Which country has the better Special forces, UK or USA [Dark Storm vs. avion365]

[avion365]

The challenger, Dark Storm, asked me to start this thread as he is compiling sources.
original post;

Topic:

Which country has the better Special forces, UK or USA
Details: Which of these countries has the better trained, and equipped special forces.
My position: I would choose the UK, as i believe the SAS, are more effective and better all round than the US special forces.

Note that is Dark Storm saying his position.

My current position is that the United States is better.

Opening Statement;
My oppenent is on the opinion that, over all, the S.A.S. is better than the United States, in terms of technology and Training, I however disagree. The United States has a much bigger advantage in tech than the U.K. and while the U.K. does have a very good training program for thier forces, they are out matched by Delta and the SEALs. While i conclude that the SEALS in a one to one fight would not win on land, the S.A.S. would be distroyed on any operation that is remotly close to what SEALs are trained in, such as Jungle or Ship combat. On terms of Delta, while i can not go into detail becuse the information is simply not there, i am of the opinion that Delta has a advantage over the S.A.S. in almout all ground situations. This is Largly in part of the fact that Delta has Huge support elements and for the most part, has been able to keep out of the spotlight, yet in it, for many year. With delta you do not know what to expect, thus you have a very big X-Factor. Even to day we do not know the full training of Delta. We don't see any of thier missions unless they fail, or it has extreme political impact. The S.A.S. however seems to have sort of the same view, only with less experiance. While Delta has been in almost constant need (as well as SEALs) i have not seen any report of the S.A.S. doing anything huge in the past years. While this may mean they are doing things right it may also mean they are not as active as Delta, thus Delta has better Exp.
so as follows

Delta vs S.A.S.

Training; not possibly known due to most of it beeing classified, but i would say Equal

Tech; Advantage to U.S.

Exp;Advantage to U.S.

Enviroment; Ground areas; Delta Sea; equal or slight advantage to S.A.S.

Zeal; equal

SEALs vs S.A.S.

Training; giving it to the brits here

Tech; U.S.

Exp; U.S.

Evniroment; sea, SEALs, land, S.A.S.

Zeal; equal

sorces;
"Black Hawk Down" Mark Bowden @2001
"Mammoth Book of Special Forces" will find details later
"Inside Delta Force: The Story of America's Elite Counterterrorist Unit" Eric Haney @ 2005
"S.A.S.: Great Britians Elite Special Air Service" Leroy Thompson @ 1994

[avion365]

if you would look at the visitor messages between dark strom and me then you would notice this is the right section and your not relly supposed to post here only me, him and the mods

edit; PMed me apperently posted in wrong section, no probs mate

[Dark Storm]

I would like to apologise for my lateness, I have had quite a large amount of work to do. I shall reply by tomorrow evening by the latest. Once again I am truly sorry.

[Dark Storm]

I'm sorry you can close this, I just don't have the experience on this argument to offer a fair defence against Avion

[Darkhorse]

I could take over if Avion and yourself would like?

[avion365]

sure, i was hoping for a debate, but only if Dark_Storm is ok with it, it was his debate

[Dark Storm]

Go ahead Darkhorse, I am absolutely certain you can offer a better argument than myself

[Darkhorse]

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to stake my claim in this interesting debate, my counterpart here, has stated his current position that that the United States' special operations forces are better than their prestigious rivals here in the United Kingdom.

I beg to differ.

My opponent is of the opinion that the United States' special operations forces have the technological advantage, indeed, by looking at Ghosthawk this could be understood. I however, completely disagree. Whilst I understand that the US might well provide some intricate and interesting bits of kit that are highly advanced, and that the SAS do not use, but this wouldn't be because because the United Kingdom is lagging behind, it would be because the British feel such equipment is not required. It is important to note that in many ways British military equipment is indeed equal to, or superior on comparison to the United States. Looking at our new Astute Class submarines or Type 45 destroyers helps to prove this. I would say that as a general rule British and American equipment is on a technological basis at least on parity. Do not forget that the beast, BAE systems, produces many items of equipment for the US military, designed here, in the UK (M777 for eg) And lastly, of course, special operations forces and their general usage is often very primitive, with only their extraction and deployment needing high tech equipment. Special Operations Forces are all about the man, which brings me neatly on to...

Training. My counterpart does rightly identify and credits the UK's excellent training programme. But is of the impression they are outmatched by Delta and the SEALs. The SAS train numerous special forces, including the Australian SAS and US Spec ops forces. If nothing else, the SAS show an unmatched level of fitness you would typically only find in airborne forces, and can and do carry heavy bits of kit such as GPMG's and mortars on even their smallest four man patrols. I'd like to stress that it is the general consensus that British and Commonwealth training is vastly superior to any other nations, with the UK's being at the top of that Commonwealth mountain - and its true. It simply makes sense. The UK can invest great time and effort on their army, which is roughly 8 to 10 times smaller than the United States and standardise training across the board. REGULAR British army training can last up to 42 weeks, but usually 26 weeks, our Royal Marines have the longest standard training in the world, the Red Berets are not far behind. Our Army reserve has had all this training, and our TA forces (equal to National Guard) have at least 8 weeks. On the contrary, US training differs, whilst acceptable, training can result their units being superb, yet, some units training and ability is dire, some national guard units are trained better than regulars and even have more combat experience. Whilst Special Forces training we can presume is top notch, I find it hard to believe that a soldier coming from the rabble that is the US Army (I use rabble in a playful manner) can really surpass that of Britain's little army.

My counterpart holds the view that the SAS "would be destroyed on any operation that is remotely close to what SEALs are trained in, such as Jungle or Ship combat." I'd like to refute this point. Whilst I am aware that SEAL service in Vietnam was excellent, I'd like to draw your attention to the British use of Special Forces in Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, and Kenya, Malaya in particular is a shining example of how a Special Forces unit should fight in the jungle. For ship combat, look at the SBS, although the SAS is more than capable at launching ship raids. And I would like to invite US Special Forces to the Desert, where the SAS are most used, such as in Yemen, Oman, Aden, Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

My counterpart implies that Delta's supposed superiority is due to the fact that Delta has support elements and because they have been able to keep out of the spotlight however I must add that the SAS try to keep out of the media. The publicity they received following the 1980 Princes Gate siege was not wanted, and the SAS has tried to keep out of the limelight ever since. Some of their actions in Sierra Leone, the Falklands, in both Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan are known about, but not in any great detail, and there are many operations in Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan we will simply not know about for a long time. Typically, its only blunders than anyone really hears about these days, such as Tehran, or Somalia for SEALS and Delta, or Bravo Two Zero for the SAS, yet even SAS blunders are prestigious! As for the claim suggesting Delta's superiority comes from their support units such as Rangers, well, it this is of course true that Delta has these support units, but it is no measure of superiority as the same goes for the SAS. The SAS are often supported by the SBS, Mobility Troop, 1st PARA battalion, 16th air assault brigade, the SRR, BRF, Pathfinders, and 148th Metilika.

Allow me to try and draw some kind of brief conclusion. I feel that the technological differences between the UK and US special forces is null and void, as the equipment is similar, the nature of Spec Ops work is primitive and often low tech, and both the UK and US have elements of technology superior to one another. It is wrong to underestimate UKSF, in particular the SAS, because of a lack of/too much media coverage or on a purely technological basis. Whilst US special operations forces are excellent, and more than able to fulfil their role, I would say at best that they match the SAS.

And now I run to a lecture...

The Operators
Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army
Storm Front
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife - Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam
True Stories from the SAS and other elite forces
Bravo Two Zero
Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare
Lecture with SAS trooper Soldier I - Royal Engineers Museum
Lecture with A company, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers - University of Kent
Lecture on Counterinsurgency by P.Donaldson - University of Kent

[avion365]

Sry today is my b-day, i wil post my rebutle tommorow

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to stake my claim in this interesting debate, my counterpart here, has stated his current position that that the United States' special operations forces are better than their prestigious rivals here in the United Kingdom.

I beg to differ.

My opponent is of the opinion that the United States' special operations forces have the technological advantage, indeed, by looking at Ghosthawk this could be understood. I however, completely disagree. Whilst I understand that the US might well provide some intricate and interesting bits of kit that are highly advanced, and that the SAS do not use, but this wouldn't be because because the United Kingdom is lagging behind, it would be because the British feel such equipment is not required. It is important to note that in many ways British military equipment is indeed equal to, or superior on comparison to the United States. Looking at our new Astute Class submarines or Type 45 destroyers helps to prove this. I would say that as a general rule British and American equipment is on a technological basis at least on parity. Do not forget that the beast, BAE systems, produces many items of equipment for the US military, designed here, in the UK (M777 for eg) And lastly, of course, special operations forces and their general usage is often very primitive, with only their extraction and deployment needing high tech equipment. Special Operations Forces are all about the man, which brings me neatly on to...

Training. My counterpart does rightly identify and credits the UK's excellent training programme. But is of the impression they are outmatched by Delta and the SEALs. The SAS train numerous special forces, including the Australian SAS and US Spec ops forces. If nothing else, the SAS show an unmatched level of fitness you would typically only find in airborne forces, and can and do carry heavy bits of kit such as GPMG's and mortars on even their smallest four man patrols. I'd like to stress that it is the general consensus that British and Commonwealth training is vastly superior to any other nations, with the UK's being at the top of that Commonwealth mountain - and its true. It simply makes sense. The UK can invest great time and effort on their army, which is roughly 8 to 10 times smaller than the United States and standardise training across the board. REGULAR British army training can last up to 42 weeks, but usually 26 weeks, our Royal Marines have the longest standard training in the world, the Red Berets are not far behind. Our Army reserve has had all this training, and our TA forces (equal to National Guard) have at least 8 weeks. On the contrary, US training differs, whilst acceptable, training can result their units being superb, yet, some units training and ability is dire, some national guard units are trained better than regulars and even have more combat experience. Whilst Special Forces training we can presume is top notch, I find it hard to believe that a soldier coming from the rabble that is the US Army (I use rabble in a playful manner) can really surpass that of Britain's little army.

My counterpart holds the view that the SAS "would be destroyed on any operation that is remotely close to what SEALs are trained in, such as Jungle or Ship combat." I'd like to refute this point. Whilst I am aware that SEAL service in Vietnam was excellent, I'd like to draw your attention to the British use of Special Forces in Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, and Kenya, Malaya in particular is a shining example of how a Special Forces unit should fight in the jungle. For ship combat, look at the SBS, although the SAS is more than capable at launching ship raids. And I would like to invite US Special Forces to the Desert, where the SAS are most used, such as in Yemen, Oman, Aden, Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

My counterpart implies that Delta's supposed superiority is due to the fact that Delta has support elements and because they have been able to keep out of the spotlight however I must add that the SAS try to keep out of the media. The publicity they received following the 1980 Princes Gate siege was not wanted, and the SAS has tried to keep out of the limelight ever since. Some of their actions in Sierra Leone, the Falklands, in both Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan are known about, but not in any great detail, and there are many operations in Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan we will simply not know about for a long time. Typically, its only blunders than anyone really hears about these days, such as Tehran, or Somalia for SEALS and Delta, or Bravo Two Zero for the SAS, yet even SAS blunders are prestigious! As for the claim suggesting Delta's superiority comes from their support units such as Rangers, well, it this is of course true that Delta has these support units, but it is no measure of superiority as the same goes for the SAS. The SAS are often supported by the SBS, Mobility Troop, 1st PARA battalion, 16th air assault brigade, the SRR, BRF, Pathfinders, and 148th Metilika.

Allow me to try and draw some kind of brief conclusion. I feel that the technological differences between the UK and US special forces is null and void, as the equipment is similar, the nature of Spec Ops work is primitive and often low tech, and both the UK and US have elements of technology superior to one another. It is wrong to underestimate UKSF, in particular the SAS, because of a lack of/too much media coverage or on a purely technological basis. Whilst US special operations forces are excellent, and more than able to fulfil their role, I would say at best that they match the SAS.