You must really think that if someone bows out of a "discussion" with you, is a sure sign that you've won.

quote:

---

"Everything that people do is teachable..."

---

Just read what you've written, think a bit, and then tell us again that this is not a slogan you've read in some book, but this is what you really think is a fact of life.

And don't twist terms. "Is teachable" means that you can pick a random person from a phone book and teach him to be a "Zweistein" (or a "Dreistein" or maybe a just competent physicist). Don't even try to go into a given "good nutrition", "good parents" and the other gunk direction.

Stan Man: "The training will take place for those that had the God-given (i.e. UN-teachable) fortitude to withstand BUDS."

Envelope: Stan Man, .... You are being extremely ambitious to suggest that there are things that are "UN-teachable".

Stan Man: .... Nonsense. Nothing ambitious about it. Contrary to what the "politically correct" crowd may extol about equality, we are all fundamentally different with a unique blend of innate talents. And if you think genetics isn't important, think AGAIN."

Envelope: "If you are a vegetable, you can be assured that you are largely bound by genotype to a particular kind of behaviour. But if you are a human being, no such restrictions apply and in fact, this is the fundamental biological strategy of human survival. Human beings synthesize behaviour using that big brain."

bod: "What is wanted is persons that are capable of keeping up the motivation and a clear mind all to the bitter end, even if that end is long and painfull. I don't think that it is possible to train this. Some people are just more survivable that others. IMO

Stan Man: "While no one dismisses experience or environment's effect on human behaviour, the genetic basis for what we are and what we do is very real indeed.

This obviously shouldn't be taken to mean that we shouldn't strive for high goals or to aim as high as we want to aim. It simply means we are all extremely diverse and have an infinite combination of genetic markers which may or may not confer certain advantages. What we do with those advantages is still up each individual."

Envelope: "Another misconception that you and most people cling to is the idea that genes somehow "cause" biology and its characteristics. The most operative elements in biology are far removed from the genome at a much higher level of organization. "

Stan Man: "It is indeed a scary idea for PC types such as yourself to simply admit that there is such a thing as talent (i.e. genetic predisposition) and that some folks are inherently better suited to some tasks than others."

Envelope: "I also disavow being PC. No where have I posted anything at any forum anywhere that anyone would suggest is PC. I do not observe Political Correctness. It is very Politically Correct to believe without questioning that elite military units are somehow genetically or otherwise inately (theologically? ) superior in some way to the rest of the armed forces. "

Stan Man: "Well, that's exactly where you misunderstood an important point in my argument. At no time did I use the word "SUPERIOR" in ANY of my posts. The genetic "traits" I speak of are NOT superior. Neither are they inferior. They just ARE. "

Envelope: "Superior, differently endowed, however you want to spin it, my argument remains the same."

bod: "I think you are misenterpreting a lot of things Envelope, deliberately ? A newborn child is like an unwritten piece of paper with all the worlds possibilities. However, from the very beginning through the genes it is decided if that person can become a top fighter pilot or a musical composer or both."

Stan Man: " What I was trying to illustrate is that a many genetic markers are neither "superior" nor "inferior", .... Meawhile, you have taken it upon yourself to dismiss genetics outright as some voodoo magic which has no bearing on who we are or what kind of proficiency we can attain in a given area. This type of comment simply further discredits you and displays your scientific ignorance for all to see."

Envelope: "I honestly don't see what I have posted that would suggest to you that I dismiss genetics as voodoo magic. I did suggest that some people believe in genetics as if it was voodoo magic, I did not include myself among them. "

Stan Man: "If everything is "teachable" as you contend, then there would be no need for the Navy's adopting such a brutal and violent selection process (e.g. BUDS) prior to training. They would simply teach each and every applicant the necessary skills."

Envelope: "Everything that people do is teachable, but that doesn't mean that every teacher is obliged to take every student. A student can't always judge where to start learning and this decision must be left to the teacher."

Big Stick: (This is the ENTIRE POST) Man, are you a stubborn cookie. You really insist on being wrong to a bitter end.

(There was then some discussion that clarified the difference between training and "weeding out" The last thing we were talking about was competence. Big Stick and Stan Man re-enter the discussion with a few cheap shots.)

Big Stick, don't patronize me, you haven't contributed enough to this thread to make any criticisms. Before you suggest that I read what I've written, maybe you should read what I've written. You assume a high tone, but you know, it doesn't suit you well. Maybe you just don't show up as well in print.

By the way, I am not going to register so long as it pisses you off.

