Heh, precision shooting is a little bit of a sore spot for me. Despite my learnings on the regimental shooting team, my Lieutenant still manages to beat me most of the time. The guy has eyes of a hawk, I only have 6/9 vision. Buying all those drinks would be expensive if not for his being tea-total. :D

>>I believe you are right. My mistake. It's the SOTIC that is supposed to be more of a "gentleman's" course, but technically hard. Those are the words that an 18B posted on another board. I don't know what their washout rate is but the course is respected throughout the SF community. << Yeah -- my thoughts on the Army Sniper School at Benning are largely based on coworkers who have attended both it and the six week SOTIC course run at Bragg (or the shorter courses run internal to the various SFGs out there). The guys who've done Benning and Bragg both all tend think the Bragg course is superior as an actual sniper training program -- and they've got a remarkable staff there, with some currently contract-civilian cadre who go back to sniping Vietcong and NVA way back in the day. Which is not to say it is not a challenging course, and does not post an "impressive" failure rate (I have a problem thinking students failing out of anything is "impressive" . . .), but any hardship put on students is training related (i.e. stalks in the summer at Bragg . . .), rather than just to be hard for the sake of being hoo-ah and such. The guys at SOTIC have already demonstrated they can be hard for the sake of being hard, or else they would not be in units that are eligible to send students to the course at Bragg.

BasinBictory: If "elitness" is purely a factor of percentages then I am sure some Chinese PLA SF component or another would be the most elite. Their sheer numbers ensures that. Fortunately for us, it isnt ;-) Horsesoldier: The Gurkha Coy in Para Regiment (UK) can well be considered as a Special Force in one definition of the word. But I agree with you that even then they dont cut it to being the best SF out there. True Gurkha SF are in the 5th Gurkha Rifles (Special Frontier Force) and Indo-Tibetan Border Police -- based on classic and complete definition of SF. They are pretty good at the drawn-out kind of remote conflicts they face, but not designed for SWAT-like ops that many people use as standard for deciding "eliteness" of Special Forces. Personally, I associate "eliteness" with Regimental/Battalion seniority or number of battle honours or something fixed like that... because only then can the "elite" conceivably lord it over others. Special Forces are too small... its like being Vice-President of a company of 3 employees.

"Like being Vice President of a company of 3 employees!" LOL - I like that! As far as who is the "most elite" - I guess it's hard to say, and can only be tested in combat. But even this measure, say - by rating a unit's eliteness by their "won-loss" record is not necessarily fair, due to the level of competition various units have faced in their battle bistory. The IDF would receive high, high marks for their impressive record against their Arab neighbors, who have routinely outnumbered and outgunned them in every conflict, but some military observers say the IDF is basically a 3rd-rate army whipping ass on a bunch of 7th-rate armies. Besides, in most military tradition, infantry was never considered the "true" elite - as that tended to be the cavalry (vestige of noble/commoner relationship in ancient and Medieval armies) and later, the units which were mechanized, such as armor and air.

Their is really not a unit that is 'most elite'. There are soldiers that are more elite, but to rank units is kind of ridiculous (no offense). For example: A US Army Ranger with 25 years experience who served in Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II is probably going to be a more elite soldier than a newly minted SF operator out of the 18X program or even more elite than a newly minted Delta operator with 3 years experience. Why? Because he already has been through tough training (Ranger school), he serves with a tough unit (the 75th Rangers...I didn't even mention them being the toughest unit), he is older and naturally more experienced, and he has some real-world combat experience having served in 5 conflicts. There a fantastic soldiers in every unit, and fantastic units throughout the military, so as long as they all get the job done then in my opinon they are all elite.

>>The IDF would receive high, high marks for their impressive record against their Arab neighbors, who have routinely outnumbered and outgunned them in every conflict, but some military observers say the IDF is basically a 3rd-rate army whipping ass on a bunch of 7th-rate armies.<< The IDF does benefit from fighting some of the least competent opponents on the planet. But they are also quite good as well, at least up to the brigade level or so. Their track record with divisional and larger size operations is rather shakier (though the quality of the smaller units has helped cover up their shortcomings in the popular imagination). Their top-level track record, in terms of strategy and doctrine is also not nearly as spotless as that of guys on the ground at the sharp end -- the "all we need it tanks" thinking of the 1960s and early (pre-1973) 1970s standing out as about as unsound a doctrine/organization as any a major fighting force has adopted since the French deleted all the references to the offensive from their post-World War One doctrine.

Yeah - that "offense a outrance" really was bad on the French. Charging well-dug-in artillery and machine guns in les pantalons rouges is tantamount to suicide.

The French sort of went too far in one direction then the other. World War One at least started with that Napoleonic belief in elan and superior morale carrying the day. World War Two started with a big pendulum swing in the other direction and the belief that the uber-trench would save the day. Neither seems, on reflection, to be an ideal approach . . .

It's interesting how nations and generals always try to fight a (successful) war again, even when technology and tactics have moved beyond. Often, it is the loser of any conflict that benefits more from its lessons. The French thought that any future war would be the slug-fest that the Great War was, and they planned accordingly. They never took into account the effect that airplanes and paratroopers could have on static defenses. In a similar vein, I read "Battleship Musashi" which chronicled the building and ultimate destruction of the 2nd (and last) of the Yamato-class battleships. The Japanese felt like they could duplicate another Tsushima Straits-style victory, and that bigger, badder battleships with guns that could literally shoot out of sight targets, and they didn't fully realize the potential of aircraft carriers until the Americans showed them what CVs could do at Midway and at Coral Sea.

>> Besides, in most military tradition, infantry was never considered the "true" elite - as that tended to be the cavalry (vestige of noble/commoner relationship in ancient and Medieval armies) and later, the units which were mechanized, such as armor and air. << Quite true. I was myself surprised a few months ago when a poster here told me that technically even the oldest and most honored infantry regiments are "junior" to the newest cavalry/armoured regiment -- Foot Guards included. Since it doesnt really matter anymore, I prefer to think of them as parallel structures just to keep the dates of raising right. Of course US Army doesnt have regimental seniority question at all... and those who do, use it only for bragging rights nowadays.