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: SAS v DELTA FORCE
klrmcommando    10/15/2007 8:35:27 AM
This is more of a fair match.Again i think the sas,because you never here of any delta force ops happening.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
static       10/15/2007 6:14:29 PM


Don't you watch The Unit?  They're in a different country zapping bad guys every week


I do, and to be honest when I'm not watching the latest DV incident between between Mack and Tiffy or some other asinine thing about the "home front" I actually think its kind of cool.

Good lord I can't believe I just admitted to that on a public forum.  I think if I ever saw Dennis Haysebert in real life though I would run the other way, not only is he a scary-looking guy but he's been a bank robber, the President, AND a CAG member all in the span of about 10 years.  Definite bad-ass territory if you ask me.

 
Quote    Reply

mough       10/15/2007 6:17:59 PM












This is more of a fair match.Again i think the sas,because you never here of any delta force ops happening.






oh dear, i'm at a loss as to what to say. however, i have taken bravoss' advice to heart and will again try to educate you in a kind and friendly manner (whether or not you deserve it with some of your comments is a differnet matter entirely)






okay firstly i'll start by saying that the hush surrounding delta's ops is a good thing, a very good thing. if anything that point you just brought up puts them one up on the SAS. However, it is also important to mention that The Sun, The daily mail, the telegraph, et al, are not credible sources when it comes to SAS missions, and as popular as it may be, niether is the BBC a credible source. in fact the 'un-named' or 'SAS sergeant B' are also not credible sources. to borrow a term used by mough earlier, these people have a woody for special forces, and are simply walts... wannabees leading tabloids to believe they are the real deal (they aren't) in fact the tabloids could care less what london town drunk Fred Smith claims he is, because for them the story sells.






secondly, matching SAS and Delta, is NOT 'more of a fair match'. they are administered by different countries for different jobs with different politics and structures behind them. there are things the regiment is better suited to and there are things Delta is better suited to. although one was the brainchild of a man doing a term with the SAS, they are not mirror images of one another. i can assure you both units 'do' things you don't hear about in the media, and likely never will. i have done things no media person knows about, and again, never will.






final point, do not compare special forces in a "who's better" thread as no-one takes them seriously, nor can anything be concluded from them, nor do many people here enjoy silly pecker competitions (hence some, lime myself, decide to add humour to them to kill the thread)






you may compare SF's in a "which unit has which tasking" kind of thread or something like that where facts and evidence promote a reachable answer that can be agreed upon. however, starting a thread that aims to elevate one unit over another goes nowhere and only promotes silly bickering (similar to school girls arguing over whos daddy's better)






this is the only time i answer you in a polite "let me show you how it's done here" way.






look you ya bastard,if your just gonna critizise me fuck off.I'll compare wit a wanty compare ya prick,noo either shut the fuck up and beetit,or answer ma question,capeesh.




Holy crap its Rab C Nesbitt!!!!  You US posters wont know know who that is.  But that statement is written phonetically as someone from Glasgow speaks. 

klrmcommando,

I believe you are a fake persona, have read a few of your other posts and no one is as uneducated as you appear to be.

Regards

Arty

Yep, someone thinking the urine....

 
Quote    Reply

mough       10/15/2007 6:18:31 PM
*Taking
 
Quote    Reply

static       10/15/2007 6:27:24 PM


look you ya bastard,if your just gonna critizise me fuck off.I'll compare wit a wanty compare ya prick,noo either shut the fuck up and beetit,or answer ma question,capeesh.


Come on now no need for language, however poorly spelled.  Maybe you could sit down and have a face-to-face with Bob and let him "explain" some things to you about the facts of life.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       10/15/2007 6:41:54 PM
In all seriousness, my dad is way better.  Hands down.

Yeah, but my lawyer can beat up your lawyer.


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2007 7:04:39 PM


I think if I ever saw Dennis Haysebert in real life though I would run the other way, not only is he a scary-looking guy but he's been a bank robber, the President, AND a CAG member all in the span of about 10 years.  Definite bad-ass territory if you ask me.

Its hard to think that Haysbert is tough when you see him on old Star Trek movies with a mini afro. ;)


 
Quote    Reply

GOP       10/15/2007 8:24:23 PM






This is more of a fair match.Again i think the sas,because you never here of any delta force ops happening.



oh dear, i'm at a loss as to what to say. however, i have taken bravoss' advice to heart and will again try to educate you in a kind and friendly manner (whether or not you deserve it with some of your comments is a differnet matter entirely)



okay firstly i'll start by saying that the hush surrounding delta's ops is a good thing, a very good thing. if anything that point you just brought up puts them one up on the SAS. However, it is also important to mention that The Sun, The daily mail, the telegraph, et al, are not credible sources when it comes to SAS missions, and as popular as it may be, niether is the BBC a credible source. in fact the 'un-named' or 'SAS sergeant B' are also not credible sources. to borrow a term used by mough earlier, these people have a woody for special forces, and are simply walts... wannabees leading tabloids to believe they are the real deal (they aren't) in fact the tabloids could care less what london town drunk Fred Smith claims he is, because for them the story sells.



