“They Weren’t Supposed to Pass” — The British SAS Course Designed to Break the Australians
British military history
Heraford, England. 1996. A gray morning in October. Rain so fine it hung in the air like gores. The barracks smelled of damp wool and engine oil and decades of suffering. 23 men stood in a concrete yard behind the Sterling Lion’s compound. They wore British DPM camouflage. They carried Bergen rucks sacks packed to 35 kg.
Discover more
SAS selection guide
Physical fitness programs
Australian military memorabilia
They had shaved heads, set jaws, eyes that said nothing. They were British Army soldiers, parachute regiment, Royal Marines, Guards Battalions, and they had waited years for this moment. Selection. 226 days of the hardest military training on Earth. The course that had broken more men than any other program in NATO.
A course with an average pass rate of 11%. They knew the statistics. They had trained for this. They were ready. Then three men walked out of a side building. They were not British. They carried the same Bergens, wore the same DPM, but something was different. They moved wrong.
Not wrong as in clumsy, wrong as in foreign. Their gate was looser, their shoulders rolled differently under the weight. One of them was chewing gum. Another had a faded tan that did not come from English sunlight. The third carried his Bergen like it weighed nothing. A British corporal from Tara leaned toward the man beside him. “Australians,” he said.
Special Air Service
The word carried weight. Not hostility. Not yet. Something closer to suspicion. Three Australians said nothing. They dropped their Bergens against the wall. They stretched. They did not introduce themselves to anyone. They did not need to. Everyone in the yard already knew who they were. The British Special Air Service runs the longest, most brutal selection course in the Western military world. It is not a secret.
Discover more
TV Talk Shows
Special Forces documentaries
Military history tours UK
It is a legend. The course was designed in 1952 by men who had survived operations in Malaya, Korea, and the Western Desert. It was built to find a specific kind of soldier, not the strongest, not the fastest, the one who refuses to stop, the one whose body breaks and whose mind says no.
The course destroys roughly 89 out of every 100 men who attempt it. That is not failure. That is the design. The course is meant to break you. If it does not break you, you might be what they are looking for. For decades, only British soldiers attempted it. Then the Australians came. The first Australian candidates arrived at Hford in the late 1970s.
Australia’s own special air service regiment based in Campbell Barracks, Perth, had been modeled on the British SAS since its formation in 1957. Same name, same cap badge almost, same winged dagger. But the Australian unit had evolved separately. Different wars, different jungles, different institutional DNA. By the 1980s, the Australian SAS had developed its own selection course in the sterling ranges of Western Australia. It was savage.
Australian military training
Candidates marched through terrain that would kill a tourist. They navigated without GPS. They carried weights that bent spines. And they passed at rates that worried people in Heraford. Not because the Australians were better, because they were different, and nobody in the British establishment could explain why. The arrangement was simple.
Exchange slots. Two or three Australian SAS candidates would attend British selection each cycle. British candidates could attend Australian selection. A gentleman’s agreement between two regiments that shared a bloodline. The idea was professional development. Cross-pollination. The reality became something else entirely.
Pay attention to what happened in the first 5 years of the exchange. The British selection course had five phases. Fitness and navigation, jungle training in BISE or Brunai, continuation training, combat survival and interrogation resistance, and finally the dreaded test week, the culmination of the endurance phase that turned men into ghosts of themselves.
Each phase eliminated candidates. The fitness phase alone removed 40% of starters. Jungle phase took another 20. By the time test week arrived, the surviving candidates were hollowedeyed, underfed, sleepdeprived, and operating on willpower alone. British candidates prepared for selection the British way. structured training programs, progressive overload on the Breen beacons, supervised pack marches with time standards, nutritional planning, sports science, mental resilience coaching from regiment psychologists, everything measured, everything planned,
British military history
everything institutional. The Australians prepared differently. One Australian candidate who attended selection in 1993, a corporal named Davo Buckley from One Commando Company, later described his preparation. “I went bush for 3 weeks before I flew to England,” he said, “Solo Blue Mountains. Carried a pack with house bricks in it, walked until I couldn’t walk, slept on the ground, ate what I could find, drank creek water.
