Actually the unit was the secret military unit Sayeret Matkal, perhaps best compared to the US Army Delta Force. Both Barak and Netanyahu later became commanders of Sayeret Matkal. Imagne not only one, but two fomer Delta Force commanders becoming presidents. Or SAS soldiers becoming British prime ministers! Only in Israel .....
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
I know. I was just referencing MOSSAD. An intelligence service that deserves respect.
I remember a mate telling me ,that during his selection they took him to a parade ground (blindfolded) and threw him to the floor , a army truck parked nearby was parked up revving its engine ,the truck was then driven towards him ,(are they going to run me over to see how hard I am ) un be knowing to him an instructor ,wheels out a old truck tyre ,and rolls it past his head ,with every one screaming ,don't effin move ,obviously mate on floor thiks his melon is going to be squashed ,now this is what I was told ,wether it is true I don't know ,but sounds probable 8-)
I just discovered that Benjamin Netanyahu never commanded Sayaret Matkal, but he was a team leader. Both his brothers were in the unit too. One of them, Yonatan, was the commander of the unit during the Entebbe raid where he was the only Israeli soldier killed. Im not sure if Barak ever commanded the unit, but he was one of the top leaders in the unit.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
I remember a mate telling me ,that during his selection they took him to a parade ground (blindfolded) and threw him to the floor , a army truck parked nearby was parked up revving its engine ,the truck was then driven towards him ,(are they going to run me over to see how hard I am ) un be knowing to him an instructor ,wheels out a old truck tyre ,and rolls it past his head ,with every one screaming ,don't effin move ,obviously mate on floor thiks his melon is going to be squashed ,now this is what I was told ,wether it is true I don't know ,but sounds probable 8-)
It was actually rolled up to and touched the head on the cue of each powerful rev, with a finger dipped in petrol hovering near the nose. Not sure it was used during SAS interrogation scenarios, but it was certainly used in others, but that was only up to to about 1991 as it was an urban myth during training back then, so no one was going to be fooled.
ASP9MM a Question for you , is it true ,that a certain member of our royal family ,who fancied himself as a Royal Marines officer ,jacked it in ,because he couldn't face getting the Royal todger out in front of the ranks ) , again so ive been reliably told ,or was he just plain sh*t at being a Rupert ,
By the way, did I tell you, I was "Mad"?
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
The todger myth isn't true, as he would have got it out many times before that. You can't hide a todger in the forces, whoever you are. I certainly couldn't hide mine, even with a really big bar of soap
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
Yes, they are specialists, and the money spent is probably for those specialised aspects of the training that are recourse heavy.
Sorry for my obtuseness, but no one has yet explained to me why the resilience element in SAS training is more important than that of ordinary soldiers’ training. Yes, I totally agree that ordinary soldiers couldn’t do the specialised tasks that the SAS do. Many people here seem to think I am denying that. I’m not.
So could everyone please deal specifically with the “resilience” aspect that I’m questioning and nothing else? For that is the main issue, not how hard each SAS man is or how specialised the training is, which are irrelevant to what I’m asking.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
Simple, because they won't have the back up that basic army has. They can be just a four man group operating behind enemy lines for months on end without any immediate back up or replacements. You have to be very resilient to do that and remain at the peak of alertness and ready to bug out under enemy fire if compromised.
Thanks for this, but it’s not the sort of “resilience” that the training focuses on, in that it doesn’t explain why running miles with heavy backpacks and doing and other physical endurance tests is so important. What you describe is more akin to coping with isolation, boredom and living on your wits, not the same as the “resilience” regime focused on in training, though very important in itself.
Again, I’m not saying that SAS training has no field applications, just that the physical resilience element hasn’t—or at least not more than it would for regular soldiers.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
Thanks for this, but it’s not the sort of “resilience” that the training focuses on, in that it doesn’t explain why running miles with heavy backpacks and doing and other physical endurance tests is so important. What you describe is more akin to coping with isolation, boredom and living on your wits, not the same as the “resilience” regime focused on in training, though very important in itself.
Again, I’m not saying that SAS training has no field applications, just that the physical resilience element hasn’t—or at least not more than it would for regular soldiers.
