Comparisons: 1ATF infantry, SAS and other Free World forces

The preceding chapters compare the military performance of 1ATF with that of the enemy. But the data that enables such a comparison also enables us to compare combat performance between elements of 1ATF, such as the infantry and the SAS, and between Australian and New Zealand infantry. It also enables us to compare 1ATF infantry and US infantry. It should not be surprising that differences in performance emerge; the various forces performed different tasks, were trained in different ways and conducted operations on a different scale. This comparative analysis is useful principally for what it might say about the influence on combat effectiveness of these differences. We do not intend to create a hierarchy of value; to say that one force performed better than another. The majority of 1ATF contacts were made by the Task Force infantry elements. Therefore in this chapter we compare the combat effectiveness of 1ATF infantry to other forces performing infantry-like roles. The first of these is 1ATF's own SAS Squadron. Next, we compare the Task Force's Australian infantry with its New Zealand infantry. 1ATF INFANTRY AND THE SAS The SAS Squadron that was part of the 1ATF order of battle was ‘foot mobile’ and armed with light infantry weapons. But it was not expected to operate like the Task Force infantry battalions. According to doctrine, the role of the infantry was relentlessly aggressive. It was to ‘Seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize and hold ground and to repel attack, by day or night, regardless of season, weather, or terrain’. The infantry's essential task was to find the enemy and kill or dominate him. The SAS, on the other hand, had a wider and more nuanced range of tasks. In Vietnam SAS troops were employed in three main roles: collection of intelligence on the location and movement of enemy forces; long-range reconnaissance based on the employment of small, self-contained patrols; and ambushing and harassing of enemy forces. The emphasis placed on these three roles varied throughout the war in response to the interests of the various Task Force commanders. However, throughout the war, reconnaissance and surveillance remained the dominant task. According to David Horner, during the war in Vietnam, the SAS conducted 789 reconnaissance or surveillance patrols, 285 ‘reconnaissance-ambush’ patrols, 137 ambush patrols, 86 fighting patrols and 7 ‘special’ patrols.