Is SAS training relevant in real-life combat situations?

osris

There are a few reality TV shows about ordinary people going though SAS style training. The training is quite tough, but a lot of it seem pointless, such as long jogs with heavy backpacks on etc. I appreciate that such training is to build resilience, but how relevant is it to actual real-life operations, which I imagine would comprise of predominantly quick breaking-and-entering raids on buildings with unsuspecting terrorists in. How resilient do you have to be for that?

Also, 99% of these terrorists (if we are talking about the middle-east variety) will be under 6 foot, probably out of shape with slight physiques and inefficiently trained—or at least not to SAS standards. Given this, is such training over-the-top and impractical, or is it mainly for promotional and marketing purposes, to reassure the public that Britain can hold its own militarily in the world.

I think a lot of it is just hype, and I doubt whether SAS men are tougher than ordinary soldiers in real life operations. By the way, has anyone heard any stories of an SAS man who was beaten up in a nightclub by a civilian? I’m sure there must be. If so, it would prove my point.

Asp9mm

The SAS don't just fight terrorists, they fight highly trained soldiers. Once you pass selection it's up to you to keep your body in condition.

SAS carry more equipment and go in to hostile territory in small groups. Of course you have to be that fit. Your stamina, reactions and mentality have to be more acute too.

You couldn't be more wrong in your last statement. It's not about hype. It's about being the best at what you do. There's a reason the SBS, SAS and SRR are called Special Forces. And as most of the population haven't heard of the last two, hype never comes into it. The training is much tougher than you can imagine, even given these daft shows, documentaries and books.

osris

But is their training in resilience relevant to the things you mention? I agree the training is tough, but how tough do they really have to be for what they do. In other words, regular soldiers must on occasion do the same things, yet their training is not as tough as the SAS’s. I suppose that’s what I mean by hype.

osris

Just found this:

“SAS soldier 'beaten outside of city nightclub'”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/sas-soldier-beaten-in-cbd/story-e6frf7kx-1111118943516

Asp9mm

It is absolutely relevant. And they do far more dangerous and diverse things than regular soldiers in all corners of the globe at a moments notice. They use more equipment and each soldier is and has to be far more independant and have more input on operations too. If anything, the training is under-hyped.

Asp9mm

osris wrote:

Just found this:

“SAS soldier 'beaten outside of city nightclub'”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/sas-soldier-beaten-in-cbd/story-e6frf7kx-1111118943516

That's Aussie SAS. You'd be RTU'd here for starting a scrap like that. But yeah, SAS, SBS and SRR personal have been attacked and beaten up before. No one is invincible. But you should also remember they are trained to kill too, so they have to control their aggression with civvies as their are huge repercussions especially if the press get wind of it.. A smart SF guy would walk off if he had the chance rather than stand their ground. But you get idiots in all jobs and walks of life.

osris

Asp9mm wrote:

It is absolutely relevant. And they do far more dangerous and diverse things than regular soldiers in all corners of the globe at a moments notice. They use more equipment and each soldier is and has to be far more independant and have more input on operations too. If anything, the training is under-hyped.

Agreed, the training is more specialised and technical, and allows for more individuality in the field, but is this necessarily a measure of how tough one is, apart from being good at resilience training, which not all inherently tough people are good at. It just seems to me that a lot of the non-specialist and technical training is misplaced.

osris

Asp9mm wrote:

But you should also remember they are trained to kill too, so they have to control their aggression with civvies as their are huge repercussions

Yes, but you can buy SAS and official US Marine unarmed combat instruction manuals online now, which show you all the pressure points on the human body that can kill someone. So there will be a lot of civilian thugs out there who now know how to do this too, yet most of them still get beaten up in nightclubs. What I’m saying is that unarmed combat training doesn’t always pan out well in real life fights like in instruction manuals or martial arts training classes.

Also, if an SAS man is as tough as he’s supposed to be, he would be able to handle himself without having to kill anyone. They are also trained to just break limbs. The fact that some of them get beaten up by civilians just means that their training in this area is either faulty or that such training in general doesn't translate that well to real-life fights.

chrisisall

osris wrote:

The fact that some of them get beaten up by civilians just means that their training in this area is either faulty or that such training in general doesn't translate that well to real-life fights.

It all comes down to the individual. Some will get drunk & rowdy occasionally... technique & accuracy lower after enough booze, as does self control. Notice that you never hear of an SAS dude getting his arse handed to him if he's NOT drunk.

thesecretagent

osris wrote:

There are a few reality TV shows about ordinary people going though SAS style training. The training is quite tough, but a lot of it seem pointless, such as long jogs with heavy backpacks on etc. I appreciate that such training is to build resilience, but how relevant is it to actual real-life operations, which I imagine would comprise of predominantly quick breaking-and-entering raids on buildings with unsuspecting terrorists in. How resilient do you have to be for that?

