Special forces & infantry. USA's vs. Korea's & Austr

[Shroom Man 777]

Someone elsewhere has claimed that the USA's infantry are not as well trained as the Korean's and Aussie's. And that someone also claimed that the Aussie SAS is superior to the US' special forces.

Can someone please tell me if this is so?

Here's the claim: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.p ... 6590&st=60

And please, don't move this to HAB since I can't go there and I'm sorry if this place is the wrong place to discuss this, but I'm sure this discussion wouldn't be for SLAM and this place does discuss things about governments.

[Chris OFarrell]

Different doctrine and training realy. The 3 units work differently with different tactics and different approaches to the same situation.

I WOULD say though that the US has been constently asking for the ASAS to be deployed as the tip of the sphere. The first Special Forces (exluding possible undercover CIA operatives) into Iraq for example WERE the ASAS, they were chosen to go in first. In Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan for example, it was the ASAS who pulled the US special forces asses out of the fire both with them in the hellhole and outside providing astonishingly accurate fire support and directions for heavy things like B52's.

And in Iraq they were assigned to astonishing duties. They were VERY close to Baghdad long before the US reached it, searching traffic comming and going from the capital for any major people trying to flee. A couple of Australian Journalists were stoped by them in fact on the way out. They asked if they could report the story and they said no problems, as long as no names and no exact location was given. But the reporters DID say they were stunned at how close they were operating.

Hell, these guys stopped the Russian ambasador who had been shot by US Marines and was Not Happy as he left Baghdad

And there was a funny thing about Sadams capture. It may have actualy been the ASAS/UKSAS who pinned down his location over a few days without being seen or heard from. The story is that they were quite prepared to go in quietly, grab him, get out. But the US insisted they had to be the ones to grab him, so they rushed in an armoured company and a heep of infintry with all the sublity of a bull in a china shop and blasted around the area (going to the wrong place at first) then finaly grabing him.

Strangly this story which came from a very reputable source vanished almost overnight and never got into the mainstream media.

Which is another factor. THe ASAS TRY their best to stay OUT of the public eye. They don't claim credit for a LOT of shit they later are shown to have done. The US sure as hell loves them, they sing their praise all the time and give medals out almost as often...



US special forces on the other hand have a slightly different approach. In fact an ASAS trooper commented on it earlier on in the inital invasion. They use a LOT more firepower then the ASAS would in the same situation and have a different view of the same engagements a lot of the time....

[Shroom Man 777]

Shit. That's ugly. Jesus man! That's damn horrible! Why are the Aussies ahead of the US special forces AND the Brits?! ....why?

[Gandalf]

Shit. That's ugly. Jesus man! That's damn horrible! Why are the Aussies ahead of the US special forces AND the Brits?! ....why?

Because we rule.

I've heard it attributed to our having "every conceivable terrain" to practice on.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Shit. That's ugly. Jesus man! That's damn horrible! Why are the Aussies ahead of the US special forces AND the Brits?! ....why?

Hey, we trained them, if anything they're on par.

In truth, most Western spec-ops units work together so the SAS, ASAS, Delta, Green Berets etc. work together to keep skills up.

[Ma Deuce]

US Spec Forces are about as good as anyone's. It's their regulars (except maybe the USMC) that tend to lag behind those of other Western countries in terms of training...

[Knife]

US Spec Forces are about as good as anyone's. It's their regulars (except maybe the USMC) that tend to lag behind those of other Western countries in terms of training...

The Army focouses on large scale training rather than small unit training, which is why I believe they lag behind the Corps. That being said, I don't see where the US Army is behind any other Western nations Army?

[Knife]

Someone elsewhere has claimed that the USA's infantry are not as well trained as the Korean's and Aussie's. And that someone also claimed that the Aussie SAS is superior to the US' special forces.

Can someone please tell me if this is so?

Here's the claim:

And please, don't move this to HAB since I can't go there and I'm sorry if this place is the wrong place to discuss this, but I'm sure this discussion wouldn't be for SLAM and this place does discuss things about governments.

All I can say is that it depends on the mission. SF in the US, Britan, Assuies, and other Nato countries regularly train together for simular missions but when they go out it depends on the overall mission.

The US likes a big bang for its buck while some others like it to just be done and not know about it.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, it seems that the US' love for big bang kinda makes them...less respectable than guys like the Aussie SAS.

Hrmm...and I can understand the US Army's not-so-great training. The US Army is huge when compared to the other armies of other places, so training has to be pre-packaged and mass delivered. While training for smaller groups, like the USMC, is better than other world's armies. Right?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Marines usually get some pretty nifty exercises going on. The Royal Marine Commandos have the most extensive training programme of any force and it shows when the TA tried to copy their beach landing exercise not long ago and got, uh, trapped in a bit of wet sand.

[Howedar]

Well, it seems that the US' love for big bang kinda makes them...less respectable than guys like the Aussie SAS.

