Talk:Special Air Service Regiment/Archive 2

Weapons used by SASR
Hi there, I stumbled across a series of pictures of a well-known SASR soldier who used a M-14 in Afghanistan.

http://m14forum.com/modern-m14/95802-australian-sas-soldier-receives-vc-action-while-using-his-m-14-a.html

Might be worth updating the page to reflect this. Cheers.

27.252.5.69 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Jake
 * Gday. Thanks for this suggestion - I've added something on this now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Special Air Service Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13525

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Four sabre squadrons
Has it been confirmed that there are four sabre squadrons? or is the only source a newspaper article. --Melbguy05 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Brigadier Beutel has stated regimental headquarters, four squadrons, an operational support squadron, a specialist support squadron and a signals squadron. But "Base Squadron"?--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I hit enter half way through the edit summary. The Hansard transcript and Defence submission to the inquiry you found which explain the redevelopment of Campbell Barracks repeatedly states that the SAS has four squadrons, as well as supporting elements which I take to mean from the context that these squadrons are all "operational". The existence of 4 Squadron has also been repeatedly reported over the last few years and never denied by the government so I don't think that there's any need to put provisos around it any more. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with this being updated in light of newer sources becoming available; however, it seems to me that the "organization" section now doesn't explicitly address 4 Squadron and presents it in the structure without any explaination. Specifically it now reads simply: " Two sabre squadrons maintain the regiment's warfighting capability and train for operational contingencies, while a third squadron is maintained on rotation for counter terrorist or recovery operations designated as the Tactical Assault Group." What of the 4 Squadron? Of cse the previous version included: "It is believed that there may be a fourth sabre squadron" with a ref which at least acknowledged the reason for its inclusion in the list but that has now been removed. Given that it now seems to be publicly acknowledged is there some other way we can mention 4 Squadron to explain it now being on the list? I.e should we simply say "three sabre squadrons maintain..." or would this be inaccurate given the 4 Squadron seems to have a fairly different mission to the others? Are there any suggestions on how to address this? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we just include something like: "A fourth sabre squadron has recently been publicly acknowledged" or something like that and use the Hansard entry as a source? Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * David Horner's book explained the roles of the three squadrons pre-2001 and the rotations. Brigadier Beutel states that the regiment's roles and responsibilities have expanded exponentially over the last 10 years. There is no information on squadrons or rotations with this new structure. Roles for the squadrons could be black role x 1 (TAG), green role x 2 (contingency squadrons) and x 1 (with an unknown squadron designation) possibly similar to UK Special Reconnaissance Regiment. --Melbguy05 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading the Epstein & Welch article again, it is describing a special recovery operation. ASIS in the early 1980s started to establish a SR capability, including females, whilst the SASR had the CT/TAG and then SR was given to the SASR in the mid 80s so they had both CT/SR. This 2010 [report] states "As Special Operations Command has developed the SR capability it has found that it needs to send elements overseas to prepare for possible SR tasks, and the Command is now seeking to have the maintenance of the SR capability declared to be a standing, ongoing operation." I think the new squadron is tasked as a special recovery squadron. --Melbguy05 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the Horner ref about the roles of the squadrons is dated (2002) and only covers three of them I've added the date for context into the text. I've also now mentioned that 4 Squadron exists but have left out anything about its role until / unless we can find something explicit which clearly states what it does. These are my edits does anyone have anything to add / change? I agree SR is likely but wouldn't want to guess. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Various news reports have noted that 4 Squadron's duties include protecting ASIS personnel in combat zones, which is also a task conducted by the British SAS. Given that only point in time information exists on the SASR's structure and operational model, Anotherclown's changes look good. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ack fairpoint Nick there certainly is some information about roles so it wouldn't be right to say it was "unknown" either, although it looks to me like we agree on this currently (Melbguy05 or Nick-D pls correct me if I wrong of cse!) I guess I'd just prefer to try to be cautious and not state something unless the sources were definitive (as there seem to be a lot of incorrect information around regarding special forces without us adding to it - anymore than we already have at least). Just to be clear though I'm happy with the way this is currently covered. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Specialist support squadron maybe the old Base Squadron?--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree - I've changed this now to reflect the Hansard source which looks good to me. This is my edit, happy to revert if others disagree though. Anotherclown (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

4th is not at Swan Island, all at Campbell Barracks.--Melbguy05 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday do you have a reference for this? All we can go off at the moment is what we have in the refs available. The Epstein & Welch article from 2012 states it is based at Swan Island etc. If you have an updated ref by all means pls go ahead, although I don't see any harm in retaining the older information too in some form, even if its proved inaccurate as we can specifically acknowledge that etc. Anotherclown (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the [statement of evidence] for Campbell Barracks Redevelopment by Department of Defence, on page 4 "There are four Squadrons within the SASR, which are currently housed in separate buildings spread across the Barracks." and "The SASR requires a new facility that houses the Regimental Headquarters and the four squadrons within one building complex". The Swan Island Army Detachment (SIAD) facilities were redeveloped recently for nearly $27 million as part of the Enhanced Land Force Project around the time of the Epstein & Welch article. --Melbguy05 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that does seem to make it clear they are all at Campbell Barracks, so perhaps the info in Epstein & Welch is out of date / wrong or maybe its use of the phrase "based at Swan Island" is a bit loose and really just means that it has used that facility for training etc. That said I think the way our article is currently worded does imply that all squadrons are co-located at Campbell. For instance follow recent rewrites it now says: "Based at Campbell Barracks, it is a battalion-sized element and is known to be made up..." Is that sufficient? It seems ok to me but certainly if there are suggestions on further rewording pls fire away. Anotherclown (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of info on three year training and operational cycle
Gday - I note that the information from Miller and from Micheletti re the three year training and operational cycle has recently been removed - per these edits. As both of these sources are from 2003 (i.e. 13 years ago) and there has obviously been significant changes in the unit since then so I agree that this is very probably dated / now wrong and can see the logic for its removal. That said I am wondering if there would be any value in retaining something from it given we now have nothing on the topic at all (for instance if we reword a bit and acknowledge the date of the information in the text as we have in some other places etc.). Or does anyone know of more up to date sources which cover these aspects? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it should continue to be noted - though the date of this information should be clear. It seems probably that SASR squadrons continue to rotate through different roles and levels of readiness, given that this is the norm for most other elements of the ADF as far as I'm aware (eg, the RAAF's three F/A-18 Hornet rotate through different roles, as do the Army's three combat brigades). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that is the main part I see as missing, i.e. discussion of rotation of roles b/n sqns, otherwise the recent update and re-write looks good to me. I would be keen in knowing your opinion about this before proceeding. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The information is too dated. The three year cycle information was first published either in the 1st edition of Phantoms of the Jungle in 1989 or later Army magazine articles in the early 90s. Nothing published recent that I know of with roles of the four squadrons and their rotation periods. There has to be a rotation above all for the TAG given the high level of commitment being on call. --Melbguy05 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Ack the sources being dated, I'll leave it as it is for now but keep a look out for any more recent sources that cover rotation of roles (as it seems fairly obvious that this would still have to occur etc). Anotherclown (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is from 2003 from a counter terrorist perspective [Report of the Review of Veterans' Entitlements]..."On completion of initial selection and testing....SASR members are posted to a squadron and undergo further training to develop their skills and teamwork. Basically, the SASR is divided into four squadrons — one on line, one off line, one war squadron and one in training. The training squadron is made up of those who have passed the initial selection and testing, and are training to become operational members of the SASR. The war squadron is specially trained for more traditional wartime activities, and the two other squadrons are specialist CT squadrons." "A squadron will normally be kept on line for six months before rotating with the off-line squadron."     Later from 2009 [report] in regards to off line TAG and on line TAG, "posted to an online TAG", "Before going online, CT/SR personnel undertake individual or team training over a period of three to four months before they are allocated to an online TAG." and "intense period of final training (colloquially referred to in units as the ‘CT Olympics’)". The six months is redacted in this report "The period for online CT/SR service has normally been [ ]." --Melbguy05 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Is any information available on use of mortars?