No plan, no program, just me and the scrub. When asked if he had followed any formal training schedule, he laughed. Schedule, Matt. I walked until my feet bled and then I walked some more. That was the schedule. The British trained with science. The Australians trained with stubbornness. Both methods produced elite soldiers. But watch what happened when they met on the same course.
Phase one, the endurance marches across the Breen Beacons in South Wales. Rain. Always rain. Wind that stripped heat from your body in minutes. Visibility measured in arm lengths. Terrain was relentless. Steep grass ridges. Pete bogs that swallowed boots to the knee. False summits that broke spirits. Candidates carried Bergens loaded to increasing weights over increasing distances.
The time limits got shorter as the distances got longer. There was no encouragement from the directing staff. No feedback. You either made the checkpoint in time or you were gone. No second chances. The British candidates moved in a particular way. Heads down, mechanical stride, counting paces, checking map every 200 m, radio silence, but constant internal calculation.
Special Air Service
They had walked these hills before. Many of them had trained on the beacons for months. They knew the ground. They knew the shortcuts. They knew where the bogs were deepest. Home advantage. The Australians had never seen the Beacons. Davo Buckley’s first impression of the Welsh Hills was brief. Flat, he said. The directing staff member who overheard him choked on his tea. The Breen beacons are not flat.
They are a grinding succession of ridges and valleys that have ended military careers. But Buckley had spent 6 years patrolling the Sterling Ranges of Western Australia. He had trained in the Macdonald ranges of the Northern Territory. He had carried casualties down slopes that would terrify a mountain goat.
To him, the beacons were gentle. Where I come from, he said, the hills try to kill you with heat. These hills just made me wet. I can handle wet. One force knew the ground. The other force did not care about the ground. The results from the first decade of the exchange program were not supposed to be remarkable. They were. Between 1980 and 1990, Australian candidates passed British CESAS selection at a rate of roughly 31%.
British candidates in the same period on the same course passed at 12%. The numbers were not public. They were not meant to be compared. But inside Heraford, people compared them and the comparison created friction. 31% versus 12%. same course, same beacons, same interrogation, same directing staff running the same serals with the same time limits.
Australian military training
The Australians were not given easier tasks. They were not assessed more leniently. In some accounts, they were assessed more harshly, watched more closely, pushed harder, given less margin for error, and they still passed at nearly three times the British rate. How? Why? A British SAS sergeant major who served on the directing staff during four selection cycles in the early 90s.
A man named Callum Renie offered one explanation. The British lads come in fit, he said. Very fit. Fitter than the Australians, most of them better prepared physically, better on the map, better in the classroom. But when it gets truly horrible, when they’re broken, when they’ve got nothing left, something different happens. He paused.
The British lads start looking for a reason to stop. The Australians start looking for a reason to keep going and they always find one. The British lads look for a reason to stop. The Australians look for a reason to keep going. That is not a criticism of British soldiers. British SAS troopers are among the finest special forces operators on the planet.
Their operational record is extraordinary. Their professionalism is unmatched in many domains. But selection is not an operational environment. Selection is a psychological experiment. It is designed to find the man who will not quit. And the Australian military through culture, through geography, through something embedded in the national character produced men who treated quitting as a concept that simply did not apply to them.
Science
Not a technique, not a learned behavior, a refusal. The jungle phase deepened the contrast. British SASS jungle training was conducted in Bleise or Brunai. Dense primary rainforest that reduced visibility to arms length. Candidates lived in the jungle for weeks. They learned tracking, survival ambush techniques, close target reconnaissance.
The directing staff assessed everything. Movement, noise discipline, camp routine, tactical awareness. The jungle phase was where soldiers who could march but not think were found out. The British candidates arrived in the jungle with structured drills, standard operating procedures refined over decades, specific protocols for river crossings, harbor routines, contact drills. Every action had a checklist.
Every checklist had been tested in operations from Borneo to Sierra Leone. The institutional knowledge was deep. It was excellent. It was also in one critical way limiting. The Australians arrived in the jungle and disappeared. That is not metaphor. A British directing staff member named Sergeant Colin Dedale described an incident during jungle phase in 1994.
We sent the candidates out on a 4-day navigation exercise. He said the Brits moved in pairs or small groups. Textbook. You could track them. You could find them. You could hear them. He stopped. The two Australians went out separately alone. I went to check on one of them on day two. Couldn’t find him. Spent 3 hours looking. Eventually, he found me.
British military history
Appeared from behind a tree less than 2 m from where I’d been standing. Scared the life out of me. He’d been watching me search for him for 20 minutes. He’d been watching me search for him. For 20 minutes, the Australian SAS had fought its formative war in Vietnam. The regiment’s patrols in Fuoktu Province between 1966 and 1971 are still studied at special forces schools around the world.
Fiveman patrols, no radio noise, no tracks, no sign of passage. The Australians had operated in jungles so thick that a man 3 m away was invisible. They had developed an almost supernatural ability to merge with the terrain, not because they were taught, because their survival depended on it. British jungle warfare was built on Borneo confrontation operations, long range patrols on the Indonesian border.
It was superb, but it was different. British patrols operated with support structures, resupply points, radio schedules, extraction plans. The Australian patrols in Vietnam had operated with a level of isolation that the British doctrine did not require. Five men, no backup, days deep in enemy controlled jungle.
If they were found, they fought their way out. There was no rescue helicopter. There was no quick reaction force within reach. They survived by not being found at all. One doctrine taught it as a way of being. Both worked, but in the artificial pressure of selection, where the directing staff deliberately stripped away support structures to see how candidates responded.
Australian military training
The Australian approach produced men who were already comfortable with nothing. The interrogation phase was where the comparison became most stark. British SAS combat survival and resistance to interrogation training is classified. The details are not public. What is known is this. Candidates are captured, hooded, subjected to stress positions, deprived of sleep, bombarded with white noise, and interrogated by trained personnel who are very good at what they do.
The purpose is not to extract information. The purpose is to see who breaks. The interrogation phase lasts approximately 36 hours. It feels like a week. British candidates prepared for interrogation through formal training, resistance techniques, psychological frameworks, breathing exercises, compartmentalization strategies. They were taught methods for enduring what was coming.
The training was world class. It saved many men from breaking. The Australians brought something else. A British interrogator, a military intelligence officer who worked eight selection cycles, described the difference with visible frustration. The British candidates resist, he said. They use techniques. You can see them applying what they’ve been taught.
Special Air Service
It works. For most of them, it works. He rubbed his face. The Australians don’t resist. They just aren’t there. You’re interrogating them and they’re somewhere else. Not using a technique, not counting backwards, not reciting poetry in their heads. They’ve just gone checked out. You’re talking to an empty room. You’re interrogating them.
They’ve just gone. Not dissociation. Not psychological collapse. Something else. A capacity to simply refuse to engage with suffering on its own terms. British candidates fought the interrogation. The Australians ignored it. Different strategies, both effective. But the Australian approach unnerved the directing staff in a way that raised questions nobody had expected.
Were the Australians better, or were they just wired differently? The question was never answered officially, but the institutional response was revealing. In 1997, the British SAS selection course was restructured. The official reason was modernization. The endurance phase was extended. The weight requirements for the Breen Beacons marches were increased by approximately 3 kg.
The time limits were shortened. Navigation legs were routed through more difficult terrain. The jungle phase was expanded. The interrogation protocols were updated. On paper, every change was justified on operational grounds. The course needed to reflect modern special forces requirements. Nobody argued with the logic.
British military history
But inside Heraford, a different conversation was happening. A retired British SAS officer, a major named Patrick Ashby, who had served on the selection committee in the mid ’90s, was direct. The Australians were an embarrassment, he said. Not because they were bad, because they were too good. Too many of them were passing.
And every cycle the numbers went back to regiment headquarters. And someone asked the same question. If the Australians are passing at 30% and our lads are passing at 12, what does that say about our course? The answer inside the institution was not that the Australians were superior soldiers.
The answer was that the course was not hard enough. So they made it harder. The Australians kept passing. Between 1997 and 2004, under the restructured and significantly harder course, Australian candidates continued to pass at rates between 25 and 33%. British pass rates dropped to between 8 and 11%. The gap did not close. If anything, it widened.
