MilitaryForums.co.uk

Nice idea Prez, but I can never see that happening.

Prez,

that's not a new development mate it's always been that ways hasn't it?

podder wrote:i heard that two stewby, think it said somehting to do with the fact the SBS dint perform to well at certain times in iraq and that they were to be trained more like the SAS. They were "meant" to have panicked under enemy fire and left behind expensive and important gear and fled??? which i find hard to believe! One of the SAS guys were reported to have said that he refuses to work with the SBS again due to their lack of professionalism (spelling?) but as others have stated.......The Sun isnt excatly the most reliable of sources

This is not a dig at Podder!

If SB were as bad as the sun claims (no capital letter on purpose) why was it that the Americans wanted to award the CMH to a member of an SB team in Afghanistan?

Now I've never been to the country but Afghanistan is not famous for it's coastline or abundance of waterways. I always understood it to be a dry and rocky sort of place. So following the logic through; there is no place there for SBS. By the way, when did Royal suddenly become useless on land? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't it true that at least part of Royal Marine training is conducted on land? Apart from that well known ocean, Dartmoor!

What I do know that if I was in a 4 or 8 man team and was being attacked by a hugely superior force I would sod off sharpish, ermm I mean make a calm and calculated tactical withdrawal. I don't think either that I would be influenced by the value of whatever equipment I was carrying.

You only go firm dependant on your appreciation.

Enemy strength and the tactical value of the position you hold. If both or either are adverse to the point that you will lose blokes to achieve a pointless objective then you bug out and as long as you have your weapon, boots on and fighting order sod anything else if retrieving it means unecessary losses.

These blokes are at the top of their game, if they decided to ditch kit they had a bloody good reason and don't have to justify it to anyone, least of all prat journalists who revel in sensationalism.

Just thinking out loud

From what I have read the SBS did a good job in Afghanistan, the problem arose over an incident in Iraq, and with out full details of just what happened I think it is unfair to pass any comments on the matter. I think you would have needed to be there to fully understand the problems that they faced and why they took the course of action that they did. Now as they all got back to base safely then it must have a good thing, equipment can be replaced highly trained people can't.

My point exactly bud

The SBS has gotten along fine without having it's profile raised. It's low profile is part of it's success as a unit!

Why ruin it by raising it's profile. The SAS never did themselves a favour by being so hi profile. And those books written by ex members are so cheap and crass!

Leave the SBS the way it is! :l

Browsing as I do through this forum I cannot help but form my own opinion from the various articles written about the SAS and SBS.

In conclusion I cannot see any sense in the SBS being trained as or even by the SAS.

Why should the SBS be forced to lower their standards!

I believe the term now is 'incoming'.

Saward

Ah but Saward, the only incoming on this subject will be from the other side. We don't do blue on blue.

Just a few replies,
1. The SBS did a brilliant role in Afghanistan and as you say it didn't have a coastline! There are times when the SAS are a bit stretched and do need help. I have a sneaking feeling that the SBS did a better job in Afghan - and got more credit. They may have got roles ahead of the SAS, which would be a bit of a bash on the head to the SAS. I don't know that what I just said was true - but the implication is around.
We should not be alienating the SAS - but getting them onside - to do the jobs that we both do well!!
gavin11756What a brilliant point. You are absolutely right. The SBS pottered along pretty welll until the Falklands. Then they did well in the public eye.
The SAS had their moment of glory with the Iranian Embassy siege. Neither conflict did any good for either SAS or SBS. They should have stayed anonymous.
saward
Please don't wind up the opposition!!
Sneaky

The problem is that Governments get them selfs in a mess, then they need good news stories to help them out, so fo people like the SBS or SAS heve a fairly good mission the Government need to tell the people about it. This in turn brings the media spot light on to these organisations, bringing all the so called experts out of the wood work to pick over the bones of the story, and twist and turn it all to their point of view. As far as the soldiers writing books about it, well if it is good enough for the officers to write about it then why not the men, if some one is offering you a haversack full of cash for you to write a book then you would be a fool not to.