Despite being mortal enemies for several decades
throughout the Cold War, the new world order following the fall of the Soviet Union has
seen American and Russian special forces conducting many of the same missions. Combating common foes that seek to spread
radical agendas and promote terrorism, and acting as the elite vanguard of their nation's
forces, just how similar or different are US and Russian Special Forces? That’s what we’ll explore today, in this
episode of The Infographics Show- US Special Forces vs Russian special forces. Special forces refers to elite military units
tasked with unconventional or specially difficult missions that require great skill and generally
engender great risk. From Sparta's famed 300 who helped thousands
of other Greeks hold the line against an invading Persian horde in ancient Greece, to the infamous
Otto Skorzeny and his brilliant raids against Allied targets during World War II, special
forces have always existed in spirit if not designation throughout human history. At their core, special forces are nothing
more than highly skilled operatives conducting missions too complicated or difficult for
large conventional forces to accomplish, but it was only after World War II that militaries
around the world formally created small elite units and designated them as 'special forces'. No matter their country of origin, all special
forces hold five basic mission types for which they are responsible: Counterinsurgency- though the counterinsurgency
role of special operations forces has come to the limelight in recent years thanks to
America's Global War On Terror, the first heavy use of special forces in counterinsurgency
operations came during France's, and then later, America's war in Vietnam. Partisans and terrorists have always constituted
a major threat to friendly military forces, and work by undermining any potential gains
made by defeating enemy conventional forces. Partisans and terrorists can be difficult
to combat, as they do not wear identifying uniforms and wage asymmetrical warfare- or
irregular warfare- typically from inside friendly lines. The need to combat these shadowy threats gave
rise to one of SF's most important missions: counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency ops are a mix of law enforcement
and military missions, requiring detective skills to track and locate insurgents and
then eliminating or apprehending them. With the risk of so much collateral damage
in terms of civilian casualties, counterinsurgency is a job best left to special forces rather
than conventional forces, and an over-reliance on conventional forces to do the job in Vietnam
is at times attributed for the poor performance of the US in the war. Unconventional Warfare- without a doubt the
cornerstone of special forces operations, unconventional warfare, or UW, covers a very
wide range of mission types. These can range from targeted assassination
of High Value Targets, or HVTs, disruption or overthrow of governments, or conducting
guerrilla raids deep inside enemy territory. A special forces icon, Major Benjamin Tallmadge
fought the British during the American Revolutionary War, and was famed for leading raids deep
into enemy territory and striking at British supply trains, burning them to the ground
or stealing the supplies to bring back to American forces greatly in need of arms and
ammunition. Frowned upon at the time by his military contemporaries,
specially other American officers who viewed his execution of war as 'improper', Major
Tallmadge has become a hero to the American SF community, and a template for special forces
doctrine for centuries to come. Direct Action- Direct Action missions can
be best described by a motto familiar to many American soldiers: “Our job is to kill the
enemy and break his sitt.” Ranging from seizing and capturing high value
personnel, materials or locations, to outright destruction of enemy assets, Direct Action
engagements are very high intensity and very brief duration engagements meant to surprise
an enemy and hit them where and when they are least expecting it. This is another area where special forces
shine over the use of conventional forces- with smaller unit sizes and more specialized
skill sets, special forces are able to move much more quickly and thus strike in much
more unexpected ways or times than larger, less maneuverable conventional forces. Foreign Internal Defense- Foreign internal
defense missions involve special operations forces training and equipping foreign allied
military forces. Different than Security Force Assistance missions,
Foreign Internal Defense ops are more geared at aiding allied foreign forces to combat
insurgency, terrorism, and even disrupting enemy special forces missions against them. Today in Korea, American Special Forces regularly
train with their South Korean counterparts to respond to and eliminate the threat from
North Korean special forces- and with an estimated special forces strength of over 200,000 soldiers,
South Korea faces a huge security challenge in the event of war from North Korea's most
elite soldiers. Special Reconnaissance- Special Reconnaissance
missions are a major part of where American SF forces earn the nickname “the quiet professionals”. Typically consisting of very small unit sizes,
SR missions are meant to collect information deep in hostile or politically sensitive territory,
with the explicit goal that the unit's presence is never detected. Because Valuable intelligence can be rendered
worthless if an enemy realizes it's been discovered, SR missions require the utmost stealth and
secrecy. Sometimes SR missions can be carried out in
extremely politically sensitive situations, necessitating the complete disavowal of any
involvement by the nation conducting them- this means that any discovered or captured
operatives may be completely on their own, making SR missions some of the riskiest a
special forces operative can undertake. Security Force Assistance- Security Force
Assistance operations involve the use of special forces to coordinate with friendly allied
militaries and aid them with training and developing military doctrine. Long a hallmark of US Army Rangers, SFA operations
may range from making contact with guerillas deep in enemy territory, or simply a deployment
to an allied, less developed nation that needs help establishing a proficient military force. So with similar missions, and in recent times
with similar terrorist enemies, how do US and Russian special forces compare to each
other? With the vast amount of their operations kept
secret for decades, it is impossible to ascertain which force is more effective than the other
as there simply exists few if any true comparison points. Also due to the difference in ideology and
doctrine, US and Russian special forces may undertake many of the same types of missions,
but can vary widely in how and why they conduct them. The old adage of apples and oranges may apply
aptly here. However, we can look at some major similarities
and differences between the two. Both nations operate a number of different
units under the general designation of 'special forces', who's missions and training can vary
dramatically. On the whole though one of the major differences
between US and Russian special forces is the composition of their units. American Special Forces tend to adhere to
a doctrine of skill specialization, in which each member of a team has a unique specialty
and numerous and overlapping sub-specialties. For instance, one team member will be the
team medic, but will also have training in communications and demolitions- though his
primary job is to serve as medic. Russian special forces tend to favor a more
general approach without unique specializations, which is why on the whole Russian special
forces are more focused on the direct action mission of special operations- a deficiency
identified in modern times that has seen some expansion in training for Russian operators. While select American special forces such
as Army Rangers and Navy SEALS share a similar and more narrow focus, the American special
forces community as a whole is a far more flexible organism than Russian special forces,
able to undertake a greater variety of missions and bringing more varied disciplines to the
table. The narrower focus of Russian special forces
is an unfortunate holdover of the Soviet era, when the Soviet military forced their special
operations forces to focus almost myopically on the destruction of NATO missiles and high
value targets in the case of war. Another major difference between US and Russian
special forces is a general disregard for collateral damage by Russian operators, who
are more concerned with results than public perception. One famous example is the response to the
kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats in 1985 by the Muslim Brotherhood, conducted in retaliation
for Soviet support of Syrians. Dispatching the KGB's Alpha Group, the Russian
operatives arrived in Beirut, Lebanon just as one of the hostages was executed. Rather than moving to rescue the remaining
hostages, Russian operators instead tracked down and took hostage several family members
of the terrorists, torturing and dismembering them and sending body parts to the terrorists. The tactic worked and the remaining hostages
were released, and no Russian diplomats were molested again for two decades in the Middle
East. Yet while Russia's adoption of brutal tactics
may have been effective in this specific case, it comes at a major cost of public perception,
and could in fact backfire by raising public anger against Russia. Russia's ongoing difficulties with Chechnya
is believed to be compounded by brutal retaliatory measures by Russian security forces. Preferring the hammer to the surgical knife
though is a long hallmark of Russian military doctrine, and further evidenced by the slow
adoption of precision-guided munitions by a military that prefers to intimidate via
overwhelming firepower without much regard to collateral damage. This doctrine would once more come into play
during the Moscow Theater hostage crisis of October, 2002, when 850 hostages were taken
by Chechen terrorists. After two and a half days of stand-off and
no concessions from either side, Russian special forces pumped an as-yet undisclosed gas into
the building and initiated an assault which would see all 40 terrorists killed, but as
an adverse reaction to the mystery gas, 130 hostages also died. When Islamic militants took several hundred
school children and teachers hostage in Beslan in September, 2004, Russian special forces
once more laid siege to the hostage takers. After a furious firefight all of the terrorists
were killed, but so were 186 children and 20 Russian operators- though witnesses reported
that many of the Russians died or were wounded trying to heroically shield children from
the fighting. Striving for decades to build a safer and
more structured world order in order to avoid the mistakes of pre-World War II Europe, the
US has for a long time sought to preserve its identity as a global leader- recent Presidential
election notwithstanding. Knowing that such heavy-handed tactics as
Russia's would endanger that perception, US special operation forces are more focused
on avoiding unnecessary deaths and obeying Rules of Engagement. While this may at times perhaps limit their
effectiveness in a given situation, it does preserve a generally positive perception of
American special forces which has made them welcome in nations around the world as they
aid allies and regional partners such as the Philippines in combating their own terrorist
threats or improving the capabilities of their military. American SF doctrine of maintaining a 'light
footprint' effect however does come with a cost, and in the last two decades they have
suffered significant casualties in their efforts to combat terrorism around the world. It is impossible to truly determine which
force is better than the other without directly pitting the two nations in open conflict,
which thankfully has never happened. However, from the bold parachute raids behind
German lines into occupied Soviet territory in World War II, to daring attacks against
British supply lines during the American Revolutionary War, both Russian and American special forces
share a common heritage of courage and professionalism. Though they may differ in doctrine and ideology,
ultimately both Russian and American special forces have one similar job: kill the enemy
and break his sitt. So, which do you think is a better approach-
Russian doctrine of overwhelming force, or America's precise surgical strikes? Which would you rather serve with? Let us know in the comments! Also, be sure to check out our other video
What to do if there is a nuclear explosion?! Thanks for watching, and as always, don’t
forget to like, share and subscribe. See you next time!