Does anyone know of any references which clarify use of mortars (i.e. specifically size / type). I'm assuming they have recently used / are using both 60 mm commando mortars and 81 mm but I can't find anything that specific. The only refs I can dig up just mention mortars and don't specify type. I'd been keen on adding a bit more on this if something were available. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Special Air Service Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410024243/http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/global/index.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006101103/http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/09/17/adf-delivers-fourth-arms-shipment-to-iraq/ to http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/09/17/adf-delivers-fourth-arms-shipment-to-iraq/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118043150/http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Army/Our%20future/Publications/Key/Aide%20memoire/Aide%20Memoire.pdf to http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Army/Our%20future/Publications/Key/Aide%20memoire/Aide%20Memoire.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Partners
, regarding this edit, does seem to have a point. The partners of the SASR are only mentioned once, briefly in ref #165 (in reference to the Five Eyes Program with the UK, US, NZ and Canada, in a pdf report on the minutes of a committee discussing a housing dispute), but there is no mention of specific SF units from those nations. The next ref, #86, (attached to a separate, subsequent sentence) is a book about "ANZAC Insignias". I don't have access to that book, perhaps someone who does can confirm if any nation's SF units are supported in the previous sentence. That sentence, which is partially in dispute here, is; The SASR maintains close links with special forces from the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada,[165] regularly participating in joint exercises and individual personnel exchange programs with the British SAS and SBS, as well as the New Zealand SAS, US Navy SEALs and United States Special Forces, the first half is supported, but the second half (bolding added) appears not to be. It seems reasonable that if the SASR does engage in such activities with SF units with three of four "Five Eyes" partner nations (UK, NZ & US), then it would also engage with the remaining partner nations's (Canada) SF units as well, whether that be JTF-2, CSOR or both. But that said, unless the mention of the other SF units (SAS & SBS, NZ SAS and USNSW & USSF) is sourced, then they should be removed or tagged "cite needed". If the decision is to tag, then there is no reason not to add Canada's SF units. IMHO. - the WOLF  child  18:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never read any publication that stated the SASR participates in joint exercises and individual personnel exchange programs with JTF-2. There are sources for UK with 22SAS/SBS and US with Navy SEALs and Delta. The CO of SASR said operates with Canada and did not state trains with. I support Nick-D.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's also my understanding. Happy to be proven wrong though if someone has sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's basically the point. The second part of that sentence currently needs a source to support the "joint exercises and exchanges", etc., with NZ, UK & US. If one can be found and added, then great. But as is, it's unsupported. So if it is to remain, then it needs to be tagged "cite needed", in which case there is no reason to not add (a) Canadian unit(s), until a source can be found to confirms what is what. Otherwise, the whole line should be removed as wp:or. I don't really care either way, just pointing out the inconsistencies, especially when reverting that edit. (ping:, , ) Peace. - the WOLF  child  16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding SAS
I was wondering if someone could tell me if a person I know is lying about their service? I know someone who was in the navy and each time I speak to this person the stories keep getting more elaborate... This person was on "Success" during the Bhagdad conflict as a "time keeper" in the engine room but this person's story keeps changing all the time and the latest thing to spew out of this person's mouth was that during that time of the conflict that the said person constantly worked alongside the SAS and killed many people and witnessed a lot of people being shot... and used a pistol many times. Would this be true?... wasn't "Success" a supply ship?... I'm very keen to know and is there anything (if this does seem to be an elaborate story) I could ask to uncover the B/S?.