That's not the training. That's Selection. A gruelling test of personal strengths designed to weed out those who wouldn't make it into the Regiment. Training is very different.
They must learn to run miles with heavy bergens on in training, because they will be running miles with really heavy equipment when they go on live ops. What's so difficult to understand? You think you don't have to train for that? Seriously?
If you really can't see what merits endurance training has, then honesty you are being a bit thick or provocative just for the sake of it. It doesn't take an IQ of 200 to see what merits endurance training has for elite soldiers. I might be being a bit unkind there, but you obviously have no idea of the theatre or roles special forces operate in. And so you must go and investigate that or you will never understand. It's about mindset and self discipline as much as it is about strength and resilience.
Again, I’m not saying that SAS training has no field applications, just that the physical resilience element hasn’t—or at least not more than it would for regular soldiers.
This last quote is ridiculous. They don't do the same job as regular soldiers. Not even close. It just shows how ignorant you are about SF and what they do. The reason we have SF is because regular soldiers CAN'T do what they do.
So to answer your original questionIs SAS training relevant in real-life combat situations? Obviously not, they are pointless, that's why we train penguins to do the job in real life. The SAS is a make believe unit invented to make regular troops look good 8-) What you need to ask is 'do we need to train penguins, when untrained ones could do the job'. And on that note I'm out of this daft thread.
Thanks for this, but it’s not the sort of “resilience” that the training focuses on, in that it doesn’t explain why running miles with heavy backpacks and doing and other physical endurance tests is so important. What you describe is more akin to coping with isolation, boredom and living on your wits, not the same as the “resilience” regime focused on in training, though very important in itself.
Again, I’m not saying that SAS training has no field applications, just that the physical resilience element hasn’t—or at least not more than it would for regular soldiers.
That's not the training. That's Selection. A gruelling test of personal strengths designed to weed out those who wouldn't make it into the Regiment. Training is very different.
They must learn to run miles with heavy bergens on in training, because they will be running miles with really heavy equipment when they go on live ops. What's so difficult to understand? You think you don't have to train for that? Seriously?
If you really can't see what merits endurance training has, then honesty you are being a bit thick or provocative just for the sake of it. It doesn't take an IQ of 200 to see what merits endurance training has for elite soldiers. I might be being a bit unkind there, but you obviously have no idea of the theatre or roles special forces operate in. And so you must go and investigate that or you will never understand. It's about mindset and self discipline as much as it is about strength and resilience.
Again, I’m not saying that SAS training has no field applications, just that the physical resilience element hasn’t—or at least not more than it would for regular soldiers.
This last quote is ridiculous. They don't do the same job as regular soldiers. Not even close. It just shows how ignorant you are about SF and what they do. The reason we have SF is because regular soldiers CAN'T do what they do.
So to answer your original questionIs SAS training relevant in real-life combat situations? Obviously not, they are pointless, that's why we train penguins to do the job in real life. The SAS is a make believe unit invented to make regular troops look good 8-) What you need to ask is 'do we need to train penguins, when untrained ones could do the job'. And on that note I'm out of this daft thread.
Superb post Asp9mm ... Like you, I'm absolutely staggered & bemused as to what's being asked here. I'm certain now that this has to be a wind up. As a certain Scottish entrepreneur so often says on the Dragon's Den tv show, "I'm ooot" of this thread too now.
That's not the training. That's Selection. A gruelling test of personal strengths designed to weed out those who wouldn't make it into the Regiment. Training is very different.
That’s partly my point—why is the selection test so focused on extreme almost superhuman physical resilience when the sorts of operations they go on once recruited aren’t “resilient” in the same way.
They must learn to run miles with heavy bergens on in training, because they will be running miles with really heavy equipment when they go on live ops. What's so difficult to understand? You think you don't have to train for that? Seriously?
But regular soldiers do this also, as an earlier poster mentioned. Or are you saying that the commandos, marines etc are not real soldiers and only the SAS are?
This last quote is ridiculous. They don't do the same job as regular soldiers. Not even close.
You misunderstood what I said. I was referring only to the resilience element of the training. Of course they do different jobs than ordinary soldiers. Though both they and ordinary soldiers are just as resilient as each other. Where they differ from ordinary soldiers is that their training is more focused on covert operations, sabotage and working in independent close units. They don’t have a monopoly on resilience, though. Indeed, many SAS men had to leave the force due to PTS. Why would this be so if they had superior resilience than ordinary soldiers. This just proves that the focus on resilience training to weed out the weaklings is not relevant to the field.
It doesn't take an IQ of 200 to see what merits endurance training has for elite soldiers.
Yes, I agree in general. Where I disagree is about the type of endurance training that is best applicable to the field. The torture and isolation training makes sense, but running up and down mountains for hours on end is a bit OTT.
Osris, there is a saying that goes, "Better to keep quiet and let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it to everyone". Both Asp9mm and stag are experienced professionals in their field, you should not have to question anything that they have told you.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Sorry for having an opinion—if it is only that and not stating the obvious. It would be interesting to see if anyone is willing to raise their head above the parapet and agree with me.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
It's not an opinion. If I said the moon is just a reflection of Earth on space, that isn't an opinion, that is wrong. You are just plain wrong and don't know why because you know nothing about the subject. Read the posts, people aren't going to agree with something that is so plainly silly. Everyone is telling you this.
It's not an opinion. If I said the moon is just a reflection of Earth on space, that isn't an opinion, that is wrong. You are just plain wrong and don't know why because you know nothing about the subject. Read the posts, people aren't going to agree with something that is so plainly silly. Everyone is telling you this.
You’re confusing the meaning of the word “opinion” with the word “fact”. The latter word is what you should be using for your argument. An opinion is not fact, just a point of view that might be right or wrong. You happen to think my opinion is wrong, others might not. Of the over 1,504 views this post has had so far, I doubt if all those that viewed it agree with you.
I remain unconvinced, however, with your opinion that SAS resilience standards are better than those of ordinary soldiers. BTW you haven’t replied to my rebuttals (in post 50 on page 2 of this thread) of your arguments (in post 48 on page 2 of this thread). I’d be interested in your responses to them, otherwise I'll have to assume you really agree with me, and just like to argue for the sake of it.
I agree with much of what you say, but I honestly don’t think that the things you mention couldn't be done by regular soldiers too—especially by the commandos and marines etc. Indeed, I suspect 99% of SAS men are those drawn from the commandos and marines, and the other 1% from the regular army, which surely proves that regular soldiers have what it tales to get into the SAS.
My point is that the SAS, being a specialised unit, only differ from regular soldiers in that they have more technical and specialist skills suited to particular covert operations. These skills are obviously needed and so the SAS should be trained in them. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t know why some people here have been so antagonistic to this view. It seems a reasonable observation, and for some to argue against it would be to make the claim that the SAS and regular soldiers have the same technical and specialist skills, which is obviously and verifiably not true.
Imagine being behind the lines for an extended period of time with little or no support available, the enemy hunting you down. One of your team cracks up - he cracks up under pressure because his mettle hasn't been tested - that's one of the reasons SAS selection is as tough as it is, it's there to separate the best from the very best so only the very best make it through.
So are you saying that there are no regular soldiers at all who could behave this way in a tight spot in their own regiments? The probability is there would be some. When the chips are down none of us know how we will behave. As I said earlier, many SAS men have left the service due to post traumatic stress. So not all SAS live up to the ideal you mention, yet they were deemed the best of the best. The fact is no one can predict who will hold it together in battle.
Comments
It was actually rolled up to and touched the head on the cue of each powerful rev, with a finger dipped in petrol hovering near the nose. Not sure it was used during SAS interrogation scenarios, but it was certainly used in others, but that was only up to to about 1991 as it was an urban myth during training back then, so no one was going to be fooled.
Yes, they are specialists, and the money spent is probably for those specialised aspects of the training that are recourse heavy.
Sorry for my obtuseness, but no one has yet explained to me why the resilience element in SAS training is more important than that of ordinary soldiers’ training. Yes, I totally agree that ordinary soldiers couldn’t do the specialised tasks that the SAS do. Many people here seem to think I am denying that. I’m not.
So could everyone please deal specifically with the “resilience” aspect that I’m questioning and nothing else? For that is the main issue, not how hard each SAS man is or how specialised the training is, which are irrelevant to what I’m asking.
