Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS
LJ813    7/1/2005 9:34:17 PM
I WILL GO FOR THE NAVY..
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Ehran    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   3/17/2006 11:37:44 AM
without a lot more information it's hard to tell how much if any of the helo losses would reflect on the seals. for example did the mission plan call for flying a highly predictable path on entry or was it just rotten luck that a patrol was in the right place to zap the helo? did the mission plan push the performance parameters of the helo too hard or was the pilot just a bit "off" his game that night. from what i've read seals are prone to pushing the envelope pretty hard and that over time is going to cost you men and equipment.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   3/17/2006 2:42:20 PM
>>"Some" not "none." The geniuses who opted to land directly on top of Roberts Ridge were SEALs up and down the chain of command, for instance, and that generated one of the nastiest days for SOCOM in the GWOT prior to the SEAL SR team getting compromised followed by shoot down of the QRF, etc. In that latter event I've heard no reports to date suggesting the SEALs on board the Chinook were to blame in any way, shape or form for the shootdown<< I wonder what nut case officer had the great idea of landing a chopper on top of the Robert's Ridge op? Anyone with any knowledge would know that it is much safer and stealthier to land at a LZ farther away and then going to the op on foot. I would blame the SEALs here.
 
Quote    Reply

PARATROOP    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   3/20/2006 1:18:45 AM
So yoyu finally come around eh?
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   3/20/2006 11:36:22 AM
it's pretty hard to assign blame usually when a military op goes south on you. without a lot more information on what was going on we can't know what kinds of time pressures were on the planners for instance. it's a sad truth of the military that you often don't get to carefully plan or execute an op. you have time crunches that MUST be met or logistical shortages or any of a million other things that mandate a suboptimal plan be used.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   3/20/2006 12:48:03 PM
>>So yoyu finally come around eh?<< No, I have always thought that it was a stupid idea to land right on top of Robert's Ridge...the only thing I have heard is that there was that the intel reported that there was no one on top of the op
 
Quote    Reply

Boondocks    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   5/11/2006 3:05:18 AM
I just found this forum and saw a post someone had left.I cannot believe that I just read that the Green berets are not on the same level as the SAS and Seals. You obviously have no Idea, do you? First off I just read an article about the Seals being frustrated because they are not getting the missions SF and Delta are getting. The US Army Special Forces are the baddest they come. They do everything and more. They can fight, teach and be diplomats. They have special teams that are scuba and Halo. They have teams that specialize in cqb and direct action missions. Look at Afghanistan. SF and the Airforce pretty much won that war in a few months. Something the Russians couldn't do in 10 years. The Seals are so hyped. Everyone talks about them like they are gods. The reason why SF gets all the good direct action missions is what is talks about the article. Any special ops unit can go blow up, but it takes real skill to go into a country and link up with rebels train them and fight side by side with them. Nobody does it like SF. If the Seals want to get the good missions then stop being chest pounders and start learning the art of unconventional warfare. You watch to much hollywood . Rememeber Delta is a detachment of SF. They just specialize more in CQB and hostage rescue. Most guys come from SF. Sf can do the same. On the same level? Sf is a few levels above SAS and Seals (except Seal Team 6, They compare directly with Delta.) just because SF are quiet doesn't mean thay are not badass. I remember watching a special on Seals and SF in Afghanistan on the military channel on sunday night during special forces night and they had a Seal on and he sais that they can do all of that Unconventional warfare, training host nation stuff, and building bridges etc.. but we want to do Direct action missions. It something alond those lines. He even went on to say that they deserved the right to those missions. Well let me tell you that is why they do not get them. The US government Needs to be able to send mature, well trained fighters to do more than just DA missions. again any of them can do that. They need a unit that can link up with Hmad Karzai amd his men and fight beside them and win a war. Not because they could do DA missions all day but becayse they could get better intel and win hearts and minds. (And also kick ass at DA missions.) Please no what your taliking about before you speak or keep ypur opinions to yourself. The U.S. Army Special forces is not only a special ops unit they are thee premier US Special Ops unit that can do it all and better than anyone else, yes even the all mighty Seals
 
Quote    Reply

Boondocks    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   5/11/2006 3:31:48 AM
Oh and by the way I forgot to put the link to the artcile I was refering to. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525634/site/newsweek/ Also the Army SF do so many direct action missions like raids on weapons caches, hunting down suspected terrorist, Recon, and other top secret missions that only other units can dream of that it is an everydaything for them. read the book "Masters of Chaos" and then come back with a more intelligent answer. The Seals are like the young Rangers. They are great at what they do but there is a reason that Army SF soldiers are older and more mature. Like i said SF does any of the five missions stated in spec ops, including Direct Action. SF not only trains the troops in other countries but also will lead them into battle. Lets see SF is Fighting the drug war in South America, Thats direct action. I hate to reference a movie but Tom Clancy is a big fan of Army SF and all spec ops and knows a lot about them. so I do not mind saying this, but see the movie Clear and Present Danger which is probably one of the most accurate movies I have seen about the SF involvement in the drug war. They are doing like that all of the time. They do not always fight with the countrys they train but most of the time they do either officially or unofficially. Believe me the training Army SF gets is no joke. That in itself makes them special ops. All you ever hear about is BUDS and Hell Week. The Army SF Q-Course is as hard if not harder. They do not even call them by there name. They are noy given any feedback on their progress intil they move to phase two or they are yanked out. The sleep deprivation thing in Hell Week and Seal traing is the same as SF. The only thing is that again the Seals are hyped more. I am not ripping on Seals and I have the most respect for them and consider them an awesome Spec ops unit and great at what they do but do not, I repeat do not say SF does not compare. Seals are to y for their own good.Seals always talk about how they are the best at CQB blah, blah. What bull. Says who? them, yeah they would, they are Seals and that is what Seals do is pat themselves on the back. Army Sf and Navy Seals do the same missions just as well as the other. SF has been training in CQB for a while now. By the way if you think i am full of as far as the Seals glamorizing themselves just type in Navy Seals on Yahoo and see how many videos, sights and everthing else they use to glamourize themselves with comes up. Remember it is the "Quiet Professional". Maybe that is why SF gets all the good missions.
 
Quote    Reply

Boondocks    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   5/11/2006 3:34:05 AM
Oh! one more thing S.C.P. The SAS are badass and I love the Brit SF. Maybe that is why the US Army SF is always compared to them?
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   5/11/2006 11:56:16 AM
could be the reason the sf guys are compared to the sas is that the sas is generally considered the best in the business.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS   5/11/2006 2:38:15 PM
>>The US Army Special Forces are the baddest they come.<< Wrong. In SOCOM, the "Baddest" or best are in JSOC, which SF has no role in. It is Delta, Devgru (Seal Team 6), Marine Corps Det 1, and I believe USAF Special Tactics 21. >>The U.S. Army Special forces is not only a special ops unit they are thee premier US Special Ops unit that can do it all and better than anyone else, yes even the all mighty Seals<< Wrong. The premiere units, are again, Delta and Devgru...along with the other (lesser known) JSOC units. If you want to discuss SEALs vs SF, then you are ignorant. They each have different mission taskings, although the average SEAL has more operational taskings than the average SF operator. You also can't generalize these things...I have made the mistake of doing that and I was wrong. When comparing a SOF unit with similar mission tasks (like DA), then it all comes down to the individual operator (and most notably how many deployments he has under his belt). For example, TF 145 in Iraq is made up of Delta operators, Devgru operators, and probably some SAD operators. These guys all work together and are considered a Team, and I will gaurantee you that their are some SEALs better than Delta operators, some Delta operators better than SEALs, and some SAD operators better than both. All due to experience (deployments), profeciency (in weapon skills, etc), fitness, etc.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics