StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Scenario 1: Open field, with equal amount of combantants.
Scenario 2: Urban Warfare.
Scenario 3: In the Jungle.

No outside help, such as air strikes, etc.

Hmf, could a mod add an option for a tie?

SAS greatly outnumber the US Navy SEAL's. Better match would be SEAL's and the SBS.

I should also note that both units have some highly specialized teams within. But overall the SAS are more oriented for elite small scale conventional work, thus there greater numbers in many deployments.

Sea Skimmer wrote:SAS greatly outnumber the US Navy SEAL's. Better match would be SEAL's and the SBS.

I thought it was the other way around. There are over 3000 SEAL IIRC and you can opt to join them whereas there are 300 SAS soldiers who are hand picked. It would be lopsided for the SEALs down to numbers, the SBS is the same.

Ugh, just assume that each side has equal amount of combatants for each scenario...

1: SEALs traditionaly have heavier weaponry, they can most likely route the SAS.
2: The SAS excel in Urban combat, they mop the floor with the SEALs.
3: SEALs recieve more training in various combat conditions and are likely more experienced with Jungle Warfare over the SAS, win likely goes to the SEALs.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:SAS greatly outnumber the US Navy SEAL's. Better match would be SEAL's and the SBS.

I thought it was the other way around. There are over 3000 SEAL IIRC and you can opt to join them whereas there are 300 SAS soldiers who are hand picked. It would be lopsided for the SEALs down to numbers, the SBS is the same.

I've always heard that active SEAL's number more like 150. 3000 sounds like the size of the Ranger Regiment.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:SAS greatly outnumber the US Navy SEAL's. Better match would be SEAL's and the SBS.

I thought it was the other way around. There are over 3000 SEAL IIRC and you can opt to join them whereas there are 300 SAS soldiers who are hand picked. It would be lopsided for the SEALs down to numbers, the SBS is the same.

I've always heard that active SEAL's number more like 150. 3000 sounds like the size of the Ranger Regiment.

I have to agree for the most part. IIRC there are more SEALs then that, but not by a whole lot.

I believe the SEALs and SAS are relatively the same in numbers. The US Delta Force is more comparable to the SAS but are far fewer in number.

SAS all the way. They've stopped a prison riot with only some tear gas, batons and I believe some tazers. During the Gulf War, a team of 8 SAS were sent on a mission into Iraq, but the mission went to hell in a hen basket, out of the eight, only one made it to the Syrian border (they were told to try and make it there if something went wrong), I'm not sure on the numbers, I may have them switched around, but I believe three SAS were killed during the whole trying to escape fiasco, four were captured and obviously, tortured. But, my point is, they managed to kill two hundred and fifty Iraqi soldiers before they escaped/died/captured.

The Seals had the same type of missions in the Gulf War but they managed not to get found and they all made it out alieve.

Aya wrote:SAS all the way. They've stopped a prison riot with only some tear gas, batons and I believe some tazers. During the Gulf War, a team of 8 SAS were sent on a mission into Iraq, but the mission went to hell in a hen basket, out of the eight, only one made it to the Syrian border (they were told to try and make it there if something went wrong), I'm not sure on the numbers, I may have them switched around, but I believe three SAS were killed during the whole trying to escape fiasco, four were captured and obviously, tortured. But, my point is, they managed to kill two hundred and fifty Iraqi soldiers before they escaped/died/captured.

In America we have people called "Prision guards" who can do that.

I've heard the story of the SAS patrol. However I greatly doubt the claime that they killed 250. They may have called in air support that killed that many though. A pair of A-10's or F-16's can easily kill 200 men in one pass if they catch a convoy.

The prison riot was one of the worst ever, the prisoners managed to hold off guards, police, but not the SAS. About the patrol, they had no air support, if they did, then they would've gotten an evac. Some of them were killed after stealing a vehicle and crashing at a border outpost or something like that.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. These "one special forces group vs another special forces group" threads are a waste of time.

Aya wrote:SAS all the way. They've stopped a prison riot with only some tear gas, batons and I believe some tazers.

And what the hell does this matter against SEALs?


I agree with Alyeska.

Aya wrote:The prison riot was one of the worst ever, the prisoners managed to hold off guards, police, but not the SAS. About the patrol, they had no air support, if they did, then they would've gotten an evac. Some of them were killed after stealing a vehicle and crashing at a border outpost or something like that.

Fighter bombers outrange most helicopters. Pave Lows had to do much of the work and not many where on hand. The patrol probably got one of the Strike Eagle pairs flying SCUD hunt to help before being overrun.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Aya wrote:The prison riot was one of the worst ever, the prisoners managed to hold off guards, police, but not the SAS. About the patrol, they had no air support, if they did, then they would've gotten an evac. Some of them were killed after stealing a vehicle and crashing at a border outpost or something like that.

Fighter bombers outrange most helicopters. Pave Lows had to do much of the work and not many where on hand. The patrol probably got one of the Strike Eagle pairs flying SCUD hunt to help before being overrun.

I've read the accounts of two of the survivors.

They were heli-inserted into an area in order to take out a subsurface comms cable and designate mobil SCUD targets for airstrikes.

Problems:

1) First day at morning they find out that the area chosen as basecamp is about 100m from an AAA site.
2) First day they are compromised by a kid and the chase is on.
3) Running battle for the entire of the first day.
4) Their radios weren't working.
5) The TACBE's (emergency radios) weren't working. They got about 20seconds of conversation with a USAF pilot before losing signal.
6) The weather was shit (below freezing).
7) They started coming down with hypothermia.
8) They got seperated (story about how this happened is disputed)
9) Several of them stole a car an made a run for the Syrian border.
10) Checkpoint - gun battle remainder of group scattered and most captured/killed.
11) Several weeks of imprisonment and torture.

That's similar to what I've heard, but I've never read more then a paragraph or two on the whole thing. Doesn’t seem to leave much time for wiping out a company.

Sea Skimmer wrote:That's similar to what I've heard, but I've never read more then a paragraph or two on the whole thing. Doesn’t seem to leave much time for wiping out a company.

The first day at the start of the battle a couple of passing troop trucks had stopped at the AAA site. Then random contacts over the next few days and during the battle at the checkpoint... Plus the fact that the Iraqi's asked the question during interrogations: "What kind of medics leave 250 soldiers dead?" or words to that effect. As their cover story was that they were a downed SAR group.

Hmm... If I remember correctly, no SEAL has ever been left behind in combat...

There was an incident in which 8 US Marines were also behind enemy lines in Iraq before the war started. Their position was compromised by a child. Enemy Iraqies showed up so they had to hold their own. Then they called in air support. Before these 8 Marines got airlifted out (all of them survived) the estimated body count was 180 dead Iraqies.

Then there where the estimated several thousand counter attacking Talaban who counter attacked by Mazar el Sharif and got wiped out by one US Army Special Forces team. The Nine B-52's and radio helped.

Exonerate wrote:Scenario 1: Open field, with equal amount of combantants.
Scenario 2: Urban Warfare.
Scenario 3: In the Jungle.

No outside help, such as air strikes, etc.

Oh good grief. They have the same equipment, both sides are profficient in marksmanship, Fire and Maneouvre tactics and use of cover. They both have a propensity for having more firepower per man than is normal (a 4 man SAS troop will have 2 SAW's, 2 M-16's with 40mm grenade launchers, 4 pistols, 16 handgrenades and enough ammo for the weapons to re-enact WW2 round-for-round) and they both practice operations in all the mentioned scenario's, basically if the SAS shoot first they win and if the SEAL's shoot first they win.

Normally in these sorts of threads I'm actively pro-UK forces (what a surprise) but really, this is silly. It's like saying "A and B are strapped to Dynamite, each holding the detonator for the others explosive charge. Who wins if they are 1) In a field. 2) in a town. 3) in a jungle."

I know people like to ask these questions but it really makes very little sense as the playing field is even.

As to the comments made about Bravo 20 (the SAS mission that went tit's up in Iraq) noone here knows enough about the circumstances involved to make any informed judgements if all they have read is Andy Mcnabs or Chris Ryans accounts as they both were edited and neither were aware of or wrote about everything that was happening related to it (plus both were written with an eye to "action" and the "insider" type of reader, rather than a full on de-brief and minutae report - licence was taken)

Exonerate wrote:Scenario 1: Open field, with equal amount of combantants.
Scenario 2: Urban Warfare.
Scenario 3: In the Jungle.

No outside help, such as air strikes, etc.

Incidentally, shouldn't this be moved to 'Off Topic' rather than here in 'Other Sci-Fi' ?

Somebody poke a Mod, or something

Yes.