The harder the course got, the more the Australians seemed to thrive, as if difficulty itself was the fuel they burned. A British staff sergeant named Marcus Der, who served as a directing staff member during this period, described watching an Australian candidate named Tommo, he never learned his real surname, complete the final march of test week.
Australian military training
The lad was destroyed, Dair said. Both feet blistered to the bone, right knee swollen to twice its size. He’d vomited blood that morning. I was certain he would VW. VW voluntary withdrawal, the British term for quitting. He didn’t VW, do continued. He finished the march 16 minutes under the time limit, walked through the gate, put his Bergen down, turned to me, and said, “Any chance of a beer?” I wanted to hit him and buy him a drink at the same time.
Any chance of a beer? That was the difference. Not physical superiority, not tactical brilliance. attitude, an absolute bone-deep refusal to treat suffering as a reason to stop Earth. But the story does not end at Heraford because the Australians reputation, the thing that both impressed and infuriated their allies, followed them into operational theaters.
And what happened next tested not just individual soldiers, but the entire alliance framework that connected Australian special forces with their British and American counterparts. Between 2002 and 2014, Australian SAS and Commando operators deployed alongside British and American special forces in Afghanistan. Joint operations, shared bases, combined task forces, the same war, the same enemy, the same rules of engagement.
Special Air Service
And almost immediately, the problem started. Not tactical problems, cultural ones. The first incident came at a forward operating base in Yurusan province 2005. The base housed American special forces, an ODA team from fifth special forces group alongside an Australian SAS patrol. The arrangement was supposed to be seamless. Shared facilities, shared intelligence, joint patrol schedules.
It lasted 11 days. An American special forces captain named Garrett Halt described the breakdown. The Australians, he said, did not respect our operating procedures. He was choosing his words carefully. We had strict protocols, base defense, force protection, movement orders, communications schedules. The Australians followed approximately none of them.
The Australians were not being insubordinate. They were being Australian. The specific complaints read like a catalog of cultural collision. The Americans required all personnel to wear full body armor within the base perimeter at all times. The Australians wore body armor on patrol. On base, they wore shorts and t-shirts. The Americans maintained a 24-hour communication schedule with higher headquarters.
The Australians reported when they had something to report. The Americans ate meals at designated times in designated areas. The Australians ate when they were hungry, often standing up, often outside. We had designated meal times. The Australians ate standing up in the car park. Small things, but in a military environment where procedures exist for a reason.
British military history
The Australian refusal to follow them created genuine tension. The American ODA commander filed a formal complaint. The language was diplomatic. The meaning was not. He wanted the Australians moved. They were moved. The second incident was at a British base in Helmond Province, 2007. A combined operations center housing British Royal Marines, British SAS liaison staff, and a rotation of Australian commandos.
Special Air Service
The base ran on British military discipline, tea at fixed hours, briefings at fixed hours, kit inspections, dress standards. The Australian commandos arrived and within 72 hours had violated 14 separate base standing orders. A British Royal Marines color sergeant named Ian Murdoch compiled the violations. Unauthorized modification of sleeping quarters, unauthorized cooking outside designated areas, failure to attend mandatory briefings on three occasions, inappropriate dress, unauthorized departure from the base perimeter without logging movement. He looked at
the list and they built a barbecue out of ammunition crates behind the latrines and they were cooking on it at 0200 hours. They built a barbecue out of ammunition crates behind the latrines. The Australians did not consider any of this remarkable. They were soldiers. They were in a war zone. They operated at an exceptionally high level in the field.
Australian military training
Their patrol discipline was flawless. Their marksmanship was exceptional. Their intelligence preparation was thorough and innovative. But when they came back through the wire, they did not want to attend a briefing about boot cleaning schedules. They wanted to eat a steak and plan the next operation. The British saw in discipline.
British military history
The Australians saw priorities. The third incident was the one that triggered the ban. 2009, a large coalition base in Kandahar. American, British, Canadian, and Australian forces colllocated in a sprawling compound that functioned more like a small city than a military installation. The base had a gymnasium, a coffee shop, a post exchange, and 17 different regulations governing the movement of personnel between sections.
