Talk:Special Air Service Regiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

SAS vs SASR

Why does this article abbreviate Special Air Service Regiment to SASR, instead of SAS? Practically every reference to the Australian SAS that I can find is SAS not SASR. The New Zealand Special Air Service Regiment is SAS, as is the British. The news papers and books refer to it as the Australian SAS. So why the difference here? Puff Of Hot Air (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Defence website calls them SASR. See [1] Ebglider91 (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Officially referred to as SASR and commonly (ie majority of newspaper references etc) as SAS. I've changed the lead sentence to reflect official v common use. Ozdaren (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that seems like a good way to do it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure how that would be received. In my opinion it strikes a good balance. Ozdaren (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

for one thing mate its called the sasr or the LIFE at the end of the day buddy dont stress remember that what ever people call the special forces of the world rest assured that when you need us you will not be looking threw a phone book for the right spelling anyway sempier fi and remember who dares wins

Swanbourne 2nd troop gunner TO THE BOYS ITS CLEANNER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.88.249 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In the context of a copyedit, I had regard for the 2008-2010 mini-consensus above, and standardised on 'SASR'. However, regular Australian usage —including media and the troopers themselves (who are proudly "Sass")— is for 'SAS'. Therefore I would recommend changing SASR to SAS in all instances except in the lead paragraph and, of course, in quotations. Comments, please. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Bjenks, Its called the Special Air Service Regiment and officially abreviated as SASR its not called the Special Air Service (SAS), the media only call it the SAS because they dont know what they are talking about and they are operators, and they call it the SASR or just "The Regiment". its called the Special Air Service Regiment, leave it the way it is. SOTGMichael (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SOTGMichael, SASR is more correct. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I happily accept that confirmation. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Anon edits

Whoever it was editing from 212.238.154.110, thankyou. Especially for removal of that shrine like crap, it really needed to go.

There's still work to be done, of course, but the current revision is well and truly heading in the right direction.

--BenM 03:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV

• I think that the following statement "The Australian SAS regiment, based on, but vastly superior to the British original" should be reworded or backed up with evidence. It looks like a typical my mum's better than your mum argument (in that almost every country believe's that their military/army/special forces are the best in the world, but can never back it up). - Bambul 03:55, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I've heard that the training is (or was originally) based on a combination of the British SAS and the Gurkha training, but what that has resulted in I've got no experience in judging. --BenM 20:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Here's the closest I can find to an official site for the SASR. --BenM 21:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ADF Special Forces

The SASR are a special forces regiment, naturally they aren't going to make any sites telling the public what they're up to. I think there is an amount of consideration by readers when they look for things like this, as most of the information on them is secret. 58.165.63.114 04:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily - David Horner's book on the SASR goes into great detail on the Regiment's history, organisation and tactics. The SASR isn't as secretive as is often assumed (it's based in suburban Perth for instance!). --Nick Dowling 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's HQ is in suburban Perth. They don't bloody train there though, except for march and drill, which the troopers aren't fans of but still do. They have several training centres spread acorss the country, and you can't just lob in and say G'day. They are secretive. Former troops don't tend to write as many books on their time in the regiment compared to the British SAS (Well, there are some around but up to date tactics are never discussed) No one knows the full structure of the training and spec op methods employed by the regiment. Watching a few videos on youtube doesn't teach you a thing. Most of the videos claiming to be of SASR troops training etc are of 4RAR cmdo and TAG East operators, although there are a sprinkling of SAS troopers in the CT unit. Hell, there are some videos claiming to be SOF operators when they are clearly Reg infanry battalions, including the Paratroopers of 3RAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.142.1 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

It's disappointing that ignorant and stupid comments like "Unlike the british SAS however they are not all queer boys with annoying accents and have been known to be far more strong and composed in the face of danger than their british allies." are allowed to stand on a serious article like this. I'm minded to edit it out now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain McVitie (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Operations

I've removed the following section:

The SAS were the spearhead of operations in Somalia (1994), Rwanda 1994, Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, Borneo, Yemen,Chechnya, Bougainville, United Arab Emirates, Laos, East Timor (1999-2000), Upper Volta, Libya, Sydney Olympics (2000), Afghanistan (2001), Northern Ireland, Barbados, Solomon Islands, and Iraq (2003 to present).

