StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was wondering this while reading the Brits vs US thread. I've heard many of my friends say that Austalia's SAS is the worlds best troops, due to lots of terrian to practice on. Then again, the US SEALS seem to be good, based on what I saw in GI Jane. Do any of the militaryily knowedgeable people have an opinion on this?

The US while certainly good, probably lack more real time experience (At least from what we're told), and sometimes suffers from an idiot chain of command (Grenada comes to mind). And those other foreign special services have to deal with terrorism on a more regular basis than we do, though now we're coming in on our own.

So I don't know if anyone can really say there's a BEST. Though maybe a toss up between British or Germany?

Gandalf wrote:Do any of the militaryily knowedgeable people have an opinion on this?

Yeah, it depends what the hell you want to do. You really cannot make any claim without detailing a scenario. Even within such services as the SAS and SEAL's different parts do different things, the SEAL's have a special counter terror team while one SAS squadron does the same.

Probably the only really significant advantage that can be pointed out, is not man for man or group, which is all most people care about, its the higher up assets the US SOCOM has in the form of heavily modified rotary and fixed wing aircraft along with a wide range of specialized boats. I don't think anyone else in the world can remotely approach a full squadron of C-17's equipped to fly nap of the earth..

As for the Australian SAS having some advantage based on terrain, it doesn't fly because the Special Forces of the US and UK for example go overseas for training to find jungle, and jungle and desert respectively.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Yeah, it depends what the hell you want to do. You really cannot make any claim without detailing a scenario. Even within such services as the SAS and SEAL's different parts do different things, the SEAL's have a special counter terror team while one SAS squadron does the same.

Actually all squadrons of the SAS do it on a rotating basis, so that all teams get the training in all the disciplines. Same as they have different squadrons going to Malaya, North Africa, Ireland and all over the place on rotating schedules. Keep everyone up to date with the latest in all theatres.

Probably the only really significant advantage that can be pointed out, is not man for man or group, which is all most people care about, its the higher up assets the US SOCOM has in the form of heavily modified rotary and fixed wing aircraft along with a wide range of specialized boats. I don't think anyone else in the world can remotely approach a full squadron of C-17's equipped to fly nap of the earth..

Though I have to admit I loved the old Russian Airborne Mech Inf divisions that parachuted BMPs, BTRs and troops. Sure, not as subtle, but hey - 12 men and 3 Hummers or a Mech division?

As for the Australian SAS having some advantage based on terrain, it doesn't fly because the Special Forces of the US and UK for example go overseas for training to find jungle, and jungle and desert respectively.

Kind of like how I wouldn't want to fight against IDF in a built-up area. Its all about famialirisation with a certain style of combat. Aussie SAS has had a couple of build up area drills in Sydney etc, but I'd still prefer to have them in the desert or jungle where they are more at home.

weemadando wrote: [hough I have to admit I loved the old Russian Airborne Mech Inf divisions that parachuted BMPs, BTRs and troops. Sure, not as subtle, but hey - 12 men and 3 Hummers or a Mech division?

Russian airborne forces use the BDM series and there divisions where very small affairs, more like a big brigade then a division, there also very lean on logistics and other support since they where designed to only hold out a day or two. I'd take the 82'd for most jobs.

Anyway different units for different tasks, you can see that simply by comparing the US and Soviet airborne divisions. Plus a maximum of eight ever existing your going to run out of airborne divisions a bit faster then assignments, the Russians saw fit to develop a vast and very large array of special forces after all. Though they never came up with any specialized aircraft to support them, though they're where a few subs.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Anyway different units for different tasks, you can see that simply by comparing the US and Soviet airborne divisions. Plus a maximum of eight ever existing your going to run out of airborne divisions a bit faster then assignments, the Russians saw fit to develop a vast and very large array of special forces after all. Though they never came up with any specialized aircraft to support them, though they're where a few subs.

Well there were the An-2 COLTs; one of my favorite archaic yet cool aircraft- nowadays the requirement is an appropriate Ka-60 variant supported by Ka-52s. Perhaps Mi-8MTKOs play a role now (and Mi-38s later on).

Vympel wrote:
Well there were the An-2 COLTs; one of my favorite archaic yet cool aircraft- nowadays the requirement is an appropriate Ka-60 variant supported by Ka-52s. Perhaps Mi-8MTKOs play a role now (and Mi-38s later on).

Russia largely abandon those however, and there magnetic compass level navigation equipment doesn’t make for good insertions, nor does the idea of flying into action in a plane which can and has been shot down by submachine gun fire appeal. The US designs all have a big pile of added armor and weapons for a good reason.

Interestingly my cousin tired to buy one of those, but found that for some reason no one would insure a Colt in the US for a remotely reasonable amount.

I'll go out on a limb and say Canada's Joint Task Force 2, 'cuz everyone knows and fears Canada's wrath.

The Ghurkas. Fear the midgets with the knifes.

I thought G.I. Joe were the best

Seriously though, wouldn't Israel have the most well-prepared and experienced Special Forces when it came desert and urban warfare and anti-terrorism?

Bertie Wooster wrote: Seriously though, wouldn't Israel have the most well-prepared and experienced Special Forces when it came desert and urban warfare and anti-terrorism?

By that reasoning the Indonesian navy should be near invincible.

I'll go out on a limb and say Canada's Joint Task Force 2, 'cuz everyone knows and fears Canada's wrath.

I hope they emphasis hand-to-hand combat, given their ammunition allowances..

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote: Seriously though, wouldn't Israel have the most well-prepared and experienced Special Forces when it came desert and urban warfare and anti-terrorism?

By that reasoning the Indonesian navy should be near invincible.

I'll go out on a limb and say Canada's Joint Task Force 2, 'cuz everyone knows and fears Canada's wrath.

I hope they emphasis hand-to-hand combat, given their ammunition allowances..

They specialize in begging! "Please can you spare us a few bullets?" "Can you guys give us a ride?" "Can you help out a down an out elite squad and spare us some food?"

Enigma wrote:They specialize in begging! "Please can you spare us a few bullets?" "Can you guys give us a ride?" "Can you help out a down an out elite squad and spare us some food?"

Heh, "Adopt a special forces unit, only $5 a day, help make a difference."

Sea Skimmer: Ok then, for a scenario, say a hostage rescue thing like in Predator. But assume the bad guys there are smarter.

It all depends on the mission. I personally like the British SAS and the First Special Operations Detachment known as DELTA

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Russia largely abandon those however, and there magnetic compass level navigation equipment doesn?t make for good insertions, nor does the idea of flying into action in a plane which can and has been shot down by submachine gun fire appeal. The US designs all have a big pile of added armor and weapons for a good reason.

Interestingly my cousin tired to buy one of those, but found that for some reason no one would insure a Colt in the US for a remotely reasonable amount.

The An-3 (successor to An-2) would be insured for a much more reasonable amount, I'm sure. But the price for the new-build version would sure than wipe out such savings. There are An-2s in use in the US, Europe, and elsewhere in a civilian capacity though. Out of the 12,000 built, it is estimated some 2,000 are still flying.

Rather like the DC-3, the An-2. Could fly the damned thing forever.