Seals Vs SAS
-
garganjuh — 18 years ago(January 02, 2008 11:57 PM)
While I do have enormous respect for the SAS, I have to disagree with you saying they're "better" than the SEALs. Firstly, neither SAS or SEALs are better than one another; they are on the same side, they are both highly trained, and they both perform vital(but different) mission roles.
The SAS has several exploits, but these are only exploits because they have been made aware to the public in some form. However, on the other end of the spectrum the sustained casualties, and short comings of the SAS are more often than not, not mentioned at all by the British Government. This predominately positive publicity can often allow one to forget that the men of the SAS are in fact human, well-trained, but inevitably imperfect.
The SEALs also hold the same flaws as the SAS, however most of their successful ops are not reported until years after they were performed, antithetically one is quick to hear of their failed missions from DoD reports, and some less credible conspiracy theorists. Most of the American public does not know what the SEALs do, they just know that they do it.
"it doesnt sound like SEALs can conduct long term deployments where as the SAS can do both. "
Just so you know, you only stated how long the SAS could last on an Op without resupply, not how long the SEALs could last. If you wish to make the statement concrete back it up with facts from both ends. -
Hazzer_99 — 19 years ago(February 22, 2007 08:16 AM)
I agree to an extent that it could be argued that SAS share more in common with Delta than SEALS, but in long run I think that's not quite a fair assessment. The SAS specialise in a number of things as we know, such as fast rope assaults from choppers to HALO jumps into enemy territory - specialities which once would have been covered my multiple teams. But their speciality is as an anti-terrorist unit. They spend more time training in room-to-room storming, stealth, bomb disarming and close-quarter fighting etc. than any other force in the world. Which is why they often travel to other countries to train other forces at the British army's expense. And the team with the second most advanced training could be argued between Germany's GSG9, Israel's Sayeret Matkal and Canada's JTF2, but the first American group to come up, before Delta Force, is DEVGRU (United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group) and it was created immediately after the legendary SEAL Team Six was disbanded to fill their void. And it has far closer ties to the SEALS than Delta, as the SEAL's are, I have been led to believe, where they acquire many of their men from. And of course they both are branches of the NAVY.
I am aware that SEAL Team Six are absolute legends, and since then the SEALS are of course not up to the same standard. Nearly, but not quite, because quite simply no one really could be - if one team has all that they had at their disposal rather than spreading it thinner over multiple teams like they do now they are bound to get a little more out of it, especially if they specialise in anti-terror like Team Six did and are hand picked men.
However, it is my opinion that whereas the modern SEALs do not follow the same guidelines that Team Six did (that's where DEVGRU come in), the SAS actually do. And there are four teams of SAS soldiers, each divided into a father four specialist groups. That's a lot of men who are very,
very
good at what they do as well as having an almost inhuman amount of training.
So, if one were to pick Seal Team Six (which is slightly unfair as they don't share that much in common with those from the movie), but none the less, if it were SEAL Team Six against a hand picked selection of the best of the best from SAS of the same period, you would have yourself a bloody good match, as although Team Six went down in history, the SAS had a lot going on that was so secret, no one knew about it, so one can only imagine what kind of hardcore stuff they got up to. They were, after all, created to do just about the same kind of thing.
But, having said that, I believe if a team of the modern SEALs went up against a team of the modern SAS, or more realistically if they were both put through the same mission or simulated mission like, say, storming a plane, I think the SAS would wip the living crap out of the SEALs. Of course if it were a water-born mission, it would change things. It really does just depend on the mission type. But I think, generally speaking, from what I have read, heard, seen and experienced, the SAS are specialised in more of the vital fields.
Go to the loo, 'cause all the beep is coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole -
rockmail — 17 years ago(December 10, 2008 08:11 AM)
He's a hero, and he's a loon. Most gung-ho military men are, but it's a requirement of the job.
You don't have to separate the two. It takes a certain disdain for the structure of regular society in order to perform harsh military style missions.
It's like having a power saw - you can cut wood with it well, but it makes a mess if you try to cut birthday cake with it.
These guys simply need to be isolated from the majority of society, and kept within their own specialized environments, to be utilized when necessary.
He's useless and a hazard in the civilian world, as most of us would be in military operations. -
mandersj — 20 years ago(November 28, 2005 08:53 AM)
Guys, your over looking the fact that all this discussion about SAS or Navy SEALS the true greatest,toughest, hardest etc etc regiment in the whole world are the Royal Marine Commandos. Like they say 99.99% need not apply.
-
ipmorrison — 19 years ago(September 16, 2006 05:26 PM)
LMAO Delta better than SAS? What HAVE you been smoking? The training of the SAS is much harder, thorough and diverseand they can choose their equipment, so how did you figure that they have worse tech? If Delta had stormed the Iranian Embassy in London, they would have cocked it upthey've done that a few times with hostage rescues. LOL! SAS are the best in the world!
-
stmok — 20 years ago(December 18, 2005 06:44 PM)
Technically, you can't really compare them.
They will have missions that will interleve with each other.
Personally, I think the SAS.
Especially the British one, they have the most combat experience of all.
It explains why other countries that also use the SAS model (like US's Delta, Australia's SAS-Regiment, etc) train with them on regular rotations.
Put it this wayOur Australian SAS-R has never lost a trooper in direct action against an ememy. (We have lost 2 in recent times. One to a land mine in Afghanistan, and one in Iraq, when he was hit by a truck). We did lose a few due to a training accident when one of our Blackhawks crashed due to mechanical failure.
If you read about recent missions, they're pretty bright with the resources they have.
Examples: in Iraq (start of the 2nd Gulf War), instead of storming an Iraqi-held power complex, our SAS-R called in a US Navy F-14 to do a supersonic dash over the target. Why? The sonic boom caused by the F-14 felt like an air attack. The Iraqis surrendered the complex thinking they were being bombed, and the SAS-R took the place without firing a single shot. (The idea was taken from a year before as the SAS-R boys were training, and noticed that the RAAF's flyboys were fooling around in their F/A-18 Hornets.)
In other cases, a SAS-R unti took on an Iraqi patrol. Being outnumbered and outgunned (Iraqis had technicals, as in utility vehicles with machine guns bolted on them), the SAS-R responded with a Javelin anti-tank missile against the technicals. It was surprising to note, that the everyone stopped firing to watch in fascination the missile going in!
In Afghanistan, a US Army unit ran into a sh*tstorm, and a nearby SAS-R patrol saved their butts by calling an airstrike. (RPGs were flying everywhere, virtually everyone was pinned down, and the US Army unit had their radio busted due to enemy fire). It was agreed, though, the Afghan enemy fighters were persistant folks, and despite being pounded from the air by B-52s, they still fought until their numbers dwindled. Back at base, the US Army folks let the SAS-R boys cut-in the lunch line in a mark of respect for their efforts. (SAS-R felt a little embarassed, despite being allowed to cut-in). The SAS-R radioman who called in the airstrike, received a medal from the US. (Although, I suspect it was more of a PR thing from Washington).
Anyway, every time the US goes to warThe first request from their Aussie/NZ and UK allies, is always asking if they can bring their SAS/SAS-R along to crash the party. I suspect the US special forces, overall, have been pretty much stretched to the limits in regards to the "war on terror". (but its not really surprising, as all special forces units around the world face the same issue of never ending commits and the lack of numbers/resources to fulfill them allYou can't lower the standard in training and such, just to make up for the numbers!).
Overall, I respect those who are in the special forces, no matter what country. They do alot of things that most of us civillians have no clue about. -
nakedsteve — 20 years ago(January 11, 2006 04:47 PM)
just wondering. I heard somewhere, that when Richard Marcinko set up seal team 6 there were only teams 1 and 2. he called the new one 6 so the KGB would drive itself nuts trying to find teams 3,4 and 5. anybody know if thats true.
when in doubt empty your weapon in the direction of your doubt's -
ipmorrison — 19 years ago(September 16, 2006 05:22 PM)
And how exactly did you come to that conclusion? I've never laughed so much in my life!!! The SEALS training is hard.i'll give them that, but not as hard as SAS training.no way in hell!