On December 03 2011 10:52 DarkShadowz wrote: I don't see how ANYONE can be compared to SAS. If someone can give me some good reasons why I would be interested in it.
I'm biased but I agree with this.
First off, no small or poor nation can have the best elite forces, as they don't have the most current technology and adequate funding. Second, no militarily inactive nation can have the best elite forces, because they won't have seen frequent and varied activity (I'm looking at you Germany). By these criteria there are only a few nations left and really only two stand out: the UK and the US. Russia has actually been relatively inactive, and France has taken part in predominantly African conflicts offering a much narrower field of experience. Of the UK and the US, it would seem intuitively correct that the US has seen more activity, but I'm not sure if that's true. In fact, I'm fairly confident it isn't. Many of the UK SAS have served in the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Africa and the Middle East. It might also seem sensible to think the US forces are better funded, but the UK defence spending is biased towards improving their special forces and is still one of the biggest budgets in the world. Finally if you take history into account, the achievements of the SAS pretty much dwarf those of any other unit, particularly with all the new information about WW2 being revealed.
On December 03 2011 10:52 DarkShadowz wrote: I don't see how ANYONE can be compared to SAS. If someone can give me some good reasons why I would be interested in it.
I'm biased but I agree with this.
First off, no small or poor nation can have the best elite forces, as they don't have the most current technology and adequate funding. Second, no militarily inactive nation can have the best elite forces, because they won't have seen frequent and varied activity (I'm looking at you Germany). By these criteria there are only a few nations left and really only two stand out: the UK and the US. Russia has actually been relatively inactive, and France has taken part in predominantly African conflicts offering a much narrower field of experience. Of the UK and the US, it would seem intuitively correct that the US has seen more activity, but I'm not sure if that's true. In fact, I'm fairly confident it isn't. Many of the UK SAS have served in the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Africa and the Middle East. It might also seem sensible to think the US forces are better funded, but the UK defence spending is biased towards improving their special forces and is still one of the biggest budgets in the world. Finally if you take history into account, the achievements of the SAS pretty much dwarf those of any other unit, particularly with all the new information about WW2 being revealed.
Wasn't the falklands primarily a naval conflict, with the air control being fought over? I didn't realize there was much actual infantry combat. And I may be biased because I'm in the US, but I thought that SAS operated mainly in civil terrorism rather than in war (come to think of it, same with the seals, they seem to only get credit for non military targets). I think we all have far too little information to actually make a decision, besides saying that k9 is the best.
Of the UK and the US, it would seem intuitively correct that the US has seen more activity, but I'm not sure if that's true. In fact, I'm fairly confident it isn't. Many of the UK SAS have served in the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Africa and the Middle East. It might also seem sensible to think the US forces are better funded, but the UK defence spending is biased towards improving their special forces and is still one of the biggest budgets in the world..
The UK has been in some kind of conflict since the 80's Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland, Falklands infact I think the SAS should have seen action often in the last 50 years or so. Probably since their founding in 1950.
On December 03 2011 07:12 asspadtycoon wrote: The original poster wanted to know what the most "Elite" unit is.... this is a very subjective question. As an ex-Special Forces guy, the answers that I've read here really bug me. First of all, the term "Special Forces" in the USA refers specifically to the Army UNIT that is called Special Forces Group who are also known as the Green Berets. Special Forces, along with the Navy SEALs, Army Rangers and 160th SOAR, Air Force CCTs and Para Rescue all belong to USSOCOM -- or Special Operations NOT Special Forces!
Regarding who's the best, again, very subjective as each specializes in different operations. The ones who get the most press aren't necessarily the best by any means, they just promote themselves the most (which goes against what Spec Ops is all about). The Special Forces Group has the most diverse training and mission than any of the other US Spec Ops guys... look at what a couple of teams of SF guys did in Afganistan way back when... they coordinated/advised the "Northern Alliance" and led them to a remarkably quick victory over the Taliban... a feat like that requires big time skills across MANY military disciplines. Delta and Devgru are hands down the best for hostage and CT missions -- DEVGRU's been getting all of the publicity, but I think the Delta boys are just better at keeping their mouths shut about what they are doing. There's no way of outsiders actually knowing who's better. Let's put it this way..if I was being held hostage by some dirtball group of radicals, I would be equally comfortable with whichever group was sent to nab my nasty ass!
what he said. each group is different with a different focus/mission tasking. if you really want to know which force is the best then ask which is the best for "x" mission or in "y" environment. all have rigorous training regimens, high dropout rates, good funding, and sharp focus. in war there is no best, no first and second, only dead and alive.
But if it would have to be a real organization then i would probably go with the SAS , they have the same level of training as the SEALS , but in addition to that they are also trained by MI-5 and MI-6 for in-depth counter-espionage, which the SEALS lack .