Some of these look extremely suspect to me. Northern Ireland? Barbados? Chechnya? UAE? I think these need some sources. Obviously some are genuine and need to be readded. -- Necrothesp 00:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

East Timor is definite and so is Cambodia (there were some interesting rescues during some turmoil there in around the early 90s or so - I recall seeing it on the news, but not the year). Laos is probably just confusion ofer the Kerry and Kay Danes espionage charges (Kerry Danes was on a leave of absence from the SASR and working as a security consultant with Lao Securicor when he and his wife were arrested). They were definitely in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan too (it was in the media). Not sure about the recent activity in the Solomon Islands, I think that might've been the 3rd RAR.

There was an SAS troop (plus) in Solomon Islands. In every operation the ADF is involved in, especially invovling ground elements the SAS is there. Eyes and ears, hearts and minds, VIP protection etc. As for some of the conflicts named here, for some it would involve individual troopers on exchange with another nations SOF. The SAS did `things' in the period between Vietnam and the early 90s, it's just not for the public to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.142.1 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm going from memory here, no sources. --BenM 16:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Olympics, vietnam, cambodia, korea are certinaly in (isn't hard to find in google).

Of course they're genuine, but since several on the list are almost certainly spurious it seemed more sensible to remove the whole list and let someone add a sensible list. -- Necrothesp 14:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bin Laden

I've just removed the following statement from the 'Operations' section: "In Afghanistan, Australian SAS allegedly discovered Osama Bin Laden and called in US air support, but US fire missed their target."

As this incident seems rather unlikely to have occured (surely the Americans would have stopped at nothing to kill or capture Bin Laden if he'd been detected) it should only be reinstated if a credible source can be provided. --Nick Dowling 08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I was there and it happened.

That's the trouble with this. So much to tell but no access to sources :)

Actually there is a report that details SASR called in for an Air Strike on " High Value Target" while performing blocking missions in afgan. However the actual target was never confirmed or was never released to public. The book was Hells Halfpipe or something like that, written by members of US Marines paratroopers 101st (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.48.213 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great story. But it's just a story. If Osama Bin Laden had been located there is no way that he wouldn't be topped by the SAS on the ground or the air strikes afterward. Let's face it, a high value target could be anybody. And who the hell are the Marine paratroopers? The 101st airborne is a regular army unit, not USMC. The Bryce (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I something read that in an Aussie Army Magazine about SASR almost getting him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieSF (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Winged dagger emblem

I find it a bit hard to believe that exactly the same winged dagger symbol is used for the British and Australian SAS. I would have expected some variation, for distinctiveness if nothing else. Currently, the same image, Image:Sas_badge.gif, is used for both. --Saforrest 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the image of the Australian SAS beret in the article the Australian cap badge looks identical. --Nick Dowling 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You will notice that the rendering of the badge is quite different between Australian and UK regiments - UK has a woven/embroidered fabric badge whereas Australian is a bi-metal/anodised metal badge. The UK badge is also more stylised. By the way, the same embroidered hat badge is used by both NZ and UK SAS. Spuddie1 07:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it's a flaming dagger anyway. Often misinterpreted as Wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.113.68 (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah i was iffy about that. UK clearly regonise their logo as a flaming excalibur while aus SAS claim its the winged sword of some greek god which symbolises helping humanity. then again i only ever picked up knowledge at dart contests with sas flight users so hard to be certain. makes sense for a airborne squad to use wings.152.91.9.153 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

500:1?

The statistic that the SASR achieved a 500:1 kill ratio in Vietnam often turns up in articles on the Regiment, but I've never seen a citation for the source of this claim (eg, the Defence or military history publication where this statistic was released). As the SASR's role in Vietnam was reconnaissance (which generally meant avoiding combat) the statistic seems rather unlikely. --Nick Dowling 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As no-one has been able to provide a source for this, I've removed the claim. Could I suggest that it stay removed until it can be cited? --Nick Dowling 07:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The SAS can confirm they killed 492 enemy. This doesn't include those who died later from the wounds they recieved. The SAS only lost one trooper in combat and several others died in hospital. Tat equals 500:1. The Veit Cong greatly feared the SAS. One VC prisoner that was interrogatted by the Australians said that his unit was worried about the 'Australian commandos' but not so much by the American and South Vietnamiese special forces.

Do you have a source which can be cited to confirm this? --Nick Dowling 11:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The book SAS Phantoms of the Jungle by David Horner and Vietnam Australias Ten Year War by Richard Pelvin

Training

I've deleted a lot of infomation in the section on training because there was not enough citation. Goldfishsoldier 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nick Dowling 09:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added info about Selection and referencesEbglider91 (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Military Exchanges

I believe the Australian SASR do exchanges with the British SBS, but I have no sources other than what I've seen. Can someone confirm?The Bryce (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that the Aus and UK SAS do exchanges. Doesn't always work though. I was at Sandhurst in 1981 when an Aus SAS WO2 turned up on the staff. Only problem was the person Sandhurst had sent was from the SASC (Small Arms Service Corps) who ran weapons training and ranges. The Aus guy was a fish out of water and we never heard what happened to our guy!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.0.44 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We do exchanges with most Allied SF Units, like in 2008 SASR did echanges with the Indonesian Koppassus (AussieSF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieSF (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Different direction for this article

Hi I have been reading various pages on various units and I think this one should be written in a similar vein to the Marinejegerkommandoen article which is about Nowegian marine kommandos. According to the article they are the hardest SF unit going around not sure what they have done but I think it's classified. I just think that people would take the sasr article more seriously with some similar exaggerations um, facts.

What do you guys think? I'm happy to go with the collectives decision.

Thank you for your time.

Spongey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sponge (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a special forces unit anywhere that doesn't claim to be the best in the world? The answer to your question is no, and this article could probably be toned down. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, fair enough. These articles are not written by the special forces units themselves they are written by fanbois who have know idea what they are talking about. I have extensive COD experience though so maybe I could re-write some. For a social networking site wikipedia ain't bad. :)

Peace out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sponge (talk • contribs) 07:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Is there any particular reason this article is named "Australian Special Air Service Regiment" and not simply "Special Air Service Regiment" which redirects here anyway? The name of the regiment is "Special Air Service Regiment". Having the word "Australian" appended to the front gives the misleading impression that it is part of the regiment's name. Any confusion with the British unit could be dealt with through a {{redirect}} hat note.

If disambiguation is thought to be required then this article should use the commonly accepted method of disambiguation, i.e. Special Air Service Regiment (Australia). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this article pre-dates the establishment of that disambiguation convention. I agree that the article should be moved to Special Air Service Regiment (Australia) as you suggest. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Special Air Service Regiment (Australia) is probably the best option. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Ozdaren (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, I agree also. Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

SAS(A) makes sense or as its officially known as the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) that would be better. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also completely agree. I have been wondering for a little while why there was the "Australian" prefix to the article, and was meaning to bring it up ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So, is there consensus to move the article? If so, who wants to do the honours? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deaths from training.

under the section, black hawk incident and under selection and training, there is a statement, "Deaths during training accidents make up the majority of the SASR's fatalities". apart from having no reference's for the statement there has been many fatality's during Vietnam and Afghanistan (3 at least from OP:slipper) campaigns, so it seems unlikely that it would be true, so shouldn't it be removed? also in the selection and training section pay/allowences and the training deaths have a reference (31) which goes to a news site with no info. sorry if theres a way you guys go about this, im only new to the discussion side of wikipedia 121.214.212.141 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

David Horner in SAS: Phantoms of War (2002) lists 41 deaths, the bulk of which occurred in training. Of course this does not reflect recent casualties however I believe the statement is still correct. Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that its still the case that most of the SASR's fatalities have been in training and these continue alongside deaths in combat. A SAS soldier was killed in a parachute training drop a few months(?) ago, for instance. The SASR also suffers a high rate of serious injuries during training, much of which is intrinsically dangerous. The DVA report on the health of SASR veterans makes for sobering reading: [2] (note the estimate from one of the submissions on page 2 that 1% of soldiers who served in the SAS between 1979 and 1998 were killed, at least another 32% suffered physical injuries and an unspecified number suffered psychological health problems as a result of their service - these would be considered significant casualties for a unit in combat). Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

okay the, thanks anyway, the first one under the black hawk crash seems a bit out of place, mabey frmove that one and add a proper refrence for the one under training? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.212.141 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Which battles that those three Australians or New Zealanders killed by friendly fire in Vietnam?

I read on the Australian SAS article Vietnam war. It says," Australian and New Zealand SAS killed at least 492 and as many as 598 and losing only two men killed in action and three fatalities from friendly fire." Can anybody tell where does this battle take place? Was if three friendly fire from Australian SAS or new Zealand?67.164.105.159 (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure sorry. The AWM lists seven fatalities from the SASR in Vietnam on the Roll of Honour: [3]. Of those, three appear to have the cause listed as "accidental", all with different dates: 2nd Lt Brian Jones, 10 April 1971; L/Cpl Ronald Harris, 17 January 1969; and Sgt George Baines, 13 February 1968. I'm not sure if these are the three listed in this article, though, or exactly what "accidental" means in this case. Not sure if this helps answer your question or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Both Jones and Harris were mistakenly shot and killed by their own patrols in dense jungle, while Baines was killed by a grenade which prematurely exploded while he was disposing of them. See Horner (2002) SAS: Phantoms of War. Anotherclown (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And do you guys know what year these guys were killed in and what type of battle? BTW what Baines kileld by enemy or by friendlies? BTW what kind of friendly fire incidents in Operation Crimp do they have? Do me a favor, can you list out the page name, date, what battle because i'm asking this in order to contribute to the friendly fire article and sometimes elsewhere 67.164.105.159 (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to sound discouraging but I have to question the point of the friendly fire article. Is the intention to list every friendly fire incident ever? Surely only notable ones should be listed? IMO any incident in which a single soldier is accidently killed, as tragic as it doubtless was/is, is unlikely to be notable. Even the article itself states that there were over 8,000 friendly fire incidents during the Vietnam War. Imagine how many must have occurred during each of the World Wars? Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This might not be the best place for this discussion, but I agree completely with Anotherclown. The Friendly fire article is way too detailed (ironically though, listing non-notable incidents such as these has the effect of making friendly fire seem less frequent). Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

oh ok i agree with you guys thanks for the advice. 67.164.105.159 (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing or Deletion on the SASR page

if something needing changing or adding we should vote on the change and not just do it cause you dont like it. plus the page needs more up dating with equipment, uniforms and operations. Cause the DPCU camouflage is obselete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieSF (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your additions have been reverted by a number of editors because they fail to meet the required standards, not because they "don't like them". There are numerous problems with the changes you have proposed, which are generally unencyclopaedic. Specifically though: material must be supported by references to reliable sources; you have changed the meaning of previously referenced text and you use multiple peacock terms, weasel words and jargon. If you would like to discuss specific improvements/updates to specific sections of the article then by all means do so but back it up with citations. If you add it you must WP:PROVEIT. Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Anotherclown. The key issue is that you need to provide references to reliable sources for the material you're adding. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Are citations just references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.104.142 (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the 3 revert rule as i was unaware of this rule, ill provide sources and references for all the infomation i publish in the future, and ill propose any changes i want to make on this page. if theirs any problems send me a message. Regards AussieSF talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Selection and training section

More and more courses keep being added to this section, always without any kind of reference. While it's well known that SASR personnel receive extensive training, this all looks a bit over the top without citations to back it up. Is anyone aware of a reference for this stuff? I can't find it on the Defence Jobs website (though its section on the training commandos pass through [4] suggests that commandos don't undergo anywhere near the number of courses which are being attributed to SASR personnel here). Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Can anyone provide any evidence of these things actually happening? When has the SASR been deployed to secure an oil platform or in counter narcotics operations. I also cant remember any instance of the SASR retaking a hijacked aircraft or "securing high value installations". Sounds like someone copied the plot of their favourite video game.

"In the Counter Terrorism role, the SASR has the primary responsibility for offshore recovery operations (hostage recovery) and also conducts boarding of underway ships and securing oil platforms in support of counter piracy and counter narcotics operations, securing high value installations and retaking hijacked aircraft."

I have removed the section in the hope someone can rewrite it factually and reference their sources.Retrolord (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Many sections of the article are devoid of factual basis and are unreferenced. Also, some sections seem to be significant exagerations of the truth.

Consistancy is also needed throughout the article, in some parts SASR members are reffered to as "members" in others as "operators". Retrolord (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Think you may be missing the point here a little to be honest - its about capability not necessarily about what they have actually done in an operational sense (i.e. they train for a contingency that may or may not be required). Regardless off the top of my head there are at least several publicly acknowledged examples of SASR involvement in both overseas hostage recovery (Wood in Iraq) and boarding of underway ships (Tampa and Pong Su). Not to mention SOTG being heavily involved in counter-narcotics operations in Afghanistan. I agree some references are definitely required but think a little caution is needed before you remove whole sections. For example some of the stuff you have removed from the Vietnam sections makes sense, whilst other information seem relevant to me. I certainly agree with you saying a clean up is required though. Anotherclown (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion

Hey guys thought i would add a general discussion section just for anything that doest fall under the other sections. also i have been thinking of adding a Notable Members section on the SASR page, any thoughts??? SOTGMichael (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There are possibilities, but I've seen many verification and OR problems for such listings in other areas (eg, schools), leading to time-wastage and conflict. For instance, this one has a long-time controversial subsection "Convicted criminals", and a "discredited former detective". Imho, A minimum requirement for notability here should be a properly documented, wikilinked article on the person. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I just added Notable members and i intend to add Fallen members soon aswell, i also added Similar units, if you have any issues with my additions then comment on this section, thanks SOTGMichael (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"It was disclosed in 2012 that six female soldiers were being trained in the U.S. for their work with 4 Squadron" im having trouble understanding what this means, i know i sound stupid but my mind is just not working lately can someone explain it to me, i havent asked any guys in the regiment because i havent seen them in awhile. SOTGMichael (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the reference then. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have, but the way it is worded is strange to me. SOTGMichael (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

152 signal squardon JTAC, CCT's?

Can somebody back this up with an actual reference or remove it? 152 sig is a signal squadron. The RAAF's 4SQN provides CCT & JTAC's see http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/stories/2012/aug/0810a.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.234.32 (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Similar Units

I know this topic usually causes a storm of individuals, from many nations, clamoring to list their favorite SOF under the "similar unit" section. I noticed this one already had such a section, so I thought we might make a talk section to discuss who should be listed. It is my belief that the criteria should include those whom they seem to spend the most amount of time around, otherwise the list would have to include pretty much all SOF's since they technically are similar.

Thus far we have the British SAS, Canadian JTF2, and US Army Special Forces (aka Green Berets). Delta was previously listed, but based on the available information out there, the SASR tends to spend more time with the Green Berets. This is likely because Delta mostly seems to only operate alongside the British SAS and vice versa. However, the British SAS were instrumental in the formation of the SASR so I definitely think they should remain. The Canadian JTF2 seems like a likely unit, because they deployed alongside the SASR in Afghanistan as part of Task Force K-Bar. I think the NZSAS would be a likely addition to the list since with their geographical proximity they are bound to do a fair amount of cross-training. But does anyone know of any other units the SASR are particularly close to or train a great deal with? ForwardObserver85 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

the green berets do not work with the sasr and its not who have worked with th sasr its similar units, delta is more similar then the green berets and NZSAS is not even close to being similar, and dont make changes without discussion on talk, i didnt add the units that i liked the most thats just stupid. SOTGMichael (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

my mistake the green berets have worked with SASR very briefly in afghan but its not about who have worked together. SOTGMichael (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're making this a little too personal, SOTGMichael. Special Forces operated with the SASR extensively in Vietnam and they are very similar units. The only difference here is that in the US military Delta (along with DevGru) handles most of the counter-terror & hostage rescue ops, while the Green Berets handle things like special reconnaissance, FID, etc..while in the ADF both of those groups are handled primarily by the SASR. I think for this instance we can clarify as such on the page.

However, the fact that you claim the NZSAS do not rate reinforces my opinion that you might be taking this too personally. The NZSAS have handled situations that are just as tough as those dealt with by the SASR and they've seen much of the same deployments. ForwardObserver85 —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

im not at all taking this personally its wikipedia but your adding units to the similar units thats shouldnt be there its not about who worked together its similar units. SOTGMichael (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you've ever spent any significant amount of time in the military, but units that aren't "similar" do not serve alongside each other. I'm adding units that have operated together, cross-train, and have similar operational focus. In this case, both the NZSAS and USASF belong on the list. User:ForwardObserver85 —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Im in the Australian army have been for 3 years and going for cdo selection next year, NZSAS are not like the SASR leave them out and put green berets in if it makes you happy but dont take units out. the units i put in have worked together in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places but i keep saying its about siminar units if it was about units that have worked together i would've named it so add Green berets but leave NZSAS out, i dont have anything against the NZSAS but they are not similar, and this is NOT a top list of special forces.SOTGMichael (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with selection. But answer me this. I mentioned this before, but if you want to purely go off of 'similar' then you'll need to add just about all SOF's because they are similar. If we want to keep this list at a respectable size, we need to develop a criteria. You say 1st SFOD-D is similar, yet they've rarely (if ever) operated alongside eachother. They only share a couple of operational focuses, and they don't cross-train with them regularly. So why add 1st SFOD-D? What makes them similar in your book? As for the NZSAS, why are they not similar? ForwardObserver85 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all SOFs are similar, the British SAS, SFOD-D & SASR are very similar, do some research, the NZSAS only have a very narrow skill set and they dont have the same DNA for lack of a better word then those i mentioned, i added Green berets to similar units, just leave it as it is.SOTGMichael (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've looked back on their deployment history and even perused through that documentary that they did and I will concede that they are more limited than the SASR, but I do still believe that their skills in certain areas are superb. For instance, their take-down of the hotel in Kabul was on the same level that the British SBS did afterwards. ForwardObserver85 19:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs)

Test edit ForwardObserver85 21:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC) ForwardObserver85 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Any list that includes SAS and/or 1stSFOD-D and/or SBS and or DEVGRU, should include them all. SAS basically started it all and is at the head of the pack. 1stSFOD-D was modeled after SAS, with similar training, skill sets and mission objectives. Both SBS and DEVRGU are simply naval/maritime based counterparts of their respective land based sister groups. They are all operationally interchangeable. And for what it's worth, they do regularly train, cross-train, deploy and fight together. Also, they coincidentally are all but administratively removed from their parent military dept. (Army/Navy/Marines) and assigned to a separate, joint special forces command. The same can be said on all accounts for Canada's JTF-2. These units are all considered the top-tier counter-terrorism (etc.) units of their nations. Now, as for UK 3Commando, USSF (Green Berets), US Navy SEALS, US 75^th Rangers, etc., these are one step below the above mentioned units. (for USAISA, info is scarce, but it is believed they fall somewhere in between) Now, these are just a few examples of first and second tier units. User:SOTGMichael, what you would need to do here, is establish whether SASR fits the profile of a top tier or second tier unit, based on selection and training, skill sets, intended mission objectives and actual deployments. And, you would need to support this with reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you know, it only matters what you can prove. Once you have established whether SASR is similar to a top tier unit (ie: SAS) or a second tier unit (ie: Green Berets), then those are the units you would list under "Similar Units". This would also apply to Canada CSOR, French SF Brigade, German Spec Ops Division, NZSAS, Polish GROM, Russian Spetsnaz (esp. Alpha Group)... just to name a few (prominent ones, at least). You do that, and you`re well on your way to creating a pretty good article. Mind you, you're not alone here, there others willing to help, if you'll let them. Good luck! - thewolfchild 12:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unit Citations

I removed the Unit citation streamers because they had been removec from other such pages by other editors under the the reasoning; 'Remove decorative infobox icons'. Over time I have come to agree since the addition of; (Enter name of foreign country here) should be added behind the citation in a similar fashion to an individual E.g. David Hurley's Legion of Merit - Commander of the Legion of Merit (United States), in order to distinguish them from Australian citations. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 23:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Explain?

Mike, perhaps you could explain this edit? The Naval Special Warfare Development Group (aka "DEVGRU" and "SEAL Team Six") was listed on this article under 'Similar units', but you removed it with the edit summary "how is DEVGRU and SBS similar unts lol " - How is it not similar? (ie: how many far many far and wide ranging differences can you provide, with cites, that confirms they are so different. (and, by the way, weren't you the one that pushed to have both DEVGRU and SASR together as the only 5 Special mission units in the whole world?) And while your at it, I see you have been continually removing New Zealand Special Air Service from this same section, to the point of edit warring, with no explanation. At the same time, you seem insistent that the United States Special Forces (Green Berets) be included, but, again, with no explanation. Can you clarify some of this for all of us? - thewolfchild 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Its been a week or 2 and your still going on about Special Mission Units do have some personal vendetta against it? it seems like all you do all day is go on about it? anyway the SBS is a Boat service and maritime unit so is DEVGRU, the SASR is not at all a maritime unit again i must say for you to do your research, and i have stated before on this talk page that i dont think the Green Berets should be on there but another user wouldnt let it go and i was over arguing with him, so i kept it there but im removing it soon, and i also stated why the NZSAS shouldnt be on there becuase they dont have the same DNA, i made Similar Units to add the other Tier 1 units and NZSAS are not Tier 1, i added DEVGRU and then i did research and removed it or someone removed before i got the chance. SOTGMichael (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What references to reliable source support your position here? It does not seem justified to me: the SASR also specialises in maritime tasks, and has the capability to board ships at sea (demonstrated during the Pong Su incident) and land reconnaissance parties from submarines. From what I've seen, the NZSAS is generally considered to have similar capabilities and standards to the Australian SAS. I believe that the Australian SAS actually has a permanent exchange arrangement with DEVGRU. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC).

concerning DEVGRU Where does that come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullseye30 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay

There is a lot of speculation in this article as opposed fact,especially concerning Afghanistan and Iraq,the suggestion that the SAS was "able to do what US special forces... exct"does nothing for reliabilty,prove this statement!it cannot be an excuse to say that as operations are classified that details are not known because if we use this as a bench mark all sorts of unverified imformation will be taken as fact eventually.It is fair to say that when special forces are involved in an operation certain vague details are almost always released to the media,very few operations are 100% classified.The Australian SAS is exactly the same standard as the British SAS,the differance with the two is simple,the Brtish SAS has been in constant combat since it's reformation in 1948/50 up until now and its operations are for the most part well known.Tony Geraghty said in his book a Pictorial History of the SAS that the Australian SAS fore-filled a role similar to the British Parachute Regiment up until the nineteen eighties at this point it became what its known for now,the fact is their operational history is a lot less than is often mentioned.......as a side point to compare the differant SAS regiments the elite would be the Rhodesian SAS,these put into regular practice what the other regiments merely trained for,this unit is now however defunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullseye30 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The operations conducted by the SASR in Vietnam and Borneo in the 1960s and 1970s weren't at all similar to the role of the parachute regiment: the unit's focus was on covert patrolling and ambushes using small forces. It's correct that the SASR didn't develop a counter-terrorism capability until the late 1970s/early 1980s. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

They don't write as many books for a good reason there is little to really write about and there are a to many SAS groupies [both aussie,brit and american] prepaired to to believe any thing and everything positive about this and other special forces units,they are MEN that is all,they are not superhuman.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullseye30 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The SASR dont write books becuase they have an agreement not to talk about anything and for the most part everything is secret and not for the public to know, and how can you say there is nothing for the SASR to write about, they are one of the most effective units in Afghanistan, SOTG has been working in Afghanistan since 2001 and has been one of the hardest working forces in Afghanistan to date, im also curious as to what makes a bricklayer from England an expert on this matter. SOTGMichael (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

i notice you find it acceptable however to dismiss the kiwi SAS,they are every bit as elite as the brits,aussie and US...the pommy SAS has a similar agreement reguarding books and the shelfs are positivley bulging,what i was getting at is the brits have the Falklands ,Iranian Embassy and operation Barras to name few the US has Mogadishu,several hostage rescues and Bin Laden,these are a lot more dramatic than spotting for F-18'S or watching an enemy....and i dont honestly care who is the best [if there is such thing,after all they are all the same standard]but fact and speculation need to be seperated.Bullseye30 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Bullseye30.

Australia doesnt get involved in the situations that the U.S and the Brits do, we have no need to, also i dont know how you can say NZSAS are every bit elite as the U.S, Brits and Aus just becuase they have SAS in their name doesnt mean that they are on the same level becuase they are not, just look at the Rhodesian SAS they were useless, and NZSAS left Afghanistan before the job was done and left Aus, U.S and the U.K to finish it, but i already went through all this, the SASR were not as operationally active as 22 or delta prior to 9/11 because like i said we have no need as a country to do any of it like the Brits, also the U.S gets involved in all sorts of s**t that is unneccesary i.e Battle of Mogadishu to name one of the most prominent, the SASR do extremely high risk operations, i.e stealth missions and kill or capture to name a few, and works with delta and i heard ISA aswell especially 22SAS in Afghanistan, its about effectiveness not spotlight, the SASR like i said has accomplished just as much in Afghanistan then 22 or delta, the SASR just doesnt get recognition becuase they dont want it, a curious eye is the ugly gain of the enemy, im not trying to say that the SASR is the best becuase SASR, Delta, 22SAS and DEVGRU are all #1 in terms of capability etc etc.. but there are probably one or two other units that could be considered in the Tier 1 club, the SASR is doing incredible operations while expecting absolutely no recognition or a "hey good job guys!. SOTGMichael (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Its a dark windy night here in pommy land so this is why i'am so quick with my replies,but i cannot let you say that the Rhodesian SAS were useless...in a word THEY [and the selous scouts ]were THE Elite do some reading they did things that the aussie SAS have probable never done in combat and they did them often for instance HALO jumps into enemy camps followed by assualt,as for the kiwis they are the same standard as the aussies full stop...as for an earlier post about the aussie SAS being a amphibious unit it is to a certain degree BUT your first naval unit is/are clearance divers these are highly elite.I would say that the US devgru and the CIA/SAD divisions are seperate from all others Australia does not posses troops or people like these and i doubt the poms do either...we can also add into the mix French,German,Scandinavian and of course Israeli as first class units totally the equel of anything Australia hasBullseye30 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont mean to be a grammer nazi but please pick up your game this isnt high school. Maybe you should research the SASRs capabilties, Im curious as to what military knowledge you have or is it just a common interest, im also curious as to were you got your information from. And how you could possibly think the French, German, Scandinavian (the most ridiculous) and isreal are totally equel of anything of Australian Special Forces, i actually laughed and woke my parents up at the [generaly more proven] how is that so?, do you have something against Australia or are you just uneducated, no offence?. also can you provide reliable sources to back up your ridiculous statements. SOTGMichael (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

YOU woke your PARENTS up!Bullseye30 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

its funny reading this page as there is a fair amount of judging other countries but it appears that it doesn't go the other way....if you wish to be taken seriously dont fall in the trap of being a tall poppy after all you have discredited a few countries now...because people reading this will just roll their eyesBullseye30 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My point has been made and proven. SOTGMichael (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Similar units section removed

After a bit of thought, I've just removed this section. It's never been referenced and sections like this in special forces articles tend to be compilations of favourable comparisons added by fanboys and the like (few international SF units are apparently not similar to the British SAS for instance). I'd suggest that this material could be best covered as part of a textual description of the SASR's role, doctrine, history and international relationships where it would be more meaningful: the various books and other reliable sources on the regiment should allow this to be worked up and cited properly. I won't revert if someone decides it should be re-added, but I'd suggest that such a re-addition only take place when citations to reliable sources can be provided. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)