Also, 99% of these terrorists (if we are talking about the middle-east variety) will be under 6 foot, probably out of shape with slight physiques and inefficiently trained—or at least not to SAS standards. Given this, is such training over-the-top and impractical, or is it mainly for promotional and marketing purposes, to reassure the public that Britain can hold its own militarily in the world.

I think a lot of it is just hype, and I doubt whether SAS men are tougher than ordinary soldiers in real life operations. By the way, has anyone heard any stories of an SAS man who was beaten up in a nightclub by a civilian? I’m sure there must be. If so, it would prove my point.

What terrorists are you talking about? Do you honestly think Taliban/Al Qaeda/ISIS fighters are weak and unfit? And what has being under six foot got to do with anything? These fighters are tough, hard, resilient and brave. And formal training is great, but these guys have had their training in real battle. You don't get more formal than that.
The SAS selection process is exactly what it says - selection. It gets the most determined in place to commence further training. SAS soldiers are not superheroes. Of course they've been beaten in fights by civilians. I imagine you've never had a proper fight because big, strong men go down all the time to unlikely men "well under six feet tall".
The training is for worse case scenarios. Look at the Falklands when it was unfeasible to land closer. March forty-odd miles with 100lb of equipment and fight a well established fortified enemy. And these were regular soldiers. Easy, eh?

minigeff

Do the special forces really have to actually kill anyone though? Can't they just.., I dunno, deliver some flowers and just have a chat to these terrorist people?

Number24

I think given flowers might not work for all terrorists. I've seen in the highly realistic comic "The Phantom" you can just shoot the guns out of the hands of your oponents. That's what they should to to the most hardline terrorists. Since they are hardliner who weren't won over by the flowers, they should be arrested and be convicted to several years of prison

Ens007

osris wrote:

There are a few reality TV shows about ordinary people going though SAS style training. The training is quite tough, but a lot of it seem pointless, such as long jogs with heavy backpacks on etc. I appreciate that such training is to build resilience, but how relevant is it to actual real-life operations, which I imagine would comprise of predominantly quick breaking-and-entering raids on buildings with unsuspecting terrorists in. How resilient do you have to be for that?

Also, 99% of these terrorists (if we are talking about the middle-east variety) will be under 6 foot, probably out of shape with slight physiques and inefficiently trained—or at least not to SAS standards. Given this, is such training over-the-top and impractical, or is it mainly for promotional and marketing purposes, to reassure the public that Britain can hold its own militarily in the world.

I think a lot of it is just hype, and I doubt whether SAS men are tougher than ordinary soldiers in real life operations. By the way, has anyone heard any stories of an SAS man who was beaten up in a nightclub by a civilian? I’m sure there must be. If so, it would prove my point.

In what way is this "just hype"?!?! They are the elite of Special Forces - this is fact. If any old gym monkey could do it, then why do so many fail in any of these pseudo TV shows that are around? Most of these are the first to quit. Speak to anyone connected with the SAS (as I've been fortunate to do) & you will hear them say that it is more mental strength that is required - the ability to go to your absolute limit, keep pushing on & keep clarity of thought. There are very few people roaming the earth that are able to achieve this. This is why you keep hearing the phrase, "and then the training kicks in" ... it becomes 2nd nature to you. As for the point you made about resilience - if the average soldier could do what these blokes do, then why do so many make it through the Selection process??

IMO you could have the fighting nous of Mike Tyson, but if a 15 stone plus bloke connects properly with your chin (such as being caught unawares or completely out of the blue), then you're going to be in trouble!

osris

thesecretagent wrote:

What terrorists are you talking about? Do you honestly think Taliban/Al Qaeda/ISIS fighters are weak and unfit?

Yes, compared to SAS men—that’s supposed (presumably) to be the whole point of the SAS training, otherwise why bother with it.

thesecretagent wrote:

And what has being under six foot got to do with anything?

Quite a lot. Shorter men always have a disadvantage in unarmed combat, especially against well-trained taller and lanky men with longer reaches, and who can entwine themselves around you like a snake when you on the ground.

thesecretagent wrote:

I imagine you've never had a proper fight because big, strong men go down all the time to unlikely men "well under six feet tall".

True, if the shorter man gets the first punch in, then kicks the guy in the head when he’s on the ground. But even then it’s easy for taller men to parry such punches due to longer reach.

thesecretagent wrote:

Look at the Falklands when it was unfeasible to land closer. March forty-odd miles with 100lb of equipment and fight a well established fortified enemy. And these were regular soldiers. Easy, eh?

I agree, this proves my point when I said in an earlier post that regular soldiers are just as resilient as the SAS.

osris

Ens007 wrote:

In what way is this "just hype"?!?!  They are the elite of Special Forces - this is fact.  If any old gym monkey could do it, then why do so many fail in any of these pseudo TV shows that are around?  Most of these are the first to quit.  Speak to anyone connected with the SAS (as I've been fortunate to do) & you will hear them say that it is more mental strength that is required - the ability to go to your absolute limit, keep pushing on & keep clarity of thought.  There are very few people roaming the earth that are able to achieve this.  This is why you keep hearing the phrase, "and then the training kicks in" ... it becomes 2nd nature to you.  As for the point you made about resilience - if the average soldier could do what these blokes do, then why do so many make it through the Selection process??
IMO you could have the fighting nous of Mike Tyson, but if a 15 stone plus bloke connects properly with your chin (such as being caught unawares or completely out of the blue), then you're going to be in trouble!

I agree, the training is tough. My point, though, is that it’s too tough for what’s actually required in the field. The training seems to me a bit like a pissing contest, to boost the egos of those who get selected.

Number24

Stamina and the ability to carry heavy loads for a long time over long distances is a key requirement for most (perhaps all) special forces. Makes me think there is a reason for it.

Here in Norway special forces soldiers have a reputation of not being very big men and an ex-paratrooper I know is well under six feet tall. Stamina and mindset are far more important than big muscles.

osris

I agree, yes, stamina is very important in the training. But how often do you think it is needed in modern warfare, where SAS troops are essentially glorified assassins, bomb planters and raiding of buildings experts. Most ordinary soldiers could do that.

Ens007

osris wrote:

I agree, yes, stamina is very important in the training. But how often do you think it is needed in modern warfare, where SAS troops are essentially glorified assassins, bomb planters and raiding of buildings experts. Most ordinary soldiers could do that.

I'm sorry, but that is just complete & utter garbage. Are you actually on the wind up??!

I'd seriously recommend actually researching what not only the SAS do, but Special Forces around the world do. If you honestly believe that this is their remit & that "ordinary soldiers" can do their work, then why do we even have them?!?

The Domino Effect

osris wrote:

I agree, yes, stamina is very important in the training. But how often do you think it is needed in modern warfare, where SAS troops are essentially glorified assassins, bomb planters and raiding of buildings experts. Most ordinary soldiers could do that.

You really have little clue what the SAS is all about, do you? If you're going to start a thread and pose a reasonable question for discussion (I think your thread title is a reasonable question for discussion, incidentally), you should at least have the decency to know a little bit about the topic first rather than making patently ridiculous statements like this one. Do some genuine reading and then come back or, as Ens007 says, we're likely to think you're just here to wind people up.

HatThrowingHenchman

I'm starting at the army next year - can anybody tell me something about the basic training?

osris

My apologies if I have offended anyone. I’m not a winder up. My question was sincere. I do think that the stamina element of the entry training is too rigorous for what is actually needed in the field. I have no complaint against the other aspects of training, only the overemphasis on stamina.

HatThrowingHenchman

stag wrote:

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

I'm starting at the army next year - can anybody tell me something about the basic training?

What army are you speaking about? I'm sure there are plenty of people here who can give some sound advice.

german army, not the airfore/not the navy but the regular soldier, going for the rank of an officier

HatThrowingHenchman

stag wrote:

Personally I never made it past the TA (Territorial Army), I know nothing of the German Army or Officer training so the only scrap of advice I can give is to build up then maintain your physical fitness levels to a standard beyond what is normally expected. While doing build up training prior to attempting selection as I detailed above I used to run carrying a heavy backback - I gradually built up the weight - cycle & swim. All 'long range' fitness stuff designed to increase stamina. You'll find training easier if you are fit to begin with.

thank you for your words -{
I'm doing sports on a regular basis already which came in quite handy at the BFT and will start swimming soon.
8 months to go still

Number24

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

stag wrote:

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

I'm starting at the army next year - can anybody tell me something about the basic training?

What army are you speaking about? I'm sure there are plenty of people here who can give some sound advice.

german army, not the airfore/not the navy but the regular soldier, going for the rank of an officier

Don't mention the war!

osris

stag wrote:

Osris, although I intended not to comment further I must point out that you haven't offended me. As regards the physical aspects of SAS & indeed any other special forces it has to be put into the context of the operations which they may have to carry out. Tests of the day being move from point A to point Z carrying a heavy load over very rough ground often in poor weather against the clock often simulates actual combat scenarios. Let's say for example you were part of a mortar team, there was no other way to deploy your team to the point at where it can provide fire support for an attack other than have you move by foot - you have to carry all your kit plus the equipment & ammo needed for the tasking. You have to be at the designated point in six hours time or the attack cannot go ahead. You cannot achieve that if you are not physically & mentally conditioned to do so. The stamina element is painfully relevant to almost aspects of special forces training & selection but more important is the mental attitude of the candidate - push them harder than they could possibly expect to do do in an operational sense & if they are successful then you know that they are up to the job for real. As said my own experience is limited but I learned enough to know that only the best of the best of the best get through to the end. BTW even before selection starts (for the TA SAS anyway) & unless it's changed since - it was over thirty years since I tried - the general no hopers are weeded out by physical testing.

