Who Errs Sins .....THE ' Lost ' SAS

Tenger

McArmalite wrote: »

My favourite SAS fantasy story would have to be Chris Ryan claiming to have shot about 30 Iraqi soldiers all with just his assualt rifle, conviently not one Iraqi soldier was just wounded and lived to backup his story, nor was he even wounded once in the shoot out :rolleyes:

You really should read "The Real bravo Two Zero" by Micheal Asher, a former SAS member. he debunks the myth of Bravo 20 created by 'Andy McNab' and 'Chris Ryan'. he does this from a factual perspective rather than your "All SAS soldiers are idiots who can't beat the IRA" point of view. he describes the mistakes made by the patrol and how their accounts go completely against SAS operating guidelines.A point to be remember in your ranting is that the SAS or MoD have never publicly supported the accounts of the patrol published by either author. While this supports your negative view of SAS Super Soldiers myths it also goes against your arguements that the British Army beleive they are the 'Super Soldiers'

To counter your claim of the British whimping out over the Iranian boat hostage incident. The British A)being 'more sensible' than the US perhaps didn't want to cause an outbreak of hostilities with Iran or B)Realised that a rescue mission was not viable.

This argument of who has the better army/special force will never be settled. It is like the Airbus Vs Boeing aircraft competion.

The Irish Rangers are just as good as the SAS due to their training. The SAS have used their training in combat,the rangers have not. But than does not automatically make the SAS 'better'. it makes them more experienced,that all. From my reading I feel the SAS have a more rounded ethos and trainingt than the US Special Forces(Green Berets) but I cannot say which is 'better'.

OS119

Bramble wrote: »

You really should read "The Real bravo Two Zero" by Micheal Asher, a former SAS member.

read him by all means, just don't take him any more seriously than McNab or Ryan.

whereas as Ryan and McNab get stick for the occasional embelishment in order to sell their books, Asher has gone the other way and appears to do very little other than slag down whatever anyone else has done - not neccessarily in an 'i'm better than you' way, rather than in the way he writes his books, aiming them at a particular maket which is prepared (hungry, perhaps?) to see the ubermen brought down to earth, or indeed a little further if time allows.

Asher was - apparently - in half a dozen 'elite' units, (somewhat odd by itself) and he doesn't have a good word to say about any of them, and while i'm always a little cynical about people who tell me about how brilliant they are, i'm tempted to think that Ashers massive downer on pretty much everyone is rather more about him than it is about everyone else.

McArmalite

OS119 wrote: »

obviously i'm going to regret having any kind of discourse with anyone as wierd as you,

Yeah, that's something coming from the fella who writes regarding Ireland joining the Commonwealth - " it also gives RoI another stage on which to promote its agenda of human rights, good governance, debt relief and anti-poverty action to a more receptive audience than can often be found at the UN. it requires no change to domestic law, political process or anything else. "

And the Time to prepare for a United Ireland thread - " it needs to wait until you've got 75% approval and 90% of the 'opposed' saying "its not what i want but i respect the majority decision... " What an a$$hole, aren't you a brit ?? Or will you admit it ??

OS119 wrote: »

but the two statements you suggest are contradicary are, in fact, not.

one says that in a specific time frame against a specific PIRA unit 22SAS 'achieved' such and such a statistic, the next, which i assume from the lack of parameters in the statement, indicates that within the whole conflict 22SAS 'achieved' another statistic. now, given that the first statistic 'fits' well-enough within the second statistic, how can they be contradictary?

just in case you find that a bit difficult, both members of 22SAS killed by PIRA fall outside the parameters of the statistic relating to the PIRA East Tyrone unit - Captain Westmacott died in Belfast in 1980 and Corporal Alistair Slater in County Fermanagh in 1984 - therefore both outside the timescale given in the first statistic and outside the geographic area of PIRA East Tyrone operations. it also, interestingly, suggests that (assuming the '50-odd' figure for the number of PIRA members killed by 22SAS during the whole conflict is correct) some 80% of all PIRA losses to 22SAS - NI wide and over a 25 or so year period - were in the East Tyrone brigade area in a 5 year period.

i would however point out out that the specific numbers of PIRA volunteers killed by 22SAS is up for debate, is is difficult in some instances to determine whether 22SAS were involved or whether 'regular' units were responsible.

