America Didnt have Skill Needed--- UK SAS Sent in..Job Done

SAS Super Army Soldiers..

Originally posted by TDawg61

Originally posted by hotel1

Originally posted by TDawg61

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by LarryLove

 

Based on the article i would guess 2001

Pres.Bush huh?Has the sas done anything that noone else could possible do in say the last decade?What a futile piece of crap this thread is...

Because of the clandestine nature of the operations that units such as the SAS undertake it is not really possible to answer that question with any degree of accuracy. It is probably fair to say that the SAS are among the small number of units in the world today that could successfully carry out an operation such as the one in the article.

Thank you Hotel but I think you missed my point,my apologies.That being the open was the SAS was the ONLY unit that could accomplish a hostage rescue,that being non-sense as many countries SFs have such WITHOUT having to boast of their skill.

I would agree with you that there are a number of countries with SFs that are capable of successfully carrying out this type of operation. I would only add that the number of countries that have SFs of that calibre is comparatively small on a worldwide scale.

If we having a Pissing contest i vote for U S S R

SAS are tough sonsahb----es, no doubt
Seals also.

Who is the better killer? donno...but if either burst through my door, my response would be equal...and the need for a change of pants after would be equal also.

Was Bear Grylls in the team? He would not just kill you quickly, but then gut you and sleep in your chest cavity if it was a bit chilly outside.

Originally posted by SaltireWarrior
The SAS. Best in the world.

Who do you think gave information, tactics and training to the likes of the Seals, Spetsnaz, and all the other specialist units?.
That's right, the SAS.
Who dares wins is their motto, and fair do's they are the best and routinely copied but never beaten.
Well Done lads.

I remember hearing that when the SAS stormed the embassy in the 80's and when it was all over, one of the terrorists had more than the usual number of bullet injuries, and then I heard why.
The first SAS guy shot him and all the others made sure their weapons worked by shooting him again as they went past him.
Now that's COLD but oh so efficient.

Originally posted by hotel1
reply to post by Logarock

 

Can I ask, was this a USMC unit that you were a member of?, and what was the general opinion of Special Air Service training among those who took part.

We had a guy in our unit, that was a fully trained Force Recon, jump master, sniper, ect, went through Seal training UDT the works, HALO, spent time on a DELTA team he was the works. He volunteered for the SAS training program and said they almost broke him. You could tell there had been some trauma, said they were "tuff" with respect. He had a SAS complementary Beret for passing the course.

Related info : My son is in the army and has been at bases where there are both US and UK troops. He has told me of the differences in training and operation and one thing is crystal clear. If you had a choice of being defended by a US guy or a UK guy you would choose the UK guy without any hesitation whatsoever. The difference is that stark. Well my expression when he told me was : you're f....ng joking !

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


SAS--very good at what they do and with decades of experience in hostage rescue. Dedicated professionals every one.


(Lets not forget the SBS as well!)

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by hotel1
reply to post by Logarock

 

Can I ask, was this a USMC unit that you were a member of?, and what was the general opinion of Special Air Service training among those who took part.

We had a guy in our unit, that was a fully trained Force Recon, jump master, sniper, ect, went through Seal training UDT the works, HALO, spent time on a DELTA team he was the works. He volunteered for the SAS training program and said they almost broke him. You could tell there had been some trauma, said they were "tuff" with respect. He had a SAS complementary Beret for passing the course.

As I understand it as far as potential candidates from the UK are concerned any member of the armed forces that has served may a minimum of two years, or member of the reserve battalions may volunteer for selection. Many do not last the first day and by the end of the first week seventy to eighty percent will have been 'returned to unit' (rtu'd) , some by choice some not.
I have no idea what criteria applies to candidates from foreign forces but anyone who passes final selection is clearly someone to be admired as an ally, and feared as an enemy. If you meet members of this regiment in a professional capacity as an ally you will be left in awe, if you meet them as an enemy you will be left in the ground.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Related info : My son is in the army and has been at bases where there are both US and UK troops. He has told me of the differences in training and operation and one thing is crystal clear. If you had a choice of being defended by a US guy or a UK guy you would choose the UK guy without any hesitation whatsoever. The difference is that stark. Well my expression when he told me was : you're f....ng joking !

I hate to say that your right, take WW2 for example, the reasons the Germans didn't win is because they were to cavalier in their attitude, that they would win by simply walking into an area, they thought themselves supreme in conflict and that they could win any battle. The British on the otherhand were strict, disciplined and focused.

