StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

Yeah, and thats always smart.

Most commonwealth forces follow the following rules when it comes to men down in battle:

1) How bad is it?
2) Can we fix him up here and now?
3) Will he slow us down/compromise us?
4) If he will, then they leave them behind, with enough ammo to cause anyone chasing them some issues.
5) Come back and get them if it will not endanger anyone else.

Alyeska wrote: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.

The SAS recieve better training overall, they have a one month training deployment in SE Asia, making them exceptional jungle warfare experts.

Traditionally SEAL teams are also extremely effective in jungle; there is much emphasis on such warfare after SEAL teams were used so much in Vietnam.

Howedar wrote:Traditionally SEAL teams are also extremely effective in jungle; there is much emphasis on such warfare after SEAL teams were used so much in Vietnam.

SEAL teams are obviously better at certain things than SAS (water, jungle, sniping, etc.), but I think that the SAS is better for storming areas and buildings, overall.

Probably true. The only team that could hope to compete would be SEAL Team 6 (focus on counter-terrorism).

Master of Ossus wrote:

Howedar wrote:Traditionally SEAL teams are also extremely effective in jungle; there is much emphasis on such warfare after SEAL teams were used so much in Vietnam.

SEAL teams are obviously better at certain things than SAS (water, jungle, sniping, etc.), but I think that the SAS is better for storming areas and buildings, overall.

Seals better than SAS in jungle terrain? You must be shitting me.

weemadando wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:

Howedar wrote:Traditionally SEAL teams are also extremely effective in jungle; there is much emphasis on such warfare after SEAL teams were used so much in Vietnam.

SEAL teams are obviously better at certain things than SAS (water, jungle, sniping, etc.), but I think that the SAS is better for storming areas and buildings, overall.

Seals better than SAS in jungle terrain? You must be shitting me.

I meant to say "Delta," which is a better description of what I was thinking of. Sorry.

weemadando wrote:Yeah, and thats always smart.

Most commonwealth forces follow the following rules when it comes to men down in battle:

1) How bad is it?
2) Can we fix him up here and now?
3) Will he slow us down/compromise us?
4) If he will, then they leave them behind, with enough ammo to cause anyone chasing them some issues.
5) Come back and get them if it will not endanger anyone else.

Indeed. While the "never leave a man behind" creed is honourable and builds great esprit de corps, it is also highly impractical when you look at it in a strictly rational fashion.

Look at the Mogadishu incident, aka "Black Hawk Down". They divert the entire mission and all associated personnel in an attempt to reach Wolcott's crash site, taking casualties as they go. Same thing happened at Durant's crash site. If they stick to the original mission, they extract the troops and prisoners as planned and end up taking far fewer casualties. They can try to mount a rescue operation for the missing men if possible, but the total number of dead and wounded would be much lower.

This isn't intended as a slight to the Rangers or Delta Force. I admire the hell out of them for their dedication to a fallen comrade, but it is impractical.

Master of Ossus wrote:

weemadando wrote: Seals better than SAS in jungle terrain? You must be shitting me.

I meant to say "Delta," which is a better description of what I was thinking of. Sorry.

Sorry, keep going, I haven't quite laughed up all my internal organs yet.

weemadando wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:

weemadando wrote: Seals better than SAS in jungle terrain? You must be shitting me.

I meant to say "Delta," which is a better description of what I was thinking of. Sorry.

Sorry, keep going, I haven't quite laughed up all my internal organs yet.

Oh shut up. The SAS is good, but its not THAT good. Geeze, get over the British superiority complex. Hell, the SBS kicks the crap out of the SAS.

Rob Wilson wrote: Oh good grief.

WILSON! YOU'RE BACK!

Shep forgets what he was going to post at the shock of seeing Wilson posting again...

Alyeska wrote:
Oh shut up. The SAS is good, but its not THAT good. Geeze, get over the British superiority complex. Hell, the SBS kicks the crap out of the SAS.

Actually its the Aussie/Commonwealth superiority complex...

Darth Wong wrote:

weemadando wrote:Yeah, and thats always smart.

