Talk:Special forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014[edit]

119.154.27.195 (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC) SSG Pakistan is 9th best special force in the world so add it in this topic[reply]

Not done: This article doesn't rank special forces. Stickee (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History - First specialized units[edit]

Asking a registered used to add this following text into the beginning, as it predates the Corps of Guides roughly about 200 years.

During the Great Northern War (1700-1721) a Finnish non-commissioned officer Tapani (Stefan) Löfving, originally working as an army desk clerk, would be sent on reconnaissance missions to gather intelligence on Russian troops and their whereabouts. Being fluent in Finnish, Swedish, German and Russian, he was able to easily penetrate the enemy's ranks using his linguistic and desk clerk skills. He would often lead a squad of three to five men, their task being mainly reconnaissance and sabotage, but also espionage and direct action. Some of his missions are well documented, as he had to send in reports. During one of these missions he was ordered to stay behind the retreating Finnish troops and was given a task to destroy a bridge, to slow down the advancing enemy. Resulting in a firefight at the bridge, he managed to escape losing only his earlobe. Continuing to build up his reputation on both sides, he quickly became a wanted man. Russians would place a bounty on his head, along with many sabotage missions being answered in the near-by villages. After the war he would continue to sabotage Russian supplies, as direct action was no longer an option. In Finland these type of army troops are traditionally known as Sissi, equivalent of the original American Green Berets. One of the original Green Berets, Major Larry Thorne, had received Sissi training in Finland.

The sources are found in the Finnish and Swedish articles about Tapani (Stefan) Löfving, in the English articles about Larry Thorne, 10th SFG(A) history section, and Sissi (Finnish light infantry). As of now your article has a history section claiming that the first specialized units were British and founded 200 years after the well documented Sissi troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.75.164.75 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015[edit]

The history section "First specialized units" should begin with the well documented Sissi-troops used in the Great Northern War (1700-1721) that predate the British units nearly 200 years. There is an English wikipedia article Sissi(Finnish light infantry) with a history section with sources. Either taking parts from there or look into the text on the talk page, subject History - First specialized units. As of now there is no mention of it. Tapani Löfving doesn't have an English article yet, but the Finnish and Swedish wiki articles have sources confirming that he led specialized units conducting reconnassaince, espionage, sabotage and direct action, as a non-commissioned officer between 1700-1721. The article also states that these type of troops were seemingly common and that the modern Sissi regiment traces their origins all the way back to the Great Northern War. The original American Green Berets recruited Larry Thorne who led Sissi squads in WW2 who taught them Sissi tactics in return for airborne skills, furthermore he worked as a special forces advisor in Vietnam so there's a connection to the modern special forces right there. The Sissi regiment can be considered as the equivalent to the 10th SFG Green Berets and the earliest documented Sissi-troops date back to the late 1600s. Source: Original diaries from 1720 are on display in Porvoo, Finland. They have been published online. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/22361/pg22361.html

http://yle.fi/uutiset/tapani_lofvingin_syntymasta_320_vuotta_suomennetut_paivakirjat_luettavissa_internetissa/5884001

You could also add a link to http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissi_%28Finnish_light_infantry%29 that further explains the meaning and history of Sissi-troops. 178.75.164.75 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now reliable sources have been provided.

Britain --> United Kingdom[edit]

Please rename the section 'Britain' to 'United Kingdom'. The SAS and other special forces were not confined to the island of Great Britain. Indeed, one if the founding soldiers was Blair Mayne, who wasn't from the island of GB, but was from the UK nevertheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.72.204 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Special Forces refers ONLY to U.S. Army Green Berets.[edit]

U.S. Special forces (SF) should not be confused with Special Operations Forces (SOF - the generic name for all U.S. forces with a special operations mission). All other Units / Organizations (other than Special Forces), with a special operation's mission, have their own title and fall under their service command - such as Navy Seals who fall under Naval Special Operations Command (NAVSOC) or U.S. Army Rangers who fall under Army Special Operations Command (ARSOC). Special Forces also falls under ARSOC. In addition, ALL service commands from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines fall under U.S. Special Operations Command. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.250.46 (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Special forces" is now a generic term used internationally Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well not quite. 'Special forces' is the UK/Commonwealth term for a type of force they pioneered in the Second World War with the SAS and LRDG. The U.S. Army Special Forces came along quite a lot later. After the creation of the Green Berets, interest in SF grew in the United States, and Charlie Beckwith copied the SAS to create Delta. After that the propensity of the U.S. armed forces to give overcomplicated names to things created 'special operations forces', though it might have been also to avoid confusion with 'special weapons'. So SF has a completely different historical pedigree. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit like the earlier inane argument about what is considered "filmjölk" there was. The concept of special forces is old and has been independently reinvented many times. The question here seems to be what is merely called special forces within any particular system. For instance Finnish Army had the kaukopartio (remote patrol) concept developed in the Winter War, independently and contemporarily with the British, within the sissi troops framework. In fact Finland and the UK were at war with each other, which kind of precludes an organizational connection. If you go to the beginnings of sissi troops that's in the 1500s. --vuo (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, Special Forces is the US Army, now a separate branch in the Army with 18 series MOS. That is just the way it is. It is now a generic term but in the US military, it refers to the US Army ony.
When I first went in , after graduating from the SFQC, we got an S (Siera) at the end of out MOS signifying at that time called Flash qualified. Now the tab on my left shoulder says so. I also must add I believe Army SF is still the unit that holds best to it's honor in keeping with it's founding value, "The Quiet Processionals". It seems here are far less in profiteering from our operators gong public with stories or training being divulged to the public. A lot has changed in special operations but I'm proud that most have stayed true to their promises not to divulge tactical info. Survival techniques are not an issue in my eyes, but making videos on youtube showing tactics does not fly in my belief. We don't try to impress other than our core values as the way it should be.
Thanks FormerSF (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Special forces[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Special forces which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy[edit]

From here;

US Special Operations Forces Handbook By USA International Business Publications

https://books.google.com/books?id=BIN22d6YBrcC&lpg=PA8&ots=ZjPCPKV688&dq=Hamilcar%20Barca%20specialized%20troops&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=Hamilcar%20Barca%20specialized%20troops&f=false

"In antiquity, Hamilcar Barca in Sicily had specialized troops trained to launch several offensives per day." Kortoso (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely eurocentric[edit]

It needs to be flagged for a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4202:C7F0:5D19:4A38:C3A:4143 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Template messages and tag it yourself. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a gallery section, where images of non-western special forces can be added, to partially fix alleged eurocentrism in the article.— Vaibhavafro 💬 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Special Operations Forces[edit]

Special Operations Forces section in the special operations article should be merged into this article. The section is primarily about the organisation of units which is the purpose of this article. A large part of the section is about the US units when there is an article already on this United States Special Operations Command. Also, a paragraph listing non US units when there is article on this List of military special forces units. The special operations article is about military operations not units.--Melbguy05 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbguy05: - Go for it. Seems like a reasonable move to make. - theWOLFchild 07:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed special operations forces section from special operations. All information was in this article with the exception of the term Special reconnaissance which has been added. The introduction to the special operations article "carried out by dedicated special forces and other special operations forces units". Not sure what other special operations forces units is a reference to. Left that for now. Added special forces to see also in special operations article.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st Special Service_Force[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces#1st_Special_Service_Force

There is a typo. It's "soldiers" not "soldeiers". Would have fixed it myself, but it is protected... --2.244.97.57 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King David - not a historical figure[edit]

I apologize for the somewhat hasty edit, but the wiki article on king David clearly states:

"Historians of the Ancient Near East agree that David probably existed around 1000 BCE, but that there is little that can be said about him as a historical figure."

Further if you read the "History and archeology" section it states:

"The Tel Dan Stele, an inscribed stone erected by a king of Damascus in the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the phrase ביתדוד‬, bytdwd, which most scholars translate as "House of David".[71] Other scholars, such as Anson Rainey have challenged this reading,[72] but it is likely that this is a reference to a dynasty of the Kingdom of Judah which traced its ancestry to a founder named David.[71] The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David in two places, although this is less certain than the mention in the Tel Dan inscription.[73]"

I find it absolutely ridiculous that a topic that has been discussed since the 90's about a "fabled" kingdom of David, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fmbw8 is used as a historical reference on wikipedia. Furthermore, the reference used of Davids "special forces" is a quote from the Bible! Does wikipedia view the bible as a historical document? Ive never see anything like this. Addeps3 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020[edit]

The history of Early special forces dates back to the ancient time in the Bible, book of Numbers chapter 13 where Moses sent out 12 spies led by Jehoshua on a reconnaissance patrol to spy the land of Canaan before the Children of Israel move in to their promise land. These men were carefully selected each from the 12tribes of Israel and were given unconventional task. But the team went, spied successfully and brought back reports. Numbers 13:17-33 (KJV) And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain: And see the land, what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many; And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds; And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the firstripe grapes. So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath. And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs. The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence. And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.[1] Alex Mackiaveli (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need reliable sources which state that a concept comparable to special forces existed in ancient-era militaries to cover that in this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Holy Bible, Numbers Chapter 13

Minor correction[edit]

The following sentence in the article is ungrammatical: "The June 1942 Crete airfield raids at Heraklion, Kasteli, Tympaki and Maleme significant damage was caused, and raids at Fuka and Mersa Matruh airfields destroyed 30 aircraft." The sentence begins with a subject but then switches to the passive voice. Something like "caused significant damage" rather than "significant damage was caused" could work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:F81F:CF20:C946:3760:20A8:7327 (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2021[edit]

Hi! I found a grammatical error in this sentence of the article. Feel free to edit it in any way which matches the Wikipedia format/tone. “ During the Second Boer War (1899–1902) the British Army felt the need for more specialised units became most apparent.” 2601:441:4580:AD30:585B:2AE6:A4BC:7335 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)[edit]

In lieu of a summary, explanation for this clean-up edit made by Echo1Charlie are as follows;

  1. [1] - this edit was made as there was no inline citation to it - edit summary - unsourced content WP:BURDEN
  2. [2] - again with no inline citation - edit summary was - unsourced content
  3. [3] - source attached to it [4] reads - "A column of Mukti Bahini — native Bengali "freedom fighters", many trained and armed in India" - edit summary was as per cited source (interestingly another source attached to the next claim also backup this claim here - https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=GtCL2OYsH6wC&q=mukti#v=snippet&q=mukti&f=false page 170)
  4. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_forces&diff=1044347235&oldid=1044338861] - source already states that; read here - https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=GtCL2OYsH6wC&q=mukti#v=snippet&q=mukti&f=false - page number 170, second last paragraph - last sentence
  5. [5] - sources attached to this claim (this -https://www.thedailystar.net/news/the-battle-for-bangladesh or this - https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=GtCL2OYsH6wC&q=mukti#v=snippet&q=mukti&f=false cited page number 170 does not states that " It was instrumental in securing the Surrender of Pakistan and the liberation of Dacca and other cities in December 1971" (please verify that!) and its edit summary was - misquoted, source does not explicitly states that 2/2- means misquoted 2/2 sources cited
    - wolf 07:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special Forces[edit]

The only US military unit called Special Forces by it's actual definition is in the US Army only. Special Forces is also called Green Berets, although that is just a hat. All others are Special Operations Forces made up of Army Rangers, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corp. These units are under the command of USSOCOM (United States Special Operations Command) at MacDill AFB in Tampa FL. The US Army went to the 18 series MOS and the SF Groups with the operators were given their own branch of the Army in the 80's. Col Potter was the 10th SFGA (Special Forces Group Abn.) commander when I was in the 10th SFGA while it was at Ft. Devens, Ma. Col Potter took over the SFQC (Special Forces Qualification Course as the school OIC. He started zero phase which has evolved to the SFAS (Special Forces Assessment and Selection). FormerSF (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_forces&oldid=1194069133"