Selection Rates
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
>Highlighting the stringent selection process During the STF Training Course in 2005 a total of 453 applications were received. When pre-selection was done, only 108 of the 453 candidates measured up to pre-selection requirements. Of the 108 who made it through pre-selection, only 42 completed the Preparation and Condition (PREPCON) phase, and only 20 candidates managed to complete the Vasbyt phase. The recruits who didn't pass the PREPCON phase admitted that their failure to do so was due to the insufficient preparation for the course because they had thought that STF’s standards have been lowered. Members of the unit have visited foreign units of a similar role on several occasions, to ensure that the structure and procedures of the unit is in line with international training courses, and to keep up with changes in training and other specialized fields.[15]
Not a question specific to STF, but why do elite selection programs do this? It's all well and good to want elite troops, but you could accept the preselection only and have 5 times the manpower.
Doesn't make sense given the overall casualty rate of these elite units.
Anyone wanna weigh in?
>>29225415
>the STF Training Course
The what now? What's that for?
>>29225424
South African GSG-9 Essentially. Paramilitary SWAT.
In an SF environment, one guy fucking up can have more of an effect than one guy in a mechanized unit fucking up, and 5x the manpower is irrelevant if you can only deploy a small force in the first place.
Much like aircraft carriers; you don't want 500 biplanes, you want 75 F/A-18s.
>>29225440
Okay, but isn't that the point of having selection standards to keep that to a minimum?
Why not continue training your uh, P-51s until you have more F/A-18s?
>>29225480
Because the man standing behind the failure is a success waiting to be proven.
100 men will test today... but only three win the green beret.
>>29225814
And if you put all 3 in a crashing helicopter, you're SOL.
As I see it, If your pre-selection eliminates 87%, you should level out your training to keep at least half the remainder.
Because a lot of them are going to get injured or die.
But I get that's not how these organizations think.
>>29225848
You are militarily inexperienced. Never has an operation been executed without contingency plans.
Learn something before spouting something.
If you didn't know your ABCs would you start a thread arguing the placement of LMNOP?
>>29225415
Because you want a special forces pumped up into believing they are elite supermen who are superior to 99% of regular mortals, and have no fear of death, because death happens to the other guy.
Meanwhile Hakmed is planting them into the ground with a $0.30 bullet.
>>29225897
Incorrect. But this is what inept civilians prefer to believe.
>>29225480
>admitted that their failure to do so was due to the insufficient preparation
This is an issue for every form of selection everywhere. In the U.S. Pre-Ranger is designed to see if you're physically able and have the skills to pass Ranger school. The first week of Ranger school is just making sure you're even in shape enough and have the skills to make it through the rest of the course without dying. It shows a lot about a persons character when they prepare THEMSELVES on top of whatever duty or day job they perform.
>>29225848
>Because a lot of them are going to get injured or die.
>But I get that's not how these organizations think.
Actually they do think exactly that way, but they will never change standards to meet a quota. The attrition in training is extremely well monitored and predictable based on past research. They know exactly how many people will be dropped or fail each training event during each stage, remember there is an entire support section of doctors, psychiatrists, behind the scenes evaluating the training and candidates. In Ranger school I had a pay issue and got to go inside the instructors office to make a phone call, on a whiteboard they had laid out all the attrition statistics and predictions as well as evaluations and observations of individual's performance in events.
But then again you can't predict everything
>There was a BUD/S class that no one passed
>The next class everyone passed
>Same standards, same instructors
>>29225415
It doesn't really matter how much manpower you have. There's only so much room at the schoolhouse to train up the new guys and there are only so many empty slots for them to fill when they get to their units.
The other assumption you make is that anyone, when sufficiently trained, can become an effective commando, which is something most SOF personnel don't agree with. If you want to go SF or something it's on you to train and prepare appropriately. If you can't figure out how to work out or practice land nav on your own, how do you expect you'll do on a 12-man ODA behind enemy lines?
>>29225897
Bullet dodger, detected.
I'll say hi to your wife for you.
>>29225909
Solid info, at least.
It seems like a lot of those cases that got cut would be a different story with the regular training inside the units themself.
What does a less-exclusive special forces group look like? Are they appreciably shittier?
>>29225954
>training inside the units themself.
First off, you ought to be aware that exclusivity typically involves education. In order to grasp these things, you should be educated yourself. Simple fucking grammar shouldn't mentally stump you.
>>29225917
Yeah, that seems particularly relevant for SAPS and such that might not have all that much money. But SAS, Delta, or such could just build new facilities.
>the other assumption you make
No, I accept that the preselection guidelines have a purpose, and that 87% of those cut (in this example) probably have been with good reason.
My issue is with the remainder. It seems like those guys could, mostly, be trained up to unit standards...
>>29225954
>What does a less-exclusive special forces group look like? Are they appreciably shittier?
Thats tough to answer because each unit tends to have its own specific role. The only thing I could say is try and find materials on the Navy seals operating in Afghanistan 01-03 timeframe, they were fish out of water, and it resulted in a serious overhaul of their training program.
>>29225415
To quote the guy that started Delta:
>I'd rather go up the river with seven studs than a hundred assholes
>>29225986
SAS and Delta won't just build new facilities because they have these things called budgets.
Furthermore, at least in the US army there are only so many personnel billets allocated to each unit. If every unit went nuts hiring people then who would pay for their wages and so on? Who would lead them in combat? If they deployed, who would be in charge of their supply line? What about their intel support? For every operator you bring in you have 2-3 paper pushers and support staff taking care of other shit. If you take in too many people you're going to have a bear of a time actually supporting them with your limited billets.
Your arbitrary line between preselection and selection is mostly meaningless. In a lot of selections the preselection weeds out the physically unfit but lacks the duration or the stress levels to determine mental fortitude or character.
>>29225986
75th drop outs sometimes go to airborne infantry units and succeed. Sometimes they go to airborne infantry units and fail. Why? Because there are still high standards. Many soldiers in airborne infantry units would pass all ranger standards yet they remain airborne infantry.
I know a few straight leg infantrymen who would be great special operations troops. However, they prefer to experience the toughest combat instead - line infantry. First in, last out. You may hear that uttered by some self serving SOF personnel but the dirt eating ground pounder infantry are the first in and the last out.
>>29226044
>non-SOF bragging bullshit
If you really think infantry are "first in last out" you've got to be retarded.
>>29226058
I have a unique perspective, sport. I served in airborne infantry, leg infantry and ranger infantry.
>>29226083
>fucking scruffy murphy's
>>29226083
So basically you've only seen infantry and have no idea what kind of stuff SF and ISA guys are doing to prepare so you can deploy.
>>29226058
I feel like 'first in' is kind of a wash, but 'last out' is possible, given how drawdowns happen.
Seems like the UN is the last out, often enough.
>>29226111
Correct. Infantry and operations. That is pretty much everything. Why feign to be naïve?
>>29225909
>The next class everyone passed
This is false. You meant to say that no one quit. There hasn't been a class where everyone passed.