I am seeing the similarities between the Nazis and the current US government and its forces.

reply to post by hotel1
The man I am talking about was quite the warrior. And yea he went through the same SAS selection coarse that the Brits go through. Then again Force Recon are probably the most highly trained american special forces we have.

Where was Chuck Norris when we needed him? Kudos to the SAS for a mission well executed.

Jokes apart, I think every mission requires specific skills. Either the SAS were sent knowing very well the dangers and the US didn't wanna take political risks should the mission fail or their skilled force were busy/focused elsewhere or it was a morale booster or justification for the UK political affairs. We wouldn't know.
Even Israel has some excellent commandos and has proven track record (africa).

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Was Bear Grylls in the team? He would not just kill you quickly, but then gut you and sleep in your chest cavity if it was a bit chilly outside.

And perhaps cook your body if needed for food He is cool and funny sometimes.

Another aspect of the SAS members which shines a bit brighter than their US counterparts IMO, is not just their knowledge about the environment and surroundings but the local culture/customs which helps a lot in identifying opportunities and risks. I guess its the recent history of Great Britain being the most recent Empire that had ruled a majority of the world and the knowledge acquired from their colonies that also helps understanding the mindset?

The Big difference with British Special Forces and everyone one else's special forces is when the SAS do something it's usually never ever talked about.
Generally when a SAS member doesn't come home, he was Killed in Action, and it's only the next of kin who are informed, No where it happened, No what happened, No media circus, He's Just Dead...end of story, family know the risks and how it's dealt with.

The Iranian embassy assault was different, it was on our patch and the media were all over it before it began.

Now take just about every other special forces Op world wide, Plastered all over the TV.....when it all goes to plan. or at least it used to be. nothing like a feel good story to keep the public's attention away from the real world.

You would be surprised where and when and how the special forces conduct their business. They dont just sit in Hereford twiddling their thumbs until bad thing happen. Sometimes they have to do mundane things like slip on the Bermuda shorts and go tailing a bad guy surfing or something.

Beats legging it across the Desert with a Battalion of Bad guys on yer tail pipe though..

Originally posted by DataWraith

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Related info : My son is in the army and has been at bases where there are both US and UK troops. He has told me of the differences in training and operation and one thing is crystal clear. If you had a choice of being defended by a US guy or a UK guy you would choose the UK guy without any hesitation whatsoever. The difference is that stark. Well my expression when he told me was : you're f....ng joking !

I hate to say that your right, take WW2 for example, the reasons the Germans didn't win is because they were to cavalier in their attitude, that they would win by simply walking into an area, they thought themselves supreme in conflict and that they could win any battle. The British on the otherhand were strict, disciplined and focused.

I am seeing the similarities between the Nazis and the current US government and its forces.

Not entirely true, check out this piece of history for instance:
The Mussolini rescue

The Nazi's had special forces too, in fact pretty much all countries involved in WW2 had some kind of branch of special forces. It was out of necessity that these forces were built and evolved into what we call modern warfare. We kept learning tricks off each other and learning new ways to hit them where you least expect it but hurts like hell.

Gathering of good intelligence,excellent discipline and dedication and the use of shock and awe tactics is nothing new. WW2 was just the defining moment that military commanders fully realized the potential of specialized small mobile forces.Fear of change military wise was rampant world wide, military leaders of the time must have loved the idea of everyone lining up and shooting muskets and cannons at each other. But that's just bad for morale.


On another note, the reason the SAS is so good is because of the selection process. Those who make it have been through hell and back, they only stand down when ordered too and they don't mess about. To sum them up in a word would be versatile.

As to the point why the SAS were used in this particular raid, maybe they overheard the chatter about US having doubts of a successful raid and were the first to volunteer to do the job. Or it might be possible US forces doubted they could get there in time and the SAS were positioned not too far away, they are always ready to move at any given time.

Either way good job
They are the best bunch of murderous dogs on the planet the ability of "The regiment" is legendary and strikes fear with the mere mention of the name... SAS

reply to post by Soloprotocol


Very true.
The SAS are always in action or on deployment, we only ever hear about it if it's leaked, a rare propaganda piece (they happen from time to time) or when information is released through the Freedom of Information Act.

Originally posted by RAY1990
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

Very true.
The SAS are always in action or on deployment, we only ever hear about it if it's leaked, a rare propaganda piece (they happen from time to time) or when information is released through the Freedom of Information Act.

Nope, not even that, UK SOF is exempt from Freedom of Information

reply to post by Logarock

I have to confess to being largely ignorant of Force Recon. I just did a quick search and it seems the units role combines the role of the SAS and SBS, very impressive with some serious hardware.

reply to post by SaltireWarrior


Double

Post