Doesn't SAS stand for Special Air Squad though?
@TwoToTooTutu2 Special Air Service
So it isn't basic infantry. Also I believe it's a home defens unit only
@TwoToTooTutu2 I do believe they are consider one of the first modern special forces groupsVERY elite.. and many groups have been modeled after themI do mostly agree with what he saysand the United States can be a bit hotheaded about its militarybut I am not sure there are too many defeats on the USA special forces recordthough yes.. id say the examples of their defeats are probably most limited to poor planningif there is anything I think the United States does a bit too much is Nation Buildinstead of going in and outthe United States tends to find itself attempting to build up local national forces...which makes any military victory pointless.. because then its more about attempting to manage a weak government and security force..Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam are all examples of thatIraq.. I think is in good shape at this point Afghanistan has a hard working security force...Vietnam is a sad example of the United States ignoring its commitments.. cutting funding.. and unwillingness to re intervene to aid an ally (Case Church Amendment, Paris Peace Accords.. etc)I think for the United Statesconflict from a military standpoint isn't the problemits usually finding some sort of political/diplomatic situation to the war that is favorableand a community that believes every war is World War 2..
@TwoToTooTutu2 not home defence only they operate all around the world, they in fact were instrumental in conflicts around the world since WW2, and only became fully public knowledge during their effective and fast handling of the Iranian embassy situation... The special air service is a multi role division, much like any special unit around the world... but while they were only acting on foreign soil for the most part their uses on home soil were tested during the Iranian Embassy incident in the late 70's/early 80's and various hostage situations we may never hear of the details about they do their job and do it well and you never know who they are... in fact you could be sitting next to one of them in a bar and you wouldn't even know it...
I mean I argue for France on this one.. Elite is the opposite of basic though. I don't know much about the basic British infantry, so I have no comment there. As for the US Military... Greatest Navy, and Greatest Airforce... Army I would say is greatest, but that is because I am a member of it and am obligated to do so.
I should also mention that other countrieslike Iran. or North Korea.. that people often speak aboutI think their military capabilities tend to be over exaggeratedNorth Korea is a clear threat to South Korea (especially due to Seoul being a short distance from the border).. but in a war between the 2 nations.. South Korea would be a clear victor today...and Iran... I believe their true strength relies on proxies to spread influence.. but they have only limited military abilities themselves... THEY also fake a great deal of their strength through rhetoric (as does North Korea)..I dont think the Iranian military could stand anywhere close to the top powers of the worldnor do I believe that man to man they are trained particularly that wellthey really rely on other forms of conflict to produce any sort of strength...take for example their strike against the US baseit was clearly an attempt to save face... inflict 0 deaths... make it appear as though you are strong.. and make it easy to avoid conflict^ its a good strategic tactic.. for it helps gather strength in the eyes of your allies
superior equipment doesn't ensure them being the best... take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan superiority doesn't make a fighting force better, it just simply gives more options... the Vietcong had barely anything to fight against US military during the 60's, old Russian, Chinese models of Russian designed weapons, the AK and SKS and Makarov being the most known firearms, but many of what killed their enemy was the traps, and improvised weapons and farming tools Pungy traps which were sharpened bamboo sticks, tree vines/rope etc coated in fecies hidden under loose brush, in trees... they were not considered technologically advanced yet while the US won some battles, they lost thousands of soldiers and the US had the most technologically superior weapons of the time and they were losing to a bunch of farmers and guerilla fighters who were able to move around in tunnels under most of the area and strike then disappear as quickly and without much trace too
@SjE78 Actuallythe Viet Cong ended as an effective fighting force in 1968 because of their lossesfrom 1968 on, the majority of the war was carried out by the NVA.The issue with Vietnam had less to do with the ground (Yes yes... 50,000 Americans lost their lives... but obviously our enemies losses were far more severe) It had more to do with commitment to the war effort at homeand largely due to the unwillingness of the United States Government to fulfill its promises to South Vietnam post the Paris Peace Accords (.. the Case Church Amendment more or less prohibited American forces from ever returning to Indochina... and with the cutting of Funds during the Financial crisis.. it more or less made certain the ARVN was bled dry.. while the NVA was heavily funded and bolstered by the Chinese and Soviets Governments... making their invasion in 1975 very successful)
@HadrianRoyce the whole conflict was a political landgrab tbh and while my memory on the Vietcong and NVA isn't fully upto date the death toll of the "enemy" combatants wasn't as high as it would be recorded as many civilians would have died during whether that be due to napalm bombing, artillary strikes, and also due to soldier's mental breaks which a good portion of which were unable to differentiate the civilians from the enemy combatants and the decision to withdraw was primarily down to such huge losses and the overwhelming civilian protests to end the bloodshed
@SjE78 the Vietnamese government itself admitted in the 1990s that 1.1 million NVA and Vietcong lost their lives during the war (compared to 58,000 Americans and 250,000 ARVN.. and around 6,000 from other nations) the NVA were the Military of North Vietnamthe Viet Cong were a largely "southern" based Insurgency in South Vietnam (which was funded/trained/ and given manpower by the North)the NVA were a classical style military (Tanks.. Jets... Uniformed men)the Viet Cong were the Insurgency typeYes, ultimately it was due to issues at home that led to the withdrawalthe Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973 (after the United States withdrew the majority of its troops from 1968 to 1973... from roughly 500,000 men.. to about 20,000) .. the United States turned over most major campaigns to the ARVN (South Vietnamese military) by 1971... and by 1972 the majority of American forces in country were Advisers/Trainers.