I wonder to what extent elitism in a special force confers only lethality. I imagine that today's special forces could look for other skillsl ike such as infiltration, lethatlity while considering collateral damage, bomb defusal, hostage rescue, etc.....
I'm interested in this topic too. There are more than one type of special forces units too. Some are infiltrate and take out key targets, which is the 'classic' example. Others are first-in units like reconnasaince marines and there are of course multi-purpose units such as the SAS.
In terms of who has the best, its probably the SEALS or British SAS. Based on reputation the Australian SAS are extremely good too but I'm biased on that so take it for what its worth.
Edit: And who knows, the best unit in the world is probably the one none of us have heard of o.O
Edit 2: Guys, guys, I just had an epiphany. The best special forces unit in the world are the Terran ghosts. They have special powers.
SAS & SEALs, my bias would give it to the Seals, but thats because I fear it's quite a stand off. I wouldn't doubt the SAS have more field experience, but I think the technology definitely goes to the U.S.
On December 03 2011 10:52 DarkShadowz wrote: I don't see how ANYONE can be compared to SAS. If someone can give me some good reasons why I would be interested in it.
I'm biased but I agree with this.
First off, no small or poor nation can have the best elite forces, as they don't have the most current technology and adequate funding. Second, no militarily inactive nation can have the best elite forces, because they won't have seen frequent and varied activity (I'm looking at you Germany). By these criteria there are only a few nations left and really only two stand out: the UK and the US. Russia has actually been relatively inactive, and France has taken part in predominantly African conflicts offering a much narrower field of experience. Of the UK and the US, it would seem intuitively correct that the US has seen more activity, but I'm not sure if that's true. In fact, I'm fairly confident it isn't. Many of the UK SAS have served in the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Africa and the Middle East. It might also seem sensible to think the US forces are better funded, but the UK defence spending is biased towards improving their special forces and is still one of the biggest budgets in the world. Finally if you take history into account, the achievements of the SAS pretty much dwarf those of any other unit, particularly with all the new information about WW2 being revealed.
On November 27 2011 21:22 gwaihir wrote: Navy seals and SF are a joke compared to most ....yes get over it americans.... best is probaly the british SAS, followed by german KSK and russian speznaz
No you are wrong.
Many of the teams are not comparable to SAS but SEAL team 6 and BUDS for example are among worlds finest SpecOps.
Do not think KSK is considered in the same league as SAS and Spetznaz mate.
Well the GSG9 won in the years 2005 and 2006 international comparission competitions (the Original SWAT World Challenge (OSWC) in the USA)
And the SEK of Baden-Württemberg won the international Combat Team Conference, which is known as the inofficial worldchampionship of police and military special forces, this year and defended it's title as the worldchampions from the year 2007.
Don't really know what the KSK have accomplished and I'm too lazy to look it up
GSG9 are good
they rape everybody (not military)
I think the GSG9 is specialised on antiterror missions and so on while the KSK is there for warmissions.
thats correct but KSK is also trained in everything GSG9 does, that means anti terror too that means they are even better. but they never participate in such competions where GSG9 wins vs everybody, because KSK is really a top secret unit, thats why they will never show up.
1961 – 1989: The Cold War 1993: European Commission Monitor Mission 1995: United Nation Protection Mission (UNPROFOR) 1996: Implementation Force (IFOR) 1996 – 1997: Allied Military Intelligence Battalion (AMIB) 1997: Stabilisation Force (SFOR) 1997 – 2000: Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force (CJSOTF), Sarajevo 1999 – 2000: Kosovo Force (KFOR) 2002: Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) 2003: Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) 2003: Force Protection – Irak 2004: Protection Team – Bagdad 2005: Force Protection – Kosovo 2005: Humanitær indsats – Sri Lanka 2005: Protection Team – NATO Training Mission 2006: Protection Team – Basra
I think that they can't post their newer missions, and the reason might be because it could pose as a security threat to themselves, I don't know though. But I am pretty sure.
HAHAHAHHA, SAS by far best in world because cool uniforms and badass weapons, owned!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 I've played them in COD and Counterstrike so i know WHAT I'm TALKING ABOUT !!!!!111 And I'M BRITISH THAT STRENGTHENS MY ARgument even MOAR, pwned n00b i'm out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
On December 03 2011 05:55 jubil wrote: Just recently watched the Korean movie Silmido - if the actual training was anything like that of the movie, I'd have to say Unit 684 was pretty elite - small group, kept top secret, one single mission, brutal training that killed a number of recruits.
They can't be top secret if you just watched a movie about them. ^^
I think comprehensively JSOC would be the best because they have so many groups/resources to draw on: DEVGRU, 1st SFOD-D, PJs, SF, Rangers, SOAR, so they could assembly specialized teams/equipment for the mission requirements.
