I would say that people from the following countries:
[ul][li]Australia[]France[]Israe[]New Zealand[]North Korea[]Russia[]South Africa[]UK[]US[/ul][/li]
All have a tradition of thinking their most elite special forces are the best in the world, in some or all respects (except for equipment in which case presumably there is no comparison to the US). Naturally I think the UK special forces are the best in the world in terms of training but I have absolutely no objective reason to believe that whatsoever, mostly due to obviously not knowing very much about this due to not being in the special forces or anything like that - it’s just the way I’ve been brought up with propaganda!
So anyone from any of these countries want to concede defeat to another country? And generally has anyone anything useful to say.
Please note I am only talking about the best troops in the most elite regiments and while it would be ridiculous to ignore equipment, it would also be nuts to pretend equipment made no difference either.
To be clear anyone can say anything in this thread and in fact learning some totally unexpected things is basically what I’m looking for!
I don’t remember any of the special forces conflicts between any two of the countries mentioned above, so how could you possibly tell which one is better?
That said, I would presume the general relative lack of any recent (last decade) “action” for New Zealand and Australian special forces would knock them out of contention. Less so for French and UK SFs. Of course, if you go by “experience”, US and Israeli special forces win out.
What? Most of the combat by Australian forces in Afghanistan is by our special forces. 300 out of our 1,550 troops are Specials, most of the rest are support or engineering. On a rough count 18 of our 39 deaths were Specials and/or Commandos.
You gotta define the mission though, before you can judge.
I think each nation has some serious bad-ass groups, each one doing something a little different. Our SEALs are great, our joint Delta Force is also good, the amoral mercenaries in Blackwater might be all of that without any restrictions for all I know. The Marines refused to classify Force Recon as Special Forces for a long time, simply because they didn’t want to have to hand them off to Special Forces missions (back to that Delta Force thing).
The British had that amazing sniper (longest confirmed kills as I recall) recently.
The French did shit in Algeirs that will get your attention (Horne’s books is the best - out of print, but good).
Soviet Spetsnatz was primo during THEIR Afghanistan time.
The Israelis have always had a strong reputation, and lots of chances to use their skills.
I would say that the combination of numbers and opportunity SHOULD allow the US to field the best team right now, but I would not discount any other nation’s abilities in an any given situation.
How can you tell the difference? How could you tell if delta force or devgru are better than JTF2, GIGN, SAS, GSG-9 (I love counterstrike) etc?
I would think the US has a (slightly) better special forces unit for 2 reasons.
We have a far larger pool of applicants. We have 310 million people, which means there are going to be more mentally and physically fit people to select the best of them. I think there are only about 200-300 members of devgru and delta force each. I believe Israel has roughly the same number of people in sayeret matkal but they only have 6-7 million people to pick from. Then again at those extremes the differences may be minor because it isn’t like you are going to find more physically and mentally fit people at the 99.99% vs 99.999%.
We place a higher importance on the military, so you’d guess that means we devote more time/energy to finding and training soldiers.
As a counterpoint, I think the US tends to support conventional military units in our military, and has only started using non-conventional forces since the war on terror. I get the impression other OECD nations have relied more on non-conventional forces for longer periods, meaning they may have devoted more time to training their units.
Plus nations like Israel have more real world experience (this may not be the case since the war on terror). I was reading about members of devgru and delta claiming before 9/11 it was mostly training exercises. Israel is constantly covertly or overtly at war so their soldiers probably get more real world experience.
I learned something about special forces that surprised me. I wondered why the Iran hostage rescue mission failed so miserably (around 1979) and I found out we didn’t really have special forces before that (it was one of their first missions).
One of our guys was impressed with UK special forces (if I remember) and pushed the concept in the US but it took a while for them to start it up and get it right.
Beyond that, I tend to assume Israel is probably the top because I think I’ve heard that meme a few times (no actual data though).
In some respect? Well, I bet I could beat them all in a race to get all the standard achievements in Minecraft starting with a fresh account :D, so in that “respect” they aren’t the best in the world!
Which SF are the best or second-best? Its not a useful inquiry in my opinion. All of them are first rate soldiers.
What might be interesting is to compare the different training regimes and the skills developed.
The SAS (UK, Oz, and NZ) have physical endurance as a core requirement. By comparison the US chaps - Delta and SEALS concentrate on strength, building up impressive muscle mass. SAS soldiers are surprisingly small and wiry in real life.
Reportedly there is an annual E&E (Escape and Evade) exercise over a number of days between Delta and SAS both being chased by US Rangers. The SAS are slightly ahead on success because the larger and heavier Delta soldiers eventually become exhausted.
The one big difference in favour of American SF is the technology available to them. A superb soldier is a superb soldier regardless of nationality but night vision makes Private Pyle a Terminator. Add in leading edge communications equipment, satellite data, laser targeting, facial recognition computers, and the reasonable expectation of a helicopter if you really need one, the US soldier has a huge edge over his opponents.
Charlie Beckwith founded Delta force around 1977. DEVGRU (the seals counterterrorism unit) was founded not long after the 1979 failure to provide an alternative to delta force.
The SAS (which was a model Beckwith used to make Delta) was created in the 40s or 50s. So the UK has a pretty good head start on this issue.
What’s the mission? The terrain? US SF made a meal of the first few months in Afghanistan, having had little experience in fighting in what is the worst terrain in the world (they got better). I doubt the Israelis would be as effective, at least initially, in handling the Maoist insurgency in Indias North East jungles as the Indian commandos have been.
Anyway, that list in incomplete. Not a Sri Lankan citizen, but everyone knows that Sri Lankan Army Commando Regiment is the best. Unlike everyone else in that list, they actually defeated their enemies.
ETA, well the SAS did in Malaya, but nearly 60 years ago. And they locked up the guy who won it in jail core being a queer.
I kind of suspect that most Western special forces units are very much equivalent. They train together, they’re armed and equipped pretty similarly, and basically compare notes.
They do specialize in different things, and do have different philosophies, which might be what makes one successful in a certain situation, and not another.
It’s also important to make a distinction between military SF units and dedicated counter-terrorist units. I know that some overlap, but some don’t. GIGN, FBI HRT and GSG-9 come to mind as what are essentially police commando units, not military units like say, SAS or Delta.