Yo British. What do you think of the American Elite Special Forces? Scary huh?

Question

1)US Navy Seals
2)US Army DELTA FORCE
3)US Marines Force Recon
4)USAF Para rescue
5)USAF Combat Control Team
7)American Police SWAT
8)CIA Operative
9)US Army 160th SOAR (NIGHT STALKERS)

JAMES W.

What in the heck you are doing here brother? This is between the Brits & the Yankees.

Answer 1

SAS BEST IN THE WORLD

U HAVE ALL OF THOSE FOR COMPENSATION AS U WILL NEVER BE AS GOOD AS THE SAS

Answer 2

three letters for you SAS (aka the Special Air Services),

created from the Long Range Desert Group in the North Africa during WWII, these guys were so good they went into friendly bases UNDETECTED despite informing the top they were coming and stuck tags on all the Vehicles, Planes, huts, Storage areas the whole lot.

Ever since then The SAS have been causing a our enemies a whole load of trouble.

not to mention the SBS, Royal Marines, The Para's, The RAF Regiment etc, etc

us Brits are not to be fucked with!!!

Answer 3

No.

The SAS are scary.

They could eat your Yankee "Special Forces" ladyboys for breakfast. Thats why the *Americans* as well as the Brits always call the SAS in when the brown stuff hits the fan.

The scariest thing about the American Forces is the way they keep killing their own side.

My dad was in the British Army in WWII and he got shot at so many times by Americans, he was more scared of them than the Germans!! And it seems they haven't changed!

Answer 4

By the way have they managed to simplify radio communications between all of them yet, I seem to recall in the Grenada Mission the Army could only talk with the Army, the SF with the SF and the Navy with the Navy.

To many individual units, all doing their own thing, is a recepie for disaster, you yanks, invented K.I.S.S. which stood for "Keep It Simple, Stupid." then you go and do it all the exact opposite.

By the way how do you figure the C.I.A to be a Special Force??

And you missed out the F.B.I. :-P

As for S.W.A.T. they were not so hot at WACO along with the A.T.F.

Answer 5

No idea sweetie, as i'm neither a man, soldier or T.wat.
But i was just wondering if you'd have said the same to James had his answer been in favour of the American side.

Surely in any argument the sensible thing would be to bring in an unbiased mediator, and the fact that the rest of the world pick the British special forces just about says it all wouldn't you say.

Answer 6

You should do more research. There are many policies in the U.S. military that do not allow harsh training exercises. For example, the French Foreign Legion has a nasty habit of training under real combat conditions before they actually get called to a conflict.

Answer 7

Typical Yank up yourself we invented everything not really ******** consider this my British mutant brother.... the
Romans couldn't take Scotland......COULDN'T DO IT!!!!!!!! you'll never impress us or scare us you conceited *******. I'm not even Scottish, but credit where it's due!!!! Then consider this... our SAS are mainly made up of Scots! So in answer to your question, what do we think..... we think we taught you all you know!!!!!! (PS Go 'John Doe' .... if only all your brothers had your attitude!)
Will you yanks ever learn the lessons of Pearl Harbour! It's your attitude, not your resources that make you pants!!!! (credit also where it's due again though .... those soldiers looked 'damn fine' in Black Hawk Down and are obviously the most good looking and therefore worthy of glory in all the world ( NB english ironic/sarcastic humour lost on Americans)

Answer 8

Yo yank. Who cares? War sucks anyway. Every country has it's special forces anyway and it doesn't matter who started it (search_rescue: The reasons for the thumbs down isn't because we doubt the facts, it's because no-one cares and no-one appreciates the smug 'America is great' tone. No wonder you're so popular(!) )

Who cares? War is not big and it's not clever

Answer 9

Terrified mate....as allies you lot usually kill more British soldiers,shoot down British aircraft than the enemy.



forgetting the `Theban Sacred Band`(Greek)
the Immortals (Persian)

both B.C.E.!!!

The Zulu`s had Special Forces too.

Answer 10

The training is similar in both armed forces. On-the-job experience is higher in the UK forces. Both would be scary. If the Brits don't feel the need to use macho slogans, may it be that they are secure of their scariness ?

Addendum: Just to set things straight. In the XVIII Century, during the war with France, the British created the Rangers in the 13 Colonies to fight the French and their Indian allies. Its founder, Robert Rogers, was more or less loyal to the British Crown and when Independence came, he moved to Canada and later to Britain where he died. The men in the Rangers were settlers or immigrants from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. After, during the American Revolution, the revolutionaries fighting the English, when not in uniform, used their civilian clothing and if this was buckskin it was not intended as camouflage since the concept did not exist then. The colonist were better shots, true, and their rifles a better weapon than the Brown Bess.

There was a dislike among the top brass of XIX and better part of XX Centuries armies towards irregular fighting formations that waged war differently from the “thin red lines” of the British or columns of Napoleonic tactics and there were no regiments of that kind. During the US Civil War, Mosby of the Confederacy fought along irregular lines, raiding the Union Army but the British, although facing mostly irregular enemies, did not develop special troops. At the end of the XIX Century, Britain tangled with the Boers and amongst other things, learned the word “commando”. The slaughter house that was WWI was fought with heterodox (and rather stupid) tactics. It was not until WWII, after the Germans expelled the British and their allies from the continent that these created, in Britain and in the Western Desert, the special forces that are the forerunners of today’s formations. The commandos, Lovat Scouts and others fought in Europe, whilst the Long Range Desert Group, Popski’s Private Army and the Special Air Service did it in Africa. When Japan attacked the US, one of the responses was the creation of Carlson’s Raiders of the USMC and when the Americans got to Europe, the Ranger concept was reborn and the regiment was created by the US Army and trained by the commandos of the UK. In the Far East, in Burma, a formation called the Chindits was created by Orde Wingate of the British Army with the purpose of attacking the Japanese behind the battle lines. Also, there was a brigade composed of American and Canadian soldiers fighting in Italy. At the end of WWII, the UK got involved inmediately in the Palestinian fight, the Malayan Emergency, the Mau Mau Uprising, the Indonesian conflict, Oman, Aden, Cyprus, North Ireland and its Special Forces, trimmed down to the SAS, SBS, Paras, Royal Marines and Gurkhas got continual practice. The US fought in Korea along conventional methods and it was not until after becoming involved in Vietnam that the Green Berets, were created by Charles Beckwith along SAS lines. There is no conflict now nor should be any in the future between the big U’s so it is academical to think whose forces are better.

Addendum II

It is, in no way, my intention to enter in a p---ing contest. The men who have served in Britain’s and its Commonwealth forces and the American Army, Navy and Marines have done it in all seriousness and so their history and exploits should be treated. As I started my addendum, my intention is to set things right. In 1744, the US didn’t exist and the land where the Rangers were created was British. The Rangers fought within the British armed forces against Britain’s enemy, France. Major Robert Rogers’ commission was in the British Army, granted by the British Crown. I said that he was “more or less loyal to the British Crown” because of two things: First, the accusation of treason while he was a British officer, was because he allegedly offered his services to the French. Second, after Independence, he went back to America, now US soil and he was offered a commission in the US Army which he rejected alleging that he was a British officer, nevertheless, he applied General Washington for a command, i. e. a General’s appointment. The tactics employed by Rogers’ Rangers, that were disliked by the British regular officers and generals mired as they were in the panoply of European battlefields, were learnt while fighting Native Americans, the buckskin clothing they wore were adaptations of Native American’s attire as was part of their weaponry, so it could also be said that the Rangers were white copies of Indian warriors, giving strength to the theory of an American (Native) genesis of the special forces. The American commanders had a similar philosophy as their European counterparts and disapproving the irregular fighters, did not continue such formations. For the modern Rangers’ history, I’m sure that there is enough information in the web but interested parties may refer to Col. James Altieri’s book “The Pathfinders” where he, an officer in the US Rangers, tells the creation, training, initial fighting attached to the Commandos, and further exploits of the men who served with him and their heroic leader, William Darby. Also, you may want to check Merrill’s Marauders history in several publications, including mentions in Barbara Tuchman’s book “Stilwell and the American Experience in China” and Ballantine series. Aside, I found, and correct the previous addendum, that US Rangers formations fought in Korea although more in a regular infantry mode.

Answer 11

I'm not even British and i know beater who do you think start the term special forces..Special Air Service (SAS)
Special Boat Service (SBS)
Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR)
Units in direct support of SF
Special Forces Support Group (SFSG)
18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment
Special Forces Air Wing there some bad a s s people in the u.k.. opps sorry