MilitaryForums.co.uk

markthestab wrote:i think both of yours pride in the corp is noble,but isnt it better for the SBS to get more potential recruits, if they're booties or gunners, sappers or whatever they'll still have to pass the same selection and be of the same high standard expected as always i would have thought

I think that these things are relative to service requirement and that changes with technology and other factors.

I'm mentioning rifle regiments as SF in their day - they aren't anymore. In 20 years time will the requirement change? Perhaps the SF units will 'morph' again. Paras and Marines weren't SF in my time but they are deemed so now. Who or what will be next to rise or fall?

"Paras and Marines weren't SF in my time but they are deemed so now." - GD.... I'm going to have to disagree and say that they aren't deemed SF now either. They may be elite but they dont come under the SF branch!!

King_duck wrote:"Paras and Marines weren't SF in my time but they are deemed so now." - GD.... I'm going to have to disagree and say that they aren't deemed SF now either. They may be elite but they dont come under the SF branch!!

I would have to take issue with that mate. There are "Elite" or "Crack" units and I would certainly agree that both qualify for either title because of the intensive training however MOD seem to have categorised a wider banding for the SF title these days.

I wouldn't argue with the title either because logically 'Special Forces' are units which are deployed in an unique way - differently from the normal ORBAT. Both units are deployed in that way.

They are not line infantry ergo they must be specialist shock troops.

I mean I come from an elite unit but I'm certainly neither para or marine.

If you have a different way of looking at it I'd be glad to hear it.

Hmm - well I would agree that the Parachute Reg and Marines are not used in the same way line infantry are some of the time. (They still do peacekeeping etc don't they?!) I would argue that it is this difference in deployment and their training that makes them elite troops. I believe Pathfinders and MLs are closer to SF but are still not officially designated as such.

Apart from the official branding, (which to my knowledge does not include the paras or marines as SF, but I will happily be corrected if it has changed) there is the ethos to consider. Would you not find that your average SAS soldier, for example would be a more individually motivated, disciplined and thinking man - not neccessarily better than either the paras or marines but different and more suited to the role that SF implies?

It is a difficult topic to be sure.

I've done a Wikipedia search on this just out of curiousity and it does include RM Commando as SF but strangely not para reg.

It makes for interesting reading however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces

I've got orders just now to take herself to the supermarket but I'll try and do a bit more googling or whatever later to see can I find a definitive document from MOD which would give the answer to this question.

I don't mind being wrong mate.

i think i remember the marines classing their basic training as the longest for any regular forces in the world

I would hazard a guess that to be SF you would be in a unit that came under the control of the Director of Special Forces, RM and Para Reg dont.

If I have downs syndrome can I be in "Special" forces........DOC! Stop licking that window!!!!!

Well, I've serached and searched andf the best I can do is to tell you that "Airborne and Special Forces" seem to be in a category of their own (and that includes the marines) but when it boils down to pure pedantic facts, only SAS and SBS units are listed as being headquartered at DOY Bcks. (although I thought the HAC was there too).

So that's my shot at it.

Loads of peeps come under the operation control of DSF, whether they are all SF is something else.

In ctual fact the Royal Marines and the Para's are used mostly as ordinary infantry troops. What makes them different is the fact they are able to add a specialty to their mode of operations. They are NOT Special Forces, no matter what any web site says.

To go - on as quoted by Sticky Blue,

The SBS were special because they took the top from the cream of the Corps

It wasn't the fact that they took the top from the cream of the Corps. It is because they WERE Corps that made them special. Everyone knew that all the guys had done ALL the same training and had similar backgrounds.
If you take people from all the Armed Forces you don't have that "Esprit de Corps". Yes, they may have passed selection but they haven't had the 32 weeks of RM training and they all haven't done the commando course!!
This may well sound a bit petty but it is the reason why the Old and Bold do not like the new cap badge or the new motto. It just makes them a mirror image of the SAS. Why is that necessary?
Going on a bit here, so I think I will stop and re-top my glass with my favourite pain killer.
Sneaky

All very noble Sneaky but you can't argue with the MOD and they quote RM as SF.

Hmm...but do they?!!!

Sneaky - do you not think that going through selection together would create enough of a common background!! They've all been through those tabs, they have all done endurance and all been through the same thing in the jungle... Maybe they are holding on too tightly to being a RM if they cant embrace someone that has been through all that with them!

Yes they do!

One liner defeating line.

I'll try to stretch this out to avoid the one liner............................................... Where do the MOD say RM are SF? (get out clause is that the MOD are full of...."

I'm sure I posted it back in the thread somewhere. The term "Special Forces" comes from WW2 and includes (specifically) commando units.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't they RM?