Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NAVY SEALS VS BRITISH SAS
LJ813    7/1/2005 9:34:17 PM
I WILL GO FOR THE NAVY..
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
cwDeici       12/27/2009 11:32:44 AM
Anyway Yougotyourasskicked, I am ready to be convinced otherwise - that SEALS are better than SAS.
You have plenty of arguments why SEALS rock, but you really need to argue for SAS as well as unbiased as you can and then compare them. You seem a bit... irate though, but most of us are at least a little angry and tempered.
At any rate I respect the SEALS a ton and I hope you make it into that most esteemed organization!
 
God Bless~
 
Quote    Reply

YOUGOTYOURASSKICKED       1/8/2010 3:20:21 AM
You're comparing the entirety of the SAS's training to the basic PST of the SEAL's.

Now why don't look at the bigger picture.

The majority of potential SEALs pass the PST. Wherein they then move on to the First Phase of BUD/S.

First Phase is where the majority of SEAL candidates DOR; roughly 70% on average. On some cases it has been 100%.

After First Phase are the Second and Third phases, which I'm not going to go into right now.

By the way, all US Military combat personnell go through SERE, which resembles the "Escape and Evasion" training you were talking about. 

The SAS also conduct Domestic as well as Foreign Counter-Terrorism.

But the SAS tend to be specialists, whereas the SEALs tend to be generalists.

The SAS are extremely good at getting deep into restricted areas. I can give them credit for that.

The SEALs operate on many more platforms however:
Counter-Terrorism
Unconventional Warfare
Foreign Internal Defense
Direct Action
Special Reconnaissance
Personnell recovery
Security
 

As you can see, the SEALs are much more versatile than the SAS. This tends to lend them an enormous amount of experience, as they have the skills and capabilities to do almost anything with competence. This however, makes the SAS "experts" in their fields of expertise. This leads people to the assumption that the SAS is the best SF in the world simply because they are extremely competent in one or two areas. The SEALs however, can be considered competent enough beat the enemy in almost any way. They're much more versatile, and who you consider better it depends on if you value versatility or invariability.


Let's look at the combat experience of both units.

SAS engagements:
World WarII
Malayan emergency
North Ireland (Domestic Terrorism/Revolution)
Falklands War
Iraq conflict
Afghanistan conflict
Israel hostage situation

SEAL engagements:
Vietnam War
Multi-National Force in Lebanon
Operation Urgent Fury
Achille Lauro high-jacking
Operation Just Cause
Operation Desert Storm
Operation Restore Hope
Battle of Mogadishu
Operation United Shield
Operation Red Wing
Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation High Pursuit

As you can see, the SEALs resume is much more extensive. Mostly accorded to the fact that they are much more versatile than the SAS. The SEALs however also go through what's considered by many as the toughest military training in the world; making SEALs one of the most versatile and well-trained units in the world.
Sure, the SAS is well-trained, but the SEALs have the edge due to their versatile skill set. Making the Navy SEALs one of the most respected and highly feared outfits on the planet.

Anyone willing to rebut?


 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       1/8/2010 2:31:58 PM
Not willing to debate this with you since you are talking mostly out youre arse. both units have strengths and weanesses
however just for the sake of accuracy for youre wet dreams you missed the following for the SAS
 
Oman
Borneo
South georgia
Sierra leone
Gibralter
Aden
Croatia/serbia etc  - 
look up operation nimrod - pretty much what thrust special forces into the lime lite
 
Im sure others could add more
 
but dont let facts interrupt your daily dribble fest
 
Quote    Reply

YOUGOTYOURASSKICKED       1/9/2010 4:28:57 AM

Hmm.....
Good point. You nailed me on that one.

But you can't ignore the fact that SEALs are generalists and the SAS are specialists.

In a matter of personal opinion, I come to the conclusion that being more versatile beats being more experienced in a narrow skill set. Quit lying to yourself, and aknowledge the fact that the US tends to be involved in more of the world's major affairs, requiring units such as the SEALs to be depended upon to delay or even stop conflicts dead in their tracks. I consider it an insult for anyone to underrate the SEALs, and that's just because of my haughty American ego, right?

Maybe it's something called pride and respect, you should learn what pride and respect are before you try to rebut my reasoning.

 
Quote    Reply

YOUGOTYOURASSKICKED       1/9/2010 4:40:51 AM

Hmm.....
Good point. You nailed me on that one.

But you can't ignore the fact that SEALs are generalists and the SAS are specialists.

In a matter of personal opinion, I come to the conclusion that being more versatile beats being more experienced in a narrow skill set. Quit lying to yourself, and aknowledge the fact that the US tends to be involved in more of the world's major affairs, requiring units such as the SEALs to be depended upon to delay or even stop conflicts dead in their tracks. I consider it an insult for anyone to underrate the SEALs, and that's just because of my haughty American ego, right?

Maybe it's something called pride and respect, you should learn what pride and respect are before you try to rebut my reasoning.

 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       1/9/2010 5:10:07 AM
I have both pride and respect - i am not the one claiming A is better than B -
 
I was trying to point out its a worthless argument  - take any force out of its element and it will be disadvantaged.
 
read up on afghanistan and the seals
 
Some seal units fared quite badly in the mountains in the early days - especially when trying to carry heavy loads up them. This was because their physical training has less emphasis on rucking - They emphasised upper body strength (required for swimming).  Other S.F units did not have this problem, did this mke the seals inferior to the SAS - no merely less effective in that enviroment at that time Now obviously the Seals have adapted to the enviroment. (read up on op anoconda)
 
This is the crux of why its a pointless debate, any skill a force is lacking will be rapidly learnt if required.
 
I would doubt any S.F force has seen more action than any other - google will only reveal so much.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

wils32       1/12/2010 5:48:15 AM
I part of me wants to say the SAS as part of British patriosism but actually in reality they are probably fairly equal. I dont know how militaristically accurate Black Hawk Down is but Im guessing if that was done by British troops then the Marines or Paras would be the Rangers and SAS, the Delta Force.
The SEALS are much more comparable to the SBS which are less well known, certainly in the UK. For those you have seen the Rock that was perfect scenario for the SEALS, a depot deep in Afghanistan would better be suited to a Delta or SAS attack.
 
If you want to know how the British Army is perceived look at Call of Duty Modern Warfare, the SAS are chosen as the specialist regiment, ie, the British Army has the best specialists. I know using games and films is not a best way to talk about these men but it does illustrate the points, especially as most of these films have stunt/military advice men who were possibly in these regiments.
 
Quote    Reply

YOUGOTYOURASSKICKED       1/12/2010 9:16:36 AM

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense; what I'm telling you is that the SEALs are generalists, whereas the SAS is comprised of specialists. The SAS is extremely competent at what they do, no doubt about that. However, I am merely pointing out the fact that the SEALs are more versatile than the SAS; the SEALs may quite possibly be the most versatile military unit in the World. I admire versatility. Not to mention that the SEALs still manage to be very competent in almost everything they do. True, they have suffered drawbacks here and there, but you can't get better until you know how you're wrong. Generally speaking, the SEALs are the modern-day rennaissance men of warfare. It is a common saying that we try to become what we admire. That is why I am going to become a United States Navy SEAL sometime in the very near future. Therefore, my opinion is horribly bias, but very logical. I hope you can analyze the logic and reason behind my argument.

 
Quote    Reply

CoAoW    Actually   1/16/2010 6:19:31 PM
 
Quote    Reply

jake da brit       1/23/2010 4:48:25 PM

Your facts are way...way off. The SAS should be compared to Delta, I agree, but SEALs should in no freakin way ever, ever, ever be compared to Royal Marine Commandos. SEALs are far more 'elite' on average. SEALs would run and laugh through the RM commando training course, whereas the RM commandos would be in extremely bad shape. I know that the Brits focus much more on running than upper body strength, try having your commandos do 750 pushups (or 'pressups') in 1 hour, run 4 miles carrying a 120 lb RIB on their head every meal (and everywhere they go), swim 1-2 miles in open ocean, paddle their RIB twice that distance...and do it all in 1 day with no sleep (in hell week)

Not too pretty for your guys

balls
in the in the first gulf war the sas was key in winning the war without the casulties being over double of what they were. read bravo two zero by Andy McNab and the one that got away by chris ryan they were both in the same patrol but andy got caught 3 km away from syria. chris ran over 300 km in 8 days without food for 6 days and water for 3 he also suffered from radiation poisoning. the sbs do sas selection and a completely different just as hard or even a bit harder sbs selection sooo id consider re thinking. 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics