The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - September 8, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries
ChaosEnforcer    1/31/2005 2:38:45 AM
We all know about the Great Special Forces from NATO based countries such as USA's Navy Seals and Delta Forces, British SAS, German GSG-9, French GIGN, Israeli Flotilla 13 Naval Commandos etc.

But What about Special Forces from Non-NATO countries.

Specifically these countries:

China
India
Indonesia
Brazil
Pakistan
Russia
Nigeria
Japan
Philippines
Vietnam
Egypt
Turkey
Iran
Thailand
South Korea
Ukraine
Burma
South Africa
Colombia
Argentina
Saudi Arabia
Malaysia
Taiwan
Singapore
Australia

What I want to know is, where would you rank each country based on its Special Forces.

My Ranking would be something like this:

Russia
Australia
Turkey
Pakistan
Japan
South Korea
Singapore
India
Thailand
China
Taiwan
Ukraine
Egypt
Colombia
Argentina
Malaysia
Iran
South Africa
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Burma
Philippines
Indonesia
Brazil
Nigeria


What do you guys think?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
DropBear    RE:Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries   1/31/2005 4:58:28 AM
Not going to rank them as I'm not a land warfare freak, however, Oz SASR is good at jungle warfare, long range desert patrols and more recently in their history, urban counter-terrorism specialists. They have components that can do good offshore oilrig ops as well. Mainly based on British model (like New Zealand), but with different size manned-patrols and probably better expertise in jungle terrain. As far as their ranking, I think they would rate highly anywhere they have expertise in (not snow mountaineering, even though some do it on their downtime). Something that foreigners may not know is that unlike Brit SAS or other larger specforces, Oz SASR doesn't have dedicated air assets. No helos or C-130's. They get tasked with them when they are available from Army or RAAF. This is why interoperability is the key, as they usually get air mobility support from bigger allies.
 
Quote    Reply

boer    RE:Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries   1/31/2005 10:23:25 AM
isn't Turkey a nato country?
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries   1/31/2005 1:10:23 PM
Outside of nato the aussies are pretty much the cream of the crop though i have heard good things about the south koreans.
 
Quote    Reply

rayott    RE:Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries   1/31/2005 4:37:32 PM
This is an interesting topic. I think that there are a lot of smaller countries that are overlooked by westerners but have very fine quality troops. Regarding your categorization of the Nato and non-Nato countries, Israel actually is not a Nato country; though some people think it sort of is as it is kind of unofficially the 53rd state of America (behind Puerto Rico and Canada). I?m just kidding of-course, but under the terms of the Camp David accords the US does pour a lot of money into the Israeli military. Also, correct me if I?m wrong, but Turkey is part of Nato and Australia is part of both Nato and Seato. In the early part of the Cold war the US was happy to have Turkey as part of the cold war because they could put Missiles that could reach the USSR in Turkey, though now missiles have much longer ranges so it doesn?t matter. Russia had lots of special forces, mainly the spentaz, who are still considered very good. Supposedly, some groups within the spentaz were trained to be sleeper spies in the west, just waiting until WW3 to go out and commit major act of sabotage behind lines. But of-course those kinds of things were kept secret so we never knew for sure. Why put Japan so high on your list? After the war their constitution bound the military to be small, for self-defense only. Their small group in Iraq is due to leave when the Dutch leave, because it is the Dutch who are providing security for them. If they don?t have any groups that can just provide security for a relatively small group, how many commando groups could they have? Unless, of-course they keep their gun-ho super commandos really secret. The Philippines have been fighting sort of a small scale gorilla war against Islamic extremists, with American special forces acting as ?advisors? and trainers; so I would imagine that they have some group of people with good training and actual fighting experience (that rare and valuable thing). Perhaps they should be higher up on your list. Columbia has also been fighting sort of a gorilla war against drug dealers (who grow cocaine out in the hills, mountains and jungles away from the major cities) together with the Americans. Does anyone have any specific info on what kind of help the US is giving them and what kind of soldiers and equipment they are using? Rayott
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries Turkey out, & Israel in   1/31/2005 5:30:22 PM
Turkey is NATO. Israel is not.
 
Quote    Reply

PeregrinePike    RE:Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries   1/31/2005 6:52:56 PM
In my opinion... 1. Russia: + Deep assets, tough, politically aligned - lack finese, politically aligned 2. Australia: + Finely-honed tactics, polticial independence, tough -/* not very well known assets to operate independently 3. China: + Finese, resources, idealogy *can they stand-and-fight? - politically aligned, too fine 4. Pakistan: + Experience(def. & offensive), motivation, flexible idealogy - motivation=Jihad?, flexible=spineless? lot of room to go rogue 5. India: + Experience (Defensive/Punitive), resources, deepest talent pool - offensive exp., outdated motivation 6. South Korea: + Training, Resources - assets (vis a vis North) == North ranks well for specific missions during "reunification" 7. Taiwan: *Dont know, but can be a major pain to China - leaks like a sieve 8. South Africa: Plenty of bush-fire experience, would have ranked #3, but dont know these days 9. Japan: + Resources, talent pool, tradition - experience, defensive? 10. Singapore: + Resources, talent pool, equipment - experience, numbers Again many of these traits are double-edged swords that can be instrumental in more than one way.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:rayott   2/1/2005 1:03:55 AM
"Also, correct me if I?m wrong, but Turkey is part of Nato and Australia is part of both Nato and Seato." Nope, Australia has never been a member of NATO, as we are not in the North Atlantic but very much in the South Pacific!! We used to be apart of FPDA and ANZUS, until these broke up. But NEVER NATO!!
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:PeregrinePike   2/1/2005 1:08:07 AM
"2. Australia: + Finely-honed tactics, polticial independence, tough -/* not very well known assets to operate independently" Can you explain this?? I'm not sure what you mean by "not very well known assets to operate independently" I think you will find that they have had many independant operations from Malaya, Vietnam, GW1 and GW2, Afghanistan and Timor. Every now and then they use airmobilty helos etc from other countries, however, their Long Range Desert Patrols don't require outside help, and they have often come to the rescue of other coalition forces. In GW they independantly searched for SCUDS without outside help. Your comment is curious.
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:rayott+DB   2/1/2005 2:22:17 AM
DB-ANZUS never broke up, it simply became more of AUS after the kiwis began whinging about nuclear subs, good for nothing sheep lovers. and why bother calling something when its just a two nation agreement? and what did the kiwis really offer anyway. PP>>>2. Australia: + Finely-honed tactics, polticial independence, tough -/* not very well known assets to operate independently<<< I think East Timor was pretty independent.
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    sorry i meant PeregrinePike not rayott   2/1/2005 2:32:37 AM
damn, i am too lazy in titling my messages lately. Just to add though, i think the Aussie SASR is very independent and that has been shown on many occasions.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:rayott+DB - SC   2/1/2005 2:44:10 AM
Well, when a member of an alliance decides to call it quits (boycott) over nukes, and the subsequent security treaty is arranged so that mutual defence support is not forthcoming (ie, the Yank nuke umbrella won't shield the Kiwis), then I'd say that the agreement is dead in the water! Obviously Oz/USA still exists.
 
Quote    Reply

rayott    nato   2/1/2005 3:53:05 AM
I apologize about including Australia in Nato, I intended to only list them in Seato, not Nato as well. Thanks Can anyone give specific/detailed info on these groups and not just top ten lists? I would like to find some good books and/or web pages about this topic. Rayott
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:nato   2/1/2005 7:31:29 AM
Indonesian Kopassus have mainly been involved in violent mistreatment of civilians in Timor, Aceh, West papua and other opressed regions of current and former Indonesia, they trained the East Timor Militia and armed them prior to the 1999 conflict, and some were found to be fighting against Australian soldiers. Now in an effort to fight terrorism some of those same Aussie soldiers in the SAS are training some of those Koppasus guys, which on occasions has raised hell down here. As for there real capabilities aside from rape and village burning then I'm not too sure, but i would think that in counter-terror they would be up to pretty good scrath after learning from the SASR.
 
Quote    Reply

PeregrinePike    RE:DBear   2/1/2005 10:15:01 AM
Compared to the nation above and below, i.e. Russia and China, I think you lack (hence *) human assets and resources they own on ground in their respective regions. I mean it is much easier for China to infiltrate NOC forces among the highly successful Chinese communities in SE Asia, or for Russia to do the same in many Eastern European enclaves in West. They can truly run Black and Gray Ops. Or for that matter even Pakistan can tap into some fundamentalist orgs. However Aus. will have to rely on groundwork provided by US or UK for such Ops. Malaya, Vietnam, GW1 and GW2, Afghanistan and Timor were all pretty much officially sanctioned work that used allied assets and more importantly liberally distributed dollars. Also I dont think Aussies really want or should to get their hands dirty... Now a days there things are pretty tame. But imagaine how much trouble a small fraction of Chinese Communists caused in Malaya without Mao's approval, or what a single Soviet could have pulled off with a minaturized suitcase nuke in, say, West Germany (that by the way was also a function of US S.F).
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the merc    RE:Ranking the Best Special Forces from NON-NATO Countries   2/1/2005 12:47:45 PM
Well Practice makes perfect-> has to be Russia, India, Israel & China- in fact the very elite of these countries would beat even NATO special forces- except for disarming nukes, Bio/Chem response and sub & quiet Heli drops. There is a whole lot in between and these folks do it all the time.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy