Indian Special Forces

[Spadex]

Some more rumor mongering by me :

Not just 5 but 6 para and 7 para will also be converted to SF

 

[abingdonboy]

Some more rumor mongering by me :

Not just 5 but 6 para and 7 para will also be converted to SF

 

[ManhattanProject]

After 13 it' the latest development yet another airborne converted to para SF,

AS Mountain rat was saying it seems like we will convert all airborne to Sf

More like all sf being converted to airborne.
Para sf what a joke.

 

[Waanar]

You know, there's one thing.
Paratroopers, regular infantry and, for a lack of better word, "super infantry" seem to have a much larger role to play in conventional wars.
I don't know, some things are really weird about our SOF structures. I know, for sure, that there are some units with really niche strategic roles which are out of the public eye.
Converting airborne to SF can be a good thing because, to be completely honest, there are other units which do fill the "strategic impact by tactical employment" jar in the Indian military.

Be that as it may, at the very least, we'll have a super competent airborne infantry (tags be damned).

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[Arihant Roy]

I can't understand why do seasoned and knowledgeable members here make the mistake of comparing SAS with our Para SF?

Why? Have we looked at the composition and size of these two different organisations? Yes both are SF but stopping here is being too simplistic. 21 SAS which we are in the habit of frequently comparing with Para SF has just 4 squadrons each with 4 troops. Their total strength including support and command staff is under 300. If you include the other two reserve SAS units, 22 and 23 , the total would come to 600.
On the other hand each of the original SF battalions alone has around 650 operator and we have 9 of them for a strength upwards of 5500.

SAS is an ultra specialised sf unit which is meant for niche and exotic roles. It works great when you need to quell an insurgency in one of your colonies or allied nations by training and supervising their sof forces and elite troops. It works great when your nation is part of an overarching umbrella of allied forces which included allies with similar bayonet strength or much larger armies . It works great when you send small detachments and patrols to look out for mobile Scud launchers which will then be destroyed by allied air power . If you are all alone as a nation and if you have to face a peer or near peer adversary in an all out conventional conflict, a force like SAS will be decimated or rather annihilated if used in the plethora of roles that a special forces unit is used for.

If Ukrainian armed forces would have fielded a SAS type unit in its war against the Russians, the force would have lost more than 60 percent of its strength if one is being too optimistic. Chances are the entire unit being wiped out.

Now posters here would argue what about the initial days when Stirling's boys would raid German ammo dumps and airfields deep behind German lines in Libya and Tunisia along with the LRDG chaps. But let me assure you, each of those raids involved atleast 100 guys and some of the times around 150-200 guys including the transport echelon guys. They would incur losses and replenish them with new volunteers after almost every raid. The present British SAS won't have the luxury of replenishing it's losses within a week or month in today's conflicts.


What can be compared to the SAS and what is used in a similar fashion is the 7 Vikas or what we know as SG. Like SAS, operators are deputed here for a no of years, on the completion of which they return to their parent unit. Like SAS is directly answerable to Director, Special forces UK and is tasked with the most sensitive of missions , SG is answerable to the Cabinet secretariat . Their composition,operations and command structure are similar.


Also, pls don't compare SAS to Green Beret. Green Beret is a Tier 3 US sf unit with 7 groups. Each group usually has 4 battalions. SAS would be more comparable to DEVGRU or 1st SFOD-D.

 

[rkhanna]

I can't understand why do seasoned and knowledgeable members here make the mistake of comparing SAS with our Para SF?

It is personel of the Indian Army Special Forces that compare themselves to the SAS, et al..

SAS is an ultra specialised sf unit which is meant for niche and exotic roles. I

yes thats the definition of a SOF unit

It works great when you need to quell an insurgency in one of your colonies or allied nations by training and supervising their sof forces and elite troops. It works great when your nation is part of an overarching umbrella of allied forces which included allies with similar bayonet strength or much larger armies . It works great when you send small detachments and patrols to look out for mobile Scud launchers which will then be destroyed by allied air power . If you are all alone as a nation and if you have to face a peer or near peer adversary in an all out conventional conflict, a force like SAS will be decimated or rather annihilated if used in the plethora of roles that a special forces unit is used for.

That is how SOF operations are supposed to work. There is a difference between Commando Operations and SpecOps.

PS the SAS also operated in Argentina, Far from home, allies, Air Cover etc etc. Same in Borneo. And they also train for mission profiles in a conflict iwth a Peer Power (Russia/ China). So does everyone.

If Ukrainian armed forces would have fielded a SAS type unit in its war against the Russians, the force would have lost more than 60 percent of its strength if one is being too optimistic. Chances are the entire unit being wiped out.

They (Ukranians) have. And they have done pretty decently.

The present British SAS won't have the luxury of replenishing it's losses within a week or month in today's conflicts.

If the current SAS was to have such losses it would be deemed a Catashropic failure on the part of Intelligence and Command.

And Yes Delta, SAS/ GB all also get deployed in the 100s when the AO and complexity of operations require it. Anaconda and a 100 other operations as proof.

Also, pls don't compare SAS to Green Beret. Green Beret is a Tier 3 US sf unit with 7 groups. Each group usually has 4 battalions. SAS would be more comparable to DEVGRU or 1st SFOD-D.

What is this Tier 3 now? The ODA's are the US Armies primary SOF war fighting unit and with the Seals are the flagship of SOCOM. Delta and DevGru are Counter Terror units.



No clue on the point you were trying to make.

 

[Killbot]

I see a lot of users viewing this thread but it’s suspiciously quiet all of a sudden

No one else wants to mark the day Indian SF capability ended?

Not like we ever had SF capability lol

 

[abingdonboy]

You know, there's one thing.
Paratroopers, regular infantry and, for a lack of better word, "super infantry" seem to have a much larger role to play in conventional wars.
I don't know, some things are really weird about our SOF structures. I know, for sure, that there are some units with really niche strategic roles which are out of the public eye.
Converting airborne to SF can be a good thing because, to be completely honest, there are other units which do fill the "strategic impact by tactical employment" jar in the Indian military.

Be that as it may, at the very least, we'll have a super competent airborne infantry (tags be damned).

Coping.

Your explanation would only apply was there a grand strategy at work, what grand strategy is there in making an elite airborne force and labelling them SF? ‘Tags be damned ‘ proves those in charge don’t have a single clue and or they want SF capability dead in the ground

Designations matter- if all the paratroopers are walking around thinking they are SF that’s a problem.

With this move they’ve both eliminated a competent designated airborne infantry element and any SF capability they might have had. That takes real talent.

+ looking at the multiple airborne officers celebrating this move on Twitter, they seem to think they now retrospectively get recognised as super ninjas. The fact that airborne had been lobbying to convert to SF this entire time proves that their leadership and rank and file have/had ZERO clue what SF means , they’ll take that mentality into their new SF role.

No airborne infantry, no SF, just a bunch of light infantry battalions they use interchangeably. Mission accomplished

 

[abingdonboy]

More like all sf being converted to airborne.
Para sf what a joke.

May as well refer to PARA (SF) as Para AF (airborne forces) from no on, it’s beyond the realms of reality to engage with their SF nomenclature just because they slap on a SF tab and walk around with Tavors

 

[abingdonboy]

I can't understand why do seasoned and knowledgeable members here make the mistake of comparing SAS with our Para SF?

Why? Have we looked at the composition and size of these two different organisations? Yes both are SF but stopping here is being too simplistic. 21 SAS which we are in the habit of frequently comparing with Para SF has just 4 squadrons each with 4 troops. Their total strength including support and command staff is under 300. If you include the other two reserve SAS units, 22 and 23 , the total would come to 600.
On the other hand each of the original SF battalions alone has around 650 operator and we have 9 of them for a strength upwards of 5500.

SAS is an ultra specialised sf unit which is meant for niche and exotic roles. It works great when you need to quell an insurgency in one of your colonies or allied nations by training and supervising their sof forces and elite troops. It works great when your nation is part of an overarching umbrella of allied forces which included allies with similar bayonet strength or much larger armies . It works great when you send small detachments and patrols to look out for mobile Scud launchers which will then be destroyed by allied air power . If you are all alone as a nation and if you have to face a peer or near peer adversary in an all out conventional conflict, a force like SAS will be decimated or rather annihilated if used in the plethora of roles that a special forces unit is used for.

If Ukrainian armed forces would have fielded a SAS type unit in its war against the Russians, the force would have lost more than 60 percent of its strength if one is being too optimistic. Chances are the entire unit being wiped out.

