Special forces
- Thread starter PeterCrisp
- Start date
And once more, we need to remind you that the cost is very probably greater than the benefit. In which case, why should anyone bother?
Peter.
you need to be specific. one element of the chinese SF community is bigger than the entire uniformed component of the ADF.
there is SF, black, high intensity green, blue and CT (let alone numerous other elements.)
the CCP has been reinvigorating and restructuring it's SF element and doctrine since GW1.
Not being pedantic but!
US SEALS are Navy not USMC, the latter has a dedicated specialized recon unit
GIGN are recruited from the Police, similar to GSG9, not military.
The PRC has both PSB and military designated SF teams. The former focusing on the 'black' role the latter more on the green, including maritime (beach recon, Drager O2 trained, under-way and along side operatives), similar to UK SBS & Navy Seals. They also have large numbers of tier-two assets, similar to the US Rangers fulfilling the outer cordon function protecting the tier-one assets whilst they conduct surgical strikes against predesignated targets.
I understand the Chinese tier-one assets have taken part in CTC and have received limited training from unnamed overseas units (Western).
US SEALS are Navy not USMC, the latter has a dedicated specialized recon unit
GIGN are recruited from the Police, similar to GSG9, not military.
The PRC has both PSB and military designated SF teams. The former focusing on the 'black' role the latter more on the green, including maritime (beach recon, Drager O2 trained, under-way and along side operatives), similar to UK SBS & Navy Seals. They also have large numbers of tier-two assets, similar to the US Rangers fulfilling the outer cordon function protecting the tier-one assets whilst they conduct surgical strikes against predesignated targets.
I understand the Chinese tier-one assets have taken part in CTC and have received limited training from unnamed overseas units (Western).
Do you understand what startegy and tactics are???
The reasoning behind the utilisation of spetail forces in small groups as aposed to en mass such as you would see with the employment of convential is that it defys the point of a special forces unit. In war time they are used to attack hard to hit targets, normally the centre of gravity of the enemy, though this role has been largly replaced by the coming of age of airpower and precision weapon systems. Instead they are moving towards the role of disruption of lines of communications, such as seen by SAS standing patrols in the gulf in 91.
FireForEffect
New Member
What about the equipments that Spec Ops use.
Can't we Just equip regular division with Spec Ops equipment
I heard the HK 416 is being used by the SOCOM why not equip them to individual marines
Can't we Just equip regular division with Spec Ops equipment
I heard the HK 416 is being used by the SOCOM why not equip them to individual marines
It's not the equipment that is the primary tool of benefit - it's niche training, competency at discrete tasks, tasking issues.
giving everyone HK's does not a specwarrie or "more efficient soldier make"
ThunderBolt
New Member
I think what you are looking for is something in the middle, like the Rangers or the SSG of pakistan, 800 personal of the SSG took on more than 20000 indian troops during the Kargil war, the casualties were 1 SSG to 10 Indian Soldier. 357 to 3500... Pakistan uses SSG in large numbers although their training is very high such as the green berets so are their numbers. Even if you look at the past Red Mosque situation, the goverment used the SSG there in quite large amounts. And it was a success. Although they might not be as highly trianed as the SEALS, but the SSG can be used as regular army, but SEALS can't, they are only meant for box jobs, any thing out side the box and you need the regular infantry, but the Marines and Rangers would be better for those out side the job situations and pretty decent for the box jobs as well.
Here's a pic that will at least help identify the PLA SF. The camo pattern looks very similar to the Filippino pattern.
And on closer examination the criss-cross pattern of the cloth show that it is a rip-stop material unlike the cheap cotton woodland-pattern camo uniforms of the ordinary army.
In newer pics where they use the QBZ-97, the SF still wore this same pattern.
In addition to what's already said by others, the PAP also has its own SF that is closer to SWAT or CT as PAP is responsible for internal security (but not exclusively so... ref Tiananmen).
And on closer examination the criss-cross pattern of the cloth show that it is a rip-stop material unlike the cheap cotton woodland-pattern camo uniforms of the ordinary army.
In newer pics where they use the QBZ-97, the SF still wore this same pattern.
In addition to what's already said by others, the PAP also has its own SF that is closer to SWAT or CT as PAP is responsible for internal security (but not exclusively so... ref Tiananmen).
Super Nimrod
New Member
GF0012 has it about right based upon my limited understanding. A lot of it is about niche work and your typical SAS trooper could spend 3 years going from course to course learning certain specialist skills. Not everyone would do the same training.
My brother (a civilian with a semi-technical job) about 12 years ago trained 2 lots of these guys to do his job for a week each, as they would need to stand in for him or someone like him in 'certain circumstances'. He said they were not the supermen you would think in the classical sense. He described them as 30's wirey, lean guys, all under 6 feet and were very anonymous and would not stand out in a crowd. They were however intelligent fast learners, very observant and always seemed to ask the right questions. A couple of them he thought had quite strange personalities that one would not associate with regular soldiers.
Although they didn't talk much they did say that they spent ages training except for when on ops and that they had to be in the job for about 3-4 years before being elligable for promotion although they all carried dual ranks being sergeants in their main unit but just plain troopers in the SF.
One of the criticisms I have seen a books about some countries SF is that they are not special enough with too many career soldiers just ticking the 'served with SF' box on their CV's. From what I understand about the UK SF it doesn't quite work like that and that you are 'in' until you are kicked out as you really are special to get there to start with, and they don't want to lose that talent having invested so much in successful candidates.
My brother (a civilian with a semi-technical job) about 12 years ago trained 2 lots of these guys to do his job for a week each, as they would need to stand in for him or someone like him in 'certain circumstances'. He said they were not the supermen you would think in the classical sense. He described them as 30's wirey, lean guys, all under 6 feet and were very anonymous and would not stand out in a crowd. They were however intelligent fast learners, very observant and always seemed to ask the right questions. A couple of them he thought had quite strange personalities that one would not associate with regular soldiers.
Although they didn't talk much they did say that they spent ages training except for when on ops and that they had to be in the job for about 3-4 years before being elligable for promotion although they all carried dual ranks being sergeants in their main unit but just plain troopers in the SF.
One of the criticisms I have seen a books about some countries SF is that they are not special enough with too many career soldiers just ticking the 'served with SF' box on their CV's. From what I understand about the UK SF it doesn't quite work like that and that you are 'in' until you are kicked out as you really are special to get there to start with, and they don't want to lose that talent having invested so much in successful candidates.
There is also another problem with all these SF units - they dont stand a chance against regular army in direct combat. They are good at specialized tasks like sabotage, etc - but in actual combat they will always lose badly against properly equipped average soldier (well, not the soldier itself - rather to tanks, artillery, aviation which support said soldier and have no relation to SF)
Any commander worth his salt is not going to waste his/her SF assets against conventional forces in an overt role. SF remain an expensive (average USD2 mil to train each sabre sqn operative) strategic asset utilized to cause maximum effect with limited man-power against carefully selected targets. In a conventional war scenario they will be used behind enemy lines to disrupt communications, attack supply lines, assassinate key commanders and gather intelligence. In the asymmetrical / counter insurgency role they will again be used for surveillance, intelligence gathering and surgical strikes.
Casualties in SF units tend to be much lower than conventional infantry because they are used for only highly specialised missions supported by a huge array of high-tech equipment, weapons and intelligence gathering resources. In most cases tier-one SF teams will have there own protective screen / outer cordon of tier-two units ensuring they are unmolested and not detracted from their primary mission.
If you are forced to deploy such high-end resources against conventional armour / tanks / artillery other than them squatting unseen behind a laser range finder ready to bring down a world of pain from above or over the horizen then you are in deep, deep s**t militarily :shudder
Casualties in SF units tend to be much lower than conventional infantry because they are used for only highly specialised missions supported by a huge array of high-tech equipment, weapons and intelligence gathering resources. In most cases tier-one SF teams will have there own protective screen / outer cordon of tier-two units ensuring they are unmolested and not detracted from their primary mission.
