It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Special Forces - the best?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:25 PM
Ok I'm new to ATS so sorry if this is posted in the wrong section, feel free to move it.

Down to business...which are the best special forces in the world in terms of:

1. Ability to react to any terrain (urban, desert, etc) at a moment's notice
2. Had the best training
3. Most secrecy surrounding
4. Best technological backup
5. Best record for most sucessful missions with least casualty losses (where the missions are of similiar difficulty)
6. Anything else anyone wants to add.

Ok, my vote starts with the SBS and SAS but that's really just my patriotism ruling over judgement
. What are your views ppl?

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:32 PM
I say SAS too. The SAS and SBS are trained for long term trips behind enemy lines, remaining concealed in harsh conditions.

The US counter parts are as well trained but the US tactics are for quick hit and run attacks with backup. US special forces lack the long term stamina, but as short range high specalist troops they are as good as the SAS.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:37 PM
1.Spetnaz they are trained for every terrain and almost every situation
2.SBS no doubt at all 2nd gurkas
3.Still SBS thier never heard of practically ,but thers an american joint unit that is really secret its called like jsop or somein
4.Usa units
6.The SBS is the best trained force in the wold casue they have to pass roayal marine fitness test ,uk special forces test,SAS selection and then pass thier own 1

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:43 PM
sas are good but u know me i have to go with the SEALS or delta force.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:47 PM
actually contuary to popular belief the SAS are quite poorly, how to word this, ... educated
thier from the regular army so they are basically well trained and amred squadies

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:49 PM
It all comes down to the terrain and the mission needed. Pure and simple. That is why we have different special forces. Think about ir for a minute. If not, then there would just be one multiforce special force group. They are all top notch no matter what country/service they are from. It all depends on the specialy needed, conditions, and the details of the mission.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by devilwasp
actually contuary to popular belief the SAS are quite poorly, how to word this, ... educated
thier from the regular army so they are basically well trained and amred squadies

They are still funking lethal.

I'd go for the SAS/Gurkhas.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:58 PM
so you wouldnt want the elite ?
u want the second best?

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:10 PM
Do we need this bloody argument again?
I know I've started an extensive (20ish pages) thread about it already!
It comes to=
British SF for endurance
American SF for power.
These topics become boring unless people actually intend to go out there, research selection, research mission occurances, research training.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:13 PM
he has a point you know........

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:21 PM
I've heard from some millitary buddies that Canadian Spec. Forces are pretty hardcore(specially their snipers). German and Italian and of course you cant forget the Isrealis...

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:22 PM
What about spetsnaz for being the most brutal special forces?

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:26 PM
i would say that spetnaz is pretty brutal and frankly they just dont die
they get beaten and then come back and just keep doing it till they win

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 07:36 PM
Im going on what I know from People I know who are high up in the ranks and have comented on these units over and over.

1. Spetz( on there psy training of their troops
2.Isayeret( Isreali special ops on counter terror) ( Polish instructors)
3. Grom ( on counter terror " capturing targets without a single shot, vital special ops units in Iraq capturing oil rigs sea ports)


posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:21 PM
Hainv heard so much about them lately, and living in Australia, I'd go with Australian SASR. I've heard that GROM is pretty impressive as well. The various Israeli Sayaret Units I would imagine be very good due to their experience and pretty much constant operations.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:25 PM
yes the spetnaz they get beaten and beaten but just wont go away.
like an annoying mosquito that keeps biting until you squash it

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:43 PM
My brother was in the UK RAF Regiment in the 1970's, the regiment wasnt perticularly well equipped and many in both the real Army and the Actual airforce sniffed at them.

Fact was they were trained in airfield security and they have to do everything from terrorist attacks, to anti-air batteries and worst of all fight Spetnaz troops.

The RAF regiment were tough rough and tumble lot that is trained to get stuck in and be mean because the Spetznaz are a nutty hardcore bunch and the Reg had to be just as nuts to deal with them.

Now though they are heavily armed with their own heavy armour units, anti air batteries (the excellent rapier missile and goalkeeper anti air batteries) and state of the art weapons and training. i suppose you couldnt class them as 'elite' units but they are most unique and specialist.

The millitary units in Stargate SG1 although very heavily fictional are based on the US equivalent regiments so you have the (very) rough idea.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by rustiswordz]

[edit on 18-6-2004 by rustiswordz]

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:51 PM
man the ninja is by far the best

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:12 PM
The Seals from DevGru are the best there is. They used to be Seal Team Six till a piece of sh%* named Marcinko wrote some books.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by ANTONIO]

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:45 PM
There are a few facts you my not be aware regarding this topic.
Special Forces (as a unit) exsists only as a unit within the United States Army (Uncle Sam Aint Released Me Yet). The term I believe is Special Operations which I believe was also coined in the USA back in the 1980's when different 'Special Operational' units began joint operations as alluded in this thread, different units are trained for different missions.

Small units tactics behind enemy lines require much the same skills (forms of infiltration, movement within an AO, and of course the mission statement.
In the US the units are picked for specific mission to match the unit's expertise with the mission requirements.

I personally hold SAS in high regard, and in fact their selections process is very demanding and few make it to a squadron.

I'm partial to US Special Forces, which has been confused with many units within the Spec Ops community, it is however a seperate enitity to itself, with its own selection process, qualification, and advanced training schools.

I would say that the mission would dictate which unit is best for an operations. To clearify one mis-understanding SF units train and perform long range and prolonged missions. Some have been deployed and remained in enemy territory for up to a year sometimes 1 1/2 years. We train to assemilate into the culture of the people we work with , adopt there tabbos, learn their language and live them on a daily basis.

To the best of my knowledge SAS missions are short deployments throughout a possible long mission statement i.e. strat recon of an area for as long as there is interest.. for example the long term involvement with the IRA activist which has become the final qualification for new SAS candidates.

My apologies for the long winded reply, however this is a subject often confused and misapplied by laymen and professionals (the press) who you would expect to be better informed.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in