SAS: Who Dares Wins

[Digga]

daddy cool said:

Digga said:

For the record, I wasn't quite sure before, but after this episode I am; I have a huge crush on Louise. I do like tough girls.

Deffo.

She's been pretty solid throughout, but the clip of the next episode they showed, where she winks at her belay man as she drops off that bridge was priceless.

[andy_s]

daddy cool said:

andy_s said:

Nietzsche said what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

He obviously never had Polio.

Out of interest he was plagued by ill health most of his life and eventually suffered severe mental issues which eventually killed him.

[daddy cool]

andy_s said:

Out of interest he was plagued by ill health most of his life and eventually suffered severe mental issues which eventually killed him.

If only there had been more z-list TV celebrities and pop stars raising the awareness of mental 'elf in the 1800's!

[dvb70]

Is it me or is the interview room where the drag people out in the middle of the night to exactly the same as it's been in the previous series's? What's the odd's of finding a room exactly the same at an entirely different location? Maybe it's a set they are constructing?

Anyway while I enjoy this it's become clear that they are selecting candidates for their x-factor style back stories which is getting a bit annoying. Lot's of candidates you hear nothing about at all and every now and again the camera focuses on someone I don't even remember seeing before.

I also think they are deliberately selecting people who they know are delusional about their abilities and don't have a chance of getting through. I guess it makes sense to do this so they have a drip feed of people dropping out but it;s obvious some people should never have been selected.

[housen]

dvb70 said:

Is it me or is the interview room where the drag people out in the middle of the night to exactly the same as it's been in the previous series's? What's the odd's of finding a room exactly the same at an entirely different location? Maybe it's a set they are constructing?

Anyway while I enjoy this it's become clear that they are selecting candidates for their x-factor style back stories which is getting a bit annoying. Lot's of candidates you hear nothing about at all and every now and again the camera focuses on someone I don't even remember seeing before.

I also think they are deliberately selecting people who they know are delusional about their abilities and don't have a chance of getting through. I guess it makes sense to do this so they have a drip feed of people dropping out but it;s obvious some people should never have been selected.

yes that's what i meant by normal people who are up to the challenge

[Halb]

it's possible that they talk a good game and it only becomes obvious after a week up a mountain.

[housen]

Halb said:

it's possible that they talk a good game and it only becomes obvious after a week up a mountain.

i just hope it doesn't turn into the apprentice where all the selected are just total retard cnts on purpose

[dvb70]

I think there is some of that already going on. I am sure given the choice in the selection process they will go for a character over actual capabilities. I guess that probably appeals to the largest audience share so can't really fault them. Those who just want to see a bunch of people who are all really capable without sob story back stories is probably quite a small factor of the audience.

[housen]

dvb70 said:

I think there is some of that already going on. I am sure given the choice in the selection process they will go for a character over actual capabilities. I guess that probably appeals to the largest audience share so can't really fault them. Those who just want to see a bunch of people who are all really capable without sob story back stories is probably quite a small factor of the audience.

in theory the natural beasting of the sas will bring out the slightest dink in their armour anyway

[Digga]

housen said:

dvb70 said:

I think there is some of that already going on. I am sure given the choice in the selection process they will go for a character over actual capabilities. I guess that probably appeals to the largest audience share so can't really fault them. Those who just want to see a bunch of people who are all really capable without sob story back stories is probably quite a small factor of the audience.

in theory the natural beasting of the sas will bring out the slightest dink in their armour anyway

Also, it's interesting to hear Middleton say that there is no perfect candidate; people are not perfect. I sort of agree with this, especially in the context of SF; there are so many potential variables in situations, that no matter the individual, there will be a challenge they struggle with or even fail at. I think in many ways, a generalist is the best option.

[anonymous-user]

The paras to marines then SF does happen, someone I know went that route.

He left the SBS a few years ago so might know the current instructors. TBH though, whenever I asked him about his SF stuff his answers were only ever on the lines of 'pissing around in boats' or 'quad bikes somewhere sandy', so I have no idea what he did, had the tie though..;)

He had the same view on women in the forces as Ant, that the standards had to be kept high & the same.

Most places that have studied women in frontline troops have evidenced an overall drop in unit performance (female or mixed groups perform worse than male groups), and also a much higher injury and breakdown rate. The stuff I read was from the US and Israel, with a number of US servicewomen agreeing that they were less effective than the men.

[Digga]

wsurfa said:

Most places that have studied women in frontline troops have evidenced an overall drop in unit performance (female or mixed groups perform worse than male groups), and also a much higher injury and breakdown rate. The stuff I read was from the US and Israel, with a number of US servicewomen agreeing that they were less effective than the men.

I'd still say that failure might just as easily be down to the selection process which, in and of itself, might have an inherent bias/confusion when faced with female candidates. If the training and selection is rigorous and the right candidates are selected, I don't really see why outcomes would not be better.

[daddy cool]

I noticed in the Daily Mail comments someone wrote:
"Petra Malm (the mole) was in the Särskilda operationsgruppen which has IE1 which focuses on combat operations. And IE2 which focuses on intelligence operations (Special Reconnaissance, like the British SRR, which also takes on females) IE2 has different and lower standards to IE1, just like the SRR, which makes it possible for women to join "elite special operations" units."
Dunno how accurate that is? On the show they basically just said "yeah, Petra's special forces, end of story".

[Mothersruin]

Digga said:

wsurfa said:

Most places that have studied women in frontline troops have evidenced an overall drop in unit performance (female or mixed groups perform worse than male groups), and also a much higher injury and breakdown rate. The stuff I read was from the US and Israel, with a number of US servicewomen agreeing that they were less effective than the men.

I'd still say that failure might just as easily be down to the selection process which, in and of itself, might have an inherent bias/confusion when faced with female candidates. If the training and selection is rigorous and the right candidates are selected, I don't really see why outcomes would not be better.

Absolutely.

Not adhering to the selection process is what has mainly been the issue.

[Halb]

daddy cool said:

I noticed in the Daily Mail comments someone wrote:
"Petra Malm (the mole) was in the Särskilda operationsgruppen which has IE1 which focuses on combat operations. And IE2 which focuses on intelligence operations (Special Reconnaissance, like the British SRR, which also takes on females) IE2 has different and lower standards to IE1, just like the SRR, which makes it possible for women to join "elite special operations" units."
Dunno how accurate that is? On the show they basically just said "yeah, Petra's special forces, end of story".

So she was ie1? which is the top one? the mole seems to have the respect of the UK ones on the show, which seems enugh.

housen said:

i just hope it doesn't turn into the apprentice where all the selected are just total retard cnts on purpose

Having real SBS people would stop that?

[housen]

Halb said:

daddy cool said:

I noticed in the Daily Mail comments someone wrote:
"Petra Malm (the mole) was in the Särskilda operationsgruppen which has IE1 which focuses on combat operations. And IE2 which focuses on intelligence operations (Special Reconnaissance, like the British SRR, which also takes on females) IE2 has different and lower standards to IE1, just like the SRR, which makes it possible for women to join "elite special operations" units."
Dunno how accurate that is? On the show they basically just said "yeah, Petra's special forces, end of story".

So she was ie1? which is the top one? the mole seems to have the respect of the UK ones on the show, which seems enugh.

housen said:

i just hope it doesn't turn into the apprentice where all the selected are just total retard cnts on purpose

Having real SBS people would stop that?

have u ever seen the apprentice ? if so you know what i mean

[Digga]

Mothersruin said:

Digga said:

wsurfa said:

Most places that have studied women in frontline troops have evidenced an overall drop in unit performance (female or mixed groups perform worse than male groups), and also a much higher injury and breakdown rate. The stuff I read was from the US and Israel, with a number of US servicewomen agreeing that they were less effective than the men.

I'd still say that failure might just as easily be down to the selection process which, in and of itself, might have an inherent bias/confusion when faced with female candidates. If the training and selection is rigorous and the right candidates are selected, I don't really see why outcomes would not be better.

Absolutely.

Not adhering to the selection process is what has mainly been the issue.

One of the toughest people I've met is female. She's a friend of mine & Mrs Digga's we met through running. She does not look tough - tall, slim and pretty - but her physical and mental toughness are amazing, as is her determination and drive, both in athletic terms, as well as in her personal and work life. She's incredibly independent and self-motivated.

However, she'd not have the upper body strength for SF, or the aggression for that matter, but equally, I am sure there are those rare candidates who do. Statistically rarer in women than men, perhaps, but I'm pretty sure they exists and that the SAS would not have opened up the process to them otherwise.

[V8mate]

Digga said:

..., but I'm pretty sure they exists and that the SAS would not have opened up the process to them otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that policy decision was taken in Whitehall, not Hereford.

What sits with our SFs, is *how* they go about implementing it.

[Digga]

V8mate said:

Digga said:

..., but I'm pretty sure they exists and that the SAS would not have opened up the process to them otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that policy decision was taken in Whitehall, not Hereford.

What sits with our SFs, is *how* they go about implementing it.

True. We'll have to wait and see.

[Mothersruin]

There are plenty of women that already work alongside the SAS/SBS in SRR & Int Corp.

Go to the Hereford Camp. It's one of the busiest military bases I've ever been to. Parking is a bh! The SAS make up a small number of the people working there. It's a huge cliche, but they literally are the tip of a very big spear made up of lots of support elements. Huge Signals presence there too.