Have to say the british sas,they have more experience than others in counter terrorism and working in hostile climates.Americans might boast but think to hostage situations ie planes with terrorists on board ,delta have a bad track record on those, also the sas in afghanistan have been there for years blending in with tribes learning customs, lingo etc which delta does not do.Somarlia is a example on what not to do getting bitch slapped by children is not good for moral.My uncle who was in army for 20 years and served in the sas for some of it told me he and his troop were more worried that americans were too trigger happy and shot at every thing that moved and they might get killed by friendly fire.He did say the green berets were top class soldiers and not prone to boasting to every one how hard and tough they were unlike delta and seals.

Originally posted by Spets
By the way, if you wanna get into F*cked up, here's something for ya; the soviet army lost 20,000 men in afgan in 15 years while the US lost 50,000 in 20 in vietnam.

LOL, I love how people lways make this comaprison. The US was fighting a very well trained and eqippped army of millions of men. The Soviets were fighting a ragtag bunch of guerillas who were poorly equipped, with barely a tree to hide under. Yet they still lost 15 000 men

Originally posted by snipermeister
Americans might boast but think to hostage situations ie planes with terrorists on board ,delta have a bad track record on those

Oh yeah right, care to name some of these bad track record experiences ?

also the sas in afghanistan have been there for years blending in with tribes learning customs, lingo etc which delta does not do.

COmplete BS. The SAS had the smallest role of any special forces group in Afghanustan. THE AUstrallian SASR saw far far more combat than teh SAS. The Americans didn't even want them in there.

Somarlia is a example on what not to do getting bitch slapped by children is not good for moral.My uncle who was in army for 20 years and served in the sas for some of it told me he and his troop were more worried that americans were too trigger happy and shot at every thing that moved and they might get killed by friendly fire.

LOL, right right. That seems to be the standard comment from someone who has never served in a special forces unit and never with American secial forces.

BTW. I'd like to see the SAS do any better if they were in teh same situation as the troops in Blackhawk down. They would hvae had the same or higher casualty rates. It is universally agreed that teh Detlta troopers were inceredible in the Mogadishu firefight. Lets see 100 men ( Delta + Rangers ) against 10 000 + gun toting Somali's

He did say the green berets were top class soldiers and not prone to boasting to every one how hard and tough they were unlike delta and seals.

LOL ahem right. The only people doing any boasting are ex-SAS troopers who love to write books about their experiences, some which are even true such as Andy McNabs Bravo 20 book - which turns out was 80% BS.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by rogue1]

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, I love how people lways make this comaprison. The US was fighting a very well trained and eqippped army of millions of men. The Soviets were fighting a ragtag bunch of guerillas who were poorly equipped, with barely a tree to hide under. Yet they still lost 15 000 men

The Vietnamese were not far better equipped than Afganise, nor were that better trained. In both instances the opposing superpower trained and equipped the rebels. In both cases the rebels were fighting in there homeland, with better knowledge of terrain and geography. Not much is known about Russian war in Afganistan (as opposed to War in Vietnam). However the statistics I heard was that for every Russian soldier, about 70 Afganese were killed. I do not know if this includes the civilians or not, but this makes alot of dead mujahedeen. It is true that it is not correct to say that Russia was anymore successful in Afganistan than US in Vietnam. Both nations lost the wars, but unlike US, Russia learned its lesson.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, I love how people lways make this comaprison. The US was fighting a very well trained and eqippped army of millions of men. The Soviets were fighting a ragtag bunch of guerillas who were poorly equipped, with barely a tree to hide under. Yet they still lost 15 000 men

The Vietnamese were not far better equipped than Afganise, nor were that better trained. In both instances the opposing superpower trained and equipped the rebels. In both cases the rebels were fighting in there homeland, with better knowledge of terrain and geography. Not much is known about Russian war in Afganistan (as opposed to War in Vietnam). However the statistics I heard was that for every Russian soldier, about 70 Afganese were killed. I do not know if this includes the civilians or not, but this makes alot of dead mujahedeen. It is true that it is not correct to say that Russia was anymore successful in Afganistan than US in Vietnam. Both nations lost the wars, but unlike US, Russia learned its lesson.

Spot on

In my opinion the SAS is the best and unmatched, in fact havent the SAS trained alot of the Worlds Special Forces units ?

