Which Combat Unit Is the Best...

SillyHeatsink said:
I'd have to go with Al Qaeda. Their leadership has evaded capture for the past number of decades, despite being hunted by virtually every country in the world. They have paralysed their opponents through terror tactics on numerous occasions. If you counted the sum of the damage they have wrought, it would be billions upon billions. They are currently believed to be present and highly active in Afghanistan, where Coalition forces are currently being defeated (admittedly, that's not due solely to the skill of the opponents, but still).

Don't have to like them, but you have to respect them.
Click to expand...

No you don't.
 
I have to say I think the SS are/were the best.


:p


Seriously though the SAS are pretty damn good, but then so are some of the American ones too.
 
dont think its possible to tell, its hard enough debating who is the best football team / athelete.

why is the sas better then the sbs though? the sbs is smaller = less publicity but attacking submarines underwater sounds about as complicated as it can get bearing in mind they also do the jungle phase of sas.

mountain leaders, swimmer cannoests are also sf can get sf pay and their entry the ML requirements are some of the most difficult.

British infantry in general are the best in the world without being patriotic they are trained to a very high standard across the board. be very little difference as a unit between sas / sbs / ml.

The americans in general afaik have an easier basic training in terms of fitness/length of training for a line infantry man so from that would have to presume the lower standards are passed up the chain and therefore worse then UK troops
 
SillyHeatsink said:
They are currently believed to be present and highly active in Afghanistan, where Coalition forces are currently being defeated
Click to expand...

That is total BS. I can imagine the losses Coalition forces are sustaining are a fraction of what Al Qaeda/Taliban fighters are suffering.

Blowing up some vehicles with IED's isn't anything special.
 
Diesel said:
That is total BS. I can imagine the losses Coalition forces are sustaining are a fraction of what Al Qaeda/Taliban fighters are suffering.

Blowing up some vehicles with IED's isn't anything special.
Click to expand...

You cannot measure who is winning a conflict by simply looking at how many casualties either side has sustained.

'Blowing up vehicles' is a standard guerilla tactic; Britain has already lost numerous times to Afghanistan on their home turf (1841, 1878, 1919) demonstrating the efficacy of such tactics.

To bring this back on topic (slightly!) terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are more effective than regular combat units since they are not bound by the rules of engagement, Geneva Convention, burn the infidel etc etc.
 
Dutch:

media_11_3101_w686_h496_fit.jpg

media_11_2838_w686_h496_fit.jpg

media_11_2842_w686_h496_fit.jpg


Danish:

090219-N-6278K-006_big_thumb.jpg


Finnish:

img4265.jpg


Czech:

53.jpg


American:

sealscr09.jpg


SAS:

4uv4pe.jpg
 
SAS have a long registered existance,
SBS don't advertise in the same way,

Remembering that the Australian and Kiwi armies both have SAS units, who cross train with ours...


GIGN are French National Police (Gendarmes) not technically Combat unit..
 
There is no easy way to workout who is the better unit.

The way I look at it, which unit would I want to come and rescue me if I was taken hostage by a bunch of armed extremists?

For me personally its the SAS everytime.

The yanks and russians would be quite far down my list - Id be concerned about the yanks simply getting me killed for being too 'gung-ho' and the russians for sacrificing me and any other hossies to make sure they got all the bad guys.

Just how I've always looked at it.

OT - I've stood in a room with a full team of Spetsnaz divers, what a 'cool' bunch of customers they are.



n
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom