Just a question...

[jimtnc]

Toss this post if it's not appropriate, but I thought I saw a post not long ago here on this forum about the casualties and losses of SWCC guys of recent times....greater than that of SEALs and most other spec-ops, at least Navy.

Any truth to this, and yes, I know it's a dangerous life. My son wants to go SWCC (who is in service 5 years) ... thought I'd ask anyway.

Thanks, guys.

[crazy_19]

I didn't see anything about swcc having higher casualts than seals.

[bigv123]

SS would probably have the best info being a retired SWCC monster.

V

[jimtnc]

Okay, thanks guys. Didn't know much more than what I read about the SWCC situation, but I think he's looking at EOD now. It's all dangerous, but I'd rather have him trained to the max and prepared, as opposed to getting a 4 or 6 week combat course and doing a year in Irag on IA. Just seems to make more sense to me to be trained.

[SilentSnake]

sbd22- I took the list off since they're not up to date...my apologies for linking something not 100% accurate.

[Kinnikinik]

Keep in mind the casualty rates depend on the geographical area of the conflict. The boat guys in Vietnam had a very high casualty rate because of the number of rivers in the region and their use as military supply routes. The current war in Iraq and Afghanistan is geographically isolated from waterways. Iraq has a very small shoreline, and its rivers are only moderately navigable (the one on the Iranian side because of political issues.)

As a rule, Special Warfare has a smaller casualty rate vs. number and type of missions than any other branch of the military. This is because we plan our missions to encounter minimal resistance. If we don't have to get in a shooting battle and we can accomplish our mission, that is the better mission for us. If its a shooting battle you want, call out the conventional forces. They are much better equipped for that sort of thing.

Hope that helps out.

K

[sbd22]

why did I not see Mike Murphy, Danny Dietz, or Matt Axelson on that list?

[swcc-wife]

Okay, thanks guys. Didn't know much more than what I read about the SWCC situation, but I think he's looking at EOD now. It's all dangerous, but I'd rather have him trained to the max and prepared, as opposed to getting a 4 or 6 week combat course and doing a year in Irag on IA. Just seems to make more sense to me to be trained.

I'm not sure where your perception of SWCC training has come from, but the SWCC community is not "under trained" by any means. They spend 21 weeks in SWCC school (14 of which is to get their Warfare Qualification), and then when they graduate and are assigned to their teams, they spend 18 months at the team, TRAINING, before they are sent on their first deployment. And the deployment phase is 6 months, not 1 year.

SWCC is a part of Naval Special Warfare. As are SEALs. NSW utilizes some of the most rigorous training and has some of the most highly skilled men in the military. Would you consider a SEAL as not being prepared for combat? I surely hope not. Well, the SWCC community stands under the same umbrella.

[bigv123]

I'm not sure where your perception of SWCC training has come from, but the SWCC community is not "under trained" by any means. They spend 21 weeks in SWCC school (14 of which is to get their Warfare Qualification), and then when they graduate and are assigned to their teams, they spend 18 months at the team, TRAINING, before they are sent on their first deployment. And the deployment phase is 6 months, not 1 year.

SWCC is a part of Naval Special Warfare. As are SEALs. NSW utilizes some of the most rigorous training and has some of the most highly skilled men in the military. Would you consider a SEAL as not being prepared for combat? I surely hope not. Well, the SWCC community stands under the same umbrella.

I think you might have misinterpreted his post. Either that, or I did. I took it to mean that he'd rather have his son in ANY NSW job than as a regular, less trained rate in a combat zone. I took it as him giving props to all the NSW crews. Maybe I misunderstood...

V

[swcc-wife]

i think you might have misinterpreted his post. Either that, or I did. I took it to mean that he's rather have his son in ANY NSW job than as a regular, less trained rate in a combat zone. I took it as him giving props to all the NSW crews. Maybe I misunderstood...

V

Hmmm... that is a possibility. I didn't even consider that angle.

Thanks, V :)

And, jimtnc, if I indeed misinterpreted your post, I do apologize.

[jimtnc]

bigv123 - You were absolutely correct. I have nothing but the upmost respect for all the specops folks...and the missions they perform. I've been behind my son with SWCC thing for a while now, especially for the high-level training aspect, and it may still be something that comes about for him (since he's PST qualified, almost got orders, but has to wait now and is deployed). Don't know.

Kinnikinik - yes, thanks. That was precisely what I was inquiring about. I didn't include the swift boat guys in my presumptions, but your reply still seemed to explain it nicely.

Appreciate the responses.

[overcome.101]

Im still curious about the death tolls/casualties rate of SO Teams in recent years in the current war. I know it has to be a lot less than the Vietnam era like Kinik was saying because of the geographical area being fought on. Anyone have info on that?...although most likely, due to Opsec, it might not be available to the public.