Talk:United Kingdom Special Forces/Archive 1

Archive 1

7 August 2005

This article doesn't make any sense and I'm tempted to vote for its deletion. Fair enough that there is an article listing special forces units in the UK, but this articcle leads to the impression that the various special forces are encompassed within a larger unit.

• "The United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) are one of the Specialist Units of the British Army and are the army's elite forces."

1. The SBS are Royal Marines NOT British Army.
2. I can find no reference to a specific organization or "Specialist Unit" called the UKSF. There are the UKSF (Reserves). But in this article this is mentioned as a subsection of the UKSF.
3. How much of this is reality and how much of it is fantasy? Jooler 13:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

While the UKSF Group is not really a unit, the term is used by the Ministry of Defence to refer to British special forces units as a whole. There is a Director Special Forces. You are, however, absolutely correct about it not being a unit of the British Army, since it doesn't just encompass Army units. And the reference to it being a "Specialist Unit" is absolutely meaningless. The term "Specialist Units" within the British Army actually refers to units of the Territorial Army which are formed from people who do the same job in the TA as they do in civilian life (i.e. are specialists in their field) - not quite the same thing at all, since most of them are people such as postal workers, chefs, lorry drivers, medics, police officers and the like, not the sort of superhuman special forces soldiers who only exist in people's fantasies! In conclusion, it's probably a valid entry, but, like most special forces-related articles, it needs saving from flights of fantasy. -- Necrothesp 14:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be moved to "United Kingdom special forces" of possibly "Special forces of the United Kingdom". Jooler 14:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

In all fairness to Houghone, there is a list of the Army's "specialist units" that includes UKSF. It may be that UKSF is part of the Army's command structure: Joint Helicopter Command is headed by an RAF officer, but still falls under HQ Land Command.

What it includes is the UKSF (reserve). There isn't or doesn't appear to be a unit caleld UKSF. That is the point. Jooler 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Director SF is always, as far as I know, an ex-SAS Brigadier, and is therefore an Army officer, but several of those organisations are multi-service. I think they're listed there more for convenience than for any implied subordination to Army command. As for the 'Specialist Units' designation, the problem is that Houghone has taken what is simply a general blanket term that could be applied to any such unit in any country as the Army's official term for them. He has also created articles for all of them by copying and pasting from the website without any thought for the relevance or sense of what he's 'writing'. -- Necrothesp 12:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

no because its name is UKSF, look at the army website, im guessing they are the best source!!! - b1link92/houghone

"because its name is UKSF" - what's name? The web page? There is no unit to speak of called UKSF. Jooler 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There was already an article at UK Special Forces, which Houghone blanked and redirected to this article without discussion. The organisation does exist, and its official abbreviation is UKSF, as a Google search against the MoD web site will show: I believe it was created in 1987 to bring greater cohesion and co-operation between the SAS and SBS (e.g. a common initial selection process). — Franey 08:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, Geoff Hoon's written statement to the House of Commons on the creation of the SRR explicitly stated that the new regiment would "come under the command of the Director Special Forces and be a part of the UK Special Forces group." — Franey 11:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"no because its name is UKSF, look at the army website, im guessing they are the best source!!!" An especially odd statement, since their webpage, from a website from which Houghone has copied and pasted most of his information, is headed and describes them as the United Kingdom Special Forces, not the UKSF. -- Necrothesp 12:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the images lifted from the MOD website are Crown copyright and cannot be used. Jooler 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Delete

Since UKSF is not an abbreviation used for the UK Special Forces, and since the UK Special Forces page was cleared down and re-directed to this page without any discussion, I'm propossing we clear down this UKSF page and move all the contents back to the UK Special Forces page (and do some tidying up). It should never have been redirected here in the first place. Let me have comments on this here, I shall see that the changes are performed if we decide upon this. Ben W Bell 14:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree, with these caveats: (a) UKSF is an official abbreviation for the United Kingdom Special Forces group (Google UKSF site:mod.uk), so this article should be made a redirect r/than deleted; (b) UK Special Forces should probably be moved to United Kingdom Special Forces, in line with Wikipedia's policy of generally keeping abbreviations and acronyms out of article titles (e.g. United States Navy vs U.S. Navy). — Franey 14:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My Google search of mod.uk turned up nothing, maybe I was doing it wrong. When looking on the site earlier the only reference I could find in the MOD sites for SFUK was a folder called SFUK and not any actual in page references to it. Ben W Bell 17:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Try:

• UKSF (Reserve) page
• CLM policy (pdf) for soldiers who've passed UKSF selection
• press release on legal judgement upholding the UKSF confidentiality contract
• Royal Signals magazine that mentions a new signals regiment supporting UKSF
• more results from mod.uk

Franey 19:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine, fair enough. I just couldn't get the google search to work properly on the site at the time. Ben W Bell 20:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Naval Service

Royal Marines are part of the Naval Service, not part of the Royal Navy (Naval Service = Royal Navy + Royal Marines -- an edit summary

I've never heard this distinction made. It's not, for example, made on the Royal Navy website. Could you provide some evidence? --Khendon 20:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• BR 8373 Officers' Career Regulations — "The Naval Service comprises the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, QARNNS and Reserve Forces". (Google cache: original seems to have gone from the MoD site.)

• NATO Rank Codes and UK Service Designations — under the columns for the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines is the comment "Together are the Naval Service".

I've reverted your reversion. — Franey 12:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

From the Royal MaArines Website FAQs http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/6011.html

• Q1: "Who are the Royal Marines?"
  • A: "The Royal Marines are the Royal Navy's amphibious infantry .."
• Q4: "Are the Royal Marines part of the Army?""
  • A: "No. The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy."
    • Jooler 13:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jooler - when it suits them, you mean! Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I make of it all

The UK Special Forces is a joint umbrella organisation that controls the British Special Forces. It is normally headed by a SAS Brigadier with a Special Boat Service senior officer as its second in command.

Not necessarily. Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the Special Air Service Regiment is part of the British Army it recruits from all 3 of the Armed services. The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy. The SBS are part of the Royal Marines. Until recently the SBS only recuited exclusively from the Royal Marines. But that has changed in recent years and is now, like their army counter parts, a tri service organisation.

True. Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Special Boat Service used to have a seperate selection course from the SAS. But due to costs and the fact that a lot of Royal Marines apply for SAS selection it was decided to have a joint one. The first part of selection is held in the Brecon Beacons. Then their is a jungle phase followed by a Escape and Evasion test.

Broadly true. Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Successful candidates then go to their respective units. The SBS commandos are then trained in the Boat Handling and Frogmans skills as well as anything else that they have to be competent in. Same with the SAS Troopers they goe to their Squadrons and get taught any necessary skills that maybe required. The two units work very closely together including holding exchanges.

Very broadly - yes. Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

14 Intelligence or the Special Reconisance Unit as it is now known. Was a unit originally formed for undercover work in Northern Ireland. I think it was formed by B Squadron of the SAS. All members of The British Armed Forces may apply, including women. Over the years the Unit became very specialised within their role and so became the lead unit for Recce work.

Can I suggest you head over the the 14 Intelligence Company page and read that, and the 'Talk' page as well? Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm

22 SAS are volunteers and as far as I am aware, the SAS and SBS are tri-service now, meaning anyone from Navy, Army or RAF can join either. --81.153.185.211 03:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

True. Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RAF Special Forces Flight

Does the Special Forces Flight count as special forces? If so, is it part of UKSF?

No it is not 'SF' but it is part of 'UKSF'. Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Or is it "just" special forces support (like the Joint Special Forces Support Group)? — Franey 08:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See below. Darth Doctrinus 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'Special Forces' tag is recognised in the MoD when it comes to AAC and RAF flight crews. This is the same as the the US unit, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment who have the designated title of a Special Operations unit. The UK tag doesnt mean that the men and women and Whitehall think the theses guys jump through embassy windows. It means that these guys are profficent in the skills required to transport/support the SF troops on the ground (Archangel1 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)).

Air force groups

8 flight Army Air Corps is the Army equivilent of the Royal Navy's commando Helecopter force and should be catogorised as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.131.186 (talk • contribs)

General Points

• I've just removed a whole chunk of text about 'SF Support', which included 29 Cdo Regt, 59 Indep Cdo Sqn Re and some others. The only unit in the list which actually qualifies is 18 Signal Regiment (UKSF) which has a true SF support role. I would be grateful if someone with the time would replace the 18 Sigs entry with something considered and factual.

• I also note there is some discussion about helicopter units and so forth. For the record, the Joint Special Forces Air Wing handles all SF flight tasks, and uses personnel from all 3 services flying a number of different airframes. Each component in the Wing has its own designation. 8 Flt AAC is NOT the equivalant of CHF - CHF is 3 Cdo Bde's organic air wing and is completely different. The JSFAW does NOT count as SF - like 18 Sigs, it can truthfully be said to be 'SF Support'. Darth Doctrinus 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

WAIT! The following ar not SF but they provide support to SF and commando units. The regular units which they branch from provide support to regular forces. These provide support to commando and SF forces:

These units are used to provide support to both regular forces, commando forces and special forces units such as communications, artillery, engineering, air support and transportation. They are all elite branches of their respective regular units.

• 18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment
• 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery
• 59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers
• 539 Assault Squadron Royal Marines
• Commando Helicopter Force

I'm not getting into an edit war with someone who not only blatantly knows so little, and can't even be bothered to leave his name. This is NOT a discussion about commando forces - they are something quite different in the UK. And you're wrong about the Gurkhas - everyone? I beg to differ. Outside arbitration needed, methinks? Darth Doctrinus 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Gurkhas

The Gurkhas are without doubt an elite of the British Army Infantry. Everyone knows that.

• I strongly suggest you put your kit on and go on Ops with them - look forward to your debrief. Darth Doctrinus 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The term 'elite' is a loose term and is something which Brits use quite freely to describe their units and is used on many occasions totally out on context. The Royal Gurkha Rifles are an infantry unit in the same vein as any other in the British Army ORBAT. They do not train in any skill above and beyond that of the standard battalions and the fact that they are conversant in Jungle Warfare tactics is more down to their habitual rotations to Brunei (Archangel1 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)).

Helecopter Units

There is not much difference between the Royal Navy's Commando Helecopter force and the Army Air Cor's '8 Flight' they just transport different units.

The difference between the units is standard of the pilots. 8 Flight crews are designated to be of a higher proficiency level hence the reason the the MoD give them the 'SF crew' status. This is the status given to certain designate RAF C-130 crews.(Archangel1 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Mountain and Arctic

This unit is no longer functional. There is the ML unit which should have a different page as it carries out training rather than a fighting force like the Moutain and Arctic Warfare unit was.

The unit mentioned above is the Brigade Patrol Troop and now has its own page (Archangel1 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)).

Lists

I have deleted a substantial portion of the article as I felt it was developing duplicate POV lists of irrelevant content. This is on the basis that the article deals with a specific subject (the UKSF group) rather than a general one (perceived various elite units of the armed forces). Clue 01:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing 'elite forces' that are not SF but you also seem to have removed 18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment and 63 (SAS) Signals Squadron (Volunteers), which I would have though did belong in the UKSF article. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are probably two exceptions. I thought it was unclear whether they came under the UKSF or not, and they were buried along with organisations of more dubious affiliation. Clue 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reformatted the article to exclude non-UKSF organisations, reduce repetition (21 and 23 SAS were both listed in the SAS section then again in the reserve section "in addition to the above units", there was a list of UKSF units just above the TOC, itself a very similar list, etc) but include the UKSF Signals units. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also believe "Former Special Forces" should be moved as it remains a list of disparate non-UKSF links. However, the rest has been much improved, thank you. Clue 00:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've moved the section to Special Operations units of the United Kingdom. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations

The whole article needs some referencing to make it credible, I've added a citation tag to the point about DSF being eligible for COBRA but pretty much everything else needs to be supported.ALR 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sword of Damocles

I'll acknowledge that I don't have a publically available source for the sword being the Sword of Damocles however would point out that it is a greek sword rather than a broadsword. Note that the SBS and SRR representations are upside down though, given the legend. Notwithstanding that Damocles' is the more appropriate given the nature of SF work; the inherent insecurity and impermanence of power. I note that someone (an IP) has added the references to that article but again has not substantiated it.ALR 08:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

According to The Complete Encyclopedia of the SAS (by SAS veteran Barry Davies) the badge depicts Excalibur. I have seen it described as Excalibur many times, but this is the only place I have seen it described as the Sword of Damocles. It was designed by an SAS corporal (Bob Tait), not an academic, so you're possibly reading a little too much into the symbolism. -- Necrothesp 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine as a source, can you add it. Anything I've seen documented wrt the Sword of Damocles isn't public domain so I'm not going to cite it, I'm open to the possibility that the further use of it has been 'justified' after the fact by the Badges and Naming commitee in town.ALR 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Signal Regiments and hierarchies

Mainly for Tashtastic.

A signals Regiment is made up of a number of Squadrons, OC 63Sqn reports to CO 18Regt; 63Sqn is part of 18Regt.

UKSF reserve is part of UKSF, they are deployed by DSF under direction from DCBM or according to standing tasks.ALR 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fanboy cruft

Given the recent issue over fanboy cruft that keeps getting added to the article can I suggest an effective way of dealing with the problem of random additions of 'cool, but not quite as cool as SF' units being added to the article. MOD clearly define SF by having a single joint SF command, discussed in the article, anything not included is not SF. We could include a list of the units which keep getting added, appended to the talk page, along with the reason for not including it. Anything on the list gets deleted on sight.

/fanboy cruft to be deleted on sight

I'll transpose across the discussion from the failed mediation case, here, for a start.ALR 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UKSFr.gif

Image:UKSFr.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

The SBS are in fact an Army unit, not a Navy unit. Just because they're the Special Boat Service, doesn't automatically mean they are part of the Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.72.166 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The administration, HR etc is RN because they're a subordinate unit of the Royal Marines, Operational Control is vested in DSF which is a joint appointment, although normally filled by a pongo.ALR (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

EL

I'm thinking (and have added) an external link to the UKSF reserve MOD site which IMO is useful for this article. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tactical Marks

I am sorry if I am wrong, but on the organisation chart all SAS units are marked with the tactical sign of of a bataillion(II), instead of a regiment (III) is that correct?

AFAIK are the SAS units complete regmiments and not only a part of one regiment. On the other hand, I know that the standard british "combat unit " is the batallion. pls correct me if I am wrong. --78.48.18.143 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Artillery

Are these so called Elite Artillery units actauly counted as speciel forces, and if so should they be inclueded in the article? [1] --Climax Void ☭. —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

No, they're not.

ALR (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

How about including the Special Forces groups that existed during the Second World War: groups including the Long Range Desert Group, Popski's Private Army, and the Reconnaissance Corps? Those groups were the progenitors of the current Special Forces and are worthy of inclusion. The Reconnaissance Corps carried out direct actions (night time raids in the Sahara), counter-insurgency, as well as reconnaissance from the beaches of Normandy up to Germany. {{UnsignedIP|92.2.209.164|22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Another one for the mix?

Mention in an article on the BBC News site of "E Squadron" [2] --Yendor1958 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I belive E Squadron is just a media name for any joint UKSF unit setup by the SIS for a specific operation. I don't think it's a permanent unit. Thanks, Rob (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

References

'Special Forces units' and 'Support units'

I think 'Special Forces units' and 'Support units' should be merged into 'Units'. There's no valid source that states what is a Special Forces unit and what is a Support unit. Thanks, Rob (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

'Royal Marines SFSG'

The Royal Marines' contribution to the SFSG does not exclusively come from 43 Commando, fleet protection group, as alluded to currently. Any Royal Marine, from any CDO, is eligible to apply and undertake the RM selection for SFSG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.128.4 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the unit, F Company, is part of the 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group and is the only Royal Marine unit attached to the SFSG. However, I belive F Comapany is selected from all over the Royal Marines. I'm not fully aware of this though. Thanks, Rob (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Special Forces Support Group

'SFSG' is a name that describes F Company and 1st Battalion together. F Company and 1st Battalion are part of the Royal Marines and British Army but are under the command of the Director Special Forces. The 'UKSF' is a name that describes the units that are under the command of the Director Special Forces. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Blackshod, please read the above. Military units are not always commanded by who is above them in the hierarchy. The SAS is part of the British Army but is commanded by the Director Special Forces. Thus '21 Special Air Service, British Army' would be perfectly correct. I accused editors of vandalism as many terms had been unlinked, references removed and edits made when there is a discussion here. My accusation is perfectly valid. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1st Battalion, Parachute Reg is not part of 16 AA ORBAT

Never was after it left to be part of the SFSG. Army 2020 documents say it won't be either. Please change.Phd8511 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1