Special Forces Convo : Originally Called 'For all those people who think the American Special Force

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   


originally posted by browha
True, your sniper school was set up by the SBS, and a lot of your men are attached to the SBS/SAS for training, etc


erm, are you refering to me as if i'm an american? hope not!




posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Ah, sorry..
Well either way, american forces.. blahblah



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Zedd -- I concede that to you, but I dont know why Falconer said what he did then... I shall have to investigate more.


No prob.


As far as the thread itself, it would be like me saying that the SAS is not as elite since Sergeant Andy McNab was captured and tortured in Iraq. There were no Seals captured.

The Andy McNab Story:
Bravo Two Zero - Amazon

Bravo Two Zero - Move starring Sean Bean (Ronin, LoTR)

Actually a great story, although I was shocked at the brutality of the Iraqis during torture. In any case, the point I wanted to make is that a statement like Falconer's, cannot measure how "elite" a unit is. When you are at that level...you are all elite.

Hooyaa!



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
The US are the elite because they have the better technology and weapons.

If it was down to hand to hand combat I'd say the US were probably at the bottom of the pile, although I'd pit them against a German Cocktail Waitress any day of the week.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The US forces arent the most elite, their technology is the best but their troops are lacking slightly... the Bristish SAS are the most elite speial forces in the world... they were in afghanistan weeks before the US declared war, gathering info and scouting the area, they took the Iraqi city of Basra and secured it after the US forces failed. The SAS are elite not only because of their physical abilities and equiptment but also the fact that they are trained in languages as well and the forces sent to a country would consist of individuals who could pass as native to the country if the need be... that and the SAS is secret, the public isnt informed of the names or identities of the individuals who are part of this elite of elite special forces...

not saying the US seals arent elite... hell they would kick my a$$ in any one on one... but they arent the best.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
What about Rainbow 6? Ding Chavez is the most elite of the most elite and where's he from?

Wow you guys like to argue about some things hey.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
The US forces arent the most elite, their technology is the best but their troops are lacking slightly... the Bristish SAS are the most elite speial forces in the world... they were in afghanistan weeks before the US declared war, gathering info and scouting the area, they took the Iraqi city of Basra and secured it after the US forces failed. The SAS are elite not only because of their physical abilities and equiptment but also the fact that they are trained in languages as well and the forces sent to a country would consist of individuals who could pass as native to the country if the need be... that and the SAS is secret, the public isnt informed of the names or identities of the individuals who are part of this elite of elite special forces...

not saying the US seals arent elite... hell they would kick my a$$ in any one on one... but they arent the best.


I very much agree with that.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by specialasianX
not saying the US seals arent elite... hell they would kick my a$$ in any one on one... but they arent the best.

I very much agree with that.

I would very much like to hear what you are grading on, or what tests might be out there either of you could reference for this topic.

I am not making the case they are the most "elite" but as for your references that they are not, like I said...I would love to see how you determined this.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by specialasianX
not saying the US seals arent elite... hell they would kick my a$$ in any one on one... but they arent the best.

I very much agree with that.

I would very much like to hear what you are grading on, or what tests might be out there either of you could reference for this topic.

I am not making the case they are the most "elite" but as for your references that they are not, like I said...I would love to see how you determined this.


From talking to many people in the military in person and on the net the SAS seem to be far more respected. This coming from Americans as well. It seems to be a result of their tact rather than being gung-ho.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by specialasianX
not saying the US seals arent elite... hell they would kick my a$$ in any one on one... but they arent the best.

I very much agree with that.

I would very much like to hear what you are grading on, or what tests might be out there either of you could reference for this topic.

I am not making the case they are the most "elite" but as for your references that they are not, like I said...I would love to see how you determined this.


This was determined from my own personal opinion. Obviously there is no official rating of special forces (that i know of) and if there was it would greatly biased toward the country in which this ranking was published. Mine was just from media reports fro the Afghan war and The Second Gulf war (i was too young to observe such things actively for the first Gulf War). The media reports i observed for this opinion included many from the USA, Australia, Britain, even Malaysian, Singaporian, and Bruneian Media sources.

The Sth East Asian (Malaysian, Singaporian, and Bruneian) media didnt have high opinions of any western forces in Iraq (being islamic that was a given so their reports were obviously bias against the west). The Aussie sources were hyped the Aussie SAS but also gave the British SAS a good rap but the US forces (in both conflicts) were not so highly regarded. Over the last few years the Aussie media has been very Pro-US and it has always been somewhat anti UK so i figured this pattern against the trend was significant. Even the Us media (CNN, CNBC, ABC but not FOX i hate FOX) gave the Brisitsh troops a great hype in their ability to quell situations where the US forces had failed. So even the US media were hyping them up (as well as hyping their own forces as would be expected). The British media gave their troops a hype but thats expected as well as it is their troops so thats what they do.

Kepp in mind though this is my opinion based on my observations... i havent been at war with any special forces from any country so i dont have first hand experience



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
seal's sas sbs cia nsa ntsb fema thc xtc abc def dea lmnop BRING EM ALL ON


JCF 4 LIFE BABY



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
This was determined from my own personal opinion. Obviously there is no official rating of special forces (that i know of) and if there was it would greatly biased toward the country in which this ranking was published. Mine was just from media reports fro the Afghan war and The Second Gulf war (i was too young to observe such things actively for the first Gulf War). The media reports i observed for this opinion included many from the USA, Australia, Britain, even Malaysian, Singaporian, and Bruneian Media sources.

The Sth East Asian (Malaysian, Singaporian, and Bruneian) media didnt have high opinions of any western forces in Iraq (being islamic that was a given so their reports were obviously bias against the west). The Aussie sources were hyped the Aussie SAS but also gave the British SAS a good rap but the US forces (in both conflicts) were not so highly regarded. Over the last few years the Aussie media has been very Pro-US and it has always been somewhat anti UK so i figured this pattern against the trend was significant. Even the Us media (CNN, CNBC, ABC but not FOX i hate FOX) gave the Brisitsh troops a great hype in their ability to quell situations where the US forces had failed. So even the US media were hyping them up (as well as hyping their own forces as would be expected). The British media gave their troops a hype but thats expected as well as it is their troops so thats what they do.

Kepp in mind though this is my opinion based on my observations... i havent been at war with any special forces from any country so i dont have first hand experience

So, you determined who was better due to media reports? Must be quite a sway for you during election time.



Originally posted by John Nada
From talking to many people in the military in person and on the net the SAS seem to be far more respected. This coming from Americans as well. It seems to be a result of their tact rather than being gung-ho.

And your opinion was word of mouth based on their tact? You also must have an interesting time during elections.


If I were going to critique a quality such as who was more "elite" (definition - The best or most skilled members of a group) I would probably base that on exercise scores. It would be nice to compare same-same missions, but the best we could hope for is training situations and scores. Keep in mind that some of this is probably out there due to the amount of cross-training between the groups.

I would think measures of:
Shooting skill
Stealth
Languages
Survival
Waterborne insertion techniques
Airborne insertion techniques
Diving
Underwater demolitions
the list goes on and on....

That would seem a better method to claiming the top spot rather than the media or "tact" (that bloke was a right nice chap -
)

In the end, sure...I understand the point but I just can't see how any group could claim the top spot without actual numbers to back it up.

ps) Read Bravo Two Zero though. The SAS? Those are some tough sons-a-bitches.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
In election time i vote GREENS all the time... the Labour and Liberal parties get all the media attention but they suck... the Media is always biased to the west and also always bias towards the country the source was published in... if you noticed in my post i disregard any country hyping up their own forces as that would be expected... the media is a good source of information used critically and taken with a grain of salt... you just have to read between the lines of what their saying. As for judging them by same-same mission... i think the fact that the US forces couldnt take and hold the Southern Iraqi city of Basra and had to call in the British to do the Job properly is a good example of same mission comparison... things as simple as swapping helmets for berets and having their guns at their sides instead of at the ready ensured the british gained the trust of the Iraqis so they then could establish relative stability in the city.
Another comparison is the death toll from the US compared to the British (or even Australian) forces. Admittedly the numbers of US forces in the region were higher but the ratio of Casualties - Troops is definaltly also higher for the US forces... (EG of the 5000 aussie troops sent, no casualties reported)

Also just general info given online by various people has helped me come to my decision... my opinion of BEST is the one that gets the job done the best with minimal causalties to themselves and civilians..

p.s the Us like to hype themselves up and the SAS are quiet achievers gaining respect through actions not words

pps in regard to above list on prev post... i think the SAS does all these much better than the US... troops from other countries always complain about US troops incompetence and prefer to work in units without US influence...