secondly, matching SAS and Delta, is NOT 'more of a fair match'. they are administered by different countries for different jobs with different politics and structures behind them. there are things the regiment is better suited to and there are things Delta is better suited to. although one was the brainchild of a man doing a term with the SAS, they are not mirror images of one another. i can assure you both units 'do' things you don't hear about in the media, and likely never will. i have done things no media person knows about, and again, never will.



final point, do not compare special forces in a "who's better" thread as no-one takes them seriously, nor can anything be concluded from them, nor do many people here enjoy silly pecker competitions (hence some, lime myself, decide to add humour to them to kill the thread)



you may compare SF's in a "which unit has which tasking" kind of thread or something like that where facts and evidence promote a reachable answer that can be agreed upon. however, starting a thread that aims to elevate one unit over another goes nowhere and only promotes silly bickering (similar to school girls arguing over whos daddy's better)



this is the only time i answer you in a polite "let me show you how it's done here" way.




look you ya bastard,if your just gonna critizise me fuck off.I'll compare wit a wanty compare ya prick,noo either shut the fuck up and beetit,or answer ma question,capeesh.



Look dumbass, you just told a former member of the 22nd SAS to "fuck off" and called him a "bastard". Now, you are obviously a teenager who thinks he knows everything, but me and you don't know anything compared to Bob, Mough, Gfaust, etc. So shut up and listen when a guy like Bob or Mough speaks. Like Mough said, this is the internet so it's easy to be a tough guy here. However, im sure in person you would be much more respectful then you are here, because these guys could rip your head off and shit down your neck and you know that. So, be more respectful or leave. If you ever make to where Bob or Mough is (you won't most likely from your attitude, and I have no idea where Mough serves and don't wanna know it's his business), then you have the right to say "fuck off". At this point, you are just a little kid with an attitude problem who has no clue about what he is talking about.
 
You wanna be a ultra-super duper-RM-Para-SAS-SBS-Ninja? Then act mature enough to accomplish your goals. I promise you, I wouldn't want to serve with a guy who gets that pissed off on an internet forum, who knows what he would do if one of his buddies was killed and crap hits the fan. Haditha comes to mind.
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       10/15/2007 8:36:46 PM

Bob, since I know you have alot of experience in this area, what would you say CAG is more suited to, and what would you say the SAS is more suited to? You know I'm certainly not trying to do a "who's better" kind of thing, more less just trying to get your opinion on the differences in focus, command structure, etc and how that effects their effectiveness in certain areas. I know that the SAS seems to put a heavy focus on SR, whereas you typically hear that CAG puts a heavy focus on CQB (that may be totally false though).

 

Also, since you are here (ie: this is random ), have you ever performed an op with any CAG guys? Now, I absolutely do not want any specifics, OPSEC violations, PERSEC, etc, and if you can't answer I understand, but I'm just curious if you guys work together much on combat ops.


well it sure does seem like i've missed a bit in my absence, i'll reply to you and static first before i deal with him (and sorry static, i just don't feel like ripping new arseholes today [ it would only help his case anyway as it seems he has a rather severe backlog of sh*t ])
GOP, you must remember this was then, not now (maybe mough [it's his choice entirely] can enlighten you on todays situation) however, here goes.
i never found the regiment to put an 'emphasis' on one particular area to be honest but rather we tried to be proficient in as many areas as possible (ie. CQB, HR, LRR etc.) now there was ofcourse the different troop taskings (ie, boat, mountain, mobility, air) but these were more seen as methods of achieving the ends not necessarily the means. it may well be that the regiment has put more focus on certain things today, but again i'm unsure.
as for CAG (i still prefer delta) the did focus heavily on CQB. after a while their focus widened as they were seen as both capable and willing. things such as LRR came into training at Bragg that were normally left to other guys. as for being better suited to certain things, CAG was always better suited to CQB in my days, HR, snatchs, etc. were their forte. the politics behind them always put a lot of emphasis on firepower and utilising it in as many ways as possible. i never found delta to be too suited to LRR or anything else 'arsenumbingly-long' however, their exposure to these type of areas was new(ish) and having originally been CQB tasked, it was quite a change of seen for them. Delta were (likely still are) artists when it came to snatch and grabs and building raids (anything CT/QB or involving 'precious' cargo) and also excelled when it came to MO-UT situations. training made sure every man could read every part of the situation and act accordingly as part of a team. their infil/exfil methods were often artistic to say the least (i once came home telling the wife how the delta lads had taken me to the ballet) the only infil method of theirs i didn't like was the FRIES, i thought it too slow, but didn't say anything as there were fifteen of them with a helicopter and weapons, and only two of us. to sum up (kind of) Delta focused heavily on CQB, they did dabble in the other 'arts' as it were but anything that required speed, millisecond decision making, and lots of noise very quickly was there game. they would practice aussie peels and leap-frogging like they were at a bloody sports practice. as far as chan of command goes all i can think of saying is the regiment had a chinese parliment thing going on (officers were more informants than orderers, rank matters not, etc.), CAG not so much, officers made the decisions, the decisions stuck.
unfotunatley no i have not been on any ops with members of delta, the time i was in the regiment was not like it is now where you have units comprising of SAS/Delta/ and SEALs in iraq. however, when i got my 'desk' job after the accident on acension, i found myself 'visiting' the d-boys, a few times.
oh before i forget, one of the most impressive things i found about delta was their snipers. if you've ever seen the movie clear and present danger i think it is... the part where john leguizamo (spelling?) is in the ghuille on the training course whilst trying to remain unseen.... i witnessed a similar kind of thing, however there were two snipers in the field, and four men trying to find them. i was VERY impressed with that.
 