Now posters here would argue what about the initial days when Stirling's boys would raid German ammo dumps and airfields deep behind German lines in Libya and Tunisia along with the LRDG chaps. But let me assure you, each of those raids involved atleast 100 guys and some of the times around 150-200 guys including the transport echelon guys. They would incur losses and replenish them with new volunteers after almost every raid. The present British SAS won't have the luxury of replenishing it's losses within a week or month in today's conflicts.


What can be compared to the SAS and what is used in a similar fashion is the 7 Vikas or what we know as SG. Like SAS, operators are deputed here for a no of years, on the completion of which they return to their parent unit. Like SAS is directly answerable to Director, Special forces UK and is tasked with the most sensitive of missions , SG is answerable to the Cabinet secretariat . Their composition,operations and command structure are similar.


Also, pls don't compare SAS to Green Beret. Green Beret is a Tier 3 US sf unit with 7 groups. Each group usually has 4 battalions. SAS would be more comparable to DEVGRU or 1st SFOD-D.

yes SAS is the equivalent to DEVGRU/CAG in role, structure, training etc. Not sure how that changes anything? For the Indian Army they don’t have a tier 1/2/3, their designated SF is PARA SF, that is the tip of THEIR spear. SG is no SAS in role, mandate or anything. SG is the ground force element of an external intelligence agency and I’m getting sick and tired of hearing that they are some CAG/SAS equivalent- this is NONSENSE and has no basis in reality.

So yes comparisons will be made to SAS because they are their army’s tip of the spear and PARA SF is the Indian army’s. It’s not SAS’s fault that IA doesn’t know what SF is and have grown and diluted their ‘SF’ capability beyond its ability to maintain their proficiency to the level of an actual SF unit like SAS.


So yes comparisons will be made to SAS because they are their army’s tip of the spear and PARA SF is the Indian army’s. It’s not SAS’s fault that IA doesn’t know what SF is and have grown and diluted their ‘SF’ capability beyond its ability to maintain their proficiency to the level of an actual SF unit like SAS.

+ no SAS/SBS operators are NOT freaking deputationists- they are there until they retire, transfer or are dropped for performance reasons.This widespread deputation nonsense is solely an Indian phenomenon caused because IA is so inflexible and lobbies against permanent cadres at NSG, SG etc for fear that they will not be able to retain their most talented. The end result is the deputation forces are not able to build up their own cultures as easy and institutional lessons will struggle to be implemented in the long term

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

yes SAS is the equivalent to DEVGRU/CAG in role, structure, training etc. Not sure how that changes anything? For the Indian Army they don’t have a tier 1/2/3, their designated SF is PARA SF, that is the tip of THEIR spear. SG is no SAS in role, mandate or anything. SG is the ground force element of an external intelligence agency and I’m getting sick and tired of hearing that they are some CAG/SAS equivalent- this is NONSENSE and has no basis in reality.

So yes comparisons will be made to SAS because they are their army’s tip of the spear and PARA SF is the Indian army’s. It’s not SAS’s fault that IA doesn’t know what SF is and have grown and diluted their ‘SF’ capability beyond its ability to maintain their proficiency to the level of an actual SF unit like SAS.

SAS comparison by the Para officers is to prove they are in the same league becuse before independence they were raised similarly and had same structure.

But NOW the things are different as Indian Parachute hasnt evolved and this is not the 1940s.

Even if you watch interviews of Army officers there is no technical knowledge talks or maybe suggestions etc from them that make you feel that they are intellectually evolved which you get to see in foreign SF operators.

They are for sure well motivated and disciplined but the lack of knowledge shows.

Wrong selection and promotion are the key reasons for this and then there are scandals which are there.

In this entire region of South Asia only Marcos looks promising to be really honest to everyone.

 

[abingdonboy]

SAS comparison by the Para officers is to prove they are in the same league becuse before independence they were raised similarly and had same structure.

But NOW the things are different as Indian Parachute hasnt evolved and this is not the 1940s.

Even if you watch interviews of Army officers there is no technical knowledge talks or maybe suggestions etc from them that make you feel that they are intellectually evolved which you get to see in foreign SF operators.

They are for sure well motivated and disciplined but the lack of knowledge shows.

Wrong selection and promotion are the key reasons for this and then there are scandals which are there.

In this entire region of South Asia only Marcos looks promising to be really honest to everyone.

Goes without saying there’s some very brave, motivated and dedicated guys in Indian ‘SFs’ but the system is the issue and it will never allow these guys’ talents to grow to a world class level like their Western peers. Indian ‘SF’ are like county cricketers vs first side internationals (Western SFs), sire nominally they are the same but the practice and reality is they are world’s apart.

PARA (SF) straight up plagiarised SAS’s logo and now we are told dOn’T cOmPaRe SaS tO PaRA because the gap in capabilities is so damn stark. In the 70s/80s the difference probably wasn’t that great because SFs were still primarily just more proficient and capable soldiers but as they have become more specialised and expertise levels have increased (on top of IA sabotaging their own SF capability) we are now in the situation that such comparisons are embarrassing for BOTH sides.

I’m not overly optimistic about MARCOs simply because without a centralised SOCOM type entity above them they will continue to be subject to the whims of conventional officers who being naval officers understand even less what ground combat and soldiering even is. But yes MARCOs have a huge gap between them and IAF and IA SFs in that they seem to be keen to maintain niche and specialist capabilities that are legitimately SOF despite all the other nonsense they are thrust into and deficiencies then show. I hope their internal culture is strong enough to keep this going as the momentum is thoroughly against them

 

[vidhwanshak]

Some rumours also
8 Garhwal, 10 Punjab, 9 Madras and 5 Sikh are also looking to convert to SF in the not too distant future

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Goes without saying there’s some very brave, motivated and dedicated guys in Indian ‘SFs’ but the system is the issue and it will never allow these guys’ talents to grow to a world class level like their Western peers. Indian ‘SF’ are like county cricketers vs first side internationals (Western SFs), sire nominally they are the same but the practice and reality is they are world’s apart.

PARA (SF) straight up plagiarised SAS’s logo and now we are told dOn’T cOmPaRe SaS tO PaRA because the gap in capabilities is so damn stark. In the 70s/80s the difference probably wasn’t that great because SFs were still primarily just more proficient and capable soldiers but as they have become more specialised and expertise levels have increased (on top of IA sabotaging their own SF capability) we are now in the situation that such comparisons are embarrassing for BOTH sides.

I’m not overly optimistic about MARCOs simply because without a centralised SOCOM type entity above them they will continue to be subject to the whims of conventional officers who being naval officers understand even less what ground combat and soldiering even is. But yes MARCOs have a huge gap between them and IAF and IA SFs in that they seem to be keen to maintain niche and specialist capabilities that are legitimately SOF despite all the other nonsense they are thrust into and deficiencies then show. I hope their internal culture is strong enough to keep this going as the momentum is thoroughly against them

I have come to that stage in life where I analyse things without emotions or biases as much as I can.

Having said that Bravery does count but not for special ops.

We all remember that Railway Police jawan who was brave but could he engage in a firefight with the terrorists in Mumbai 26/11..Nope.

But on the other hand a single SAS operator could neutralise 2 terrorists in Kenya single handedly as he rescued many civilians too.

It all comes down to training and education in the end.

Which is why my money is on Marcos.Marcos have understood that equipment plus education multiplied by skill would get them where they want to be.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

View attachment 164336View attachment 164337

As per one Indian Army Major the correct lines would be..

I can hunt naked
I don't bathe for weeks before ops to make sure I don't smell at all
I sleep all day to make sure I become an owl in a week
Who needs accessories..ek handbook hoti he ..us se golf nikalne chahiye are cheer karni chahiye

etc.

 

[abingdonboy]

I have come to that stage in life where I analyse things without emotions or biases as much as I can.

Having said that Bravery does count but not for special ops.

We all remember that Railway Police jawan who was brave but could he engage in a firefight with the terrorists in Mumbai 26/11..Nope.

But on the other hand a single SAS operator could neutralise 2 terrorists in Kenya single handedly as he rescued many civilians too.

It all comes down to training and education in the end.

Which is why my money is on Marcos.Marcos have understood that equipment plus education multiplied by skill would get them where they want to be.

Yes absolutely but I won’t get my hopes up about MARCOs like I said. They don’t operate in a vacuum, they are prone to the same nonsense coming from above as that that has killed PARA SF. With no structural protection (like having a SOCOM) they are only one crisis away from having their entire ethos ripped up.

After Pathankot IAF arbitrarily decided they’d double the strength of Garuds, something could happen tomorrow and just to be seen to do something IN may announce MARCOs will be expanded to a division strength or will be given additional responsibilities to be amphibious infantry or something.

training/equipment is downstream from mandate, the mandate of these units is still set by clueless 3-4* generals that just want to be seen to do something.

I still remember that Garud interview posted on here, he was from the original batch (batch zero) and he said raising Garuds was the then IAF CAS’s brainchild and the idea he had was Garuds would be the ‘James bonds’ of the IAF- conducting 007 type missions behind enemy lines and flying light aircraft for infiltration/extraction and all other such BS.

When the foundations and mandates are this rotten whatever you build on top will only ever be rotten.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Yes absolutely but I won’t get my hopes up about MARCOs like I said. They don’t operate in a vacuum, they are prone to the same nonsense coming from above as that that has killed PARA SF. With no structural protection (like having a SOCOM) they are only one crisis away from having their entire ethos ripped up.

After Pathankot IAF arbitrarily decided they’d double the strength of Garuds, something could happen tomorrow and just to be seen to do something IN may announce MARCOs will be expanded to a division strength or will be given additional responsibilities to be amphibious infantry or something.

training/equipment is downstream from mandate, the mandate of these units is still set by clueless 3-4* generals that just want to be seen to do something.

I still remember that Garud interview posted on here, he was from the original batch (batch zero) and he said raising Garuds was the then IAF CAS’s brainchild and the idea he had was Garuds would be the ‘James bonds’ of the IAF- conducting 007 type missions behind enemy lines and flying light aircraft for infiltration/extraction and all other such BS.

When the foundations and mandates are this rotten whatever you build on top will only ever be rotten.

No I disagree.

I have vast experience of dealing with fauji officers of all kinds and I hold the most respect for the sailors.They are not the type of men that will change for worse.

I am saying it like a song in this thread but if a ship goes down everyone from the Capt to the cook goes down.This is the psyche of the Navy.

AF and Army are different.They are officer heavy and in both the forces to have an opinion or to suggest something is considered as a demoting quality.

That is why if you are well educated and qualified chances are that you won't be impressed by an Army or AF officer.You will respect him but you won't feel he is intellectually there.

Which counts a lot since these are the lot future Chiefs would be selected from.

 

[Waanar]

Coping.

Koi shaq?

Your explanation would only apply was there a grand strategy at work, what grand strategy is there in making an elite airborne force and labelling them SF? ‘Tags be damned ‘ proves those in charge don’t have a single clue and or they want SF capability dead in the ground

No arguments there.

Designations matter- if all the paratroopers are walking around thinking they are SF that’s a problem.

With this move they’ve both eliminated a competent designated airborne infantry element and any SF capability they might have had. That takes real talent.

+ looking at the multiple airborne officers celebrating this move on Twitter, they seem to think they now retrospectively get recognised as super ninjas. The fact that airborne had been lobbying to convert to SF this entire time proves that their leadership and rank and file have/had ZERO clue what SF means , they’ll take that mentality into their new SF role.

No airborne infantry, no SF, just a bunch of light infantry battalions they use interchangeably. Mission accomplished

Well, the underlying theme of discussions on this thread has always been the lack of employment of our SOFs in non-SOFs role.
Since they've decided that SF (for them) means merely elite infantry, we can rest easy knowing they're pushing these units into the direction they were going anyways.

I was rather concerned with the reduction in size of our airborne troops since we were slowly killing the capability to airdrops and seize key terrain in a conventional war (what, with SOF getting more numerous than airborne infantry) but it was actually going the other way around!
Et voila!
Everyone is SF and no one is SF!

Laugh and weep!
Glass is half full and half empty!

Still, I believe there is some chance of something positive coming out of this. To reiterate, SOFs don't decide the tide of a conventional war and we face a bigger threat of conventional war than an outbreak of widespread, uncontrollable insurgency in the country. The couple of yahoos in Kashmir can be taken care of by a ratio of a thousand men mobilized for 1 (with the customary photo of their dead ass surrounded by the entire population of Arrah district).

I'm still going to say this, the move definitely seems ill-faited but I will give it the benefit of the doubt till we see how it affects the overall dynamics of SOF and their utilization. Maybe, it will cause the government to pivot to AFSOD as the go-to SOF detachment and actually make it a priority.

 

[Spadex]

So they were not rumours after all



"In a significant boost to operational capability, airborne battalions converted to a specialist role"

Central command statement