Most commonwealth forces follow the following rules when it comes to men down in battle:

1) How bad is it?
2) Can we fix him up here and now?
3) Will he slow us down/compromise us?
4) If he will, then they leave them behind, with enough ammo to cause anyone chasing them some issues.
5) Come back and get them if it will not endanger anyone else.

Indeed. While the "never leave a man behind" creed is honourable and builds great esprit de corps, it is also highly impractical when you look at it in a strictly rational fashion.

Look at the Mogadishu incident, aka "Black Hawk Down". They divert the entire mission and all associated personnel in an attempt to reach Wolcott's crash site, taking casualties as they go. Same thing happened at Durant's crash site. If they stick to the original mission, they extract the troops and prisoners as planned and end up taking far fewer casualties. They can try to mount a rescue operation for the missing men if possible, but the total number of dead and wounded would be much lower.

This isn't intended as a slight to the Rangers or Delta Force. I admire the hell out of them for their dedication to a fallen comrade, but it is impractical.

You picked a poor example at best. Both crashes had men left alive and fighting in them. Abandoning them to die would utterly destroy moral and the effectiveness of the unit. Kiss the entire regiment good by for the next five or six years after somthing like that.

Sea Skimmer wrote: You picked a poor example at best. Both crashes had men left alive and fighting in them. Abandoning them to die would utterly destroy moral and the effectiveness of the unit. Kiss the entire regiment good by for the next five or six years after somthing like that.

Wouldn't the regiment be more devastated by the stupid and senseless loss of several soldiers than by the short time loss of a few wounded indiviuals?

weemadando wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:

weemadando wrote: Seals better than SAS in jungle terrain? You must be shitting me.

I meant to say "Delta," which is a better description of what I was thinking of. Sorry.

Sorry, keep going, I haven't quite laughed up all my internal organs yet.

OK, SAS Squadrons are split into Troops (Boat, Mountain, Vehicle, Parachute-HALO), additionally they have a rotation to CrW (Counter Revolutionary Warfare) and additional tours in Jungle, Artic and Desert theatres (Jungle Warfare is part of the Training for joining the SAS and failure of tht course as with the others means a failure to join the Service).

When on a particular rotation all they train for is that subject. In a typical 3 year stint in the Regiment a trooper will be proficient in all those area's as well as a working knowledge of all the various Troop specialities. On top of this he will be expected to be an expert in one of 4 fields.
Signals, Languages, Explosives or medicine and be aquainted with the other 3.

The regiment as we know it was restarted during the war in the Jungles of Malaya where it fought (and won) a counter-insurgency war against Communist backed local terrorists in the 50's (since then Jungle Warfare is one of its mainstay core skills).

In Vietnam they successfully operated againt the Vietcong (along with Australian and NZ SAS units).

As to the Sniper statements someone made... I don't know where to begin. Once you're a sniper that's it. A Master Sniper Instructor in the SEAL's is probably as good as a Master Sniper Instructor in the SAS. They both have them.

And to the "Always bring back your dead", as Mike has pointed out, it's nice in theory but really how the hell are the relatives going to know with a closed casket. If there's no reason to lug a corpse back, then bye-bye corpse. In reality if your hit in Combat it is Self-aid, self-evacuation until the firefight is won. Survive that long and yeehaa, otherwise unlucky.

Sea Skimmer wrote: You picked a poor example at best. Both crashes had men left alive and fighting in them. Abandoning them to die would utterly destroy moral and the effectiveness of the unit. Kiss the entire regiment good by for the next five or six years after somthing like that.

Mike did point out "They can try to mount a rescue operation for the missing men if possible, but the total number of dead and wounded would be much lower."

Diverting everyone (if that's what they did - I'm not entirely informed on exactly what happened there) was stupid. If they can't get themselves out it's better to get everyone else safe and re-equipped with a planned rescue than a on-the-fly rescue attempt by troops that are under siege themselves.

Ted wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: You picked a poor example at best. Both crashes had men left alive and fighting in them. Abandoning them to die would utterly destroy moral and the effectiveness of the unit. Kiss the entire regiment good by for the next five or six years after somthing like that.