Very keen to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretto0053 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Should "SAS Australia" be added to hatnote?
I would like to gain consensus on whether a link to SAS: Who Dares Wins should be added to hatnotes, as in this edit revision.

This would comply with WP:HATNOTE as there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at this article by mistake and it's passes WP:Related as it is a situation where two separate topics (a special forces army unit and a television series) are related but could be referred to the same title. Further reasoning can be found in the edit summary of this revision. Happily888 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Better suited to a 'see also' link IMO. The article ideally would have a section on the influence of the SASR on Australian culture, etc, where this could be discussed. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be added to the hatnote because of the SAS Australia redirect which would be directing many readers to this article who are instead looking for the TV series. Happily888 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: After looking at the |SAS:_Who_Dares_Wins|SASR|SAS_(R)|SAS_Australia|SAS_Australia:_Who_Dares_Wins|Barrett_M82 pageviews there are some peaks (presumably coinciding with broadcasts) that make this seem to be an issue, at least while the TV series is ongoing (use the logarithmic scale and you'll see some pattern similiarity with SAS Australia and SAS:Who Dares Wins). Because redirect hatnotes serve a different purpose than disambiguation hatnotes, I would advise a separate hatnote using. An alternative would be to make SAS Australia a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, although I don't feel the numbers quite justify this. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! –  Reidgreg (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems it's been a busy night. (3O already, before I even had a chance to respond. But since the 3O was filed only 8 minutes, that's not much of a chance anyway). I don't see why there is a need to have a hatnote for "SAS: Who Dares Wins" at the top of the "Special Air Service Regiment" page. The two titles are too disparate too warrant it. How likely is it that someone looking for the show, (but not know the name of the show?) is going to "accidentally" end up on this page? The two subjects are also completely different, one a military unit, the other a tv show. The only link being that the show is using the SAS branding, so if anything, that would merit a "see also" link, or possibly an "In pop culture" entry. Have to wonder why there isn't also a push to add the show as a hatnote to the Special Air Service page (or NZSAS, or CSASC ftm). Also, as I post this, I note that the show isn't even listed on the SAS dab page. - wolf  16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's no similarity between the article titles Special Air Service Regiment and SAS: Who Dares Wins. The issue is that the redirect SAS Australia, which could reasonably refer to either, targets this article.  Some readers might enter "SAS Australia" while looking for the Australian version of the TV show.  Hence the hatnote.  As I mentioned, another solution would be to make SAS Australia a disambiguation page listing both of these articles, so the reader could then click on the appropriate link. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That would make more sense, for this or any other articles it may apply to. But I don't really agree that "SAS Australia" can reasonably refer to "SAS: Who Dares Wins". IMO - wolf  19:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According to that article, the Australian version of the show Upon release of the first series, the shows name was changed from the British version to simply “SAS Australia”. (Although that is unsourced.)  I'd like it better if the Australian TV show had its own article, but still, a Google search does get hits for SAS Australia as the show, and it could otherwise be difficult for readers to locate the show at SAS: Who Dares Wins.  Yeah, a DAB page is probably best. Let me know if you'd like me to set one up. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would still prefer adding a hatnote (potentially ), although a dab page would also be fine. Addition to "see also" links won't necessarily help to easily navigate to TV show article and there doesn't seem to be enough related television shows to warrant a new "in popular culture" section. Happily888 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Should "Barrett M82" be added to hatnote?
Creating section for gaining consensus about adding Barrett M82 to article hatnotes, as for some reason onus is now on me:

This addition is beneficial because the Barrett M82 is known as a "Special Applications Scoped Rifle" — an SASR — which is an article redirect to this page (see edit revision and Barrett M82). Therefore, like SAS (R), it needs to be added to article hatnote. Happily888 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Googling the term returns very few uses of this term for the rifle in reliable sources, so this seems too obscure to justify a hat note on this mildly high profile article. That no-one has ever bothered to create Special Applications Scoped Rifle and/or Special Application Scoped Rifle as a redirect to Barrett M82 suggests that the term isn't frequently used to search Wikipedia, so the risk of confusion seems low. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, "SASR" appears to be a general term for scoped anti-materiel rifles — not just the Barrett. But even that article only mentions the term once, in passing. If the anti-materiel rifle article were to explain the term and its uses, there would be a more compelling case for a hatnote here.--pmj (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: I'm likewise uncertain if the SASR acronym is frequently used for this specific rifle. I would suggest first establishing SASR bolded in the lead of that article – or for anti-material rifles. If that becomes stable (if it is accepted by other editors as a key fact of the topic), then we can talk about a hatnote or possibly replacing the redirect with a disambiguation page. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Is a response still required? It appears the initiator has attempted to withdrawal the matter. (Also, I'm wondering why user "" was pinged here?) That said, as I write this, it's apparently not clear that the initialism "SASR" even applies specifically to the M82 Barrett, or if it's more generally applied. It's only mentioned one, in passing, on the M82 page, and up until a few hours ago, that mention wasn't even sourced. The M82 rifle is much more widely known as the "M82" or "M107", "Barrett 50" (and a few others), as opposed to "SASR". However it may apply to the M82, "SASR", isn't common enough to warrant a hatnote on the Special Air Service Regiment page. - wolf  16:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree and wish to withdraw this matter. Happily888 (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC) (Note: was pinged as the user who originally added this hatnote. I don't think this is canvassing, as distribution was limited to only two likely concerned editors, was neutral and non-partisan, as well as open.)