But small group CT action would probably go to JTF2, GSG9, SAS, or SAD/SOG.
If only based on DA missions I'd personally rank DEVGRU, 1st SFOD-D, SAS, JTF2, KSK all the same since they cross train all the time and would probably produce the same results on the same targets.
Note: Mossad is not a SpecOps group, it is a foreign intelligence service, like CIA or MI6, I don't remember what their SAD counterpart is called but I'd expect them to be very good as well.
Also most current groups were built on the structure of the SAS so if judging on history SAS would have the best.
This is an even moar cool thread than the one about Aoc wich have been closed for beeing "fluffy". I guess the americans special forces are the best cause you don't joke with those kind of guys, and i heard Rambo and Chuck aren't fluffy :p
On December 03 2011 20:21 z5um wrote: HAHAHAHHA, SAS by far best in world because cool uniforms and badass weapons, owned!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 I've played them in COD and Counterstrike so i know WHAT I'm TALKING ABOUT !!!!!111 And I'M BRITISH THAT STRENGTHENS MY ARgument even MOAR, pwned n00b i'm out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
User was banned for this post.
out you are indeed
i think that the uk has the lead in this from what ive heard but i dont know too much about this whole thing interesting thread nonetheless
I all honestly, I think that it's almost impossible to say.
Don't most of the NATO special forces train together regularly? You would think that it would mean, at least skill-wise, they would be pretty equal. Plus the sharing military knowledge that the US, UK, and other NATO countries means their technology, in general, should be pretty close
Historically, I would agree that the SAS just has the lead, but in modern terms, its going to be close.
On December 02 2011 06:43 Somaht wrote: British SAS/ German KSK > Russian Speznas > American Seals
Waffen-SS > .. (if you also include the last century)
You realize the Nazis lost the war, right? After the Battle of Kaiserine Pass in 1942 (the first battle between the US Army and the Wermacht), the US Army won literally every battle against the Nazis. SS is massively overrated.
Try fighting a 2 front war with a really stupid and stubborn leader. it was all about stalingrad, thats where the war was lost
On December 03 2011 21:33 Bulkers wrote: In Iraq when British or USA special forces could handle the situation they send polish GROM tactical unit nuff said
When they could handle the situation, they sent someone else instead? I don't think 'nuff has been said, I am confused. If you were thinking GROM tactical unit surpasses US joint special operations forces you're wrong based on shear size/funding/technology alone. There's really no way to compare the power/capacity of any special operations wing to that of the US. It's like comparing countries based on who has the biggest aviation sector or movie industry. The US is so absurdly far ahead in terms of size/money involved in these areas that comparisons to similar things in other countries is just sort of absurd
Also in here there is way too much "special forces" being thrown around lol. With regard to the US, that's the term for the guys that specialize in interdisciplinary skills, especially knowing other cultures extremely well. These are the guys who are on the ground training other forces and militias. These are the guys who are out collecting low, mid, and high level Taliban/AQ for interrogation in Afghanistan (along with rangers, SEALs, etc). They do a lot of everything. If you want to refer to the more general idea of all the 'special forces' across the US military you need to call it "special operations forces" because then you aren't restricting it to Special Forces and its multiple groups.
On December 03 2011 10:52 DarkShadowz wrote: I don't see how ANYONE can be compared to SAS. If someone can give me some good reasons why I would be interested in it.
I'm biased but I agree with this.
First off, no small or poor nation can have the best elite forces, as they don't have the most current technology and adequate funding. Second, no militarily inactive nation can have the best elite forces, because they won't have seen frequent and varied activity (I'm looking at you Germany). By these criteria there are only a few nations left and really only two stand out: the UK and the US. Russia has actually been relatively inactive, and France has taken part in predominantly African conflicts offering a much narrower field of experience. Of the UK and the US, it would seem intuitively correct that the US has seen more activity, but I'm not sure if that's true. In fact, I'm fairly confident it isn't. Many of the UK SAS have served in the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Africa and the Middle East. It might also seem sensible to think the US forces are better funded, but the UK defence spending is biased towards improving their special forces and is still one of the biggest budgets in the world. Finally if you take history into account, the achievements of the SAS pretty much dwarf those of any other unit, particularly with all the new information about WW2 being revealed.
JTF2 (Joint Task Force 2) Here in Canada can easily be compared to the SAS along with any other special forces unit. We don't have a large military but our regular forces are better trained than most, and our special forces (JTF2) are just crazy. Not saying they're better because none of us can truly make any comparisons, but we've been fighting in conflicts since the world wars, and any special forces unit that's worked with JTF2 respects the hell out of them.
EPT
