SF combat proficiency?

[micakno]

Forgive me if I failed to find this elsewhere on the site, not very computer savvy.

I was always under the impression that the training of foreign armies did not mean SF didn't do just as much combat overall and wasn't just as good at it as other SOF groups, nor am I implying that, just needing clarity after hearing/reading a few things.

I once had a drill sergeant that was infantry that described SF as mainly trainers. He seemed to be saying they were overrated the way I perceived it and told a short story of an infantry private with an SF sergeant in a gunfight or something telling him to "get back with his weapon", as if he didn't know what he was doing. I'm not ready to believe that SF are mainly language specialists with guns, as I've heard before.

In the book the Guerrilla Factory about SF, Tony Schwalm describes the difference between the commando and the guerrilla (SF trooper). A commando can shoot move and communicate (the pillars of an effective combatant) at an unseen before alacrity. The guerrilla can do that well too, although the cultural-rapport requirement nearly precludes the ability to shoot (and perhaps move and communicate) like a commando, he says.

The Chosen Soldier by Dick Couch also says that while Rangers and SEALs for example might kick in doors faster, the strength of SF lie in its adaptability. The early missions of the 75th RR, depended on discipline, speed, surprise, and daring, traits perhaps having more in common with modern Rangers than with SF, he says. Is that to say that Rangers are more disciplined than SF? Or just that Rangers celebrate their discipline more?

Yet I have also read articles and instances where just an ODA or two were outnumbered, outpositioned, outgunned, and somehow fought their way out, a feat. Perhaps the commando starts his mission from the top, while SF excels at succeeding in disorderly conditions, rather. A matter of versatility and endurance as opposed to speed and shock; a distance runner vs a sprinter. The impression I have then is that SEALs and Rangers are more specialized in raids, while SF is better at fighting battles, more broadly. Is that so? If other SOFs are more specialized in direct action, that's one thing, but DA is still only one facet of combat, true? With that said, I ask, especially with regards to what Tony Schwalm has to say- obviously SF can teach; but can they also fight at least as well as any other SOF group?