If you are forced to deploy such high-end resources against conventional armour / tanks / artillery other than them squatting unseen behind a laser range finder ready to bring down a world of pain from above or over the horizen then you are in deep, deep s**t militarily :shudder
Yes the standards would have to be lowered to create larger special units. Instead of increasing the standard of the special forces we should instead increase the standard of the conventional army. This would result in a massive drop in numbers however you could then create a full time "army reserve" organisation, or a "National Guard".
This full time army reserve could have even lower standards than the current army increasing the size of the army. However this wont lower the standards of front line units that see combat in any way. The full time army reserve can also train with the part time army reserve units. As the full time army reserve would be less demanding and easier to get into it may encourage part time army reservists to become full time.
The full time reserves would only have to deploy overseas in emergencies. Any full time army reserve soldier can be promoted to the full time regular army by training to pass the required tests.
Currently we have (i've included a skill level):
200 special force soldiers - 100% skill level
25,000 full time troops - 70% skill level
15,000 part time reserves - 30% skill level
We would then have:
200 special forces soldiers - 100% skill level
10,000 full time troops - 80% skill level
20,000 full time reserves - 50% skill level
10,000 part time reserves - 30% skill level
As a result the full time troops have a higher skill level as weak links are placed into the full time reserves.
Soldiers can quite often move up and down between full time troop to full time reserve, depending if they pass the fitness test, want action, or want to settle down at a reserve training facility in their region. Some may prefer to be a leader in the full time reserve rather than a follower in the full time troop. Some may prefer the opposite.
Equipment wise, the full time army reserve can get all the old vehicles, kit and weapons from the full time front line forces to play around with. This saves money. Also as you now have a smaller leaner front line army bringing in new equipment and standardising it will be much simpler.
It could work well.
With Australia getting fatter keeping the high level of standards will become difficult. You dont have to be that fit to drive a supply truck so if shit hit the fan the full time reserve units can do all the secondary/logistical stuff.
Last edited:
There is a difference between the SF roles in different countries. Some prefer to use them for discretionary niche violence against a rated target, others employ them in ISR roles. eg SAS/SASR/NZSAS tend to follow the ISR process as their job is not to visit violence on the enemy unless absolutely mission critical or if they are compromised.
In the above case, any regular force commander who elects to use them as blunt instruments doesn't understand their particular operational strengths.
they are not meant to be used force on force - and there are any number of examples in the service history of some of the above when they came under regular command, that commander used them completely out of line to their capability - and then wondered why things did not work out as expected.
they're not supermen, they're niche discriminatory assets.
that figure does not remotely reflect the actuals....
Yes, that is what i meant. SF cant substitute even ordinary infantry, not to tell other army assests. They are specialized instrument just like AWACS or Recon, or Interceptor planes in aviation - good when used properly for own taks, but cant substitute other assets.
However i got impression what the original discussion was rather along the lines "why ordinary units cant receive the same amount of training / weapon quality/ physical conditions level as SF". This is somewhat another matter.
In my opinion, the answer remains the same.
Requiring your large formations to undergo the same training for niche roles as is undertaken by SF detracts from the time and resources available to train them for their primary roles.
Equipment levels and types must vary according to the same criteria.
Physical condition also depends upon time, job requirements and the human resources available. Not all recruits are equal, either physically, mentally or morally.
My own service is not in the military, but in firefighting. Here, too, it makes no sense to train and equip people for roles in which they are extremely unlikely to find themselves. It is counter-productive, a waste of limited resources, and a waste of the time and good-will of the people involved.
No military has unlimited resources.
Peter
Why would you put your SF soldiers against normal combat soldiers, SF are Strategic troops, Normal regular soldiers are tactical , calling in artillery, fighter ground attack, Spectra Gunships is a normal day at the office for SF soldiers most regular army are not trained to call in artillery and or F.G.A aircraft if I was a betting man I'll put my money on SF.