SEAL! by Lt. Cmdr. Michael J. Walsh, USN (Ret.)
Brave men Dark Waters by Orr Kelly
Posted by kd at September 2, 2003 02:50 PM
Seal Team 6 is now called Devgroup. Devgroup comes from their official name, Special Weapons and Tactics Development Group. Devgroup is a component of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC - Pope AFB, North Carolina), along with other CT units such as Delta Force and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR). They are trained like Delta but are assigned Counter terrorism and hostage rescue in a maritime setting. Delta is also trained in combat diving and usually back up Devgroup if an operation is going down. Devgroup would back up and support Delta in a non maritime setting. Delta and Devgroup, though friendly rivals, train and work together very well. They are both great units, and equal overall in my opinion. Many of the Seal Teams are trained for the counter terrorism role, but Devgroup are the experts. Their ranks have always been a little bit unique. Like Delta, they first had to be superior operators with experience before they were allowed to try out for six. You don't go from Buds to Devgroup. So they are picked from the cream of the crop of units that are probably the best maritime Special Forces in the world. The selection course looks for experience, ability and unique skills such as the ability to speak other languages, the ability to blend in (if you look like a madman and get a lot of attention, chances are you will not be picked since you would stand out in close contact recon situations) the ability to steal cars, operate various forms of machinery, the psychological profile and family stability required of such a low profile but hard charging, often deployed unit is also required or preferred.
What would you like to know about Delta selection?
No I have never served with the SASR, but I have "played" with a few of the Aussies in training situations. They were a great group of Lads. Fun, but serious when we got down to business. They were true professionals.
Posted by kd at September 8, 2003 11:12 AM
Assignment to Delta first require requires an extensive prescreening process and successful completion of a 4 week assessment and selection course 99% similar to SAS assessment with just a little more emphasis on physical strength than the British SAS model. Upon completion of prescreening and assessment, the soldier will participate in a 6 month Operator Training Course. After that you are assigned to one of Delta's three troops and are actually a member of the team.
Most of the selection Course is handled in and around a section of Ft. Bragg. I won't give you specifics. Training, selection and methods are not discussed with the public for many reasons. The Delta Course, like the SAS and Devgroup selection, is intended to push you physically and mentally to your limits. Since the operators trying to join Delta are already elite soldiers (Rangers, Special Forces and sometimes SEALS and Force Recon) their limits are pretty high. It is intended to weed out people who may give up when pushed to that limit, those who may not be willing to pull a trigger in a delicate situation as well as anyone with psychotic or unstable tendencies.
Delta's mission is counterterrorism, which is a pretty broad term. They can operate in all environments and can perform: Hostage rescue, capture or elimination of key enemy personnel, Protection services for VIP's, deep recon, sabotage of important targets, training other CT units, raids or coordinating other assets to targets (attack aircraft or artillery). Though SEALS, Green Berets, Force Recon, and Rangers units operate behind enemy lines as well as anyone, the US tends to assign Delta missions that are politically sensitive (SCUD Hunting, Personal protection and small raids to dislodge important enemy personnel in Iraq etc...). Like the commercial says, "When you care to send only the very best".
I have served with a US Special Operations team and am now retired from the military but am still involved in the CT field.
I know the Ranger Wing's selection course is closely modeled on the American Ranger Course. It is after selection to the Irish Rangers that CT skills are taught to the personnel. Are you based in Ireland?
Posted by kd at September 13, 2003 07:35 PM
I have served with four of the units listed. That should give you an good idea of what path I took in the Army (hint again).
A Seal may posses a specific skill that Delta want in its ranks and a similar opening in Devgroup may not exist at the time the applicant wants to join one of the teams. Devgroup is mostly made up of SEALS but they have employed Force Recon Marines, Army personnel as well as a small number of troopers from the Air Farce (lol).
The term Special Forces (in US Army lingo) refers to the units that most civilians refer to as the Green Berets. Though Special Forces is very proud of earning the coveted Green Beret they will correct you as to their units name if you refer to them as their headgear. The "Green Berets" are still around and they are responsible for the amazingly quick successes in Afghanistan (along with some personnel from the US Air Force Special Operations Teams that were inserted with the A Teams).
The Seals, Force Recon, Special Forces & Rangers, Air Force Special Op's don't hate each other. The Brass at the top fight over budgets and missions but that is not an operators concern. We are rivals but that only pushes us to be better than the other team and the competition is very healthy. We have more in common with each other than we would with regular infantry.
The sayeret matkal is more of a LRRP unit that is also CT capable. The Isreali Yaman unit is the highest combat capable Special Forces (SF) unit in Israel. For CT work such as storming a building or hostage rescue, they are usually the unit that gets the call even though they are a border guard unit (like GSG9). Though they are only supposed to operate in Israel, and Sayeret Matkal is supposed to handle situations outside Israel?s border, he Yaman Unit is used often in external operations.
Unit Yamas, are the undercover CT Units in the Police. They are similar to the Army's Sayeret Duvdevan in that they conduct short-term infiltration of terrorist cells and then conduct raids to destroy the cells.
All of the Israeli Special Forces Units have a great deal of operational experience but they sometimes do not work very well when pieced together due to the sharing of resources that is required in their military. They are getting better at it though from what I understand.
Shayetet 13 handles maritime CT operations like the Navy Seals or British SBS. They are very capable operators.
All of their operators are experienced in desert and urban settings but have no experience in Jungle, Woodland or Artic conditions. They are experts in their own element but do not need to train for certain scenarios since Israel only has a regional view and not a global view of operations like the US or British.
Sayeret Shaldag is the IDF primary airborne assault force and handle many of the Special Operations Missions formerly assigned to sayeret matkal.
In regards to becoming a US Ranger, Why not join the Irish and try out for the Ranger Wing? It takes Five years to become a US citizen but if you are in the military you can have your application expedited to about three years. So serve in the 101st or 82nd (82nd would be my choice, hint hint) and then go to Ranger School upon citizenship. Below is a link on expedited citizenship.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/03/bush.military.citizenship/
The US Special Forces was formed after WWII and was made up of former OSS operators who were foreign nationals. The Irish and Irish Americans have always been deeply ingrained in the US Military especially the US special operations community. In fact the Irish have been awarded more than two times the number of Congressional Medals of Honor than all other nationalities combined. "Gary Owen" is the unofficial song of the US Army and the official song of the 7th Cavalry. So you would be pursuing a career in a field where many of your race have gone and succeeded before. Good Luck.
And Ranger school is very hard, if you are motivated, in good shape, smart, and are tough you should do just fine.
Posted by KD at September 16, 2003 01:33 PM
The mission in moog was not a failure. The military had asked the Clinton administration for additional assets such as light armor and puff the magic dragon (AC-130 Gunship) but were refused since it would look like an escalation of occupying forces and not a humanitarian relief project.
Lets see the raw numbers, about 100 lightly armed (Mp-5s, M-4 and SAW's),Delta (with a couple of Devgroup members along for the ride) and Ranger operators fast rope into the center of enemy occupied territory, completely surrounded by enemy personnel (hundreds of RPG's, AK-74, AK-47's etc...), capture leading members of Adid's clan, and then get into a firefight that lasts 18 hours. The US suffers 18 dead, 73 injured. The Somali?s lost well over 1000 dead (very conservative number, I have heard body counts as high as 1.400, and wounded of 1,000) and another four hundred wounded. That?s a pretty good kill ratio for the US.
Also remember that you were not dealing with Somali?s who were in uniform. They were dressed in civilian clothes and were using women and children as shields to suppress US fire. The 100 Commandos were surrounded by thousands of armed enemy in an area that was tough to navigate because the streets are not labeled and where everything looks the same. A **** situation but the men on the ground performed wonderfully.
Remember the operation was faulted in its planning since Delta would have preferred to rope in with the same numbers, secured the area with the AC-130 combined with MH-6 AH-6 helicopters, and then be lifted out by helicopters and back to base. Instead they were forced to rope in and then get driven out through the streets in a convoy. They also would have had an American light armor column ready to role in a emergency and not had to depend on the Pakistani's who had to be forced at gunpoint to get their column rolling to assist (after losing 24 men in a massacre to Adid, you think they would want into the fight.) This is why the US does not want involvement in UN Missions since the UN forces very rarely meet their commitments to their willingness to enter combat situations when needed.
In my opinion the commander did the best he could with the assets that he had. In my opinion, the rangers should not have been used nor Delta. The Clinton administration should have left the Marines there (bush had 25,000 troops there, Clinton cut it to 1,200 combat troops), and used the Special Forces A-teams who understood the customs and language of the locals. The US could have had a self sufficient Marine task force (Special operations capable with tanks, cobras, harriers etc...) and Green Berets on the ground to assist in the relief effort and for intelligence gathering and raids. The US had to depend on the limited and often flawed intelligence provided reluctantly by the Italians (the former colonizers of Somalia) who did not seem to want the Americans to succeed. To go in during the day, and use the same tactics as the last three raids was stupid in my opinion, but you have to go in when you can grab them. They should have just gone in and assassinated the clan members, and then been taken out by helicopters and simplified their mission, but the liberal Clinton Administration would not allow it due to public opinion.
So Jones you sound like one of two things, 1) a 10 year old child, or 2) an idiot. Special Forces make the Australian Commando units look like girl scouts so don?t insult our intelligence comparing Aussie grunts to some of the best in the world, and it makes you sound ignorant.
Jack, Special Forces A-Teams and the term Green Beret are interchangeable and always have been. I can assure you that Special forces (Green Beret Units) have not been disbanded and the pentagon have actually been planning to expanded the number of Active Units due to their great successes in the war on terrorism. They are stretched too thin and have actually called up units from the 19th & 20th Special Forces Groups (National Guard) for operations in the Middle East. I can assume that the Special Forces should probably see an additional 1,200 operators developed over the next two years.
The hardest part of Ranger School for most people is the lack of sleep, and the physical endurance required. Some people excel at climbing, others like to jump, and others enjoy a stroll through the swamps. It depends on what you don't like... that will be the toughest part of training. Getting Airborne qualified usually scares people because you first jump from a tower (250feet) and the ground looks a little bit too close not matter what the jumpmaster tells you. The swamp training is pretty brutal as well for those not familiar with the challenges of such an area.
The Rangers on are very good at what they do. The Green Berets are usually former rangers, in the past only senior enlisted personnel were chosen for SF. Now Special Forces are recruiting special candidates from airborne school and in some cases directly from basic infantry school. The current units deployed are from the Old School way of developing SF personnel. The two year training program given to the operators will start bearing its fruit later this year and we will see if the program is successful. I tend to believe that this approach will "water down" the abilities of Special Forces but since more experienced personnel are leaving SF for better paying civilian jobs it?s hard to produce the numbers we need. The British SAS is having the same problem maintaining its unit strength.
If I had to choose an A-team or A platoon of Rangers to accomplish most missions (with limited support) I would choose the A-Team because their operators are cross trained, are a bit older, have better judgment and experience usually, a higher degree of intelligence is required and are they taught to conduct a wider range of missions. The "Green Berets" are viewed as a more prestigious hitch than being an operator in a ranger company. The Seals and the Green Berets are a couple of notches above the Rangers in the Special Forces food chain, not to take away from the rangers. The Rangers are superbly trained light infantry that is special operations and airborne qualified. They are experts at their mission.
Delta has a boat troop just like the British SAS. Many of the members of the other Delta Troops are combat qualified divers as well. They can operate in any area of combat. Boat troop will usually back up Devgroup in a takedown in a water environment or operate alone if they are able to get to the scene faster than Devgroup or devgroup is busy handling another mission. Delta and the SAS boat troops are designed along the same lines, Devgroup and the SBS counterterrorism team is designed in a similar fashion.
In the real world, if it?s in a maritime environment, Devgroup gets first shot at the mission, if its anywhere else, it's Delta's.
Yes I did hear about Seal Team 8 but their main mission is being used as a strike force deployed from carriers (like hatchet and Mike forces were used in Vietnam but from a naval ship instead of a land base). If you want to e-mail me just click on the Blue KD and you can send me any other questions you have. Also check out this link, it should motivate you to get moving: Good Luck.
http://www.training.sfahq.com/quali_special_forces_available_f.htm
Posted by kd at September 19, 2003 02:21 PM
The National Guard SF troops are very good. The selection is exactly the same as Regular SF. They suffer a little bit since they do not have full time support staff, but all in all they have performed very well when called upon. But before they are deployed they are usually called up to support active units that are operational overseas. They are sent to Bragg for operational ?refresher? courses and then are deployed to work along side of full time operators. The Guardsman sometimes posses skills that the army can not teach and these skills are very valuable when trying to complete a mission. Some of the Guardsman?s full time jobs can range from truck drivers, lawyers, EMT?s, butchers, engineers, construction personnel, teachers, phone company repairman, electricians, business leaders? etc. These skills come in handy when assisting locals in rebuilding after wars or disasters, mitigating problems between indigenous personnel and civilians, setting up schools, hospitals and trade zones.
The SASR is excellent. The selection course is based on the English model with slight modifications. The SASR performs two roles, one that is for its TAG team, this mirrors the Brits and their CRW team. The other mission is more like the tasks performed by US Army Special Forces and the British SAS Air, Mobility and Mountain troops.
The British have all of their SAS troopers qualify and serve with the CRW team so that all members of the SAS have a working knowledge of CT training. The Australians have permanent team members and not everyone rotates through the Tag training. I prefer the Australian method better. The Brits have more potential hot spots worldwide when compared to the Aussies so they feel that they may need to assemble a few assault teams if needed. I think this is unlikely as a real scenario and feel that the SAS does this since they want all CT missions as opposed to sharing them with the SBS M Squadron. The Aussies had a more limited role in world events but their involvement is increasing every year and maybe they will change to the Brit style of rotation.
Though the teams prefer to work within their own units they can be interchanged. Sometimes members of units pooled together will set up chalks consisting of operators from different teams if the need arises. Also with exchange programs you could have a member of Delta operating with an SAS unit on raids or on a recon mission but never notice it because the Delta operator would be wearing British uniforms and operating with equipment from the Regiment.
Posted by KD at September 23, 2003 11:23 AM
First my dossier would read like this. US Army 82nd Airborne, Army Ranger, Army Special Forces (weapons specialist) and was attached to "Delta" for one and a half years. I then "retired" to the private security industry specializing in personal protection services and intelligence gathering, assessment and implementation. I have been involved in multiple combat situations over my career and have trained with and or operated with the personnel from the following teams: British SAS, SASR, NZSAS, Korean 707th, Korean 1st & 7th Special Forces Brigades, US Navy Seal Teams 2 & 4 as well as Devgroup. I have also trained with select members of US Marine Force Recon, Canadian Airborne Regiment as well as military units from Columbia and Honduras.
The Special Forces A-Teams operate in twelve man teams but these teams can then be broken down into chalks of four men. The army feels this gives them the ability to have sufficient personnel but small enough to be flexible and stealthy. Delta uses 4 man chalks just like the SAS.
I use terms that are more "British" so that the majority of people on this board can more easily understand since many are from Australia, England and Ireland etc.... I also picked up many phrases while serving with troops of the common wealth nations as well as during the summers I spent in Ireland visiting with my family.
The SAS (in all its forms) are as good as American Special Forces (Green Berets) at recon, unconventional warfare, ambushes, raids, target assessment, calling in air support, infiltration etc. They (SAS) are better at hostage rescue (since that is a primary mission. Special Forces are better at force multiplication (since that is a primary part of their mission statement). These units have many similar missions (In the past, up until 1980 or so, their missions were nearly identical but with the rise of terrorism it has changed quite a bit. Jack is correct in comparing the British SAS with Delta. The SASR TAG team is similar in scope with Delta but the rest of the SASR is geared more for a mission like the Green Berets.
As for Devgroup (Team 6) I stated that they are as good as any unit in the world at CT (or anti-terrorism, there is a big difference). The regular SEAL selection training (Buds) is considered by most experts to be the most physically and mentally demanding selection course of any military unit. I give the Squids their due, BUDS is very tough. Like the SAS, DELTA, Green Berets etc... the real training takes place after initial selection.
In actuality all SBS personnel are SAS qualified but not all SAS operators are combat diver and would not qualify as SBS operators.
The SBS did not invent the "frogman" method of combat or delivery. It was actually the Italians who developed many of the basic ideas. The Italian 10th Light Flotilla group pioneered such tactics in WWII. The British actually designed their combat divers on the principles of The Duke of Spoleto. The Italians were responsible for 28 English ships sunk or damaged in World War Two. These ships include the battleships HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Valiant, cruiser HMS York and 111,527 tons of merchant shipping. The SEALS developed and perfected many of their tactics during the Vietnam War and in smaller less well known conflicts and missions in Central and South America as well as the Middle East.
Jack, Delta, like Devgroup, SAS, etc... use a wide range of arms in conducting missions. The use MP-5SD's, Colt .727 Carbine with .203 Grenade Launcher, M4A1, 9mm pistol, SR-25 SD, Barrett .50 Caliber, Heckler & Koch P9S, hush puppies etc.. It depends on the mission and an operator?s preference. Using an MP-5 in anything but a CQC situation would be stupid since it does not have the range of other weapons. Some operators in some units use older weapons like the SEALS who still use the M14 due to its better cold climate performance and range over more modern assault weapons. The mission dictates what you use.
I prefer the Aussie model but I understand why the British rotate all men through the CT team. They have more real world fires to put out then the Aussies since British influence and assets are a little bit further flung the Aussies. As Australia gets more involved they may be forced to take a similar approach. The Irish are forced with the small military budget problem. Though Ireland is very proud of its UN Missions I don't see them expanding the Army Ranger Wing to dedicated teams anytime soon since the Irish Rangers meet the current needs of the Irish defense forces and the people of Ireland.
It's pretty weird that the SAS were developed in theory and honed by Colonel Sir David Stirling, a Scotsman and Lt Colonel Paddy Mayne, an Irishman. The two groups who were most often fighting with the English in its past have produced many of England?s most famous modern day warriors. Then again the Americans with Irish, Scottish and Welsh roots have been well represented in the American Special Forces, Marine Recon and SEAL Communities. Maybe having a special Celtic gene gives them a predisposition for guerilla warfare or maybe they just like the adventure and it?s more of a cultural thing.
All I can tell you is that Delta is organized similarly to the SAS. The Irish Rangers did not train with American Special Op?s during my tenure though they may have after my departure since the Irish Rangers have a long standing relationship with the US Army.
I hope I was able to address your questions. Have a good day and remember we are all on the same team.
Posted by KD at September 29, 2003 04:41 PM
I never said that the SEAL's were the best trained. I said that Seal selection course (buds) is the toughest. I have seen BUDS up close and I can tell you it makes any other selection course look like a piece of cake. It is almost criminal what they do to their candidates. These guys have to do everything other selection courses require and then some. The combination of stress, fatigue, sleep deprivation and physical punishment this guy go through, wet and full of sand in every part of their bodies is enough to make strong men weep.
The SEALS, SBS, Force Recon Marines, GSP etc.. are all excellent combat divers, as are SAS boat troop, Delta Divers, Green Beret Combat Dive Teams and Devgroup.
The SEAL Teams have more operational experience than any other navel Special Forces teams over the last 30 years. They also have a larger live fire budget then all other major navel special ops teams combined. They also have a major technological edge over any other team because of equipment and budget. Combine that with training methods equal to the SBS or anybody else for that matter and you get a pretty clear picture of who I would chose to send in if my life depended on it. Force Recon gets a lower budget, hand me downs from the marine corps and have not been deployed as often since the were not, until two months ago, part of Joint Special Operations Command. They are trained as well, are just as tough but I would still choose the seals.
Seal Team 6 (Devgroup) operators were called Jedi's by the other Seal Teams because they were hand picked from the best of the Seal community and this team had a larger live fire budget then the whole US Marine Corps. I would chose them over anybody and the only teams that even come close for CT work or hostage rescue in a marine environment are Delta, SAS Boat troop, SBS M Squadron. The SEALs can usually get to the hotspots faster then anyone and deploy with more support assets due to the size and firepower of the US Navy. All of the men of these units are equal on a man to man basis, the SEALS and especially Devgroup just get to rehearse and apply it more often. That?s why I would choose them over almost anyone if Special ops or CT work was needed in a maritime environment. I hope this clears up my position. Have a good day.
Posted by kd at October 1, 2003 12:58 AM
Teamwork is important in any unit, SF or not. Special Forces (worldwide) need to be able to work and trust each other since their mission and lives usually depend on everyone pulling their weight. SF soldiers are taught to think for themselves more so then your basic infantryman since they need to operate on their own usually in unfriendly territory as well as acting almost as ambassadors to foreign governments when training foreign troops. This type of closeness is evident on every team, American, British, Aussie, etc..
Task Force twenty is supposed to be hunter/killer teams from Delta and Devgroup and it is rumored that the SAS and SASR were also evolved.
I am sure that there are some innocent men who are being detained in the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. Just as there are innocent men and women languishing in jails around the world from crimes that they did not commit. I don?t think the numbers of innocents at Guantanamo are quite as high as people think (just my opinion). Let?s face facts, we (the Allies) are using the Jordanians and Egyptians to handle some of the interrogations and many of the people being arrested have been identified due to these interrogations. Sometimes though, and it has been proven by psychologists, when people are put under a great deal of stress they will sometimes admit to crimes they did not commit or they will give false testimony against their friends and neighbors. The operators and soldiers just need to make the arrests and hope that the intelligence community will identify the real from the false.
Internment without trials or hearings did not work for the British in Northern Ireland and I don?t think that it will work here. The PIRA?s ranks swelled because of this practice and gave too much world sympathy to the PIRA. A similar practice will only cause Al-Quida to increase its numbers and support in the Muslim world in my opinion. So if you have proof, try them as terrorists. If you have none you may need to risk letting them go.
In my opinion, a terrorist is a terrorist. If they are from Columbia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Montana they should be exterminated. The liberals make sure that the guilty will always have more rights then the victims of these terrorist acts. Maybe I?m a little bit jaded though especially since I lost a close High School buddy in the World Trade Center attack and I was involved in the recovery efforts at Ground Zero.
I have not been through BUDS, SAS, SASR etc?. I do not know of any Special Forces trooper soldier who ever went through buds. There have been Special Forces soldiers who did pass SAS selection (Col. Charlie Beckworth for one earned the tan beret) I visited the Coronado training center (on a mini vacation to San Diego) with a SF medic friend of mine who had a buddy (who he went through SF medical training with) who was a member of SEAL Team One. We witnessed their first phase of training and it was hard. My friends SEAL buddy showed us around and went over things with us regarding BUDS. I did not get to witness the full training schedule but it sounded pretty tough.
I believe that the reason that BUDS is so tough is that many of the candidates go from the Navy's basic training to BUDS, or they come from fleet positions. In the past Special Forces candidates came almost exclusively from the Rangers, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain and the 101st Air Mobile so most of the candidates were already elite light infantry before they ever attempted to join SF. Force Recon also gets its pick of the cream of the crop of the Marine Corps and these men have many of the basic infantry skills mastered before the try for selection. I think the navy needs to flush out some candidates quickly as well as bend their way of thinking from an almost civilian style to that of an operator expeditiously.
Many of the books that are out there that list the capabilities of the Special Forces around the world also state that BUDS is the most physically demanding basic Special forces school. Like I have said in all my posts, the real training starts after the initial phase. I found the physical and decision making segments of SF selection to be more or less reasonable for me. The language training, I hated and I still suck at it. In fact, in today?s army I probably would never have passed the language school course. My Puerto Rican buddy's still laugh at my attempts at Spanish.
Also from what I understand the Seal Combat Swimming course is vastly improved from when I was in the service. It was supposedly heavily influenced by a Frenchmen who was on an exchange program with one of the SEAL teams. I don?t know if that?s true, but it is what I heard.
Here are the units that I served with in detail.
82nd Airborne 3rd Brigade 505 PIR
1st Battalion 75th Ranger Company, Ranger Class 10 84
7th Special Forces Group ODA 725
I was assigned to Delta as an intelligence asset. I never went through selection for Delta. I was assigned to Delta because of my experience and contacts in Latin America and Delta was very active in that section of the world during my tenure. I was NOT A DELTA TROOP MEMBER. I left the military on a medical discharge due to the fact that I had taken ill and I lost partial hearing. Basically, I can?t hear low, monotone sounds very well and I get buzzing in the ears often; especially when diving.
We did not use rubber ducks in SFAS. During Ranger School we used them during the Florida Phase of the training cycle. I know that the SFAS and SFQC has continuously changed and been refined over the years but I am sure that small boat handling is not used during SFAS. SFAS is the basic program to see if you should be allowed to move ahead through to the Q-course selection process.
No picture of Clint Eastwood was on any mess wall during my time at Ft. Bragg. John Wayne on the other hand had photographs and portraits throughout the JFK SWC including the mess and various clubs. The Duke even donated a memorial at the JFK Chapel.
"If you come across someone who claims to be SASR, SAS 22 Regiment, NZSAS, SEALS, etc..., and they put down any of the other units... their wankers and liars. The respect these units have for one another is unbelievable. Unit Pride is one thing... stupidity and ignorance is another. Remember that we are all on the same side." Does this sound familiar at all?
I do think (like I said? my opinion) that the Navy SEALS are the finest trained amphibious commandos on the planet today. That is not to say that they are exclusive in this community. I would say that Marine Force Recon, SBS, SAS boat troop, SF Combat Dive teams, GROM, Korean Special Forces etc? are equal in training and abilities. The SEALS do have many operators with real world experience still in their ranks (Drug intervention in Columbia, combat operations in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, and Lebanon etc?) which gives them an operational advantage over many teams.
I am not putting any of the other units down and or putting any of the other units that I have served with above any other unit. As I have stated before. The SAS, SASR (TAG), Devgroup, Delta, SBS Counterterrorism Unit, etc? are all equally well trained for their stated missions. Just as the regular SEAL units, SBS, Force Recon Marines etc? are equally well trained. But due to budgets, support elements, shear numbers etc? the SEAL teams would be MY CHOICE if I had to have someone stage a mission. The US Navy is the largest and most advanced navy in the world. The can put assets into any theater in the world quickly and with a great deal of fire power far more easily then say the Royal Navy can. But if the support, equipment and firepower etc.. were all equal, I would say any of the teams, British, American, French, Australian, New Zealand, German etc.. are equal in their training and abilities. So please read all of the posts before you start to pass judgment as to what I have been saying.
The US Navy Seals are not commandos? Maybe if you think that all commandoes need to be of Boer blood. The following are the definitions of the word commando from various dictionaries. I think these traits apply to the SEAL teams as well as the SAS, SBS, Delta, Special Forces etc?
Websters: a military unit trained and organized as shock troops especially for hit-and-run raids into enemy territory
Cambridge: a small group of soldiers that are specially trained to make attacks on enemy areas which are particularly dangerous or difficult to attack.
