MilitaryForums.co.uk

Mince: I didn't say it was any good, just interesting. Yes it does look very "wooden", but that might be the coreography for the demo getting in the way. Who knows. Every unarmed combat clip I've ever seen looks crap.

Re the stash in the field: First thoughts were IRA...turned out to be a bit heavier than that.

Don't worry I wasn't criticising you at all, I was just saying the bloke didn't look too swish.
Have you ever read 'First into Action'? There's a bit where they're keeping an eye on a weapons cache in rural Northern Ireland when a farmer rumbles them and tells them it's from the 1920s or something and is a well known locally. Red faces for all, that day.

Spetsnaz, short for Spetsnaznacheniya.

I don't know that they make the same clearcut definition as we do in the West, between Special Operations and Special Forces, though.
In other words, I think (and take it with a salt shaker) that based on their definition, US Army Rangers, Some USMC units and French CPA (air force commandos) would qualify as Special Forces.

Here's an older, but good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

Just to confuse things further! I read spetsnaz stands for 'spetsialnoe naznachenie' meaning 'special purpose'. And I read that here...

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... /boyd.html

In many ways I think translating a Russian term or adapting a name to Western typesets and phonetics is like translating from Arabic.
For instance, Krushtchev is spelled Krushtcheff by the French. It goes on and on.
Even Saddam's last name can be spelled either Hussain or Hussein.
Let's face it, translation is adaptation...

I read in a magazine that every battalion (or the russian version) has a spetnaz unit attached to it ie the navy has a waterborne version and so on.

In former Soviet army structure, every combined arms army (corps-sized element) had an organic SF unit, though not spetsnaz.

Spetsnaz was also one of the recruiting bases of the GRU.

I read the Russian martial art which is taught to Spetznas is called Sambo, I read that in a book on special forces, some amazing pics, staged but maazing, e.g. guy easily 6ft in the air performing a flying kick, bloody hell he really was flying!

All Russian military spetsnaz units are directly subordinate to the GRU, regardless if they are ground, airborne or naval infantry. The Federal Border Guard Service, the Security Service and Internal Troops also have "Spetsnaz" units, although they arn't strictly what you would apply the term to (similar to calling SO19/SWAT/CIA paramilitaries special forces).

All NCO's are conscripts and so arn't upto the same standards as western SF (meaning SAS/SBS/Delta/SEALs ect) but are vastly superior to conventional russian troops.

The reports on the Airpower link above are well worth reading for anyone interested btw - all from the USAF Academy I beleive.

Ian.

Some of their training regimes were proper brutal in the Soviet era. To teach you unarmed combat they would lock you up in a room with a mad dog armed with only a shovel. Or they would make you tackle assault courses that included jumping across huge crevices in the ground wearing full kit, if you fell you fell.

They would even roll a whole bunch of tanks across open terrain and whoever didnt dig himself a hole fast enough to lie down in would promptly got crushed to death, bloody Commies!

they would lock you up in a room with a mad dog armed with only a shovel

Attenborough would disagree with that statement, as all zoologists agree that only apes use tools. Must be quite a sight, a German Shepherd swinging a shovel.

I was in a hurry when typing that^ No need to get all pedantic!

PEDANTIC OOOHHHHH
There are some on this site who excell at that and little else, you at least seem to know what your talking about. :laola:

pedantic

!

Another poor word in the English language much used out of context (as trendy "buz-words" often are).

While a "pedant" might well be a strict adherant to formality, the other (usually ignored) half of the condition is that the adherance exists at the expence of a broader view. Hence, claiming someone is pedantic is also staing that they are narrow-minded. I would say nothing is further from the truth.