^ I should also add that it was the same thing that nearly destroyed the Viet Cong... that led to the Public Opinion turning (And ultimately the "Vietnamization of the War... where the main objective was to remove US Troops and replace them with ARVN soldiers... so slowly form 1968 on... the US presence was smaller and smaller.. while the ARVN took on more the responsibilities)the Tet Offensive of early 1968 .. probably the most famous aspect of the American involvement in teh conflictled to the Viet Cong launching attacks on well over 100 towns/cities/basesall of them ending in failure.. and with massive Viet Cong losses (this is when they stopped being an effective fighting force)it was in all purposes as a MASSIVE victory of USA/ARVN forcesBUT it was also after the LBJ Administration had consistently stated the Communists were getting weaker and weaker (So it very much appeared to be a lie to people at the time)But ultimately it changed public opinion... so a military victory for the US.. was MASSIVVEE political victory for the Communists
@SjE78 I think the isssue is that most people (Americans included)dont really understand Vietnamthey view it as an "Invasion"and the United States fighting a bunch of poorly armed peasants. but its really not an accurate portrayal of the war
@HadrianRoyce i agree there is more to any conflict than just the surface information and even historical records dont show the accurate facts for most situations
@SjE78 You are correct.. and Afghanistan is another example of that todayright now.. the Afghan Government has complete control over no more than 60% of the countrythe Insurgents control roughly 10%+ of itand the rest changes hands so much that its difficult to know. 45,000+ Afghan troops killed in 5 years without major American involvement (American forces ended their combat mission in 2014... and Afghan Forces were taking more and more control over security years before that).. . either way that is an extreme amount of losses... when you take in consideration Foreign casualties in 20 years were less than 10% of that.at this point its a clear stalemateand its also clear neither side its particularly interested in following the peace agreement.I dont think the Afghan Government will collapse (too much international support for that to happen)BUT I think regardless.. people will debate what was achieved...for people define wars as being success.. by the World War 2 example (clear destruction of enemy... absolute conquest) and nothing lesswhen most wars are like the War of 1812^ which in that case.. the USA.. Canada.. and the British.. all view themselves as victors in that war.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
though the US relies heavily on technology and overwhelming the enemy with suppression... which could be ok in some cases... but their arrogance is what has lead to epic failures and losses of lives over the course of their wars Vietnam the incident which the film Black Hawk Down is based on, in Nigeria Afghanistan (they like testing their weapons on that place) and various other conflicts which arrogance and superiority has effected the end results
also during wars, the US military rely predominantly on their own weapons, believing that their advanced tech is unlearnable for any lesser soldier of countries they tend to invade... now dont get me wrong, i have friends who have served in the British and the us army and even they have said they can be their own worst enemy, but cut their supplies off to vital ammo and the situation goes south pretty quick... their arrogance and reliance on superior tech and spamming ammo like it's an infinite supply is pretty much their weakness France's Foreign Legion is effective cos it is drilled into their Legionaires to adapt, to expect shit to go wrong and to fight... and if i recall there was a historical record of a battle teh FFL was involved in, they were running low on ammo, their soldiers dying adn the last few fought til the last breath and despite overwhelming odds managed to take a lot of their enemy with them
US Military consists of a hyper powerful Navy and that's about it.
Many Wars we fought in were not actual formal wars and just aid sent to Friendly US forces. We do have an inexperienced Army overall, butvat this point in time we all do.
I agree, the Royal Navy used to be the best and most advanced in the world, only surpassed by the US Navy, many of our current ships are relics from WW2, that have been refitted, we lost some of those during the Faulklands conflict
I don't know much about the Royal Navy other that the fact that it is good.
it used to be much larger, but over the generations it would be probably over shadowed by even a fishing town's fleet lol
@SjE78 Black Hawk Down was based on Mogadishu in SomaliaIt was during the UN operations to end the Civil WarThe actual mission involved was a success (they achieved all their objectives) BUT it collapsed due to the loss of helicopters... eventually costing the lives of 18 American special forces operators (including helicopter crews) I do believe you are correct on your comments about reliance on technologyBut I do believe there is a difference between the ability to defeat an enemy with easeand the ability to lay down roots for a friendly government (in that case it relies often times more on the host nation.. than it does on the foreign forces)
@SjE78 I also think TwoToTooTutu2 has a good point about most conflicts people talk about are when the United States sends aid to friendly governmentsI don't think the United States really "losses" war from a military point.. more than they pick losers to supportVietnam IS the best example of this I think.. where you can definitively say the United States objective there ended in complete defeat (and a self made one politically... For I believe if the United States kept to its commitments South Vietnam would exist today)However.. I don't think it has much to do with United States inabilities (for the war was actually largely defensive from the American standpoint.. there were invasions of North Vietnam... and even bombing campaigns for the most part were limited from major city centers <--- Linebacker being a rare example of Hanoi being bombed)... But that the United States political objectives were far more complicatedits one thing to defeat an enemy... destroy his capital.. force his military to surrenderits an entirely other thing to place defense on behalf of a faltering nation... expecting that nation to be able to build itself up and defend itself.. while at the same time dealing with other major political forces intervening financially/politically^ Vietnam could have easily ended if the USA had pushed for victory... invade North Vietnam.. it would be over in weeksThe issue was that it was far more complex than that
*there were no invasions of the Northsorrytypo thereThe United States military was limited to operations in South VietnamYES it launched bombing campaigns in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam to disrupt lines.. but even those were limited (for example the USA couldnt bomb Hanoi, or major cities in the North)^ which as you can imagine... makes it pretty easy for the enemy to know where to put their supplies.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!