seal traing is not 6 weeks long i would know this cuz im about to go through my self. Bud/s is 6 months which is broken down in to 3 different phase the first 2 months is all conditioning. With in the first 5 weeks i think it is, you go through hell week. It is 5 and ahalf days of stright physical and mental conditioning with only 4 hours a sleep, no not a day, but with in the hole week. but after the first 2 months which is to basically eliminate the weak from the strong. next 2 months is dive phase and then the next 2 months is small tactical unit traing. then after bud/s you go to parachute school other wize known as jump school. thats a month long by its self. after that is 5 months of advance sea air and land traing, after you have complete a year of seal traing you graduate, but its still not done yet. you get asssighned to a seal team and then do individual traing for up to 6 months. after all that your ready to be put to the test in the real world.

 

if you didnt know there is a 80% drop out rate, which means people DOR  (drop on request), theres been a couple of years where know one makes it. so its pretty dang hard. not to many people make the seals theres only about less then 3000 seals.

 

 

You don't know much, do you? For someone about to go through the SEAL pipeline, you seem pretty uneducated. Good luck with that though.

First of all, It's SEa Air Land.

 

Secondly, the SAS has some extremely good combat swimmers aswell.

 

Third, the "Special Air Service" name has more to do with their original past than any kind of TO/E, mission specialization, whatever. They are extremely good in the air, but they don't 'specialize' in HALO/HAHO ops. The SAS doesn't specialize in any one area, although they are extremely well know for their SR, especially in the desert.

 

So comparing the SEAL Teams to the SAS, and saying they "are just as certified", is retarded. The SAS is more selective, has a higher budget per man, is a tier 1 unit, trains with other Tier 1 units more often, and see a shit ton of action. So, this whole SEAL/SAS comparison is way out of kilter. Yeah, we absolutely cannot compare them, but the SAS is a tier 1 force. That counts for alot.  

maybe you should do some homework before presenting ill informed opinion as fact. The SAS is a corp divided up into 3 regiments.

One regiment includes sabre squadrons.  each squadron includes a number(usually 4) of sixteen man troops.  each troop has a speciality /functional responsibility.  They are divided into an Air Troop, Boat Troop, Mobility Troop, and Mountain Troop.

 

the other regiments have discrete roles.

 

The name is a legacy of its historical foundation - not an exclusivity of mode of operation.

 

 What I can tell you is after reading books like The Warrior Elite, The Finishing School, and Lone Survivor,  it is clear that navy SEALs are very hard working dedicated professionals with some of the toughest training ever devised . Contrary to belief, the SEALs are one of the premier land warfare units in the world. The SEALs are not the same old UDTs from the 50s and 60s. Most of their training is land based and although they are still experts in the water, and view it as a safe heaven, they are moving further and further away from just being a maritime force.  In operation redwing 4 SEALs were stumbled upon by goat herders. Instead of killing them, they let the non-combatant herders go. Soon 150+  taliban fighters were attacking them, with the advantage in numbers as well as terrain, being above them on a hill in the hindu kush. The 4 SEALs killed 100+ of the enemy fighters, some of them being wounded as many as five times, but never quitting. One of them was awarded the MOH for running into the open while under heavy fire so he could call in support for his men with a cell phone. Marcus luttrell was the only survivor and he managed to evade miles while severely wounded, all the while avoiding enemy patrols. Bottom line, The SEALs train to be the best at everything they do. It is drilled into them from day 1 at indoc that it pays to be a winner, because in their line of work, 2nd place means death. Saying "SEALs can swim far but cant run as well" is stupid because its just not true. If you read a book about BUD/s or ever talk to a SEAL you will see they run and swim to the point of physical collapse, and then some. And it doesn't get easier after Hellweek. Contrary to what some people think BUD/s just gets harder and harder after hellweek. Besides, BUD/s is just a ticket to get a seat at the table to attend SQT (SEAL Qualification Training) This is another 4 months of extremely tough training. Then if you pass you go on to medic training or sdv training. Then after all this, you are assigned to a SEAL platoon. This is where the most difficult and advanced training takes place. A platoon normally trains for an additional 12-15 months and is then deployed. After all that you are still an fng.  I'm not saying the SEALs are better than anyone else, but when it comes down to it, I dont see how you can be better or more efficient than them, because what ever level the bar is raised to, the SEALs always clear it. As a side note,  Delta Force is possibly very similar to the SAS, or at least it was when it was formed. Beckwith trained with the SAS and he copied their structure to form Delta. Chances are, their structure has since changed. If you want to compare Delta Selection and training with the SAS's read Eric Haneys novel "Inside Delta Force", and then read a book describing the SAS selection and training. I would bet money that they are both VERY similar.

and just when we thought it had died a well deserved death, the 'energizer' thread just keeps on going and going.

How much would you like to bet that Delta and SAS selections are very similar? you have yourself a betting opponent, I'll wager a lot. You will not hear of all the tasks and events that occur in either of these unit's selections, thus you cannot compare with all the details.

 

As for the SEAL story from afghanistan, sounds a bit like another B20 zero story to me, did they face an entire armoured brigade aswell?

Bob, Luttrell DID win the Navy Cross, that would be the Second Highest award for valour you can get in the US Navy.  So apparently SOME of the referenced "stuff" occurred.  Sorry, if that some how bursts any bubbles.  Mind you I am NOT taking any sides in this otherwise foolish argument about whose Special Operators are the best.

 

I'm just saying that a great deal of what was quoted, has some support.  There was a Medal of Honor issued for that incident and there was a Navy Cross issued.  We don't usually hand those out on a whim, so I'm going to go with 100 of the bad guys died...they may have died from air strikes, artillery, old age, influenza or the like, but they died.  The gentlemen who talked about Luttrell might have wanted you to think that the SEALS, alone, killed the Taliban, that I don't know.  I doubt that a 4 man team is going to kill 100 bad guys in a fire fight, but the numbers and the general story is probably true.  We don't hand out the No. 1 and No. 2 medal(s) for valor on a whim and a prayer.

"How much would you like to bet that Delta and SAS selections are very similar? you have yourself a betting opponent, I'll wager a lot. You will not hear of all the tasks and events that occur in either of these unit's selections, thus you cannot compare with all the details.   As for the SEAL story from afghanistan, sounds a bit like another B20 zero story to me, did they face an entire armoured brigade aswell?"

Quote...

Well, its a fact that Charles Beckwith mirrored SAS structure and selection procedures when Delta was first made. Eric Haneys book does go into a great deal of detail in regards to the selection process and training of Delta, and if any accounts of SAS selection have been written, which im sure they have, I was simply suggesting a better way to compare the two units. Sure you wont ever know entirely what goes on but its as close as anyone can get without being at selection. As for my account of operation Redwing. the book detailing the events is advertised on this site by amazon  if you feel like looking into it. 

JFKY, I've only briefly looked into the story, and in no way do I mean to defame those present when things went awry. I'm just being a speculative old man, and I apologise. I'll readily accept your comment that it isn't clear how the 100 or so tangos bit the dust, I'm just critical when it is said a very small number of men killed a very large number of men [25 per person on averages, far exceeds my record, and I was in the biz for more than a few years]. And since such publications like B20 have come out, I'm always speculative as to the true numbers. After all, publishers/editors have a knack for adding some 'hollywood' to an otherwise true account.

As for the person commenting on Delta [sorry, I've have forgotten your handle/name], having met Charlie and the D-boys on a couple of occasions, I can tell you that Delta's structure, selection, and modus operandi were heavily if not equally influenced by other existing units [primarily US but with a bit of foreign spice as well]. I know both Delta and regiment selections quite well [or at least  used to] and their differences are easily recognisable. Now that is not to say some methods weren't carried across the pond, but they are certainly not the same, nor were they at the foundation of Delta.

Also, thankyou for the book suggestion. I shall look into it further.