oh I do love SOF's dick measuring contest's.......as entertaining as having teeth pulled

>>could be the reason the sf guys are compared to the sas is that the sas is generally considered the best in the business.<< Alot of this "SAS is best SOF in the world" stuff is all based on myth and folklore. The JSOC assets are equal to the SAS, just like the GSG-9 and GIGN are all equal. The reason being that they all have similar mission taskings, they all train together, and they all use similar tactics. Also, US Army Special Forces aren't even in JSOC. I will say that as a general rule (I said not to generalize in the last post...but I will break my own rule :), it goes like this with non-JSOC entities: SF are the best at intel gathering (mainly directed at people), training indigs, and land nav. SEALs are best at Direct Action and anything involving water. Marine Recon are best at SR (different than the SF's intel gathering). CCTs are best (of course) at calling in bombs. USAF PJ's are best at rescuing downed Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines. ----------------------------------------- This is all very generalized, but pretty accurate. The JSOC have the best of the best in terms of the above, so they are kind of a step ahead.

Alot of this "SAS is best SOF in the world" stuff is all based on myth and folklore. The JSOC assets are equal to the SAS, just like the GSG-9 and GIGN are all equal. The reason being that they all have similar mission taskings, they all train together, and they all use similar tactics. i don't think this is true gop. gsg 9 and gign don't have anything like the range of capabilities that the sas do for instance and while jsoc can no doubt put together an excellent team for just about any mission the base they draw from is quite a bit larger than the sas have. if you consider the capabilities of the sas vs their relatively tiny force you pretty much have to yield pride of place to them.

First of all, let me say this Boondock guy seems to have some rather deeply felt sentiments, though they seem to be derived from cable TV documentaries and books exclusively, so take them for what they are worth. That said . . . >>Also, US Army Special Forces aren't even in JSOC.<< Neither are the SEALs, outside of the guys in Blue/ST6/DEVGRU/whatever their name is this week. Nor are the new MARSOC guys. JSOC has some very good units under its command, but they're not the go to guys for all the missions out there, including some rather high profile and choice ones. >>SF are the best at intel gathering (mainly directed at people), training indigs, and land nav. SEALs are best at Direct Action and anything involving water.<< ODA's that specialize in DA, especially the CIF companies, would and do perform at much higher standards than the non-ST6/DEVGRU/Blue/whatever it is this week SEALs at DA missions. SF units, in general, use more sophisticated and demanding TTPs than SEALs do for DA missions for assorted reasons, not the least of which being that SF personnel can successfully employ them and they yield better results. Regardless of who is better/worse at that particular mission set, the facts seem to be that the SEALs have been kind of put in the back seat so that CAG and SF get on with winning the war and the SEALs can concentrate on their primary mission of appearing in Navy recruiting commercials. Carry out enough suicide missions whose main point of success is getting our guys killed and "don't be like the SEALs" has, not surprisingly, become something of a teaching point within SOCOM . . . >>Marine Recon are best at SR (different than the SF's intel gathering).<< Again, I'd contest this point. Force Recon has specialized training relating to recon peculiar to amphibious operations, but they've diversified to the point where they are, for all intents and purposes, USMC special forces (i.e. CQB/DA mission training, etc. as well as their recon functions). This trend will only continue with the new USMC special operations units forming, I suspect. >>CCTs are best (of course) at calling in bombs.<< There are a great many USAF TACPs (seperate career field that also supports SOF in some postings) that would take offense to that idea. Particularly the TACPs who are permanently assigned to the Ranger Regiment and the ones who work with SF. CCTs are essentially USAF pathfinders who provide a whole slew of capabilities, which can include directing CAS and gunship support, but also includes air traffic control for SOF operations, austere airfield operations after a seizure mission, and the like. TACPs entire career is dedicated to talking bombs onto targets. Both are very good at introducing bad guys to JDAMs, but I'd not give either the "best" nod in that job, since they're equally skilled (at least the TACPs who are posted to SOF units, entry level guys with conventional units may be another story in the same way a Ranger infantryman and a mechanized infantryman may not be playing at the same level). >>USAF PJ's are best at rescuing downed Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines.<< PJs are great guys, and highly skilled trauma management specialists and such, but they're not really the best at CSAR -- I'd have to say the guys who deliver them in HH-60s and HC-130s into hostile territory are the best at recovering guys. PJs are great at managing trauma and keeping injured guys going until surgical intervention and such, but they're just one part of a successful CSAR mission. All right, end soap box mode.

>>i don't think this is true gop. gsg 9 and gign don't have anything like the range of capabilities that the sas do for instance and while jsoc can no doubt put together an excellent team for just about any mission the base they draw from is quite a bit larger than the sas have. if you consider the capabilities of the sas vs their relatively tiny force you pretty much have to yield pride of place to them. << If following that line of thinking, the place of pride would have to go to the Australian SASR and, even more so, the NZSAS, who have a great reputation and are drawn from a military that can just about all fit into a modest soccer stadium and still leave room for the hometeam fans . . .

HS, What are CIF companies? Thanks, Cato

Essentially one (short) step down from Delta, with similar mission sets.

Horsesoldier, first let me say that although we seem to disagree on this issue, I still highly respect your opinion (don't want to send the wrong message; ie: you and Darth)....however, >>Neither are the SEALs, outside of the guys in Blue/ST6/DEVGRU/whatever their name is this week. Nor are the new MARSOC guys.<< The SEALs have dedicated a full team to JSOC (Devgru), so they are involved in JSOC. Obviously all SEAL teams aren't in the JSOC. SF, on the other hand, has no role in the JSOC. >>ODA's that specialize in DA, especially the CIF companies, would and do perform at much higher standards than the non-ST6/DEVGRU/Blue/whatever it is this week SEALs at DA missions.<< I am not denying this...SEALs do not specialize in DA outside of Devgru. I will say that your average SEAL platoon is better than your average SF ODA at DA. They are constantly doing DA exercises...they are known to get more range time and they perform more DA exercises than SF. >>Regardless of who is better/worse at that particular mission set, the facts seem to be that the SEALs have been kind of put in the back seat so that CAG and SF get on with winning the war and the SEALs can concentrate on their primary mission of appearing in Navy recruiting commercials. Carry out enough suicide missions whose main point of success is getting our guys killed and "don't be like the SEALs" has, not surprisingly, become something of a teaching point within SOCOM<< I'll be honest here, this one pisses me off. You have absolutely no facts backing up what you are saying here. You have no idea who is getting the most deployments. you have no idea what SOCOM is teaching (their is no way that one group of professionals, like SF, would dog another group of professionals, like the SEALs). The SEALs are a huge part of the WOT, come on Horsesoldier...don't take away from their contribution in the WOT. As far as SEALs appearing in Navy recruiting commercials... a little info here (sorry, kind of off-topic). The SEALs only have one recruiting commercial out right now, and it is extremely simple...but gets the point out. It shows no operators at all. The SEALs new recruiting efforts are more serious (quite simply, they need to get more guys through BUD/S), so they are now doing things to attract real athletes. For example, several SEALs are running in Hawaii's Ironman triathlon (I forget the name) to get the word out that they are looking for extremely fit individuals...not the typical video game generation kids who struggle to pass the PST. >>Again, I'd contest this point. Force Recon has specialized training relating to recon peculiar to amphibious operations, but they've diversified to the point where they are, for all intents and purposes, USMC special forces (i.e. CQB/DA mission training, etc. as well as their recon functions). This trend will only continue with the new USMC special operations units forming, I suspect.<< If I was commander, I would much prefer to have a Devgru recon unit on the ground (these guys are extremely good...as you know, they go through USMC S/S school as well as much more specialized training...not to mention their extreme exercises they run once qualified)...of course, you probably think they suck and would rather have a SF SR team. Heck, you would probably take the 101st's LRRPs instead of the 'suicidal Blue/ST6/Devgru whatever this weeks name' SEALs :). I don't know why you have such a low opinion of the SEALs (I know...everyone in SOCOM has a low opinion of the SEALs, other than the SEALs themselves). All I can say is that maybe you want to do more research to get a different perspective on the SEALs (this isn't mean't in the "You don't know what you are talking about" way, I just think that you should see things from the SEAL perspective maybe).

GOP, We'll simply have to agree to disagree -- your take on things is your own, based on your own research and sources and such. My take is mine and I don't see any real indicators to suggest my opinion of SEALs needs changing. (If anything, all I tend to hear simply reinforces it and suggests the question I raised in another thread of how much longer they'll fall under SOCOM at all, given their current run of botched ops and disciplinary embarassments, without some significant actions to address flaws in their institutional culture . . .). I readily admit my direct interaction with SEALs has been limited, but has only demonstrated that there is some reality to the stereotype of a lack of professionalism. Could be a bit of sampling error, since I don't deal with SEALs on a regular basis, I admit, but they're the only folks within SOCOM that I've dealt with who lacked professionalism so it tends to stick in the mind . . . As for this, though . . . >>you have no idea what SOCOM is teaching (their is no way that one group of professionals, like SF, would dog another group of professionals, like the SEALs).<< The "don't be like the SEALs" teaching point is a quote from an 18-series guy I work with describing what was taught at a school he just completed, as in "the instructors were pushing 'don't be like the SEALs'" on a specific issue stemming from the mistakes the SEALs made in a recent operation(s). And the school was not an-SF specific school . . . It might be a breach of professional courtesy to point out such things, but the only way to put a positive spin on mistakes is to learn from them. If the SEALs have been providing most of those learning opportunities of late that's not the fault of the school.

>>We'll simply have to agree to disagree -- your take on things is your own, based on your own research and sources and such.<< No problem at all. Of course, we all know I am right :)