Osris I am not going to comment further on what has become an exercise in futility. Believe what you like & continue to believe that the SAS & all the rest of the worlds special forces have got their training & selection regimes wrong & we'll leave it at that. Thank you.
It seems no one can tell me if they think regular soldiers are as resilient as SAS ones, despite regular soldiers operating under the same sort of stressed conditions the SAS do in real life wars. Also, no one has answered my question about SAS men leaving the service due to post traumatic stress, and whether this indicates that the SAS selection process should have been able to weed out these men. If no one has any answers, just say so. Why the coyness?
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,522MI6 Agent
edited November 2015
OK Here you go then.
As a whole, no they aren't. And they don't operate under the same sort of stressed conditions. SF operate under a whole new level of stress. One that you couldn't even comprehend.
Not many leave due to PTS. Very very few in fact compared to other services. And that's because of the training AND selection process. Both of these DO weed out those that may develop any kind of long term combat stress or degredation in the field caused by mental trauma.
As a whole, no they aren't. And they don't operate under the same sort of stressed conditions. SF operate under a whole new level of stress. One that you couldn't even comprehend.
This is all a bit vague. What sort of stress conditions do you mean?
Not many leave due to PTS. Very very few in fact compared to other services. And that's because of the training AND selection process. Both of these DO weed out those that may develop any kind of long term combat stress or degredation in the field caused by mental trauma.
But yet the weeding process still allows for a few to get selected who do get post traumatic stress?
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,522MI6 Agent
But yet the weeding process still allows for a few to get selected who do get post traumatic stress?
Not many though. No system is perfect, but it's as close to a perfect system as you're ever likely to get. A SF operative is much less likely to get PTS than other forces personal, and that's operating under far more stressful situations in a more active combat role too.
As a whole, no they aren't. And they don't operate under the same sort of stressed conditions. SF operate under a whole new level of stress. One that you couldn't even comprehend.
This is all a bit vague. What sort of stress conditions do you mean?
During the ww2, korea and even Vietnam war, it was discovered that some "behind the lines" units (of all nationalities which participated and had these types of units) succumbed to the stress of operating in hostile territory with out support and being continuously surrounded by hostiles
They lost their ability to operate and they went to ground with out being able to fulfill their orders.
The knowledge that there is not one friendly soul around you beyond your own immediate unit is one of the strongest stress causes known to man. High anaerobic fitness levels is the best way to increase ones ability to withstand stress. This is why most of the high achievers in the corporate world are also fitness enthusiasts.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Report Overview: Analysis of Debate on SAS Training and Resilience
Objective
To provide insights into a public debate regarding the relevance and efficacy of the resilience training component in SAS (Special Air Service) training programs. This report synthesises various viewpoints from an online discussion to inform a think tank on potential improvements to SAS training.
Context and Background
The debate originated from a thread discussing the appropriateness of the SAS's rigorous training, particularly focusing on the resilience element. The core question posed was whether the extreme physical endurance required in SAS training is justified given the nature of the SAS’s operational tasks.
Key Arguments Presented
A. Osris's Perspective
Main Argument:
Osris questioned the necessity of the extreme physical resilience training within SAS programs, arguing that such training may be excessive compared to the actual demands of SAS operations in the field.
Supporting Points:
- Regular soldiers also undergo physical training and operate under stress, suggesting that extreme resilience training might be redundant.
- Osris emphasised that while SAS training includes technical and specialised skills, the high resilience standards may not significantly impact their effectiveness in covert and specialised operations.
- He raised concerns about the ability of SAS training to predict or prevent post-traumatic stress among its members.
B. Counterarguments from Other Posters
Asp9mm and Others:
- Argued that SAS training, including its resilience component, is crucial for ensuring that operatives can perform under extreme conditions with little to no support.
- Emphasised that SAS selection and training aim to identify and cultivate individuals who can endure high stress and operate effectively in isolated, high-pressure environments.
- Stressed that resilience training is not only about physical endurance but also about mental toughness and the ability to handle isolation and intense situations.
Criticisms of Osris’s Views
- Critics claimed that Osris's perspective showed a lack of understanding of the specific demands and unique nature of special forces operations.
- Some respondents suggested that Osris was not considering the full scope of SAS operations or the importance of comprehensive resilience training.
Discussion Dynamics and Challenges
- Misunderstanding and Divergence: Many responses diverged from Osris's specific question about the relevance of physical resilience training, leading to misunderstandings and off-topic arguments.
- Emotional Responses: The discussion included emotional and sometimes confrontational responses, which hindered constructive dialogue.
- Lack of Direct Responses: Key questions about the practical impact of resilience training and its correlation with operational effectiveness were not adequately addressed.
Recommendations for SAS Training Improvement
Based on the discussion and feedback from the debate, the following recommendations are proposed to refine SAS training, with a specific focus on aligning the resilience training with real-world practical applications:
1. Align Resilience Training with Operational Demands:
- Assessment of Practical Relevance: Review and assess the specific physical and mental resilience requirements of SAS missions, such as short raids, intense combat periods, and sabotage operations. Ensure that the resilience training reflects the realistic demands and scenarios encountered in these operations.
- Scenario-Based Training: Implement training scenarios that closely mimic actual SAS operations, including short-term, high-intensity combat situations and prolonged periods of isolation with limited support. This approach can help ensure that the training prepares operatives for the exact conditions they will face in the field.
2. Focus More on Tactical Resilience:
- Emphasise Field Applications: Design resilience training to directly enhance skills necessary for specific SAS tasks. For instance, integrate exercises that simulate the stress of rapid insertion and extraction, and build the ability to perform under high-pressure conditions similar to those in operational contexts.
- Specialised Training Modules: Develop specialised modules that address the unique aspects of SAS missions, such as sabotage and covert operations. These modules should include both physical and mental resilience components tailored to the specific challenges of these tasks.
3. Regular Review and Feedback:
- Continuous Evaluation: Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of resilience training by gathering feedback from current and former SAS operatives. Use this feedback to adjust training practices and ensure they meet the evolving needs of SAS operations.
- Adaptation to Lessons Learned: Incorporate lessons learned from recent missions and training exercises to continuously refine and adapt the resilience training program. This will help maintain its relevance and effectiveness in preparing operatives for real-world challenges.
4. Enhanced Communication and Training Objectives:
- Clarify Training Goals: Clearly communicate the objectives and expected outcomes of resilience training to all participants. Ensure that operatives understand how their training will directly impact their performance in specific SAS missions.
- Transparency in Training Practices: Provide transparency about the rationale behind various training elements, including how they relate to operational requirements. This will help address any misconceptions and improve understanding among trainees and stakeholders.
By focusing on these areas, SAS training can be better aligned with the practical needs of operational tasks, enhancing both physical and psychological resilience in a way that directly supports the effectiveness of SAS missions.
Overview
The debate highlighted various perspectives on SAS training, with a particular focus on the balance between physical resilience and practical operational needs. For meaningful improvements to SAS training programs, it is essential to address both the practical and psychological dimensions of resilience, ensuring that all training components are directly applicable to the field and contribute to overall effectiveness.
This overview aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the debate and its implications for SAS training improvements. Further analysis and consultation with experts may be necessary to implement these recommendations effectively.
The real life Special Forces (SF) operations you highlighted (predominately quick breaking-and-entering raids on buildings, rescuing hostages) fall under Counter terrorism (CT) operations.
In addition to these, squadrons of the Special Forces (SAS, SRR, SBS and SFSG) are also trained in:
Surveillance and reconnaissance operations (SR)
Offensive action operations (OA)
Maritime, amphibious and riverine operations
Clandestine intelligence gathering
High value target (HVT) acquisitions / manhunt operations
Counter-insurgency operations
Sabotage and demolition operations
Mobility operations
VIP escort and protection services
Foreign internal defence
Mountain warfare
Desert warfare
Jungle warfare
Artic combat and survival
High Altitude Low Opening (HALO) and High Altitude High Opening (HAHO) parachute jumps
Securing facilities (airstrips, dockyards, military installations etc)
Special Forces soldiers in their respective troops and squadrons are also trained as emergency medics, motor mechanics, radio operators and linguists.
With the various domains of Special Forces operations, you can clearly see that in addition to physical toughness...a high degree of intelligence, threat perception and risk management skills are required for the safe completion of missions.
I do not know if special forces soldiers are physically tougher than marines, infanteers or paratroopers, but their intensive training and exposure to high operational risks, makes them a cut above the regular soldier.
Comments
ahem....
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
It seems no one can tell me if they think regular soldiers are as resilient as SAS ones, despite regular soldiers operating under the same sort of stressed conditions the SAS do in real life wars. Also, no one has answered my question about SAS men leaving the service due to post traumatic stress, and whether this indicates that the SAS selection process should have been able to weed out these men. If no one has any answers, just say so. Why the coyness?
As a whole, no they aren't. And they don't operate under the same sort of stressed conditions. SF operate under a whole new level of stress. One that you couldn't even comprehend.
Not many leave due to PTS. Very very few in fact compared to other services. And that's because of the training AND selection process. Both of these DO weed out those that may develop any kind of long term combat stress or degredation in the field caused by mental trauma.
I had some questions for them and they were very helpful in answering them.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
This is all a bit vague. What sort of stress conditions do you mean?
But yet the weeding process still allows for a few to get selected who do get post traumatic stress?
Go and find out yourself. I'm not typing up a fifty page assay on SAS ops.
Not many though. No system is perfect, but it's as close to a perfect system as you're ever likely to get. A SF operative is much less likely to get PTS than other forces personal, and that's operating under far more stressful situations in a more active combat role too.
During the ww2, korea and even Vietnam war, it was discovered that some "behind the lines" units (of all nationalities which participated and had these types of units) succumbed to the stress of operating in hostile territory with out support and being continuously surrounded by hostiles
They lost their ability to operate and they went to ground with out being able to fulfill their orders.
The knowledge that there is not one friendly soul around you beyond your own immediate unit is one of the strongest stress causes known to man. High anaerobic fitness levels is the best way to increase ones ability to withstand stress. This is why most of the high achievers in the corporate world are also fitness enthusiasts.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Report Overview: Analysis of Debate on SAS Training and Resilience
Objective
To provide insights into a public debate regarding the relevance and efficacy of the resilience training component in SAS (Special Air Service) training programs. This report synthesises various viewpoints from an online discussion to inform a think tank on potential improvements to SAS training.
Context and Background
The debate originated from a thread discussing the appropriateness of the SAS's rigorous training, particularly focusing on the resilience element. The core question posed was whether the extreme physical endurance required in SAS training is justified given the nature of the SAS’s operational tasks.
Key Arguments Presented
A. Osris's Perspective
Main Argument:
Osris questioned the necessity of the extreme physical resilience training within SAS programs, arguing that such training may be excessive compared to the actual demands of SAS operations in the field.
Supporting Points:
- Regular soldiers also undergo physical training and operate under stress, suggesting that extreme resilience training might be redundant.
- Osris emphasised that while SAS training includes technical and specialised skills, the high resilience standards may not significantly impact their effectiveness in covert and specialised operations.
- He raised concerns about the ability of SAS training to predict or prevent post-traumatic stress among its members.
B. Counterarguments from Other Posters
Asp9mm and Others:
- Argued that SAS training, including its resilience component, is crucial for ensuring that operatives can perform under extreme conditions with little to no support.
- Emphasised that SAS selection and training aim to identify and cultivate individuals who can endure high stress and operate effectively in isolated, high-pressure environments.
- Stressed that resilience training is not only about physical endurance but also about mental toughness and the ability to handle isolation and intense situations.
Criticisms of Osris’s Views
- Critics claimed that Osris's perspective showed a lack of understanding of the specific demands and unique nature of special forces operations.
- Some respondents suggested that Osris was not considering the full scope of SAS operations or the importance of comprehensive resilience training.
Discussion Dynamics and Challenges
- Misunderstanding and Divergence: Many responses diverged from Osris's specific question about the relevance of physical resilience training, leading to misunderstandings and off-topic arguments.
- Emotional Responses: The discussion included emotional and sometimes confrontational responses, which hindered constructive dialogue.
- Lack of Direct Responses: Key questions about the practical impact of resilience training and its correlation with operational effectiveness were not adequately addressed.
Recommendations for SAS Training Improvement
Based on the discussion and feedback from the debate, the following recommendations are proposed to refine SAS training, with a specific focus on aligning the resilience training with real-world practical applications:
1. Align Resilience Training with Operational Demands:
- Assessment of Practical Relevance: Review and assess the specific physical and mental resilience requirements of SAS missions, such as short raids, intense combat periods, and sabotage operations. Ensure that the resilience training reflects the realistic demands and scenarios encountered in these operations.
- Scenario-Based Training: Implement training scenarios that closely mimic actual SAS operations, including short-term, high-intensity combat situations and prolonged periods of isolation with limited support. This approach can help ensure that the training prepares operatives for the exact conditions they will face in the field.
2. Focus More on Tactical Resilience:
- Emphasise Field Applications: Design resilience training to directly enhance skills necessary for specific SAS tasks. For instance, integrate exercises that simulate the stress of rapid insertion and extraction, and build the ability to perform under high-pressure conditions similar to those in operational contexts.
- Specialised Training Modules: Develop specialised modules that address the unique aspects of SAS missions, such as sabotage and covert operations. These modules should include both physical and mental resilience components tailored to the specific challenges of these tasks.
3. Regular Review and Feedback:
- Continuous Evaluation: Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of resilience training by gathering feedback from current and former SAS operatives. Use this feedback to adjust training practices and ensure they meet the evolving needs of SAS operations.
- Adaptation to Lessons Learned: Incorporate lessons learned from recent missions and training exercises to continuously refine and adapt the resilience training program. This will help maintain its relevance and effectiveness in preparing operatives for real-world challenges.
4. Enhanced Communication and Training Objectives:
- Clarify Training Goals: Clearly communicate the objectives and expected outcomes of resilience training to all participants. Ensure that operatives understand how their training will directly impact their performance in specific SAS missions.
- Transparency in Training Practices: Provide transparency about the rationale behind various training elements, including how they relate to operational requirements. This will help address any misconceptions and improve understanding among trainees and stakeholders.
By focusing on these areas, SAS training can be better aligned with the practical needs of operational tasks, enhancing both physical and psychological resilience in a way that directly supports the effectiveness of SAS missions.
Overview
The debate highlighted various perspectives on SAS training, with a particular focus on the balance between physical resilience and practical operational needs. For meaningful improvements to SAS training programs, it is essential to address both the practical and psychological dimensions of resilience, ensuring that all training components are directly applicable to the field and contribute to overall effectiveness.
This overview aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the debate and its implications for SAS training improvements. Further analysis and consultation with experts may be necessary to implement these recommendations effectively.
@osris
The real life Special Forces (SF) operations you highlighted (predominately quick breaking-and-entering raids on buildings, rescuing hostages) fall under Counter terrorism (CT) operations.
In addition to these, squadrons of the Special Forces (SAS, SRR, SBS and SFSG) are also trained in:
Surveillance and reconnaissance operations (SR)
Offensive action operations (OA)
Maritime, amphibious and riverine operations
Clandestine intelligence gathering
High value target (HVT) acquisitions / manhunt operations
Counter-insurgency operations
Sabotage and demolition operations
Mobility operations
VIP escort and protection services
Foreign internal defence
Mountain warfare
Desert warfare
Jungle warfare
Artic combat and survival
High Altitude Low Opening (HALO) and High Altitude High Opening (HAHO) parachute jumps
Securing facilities (airstrips, dockyards, military installations etc)
Special Forces soldiers in their respective troops and squadrons are also trained as emergency medics, motor mechanics, radio operators and linguists.
With the various domains of Special Forces operations, you can clearly see that in addition to physical toughness...a high degree of intelligence, threat perception and risk management skills are required for the safe completion of missions.
I do not know if special forces soldiers are physically tougher than marines, infanteers or paratroopers, but their intensive training and exposure to high operational risks, makes them a cut above the regular soldier.