SAS

British SAS Now Open to Women, But Will the Standards Change?

The British Ministry of Defence (MOD) announced this week that they were expanding the roles for women in the British military and now they will be able to serve in the SAS (Special Air Service). This includes the Royal Marine Commandos and the SBS (Special Boat Service). In 2016, the British MOD opened up infantry and armor MOS’ to women, but for the first time.

British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said he was “delighted” to announce what he called a “truly defining moment.”

“Our Armed Forces will now be determined by ability alone and not gender,” he posted on Twitter. But will they really?

Is there going to be a standard for men and another for women for the SAS?

Several experts have chimed in with their thoughts on the subject and some have stated unequivocally that the standards will change. One article stated:

“It is understood the possible changes will be made to the initial phase of the SAS and SBS (Special Boat Service) selection, which is when recruits are expected to march over hilly terrain carrying increasingly heavy loads. On some of the longer marches, The Sunday Times has learned, female soldiers may be allowed to carry less weight and will be given extra time to complete the tests.”

If that is indeed the case, it would destroy morale and put any female operators in an unwinnable situation. They would never be accepted as equals by the men of the Regiment if their standards weren’t the same.

The Daily Mail from the UK put out a statement, that could be a feeler to test the waters as such if indeed the standards are lowered.

The SAS, whose selection process is considered among the toughest in the world, could be planning to permit female applicants to carry lighter rucksacks during grueling marches.

The MOD denied that there was any thought of doing just that. In fact, the unnamed source from the MOD went the other way in speaking of the standards.

‘There is a determination to get women into the special forces.’

‘There will be changes to the selection of women but it is not about lowering standards — it’s about leveling the playing field.’

The SAS was founded in 1941 and was created to conduct long-range commando raids far behind enemy lines. Their training course is legendary for its toughness. The initial phase at the Brecon Beacons consists of rucking over some serious mountainous terrain with a rucksack that gets increasingly heavier, a rifle as well as food and water.

SAS troops in the North African desert in 1941

Two prospective candidates died of exposure in the Brecon Beacons not long ago. One of the gated events for SAS involves a march over the Pen Y Fan, the highest mountain in the range. The final test in the initial phase is called, “the endurance”, where candidates have to march 40 miles over the mountains without stopping carrying a minimum of a 65-pound rucksack within a specified time.

There have been discussions on social media about the SAS using women years ago in Northern Ireland. However, those were intelligence operations where women who were trained intelligence operatives were utilized because of skills they already possessed. They weren’t badged operators and going thru the various selection courses is an entirely different animal.

Our feelings here in regard to the British SAS would mirror exactly how we feel about women in the American Special Operations Forces. I’m for anyone who will help the unit accomplish its mission and uphold the standards of the Regiment.

But there is the rub, no one should be afforded the opportunity for the simple sake of inclusion if it involves the lowering of standards in the regiment. We had a flap in the U.S. Army’s Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC) about a year ago when some NCOs who are cadre members at the schoolhouse complained that the standards were being lowered in order to meet the requirements for new operators.

Lowering the standards ultimately means lowering combat ineffectiveness. That can never be tolerated for any reason and that involves “inclusion”. If units begin allowing weak links into them, then the already overtasked, competent operators will have to pick up even more slack as they will be put in harm’s way for operators that can’t measure up to the standards.

Some have said that the US has already lowered its standards to accommodate women, a couple of women have already passed Ranger School. Back in 2013 Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

I believe that anyone who wants to volunteer to become a member of the Special Operations community, regardless of race, gender, religion etc. be given the same chance as anyone else to attempt to become a member. But if they do, they should receive no special treatment and the standards that are already set have to remain intact, no exceptions.

Unfortunately, many of the SJWs that are championing the cause of inclusion have never spent a day in the military, never mind a Special Operations unit. As the Defense Secretary has stated, the mission of the military is a lethal one and the stakes that the operators are playing for involve their lives. And that fact must never be allowed to take a lesser degree of importance than meeting the latest cause du jour.

We spoke with several Brits that are friends of ours that were involved in all facets of the military either in intelligence and Special Operations and they aren’t convinced that the standards will remain the same. In fact, they believe the opposite is going to happen. And they are worried that lowering the standards is going to hurt combat performance.

Photo: British MOD

Australians Torn by War Crimes Accusations in Afghanistan

Australians are hearing about many incidents that took place in Afghanistan that their government is classifying as possible war crimes. There are currently five unlawful killings under investigation, all of them committed by members of the elite Special Operations Task Group.

A spate of current war crime allegations are indeed centered on a country a long way from Australia – in Afghanistan – but it is Australia’s most elite troops who are accused of crimes in the 13-year Afghan war in which at least 41 Australians have been killed.
In one reported incident, an Australian soldier allegedly kicked an unarmed and bound Afghan man off a cliff near the village of Darwan before he was shot and executed.
In another report, a soldier on his first tour of Afghanistan was pressured to kill an elderly and unarmed detainee by higher ranking soldiers in what was an apparent initiation ritual.

Then there is the case of an Afghan man with a prosthetic limb who was killed by machinegun fire, with the artificial leg sent to regimental headquarters in Perth where it became a ceremonial drinking vessel.
These reported incidents are the subject of a two-year investigation by a Supreme Court Judge and high-ranking Army Reserve officer Major Paul Brereton.
Brereton’s review was sparked by an internal review by consultant Samantha Crompvoets, which claimed that Australian soldiers in Afghanistan carried out “unsanctioned and illegal application of violence on operations which included disregard for human life and dignity.”
Last week another review was announced, to be headed by David Irvine, the former head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) spy agency.
The terms of Irvine’s independent review are more centered on the culture of the Special Air Service Regiment (SAS), and he has a brief to determine “the effectiveness of reform initiatives” with culture at the heart of the issue.
Beyond unlawful killing, it is claimed that Australia soldiers took illegal drugs, drank alcohol to excess and acted in a culture of impunity and concealment, with no proper accountability to the rules of engagement.
Soldiers allegedly planted weapons on unarmed corpses on the battlefield to justify their killing, while some SAS teams were focused on “competition killing” which focused on kill counts instead of their true mission, which was counterinsurgency aimed at winning over the local population’s hearts and minds.
One team reportedly posted a “kill board” on their barracks door.
“Now many do-gooders and some journalists are falling over themselves to crucify some of our brave lads,” wrote a retired Lieutenant Colonel to the Canberra Times.
“War is not a Sunday barbecue: it is a down and dirty hard grind where our Diggers look the enemy in the face and try to kill him before they’re killed,” wrote another correspondent.
Meanwhile, military investigators have taken out advertisements in Afghan language publications in Australia, calling for details and additional information about wrongdoing by Australian forces in Afghanistan.

Many Australians are wary of what happened in Canada when members of the Airborne Regiment killed an unarmed Somali teenager in the 1990s, the regiment was disbanded. Australians have been split on whether or not the investigation should go farther.

To read the entire article from the Asia Times, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

RAF Chief Defends Bombing Of Islamic State Targets

The top UK Royal Air Force general has defended the RAF’s bombing of Islamic State targets calling ISIS “really wicked and evil enemy that used civilians as human shields.”

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach said the RAF had carried out “the most carefully planned air campaign in history” and was “meticulous” in trying to avoid civilian casualties.
Amnesty International has criticised the UK for its role in attacks on the Syrian city of Raqqa.
It claimed that the US-led coalition had been responsible for killing hundreds of civilians in Raqqa alone and it called on the Ministry of Defence to “come clean” over Britain’s role.
But Air Chief Marshal Peach, who earlier in his career served as a navigator in a Tornado jet, does not accept the charge.
He said any allegation of civilian harm, with evidence of time and place, was properly investigated.
RAF strikes ‘have killed more than 3,000 IS fighters’
In a valedictory interview with BBC News, Air Chief Marshal Peach highlighted some of the challenges he has faced as the most senior British military officer, including recruitment.
The regular Army is more than 10,000 soldiers short of its target strength of 82,000 and he admitted he was “worried” about the numbers, saying they presented a “challenge to do better”.
He suggested that part of the problem was an “unfortunate characterisation” of how the armed forces were often portrayed.
“We’re not all heroes and we’re certainly not all victims”, he said, adding that the vast majority who served were “enriched” by their life in uniform.
His own origins are humble – as the son of an Army sergeant major. Educated in a state grammar school, he was the first in his family to go to university and describes the RAF as a meritocracy with a long history of taking people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

With the call for more defense spending with threats rising, Peach highlighted the recent Skripal assassination attempt on British soil and said that those type of attacks are now becoming routine, almost regular.

To read the entire article from BBC News, click here:

Photo courtesy UK MOD

First Gulf War Air Campaign Begins January 17, 1991

On this day in 1991, Operation Desert Shield became Operation Desert Storm as the US along with other coalition countries began a massive bombing campaign against the Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis had invaded the country of Kuwait during the summer of 1990 and the coalition began forming up to force Iraq to withdraw.

A day after the deadline set in United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, the coalition began a bombing campaign to destroy dug-in Iraqi forces, gain aerial superiority, and prepare for the eventual ground assault into Kuwait.

In less than a week, the Iraqi air force was swept from the skies, most of their air defenses were smashed and their ground forces became easy targets for coalition aircraft and smart bombs. By the time the air campaign ended on February 23, the Iraqi army in Kuwait was softened up so much, the ground offensive began and the coalition units sliced thru the Iraqi defenses.

The coalition air forces had nearly a 4-1 advantage and 1800 of the 2250 aircraft belonged to the U.S. Iraq had 934 aircraft but only slightly more than half (550) were operational.

Opening Moves: The air phase of Desert Storm began shortly after 0230 on 17 January when Army Apache helicopters and Air Force Pave Low helicopters blasted Iraqi radar sites that would warn the Iraqis of an impending air strike. By identifying and knocking the radar sites along the Saudi Arabian border, the coalition had a narrow corridor to fly in. As the choppers finished their destruction of the radar sites, the pilots reported seeing an almost traffic jam of coalition jets pouring thru the gap.

The initial strikes were conducted by Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and “Wild Weasel” aircraft targeting the Iraqi radar and anti-aircraft sites. That was followed by a massive bombing of command and control bunkers, Scud missile launch pads and equipment storage areas, communications and radio facilities, and Iraqi airfields. Within the first 24 hours, coalition aircraft flew 2775 sorties.

Iraqi air defense systems, installed by the Russian military were very ineffective. In over 100,000 sorties flown, only 75 aircraft were lost. And of those only 42 were shot down, the other 33 were lost due to accidents. Since Iraqi commanders were strongly discouraged from independent action, all of their orders came down from Saddam Hussein’s headquarters. So the coalition began the systematic elimination of all command and control facilities.

Iraqi Air Force High Tails It to Iran, Its Enemy: Iraq’s Air Force had several modern aircraft from the Russians as well as the French Mirage F-1 fighters. They exhibited little stomach to meet the coalition fighters who had air combat control with AWACs. Whenever they did attempt to mix it up, they were swept from the sky. In the first week of the campaign, Iraq lost 38 aircraft shot down.

Saddam Hussein decided to save his Air Force for another day and rather than slug it out with the coalition, he contacted one of his neighbors to stash his aircraft away from the coalition. Most expected it to be Jordan, who was close to the Iraqis. In fact, the coalition was prepared for this and set up blocking positions to stop Iraqi planes from going there.

But Hussein contacted his archenemy, Iran to store his aircraft. Of course, the Iranians accepted and Iraq’s aircraft began pouring into Iran’s airspace. About 140 aircraft landed on Iranian airfields, the same ones who fought a bloody war against Iraq in the 1980s.

But the Iranians, true to form, were not to be trusted. They kept the Iraqi aircrews interned for several years. And the aircraft, they kept sequestered for more than 20 years. They released only 88 aircraft and not until 2014.

SCUD Hunting: The coalition dedicated a large number of their strike aircraft, nearly a third, to hunting Iraq’s mobile rocket launchers, the SCUDs. Iraq attempted to break apart the coalition by launching SCUD missiles at Israel. The hope was that Israel would respond and that would cause a rift between the US and the Arab coalition countries. Although Israel’s policy is to respond in kind, the diplomatic efforts by the U.S. convinced them not to attack.

But as an assurance, the coalition had to put a huge effort into spotting and eliminating the SCUDs which were killing Israeli citizens. Besides aircraft, Special Operations Forces including Delta Force, Navy Seals, and British SAS forces scoured the desert and fixed many mobile rocket launchers before they could attack.

Iraqi Infrastructure Wiped Out: In just a few short weeks, the coalition air forces destroyed the vast majority of Iraq’s infrastructure. At the beginning of the war, Iraq had 20 major power stations providing electricity to its citizens. During the bombing campaign, 11 of those were completely destroyed and another half dozen was damaged, while 119 substations were destroyed. As a result, only 4 percent of the electricity production from the start of the war was still operational.

Coalition bombing destroyed all of the major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution centers, railroads, and bridges.

No help would be forthcoming from the Jordanians. All of the major bridges linking the two countries were bombed.

Losses: The coalition air forces lost a total of 75 aircraft. Of these 52 were fixed wing and 23 helicopters. Only one was shot down in air-to-air combat. Of those 44, 39 fixed wing and 5 helicopters were lost in combat. Iraq aircraft losses totaled 259 which 105 were lost in combat. An additional 68 fixed wing and 13 helicopters were destroyed on the ground. And 137 were interned in Iran and not returned.

This set the stage for supporting the ground troops and the close air support of the coalition air forces pounded the Iraqi army positions. In some instances, entire Iraqi brigades dug into defensive positions were annihilated in place by bombing in the desert that offered no cover or concealment.

In late February, the Iraqis attempted to flee Kuwait in every manner of vehicle carrying all of the loot they could carry. This massive traffic jam was bombed and strafed by ground attack aircraft in an area that became known as the “Highway of Death.”

Not long after, President Bush ordered the cessation of combat operations. The first Gulf War was over. And the air forces were the main players in the destruction of Iraq’s military.

Photos Courtesy: DOD/Wikipedia

ICC, “Reasonable Basis” for British Guilty of War Crimes

Fatou Bensouda, the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor said on Monday there is a “reasonable basis” to believe that some British soldiers committed war crimes during combat operations in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Bensouda’s statement said, that in a 74-page report on preliminary inquiries that “there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of the UK armed forces committed war crimes, within the jurisdiction of the Court, against persons in their custody,” he said.

The Hague-based prosecutor in 2014 reopened an initial probe into war crimes allegations relating to prisoner abuse after rights groups and lawyers alleged that at least 1,071 Iraqi detainees were tortured and ill-treated between March 2003 to December 2008.
The same group also alleged that British personnel committed 52 unlawful killings of people in their custody over the same period.
However, a group of lawyers who formed part of the those making the allegations were later found guilty on misconduct charges resulting from a public inquiry. The lawyers’ lead counsellor was struck off.
Bensouda’s office however said individual statements received from those lawyers “could be considered credible enough if substantiated with supporting material” such as detention records, medical certificates and photographs.
Back in 2006, Luis Moreno-Ocampo the world war crimes court’s previous chief prosecutor said he would not open a full probe in Iraq because he did not have enough evidence.
To read the entire article from the Al Monitor click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Looking For a Good Film For the Weekend, Pop “6 Days” in the DVD

For many of us, Thanksgiving Day is a day of feasting on turkey, all of the sides and lots of good sweets and pies that throw our diets out the window for a few days. And for many more that includes watching copious amounts of football.

Families gather around the television, or up here in New England, go to the early morning high school Thanksgiving Day games and then go home to eat and watch more football in the afternoon between feasts. But many folks are on the non-football kick right now. So if you’re one of those or are relaxing at home this weekend when the women folk all rush out to do those ridiculous “Black Friday” sales, there is no better time to pop in a DVD and watch a good action film.

For Thanksgiving Day weekend this year, I’d recommend a new film that came out this year about a real event that went down 37 years ago.

“6 Days” is about the takeover of the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980. Six men burst into the Embassy and took 26 people hostage. The world was already watching the American hostage saga going on in Tehran but the situation in London unfolded on television, including the dramatic takedown during Operation Nimrod by the British SAS (Special Air Service), on live television.

6 Days takes place from April 30 – May 5, 1980. Margaret Thatcher is still a new Prime Minister in England and although we don’t see or hear from her until the final moments in the film, her trademark iron will is pushed down to the smaller government operatives who were actively involved in the siege of the Embassy.

The Director, Toa Fraser isn’t crafting an intricate character development story here. He’s telling this story in the context of a docudrama. If you’re looking for a ton of CGI with over the top explosions and a storyline that takes a lot of liberties with the actual events, then 6 Days probably isn’t for you. It is as realistic and gritty as the Real McCoy.

The film is told from several different perspectives. It begins with scenes inside the embassy and what the filmmakers perceive to be (since this part of the story really isn’t known) discussions between the terrorist leader, Salim (Ben Turner), and his fellow terrorists as well as the interaction between the terrorists and the hostages.

Police negotiator Max Vernon (Mark Strong) wants to negotiate this without any bloodshed although you know that isn’t going to happen. Strong is one of my favorite actors and always puts on a compelling performance. He’s excellent as always and the scenes with him are among the best in the film.

But the protagonist of the film is Rusty Firmin, the SAS team leader played expertly by Jamie Bell. The SAS men spend the entire six days getting ready and preparing for the call to enter. As Firmin himself stated in his book, he just wanted to hear from his Squadron Commander the words “Go! Go! Go!

And from the press perspective, the filmmakers have added the reporter Kate Adie who was played by Abbie Cornish. Her scenes seem a little stiff and forced despite her being a witness to what was to unfold in front of our eyes.

The best part of the film’s finale-setting action sequence is the tense back and forth between conversations between Strong and Turner. As the negotiations get tense, the filmmakers cut back to Firmin and his SAS men preparing to breach.

Once the terrorists kill a hostage and toss him out on the street, the SAS are called in and with the results that one would expect from, at that time, the best counter-terrorism unit in the world. Firmin and his men do a tightly choreographed dance of death that took all of 17 minutes to neutralize the threat and move the hostages out.

6 Days isn’t the typical action film but it is true to life docudrama that stuck to the facts and told the story straight. It isn’t a “big picture” kind of film. It doesn’t tell the politics of the situation and what the character’s motivation was. It is a down-in-the-dirt first-person perspective of the people involved at the lowest level

It is a worthwhile film and for those of you who are fans of the SAS, you won’t be disappointed. Put this one in the DVD this weekend and you won’t be disappointed.

Rusty Firmin who was a team leader for the SAS on Operation Nimrod, sat down with SOFREP.com’s Jack Murphy back in June and spoke about the actual operation and his being involved with the film. His interview can be found here:

Photos: Wikimedia, SAS

‘Rogue’ SAS Unit Accused of War Crimes in Afghanistan

The British Ministry of Defence and the Royal Military Police (RMP) are investigating on allegations that a SAS (Special Air Service) may have gone ‘rogue’ and killed unarmed Afghan civilians in cold blood in a potential war crimes scandal.

The reports further claim that SAS operatives falsified mission reports and that members of the British government have tried to keep secret.

Operation Northmoor has been a classified RMP operation ongoing for the past eighteen months out of a secure underground bunker in Cornwall.

Senior military police and defence sources with a detailed knowledge of the investigation have said that evidence gathered of war crimes by the SAS is “credible”. Part of the inquiry is said to have focused on a particular SAS squadron, which has been described as a “rogue” unit.
A source close to Operation Northmoor says there is strong evidence that unarmed Afghan civilians, suspected of being Taliban insurgents, were murdered rather than captured during night raids on their homes.
In one 2011 case under investigation, special forces soldiers are alleged to have handcuffed and hooded some of the victims before later shooting them dead.
Operation Northmoor is said to have acquired drone and other video footage — nicknamed “kill TV” — that shows British soldiers opening fire and contradicts the SAS account that their Afghan partners were responsible. An examination of bullets taken from some of the victims’ bodies revealed they were of a type used by the SAS.
Northmoor also acquired photographs, taken by the SAS, of shooting scenes in which the victims are holding a Makarov pistol — a weapon favoured by the Taliban leadership — that was allegedly planted by the special forces unit to give the false impression that the person they had shot was an armed Taliban commander rather than a civilian.
Operation Northmoor, set up in 2014, was investigating dozens of alleged unlawful killings between 2010 and 2013 by special forces and had become one of the largest military police investigations, with more than 100 RMP officers involved.
A British special forces officer said that at one point the Afghan CF 333 commando unit refused to patrol with the SAS because of concern about their conduct. One CF 333 commando told this newspaper that in 2010 he had witnessed SAS soldiers planting drugs and guns on a victim who had been shot needlessly at a checkpoint.
The inquiry has examined the activities of an SAS unit which is said to have gone “rogue”. The unit has been accused of having routinely carried a Russian Makarov “kill pistol” during the night raids because it could be photographed with the corpse if an unarmed Taliban suspect was gunned down.

The RMP supposedly has a source inside the British Special Forces that has stated that members of the SAS have used this same Makarov pistol on multiple occasions. In a statement released on Friday, the Ministry of Defence announced that the RMP had 90 percent of the allegations had been discontinued and fewer than 10 remain.

The RMP also thought that they forwarded enough evidence for two separate cases to be brought forward for trying two SAS members with war crimes and murder but the Special Prosecuting Authority declined to pursue charges.

To read the entire article from The Sunday Times, click here:

Photo courtesy SOFREP

Why Rucking Is Becoming More Popular with the Civilian Populace

Special Operations Forces are all the rage these days, from the recent films of “Lone Survivor” and “Zero Dark Thirty” in which Navy SEALs are the protagonists as well as “Black Hawk Down” where the Delta Force operators are, America can’t get enough.

So, if you aren’t going to enlist in the Armed Forces and actually become an operator, now the new rage is working out like one. And nothing builds character more than toting that rucksack around the woods and building up endurance and muscle by toting the pain pill. So everywhere you turn now the benefits of rucking are being touted as a healthy alternative to just plain old running.

Rucking is a way to exercise in a highly efficient manner, as it targets several key areas of fitness at the same time. You can transform your body with rucking in many ways, including:
building up your muscles, particularly your shoulders, core, and back
shedding fat as you burn three times as many calories as you could walking without the backpack and get the same benefits of running and jogging (with less risk of injury)
improving your overall posture as you strengthen your back muscles
relieving and preventing back pain
strengthening your hip and posture stability, making you less injury prone in general
Rucking effectively allows you to combine aerobic training and strength training while slicing your workout to a fraction of the time. The more you go rucking, the more you can notice its impact on the rest of your health. Your posture as you sit at your office desk is better. Your stamina is improved during your other workouts. Your pesky back pain decreases or vanishes entirely. Rucking provides lasting benefits affecting many areas of your health.

While we agree wholeheartedly that rucking is a great exercise (see our video tomorrow), it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. And of course, I can’t wait to bump into another guy on the trail who is “just like Special Ops” because he rucks a few times a week. Heavens help us, we’ve gone mainstream.

To read the entire article from American Grit, click here:

Photo courtesy US Army

Special Operations Gear Review – Merrell Sawtooth: Perfect Desert Boot

We’re always looking for an edge. That’s what Special Forces guys do, anything that will make your job easier, or yourself a little more comfortable, that’s the ticket, right? And having a piece of equipment that works, is tough, comfortable and the troops like is like nirvana.

Like I said in an earlier piece, in Special Operations, your boots and your feet are your lifelines. Depending on where I’m going and what I’m doing, will have a lot to do with what boots I’ll be wearing. About 10 years ago, while working in Morocco, I had a follow-on job elsewhere in the desert-type area and I knew I’d be doing a lot of walking on rockier, rugged terrain.

One of my buds there recommended the Merrell Sawtooth and it was a good,… no great piece of advice. As soon as my job was done over there, I came home and ordered a second pair, which remains with me today.

Although these are discontinued, they can still be found here and there on-line, so while they’re dying off, they aren’t dead yet.

I’ve taken these hiking over rocky terrain from “Purgatory” here in Central Massachusetts to the White Mountains and Appalachian Trails of New Hampshire and in the desert rocky environments of the Middle East as well as Mexico. They are good in a woodland type environment, in the mud, see the pic of rucking on a rainy, muddy day below but are at their best in a desert, dry, rough environment.

Another point in selection criteria was the fact that these can blend in well in an urban casual environment and didn’t stand out as a military type boot. While that may not be a big point for many guys, sometimes when trying to be as low-key as possible, wearing military boots isn’t the preferred method.

The construction of them and the specs from Merrell are:

UPPER/LINING

Strobel construction offers flexibility and comfort
• Nubuck leather and mesh upper
• Nubuck/Ballisticore Bellows tongue keeps debris out
• Breathable Mesh Lining maintains foot comfort by ventilating
• EVA removable footbed

MIDSOLE/OUTSOLE

Grade 7 Nylon Insole for trekking
• Compression-molded EVA foot frame provides cushioning
• Merrell® Air Cushion in the heel absorbs shock and adds stability
• 5.5mm Sole lug depth
• Vibram® Chisel Sole/Trek Rubber
• Weight: 2 lbs 14 ozs.

These are some really tough boots and they can take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’. They’re constructed with the military type of guys in mind and are built to last. They have the rounded, protected toe cap and its held up remarkably well thru the years.

The tread is thick, wide and has incredible gripping power when traveling over rocky, uneven terrain. And after years of abuse, they look like brand new. They have outstanding ankle support, with it coming right in the spot you need it most.

As with most of Merrell’s boots, I’ve found that the sizing is about a ½ size too small, order up a half size and you’ll be good to go. These boots, unlike the MOAB require a break-in period. They’re stiff for the first 10-20 miles or so, especially right behind the toe, however, mine were worn going for a couple of hour hike with no blisters. Once they were broken in, they’re extremely comfortable.

One issue with the boots is they’re prone to leak a bit when in a wet environment. I put some waterproofing on them and although it interferes with the breathing of them, in the northeast, it isn’t as big of a deal with the cooler temps and the water has stayed out.

I’m still up in the air over the footbeds provided by Merrell. Many people have complained about them having much too little cushioning. I’ve found that it wasn’t a problem for me, however, like I do with many other boots, I’ve added a heel cushion pad in them and never have a problem.

I’ve seen several complaints from guys who’ve had trouble with the eyelets and those coming off and getting ripped out when lacing the boots tightly. Again, I’ve never had that problem with both pairs I’ve owned. I’m not saying those problems don’t exist, but just that I haven’t experienced them.

Overall, I think these Merrell Sawtooths are outstanding boots. They’re the perfect blend of combat and hiking boots and will still give you the low-key look to blend into any casual environment. I wish Merrell would recommence manufacturing them although as I said, with a little digging they can still be found on-line in a few spots.

Since today is a rucking day with our SOFREP PT preparation program, it is almost time to strap them on, grab the ruck and head out in the rain this morning. Anyone up to going to “Purgatory”? Let’s roll…

Don’t Get Lost! Practical Exercise With Modified Resection

In our previous Land Navigation article, we talked about Resection, which is invaluable at finding your exact location if you’re unsure of where you are but can see and identify points in the distance.

As you’ll remember Resection is the method for finding your exact location on a map by determining the grid azimuth to at two or more well-defined locations that can be pinpointed on the map. For greater accuracy, the desired method of resection would be to use three or more well-defined locations.

We spoke about the three methods but I received an email from a prospective Special Operations candidate named Jim who was confused about what constituted a Modified Resection problem and how one would use this method effectively.

Good question Jim, here is a scenario that can and does frequently happen. You’re moving along on your azimuth through wooded but fairly flat terrain with few terrain features but enough foliage to keep you from seeing very far in the distance.

You cross a large linear terrain feature, a road, a creek bed or in my case for the purpose of our practical exercise today a railroad line. Now if you are close to your point, you could be to the left or the right of where you need to go. If you can see a point in the far distance, you can shoot an azimuth to it and pinpoint your exact location.

Now we’ll revisit the exact sequence for pinpointing your location using the modified resection method we spoke about the other day.

Modified Resection Method:

The modified method is the least preferred method but is useful in certain situations. If you’re not certain of your exact location but are located on a linear terrain feature such as a road, creek or similar body of water, this can pinpoint your position.

Orient the map using a compass and/or by terrain association.
Locate a point in the distance that can be easily identified on the ground and on the map.
Determine the magnetic azimuth from your location to the distant known point.
Convert the magnetic azimuth to a grid azimuth.
Convert the grid azimuth to a back azimuth, using the add or subtract 180 accordingly depending on the degrees.
Using a protractor, draw a line for the back azimuth on the map from the known position back toward your unknown position.

Your location is where the line on the map crosses the linear feature. Determine the grid coordinates to the desired accuracy, for our purposes an eight-digit grid coordinate.

For our video demonstration, practical exercise, we were moving along our azimuth and came across a railroad track. Just barely visible in the far distance is a wind turbine that sits high upon a hilltop. Once we are able to locate the wind turbine on the map, we take an azimuth, using our compass, and determine the grid azimuth.

Then we draw a back azimuth using the “more than 180 degrees subtract 180 or less than 180 degrees add 180” rule and draw a line on our map. Where the line intersects the railroad line is our exact location.

If this were close to our point during a Land Navigation course, this would be a prime attack point as you’d have a very good place to search for the point. However, if you’re still far from your point, it is a great place to check your exact location and ensure that you’re heading on the correct azimuth.

Check out the short video and see how it works out. Thanks for the question Jim and if anyone else has any more questions, feel free to email me [email protected] or at my Twitter account @SteveB7SFG

Photo courtesy of DOD