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
Sign In   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

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
JTR~~    sigh...   5/8/2011 12:41:01 PM
"Yes you are right about being a limy.
The only things countries learn about you cowards (i,e,. surrender to the iranian navy, surrender of Basra and weak performance in Iraq and Afghanistan"
 
 
and in my previous reply to Devildawg i thought i was talking to a person who was quite reasonable and had not yet succumbed to nation/force bashing, obviously i was quite mistaken,  once again i highlights the point Reactive made quite nicely.
 
Quote    Reply

gaffer       5/8/2011 1:53:34 PM
Devildawg, Cowards, Great Britain is an island nation and have at least 600 years of being the leader of western civiluzation. (  you do not even have 1/2 that and you are more than 10 times as large) This island nation has brought civilization to the entire world more or less, leaving the stamp of social and cultural advancement to MANY developing countries.Shaped the military of many nations, teaching them how to protect their sovereignty. The oil industry that is the bedrock of the west was pioneered by good old England, study the history of petroleum,British blood have been shed all over the globe. Brittania ruled the waves longer than you and such a small nation..cowards, you say. Do you think your world power will last as long seeing the magnitude of your internal problems???? Britain dont sell out to the Chinese like some of their friends do, there is too much national love for country...Cowards, you must be joking.
We have helped you in every conflict you have ever been in and are the only allies you can depend on and you spout off about COWARDS.
Britain stood alone against the Germans in 1940,the battle of Britain and the lads flew somtimes 3 missions a day every day for one month and never gave an inch against unbelievable odds...cowards, I know you cant really believe that..
Is there not British soldiers dying in Afganistan right now. When one British life is lost it is a greater impact because of limited numbers of people where as you have unlimited reserves of people. Look at the size of Britain (google earth it) and its population compared to yours and how the British military has throught history has aided you with military technology and stood beside you and what is the thanks.....Cowards..How the dickens you all can be so hateful and callous defies the imagination!
 
 
Quote    Reply

lunar    Easy   5/9/2011 8:23:48 AM

Devildawg, Cowards, Great Britain is an island nation and have at least 600 years of being the leader of western civiluzation. (  you do not even have 1/2 that and you are more than 10 times as large) This island nation has brought civilization to the entire world more or less, leaving the stamp of social and cultural advancement to MANY developing countries.Shaped the military of many nations, teaching them how to protect their sovereignty. The oil industry that is the bedrock of the west was pioneered by good old England, study the history of petroleum,British blood have been shed all over the globe. Brittania ruled the waves longer than you and such a small nation..cowards, you say. Do you think your world power will last as long seeing the magnitude of your internal problems???? Britain dont sell out to the Chinese like some of their friends do, there is too much national love for country...Cowards, you must be joking.

We have helped you in every conflict you have ever been in and are the only allies you can depend on and you spout off about COWARDS.

Britain stood alone against the Germans in 1940,the battle of Britain and the lads flew somtimes 3 missions a day every day for one month and never gave an inch against unbelievable odds...cowards, I know you cant really believe that..

Is there not British soldiers dying in Afganistan right now. When one British life is lost it is a greater impact because of limited numbers of people where as you have unlimited reserves of people. Look at the size of Britain (google earth it) and its population compared to yours and how the British military has throught history has aided you with military technology and stood beside you and what is the thanks.....Cowards..How the dickens you all can be so hateful and callous defies the imagination!

 


Easy...easy big guy. Your taking this way to personal.
 
Quote    Reply

lunar    Reactive   5/9/2011 8:26:49 AM

So this waste of space "debate" has honestly come down to who has had better swimming lessons? No one currently posting in this thread has any basis for comparison in terms of operational doctrine, support, or anything else for that matter.





As far as the Marines are concerned. I think we would handled the IRA just fine. As we took care of the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban terrorist. Well, i believe it would not have taken as long as it took you guys. Its all debatable.

 

You miss the point if you think that about the IRA, if you know anything about the issues you'll know that killing the IRA was not the primary objective - all it did, in every case when assasinations were actioned or "sponsored" through Unionists was to prolong the violence by making IRA recruitment easier, there were necessary limits with what could achieved without ending up with a civil war. What the US could have done as the primary source of fundraising for the IRA was very simple; to outlaw it and you failed to do so. The solution to the NI "troubles" was never a military one.


 

 

And i don't believe any American hates the British. At least for me, i don't. I respect you guys, and thank God for our commonalities. I just think you guys get on your high horses and have a bit of inferiority complex. And you act like your military never learned from other militaries. I'll admit this. Your beer is a lot better.

 

Right, there is clearly an inferiority complex with some of my countrymen evident generally when these entirely pointless "VS" debates happen, chalk that down to the legacy of the glory days of the British empire or whatever else, the bottom line is that the interesting parts of these debates are never nationalistic dick-waving contests, which is what this thread has essentially boiled down to.


Mr Reactive. I believe some of your "peeps" (JTR; Gaffer) are too emotional when discussing this subject. I will say this again for the last time. You guys have the greatest BEER on earth.
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    hang on just one minute lunar   5/9/2011 11:41:44 AM




So this waste of space "debate" has honestly come down to who has had better swimming lessons? No one currently posting in this thread has any basis for comparison in terms of operational doctrine, support, or anything else for that matter.













As far as the Marines are concerned. I think we would handled the IRA just fine. As we took care of the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban terrorist. Well, i believe it would not have taken as long as it took you guys. Its all debatable.



 



You miss the point if you think that about the IRA, if you know anything about the issues you'll know that killing the IRA was not the primary objective - all it did, in every case when assasinations were actioned or "sponsored" through Unionists was to prolong the violence by making IRA recruitment easier, there were necessary limits with what could achieved without ending up with a civil war. What the US could have done as the primary source of fundraising for the IRA was very simple; to outlaw it and you failed to do so. The solution to the NI "troubles" was never a military one.






 



 



And i don't believe any American hates the British. At least for me, i don't. I respect you guys, and thank God for our commonalities. I just think you guys get on your high horses and have a bit of inferiority complex. And you act like your military never learned from other militaries. I'll admit this. Your beer is a lot better.



 



Right, there is clearly an inferiority complex with some of my countrymen evident generally when these entirely pointless "VS" debates happen, chalk that down to the legacy of the glory days of the British empire or whatever else, the bottom line is that the interesting parts of these debates are never nationalistic dick-waving contests, which is what this thread has essentially boiled down to.







Mr Reactive. I believe some of your "peeps" (JTR; Gaffer) are too emotional when discussing this subject. I will say this again for the last time. You guys have the greatest BEER on earth.


My response emotional? I think you must be very much mistaken; I have given nothing but fully reasoned and highly appropriate responses.  i will now merely re-quote one of your previous responses to this topic board and then you may perhaps want to re classify your approach here, Gaffer I agree is certainly being a great deal over emotional with some of his responses here, but i would very much dispute myself as being labelled the same, as for the re-quote of one of your previous posts:

"Too bad you guys are second rate, if not third. I don't blame a lot of you guys for being jealous. You wish your country and military was like the US. Your police gets man handled by a bunch of kids (anti-austerity anarchist protestors), your SAS gets captured in Libya and in Persian Gulf War 1. You seem to want to brag about how you invented and developed everything. Get Real. You guys have done some intresting things, but go around parading that your the best in the world. You simply don't have the caliber of soldiers (recruits) that you may once had. And give up some of your pride and admit the truth. Americans are confident enough to admit failure and learning things from others. We even trained you in a thing or two; we also have been the model for other countries."  

your words not mine...
Regards JTR~~
 
Quote    Reply

lunar    JTTR   5/10/2011 12:32:33 PM
Hello JTTR. Just a short response to your comments below:
 
In terms of failure rates for new interns i think i am correct in stating that the SAS/SBS intake failure rate is higher than in any other special force unit, roughly along the line of 97-98% out of an average of 200 candidates however this can vary to either end of the scale. i also think that the only unit then comes close to challenging this failure rate of the Royal Marine Commando sniper school in which only 5-10 candidates will pass each year, however do not quote me  on this, I?m not entirely sure but i vaguely remember reading it a while back.  "Have the most rigorous entrance training program because it is all water oriented" this quote in particular i disagree with.
 
Could it be that the 97-98% failure rate is as such (and i don't believe its that high. More than likely 15%) is such because the cnadidates are not as good.  That is to say, say shold not have been accepted to the SAS qualification course. Furthermore, i believe there is sufficient and credible unclassified information on SAS and Navy SEALs training program to help deduce which may be arguably more rigourous. I have a military background which is land based. And although it troubles me to say this because i'm former military, and more suited for training regimens that are land based. The Navy Seals are all around in their training, but what sets them apart is their aquatic training. The SAS and Delta Force are not on the same level as far as training regimen. You have to be a special breed to withstand training that is "water oriented". These guys can do miles on end (when compared to the SAS or Delta Force) in the ocean. Thier BUDS training program is harsh because of this nature.
 
The same can be said of most special forces, thereby this leaves us little to go upon. so it begs the question how can people make the claims that they do? Well mostly it is on pure reputation and by the ways of things there is no reputation larger than that of the SAS. Their reputation is prolific, and it is measured in terms of its success rate. They have been part of some of history?s most defining moments and have successfully carried out some of the greatest military feats of action in memorable history, including the most daring. The SEALs also have a strong reputation, but i would go so far as to say that it is less than that of the SAS (shorter history, some more notable slip ups). people then analyse as to what makes a units reputation so great, invariably they look at training equipment, the units pedigree etc, then they combine the (especially concerning special forces) relatively unsubstantiated claims (which may or may not be correct, hence unsubstantiated) in regards to training, equipment etc to make their final claims in relation to who is better or what not..
 