Thanks for explaining this to me, but I still don’t understand how the examples you give don’t also apply to regular soldiers who also have to do the sorts of things that you mention. It seems to me that the SAS and ordinary soldiers are much alike in terms of resilience, but where they differ is that the SAS have more specialised technical and sabotage skills. Apart from that, I can’t see any difference. That’s why I keep harping on about how the resilience element in SAS training is redundant, given that ordinary soldiers have to do the same sort of in-the-field operations you give as examples.

Asp9mm

osris wrote:

Thanks for explaining this to me, but I still don’t understand how the examples you give don’t also apply to regular soldiers who also have to do the sorts of things that you mention. It seems to me that the SAS and ordinary soldiers are much alike in terms of resilience, but where they differ is that the SAS have more specialised technical and sabotage skills. Apart from that, I can’t see any difference. That’s why I keep harping on about how the resilience element in SAS training is redundant, given that ordinary soldiers have to do the same sort of in-the-field operations you give as examples.

I think you don't really have an idea of how and why they are different and if you can't see it, or it seems from this thread, you are unwilling too, then there's no hope. SAS soldiers have to do be trained to the level they are, otherwise they couldn't do their job and they'd die. End of story. They are specialists. If any soldier could do it, then they wouldn't spend in excess of a million £££ per SAS soldiers training, and they'd get ordinary soldiers to do it. I really can't see why you have a mental block in realising such an obvious thing.

Ens007

Asp9mm wrote:

osris wrote:

Thanks for explaining this to me, but I still don’t understand how the examples you give don’t also apply to regular soldiers who also have to do the sorts of things that you mention. It seems to me that the SAS and ordinary soldiers are much alike in terms of resilience, but where they differ is that the SAS have more specialised technical and sabotage skills. Apart from that, I can’t see any difference. That’s why I keep harping on about how the resilience element in SAS training is redundant, given that ordinary soldiers have to do the same sort of in-the-field operations you give as examples.

I think you don't really have an idea of how and why they are different and if you can't see it, or it seems from this thread, you are unwilling too, then there's no hope. SAS soldiers have to do be trained to the level they are, otherwise they couldn't do their job and they'd die. End of story. They are specialists. If any soldier could do it, then they wouldn't spend in excess of a million £££ per SAS soldiers training, and they'd get ordinary soldiers to do it. I really can't see why you have a mental block in realising such an obvious thing.

Very well said Asp9mm -{ couldn't agree more. I honestly can't get my head around what is so difficult to grasp with this.

Osris - may I make a very humble suggestion & ask you to please read up on some of the nitty gritty regarding the SAS ... not the glory stuff that makes the headlines or sells books (Bravo 2 Zero etc). If you find time, I'd also strongly suggest that you read up about the feats of Sergeant Talaiasi Labalaba amongst others. You mention resilience, however I defy many a soldier to achieve what that man did & ultimately (sadly) sacrificed.

minigeff

This thread is so stupid. Non of you so called experts have even attempted to explain to me why our top SF troops can't deliver flowers.

Asp9mm

minigeff wrote:

This thread is so stupid. Non of you so called experts have even attempted to explain to me why our top SF troops can't deliver flowers.

They can, they just don't wanna. Flowers are girly, for girls. Real blokes don't carry flowers in public. Or man-bags.

minigeff

Asp9mm wrote:

minigeff wrote:

This thread is so stupid. Non of you so called experts have even attempted to explain to me why our top SF troops can't deliver flowers.

They can, they just don't wanna. Flowers are girly, for girls. Real blokes don't carry flowers in public. Or man-bags.

Finally an expert answer!

Lock the thread!!!!

Number24

Some special forces soldiers are quite willing to explore their feminine side. During the Israeli commando raid in Beirut when they wanted to kill some of the people behind the terrorist attack on the Israeli athletes during the Olympics in Germany. You may remember the sequence from the Spielberg movie "Munich". Daniel Craig was in that movie before he started making James Bond movies.
Two men who later became Israeli prime ministers where in that commando unit, Ehud Barak and present PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
Barak and some other Israeli commandos were in fact dressed as women to get passed check points in Beirut! Ehud Barak actually had two hand grenades in his bra! )