Again, I’m not saying that SAS training has no field applications, just that the physical resilience element hasn’t—or at least not more than it would for regular soldiers.
That's not the training. That's Selection. A gruelling test of personal strengths designed to weed out those who wouldn't make it into the Regiment. Training is very different.
They must learn to run miles with heavy bergens on in training, because they will be running miles with really heavy equipment when they go on live ops. What's so difficult to understand? You think you don't have to train for that? Seriously?
If you really can't see what merits endurance training has, then honesty you are being a bit thick or provocative just for the sake of it. It doesn't take an IQ of 200 to see what merits endurance training has for elite soldiers. I might be being a bit unkind there, but you obviously have no idea of the theatre or roles special forces operate in. And so you must go and investigate that or you will never understand. It's about mindset and self discipline as much as it is about strength and resilience.
This last quote is ridiculous. They don't do the same job as regular soldiers. Not even close. It just shows how ignorant you are about SF and what they do. The reason we have SF is because regular soldiers CAN'T do what they do.
So to answer your original question Is SAS training relevant in real-life combat situations? Obviously not, they are pointless, that's why we train penguins to do the job in real life. The SAS is a make believe unit invented to make regular troops look good 8-) What you need to ask is 'do we need to train penguins, when untrained ones could do the job'. And on that note I'm out of this daft thread.
Superb post Asp9mm ... Like you, I'm absolutely staggered & bemused as to what's being asked here. I'm certain now that this has to be a wind up. As a certain Scottish entrepreneur so often says on the Dragon's Den tv show, "I'm ooot" of this thread too now.
That’s partly my point—why is the selection test so focused on extreme almost superhuman physical resilience when the sorts of operations they go on once recruited aren’t “resilient” in the same way.
But regular soldiers do this also, as an earlier poster mentioned. Or are you saying that the commandos, marines etc are not real soldiers and only the SAS are?
You misunderstood what I said. I was referring only to the resilience element of the training. Of course they do different jobs than ordinary soldiers. Though both they and ordinary soldiers are just as resilient as each other. Where they differ from ordinary soldiers is that their training is more focused on covert operations, sabotage and working in independent close units. They don’t have a monopoly on resilience, though. Indeed, many SAS men had to leave the force due to PTS. Why would this be so if they had superior resilience than ordinary soldiers. This just proves that the focus on resilience training to weed out the weaklings is not relevant to the field.
Yes, I agree in general. Where I disagree is about the type of endurance training that is best applicable to the field. The torture and isolation training makes sense, but running up and down mountains for hours on end is a bit OTT.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
they water the flowers B-)
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
You’re confusing the meaning of the word “opinion” with the word “fact”. The latter word is what you should be using for your argument. An opinion is not fact, just a point of view that might be right or wrong. You happen to think my opinion is wrong, others might not. Of the over 1,504 views this post has had so far, I doubt if all those that viewed it agree with you.
I remain unconvinced, however, with your opinion that SAS resilience standards are better than those of ordinary soldiers. BTW you haven’t replied to my rebuttals (in post 50 on page 2 of this thread) of your arguments (in post 48 on page 2 of this thread). I’d be interested in your responses to them, otherwise I'll have to assume you really agree with me, and just like to argue for the sake of it.
My point is that the SAS, being a specialised unit, only differ from regular soldiers in that they have more technical and specialist skills suited to particular covert operations. These skills are obviously needed and so the SAS should be trained in them. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t know why some people here have been so antagonistic to this view. It seems a reasonable observation, and for some to argue against it would be to make the claim that the SAS and regular soldiers have the same technical and specialist skills, which is obviously and verifiably not true.
I tried this once, but all I got were two very sodden socks.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I think BG used a dead snake carcass to do this...
....as you do, of course.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I'd say over 99% do though.
Asp9mm knows his stuff on subjects like this -{
Ditto this! Asp9mm knows what he's talking here.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
So are you saying that there are no regular soldiers at all who could behave this way in a tight spot in their own regiments? The probability is there would be some. When the chips are down none of us know how we will behave. As I said earlier, many SAS men have left the service due to post traumatic stress. So not all SAS live up to the ideal you mention, yet they were deemed the best of the best. The fact is no one can predict who will hold it together in battle.