So, ummm, anyway, getting back to the original topic. From the standpoint of the individual operator, there is most likely an EQUAL level of lethality and tactical effectiveness between Russian Spetznaz and US Navy SEALs. But that's really where the similarities end, IMHO. The first difference is deployment. While the Spetznaz motto may be "any mission, any time, any place", the reality is that they would be hard-pressed to deploy as rapidly and smoothly today as a SEAL team would. Whether it's a modified nuclear-powered Navy attack sub with dedicated compartments for a 64-SEAL team, or one of 12 carrier battle groups, SEALs have the deployment rapidity and flexibility that Spetznaz can only dream of. Then there is the issue of support. An operator is only as effective as the tactical support he receives. Whether SEALs call in an airstrike, or an airlift, they can be reasonably comfortable with the level of backup they can expect. With the current disarray of Russian arms, low morale, and equipment shortages, Spetznaz may be in deep doodoo if they need this kind of backup.

Going back to the morale issue. Morale is directly tied in to the value that the government places on the lives of the individual servicemen. Both recent and not-so-recent history points to the trend that the U.S. command authority places a higher value on the individual operative's life than do their Russian counterparts. This is a general statement, I realize that this is not ALWAYS the case, but this trend holds true conflict after conflict. Russian leadership is generally much more comfortable with a higher level of casualties in order to achieve their tactical objectives. Chechnya being the most recent example, but this really goes back all the way to World War II and Marshall Zhukov's drive on Berlin. In contrast, look at Kosovo, and how NATO refused to allow the more effective low-altitude strikes so as to not lose any pilots. And how they refused to insert ground troops until AFTER Serb withdrawal from Kosovo. I understand the US leadership are no angels and do so mostly in response to the public's intolerance for high casualties in theater. But it remains that in relative terms, there has always been this difference in strategic mentality between the 2 former Cold War rivals.

Now, some would argue that this actually weighs in Russia's favor, since they can therefore undertake missions and objectives that US leadership would be wary of, due to the public outcry about potential casualties. But I would argue the exact opposite. A soldier's morale is directly tied in to what he PERCEIVES as the value his government places on his life and his unit's life. I really cannot speak to the current state of Sptetznaz operatives' morale, or their perception of this. But looking at the current outcry in the Russian public about their government's perceived slow response in the Kursk disaster, I can't see how a Russian special operator would have a warm fuzzy feeling inside about the value his leadership places on him as a human being.

The Spetznaz were told to assault a very small town that was apparently being controled by Chechens, and they may have had locals as hostages (but I'm not sure about that). Now, the Spetz guys seem to have done a decent job, but they REALLY needed support badly for that operation, and there was far too little of that.

Areas lacking:

Attack helo support (too little,lack of coms, three Hinds)
Arty support (not flexible)
No food
Little ammo resup
No sleeping bags at all (this was supposed to be a 12 hour mission that dragged into a week or something)
No regular infantry backup/help

As the operation ended, most of the Spetznaz troopers had to pay their own ticket and board a regular civie train back to Moscow, and upon arrival, they were so p1ss8d off that they told each and every news crew they could about what a disaster it was from their support point of view. I remember very vividly one older Spet veteran (probably had lots of experience in Afganistan), and he said that he was shocked by what did not happen (support, that is).

Now, contrast that with a western unit. The only reason such a lack of support would happen, is because radio coms could not be established, or we had lost the war and no support was to be had....

Keep in mind though, that the basic shoot and move skills are usually fairly constant through most specops units, with only a few exceptions that are much higher and lower than normal.

Higher than normal: Seal6, SAS Pagoda squads, GIGN (France). Seal team 6's men would each shoot 70,000 rounds a year through their pistols, and a bit less than that for 5.56 rifles and MP-5's. Their annual ammo budget, if I remember right, was $9 mil USD !!!! :O

From what little I have seen from TV clips and documentaries, the Spetznaz's weapon handling skills and FIBUA tactics are good by regular troop standards, but somewhat sloppy by western specops standards (but that is just an opinion based on probably 50 or so TV clips of them in combat zones. In real life they may be pretty good)

Having said all that, I'm sure they are a very hardcore soldiers!

I readily admit that I know nothing about combat and/or Panama SEAL deployment, but it seemed to me like a total incompetence at all levels.

The SEALs were shown approaching a hangar full of the enemy troops (they knew it will be defended) by walking in a falang (with a bright moon behind them). When the enemy opens fire they are on a flat surface of the tarmak, with no object larger than a peanut withing hundreds of feet. I just can't believe that this is a standard operation procedure, and I'm inclined to believe that the "documentary" makers purposely portrayed SEALs as incompetent in order to blame them for a failure.

Throughout te entire operation the communication is practically non-existent. The SEALS can't call for the air cover, but the air cover circles above the Patilla airport, watching them being slottered on a tarmak, and yet they can't open fire because of ROE.

Only in the end, the SEAL commander saves the day by breaking those ridiculous ROE and simply blowing up that silly plane, and as a side effect killing/stunning the defenders which wins the battle.

Four SEALS dead, nine seriously wounded. For what? A stupid little plane?

What struck me the most, though, was the fact that the command's behavior was bordering on treason. The ROE were unbelievable.

1. Do not fire unless fired upon.
2. Do not kill "civilians" (even if they have guns).
And the best one,
3. disable the Noriegs's plane but do not damage it, because we want to return it to the "people of Panama". Do not blow it up from the distance, but walk into a defended hangar and slash the tires.

I just could not believe it. They are risking lives of our best troops, to save the stinking plane because the politicians want to look good.

I say just blow the entire stinking place up, and if you want to "look good", buy them a new Learjet. This entire operation was not worth a life or injury of a single US soldier.

The whole thing just reinforces my opinion that the military is not a tool of the politicians. It should be used sparingly, only in time of an aggression, but once deployed, they have to be cut loose. The decision to go to war implies a willingness to win it using all means necessary. Quickly and decisively, there is no half-ass war.

"Wars" like Granada, Panama, Kosovo, Haiti or Somalia are simply an abuse of power by the politicians.

January 20th, '96, in the town of Pervomayskaya, Chechnya.

In fact, you should figure out, which spetsnaz you are talking about.

In times Suvorov is writing about, there was only one "spetsnaz" - Voiska Spetsialnogo Naznacheniya GRU MO. Ie, Special Troops of Reconnaissance Directorate of Defence Ministry.

There were also anti-terrorist units in KGB, and in the Ministry of Interior, "seals" in the Navy etc. Who were not "spetsnaz".

From your description, the documentary that you saw was a whole pile of crap.

The mission was in fact two fold:
(1) Disable a boat that Noriega might use to escape.
(2) Disable Noriega's learjet that may be used for escape.

The first mission was an outstanding success by the SEALs. The other mission was not.

The strike against the aircraft should have been the job of the Army Rangers, not the SEALs. The SEALs are not meant to be used for such operations. Secondly, the mission planner - a USN Commodore (non SEAL) - planned the operation badly, ignoring a superior plan submitted by an experienced SEAL commander.

Suprise was also lost due to the well-lit airfield and lack of cover. The guards were well awake because of fighting between American and Panamanian forces nearby.

If the mission was handed to the Rangers, or if the mission planner had heeded the advice of his subordinate SEAL officer, the operation may have been a success.

Incompetence was not the part of the equation - mainly just bad luck, and a mission planner that just wouldn't listen.

-lack of cover
-too well lit
-alert guards
-wrong assets
-coms down
-ignoring alternative plans
-------------------------------------
...adds up to incompetence costing lives.

The fact that a Navy Commodore feels he can plan an infantry attack leads me to question his competence as a military leader at all. Would a tank driver trust himself to plan an integrated SEAD strike? Most tank drivers would realise that that is way beyond their practical experience and training, and would request that someone more qualified should plan a real operation that risks lives.

PS: I don't see that much bad luck there, esp. compared to poor planning.

TV shows, like that 'documentary' we all watched, often leave out or change too many details. This greatly changes our view about what the point was. I feel that episode (I did see it last year) left out far too many details to be taken too seriously.

On another note, have you guys seen my post about the Chechnya videos? Check it out.

Poltitians meddling with military operation is such a juxtaposition...

As a matter of fact: why not let lose on the hangar with them gunships instead of risking lives?

I don`t blame the seals, I blame ROE I blame the arrogance of outsiders, that made up that ROE from the safety of their homes in Washinton DC. Those are the cockgobblers, that we need to hold accountable for such a fiasco!

As I said ROE...and arrogance. Period!

"a single RPG(or the US version...sorry, memory failing) hit should have destoyed the objective from a safe distance"

US doesnt have any RPG equivalent. hehehehehehehe

A critical downfall of US armed forces is ****** anti-tank weapons ... the Bazooka sucked (didnt see the neccessity to increase the size of the warhead even when the Panzerschreck showed this was a desirable solution) ... the LAW sucked (warhead too small again) .... the Dragon has a tendency to go out of control ... while Javelin is enormous and useless for urban fighting at least. Dont know about the AT4 disposable tho ... could be good

You obviously have the training and the basic understanding of what it means to be in the "middle of it". I do as well...but from the practical aspect...without training.
I here daresay to you that good ole me will hold up to and with any of the special forces criteriums...without a single day of "official" training...well...almost...I don`t have access to the the variety of the hardware...

Lemme give ya a pointer: I strive with blood pressure, I get social indirectly to fatigue, and muscle monkies kiss my "A" within` an hour of bitin`into a job I do daily... I`ve moved some seals, even an instructor(captain) that couldn`t believe, that what we did for him was only a day in life...that I`ll have to repeat the day after...

What you guyz are you so proud of in terms of conditioning is a way of life for some of us. Trust me: we just fired a spec-op SOB that thought he was worth more that he got payed for...

And as far as specialisation: I`d never enlist to an organisation, that would have me as a member.

One more thing: You`ve brouht up that quokaz link: I bet my ass you`ve looked at it hard and long. I also bet you wouldn`t enlist in any of the forces that woul`d have gotten YOU couht in ambushes without the least of support...

Seals? Spetnaz? SAS? without support they are just a familie of dudes cought in the crossfire...ready to die...

Lemme ask you just one thing dude: Does all your years of trainig equal 1...ONE...DAY in that chechen firezone?

1 day!

Didn`t think so...

Clarification of my comments on Operation Just Cause:

When I said that incompetence was not part of the equation, I meant incompetence of the SEALs. The SEALs are very competent. The mission planner wasn't incompetent - he was arrogant. There are competent soldiers/sailors/airmen that meet their own doom because of their arrogant cocky-ness.

Secondly: I don't know if you don't believe in luck, but I do. I am sure that most people who have seen combat will assure you that luck is a big part of the equation. Drill sergeants typically don't admit this, but they all know that luck can easily take life away. The background fighting, well-lit airfields, nearby fires and bushy-tailed guards were just bad luck - those were unpreventable. No matter how well trained you are, or what level of experience you have, a split second of bad luck can change it all - just talk to those aging veterans of the bygone wars.

Combat experience is OVERATED.

There. I said it.

IT IS VALUABLE, BUT OVERRATED, and you do need to refer to people who have actually been there quite often, BUT : combat experience without -analysis -inteligence -learning from it -diseminating the lessons, and you may well just throw it all away. But by it'self, without training, it's of very limited use. Case in point: if the soldier was fighting in a war, but did so in an ineficient and risky, wasteful way, is he going to have the opportunity to learn from it? He has to survive first, and if he does, he may end up crediting luck more than brains.

If combat experience were the end all-be all, then why did the Iraqis do so little against the coalition? Yes, we outnumbered them and would have won anyway, but it does give them a target rich environment that they did not exploit at all. Why was there more US troops deliberately injuring themselves to avoid combat than the Iraqis inflicted on us?

When I was in Yugo, we watched so many other armies in action, such as the Serb and Croatian armies, and even watched the first Chechnya war on TV. A very common reaction among our troops was "WTF are they doing!?!?! There gonna get themselves killed...morons". Can they still do damage? Yes, but they could do even more, at less risk, if they trained long and hard, with the same weapons.

So, to add to the fire, I would point out that in the Canadian army, we have a "lessons learned" organisation that takes tips and info from our operations in the UN, NATO and in particular Yugoslavia, refines the methods, and then passes the info back out to our troops in a fast and effective way. THAT is worth it's weight in gold. Far more that some thick-headed guy shooting an AK at armor 300+ meters away, without even using the sights, even if he has been doing it for two years now. I'm sure that the US Army or Marines likely have something similar for taking such tips, as I know that US SOG actually compiled a list of 300 tips for small unit patrols (half of which were VERY valuable, and our Chechen would NEVER have come up with, much less cared).

Train the way you fight, because you will fight the way you train. If you don't train right, you won't fight well either.

LT.CIC : Luck does make things interesting, but I have learned that no soldier can ever count on good luck, and he must plan how to conduct a mission safely and effectively even with the worst luck imaginable. That is what officers and NCO's are supposed to do. Murphy's law is very real, and you have to fight him before fighting the enemy, or you are doomed.

You operational guys in the west have lived under the presumtion, that you will only have to xchange fire under circumstances when you dictate the ROE, support, ETC.

Somalia clearly illustrates, that every time you wanna get involved in a local skirmish, you`ll need to drag half your military infrastructure halfway around the world, in order to be able to guarantee that support. Without that support you`re just an other guy with his trousers down.

"WTF are they doing!?!?! There gonna get themselves killed...morons".

Ditto! I guarantee you man, that if the US keeps projecting power around the world, that scenario will happen to us.
In a "real" war...instead of these skirmishes we`ve been involved in, intelligence WILL fail, communications WILL break down, fire and air support WILL be late and misplaced.

My point about a russian commando : I`d rather trust a guy, that made it out alive...despite the unfavorable ROE and the lack of support. I`m sure he will have NO illusions.