An Australian SAS troop, eight men returning from a 5-day operation in the Arandab Valley, drove through the main gate at 0300 hours. They had been in continuous contact with Taliban forces for three of those 5 days. They had taken casualties. They had extracted under fire. They were exhausted, filthy, and wired.
They drove their vehicles to their compound, dismounted, and began cleaning weapons. At 0400 hours, an American military police patrol arrived. The Australians had parked in an unauthorized area. They had failed to lob their return with the base operations center. They had not completed the mandatory vehicle inspection upon entry.
And the detail that elevated the incident from administrative to institutional. One of the Australian operators had walked to the American Post Exchange, which was technically closed, found a side door unlocked, entered, taken four bottles of Gatorade, and left money on the counter. Technically, that was theft.
Australian military training
An American Provost Marshall filed a report. The report went to the combined task force headquarters. The headquarters contacted Australian National Command. The conversation was not pleasant. Within 48 hours, Australian special forces personnel were formally restricted from three Allied bases. The restriction was not published.
There was no press release, no official statement. The Australians were simply told through channels that their presence on certain bases was no longer welcome without specific authorization from combined task force command. Three bases closed to Australians, not because they could not fight, because they would not conform.
The reaction within the Australian chain of command was predictable. Anger, embarrassment, a formal investigation. several strongly worded memos from Canbor to Allied capitals and then quietly a more interesting conversation because here is what the Allied commanders had failed to notice while they were filing complaints about parking violations and barbecue construction.
The Australian SAS troop that had been banned from Kandahar had during their 5-day operation in the Argand Valley killed or captured 23 Taliban fighters. They had secured four weapons caches containing a combined total of over 200 kg of explosive material. They had provided intelligence that led to the disruption of three IED networks responsible for the deaths of 11 coalition soldiers in the preceding month.
Their operational tempo was among the highest of any special forces element in regional command south. 23 enemy killed or captured. Four weapons caches. Three IED networks disrupted in 5 days and they had been banned for taking Gatorade. The American ODA team that had originally requested the Australians be removed from the Yurusan base had in the same operational period conducted two patrols.
Special Air Service
Both had returned to base without contact. The British base in Helmond that had cataloged 14 standing order violations had during the same period conducted zero offensive operations, two patrols without contact, zero offensive operations, 14 complaints about barbecues. Watch what happened next. The restriction lasted approximately 6 weeks.
During those 6 weeks, the operational tempo at all three bases dropped measurably. Intelligence flow from the Australian patrols which had been feeding the combined targeting cycle dried up. Operations that had been planned around Australian SAS reconnaissance were cancelled or postponed. Taliban activity in the affected areas increased.
IED strikes on coalition forces rose by 22%. A senior American officer, a colonel attached to the combined joint special operations task force reviewed the metrics. He had not been involved in the original ban. When he saw the numbers, he made one phone call. The call lasted 4 minutes.
The Australians were back on all three bases within 48 hours. No announcement, no apology, no formal rescending of the restriction. The Australians simply appeared. They moved into their compounds. They unpacked their kit. They planned their next operation. Within 72 hours of their return, three patrols were operating in the Argandab Valley.
Within a week, two high-v value targets had been captured. The IED strike rate dropped to its previous level. The operational picture improved immediately. We needed them. End of discussion. That was the colonel’s assessment. Four sentences. No elaboration needed. But the story circles back to Heraford because the same quality that got the Australians banned from Allied bases, that irreverent, ungovernable, authority resistance streak that drove their allies to distraction was the same quality that allowed them to pass British SAS selection at rates that
British military history
embarrassed the institution. The connection is not accidental. The British military system produces extraordinary soldiers through structure, discipline, tradition, hierarchy, procedure. These are not weaknesses. They are the foundation of one of the most effective military forces in human history. British soldiers follow orders because the system has proven across centuries that following orders wins wars.
The system works and British SASS selection reflects that system. It is organized, methodical and fair. The Australian military system produces a different kind of soldier. Structure exists. Discipline exists, but beneath the surface there is something else. An informality that looks like disrespect, but functions as adaptability.
A willingness to ignore procedures that do not serve the immediate purpose. A resistance to authority that is not rebellion, but pragmatism. Australian soldiers follow orders when the orders make sense. When they don’t, they find another way. And that trait, that refusal to accept the framework just because it is the framework is precisely what selection is designed to find.
Selection asks one question. Will you quit? The British candidates’s answer is structured. I have been trained not to quit. I have techniques. I have frameworks. I will apply them and I will not quit. The Australian candidates’s answer is simpler. No, not no because someone taught me a method. Just no. pure, unprocessed, unreasoned refusal.
The same refusal that built a barbecue out of ammunition crates behind the latrines. The same refusal that warped into a closed post exchange and left money on the counter. The same refusal that ignored base standing orders because the standing orders did not serve the mission. Rules are for the wire. Performance is for the field.
Australian military training
The British saw this and were troubled. The Americans saw this and were frustrated. The Australians saw nothing unusual at all. This was just how they operated. It was invisible to them, like asking a fish to notice water. By 2010, the Heraford selection course had been modified three times since the Australians first started attending in significant numbers.
Each modification made the course harder. Each modification was justified on professional grounds, and each time the Australians absorbed the changes and kept passing. A retired Australian SAS warrant officer named Phil Kavanaaugh, who himself had passed British selection in 2001, described the cycle. “Every time we’d hear the course had changed, the BS would just shrug.
” He said, “Harder hills? We’ve got harder hills at home. Longer marches, mate. Our continuation training is 6 months. More weight just means more food in the pack.” He smiled. You can’t make a course hard enough to beat someone who doesn’t know how to quit. The harder you make it, the more comfortable they get. Because hard is home. Hard is home.
The numbers tell the rest. Between 2000 2015, 104 Australian candidates attempted British SAS selection. 31 passed, a rate of 29.8%. In the same period, approximately 8,700 British candidates attempted selection. 957 passed. A rate of 11% 104 Australians. 31 passed, 29.8%. 8,700 British candidates. 957 passed, 11%.
Same course, same mountains, same jungle, same interrogators, same directing staff, different results. Were the Australians better soldiers? The question misses the point. British SAS operators have conducted some of the most remarkable special forces operations in modern history. The Iranian embassy siege, Sierra Leone, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that remain classified.
The British SAS does not need validation from pass rate comparisons. They are among the finest in the world. That is not in dispute. But selection is not operations. Selection is a question. And the Australians answered it differently. The British candidate endures selection. He grits his teeth. He applies his training.
Special Air Service
He pushes through pain with technique and determination and the weight of regimental tradition behind him. He is magnificent in his suffering. And when he passes, he has earned it through the most demanding crucible his nation can construct. The Australian candidate does not endure selection. He inhabits it. The pain is not something to push through. It is just weather.
The hills are not obstacles. They are ground. The weight is not a burden. It is what he carries. He does not apply techniques to survive. He simply does not consider the alternative. One force overcomes. The other does not recognize the problem. A British SAS squadron commander named Major Douglas Whitaker, who oversaw the exchange program from 2008 to 2012, gave perhaps the most honest assessment ever recorded on the subject.
I’ve watched hundreds of men attempt selection, he said. Thousands, British, Australian, Kiwi, the odd South African, Fijians, the lot. The British candidates who pass are the best products of the best military training system in the world. They are exceptional worldclass. He stopped. The Australians who pass are something else. They’re not products of a system.
They’re products of a country. A country that is very far away from everything, that is very hot, that is full of things that will kill you, and that teaches its children from a very early age that nobody is coming to help. The Australians don’t pass selection because they’re trained well.
British military history
They pass because they’ve been selected by Australia before they ever get to Heraford. They’ve been selected by Australia before they ever get to Herafford. The program continues. Australian candidates still attend British SAS selection. British candidates still attend Australian selection. The exchange remains one of the most productive professional relationships in the special forces world.
The friction has not disappeared. it has matured. The British directing staff no longer view Australian pass rates as an institutional embarrassment. They view them as evidence that two different military cultures can produce excellence through fundamentally different paths. And the bans, the base restrictions, they became folklore.
In the Australian SAS, being banned from an allied base is not a disciplinary mark. It is a credential. a quiet badge of honor that says, “We were too effective to keep and too difficult to live with.” The allies who banned them learned a lesson that every coalition commander eventually learns about Australian special forces.