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       10/15/2007 8:51:14 PM

In all seriousness, my dad is way better.  Hands down.

Sorry, had to get that out of the way.  Anyway Bob in attempt to make Mr. Killer Commando look better I will try to ask a serious question, maybe you can shed some light on.  In your experience, what percentage of time to CAG and SAS/SBS (and DEVGRU if you have ever had any exposure to those guys) spend doing the high-speed ultra-ninja CT operations?  It seems (in the case of CAG anyway) that the unit was put together to handle high-profile CT/HR missions in non-permissive environments, but that the number of these actual incidents are occurring on a less frequent basis.  Has this resulted in a tasking more oriented towards support of the "big army" or is it just that what is happening in terms of HR missions is too low profile to make the news?  I know things are a little different with SOF on your side of the pond but just curious as to what your opinion was.


this is a very hard one to answer, someone asked me before and the only thing i could come up with is "sometimes more than you think, but never as much as you'd like to believe." simply said there is no telling when you get the call to action. the world doesn't continuously produce awry situations in a consistent manner, so it's really hard to put a percentage on it. however, training keeps you busy, if you're not employing your sneaky beaky skills, you're improving them, constantly.
as for CAG's 're-orientation' from CQB, i wouldn't say they refocused to support the big army but defnitely took on new tasks that were independant of the regulars. whether op's make the news or not is an entirely different story, either they do or they don't (more don't than do, obviously) i mean, your never going to get a catalogue of every action CAG performed, you may get snip-its of certain things or broad overviews of involment (for example, delta was operational in the gulf war, but you'll never know everything they did) but you'll never hear every op ever performed, just the way it is. there are certain op's performed that can't get out into the public not necessarily because they are super-secret or any of that nonsense but because too many questions could get asked.
exposure to DEVGRU no, other members of the SEALs yes.
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       10/15/2007 9:10:58 PM






This is more of a fair match.Again i think the sas,because you never here of any delta force ops happening.



oh dear, i'm at a loss as to what to say. however, i have taken bravoss' advice to heart and will again try to educate you in a kind and friendly manner (whether or not you deserve it with some of your comments is a differnet matter entirely)



okay firstly i'll start by saying that the hush surrounding delta's ops is a good thing, a very good thing. if anything that point you just brought up puts them one up on the SAS. However, it is also important to mention that The Sun, The daily mail, the telegraph, et al, are not credible sources when it comes to SAS missions, and as popular as it may be, niether is the BBC a credible source. in fact the 'un-named' or 'SAS sergeant B' are also not credible sources. to borrow a term used by mough earlier, these people have a woody for special forces, and are simply walts... wannabees leading tabloids to believe they are the real deal (they aren't) in fact the tabloids could care less what london town drunk Fred Smith claims he is, because for them the story sells.



secondly, matching SAS and Delta, is NOT 'more of a fair match'. they are administered by different countries for different jobs with different politics and structures behind them. there are things the regiment is better suited to and there are things Delta is better suited to. although one was the brainchild of a man doing a term with the SAS, they are not mirror images of one another. i can assure you both units 'do' things you don't hear about in the media, and likely never will. i have done things no media person knows about, and again, never will.



final point, do not compare special forces in a "who's better" thread as no-one takes them seriously, nor can anything be concluded from them, nor do many people here enjoy silly pecker competitions (hence some, lime myself, decide to add humour to them to kill the thread)



you may compare SF's in a "which unit has which tasking" kind of thread or something like that where facts and evidence promote a reachable answer that can be agreed upon. however, starting a thread that aims to elevate one unit over another goes nowhere and only promotes silly bickering (similar to school girls arguing over whos daddy's better)



this is the only time i answer you in a polite "let me show you how it's done here" way.




look you ya bastard,if your just gonna critizise me fuck off.I'll compare wit a wanty compare ya prick,noo either shut the fuck up and beetit,or answer ma question,capeesh.



and now for you...
how old are you?
 i critisized you constructivly,
it was needed
 
yes you will (as you have shown) compare what you want to compare, i was merely advising you not to,
it was needed
 
why should i shut the fuck up? i think you should heed your own advice,
it's needed
 
i will not answer your question
it's not needed
 
finally, do not hope to get into any unit in the army with an attitude like that, you will be beasted (if the PTI doesn't knock you out first)
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics