Radical changes in the SAS

[Yosy]

SAS chiefs launch biggest shake-up in regiment's history (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F28%2Fnsas28.xml)

The day the SAS decided 'someone else could do it better' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F28%2Fnsas128.xml)

In a related story: in Iraq 2003, two full squadrons (B and G), with the support of the Paras and Royal Marines, captured two arifields. This is the kind of the job that even the Royal Green Jackets could do (and probably better, since they train for this kind of thing, while the SAS focus more on other types of operations) - there's no need to waste valuable SAS troops in coventional warfare.

What do you think?

[Sayeret]

In a related story: in Iraq 2003, two full squadrons (B and G), with the support of the Paras and Royal Marines, captured two arifields. This is the kind of the job that even the Royal Green Jackets could do (and probably better, since they train for this kind of thing, while the SAS focus more on other types of operations) - there's no need to waste valuable SAS troops in coventional warfare.

What do you think?

Well if the SAS has no other roles they can do at the current timeand the mission doesn't seem too dangerous then I don't see any problem with the UK using SAS for more conventional roles.

[Red]

It would be a huge mistake for them to curb the influence of the NCO's.This is because the NCO's are the ones who get to stay on the teams for a longer term and these guys do most of the fighting.An officer for the most part would be more concerned with his career and would do anything to keep that career on track

[Yosy]

^^^^I don't know about it. In Chris Ryan's "The One that Got Away" (a later edition, with an introduction) he accused the NCOs of having too much power on their hands in Selection and he was himself an NCO. But then again, Ryan isn't that reliable.

[Tributal]

It would be a huge mistake for them to curb the influence of the NCO's.This is because the NCO's are the ones who get to stay on the teams for a longer term and these guys do most of the fighting.An officer for the most part would be more concerned with his career and would do anything to keep that career on trackNot sure how British officers act compared to U.S. officers. I know there's a huge difference between (in my case) Swedish officers and U.S. officers, so I wouldn't be too surprised if the Brits are different from the Americans as well.

[KB]

In any elite unit where operations are typically conducted in 4-8 man teams, the unit leader NCO is going to be the the "glue" that makes the unit as a whole run. It takes a special officer to lead those kinds of units, and obviously a young company grade officer entering such a unit is initially going to be at a severe disadvantage in terms of experience and credibility.

[Nizark]

This kinda sounds like panama when a seal team was tasked to take an airfield, while there was a ranger team ready and waiting for the go. The afteraction reports said, while everything went alright, the rangers would have been best to secure the airfield and the ops planner was questioned, not congressionally, as to why he decided on seals instead of rangers.

[Gringo]

SAS chiefs launch biggest shake-up in regiment's history (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F28%2Fnsas28.xml)

The day the SAS decided 'someone else could do it better' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F09%2F28%2Fnsas128.xml)

In a related story: in Iraq 2003, two full squadrons (B and G), with the support of the Paras and Royal Marines, captured two arifields. This is the kind of the job that even the Royal Green Jackets could do (and probably better, since they train for this kind of thing, while the SAS focus more on other types of operations) - there's no need to waste valuable SAS troops in coventional warfare.

What do you think?

Sounds similar to Operation Trent in Afghanistan. The op was to attack a destroy a Al Qaida Opium storage facility in Southern Afghanistan. The target was attacked by two Squadrons of SAS. The Op was a success, with only 4 troops wounded including the RSM.
However they felt that an Infantry unit could had done it better.

[Argyll]

The problems with using larger numbers of SF in attack's such as the one in A-Stan and Iraq,especially where the Regiment is concerned is that many of their members are Corp's members,meaning they had no basic infantry backgrounds,and doing anything above a "section" attack is like asking a Regular Infantryman to clear a buliding using CQB techniques,you want guys for storming building's an other transport vessel's and aircraft then the SAS/SBS(to a degree) are your guy's.
You want to take an airfield,or a complex,then regular Infantry are the guys to do it,they train in FIBUA all the time.......so why use SF assets to do a task quite able and capable from say the Para's?

My mate was in the A-Stan attack,and he said guy's there had never done a section attack in their lives,never mind a full Squadron attack,he say's they were lucky they got away with it,firepower was their masterstroke.
This is where the "Corps" guys lack the fundamentals,IF and a Big IF the SAS did not recruit outside the Infantry,then attacks such as those described would not be a problem,as they would have all had a basic Infantryman's skill,at least 6 years worth.

Bottom line..........keep SF troops for Their specialist roles,and Give the regular Infantry more of a "Ranger" type role

[Roger Rabbit]

At an estimation how big is an SAS squadron? Is it the equivilant of an infantry company or platoon?

[Gringo]

At an estimation how big is an SAS squadron? Is it the equivilant of an infantry company or platoon?

An SAS Squadron should be about 64 men, plus support personel.