Best Special Forces Branch (of any country)

[anarres]

Kind of OT, but a close friend of mine had a brother who was in the Foreign Legion, basically because he was a very unhappy and violent person as a kid, and general consensus was that he would end up in jail for violent behaviour sooner or later.

I met this guy once.... lets just say I would never upset the man, and if you saw him enter a bar you would leave as quickly as possible. The stories he tells from his time there are just scary - the training described was truely brutal. Of course he has chilled out a lot, this was 20 years ago and he has a wife and kid now.

 

[BCLG100]

SAS not that i know too much about this sort of thing

 

[storealex]

The Americans who are usually nationalistic on this forum all choose US units, and the Europeans angry at America choose SAS just to stick it to the Americans...
What else is new?

I think it's impossible to compare, really. Just clicked SAS because they're kinda the unit that the "special forces branch" was modelled over, but who knows? Screw competitions, it's only real missions that counts, and they have all done so well you cant rate them. What's the difference between:

0.9999999998 and 0.999999999 yes, the answer is that the difference is irrellevant.

I do not hold the standard US soldiers in high esteem (They learn how to kill, but lack training in other very important areas that the modern soldier should learn) but there's no doubt that the US special forces are extremely good soldiers. End of story.

 

[MobBoss]

Now you're accusing me of being a liar too, so Mob boss point to any place where I have lied

Of course. When you said "why would they train all the other Specicail forces if they were crap?" was that truth? Nope. Not all other Special forces are trained by the SAS.

Done and done.

well then I guess I've just been told

Yup.

 

[MobBoss]

I do not hold the standard US soldiers in high esteem (They learn how to kill, but lack training in other very important areas that the modern soldier should learn) but there's no doubt that the US special forces are extremely good soldiers. End of story.

Bold mine. Care to expound on this? As a 20 year member of the US Army I am interested in what you find lacking in our training.

 

[nonconformist]

I was under the impression that the Legion Etrangere was a place for brutes and criminals.
I thought criminals convivted of crimes were usually given the choice of prison, or the Foreign Legion.

I'm far from an expert in modern combat, but my intuition would say the SAS.

However, WWII wise?

SAS for sure.
They attacked an Italian airfield in North Africa, and they had destroyed every plane with charges, bar one.
They had no more charges.
So a SAS man climbs into the cockpit, nd rips off the control panel with hsi bare hands.

British Commandos and Special Boat Squadron too.

The Ghurkas deserve a very honourable mention.
They were trained to use their cruel knives to the most.
One story goes that the British thought it would be a good idea to train the Ghurkas to parachute.

An officer told them "You will jump from several thousand feet" and explained to them in deatail. Towards the end, he tells them how the parachutes work. "We get parachutes?" inquired a Ghurka officer.

German FallschrimJaeger-captured Eben Emae, Belgium's best defended fort, with no casualties. Rescued Mussolini with no casualties.
And mention to the Wehrmacht too. Some of them fought as well as special operatives.

 

[storealex]

Bold mine. Care to expound on this? As a 20 year member of the US Army I am interested in what you find lacking in our training.

Many American soldiers in Iraq don't know to recognise the cars of allied troops in their service area, with friendly fire incidents as a result. Brits and Danes in Iraq often try to avoid going on missions with Americans, because they fear friendly fire, or escalation of conflict because American troops just seem more "trigger happy" than us.
Then there's the "robot soldier" thing, American troops are not trained to think for themselves and take initiative as much as Danes are.
Lack of understanding and respect of the local culture is also a common problem. It seems like the US troops are trained to fight a WWII type war, with lot's of enemies they can shoot at, but when it comes to peacekeeping, lawenforcement and coorporation with allies, US troops lacks behind Brits and Danes.

Finally there's equipment. As I have said before, the stuff Im training with is worse than the stuff we give our soldiers in Iraq, but it's still better than what many American troops have to fight with in Iraq. You have stealth bombers and carriers, but I see American soldiers with no optic sights on their M16s... I see American soldiers with mixed desert and woodland camo because there's not enough desert camo...

 

[Steph]

I was under the impression that the Legion Etrangere was a place for brutes and criminals.
I thought criminals convivted of crimes were usually given the choice of prison, or the Foreign Legion.

With this statement and the previous one about the desert warfare, I have the feeling people still see the Legion as it was at the end of the 19th century. It has evolved a bit you know.
For your information, you cannot enlist in the Legion if you have a criminal record. Shall I start a thread about the Legion to try to answer some of the questions?

 

[Sidhe]

Of course. When you said "why would they train all the other Specicail forces if they were crap?" was that truth? Nope. Not all other Special forces are trained by the SAS.

Done and done.



Yup.

Nope by no means ok saying all was stretching the point, I may of gone a little far but it was not an intentional lie and I'm deeply offended that your implying that I go round lying as a matter of course, we can all be pedantic about what everyone says, but it's really pathetic to call someone a liar and try and point out all the inconsistencies in there discussion, trust me I could wade through alot of the drivel you post and call you a liar, and you would porbably then say oh well I didn''t quite mean that exactly your taking it of context or whatever, but I don't need to play word games with people, I'm sure no one here thinks I'm an inveterate liar except you and I've long since abandoned giving any credence to your opinion.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sidhe]

With this statement and the previous one about the desert warfare, I have the feeling people still see the Legion as it was at the end of the 19th century. It has evolved a bit you know.
For your information, you cannot enlist in the Legion if you have a criminal record. Shall I start a thread about the Legion to try to answer some of the questions?

Yeah after you pointed out the errors in my thread I went and looked them up and I was surprised just how different my perception and the reality were, thus my apology, I suggest you post a link

 

[bathsheba666]

With this statement and the previous one about the desert warfare, I have the feeling people still see the Legion as it was at the end of the 19th century. It has evolved a bit you know.
For your information, you cannot enlist in the Legion if you have a criminal record. Shall I start a thread about the Legion to try to answer some of the questions?

By all means.

An old school friend of mine (30 years ago) ended up in the Legion, after leaving the country under a cloud. I was somewhat shocked to see him (heavily disguised but still recognisable) in a documentary.

His words were 'They don't tend to ask you too many questions about your past'.

I know why he had to leave the country. So, has this also changed recently...?

 

[nonconformist]

With this statement and the previous one about the desert warfare, I have the feeling people still see the Legion as it was at the end of the 19th century. It has evolved a bit you know.
For your information, you cannot enlist in the Legion if you have a criminal record. Shall I start a thread about the Legion to try to answer some of the questions?

Steph, I'm far from ignorant about international matters, especially about France.
My mother is French, and I remain, culturally, very "French". Most of what I'd picked up was from her

 

[Secular]

Many American soldiers in Iraq don't know to recognise the cars of allied troops in their service area, with friendly fire incidents as a result. Brits and Danes in Iraq often try to avoid going on missions with Americans, because they fear friendly fire, or escalation of conflict because American troops just seem more "trigger happy" than us.
Then there's the "robot soldier" thing, American troops are not trained to think for themselves and take initiative as much as Danes are.
Lack of understanding and respect of the local culture is also a common problem. It seems like the US troops are trained to fight a WWII type war, with lot's of enemies they can shoot at, but when it comes to peacekeeping, lawenforcement and coorporation with allies, US troops lacks behind Brits and Danes.

Finally there's equipment. As I have said before, the stuff Im training with is worse than the stuff we give our soldiers in Iraq, but it's still better than what many American troops have to fight with in Iraq. You have stealth bombers and carriers, but I see American soldiers with no optic sights on their M16s... I see American soldiers with mixed desert and woodland camo because there's not enough desert camo...

lol american troops are not as good as others because they are combat troops rather than police in military uniforms... interesting.

Also we have a lot of national gaurd troops there. These guys might better fit your description because they are deffinatly part time soldiers. And whats up with the optical sights? They are only usefull between 30 and 70 meters. Closer than that and you don't need it, farther away then they give a false placement thats no better than iron sights.

 

[MobBoss]

Many American soldiers in Iraq don't know to recognise the cars of allied troops in their service area, with friendly fire incidents as a result. Brits and Danes in Iraq often try to avoid going on missions with Americans, because they fear friendly fire, or escalation of conflict because American troops just seem more "trigger happy" than us.

Hmmm, American soldiers are trained on recognition of "friend/foe" all the time. We even use training aids such as decks of cards with various pictures on them. Not sure it includes the various cars that armies use tho. Bottom line, friendly fire incidents are a fact of war and mistakes happen across all forces. I will agree that we train our people to react to an enemy presence with as much force as possible (overwhelming fire and all that).

Then there's the "robot soldier" thing, American troops are not trained to think for themselves and take initiative as much as Danes are.

You are kidding right? From WW 1 and on, the American soldier has been considered the epitome of being able to take the initiative in a chaotic situation. There was a famous German general during WW II who said, and I paraphrase "War is chaos. However, the American Army trains in chaos daily. Thats why they do so well in war." We teach our soldiers about leadership from their basic training onward and when someone should take charge and lead when they need to. Leadership and initiative are very much ingrained into the American Soldier.

Lack of understanding and respect of the local culture is also a common problem. It seems like the US troops are trained to fight a WWII type war, with lot's of enemies they can shoot at, but when it comes to peacekeeping, lawenforcement and coorporation with allies, US troops lacks behind Brits and Danes.

Before any force is deployed to a foreign area, they are briefed several times and customs and curtesies of the area they are going to. This is usually repeated three or more times to emphasize the point.

Finally there's equipment. As I have said before, the stuff Im training with is worse than the stuff we give our soldiers in Iraq, but it's still better than what many American troops have to fight with in Iraq. You have stealth bombers and carriers, but I see American soldiers with no optic sights on their M16s... I see American soldiers with mixed desert and woodland camo because there's not enough desert camo...

Not all the units have the fancy optic sites for the M16s, that is based upon the table of equipment for the unit. Everyone is taught to use the iron sights that a basic m-16 has for marksmanship and every M-16 has those sights for use. As for the mixed uniforms that is not because there is not enough desert camo, its because the Army is in the midst of adopting a new uniform and color scheme. American troops have historically always carried more weapons and generally better equipment than their counterparts. Nothing has changed there.

 

[Sidhe]

You are kidding right? From WW 1 and on, the American soldier has been considered the epitome of being able to take the initiative in a chaotic situation. There was a famous German general during WW II who said, and I paraphrase "War is chaos. However, the American Army trains in chaos daily. Thats why they do so well in war." We teach our soldiers about leadership from their basic training onward and when someone should take charge and lead when they need to. Leadership and initiative are very much ingrained into the American Soldier.

I'm going to have to agree with him on this and that's two agreements in one evening Both British and American troops pride themselves in taking initiative and countermanding orders in a situation that requires common sense, I can't speak for American troops but this has been a central tennant in the British army for hundreds of years.

 

[Ebitdadada]

its obviously other.
Why? its so secret and so good that we haven't even heard of it.

That's the best answer I've heard so far.

I don't particularily think that anyone here (or anywhere really) is really qualified to answer the question "Who are the best special forces?" but that's just me.

 

[El_Machinae]

Canadian FRT:

What other team has fought on the Moon, and kicked butt?
What other team pushed Cthulhu back into a volcano?
Heck, what other team is equipped with fusion rifles?

We're the best. And everytime you don't hear about our exploits, we've done a proper job.

 

[storealex]

lol american troops are not as good as others because they are combat troops rather than police in military uniforms... interesting.

lol your mama

Listen to what I say will you?

Many American troops are not as good in present day Iraq as some of their allies, because they lack certain training that these allies have. No one can argue that the Brits and Danes are police in military uniforms. These are combat troops that have recieved additional training, which makes them more fit for the job than their American counterparts. To function as a good soldier in Iraq, you have to be able to do more stuff than just fight.

Also we have a lot of national gaurd troops there. These guys might better fit your description because they are deffinatly part time soldiers.

That might be some of the guys Im referring to, yes. I honestly don't know whether the things I've heard about American troops were in fact National Guard troops, I will look into that. I think it is highly possible that these troops drags down the image of the rest of the guys over there. It is wrong to send part time soldiers to Iraq anyway.

And whats up with the optical sights? They are only usefull between 30 and 70 meters. Closer than that and you don't need it, farther away then they give a false placement thats no better than iron sights.

That's not true. Optical sights are extremly useful in anything under 200 meters for the short Colt Carbine, and even longer for the M16. This week I was shooting practice targets at 100 meters with the Carbine, and it was extremely easy to hit a man siezed target with 7 out of 7 bullets. With no optical sights however, it would have been pretty hard. The sights are also good as "binoculars".

 

[MobBoss]

Many American troops are not as good in present day Iraq as some of their allies, because they lack certain training that these allies have. No one can argue that the Brits and Danes are police in military uniforms. These are combat troops that have recieved additional training, which makes them more fit for the job than their American counterparts. To function as a good soldier in Iraq, you have to be able to do more stuff than just fight.

How do you prove such an assertion? The US Army has dedicated Military Police Units that deploy to Iraq and function in that exact capacity. To allege that the American troops are not as good as the Brits and Danes because they cant direct traffic or some such is nonsense. Btw, seems the Danish MPs put out some abuse too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4606350.stm Is this the "special training" you are talking about?

That might be some of the guys Im referring to, yes. I honestly don't know whether the things I've heard about American troops were in fact National Guard troops, I will look into that. I think it is highly possible that these troops drags down the image of the rest of the guys over there. It is wrong to send part time soldiers to Iraq anyway.

A significant percentage of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been Guard and Reserve troops. They certainly perform professionally and do not "drag" down the image of the rest of the "guys" over there. Need I start listing accolades and awards won by "part time" troops?

That's not true. Optical sights are extremly useful in anything under 200 meters for the short Colt Carbine, and even longer for the M16. This week I was shooting practice targets at 100 meters with the Carbine, and it was extremely easy to hit a man siezed target with 7 out of 7 bullets. With no optical sights however, it would have been pretty hard. The sights are also good as "binoculars".

You are nutty. I can hit a man sized target 20 out of 20 times at 100 meters with an M16. 100 meters is nothing. On the M16 qualification range, the 50 meter and 100 meter target are the two easiest targets to hit. Course then again I can hit a man sized target 8 out of 10 times at 300 meters too, just using iron sights.

 

[xyourxmomxcorex]

I thought the Foreign Legion did alot of desert warfare training because they work mainly in African countries? If not then my mistake. And they do para and comando training too? If their not a special force then they might as well be.

Theirs no SAS listed on regimental lists either but they are special forces? Maybe it's the same?

Many recruits come from African Nations.
And parts of the legion are similar to the US Army Speical Forces (aka green berets), but still, the legion is mainly a conventional shock troop/airborne unit, like the Rangers..