Well if reputation is the case than a strong case can be made for SEAL team 6. Although there are many missions that are assigned to the SEALs, SAS, Delta Force, and Marine Force Recon (MARSOC), they are classified and we will never truly know the extent of them--although word gets out via books and other outlets. The SAS has a very fine reputation but they had some disastrous incidents (as the SEALs did in Panama) along the way.  The SEAL team that conducted this last raid did it with the utmost stealth, proficiency, and speed while taking away valuble prisoners and intel. I think groups like the Navy SEAL team 6 may have the edge because the US is involved in more conflicts that Great Brittain. I believe the US has more "intelligence driven" missions because of this.
 
Quote    Reply

lunar    JTTR   5/10/2011 12:35:24 PM
before you scold me on the my typos, let me just say that i wrote real fast without checking.
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~       5/10/2011 12:58:11 PM

before you scold me on the my typos, let me just say that i wrote real fast without checking.


it happens from time to time, no scolding necessary
 
Quote    Reply

maruben       5/10/2011 1:09:32 PM

Hello JTTR. Just a short response to your comments below:

 

In terms of failure rates for new interns i think i am correct in stating that the SAS/SBS intake failure rate is higher than in any other special force unit, roughly along the line of 97-98% out of an average of 200 candidates however this can vary to either end of the scale. i also think that the only unit then comes close to challenging this failure rate of the Royal Marine Commando sniper school in which only 5-10 candidates will pass each year, however do not quote me  on this, I?m not entirely sure but i vaguely remember reading it a while back.  "Have the most rigorous entrance training program because it is all water oriented" this quote in particular i disagree with.
 

Could it be that the 97-98% failure rate is as such (and i don't believe its that high. More than likely 15%) is such because the cnadidates are not as good.  That is to say, say shold not have been accepted to the SAS qualification course. Furthermore, i believe there is sufficient and credible unclassified information on SAS and Navy SEALs training program to help deduce which may be arguably more rigourous. I have a military background which is land based. And although it troubles me to say this because i'm former military, and more suited for training regimens that are land based. The Navy Seals are all around in their training, but what sets them apart is their aquatic training. The SAS and Delta Force are not on the same level as far as training regimen. You have to be a special breed to withstand training that is "water oriented". These guys can do miles on end (when compared to the SAS or Delta Force) in the ocean. Thier BUDS training program is harsh because of this nature.

 

 



Just an honest question:
Are the Seals are the US mix of what in UK is SAS and SBS?
Thanks in advance.
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    indeed fair points lunar   5/10/2011 2:31:36 PM

Hello JTTR. Just a short response to your comments below:

 

In terms of failure rates for new interns i think i am correct in stating that the SAS/SBS intake failure rate is higher than in any other special force unit, roughly along the line of 97-98% out of an average of 200 candidates however this can vary to either end of the scale. i also think that the only unit then comes close to challenging this failure rate of the Royal Marine Commando sniper school in which only 5-10 candidates will pass each year, however do not quote me  on this, I?m not entirely sure but i vaguely remember reading it a while back.  "Have the most rigorous entrance training program because it is all water oriented" this quote in particular i disagree with.
 

Could it be that the 97-98% failure rate is as such (and i don't believe its that high. More than likely 15%) is such because the cnadidates are not as good.  That is to say, say shold not have been accepted to the SAS qualification course. Furthermore, i believe there is sufficient and credible unclassified information on SAS and Navy SEALs training program to help deduce which may be arguably more rigourous. I have a military background which is land based. And although it troubles me to say this because i'm former military, and more suited for training regimens that are land based. The Navy Seals are all around in their training, but what sets them apart is their aquatic training. The SAS and Delta Force are not on the same level as far as training regimen. You have to be a special breed to withstand training that is "water oriented". These guys can do miles on end (when compared to the SAS or Delta Force) in the ocean. Thier BUDS training program is harsh because of this nature.

 

The same can be said of most special forces, thereby this leaves us little to go upon. so it begs the question how can people make the claims that they do? Well mostly it is on pure reputation and by the ways of things there is no reputation larger than that of the SAS. Their reputation is prolific, and it is measured in terms of its success rate. They have been part of some of history?s most defining moments and have successfully carried out some of the greatest military feats of action in memorable history, including the most daring. The SEALs also have a strong reputation, but i would go so far as to say that it is less than that of the SAS (shorter history, some more notable slip ups). people then analyse as to what makes a units reputation so great, invariably they look at training equipment, the units pedigree etc, then they combine the (especially concerning special forces) relatively unsubstantiated claims (which may or may not be correct, hence unsubstantiated) in regards to training, equipment etc to make their final claims in relation to who is better or what not..

 

Well if reputation is the case than a strong case can be made for SEAL team 6. Although there are many missions that are assigned to the SEALs, SAS, Delta Force, and Marine Force Recon (MARSOC), they are classified and we will never truly know the extent of them--although word gets out via books and other outlets. The SAS has a very fine reputation but they had some disastrous incidents (as the SEALs did in Panama) along the way.  The SEAL team that conducted this last raid did it with the utmost stealth, proficiency, and speed while taking away valuble prisoners and intel. I think gr
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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