Well thank you for providing me with the answer to your post " i would however point out out that the specific numbers of PIRA volunteers killed by 22SAS is up for debate". Agreed, very much so, but I'm sure not for the same reasons as you.

Thought provoking stats according to research undertaken by the CAIN* organisation -

Civilians killed , " 85.6% (873) of Loyalist killings, 52.9% (190) by the security forces and 35.9% (738) of all killings by Republican paramilitaries took the lives of civilians between 1969 and 2001. "

Combatants killed " Republicans killed 1318 combatants, the security forces killed 192 and the Loyalists killed 147. "

* http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/index.html

McArmalite

Bramble wrote: »

You really should read "The Real bravo Two Zero" by Micheal Asher, a former SAS member. he debunks the myth of Bravo 20 created by 'Andy McNab' and 'Chris Ryan'. he does this from a factual perspective rather than your "All SAS soldiers are idiots who can't beat the IRA" point of view. he describes the mistakes made by the patrol and how their accounts go completely against SAS operating guidelines.A point to be remember in your ranting is that the SAS or MoD have never publicly supported the accounts of the patrol published by either author. While this supports your negative view of SAS Super Soldiers myths it also goes against your arguements that the British Army beleive they are the 'Super Soldiers'

To counter your claim of the British whimping out over the Iranian boat hostage incident. The British A)being 'more sensible' than the US perhaps didn't want to cause an outbreak of hostilities with Iran or B)Realised that a rescue mission was not viable.

This argument of who has the better army/special force will never be settled. It is like the Airbus Vs Boeing aircraft competion.

The Irish Rangers are just as good as the SAS due to their training. The SAS have used their training in combat,the rangers have not. But than does not automatically make the SAS 'better'. it makes them more experienced,that all. From my reading I feel the SAS have a more rounded ethos and trainingt than the US Special Forces(Green Berets) but I cannot say which is 'better'.

Fair play Bramble, mightn't agree totally with ya though, but you do make relevant points. I haven't read it but I've watched the TV programm about "The Real bravo Two Zero" by Micheal Asher, a former SAS member. Ryan or McNab ( or whatever their real names are ) replied on hearing of the programm - "Lets meet face to face and sort it out like real SAS men". To which Asher replied (correctly like any adult would) - "Ah, grow up for God's sake".

As for the Iranian and the RN, don't agree with (A) as the broken down colony wouldn't be fit to fight Iran on it's own, they wouldn't even think about it (B) Agreed. Still I enjoyed seeing the mighty british empire having it's nose rubbed in it - yet again

As for the Irish Rangers, Green Berets and all that, not really interested. I just LOVE debunking the myths of the british forces

McArmalite

OS119 wrote: »

whereas as Ryan and McNab get stick for the occasional embelishment in order to sell their books,

:D:D

OS119

i knew i'd regret it.

i can detect your uber hostile tone, but i'm not actually sure what point you're trying to get accross - or is just the hostility for its own sake.

and yeah, i'm a Brit, not quite rocket science if you could be arsed going through my old posts.

with that razor sharp mind you apply to join the nutting squad - then you too could be a Brit....

Quis Separabit

Bramble wrote: »

You really should read "The Real bravo Two Zero" by Micheal Asher, a former SAS member. he debunks the myth of Bravo 20 created by 'Andy McNab' and 'Chris Ryan'. he does this from a factual perspective rather than your "All SAS soldiers are idiots who can't beat the IRA" point of view. he describes the mistakes made by the patrol and how their accounts go completely against SAS operating guidelines.A point to be remember in your ranting is that the SAS or MoD have never publicly supported the accounts of the patrol published by either author. While this supports your negative view of SAS Super Soldiers myths it also goes against your arguements that the British Army beleive they are the 'Super Soldiers'

To counter your claim of the British whimping out over the Iranian boat hostage incident. The British A)being 'more sensible' than the US perhaps didn't want to cause an outbreak of hostilities with Iran or B)Realised that a rescue mission was not viable.

This argument of who has the better army/special force will never be settled. It is like the Airbus Vs Boeing aircraft competion.

The Irish Rangers are just as good as the SAS due to their training. The SAS have used their training in combat,the rangers have not. But than does not automatically make the SAS 'better'. it makes them more experienced,that all. From my reading I feel the SAS have a more rounded ethos and trainingt than the US Special Forces(Green Berets) but I cannot say which is 'better'.