Hrmm...and I can understand the US Army's not-so-great training. The US Army is huge when compared to the other armies of other places, so training has to be pre-packaged and mass delivered. While training for smaller groups, like the USMC, is better than other world's armies. Right?

WHY DON'T YOU DO YOUR OWN FUCKING RESEARCH?

[Wicked Pilot]

US Spec Forces are about as good as anyone's. It's their regulars (except maybe the USMC) that tend to lag behind those of other Western countries in terms of training...

And you have studies, statistics, military experience, etc, to back this assertion up right?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Shit. That's ugly. Jesus man! That's damn horrible! Why are the Aussies ahead of the US special forces AND the Brits?! ....why?

Because we rule.

I've heard it attributed to our having "every conceivable terrain" to practice on.

Where's your arctic tundra and your volcanic plains?

[Knife]

Well, it seems that the US' love for big bang kinda makes them...less respectable than guys like the Aussie SAS.

Again, depending on the mission. And if you think that the SEAL's or the Green Berets are less 'respectable' than the ASAS, then you need to sit your fanboy ass down and rethink what your criteria is.

[Lonestar]

Well, it seems that the US' love for big bang kinda makes them...less respectable than guys like the Aussie SAS.

Hrmm...and I can understand the US Army's not-so-great training. The US Army is huge when compared to the other armies of other places, so training has to be pre-packaged and mass delivered. While training for smaller groups, like the USMC, is better than other world's armies. Right?

Say wah...?

The US Army is just as good, if not better than most Western Countries. I'll be willing to say the Brits and Aussies are Damn Fucking Good(tm) but are not an order of magnitude better than the USA. Lot's of European countries armies are shite compared to the Anglos....after all, we don't piss away our money on conscripts.

(with respect to some of our conscript buddies in The Mess)

[PainRack]

Where's your arctic tundra and your volcanic plains?

New Zealand.

[Stark]

So if the US Army *isn't* unreliable, why does the JCS piss away the Marine Corps on fricking garrison detail like in Bosnia? Almost any assessment I've read of the US regulars gets a result like 'unreliable' or such. Is there that much of a distinction between the Corps and the Regulars?

[Stuart Mackey]

Where's your arctic tundra and your volcanic plains?

New Zealand.

Correct..ASAS does it training over here as well, same for our chaps, training in Aussie.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Where's your arctic tundra and your volcanic plains?

New Zealand.

No wonder you can't beat the Hobbit SAS

[PainRack]

No wonder you can't beat the Hobbit SAS

That's right. Why do you think they did so well in Annaconda? After clearing out several ork regiments in Mount Doom, Osama shitheads were NOTHING i tell you, NOTHING.

[Admiral Valdemar]

No wonder you can't beat the Hobbit SAS

That's right. Why do you think they did so well in Annaconda? After clearing out several ork regiments in Mount Doom, Osama shitheads were NOTHING i tell you, NOTHING.

The tropical heat must've rotted some of your brain. Poor lad, take a rest.

[PainRack]

So if the US Army *isn't* unreliable, why does the JCS piss away the Marine Corps on fricking garrison detail like in Bosnia? Almost any assessment I've read of the US regulars gets a result like 'unreliable' or such. Is there that much of a distinction between the Corps and the Regulars?

That's because the USMC is more mobile and self-sustaining than the US army.

Blame the MEUs. I mean, that's what you get when you group together a force on the opean seas, that's supposed to be able to deploy anywhere in less than a month with aircraft, tanks, artillery and the whole bass ass equipment, and is more powerful than most nations entire military.

[Shroom Man 777]

WHY DON'T YOU DO YOUR OWN FUCKING RESEARCH?

I did do research and all I found was a bunch of links to SOCOM II or sites talking about individual spec forces.

Again, depending on the mission. And if you think that the SEAL's or the Green Berets are less 'respectable' than the ASAS, then you need to sit your fanboy ass down and rethink what your criteria is.

Well, the ASAS' doing things quietly seems to be more professional than the US' spec ops' doing things with lots of explosions and so forth. But that's just me, okay?

[Ma Deuce]

US Spec Forces are about as good as anyone's. It's their regulars (except maybe the USMC) that tend to lag behind those of other Western countries in terms of training...

And you have studies, statistics, military experience, etc, to back this assertion up right?

I have read this a while ago (some results from multinational infantry training exercises), although I am behooved to find it at the moment. I'll post a link as soon as I track it down.

[Stark]

That's because the USMC is more mobile and self-sustaining than the US army.

Blame the MEUs. I mean, that's what you get when you group together a force on the opean seas, that's supposed to be able to deploy anywhere in less than a month with aircraft, tanks, artillery and the whole bass ass equipment, and is more powerful than most nations entire military.

Self-sustaining like they carry more supplies, or they don't use as much?

And I kinda resent the 'more powerful' statement, since the USMC always loses wargames against AU forces, during the Bali deployment, they lost to a reserve unit. Obvously, however, I hardly hear about the reverses.