[QUOTE]Originally posted by ironwedge

 

i am USMC myself (retired x20) so i should be inclined to opt marine green is best as well, but i am into lots of military history as well, so take a wider point of view.

the argument is still out there that a lot of the smaller specialty units caused more trouble than they are worth. grunts would complain that we got rousted out of some nice r&r time to send a company out to rescue some recon team that got caught up by the enemy and needed help getting home. flip side is when we get them back, or the many more times they got back on their own, the intell they gained made our job easier.

i also love how the airborne folks think they are so elite..... i think you can count the number of truly successful drops on one hand, after they hit the ground, they are just like ordinary ground pounders. one of the 101st biggest victories was bastogne, and if memory servers, they got there by trucks, not planes.

keith

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ironwedge

 

My first response to this thread was: "same job - different uniform."

I haven't made, nor will I make an observation of one unit being better than the other. I do know from personal experience that Marine Recon units are capable over a wide range of missions. I base that on my (first hand) observations of thier operations in Bierut and Iraq. Some operations I took part in (as the air element), others I observed from forward bases. And yes I have had the opportunity to coordinate with SF units outside the US. Not all mind you, but a few. Do I have an opinion of their capability, no.

You on the otherhand, make some very specific obeservations about the capabilities of various units. I asked about your perspective not to put on the defensive, but to find out what it is that you base your opinions on. From your reply, I take it that you do have operational experience with the units you listed, no?

And at the risk of a thread drift, remember this thread was Delta v. Recon

Regards -

 

Yeah, sorry - I did kind of pull the thread into other areas, didn't I?

Secondly, I think I misread/assumed you were saying something you didn't (I was catching a bit of "what? US teams aren't the best" attitude) - my apologies. I was a bit...err...defensive for some reason. Perhaps it was the rolling eyes and question mark face or something.

I have a strong knowledge base/background with regards to Israeli groups especially. While there is much that isn't known by an outsider (ie, a foreigner), they are fairly open with a lot of their work and accomplishments because it is a relatively effective deterrent to those that would try and mess with Israel. I'm about equally well versed on the SAS and American special forces, enough to talk about them and critique, though I'm sure there is also much of them I don't know...

Ultimately, I would always go with Israelis because they seem to be the most motivated - after all, they tend to be the most threatened at any given time. They also use some pretty spiffy gear, both Israeli and US made (among others) and are very, very effective at "wet work".

The SAS are ultra-capable but don't have the technology of the USA - their strength is in their "wet work" capabilities. Very good in hands on and team work but not so effective at greater distances or really "hairy" situations that require a lot of information/data (that's where the USA really shines).

The American teams, while superb (heck - all the teams are pretty sharp, no matter what country), seem to rely more on technology than on good 'ol muscle and guts. It works most of the time when going up against a "normal" soldier, but try it against elite units/teams and it's not nearly so effective. It's not that the soldiers aren't as good but rather that they're not so self-reliant as some of the opposing groups.

Recon (in my eyes) is more like the "All-Star" team for the regular military, as opposed to the actual creme de la creme of all the military, if you catch what I mean. They're the best of those that didn't quite make it into the SEALs (or possibly Delta) for some reason. Not that they couldn't do it - I believe many could - but something kept them out... They're a tough group of guys, though - I know at least one guy that is with them and he's told me a few horror stories of what he's had to do and deal with... They also do a lot that most folks don't hear about....ever. You'd think that a more "regular" group would not be used in such a clandestine manner but they're quite active.

To top it off, the majority of these guys (on every team) is a veritable war machine. Tough physically and mentally, they do what few of us could do no matter what the motivation. While I can critique them as an outsider, to nullify their accomplishments would be greatly disrespectful.

 

It's ok to be tough mentally and physically, but superior technology helps to prevent us from having to prove it. Trust me, as a retired Navy man (and we'll just leave it at that), our guys are plenty greatful for having far superior equipment to fight the battles required of them. Nobody wants to fight a war with sticks and stones. Unfortunately, many units throughout the world are hard-edged not so much because they want to be, rather they HAVE to be for lack of technology. In those areas where experience and knowledge of the area counts more than the latest doo-dads, it is those men who will always have the upper hand as history as shown us time and time again.

 

Let's revisit the original post.

Better at what? Killing, intel gathering, trained, outfitted, at being lazy asses, dancing,...?

Each unit is unique in what they do, true. Individuals within one group will eat other individuals from a different group as a snack and vice a versa.

Better at what?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JPJB
Why dont you trump the lot of them and state that the SAS are the best there is