The Irish army rangers, are a tin-pot out fit,(based on the US army rangers) with limited training, experience and equipment if you claimed their training and selection was the same as that of the SAS any where outside Irish army circles and you would be laughed at.

All tin pot special Forces from small countries claim they are on par with the SAS.

Its a machismo thing, reality is very different. The SAS have been ivolved in dozens of global conflicts since WW2, the Irish army ranger week UN peace keeping missions and ops which they screwed up against the PIRA.

They are very different beasts, as is their selection and training.

The Iranian boat hostage incident involved the Royal Navy.

Tenger

Quis Separabit wrote: »

The Irish army rangers, are a tin-pot out fit, with limited training, experience and equipment if you claimed their training and selection was the same as that of the SAS any where outside Irish army circles and you would be laughed at.

All tin pot special Forces from small countries claim they are on par with the SAS.

The Iranian boat hostage incident involved the Royal Navy.

If you read the post in context you would see that my post was an attempt at stopping this pointless 'mine is better than yours' Special Forces arguments.
And thanks for the tin-pot comment. Mature.

Lets say that the Rangers selection and training is the same as the SAS. IN THEORY both forces are then equal. However one is combat experienced,the other is not. Thats my point,I'm not actually comparing the 2 in a pissing contest. Its hard to compare the ARW with the vastly more experienced and larger SAS.
Yes the Rangers are smaller,have less funds,less specialist training (No individual 'Troops' like the SAS) than the SAS. But to say that one is qualitively better is not a reasonable statement. In practise perhaps the ARW are better at a particular excercise than the SAS. Perhaps with tougher training or more funding and combat experience they could be at the level of the SAS (and indeed any other top flight Special forces unit from USA.France,Germany,Russia etc)

Another thing to remember is that many Special Forces cross train together,this allows the 'tinpot' countries to follow the example of more mature organisations,the Rangers have trained with the SAS and I assume will continue to do so.

Oh it was the Royal Navy! So thats why it involved boats. The comments refered to another poster assertion that they SAS where whimping out of a rescue mission.

Quis Separabit

Irish army ranger test week, below. Comparing this to Royal Marine or Parachute regiment test week takes the piss never mind the SAS's test week.

Abseiling
from the water tower in the curragh (enjoy the scenic flights of stairs while waiting for your turn)
Bridge jump
from a bridge crossing blessington lake
Gym tests
normal army annualfitness test + hand claps, chin ups and squat thingys
10km run
under 45 mins(not so easy after a few days on selection!)
Mountain walk
more like mountain run, starts beside lugnaquilla and you have 1 hr to get your ass up a dirt track, very pleasant!
Hill circuit
tank tracks in the curragh, ugh....just ugh...
Forced march
aka foreman aftman, starts at carpark beside tonelagee, goes over browne mtn - scarr mtn- cross the road and all the way up onto tonelagee,can take from 3 - 6 hrs, horrible just horrible!



Heres a taste of two events of the Parachute regiment's test week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vKH5vj9LLU&feature=related

SAS Test week.

Numbed by pain, you'll be given tasks to do at rendezvous points (RVs), such as stripping a foreign weapon and then reassembling it.
This continues for three weeks, with the recruits managing about four hours' sleep a night. The next part of selection is imaginatively called 'Test Week'.

Test Week
Test week consists basically of six marches, the first being 17 miles long requiring the soldier to march with a 30k pack on his back while map reading, marches get longer every day. However, that's not all. Test week culminates in the 'Long Drag'; a 45-mile march across mountinous terrain which has to be completed in 20 hours.


The Long Drag is a slang term referring to the event that is the culmination of the Fitness and Navigation phase of selection for the British Special Air Service. The event is also known simply as Endurance. It is a 45 mile hike over the Brecon Beacons of Wales. Candidates carry a pack that weighs 55 lbs, not including water, food or rifle, and they must complete the route alone in less than 20 hours. The candidates cannot use trails and all navigation is done by map, compass and memorized grid references. The event is made harder because the candidates are already exhausted by the previous four weeks' marches and runs.[1]


......................Enough said.

Fratton Fred

There's already a "My Dad's harder then your Dad" thread over on the military forum, do we really need one here?

ejmaztec

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There's already a "My Dad's harder then your Dad" thread over on the military forum, do we really need one here?

No, this is the "My ancestors were poorer than your ancestors forum". Horses for courses.:D