American Heritage: A small fighting force specially trained for making quick destructive raids against enemy-held areas
JoeD, why don?t you tell us a little about your background? What is your interest in this board? I stumbled across it by accident and was appalled by the way people were fighting amongst themselves like children regarding the various SF teams. I take issue with people trying to make ridiculous statements about training and operations that they have no real knowledge of. I have not made one disparaging remark regarding any unit listed on this board.
I would also not use the phrase calling someone ?out? when it is applied to posting messages on a board such as this. Where I?m from (Bronx, New York) it has a whole other level of meaning and questioning someone from a hotmail email account does not actually fit the criteria most people would expect.
I would like to hear your choices for the missions I stated earlier in my posts just to see if they are really that different from mine and your reasons for your selections.
I did receive a couple of e-mails from former operators from various SF units (Aussie, American, and British) who are on the boards lurking but not posting. I wish one of you guys can jump in and answer some of the questions these gentlemen have since they either don?t like my answers or they don?t believe my background. Maybe hearing the same types of assessments from an operator from their own nations (like you gave in your e-mails) would help them understand what I have stated.
Posted by kd at October 19, 2003 06:47 PM
I actually stated that the U.S. Special Forces made the Australian Commando (4RAR) look like girl scouts, not the SAS. I think that the SASR is on par with the U.S. Special Forces and the SASR TAG unit is on par with Delta and British SAS assault teams.
Have you looked into The Royal Irish Regiment? They accept recruits from the Republic and they have been evolved in counter terrorism since the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers merged in the early 90's (I think). From what I understand they work often with both specialized police units and the SAS.
Mike, you stated that "I can't help but feel that you are trying to say that SEALs are the best, just in a very tactful way."
You are the first person that ever accused me of being tactful. I'm the gorilla that pounds the square peg into the circle during the IQ test. If you ever get to New York, I would love to buy you a pint or two. You made my day... me being tactful (lol).
As I stated, if all things were equal (intelligence, support elements, firepower, recovery etc...) I would take any of the units that I consider to be top shelf (Delta, Devgroup, SAS, SBS, TAG, GROM, KSK, 707th, GROUFUMACO etc...). But this being the real world... I'll take the DEVGROUP or DELTA since they have assets at their disposal that exceed all of the other teams combined.
I have not heard any talk in the community about the US forming any special "commando" units since they already have the Joint special operations command (which Marine Recon just joined). If you are quoting something direct, please let me know your source and I will research it. The Marines (US) consider all Marines commandos since the definitions that everyone here has listed for the term "Commando? is met by even the standard US Marine platoon. Mike you seem to think that the name commando give a unit an edge in some way. Tell me what the Royal Marine Commandos or Aussie 4RAR Commandos are trained to do that the Seals, Rangers, Force Recon, Special Forces are not? I guess that if I the US decided to give the designation of "Commando" to say the 2nd Infantry Division, that would make them commandos. Tell me what makes a man a commando, the training or the military designation? I guess that the U.S. Special Forces are the only true Special Forces in the world since they are the only ones who officially have that designation? The British and Australian armies only recently started to utilize the term Special Forces to describe their special operators. Are the SAS or SASR commandos? They are not designated commando units but they are (more than) commando qualified when compared to the training of 3 Commando or 4RAR Commando.
Tell me what specialized skills Royal Marine Commando posses that a platoon Uncle Sam?s Misguided Children don't? Your Brigade Recce Force are not the equivalent of Force Recon, they are equal to the Recon Battalion of the USMC. The USMC also has many Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams (FAST) Direct Action Platoons (DAP), Special Reaction Teams (SRT)and Maritime Special Purpose Force (MSPF) that are Special operations capable (Deep Recon, ambush, raids and SWAT style operations). None of these units are as good as Force Recon. The Force Recon Platoons are on par with your SBS Units in everyway. So if your SBS Units can be called Commando then so can the Seals and Force Recon.
As for experience in the
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.