Comparission of British & American special forces/ Linda Norgrove Killed in Afganistan

[mwillis1000]

SAS>all

[Raizo1988]

SAS have been working in alot bigger numbered groups since the war on terror they stormed a house in Ira using almost 30 men times are changing

[funkyfenman]

British and US S/Forces work and cross-train closley with each other and dont doubt any of thier operators skills but I must admit the SAS seem to be more Surgical on how they do thier buisness

[infokemp]

@funkyfenman Excellent comment, thank you.



[idricool]

SAS would have never fucked up.

Seal team Six had to sent 20 guys to take down OBL. SAS would have sent 9 guys and get the job done.

[GingerbreadMan1994]

@idricool SAS would of sent 3 or 4 guy and they would of got the job done.

[molemole117117]

the SAS wrote the book and they teach delta

the SBS wrote a good book and taught seals

the paras/ comandos RAF regiment taught the rangers and USMC end of arguement

sincierly flight Sergent Richardson sniper in RAF regiment

[AlBunyan]

@molemole117117 The Army Rangers in thier modern form trace themselves back to when US volunteers were taught by the British Comandos in WW2 but the SEALs were not.  Your comment concerning the USMC is entirely false. The Marine Raiders were inspired by the British comandos but were never trained by them. Your basing your argument more on patriotism than fact.

No, I'm not saying I think the US troops are better... I don't think anyone commenting on here has the slightest clue who's better.

[molemole117117]

@AlBunyan no SEALS are taught by SBS instructors i quote from chris ryans fight to win

the marine raiders i did not mention i mentioned the USMC(which was actually set up by by a british general) as was the us navy

[AlBunyan]

@molemole117117 Correct, if you want to reach all the way back to 1775, then yes, the Marine Corps traces it's origins to the Royal Marines. But the Marine Corps itself was founded by Capt Samuel Nicholas, who had no prior service in the British Armed Forces. By WW2 the Marine Corps had evolved on a very different path from the Royal Marines and did not recieve any substantial training from them or any of the other British Commando units.

[TheOnlGreatAlexander]

Jesus, all of these American comments is the reason so many people hate us! Listen British you probabily know that not all Americans are not like that, I really don't give a damn who is better but the fact is that the job is done right and with profession doing it, SF guys do what they were trained to do, Regulars do what their told can't everyone just agree that these men who volunteer in the British and American Armed Forces are brave souls who love their country and protect you, wannabe cods

[infokemp]

@TheOnlGreatAlexander Good comment

[prezs100]

lol omg bunch of wannabes here.. damn...

[prezs100]

who the hell is this joker?..lol...

[Hperman09]

@Elitepoosniff No the MOD later restated that a US navy SEAL throw a grenade to the back of the building, where she had been dragged by a captor, and was then huddled on the ground. From "British forces news": It had been believed that Linda Norgrove was being held in buildings higher up a mountain.

A US soldier threw a grenade into a gully lower down the mountain where the captors were attacking the troops, but it was later discovered that this had been where Ms Norgrove had beenoutside

[Hperman09]

if your military invested more in helicopters to bring the SAS to the fight, it would not be us you would have to rely on. After all, in 2007, it was a Brit FAC who called down the US bombs onto the 1st Royal Anglian Regiment, by giving our pilots the wrong coordinates, killing three Brits. So the British FAC is facing manslaughter charges because of it. Since she was a british citizen, you should have sent the *SAS* instead. Take that up with Cameron who jointly approved the raid.

[fmoa]

LOL..the brits went crazy over this n say why gung ho u.s special forces were given the task n why not sas sent there..heres the lowdown laddie's..sas was offered the mission by u.s command,sas say u.s special forces know the area..ummmm..if sas was that good,why didnt sas just say to the yanks..ok,will do it,thing is sas didnt want to take casualties coz the area was hostile,so they pulled out,only the yanks have the balls to go in,but you know the yanks,they shoot first n ask question later.

[Elitepoosniff]

The SAS should have done the job, she would have been alive today, going in by Helicopter takes more planning than what the SAS told them to do, why on earth did the US special forces throw a grenade into the room, it makes no sense, a fucking grenade into the same room as the person your trying to rescue, its not a mistake or anything like that it is just plain unprofessionalism, next time America listen to the best.

[fmoa]

@Elitepoosniff u.s special operation command did offer the mission to u.k special forces..guess what..it was turn down by the brits..brits high command say send in u.s special forces coz they know the area..the brits know the area was hostile,they didnt want one of there sas members get killed coz it was a high danger area..so they pussy out..so brits say send in u.s special forces that actually have the balls to fight in hostile area,yanks kill anything that moves n no seals were dead,awesome.

[Elitepoosniff]

@fmoa Were do you get your info from ? Google . . . US troops are stationed in the province that she was taken in, the US was the first to ask for the mission so they got it, but as the woman was British they had to ask for permission to from the British Government, they said yes, the US special forces are Advised and trained by the SAS, the SAS told them as you have just heard what to do, but Americans being Americans went in and failed, thats because they did not listen to the SAS.

[fmoa]

@Elitepoosniff LOL..u.s spec.ops command did ask the u.k if they wanted to participate in the operation you idiot..the brits turn it down..why..is it because they dont want to take casualties like what happen in the rescue of Stephen Farrell when a u.k commando was killed,even a women n child was killed in that operation..at least farrell ran out when guns start firing..this bitch just duck in a room wit a member of taliban,theres a gunfight goin on,fuck it..just throw a grenade..

[fmoa]

@Elitepoosniff oh sas aint training u.s special forces anymore..thats back in ww2 mate,right now u.s sometime do joint-training wit european,japanese n s.korean special forces..does that mean japanese n s.korea train u.s too..hahahaha..you stupid mate..like i said,the brits couldn't handle casualties like what happen in stephen farrell rescue when a member of u.k special forces was killed,so they pussy out on norgrove rescue..guess what,no u.s seals were dead n all taliban died n a stupid bitch.

[fmoa]

thats why i like about u.s special forces,they dont give a shit,they kill anything that moves n ask question later,they dont pussy out on missions too,seals av done n accept dangerous mission in vietnam,panama,grenada n 2 middle east wars..sas on other dont have balls anymore,heard they abandon a mission to take a argentine airport,members were captured in bravo 2 zero mission,run from a battle in baghdad 2004 that same ambush a sas member was captured,sas like to be captured alot..hahaha.

[Elitepoosniff]

@fmoa Bravo 2 zero, the mission that SAS died because of the US yet again needed support in a war . . . the SAS were sent in to kill the SCUD`s but the US half way into the mission bombed them nearly killing some SAS and ruining what the US wanted the SAS to do in the first place, You say about Vietnam, the same war you guys failed and lost in oh right ok, and you said abandoned a mission to take an airport ? more info on that if you can.

[fmoa]

@Elitepoosniff oi if sas is the best..then why are they the only special forces that run from actual combat in baghdad..heck the iraqis even captured one member of sas in 2004,google "Afghans on UK handover to US in Sangin"..its a nice read,it tells the difference btween a brit n a yank,same shit would say about this hostage rescue,sas n the brits cant handle casualties,so they send in real man that dont give a shit about killing anything that moves,not sissy boys like sas..real man kill,kill.

[fmoa]

google "Afghans on UK handover to US in Sangin" read how some afghans say how shit the brits are..afghans say "British troops couldn't handle casualties. They used to retreat all the time and this would further embolden the Taliban.'',LOL,same shit goes wit there special forces,heard sas didnt want to take casualties n pull out on this,come on..man up brits,thing is,once bullets start flying,a yank would kill anything,heard there was a taliban near missy norgrove,kill taliban is more important.

[Hperman09]

@Elitepoosniff so does SAS never make mistakes? The US didn't through a grenade through a window. The grenadewas thrown from the roof to the ground outside the building to kill a hostage taker. Accidents happen, We are at war. Wether it is liked or not not everything in a war goes as planned. The women hostage was NOT in the building, she happened to be outside, lying on the ground, where the operator could not see her in the dark. Same when SAS failed to rescue munadi in sept 2009.

[Elitepoosniff]

@Hperman09 It was thrown into a window into the room, it was even said by the MoD.

[ajr666]

Yes, that absolutly seems to be the case. Not only did they shoot Mundai as well as an Afghan woman and her child, but they also got one of their own guys killed in the process. Lets also not forget that this isnt the first time that the UK have botched a rescue then tried to portray it as a a success after the fact. During the recent attempted rescue of Lorenzo D' Auria and another Italian hostage, the SBS managed to shoot both of them, killing Lorenzo and severly wounding the other.

[badkarmateam]

this is why aid workers shouldnt be there, they are trying to help those people in a country that dosnt want them there. ...and when you get kidnapped, then someone has to risk their life to come and try to save you. Shit happens everyday, its war, mistakes happen. People seem to forget that these guys didnt have to go and put their life on the line for her, they all went by choice knowning that if they didnt she would be dead, and they did their best to try and save her.

[ajr666]

IDK where u heard that the SAS told them they shouldnt enter by helicopter, but u are SEVERLY misinformed. It was on British ADVICE that DEVGRU entered the way they did. Almost every aspect of that operation was planned by the Brits. The SAS/SBS basically wanted the Americans to use the same plan that they used in the Farrell rescue debacle. If u remember the SAS/SBS inserted by HELICOPTER during the Farrell disaster.

[modernwarfare2669]

@ajr666 I noticed u from every special forces video. get your fucking facts straight. Munadi was running toward the SBS and was killed in the back not the front. how do you know exactly? .how do you know it weren't the afghan? did you take bullets out and examine them? Oh about the Italian officer, do you think italian sf would not go for their own guys. it was a joint op. Typical yank

I don't care about how was "according to this, etc" I would love to see some sources/links from u fucktard

[ajr666]

It was the Americans that wanted to insert several miles from the target as they had done just a year earlier when they rescued an American Contractor from an isolated Taliban safehouse 8000ft up in the mountains of Nirkh. Since the Norgrove rescue was so similar in almost every way, DEVGRU wanted to stick w/ what they knew worked; but because it was a British hostage the SEALs relented to the plan of the SAS.

[ajr666]

They also didn’t want to go in with 100 Rangers like they did. They wanted to stick to what they had done in Nirkh and just use a small force of about 30 DEVGRU operators and walk onto the target. But again the SAS wanted to stick to the Farrell plan, so just like the SAS went in w/ 100 Para’s during the Farrell operation; the Americans relented and took the Rangers.

[Hperman09]

@ajr666 Dude where did you get that munadi is killed by an SBS as well as loraznoa D anurio? I would love to know because you don't make any sense at all.

[ajr666]

Heres a link that basically shows you the same kind of plan the SEALs wanted to use to rescue Norgrove, but again, because it was a British citizen the US ended up going with the plan developed by the Brits instead of going with what they KNEW had worked for them in the past under the same situation, conditions, and environment.

Link: w w w . n a v y t I m e s . c o m / n e w s / 2 0 0 8 / 1 1 / m I l I t a r y _ a I r _ r e s c u e _ 1 1 0 7 0 8 w /

[jarvaloso]

sorry correction for below...it should be the reason you "Dont" tab in to an assault like this

[jarvaloso]

(Cont from below) that in a contact when bullets start flying, everyone shits themsleves..doesnt matter who you are..Para, SAS, Delta, Seal....even chuck norris..eveything turns to a huge gang fuck, the guy who chucked in grenade just made a mistake, thers nothing to say it wouldnt have happened if it were SAS/SBS...End of the day al SF are just blokes..stop lionizing them, they can run over hills quick and there motivated and they didnt get injured on selection, there all super secret mega

[jarvaloso]

Hoepfully you all get to read this, right the reason you TAb into an assault like this is because every Afghan house hold has a dog!!not for petting but because they act as early warning when any strangers, i know this as ive been to afghanistan, in 2006 and 2008, and believe me you cant sneak anywhere with out the whole village knowing. So Heli assault was absolutely right for this, always is!!

Also generalyy yes your right about the flash bang, shouldnt be, however from experience I can tell

[scottybot2003]

mate if you werent there, and your not part of the inner circle then just dont bother. you wouldnt get into either the SAS or yank equivilant whatever its being valled nowadays. go back to playing COD and let the real men do their jobs.

[infokemp]

@scottybot2003 I was in the Para reserve so your right I am not qualified to tell the SAS what they should do but I am qualified to tell you what you should do - read up on a subject before you comment then you won't come across in a negative way as you have done.

If you've been in the Army then let me know & I'll apologize but until then I stand by what I was trained in by better people than you or me - Para Regiment Veterans of Iraq & Afghanistan!

[scottybot2003]

@infokemp im in the TA at the moment and the question is always banded about as to who is better. truth of the matter is we dont have the manpower to throw at some problems so we go for massive quality over quantity compared for instance to the american army.

[infokemp]

@scottybot2003 Ok I respect that you are in the TA, I am considering re-enlisting myself.

You are right that our quality does not beat US quantity - but the British Army will be the core & leading element of any future EU Armed Forces & this will make us a hyperpower. I was talking in general terms about standard operating procedure, of known SAS tactics, you are right to say they may of done things differently but I have read up and used first accounts from SAS; research from news interviews.

[scottybot2003]

@infokemp i totally agree with you there. its always best for special forces to be low in number because they gain a greater intensity of exposure to techniques you wouldnt have time to show 2000+ people. we have the best special forces in the world. reason being, our SAS train every other SF in the world including the yanks which they dont like to acknowledge because of the american war ego. good luck with re enlisting, after uni im off to join too and it looks to be a quite interesting carreer

[mynoon1999]

@scottybot2003 twat your in a band twat and you can't play anything or sing twat once again you are a .... or twat bye bye twat.

[miZZZzzzery]

continue....that being said, these guys played 1,000 scenarios in there head and found out that using Helicopters was the best tactic to use. So, there is a reason why they used helicopters and not foot. Hats off to those warriors that when in to try to save her. The best unit was used to save her, nothing is guaranteed.

if, if, if, if, If my brother had a vagina, he would be my sister.

RIP Linda Norgrove

[miZZZzzzery]

Why are you guys questioning the tactics of one of the best trained units in world? We don't know the whole details of the operation and we probably won't know for a very longtime. To point out what you said about them using helicopters and not "climb" to their object, In 2008 there was an article written about a SEAL Team doing a Hostage Rescue in the Mountains of Afghan, were they had to "climb" miles up a Mountain to get to hostage to avoid detection. They were successful. 

[Riyun72]

None of you were there and doubt we will ever really know what happened so stop thinking you're all experts on a matter you werent there to witness.

[pieman97405]

In my opinion, what we need for a decent military is the British high command and training, and the American gung ho spirit, and troop numbers. Get the two, and you got an unstoppable military.

[infokemp]

@pieman97405 Excellent Comment - I completely agree.

When the EU gets its army this will be the case, & the US it should be remembered have won most of the major battles in the last 15 years of this war & the two Iraq Wars, I give credit where it is due.

All the best

David

[owainglyndwr16]

@pieman97405 Would also help if they had a legal war to wage in the first place !!

All those thousands of lives lost or destroyed because of a lie !! A deserter is a Hero .. They are the only Heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan ... Mark my words "When" its all over, will a red carpet and a ticker tape parade be laid out for the returning troops ? Will the maimed be treated as heroes ? "No" as the people who waged the War will try their damnd'est to sweep it out of sight under a corporate Carpet

[mikec62001]

TAB = Tactical Advance to Battle to anyone who doesn't know what that is....

I agree with what was said in this vid - yes I'm not SF and never served in the military...and there are people who would say...how can any so called "arm chair commander" make a view on this incident....It's called common sense...Firstly...using helicopters in a hostage recovery must include a ground team - recce team - that has setup an observation position very close by to wherre the hostage is..

[mikec62001]

@mikec62001 No idea why a US SF used fragmentation grenades in or near the location of the hostage - I don't understand this....No frags should have been used at all..Flashbangs are used - non lethal grenade used to disoreintate rather than to kill. US SF use Helmet Cams on all operators which are usually beamed back to command co-ordinating the assault...what happend to Linda would have been seen immediately on a helmet cam and would also have been divulged during the debrief after

[infokemp]

@mikec62001 Excellent comment

[gizmofsu]

You do a great job of reinforcing all the British stereotypes ;) Recent history, like it never happened....

"September 2009, Gordon Brown approved a raid by British forces to rescue reporter Stephen Farrell, unfortunetely his translator, 1 British Soldier, and 2 innocent civilians where killed before he was rescued."

[mynoon1999]

@gizmofsu you american scum what about all the british people killed by usa missiles and the CIA and atleast the british savedthe reporter you kill the person. and we all know the sas are the best in the world ever without the wepons that usa sf has. british army is the best per man in the world so the usa men are overated the just have the best wepons. long live the eu and soon die usa

[mikec62001]

@gizmofsu this is to provide protection for the hostage and the heli-bourne assault element until they are all on the ground - an example of this was in Operation Barras when UK SF and the Paras extracted 9 British soldiers from Sierra Leaone in Africa after they were held hostage by a guerilla group called the "West Side Boys" They used a helibourne assault but they had guys already on the ground providing intel and keeping eyes on the target location of the hostages.

[infokemp]

@mikec62001 Excellent comment

[metallee]

@mynoon1999 , no need to get personal the yanks did their best, mistakes happen. it was their area of operations, british forces where too far away and the intelligence needed to be acted upon before they moved her to another location. lets not blame the yanks, we all fuck up from time to time even the sas. the point is they risked their lives to rescue her just as we would and have done for americans.

[mynoon1999]

@metallee fair enough but the americans didnot need to try and cover it up and they sould have lissened to the sas. if it had been the british rescuing an american they would still be alive and how my uk troops have been killed in friendly fire by the usa.

[publicmario17]

@mynoon1999 how many UK troops killed by US u say? Good question

The US has been responsible for 5 British deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan.

The UK has been responsible for 16 British Deaths, 2 danes, and some Afghans in Iraq/Afghanistan . That is very high. If u do the math between 20 US FFs and 10 UK FFs and if you compare to size and forces, the UK has higher Friendly Fire rates than the US. A remedial math would help.

[mynoon1999]

@publicmario17 How people have been killed by USA FF in afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan. so the British have killed 0 USA troops in FF to me 5-0 the USA is much worse.

[publicmario17]

@mynoon1999 That's because your troops relied our air-support and that's why those incidents happened. Notice all of them occurred from air-to-ground since we provided 99% of all air-support. We're talking about two different types of incidents. Most British FFs occurred ground-to-ground themselves. Our ground troops are hardly trigger happy and we don't shot up our allies even our men a lot. Since US provided 99% of air-support chances are they are going to be incidents among them.

[mynoon1999]

@publicmario17 Well aout 7 years ago in Iran a USA tank killed 4 British reporters so the USA does kill people ground to ground. 99% is a bit much 70% is closer to the amount of air cover the USA provides and thats because it has the most troops.

[publicmario17]

@mynoon1999 Well then the reporters should not be in the war zone. They always get into US area just to cover their news by risking themselves then they get killed in a crossfire. Killing a non-combatant was fit in a definition of collateral damage.

In Falkland wars, the Royal Navy accidentally killed 3 UK women civilians during a naval bombardment in Stanley, Falkland islands. The only UK civilian casualties of the war.

Sadly it does happen and now we are in Libya to deal with Gadhafi.

[mynoon1999]

@publicmario17 As a % more British reporters are killed than anyother country in the G20. This woman was an aid worker, she knew she could die so it is her own fault, but for once we could save on of there people and kill more of the taliban. Why didn't they send the Commonwealth SAS who are trained to do this type of mission. The thing I don't like about this is the USA tryed to cover it up for a week, why? We need ground troops in Libya, Egyptians I say.

[publicmario17]

@mynoon1999 i think you need to read @ajr666 by 4 to 5 pages. He made some points why the SEALs was sent in instead of the SAS.

[mynoon1999]

@publicmario17 I could not find the page, so why were the seal's sent and not the SAS.

[publicmario17]

@mynoon1999 i meant the comment box you fool lol. Click 4 and 5 down below and see his comment.

[mynoon1999]

@publicmario17 O well I can't find it now.

[xdr8390]

The yanks did it because she worked for a CIA front company,so she was indirectly a US govt employee.

[infokemp]

@xdr8390 Where did you hear this information?

[xdr8390]

@infokemp Google the name of the company she worked for along with CIA.

[GingersAreFags1]

Im American, I cant understand why the British didn't send in their SF, everyone knows British SAS are highly more trained, and experienced then American SF. Its a real blow to our rep, a grenade in close quaturs combat is unacceptable.

[gizmofsu]

@GingersAreFags1 I agree completely. Although flash bangs are lethal at a certain distance as well.

[mynoon1999]

@GingersAreFags1 the sas didnot go in because the usa army was allready there.

[infokemp]

@GingersAreFags1 Thanks for being understanding, the grenade incident was not the best tactical decision it was a justifiable mistake (for now) as the situation was a fierce fire fight but the SAS would of infiltrated in to rescue her I have no doubt. I think the Americans are found of big scale infantry shock tactics rather than SP work.

To answer you question - the Americans invoked operational domain - it was their area of operations so they wanted to go in, though the SAS advised them.

[acomountainman]

@GingersAreFags1

One major thing being misconstrued is this was not a USSF op--this was a US SeAL op--major difference. The term 'Special Forces' is thrown around alot nowadays, when there is only one true SOF element called Special Forces; also known as the 'Green Berets'. While SF, Rangers, SeALs are Special Operations, they are NOT Special Forces. Yes, I am bias. Why would you send in water operators to do a land hostage rescue?

[mynoon1999]

good vid if she british why didn't they send the sas we all know usa troops are crap