I think you mean the irainian embassy, prince gate london 1980

haha i said it as my view, which is educated compared to most. :) oh you do, so your some covert mofo. hahaa what a load of shite mate... and task force black is well known now as it has been abandoned when the sas were moved out of iraq. :) hahaha your so funny trying to act all in the know..im talking on a forum i didnt say it was frikkin the absolute fact so stop blowig your own trumpet.. can bet a buck that i kow a ell of a lot more people than you in those circles.. your a wannabe

right cause knowing people that run in those circles makes you legit, right?
    Here are my credentials: I am 16 and live in Kansas, USA. Never been in the military and am def not an expert, but heres the actuality of how SF stack up against each other: it is impossible to know. Not only are most ops classified, but they are on a need to know basis, meaning that other SF operators do not know about other SF groups-even within their own units/divisons/what have you, meaning there is no way in hell a bunch of civs on a forum are going to know. For all we know, SAS could be running ops in China daily and failing missions as often as they succeed, same can be said for SEALs. Casualties could be much greater than we know (dont think that governments cant keep families silent). Besides, comparing SAS to SEALs is like comparing an AK to an M16, just because people do it all the time doesnt mean the two should be compared. All i have to say on whos better, is that if you took 9 seals and 9 sas and had them fight, itd be a damn good fight. or maybe they wouldnt fight at all. regardless america has enough nukes to sink great britain. As a british friend of mine once said: great britain is the father of america, and america is at the point when a son can beat up his father.
(side note, most SAS are older and more experienced than SEALs and experience is more important than any training. It shows you can do what you have to and be alive in the end.)

Apache.

 

how good are Seals?

 

Ask the hostage that they fragged by mistake this week. Tossing grenades in a hostage rescue when you haven't located the hostage is just plain STUPID, not to say unprofessional.

Or you could ask the crew of M/V MAERSK ALABAMA when the pirates around him had their heads blown off while being towed by a moving destroyer. Bet he'd have a different opinion.

 

Any given day...shit happens. If this guy screwed up, he'll be gone. That kind of unit doesn't tolerate those kinds of mistakes. But good intel and luck are as much a part of this as anything else. 

Speaking of shit happening: the SAS shot up a SBS team in the Falklands. And if you think that's the only SAS screwup in history, I've got a bridge for sale. Blue on blue is stupid and unprofessional as well, but being a wise ass about a tragedy without all the facts, sitting in comfort, is even more so.

Shouldn't the thread be titled 'NAVY SEALS VS SBS'?

Comparing apples and oranges like this is nonsense anyway. The Navy Seals are trained and equipped for a multitude of tasks not primarily focused on the kind of warfare practised by units like Delta and the SAS. Although i've read that the Navy Seals have been actively involved in land warfare operations in conjunction with Delta and the Army's other special forces/raider units.

As for the SAS, well, they've got the most rigorous selection and training regime in the world, plus each trooper is trained in a multitude of tasks allowing that individual to reasonably operate in a team or individually in any environment anywhere in the world.

the motto for the Royal Marine Commandos is mainly 'Its a state of mind', but '99.9 percent need not apply is used frequently'.

For the facts the actual drop out rate for the Royal Marine Commandos is 90 percent. which means that only 10 percent of those who start the training programme actualy make it to the pass out parade where they are made fully fledged marines.