Perfect example the war in Afghanistan a birtish officer stated (this is not a direct quote i cant find the article, it was from either the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australian)

'an SAS troop can survive in the wilderness on a tube of toothpaste and a canteen of water, whilst a US troop complains if they dont get a milkshake and hotdog each day'

now obviously this is an exagerration and may be bias coming from a British officer but it outlines the dissatisfaction toher forces have working alongside the US and i feel that being ale to work with others is an important value for an elite unit


[Edited on 11-2-2004 by specialasianX]



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
When you don't need to use the big guns why bother? Did anyone think of that?



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
When you don't need to use the big guns why bother? Did anyone think of that?


And what is that in relation to? Ever think of that?



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Simple the regular American Forces and their special ops are all that was needed to take care of Iraq unlike the other posers out there.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Simple the regular American Forces and their special ops are all that was needed to take care of Iraq unlike the other posers out there.


Obviously, they're doing a bang up job out there. That's why the the place is in a state of turmoil and they are getting shipped back by the dozens in body bags every week.
There are also UK troops out there you seem to be forgetting, not that you'd probably realised.

Oh, and if firing rockets into the place and killing thousands and wounding many more isn't your idea of "big guns", I'd hate to think of what your idea of it is.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
In election time i vote GREENS all the time... the Labour and Liberal parties get all the media attention but they suck... the Media is always biased to the west and also always bias towards the country the source was published in... if you noticed in my post i disregard any country hyping up their own forces as that would be expected... the media is a good source of information used critically and taken with a grain of salt... you just have to read between the lines of what their saying. As for judging them by same-same mission... i think the fact that the US forces couldnt take and hold the Southern Iraqi city of Basra and had to call in the British to do the Job properly is a good example of same mission comparison... things as simple as swapping helmets for berets and having their guns at their sides instead of at the ready ensured the british gained the trust of the Iraqis so they then could establish relative stability in the city.
Another comparison is the death toll from the US compared to the British (or even Australian) forces. Admittedly the numbers of US forces in the region were higher but the ratio of Casualties - Troops is definaltly also higher for the US forces... (EG of the 5000 aussie troops sent, no casualties reported)

Also just general info given online by various people has helped me come to my decision... my opinion of BEST is the one that gets the job done the best with minimal causalties to themselves and civilians..

p.s the Us like to hype themselves up and the SAS are quiet achievers gaining respect through actions not words

Are you comparing all US Forces deaths? This was about the "elite". Some SAS died but how many Seals? See the point? I just don't think that is any way to compare.

In my book...they are ALL shooters & looters. Good. We need them. But saying one is better because you "heard online" or because one group wore berets instead of helmets, well...


I would say all you heard in the media is comparing SAS to regular Army. Hmmm....1 SAS killed today and 30 US Soldiers.


Remember, this is the "elite".



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Keep in mind though the amount of 'Elite' US that actually took part in the operations too... and i'm not saying the SAS are better just because of their Berets i was merely using that as an example of how they effectively use simple tactics to acheive a goal... i also added to my prev post you might wanna check it out... but my opinion may vary to yours but i have never heard or read any reports on special forces that state the seals as #1 they are definately one of the best... but not THE best



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
The US are the elite because they have the better technology and weapons.

If it was down to hand to hand combat I'd say the US were probably at the bottom of the pile, although I'd pit them against a German Cocktail Waitress any day of the week.


Omg you crack me up how bought u come to my town where Delta Force is stationed and come tell that to one of em?? OH btw i dont knwo about Seal Team being in Iraq but i know for a fact taht Delta was tehre cause once again many people from my town disappeared fro a few months



top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join