Foreign Military
AussieNick
Forum Digger
US Units and our Australian equivilent. Training intensity etc is just about the same between us, since we train together and work closely.
Marines: 1RAR, 2RAR, 6RAR Infantry
Airborne/Rangers: 3RAR Para
Navy Seals: Navy Clearance Divers
Green Berets: SAS
Delta: 4RAR Commandos
Big difference come around in terms of our training based on location. Thats all, plus we use very different combat tactics to the US, and we've shown that plenty of times before.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Sexybeast said:
Read about South Korean military activities in Vietnam. You may use Vietnamese sources as well. Government issued motivational propaganda doesn't count :lol:
paratroopa said:
And how do you back this up? When you reach a certain level, the disparities become less clear. The "best" team of the day is the one that wins. The next engagement, someone else may be the best. Then another... but we won't know because they're generally on the same side.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Big_Z said:
I believe so. I think the term actually goes way back to the colonial days even. A distinctly American thing that has spread around the world.
paratroopa said:
And how do you prove this? You can prove they're very good but you can't prove one is better than the other.
r031Button
Active member
Big_Z said:
Some commonwealth nations have units with Ranger in their name; it's not actually a representation of their skill or role however. Case in point, I may be in the Rocky Mountain Rangers; but I am in no way the equivilant of a US Army Ranger.
r031Button
Active member
Big_Z said:
It's kind of like how the Belgians, Brits, and other nations have Commando's not simply special forces. Though int he case of Rangers there is alot of historical prescendant; case in point the Queens York Rangers (1st American Regiment) trace their history back to the American War of Independance.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Well UK and Belgians using "Commando" for non Special Forces type of units isn't out of the ordinary. Remember that special operations started off as what are now more commonly considered Ranger missions.
The SAS in World War II was more reminiscent of today's US Army Rangers than of today's SAS. The SAS evolved into a modern SF unit, while the Belgian Paracommandos, who's symbol is identical to the SAS because of its history of being founded as an SAS unit, continued to serve the role that it traditionally played in World War II while a seperate SF unit was created.
The SAS in World War II was more reminiscent of today's US Army Rangers than of today's SAS. The SAS evolved into a modern SF unit, while the Belgian Paracommandos, who's symbol is identical to the SAS because of its history of being founded as an SAS unit, continued to serve the role that it traditionally played in World War II while a seperate SF unit was created.
AlexKall said:Big_Z said:
Many units in Sweden are translated to Ranger units, in other words their name.
And is most likely either british or american
We got our own an non of them are translated to rangers but it is easier name Laskuvarjojääkäri, Fallschirmjaeger as airborne ranger to explain what is it. Usually finnish terms can be translated straightly to german and swedish but not to english.
Sissi is straightly translated as guerilla and sissikomppania as guerilla company, but what does exactly mean the term "guerilla"? Is it a soldier or something like iraqi insurgents?
Big_Z
MilForum Recon
Guerilla warfare is simply using small groups of men to attack and harass the enemy. It can be devastating to morale and if done properly can be very effective against an enemy. Take Iraq for example, men with 0 training and low quality weapons are racking up allot of kills on the US military. Imagine if it was a highly trained unit like the Rangers doing these guerilla attacks. The Korean war is a perfect example. Rangers would go against overwhelming numbers and cause massive amounts of damage against the enemy while taking few if any losses at all using these tactics.