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, I love how people lways make this comaprison. The US was fighting a very well trained and eqippped army of millions of men. The Soviets were fighting a ragtag bunch of guerillas who were poorly equipped, with barely a tree to hide under. Yet they still lost 15 000 men

The Vietnamese were not far better equipped than Afganise, nor were that better trained. In both instances the opposing superpower trained and equipped the rebels. In both cases the rebels were fighting in there homeland, with better knowledge of terrain and geography. Not much is known about Russian war in Afganistan (as opposed to War in Vietnam).

I suggest you do a little more reading before commenting on this. You do know that the Vietnamese had been in a constant state of war 20 years before America became involved. They were expert guerilla fighters. You do know they fought the Japanese and French before the Americans . The mujahideen hadn't fought anyone in recent times - they weren't battle ready or trained to even.

The North Vietnamese were far from rebels, the NVA was a massive highly trained fighting force of over 1 million men. The VIet Cong nubered hundreds of thousands as well and were highly expereinced in guerilla warfare. Comparing these soldiers to the rag tag mujahideen groups in Afghanistan is completely ridiculous. You might as well be comparing a bump in the ground to Mt Everest.

However the statistics I heard was that for every Russian soldier, about 70 Afganese were killed. I do not know if this includes the civilians or not, but this makes alot of dead mujahedeen. It is true that it is not correct to say that Russia was anymore successful in Afganistan than US in Vietnam. Both nations lost the wars, but unlike US, Russia learned its lesson.

The amjority were civilians onl a small percentage were actualluy men under arms. It was a typical SOviet tactic to cmpletely wipe out villages and towns from the air at even the slightest hint of resistance.

Originally posted by Liamoville


In my opinion the SAS is the best and unmatched, in fact havent the SAS trained alot of the Worlds Special Forces units ?

Maybe a few 3rd world counreies but not nations like the US or Australia. This is a myth perpetuated by the ignorant. IN fact the Australian SASR has far more capability than the SAS and far more diverse roles, as evidenced in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by ludaChris
THe thing I feel makes HRT the best rescue team in the world is that they are not soldiers, but are policemen whose goal is always to save lives,

So are GSG9.

The difference is that the USA doesn't have Germany's rather unsavoury recent geopolitical history and so as well as HRT the US also has the Green Berets, the Rangers, specialist Marine units, the SEALs and Delta among others.

While everyone concentrates on GSG9, who are Federal border police, nobody is looking at the Bundeswehr's sniper team, who in the 80s apparently had the longest kill shot requirements of any sniper programme in the west. I say this because it's what I've heard, not what I've read or seen.

As for those who say the SAS haven't trained anybody...

Where do you think Charlie Beckwith got his ideas? Where did Ulrich Wegener do his post-grad?

These days 22SAS don't train other forces, they cross-train with them. And to say SASR in Swanbourne are superior is to greatly miss the point. Yes, as an Aussie, I am extremely patriotic and supportive of them, I think they are among the best in the world, but to say they are the best is drawing a longer bow than I own. However, I'd like to see a foreign SF team ply their trade in the top end or the outback as well as SASR.

Originally posted by rogue1
Maybe a few 3rd world counreies but not nations like the US or Australia. This is a myth perpetuated by the ignorant. IN fact the Australian SASR has far more capability than the SAS and far more diverse roles, as evidenced in Afghanistan.

Your just annoyed we got further than you in the world cup rougue and you know it

Besides all you guys do is board north korean cargo ships and bomb them, which was pretty cool I have to admit.

I am far from an expert, and am proud of the SAS as a British guy, but could everyone give it a rest about how no-one can match them?

We should praise the SAS for being pioneers of the Commando/Special Operations role, not for being some kind of genetically engineered, mutant human, clone army with Psionic powers.

The SAS can hold their own with other Special Forces that have access to better equipment and better funding, not to mention superior numbers. That is what they really excel at.

Also, stop it with the snide remarks about the Bravo Two Zero lot. It's like flogging a dead horse already.

Hey Captain, I'm just up the road from you in sunny Gloucester.

Given their size and the restraints placed on them by the Treasury, 22 Special Air Service, are still the very best special forces in the world.

From it's conception in the Western Desert in 1941 to Bosnia and Kosovo, Iraq and later Afghanistan, the SAS exploits are legendry.

On the whole, where former members have written books or helped to produce TV series, a proportion of the cash has always gone to the SAS Benevolent Fund.

Indeed when a comrade falls on active service or in SAS parlance fails to beat the Clock, his closest friends usually auction his gear with the proceeds going to the bereaved family.

Forget all the crap in books by Mitchell Richards - aka Andy McNab or Chris Ryan and a few noteable others. Mike Coburn [NZSAS] has set that particular record straight.

If you want unbiased reading and a slice of Regimental History, then Operation Jaguar by Brigadier Tony Jeaps is a good place to start or These Men Are Dangerous by Derrick Harrison or One Of The Originals by Johnny Cooper.

So, IMHO, we should bang on about how good the SAS are.

Do you know anything besides the SAS- sounds like you don't. A critical mistake a strong army (or Special Forces in this case) can make is underestimating the other guys' forces. US, Britain, and Russia all have legendary special forces, which are considered the elite of their nation. It is simply ignorant to claim that one is the best because of some book you read or some movie you watched, or somebody that knew somebody that is a Spec Ops. In my opinion the overhype about SAS only shows that the British put too much trust into them. Captain-Sensible was correct in how he described SAS.

Groan...not THIS subject again. Mad Scientist, you really, really need to access the "Search" function kindly provided by your ATS Moderators.
This has been bandied about at least a dozen times since I've been here in the past year, and the concensus is that US Army Special Forces ("The Green Berets") are THE finest special operations outfit in the whole world.I know this to be true.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Spets
By the way, if you wanna get into F*cked up, here's something for ya; the soviet army lost 20,000 men in afgan in 15 years while the US lost 50,000 in 20 in vietnam.

LOL, I love how people lways make this comaprison. The US was fighting a very well trained and eqippped army of millions of men. The Soviets were fighting a ragtag bunch of guerillas who were poorly equipped, with barely a tree to hide under. Yet they still lost 15 000 men

I agree with rogue... everything is relative...

"who has the best special forces?"

This question is as vague as asking "who has the best weapons", it´s like asking "is an FN57 better than a PLARB?

To answer this question I will try the following criteria (not in any particular order, and I am sure I am omitting some):
1. Offensive mindset
2. Training provided by experienced instructors
3. Combat experience
4. Logistics, supply, and combat readiness
5. Direct access weapons & technology
6. Team and moral responsibility
7. Versitility of available skills
8. Access to pre- and post-mission data

Without elaborate writing at this time, I find the US to have the best Special Forces organization available. Extremely diverse, well trained and experienced,
and backed up with decent material and intelligence resources. Not to mention their value for life, especially that of a team mate, this boosts morale under combat conditions more than ever.

With regard to the more individual Special Forces unit, let´s say the soldier who can perform the most daring missions under the most daring circumstances, all special special forces (and at times even the most unexperienced but willing soldiers) around the world display unbelievable courage. I have to admit that the British SAS are most inspiring. It´s their "make do" attitude that often gives them the edge, this heritage is hard to match.

I am completely new to this forum, and I welcome any justified corrections to the statements I have made. Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Groan...not THIS subject again. Mad Scientist, you really, really need to access the "Search" function kindly provided by your ATS Moderators.
This has been bandied about at least a dozen times since I've been here in the past year, and the concensus is that US Army Special Forces ("The Green Berets") are THE finest special operations outfit in the whole world.I know this to be true.

Concensus by who and how do you know it to be true?

If the boys out at JFK Special Warfare Centre are so damn good why were Delta sent to Mogadishu?

Sorry, I can't claim family in Spec Ops, or SF for that matter, just friends and acquaintances who are ex Recces, Delta, SBS...None of them have come out with such a sweeping statement about the Green Berets. Which leads me to believe that your uncle is bragging about his group, simply because it is his group.

Where I come from Green Berets are commandos. Which is a unit with its own illustrious history and certainly an early WW2 deployment history that outshines SAS' first misadventures.

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Groan...not THIS subject again. Mad Scientist, you really, really need to access the "Search" function kindly provided by your ATS Moderators.
This has been bandied about at least a dozen times since I've been here in the past year, and the concensus is that US Army Special Forces ("The Green Berets") are THE finest special operations outfit in the whole world.I know this to be true.

Hmm maybe you should wear galsses, this hte original thread and has been going for abour 4 years. Maybe toehr people whould access teh search function, or think more carefully before they write