I must point out that my sentence "WTF are they doing!?!?! There gonna get themselves killed...morons". refers exactly to the presumption that our side will NOT have the upper hand, but the enemy WILL. I really think that this preparation for worst case scenarios separates the ok soldiers from the 'super-soldiers', so to speak. So while I can't speak for the US troopers (I think they do something similar now, as we do in Canada, at least in the Marine corps), in the Canadian Army, we assume that we will be outgunned, flanked, out of ammo, out of coms and we rarely have extra support, so we plan accordingly.

Btw, ROE's are usually very simple in writing, and usually don't change much for the duration of an operation. They are usually hammered out with the politicians and mil brass advising.

Mission failures are more often a result of a failure of SOP's than ROE's. SOP's (standard operating proceedures) are what dictate how you conduct yourself and operations above coms, and pulls you and your buddies out of the fire. The SOP's seen in the Chechen video are what makes me wonder such things as: why is this ambush taking so long? Why didn't they do this? Why in daytime? Why is he out in the open? Do they have any concrete SOP's? SOP's dictate what you and everyone does when things go to hell, and how you extract everyone back out. They dictate what happens when your friend gets shot, right in front of you, and keeps him alive.

One way in which commandos differ from normal troops is the detailed and intimate knowledge of SOP's, and the way they adhere to them, which helps to give them the confidence they need to complete the mission under the most horrible conditions, far behind enemy lines. Simply having them is not enough. Think about an ambush: really, it's not complicated stuff, and anyone can do it, but in practice, specops/commando units tend to do it much better than regular ordinary troops because they follow SOP's much more closely.

On the subject of combat support: as a infantryman in Canada, we rarely train for CAS direction, since we will likely never have that support available to us at any time, so we plan and train accordingly (last time we did have it was Korean war). Instead, we may use a few more troopers for security, and bring a few more belt-feds with us. And we do train much more with artillery/mortars instead, because that's all we are likely going to ever receive at the best of times. The problem for American troops is that they EXPECT fast movers style support, with CBU's to always be available at every turn, and are disapointed when it's not there.... or impractical to use ( keep in mind I'm not trying to compare the two organisations, as this would be pointless).

"I`d rather trust a guy, that made it out alive...despite the favorable ROE and the lack of support. I`m sure he will have NO illusions."

That's your choice, but you owe it to yourself to ask him HOW he made it out alive. It may be just good luck on his part, rather than anything that can actually help you. As for illusions, someone having a close brush with death is more likely than most to have illusions about it. Take a look at how many troops credit God with protecting them through the war.

One thing about combat veterans: a few will become emphatic about "what war is REALLY like" when in reality, the tactics, weapons and situation change, from conflict to conflict. Would you follow a WW-1 trench fighting vet into Vietnam? I wouldn't....... yet even in Chechnya, the strategies and tactics changed significantly between '94-96 and the current '99-(?) conflict (although in this case it appears the same vets are doing the fighting.). Listen to the vet. Understand what he went through, and think about what parts would be relevant to the type of combat you could experience today, but don't follow him blindly just because "he saw the balloon go up".

BTW: I do have experience myself, having been under mortar fire, HMG fire, hand grenade attacks, driving through mine fields, and confronted several Serb squad-houses that were firing at our troops. One thing I learned over in Yugoslavia that really surprised me, was how respected Canadian troopers are by many other soldiers, even those of the Croatian and Serb armies, who had 4 years of combat experience by that time.

As they say: there are no atheists in the trenches...

SOP: yeah, that`s what I meant...thanx

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slickster:
Rick50cal, Stan Man, as I asked, both of you corrected me in my assessment of SEAL losses. I'd forgotten about the Grenada thing. I don't think any SEALS were lost in ops in VN. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

---

Hi all,
Sorry for dragging this old flame fest up but I was skimming through a web site about SEALs and something caught my eye. According to navyseals.com there were 47 SEAL deaths in SE Asia.

quote:

---

During Vietnam SEAL Teams One and Two amassed a combined kill ratio of 200:1, with only 46 deaths resulting mostly from accidents and poor intelligence rather than enemy direct fire. See the History section for an in-depth look at this conflict. Many Vietnam era SEAL vets have written some great books about this episode in SEAL history, which we will cover in the book reviews of the DROP ZONE pages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hellco:
How do you know? And how did they know? Maybe sometimes they fired rather than take chances, or to meet a quota, or for sport. Some of the murder they got away with they called "Phoenix." Some of them might have succumbed to Agent Orange by now, but what of the others? They're back here on the loose. Who knows how their families turned out, God.

---

Nutter...