Wouldn't the regiment be more devastated by the stupid and senseless loss of several soldiers than by the short time loss of a few wounded indiviuals?

No, and as many people would be lost in the crashes as in the convoy. It was within the power of the Rangers to reach and recover there wounded and they knew it. To not even try would be far more Devastating then a partial failure.

Sea Skimmer wrote: No, and as many people would be lost in the crashes as in the convoy. It was within the power of the Rangers to reach and recover there wounded and they knew it. To not even try would be far more Devastating then a partial failure.

Even at the end of the day, the rangers had about 40+ people out of
action from all reasons (KIA, WIA) and the Somalis lost about 1,000+,
and from the book BHD, the Rangers and the 10th Mountain were all
gung ho and ready to go back in the next day to clean house, but
the National Command Authority (read, Clintler) didn't let them...

weemadando wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:

weemadando wrote: Seals better than SAS in jungle terrain? You must be shitting me.

I meant to say "Delta," which is a better description of what I was thinking of. Sorry.

Sorry, keep going, I haven't quite laughed up all my internal organs yet.

Well, somebody certainly has small-dick (erm, I mean country) syndrome.

Sea Skimmer wrote:No, and as many people would be lost in the crashes as in the convoy. It was within the power of the Rangers to reach and recover there wounded and they knew it. To not even try would be far more Devastating then a partial failure.

The only survivor of the Durant crash was Durant himself; everyone else in the chopper was killed on impact. I'm not sure how many survivors there were in the Wolcott crash, but I believe it was only two or three. That's four or five men, and for that, they diverted an entire mission, ended up getting pinned down and trapped overnight, and took 80 casualties, 20 KIA. If they just leave as per the original battle plan, they're out of the hot zone in a couple of hours except for 4-5 crash-site survivors, who they can try to rescue later (or use threats of massive retaliation in order to secure their release, which is basically how they got Durant back).

Rob Wilson wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: You picked a poor example at best. Both crashes had men left alive and fighting in them. Abandoning them to die would utterly destroy moral and the effectiveness of the unit. Kiss the entire regiment good by for the next five or six years after somthing like that.

Mike did point out "They can try to mount a rescue operation for the missing men if possible, but the total number of dead and wounded would be much lower."

Diverting everyone (if that's what they did - I'm not entirely informed on exactly what happened there) was stupid. If they can't get themselves out it's better to get everyone else safe and re-equipped with a planned rescue than a on-the-fly rescue attempt by troops that are under siege themselves.

And if they loose a guy, there's always the option of blowing the body to kingdom come if you're behind the enemies lines.

Leaving men behind, even for a little while, would ruin morale. Thats just life. It doesn't have to make sense.

Darth Wong wrote:20 KIA.

Actually, 14 KIA.....

Howedar wrote:Leaving men behind, even for a little while, would ruin morale. Thats just life. It doesn't have to make sense.

If this was World War III, it would, as your division would have
graves registration units to take over as your division moved on,
but in today's world, you have to protect your dead to keep them
from being desecrated by the bastiches we find ourselves fighting
against more and more often...

Darth Wong wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:No, and as many people would be lost in the crashes as in the convoy. It was within the power of the Rangers to reach and recover there wounded and they knew it. To not even try would be far more Devastating then a partial failure.

The only survivor of the Durant crash was Durant himself; everyone else in the chopper was killed on impact. I'm not sure how many survivors there were in the Wolcott crash, but I believe it was only two or three. That's four or five men, and for that, they diverted an entire mission, ended up getting pinned down and trapped overnight, and took 80 casualties, 20 KIA. If they just leave as per the original battle plan, they're out of the hot zone in a couple of hours except for 4-5 crash-site survivors, who they can try to rescue later (or use threats of massive retaliation in order to secure their release, which is basically how they got Durant back).

So you plan is "Lets leave our men for dead with a brutal enemy when where one mile away with more the enough firepower and mobility to drive up, load wounded and leave." Like I said. Doing so will destroy moral and faith in leadership and thus combat effectiveness to a far greater degree then the loss of a few additional men.