Special forces

[PeterCrisp]

Why are special forces in such short supply and what are the drawbacks of special forces?

While I realise that these forces are expensive and require better trained people than normal forces surely countries like the UK could afford more of them if as the media would have you believe they are "virtual super soldiers who can do almost anything".

So what are the benefits and shortcomings of special forces and why did the allies not just flood the battlefield with them in places like Iraq during the 2 wars?

 

[Feanor]

Special forces lack heavy equipment and this is a major drawback. U.S. rangers in Somalia learned that the hard way.

 

[Cadredave]

Special Forces take a long time to train there skills are usally for strategic tasking not tactical, which is where conventinal forces work, they have the armour arty etc.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

Why are special forces in such short supply and what are the drawbacks of special forces?

While I realise that these forces are expensive and require better trained people than normal forces surely countries like the UK could afford more of them if as the media would have you believe they are "virtual super soldiers who can do almost anything".

So what are the benefits and shortcomings of special forces and why did the allies not just flood the battlefield with them in places like Iraq during the 2 wars?

SAS was used extensively in the First gulf war I have a book all about SAS that talks about that they went hunting for scuds behind enemy lines in Iraq, the Iraqis launched a huge witch hunt for them which usually what happens when special forces are used. You get my point, Special Forces more and more (at least the ones in N. America and Europe) for shoot and scoot missions because when they get caught info and propaganda can be "harvested" from the captured special forces. Turkey uses them extensively and they have the worlds largest special forces group the Mountain Commandos (they where the Blue Berets), they are used a lot for anti terror in rural areas whereas the much much more elite group the Maroon Berets are used mostly in the rural but also specialize in Urban anti terror although they do not do the latter much often. Maroon Berets have won many international Spec Forces competitions against the best from all over the world (incl Green Berets USA, GSG 9 who did very well 2nd to Maroon Berets and Greek Special forces who where midway in the pack of 30 some odd spec forces groups that entered). Turkey also has SAT which are identical to U.S SEALS in fact they are trained in the U.S, I do not know how much they are used they are I know the only ones in the since 1974 that have been used by the TSK against any foreign military, they are they ones that took back Kardak from the Greek invaders some time in the mid 90's. There is the Parachute commando (airborne) group that last saw major action in the 1974 Cyprus conflict, although they might have been used again but I do not know. Both SAT and Maroon Berets are "jack of all trades" although SAT is much better in under water. Maroon berets are trained in Turkey, one elimination round in the process in training is when the candidates only have there shorts on they have a 5km very tough path they have to run and are given a 30 minute head start before the release the dogs.

 

[Chino]

Actually another way of looking at it is that SF are actually "cost effective". A smaller, lightly-armed (but highly-trained) force that can create a big headache in many creative ways.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

Actually another way of looking at it is that SF are actually "cost effective". A smaller, lightly-armed (but highly-trained) force that can create a big headache in many creative ways.

Yeah something like the U.S Marine Recon force right but much larger.

 

[lobbie111]

Yeah something like the U.S Marine Recon force right but much larger.

Don't take me wrong here I have the utmost respect for American forces but I would like to share this with you...

Comparison of military operational tactics (Snake model)

Infantry:
Snake smells them, leaves area.

Airborne:
Lands on and kills the snake.

Armor:
Runs over snake, laughs, and looks for more snakes.

Aviation:
Has GPS coordinates to snake.
Can't find snake. Returns to base for refuel, crew rest and manicure.

Ranger:
Plays with snake, then eats it.

Field Artillery:
Kills snake with massive Time On Target barrage
with three Forward Artillery Brigades in support. Kills several
hundred civilians as unavoidable collateral damage. Mission is
considered a success and all participants (i.e., cooks, mechanics
and clerks) are awarded Silver Stars.

Special Forces:
Makes contact with snake, ignores all State
Department directives and Theater Commander Rules of Engagement by
building rapport with snake and winning its heart and mind. Trains it
to kill other snakes. Files enormous travel settlement upon return.

Combat Engineer:
Studies snake. Prepares in-depth doctrinal
thesis in obscure 5 series Field Manual about how to defeat snake using
counter mobility assets. Complains that maneuver forces don't
understand how to properly conduct doctrinal counter-snake ops.

Navy SEAL:
Expends all ammunition and calls for naval gunfire
support in failed attempt to kill snake. Snake bites SEAL and
retreats to safety. Hollywood makes fantasy film in which SEALS
kill Muslim extremist snakes.

Navy:
Fires off 50 cruise missiles from various types of ships,
kills snake and makes presentation to Senate Appropriations
Committee on how Naval forces are the most cost-effective means of
anti-snake Force projection.

Marine:
Kills snake by accident while looking for souvenirs.
Local civilians demand removal of all US forces from Area ofOperations.

Marine Recon:
Follows snake, gets lost.

There are a heap more of these and a couple of pages more at military-quotes

 

[lozza]

SF are the best trained unit of the majority of armies they belong to.
It takes a lot of time and money to get a fully trained Brit SAS Aust SASR, SEALS and all the other S/F's world wide. I mention these three as they are the one i am most familiar with and are three of very few S/F's actually out their 24/7 and so on.
Most training is on not being seen, and how to get out unseen after a firefight.
The rest is to turn them into highly trained men capable of taking any situation on with out blinking.
This makes the trained and combat experianced S/F"s, a high quality prize firstly of course the many 'quasi' military firms working in Iraq/Afgnstan, who have massive budgets for wages and will offer more than any Army can in re up bonuses and deployment etc wages. Also the private world of business want these men and Officers as well.
So the Military is in a spot they can easily loose O/R's, NCO"S, Officers to these other pursuits which means we have to keep replacing these men who move on.
Luckily many S/F's who have and continue to do the hard yards stay on or come back.
Do we need more yep but to flood the battlefield, mate as someone said these men have no or very little heavy support weapons.
And to build a army of S/F's super soldiers, well lets just keep the INF and Cav etc well trained.
Let all arms do their job!


regards Loz

 

[Cooch]

Bear one thing in mind.

Elite units require not only special training , doctrine and equipment, but the selection of elite soldiers. Such selection tends to be extremely rigorous, and only a small percentage of soldiers who qualify for general combat duties would meet the physical and mental standards for the elite units under discussion.

It would not be difficult to create large "special" units on paper, but in order to fill in the numbers we will have to ease the selection criteria so that these units no longer consist of the very best soldiers that we have...... and the results will reflect this.

Respectfully......... Peter

 

[Feanor]

You could compensate for lower standards with longer and more rigorous training and preparatory procedures, though of course only up to a point. However the practicality of large special forces units escapes me. If they're large they're not unnoticeable, not to mention that special forces units are only needed in small quantities, in relation to the regular troops the army is fielding.

 

[Cooch]

You could compensate for lower standards with longer and more rigorous training and preparatory procedures, though of course only up to a point.

I doubt it.
If my understanding is correct, the training undertaken by our elite units is already as rigorous and comprehensive as can be reasonably expected of even the fittest and most dedicated soldiers. Expecting more from soldiers who would not meet the current selection standards does not sound reasonable.

Reality is that while the successes achieved by our special forces have often been spectacular and hence very attractive to our politicians, the number of scenarios requiring their specialist skills is limited. Rather than attempting to create an army in which every combat soldier is "special" in that sense of the word, surely it is better to train and equip your line infantry units for the types of combat which they are most commonly required to undertake.

I have not served, but my contact with those who have indicates that our infantry battalions have considerable skills and training in their own line of work..... and formations of that nature are needed.

Respectfully....... Peter

 

[PeterCrisp]

Thanks for the interesting replies. I think I was under the misguided impression that a bunch of special forces could do almost anything. Lastly do regular troops ever get annoyed by the reverence that the media has for the Special forces (especially the SAS in the UK) and that as soon as they get wind that they may be on the scene all the adulation for a job well done goes to them? As has been said the skill sets of most regiments is quite high anyway.

 

[Feanor]

If the training cycle of special forces is expanded to several years, that include a specific diet, etc. it would be possible to bring larger numbers into the field.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

If the training cycle of special forces is expanded to several years, that include a specific diet, etc. it would be possible to bring larger numbers into the field.

Never thought, it is a very good idea of that but you probably need very young applicants. Also a program like that would be very very expensive worth it in the long run though.

 

[Feanor]

You can accomplish almost anything, though the price to pay may be very high.

 

[Cooch]

If the training cycle of special forces is expanded to several years, that include a specific diet, etc. it would be possible to bring larger numbers into the field.

IF that were feasible, then the diet and training should be applied to all combat personnel in order to bring about improved performance.

However the idea that we can somehow ignore selection and bring the performance level of all personnel up to the standard of the elite is wishful thinking. Not only should any such fanciful diet and training regime be available to the best of our soldiers - as well as the average - but the truth is that under any regime, some personnel will react better than others. We cannot get away from the genetic variation inherent in any body of human beings. Just as we cannot take an average person, put them through an Olympic training regime, and expect them to perform at the same level as elite athletes. They may come closer, but there will still be a significant difference. Training and diet will only ever enhance and develop natural potential, they will never entirely compensate for the lack of it.

In short, while it may be possible to raise both baseline and average performance, elite units must always require elite soldiers,,,, and this requires strong selection pressure.

Respectfully......... Peter

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the training cycle of special forces is expanded to several years, that include a specific diet, etc. it would be possible to bring larger numbers into the field.

Phyiscal capability is not the greatest determinant for specwarrie selection.

In SASR there is a greater emphasis on other attributes such as mental discipline, character issues, competency...

Prior to there being an international shortage of decent individuals at the specwarrie level, SASR used to have an average age that was closer to the low 30's, that was because the pref then was for people with solid soldiering foundations and a different level of military maturity. Other forces have different priorities - but all of them nowadays do NOT focus on physicality as the dominant selection element.

 

[aleksandr]

How you concern to Russia?

 

[Feanor]

Understandable of course. So the training cycle would have to be lengthened to perhaps 5-8 years, with mental discipline etc.

I'm not saying that with the proper training anyone can get in. I'm just saying that to an extent lowering of standards can be compensated for by greater training and preparatory procedures. I'm not saying it's a good idea (especially in terms of cost) or that it should be done. Just that it's possible.

 

[Chrom]

Understandable of course. So the training cycle would have to be lengthened to perhaps 5-8 years, with mental discipline etc.

I'm not saying that with the proper training anyone can get in. I'm just saying that to an extent lowering of standards can be compensated for by greater training and preparatory procedures. I'm not saying it's a good idea (especially in terms of cost) or that it should be done. Just that it's possible.

But then again such special forces would cost exponentially more. For example, to train 10.000 SF soldiers you would need 3 years training for each and 100 mills $, but to train 50.000 SF soldiers you would need 8 years for each and 2000 mils $. Somewhere line must be drawn and current SF forces size reflect than line.

P.S. We could also wonder about present super-elite SF units where each soldier is even more capable than average SF soldier ... why not train more of them? The answer is same - cost, time and human availability (which is also connected to humanitarian issues like no one should be trained from childhood for army services, etc).