"Special forces" Topic

I am reading about the SBS and the book, while praising the bravery of its members, asks whether special forces were a useful allocation of effort in WW2.

I know a little of the LRDG and SAS & a bit more of the Italian GOI, 17º Stormo Incursori, the XMAS but nothin of other nations special forces.

What is the consensus of opinion on such elite groups? Would they be considered as adding to a countries' war effort?

Just have a look at the history of U.S. special operations in the Mediterranean theater and elsewhere in WWII:

link

…or the British history of the same in the Med (I highly recommend this book):

link

Yes, they added to the war effort.

Allen

I suspect that official publications of the government involved are going to portray special forces as a success, because there's a bias involved. There's not really any short answer to the question though.

Some special forces, like the Jedburghs, were well-intentioned but really didn't accomplish anything in proportion to the resources spent. Other special forces were very effective.

Often they were the more motivated, independently minded individuals who were unsuited to the regulars.
Many regular officers were glad to get rid of them and the men welcomed the challenge to be doing something other than jankers!

I think the LRDV, SAS, SBS were both effective from a military and a propaganda standpoint

Scroll down to near the end of the Wikipedia article on the Chindits – there's an interesting thumbs down quote on the SF concept from General Slim.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chindits

There were pros and cons to allocating resources to special units but WW2 was won by regular soldiers fighting traditional battles not by small teams of blokes tearing around behind enemy lines, Inglourious Basterds included.

I don't think anyone doubts that SF contributed towards victory in WW2, the questions is more whether they were a cost effective use of resources. MIght the manpower have been better utitlised in the regular forces.

Same argument applies to strategic bombing, devastating yes, but really worth 30% of Britains wartime GDP?

Now this is an excellent question

Certainly, Special Forces were very useful for specific tasks, recce and, in the case of the Long Range Desert Group, harassing the logistics chain of an over-stretched enemy – in NW Europe, the SAS did more in the way of recce

Martin asks the key question, what about the opportunity cost – at least for the SAS, the overall cost was relatively low – in terms of strategic bombing, there is a school of thought that strategic bombing shortened the course of the war by not one minute (as opposed to tactical or interdiction bombing, which clearly was helpful)

One is reminded of the great quote by a WWI soldier, 'it was always a wonder as to how much artillery could be fired without hurting anyone but the taxpayer'

I imagine they more than made up for their costs and training, especially when one considers how they tied down the opposition, in order to defend large areas of coastline, borders, etc.

As is pointed out about the Chindits, there is nothing wrong with the idea. The question is how much effort and resources to put into them, and what to do with them. Airborne troops have pretty much the same questions.

When you dont have to put to much into them, and when they are given missions that are inline with thier capabilitys and training they perform well. When not, they dont.

But that is true of regular troops as well. Wars are full of examples of one tyope of troop trying to perform another types mission, and doing it poorly.

Certainly there has always been bitter discusion in the US Army, particularly among the Officers and senior NCOs as to if the US special forces and Rangers are worth the effort.

Personaly I think they are worthwhile. But that may be influenced by a opercieved coolness factor about them. I suspect they have a place just like everything else. Use them for what they are good at, and let others do what they are good at. I know in Iraq my soldiers where very poor at clearing building. Big shock there, they are Artillerymen that had like 3 weeks training at the task. I bet most infantrymen would not do well pressed into being tank crew or gunbunnys either.

The biggest problem with Special Operations forces is assigning them tasks they were not intended for. War is a big spectrum and every capability has a place but no one part is universal.

Based on my knowledge of history and personal military experience in the past. IMO … The answer is, "Yes" … I have to agree with what many others(many vets)had to say.

Of course the various special forces can achieve valuable results. maybe those results could be achieved more cost effectively by other means? Maybe. Case by case.

If you were building a country's armed forces from scratch you would want to have some special forces. But not so many that you'd have to denude your regulars of training/resources and talented personnel. I think a problem comes from the stupid tribalism of the military and mini-empire building. To my mind, even having 3 armed services is questionable.

Some special forces operations in WW2 were surely very valuable, but maybe not the glamourous stuff. I read somewhere that the resistance in France and other occupied countries contributed most by rescuing downed aircrew than by blowing stuff up.

I guess special forces' ability to perform recce behind enemy lines (like LRRPS in Vietnam) is far more important than any casualties or damage they can inflict.

The most important thing about Special Operation Forces is that they specialize in doing missions that standard units can't do …

Aahh, the "cool factor".
I know the membership here aren't teenaged girls sighing over Twilight but could your answers be influenced by the military cachet (dare I say chic?) of Special forces?

Not my answers … I spent 10+ years in the Infantry and there ain't nuth'n "chic" about it !!

I think the discussion has hit the main logistical points.
They are probably good value if upkeep is low since their contribution may greatly outweigh their cost.

I'm interested in looking at the personal level for small commando units.
I've read that they types of volunteers included may who were considered troublesome soldiers by their regular unit officers.
I hear this in particular with reference to the army commandos.

Perhaps there were guys who just loved fighting, and prior to the second front they would fight whoever was available: MPs, Comrades in arms, Yanks posted over here…
Given the chance to engage the enemy in irregular conditions their aggression could prove to be an asset.

I'm sure not every army commando was a hooligan, so the question then is: What's the impact of drawing these motivated men from regular units. Many might have been ideal NCO and Junior officer material.

So there's a balance (Forgetting the "Dirty Dozen" types).
How useful is the man in special ops?
Would he be better leading and motivating 9 other regulars?

None of the US Army SF are "troublesome" soldiers … I lead a Rifle Plt in the 101 and later commanded a Mech Company in a Sep Bde of the 18th Abn Corps. As a leader, troublesome soldiers are NOT good soldiers … And Spec Ops units especially don't need those types. In the movies and paperbacks it's fine, but in the real world you don't want these guys around. And that type does not last long on in the military. Aggressiveness is an asset, but you don't have to be a "troublesome" soldier to be aggresive. Especially in modern armies and Spec Ops units. A good Spec Operator is not only aggresive, but uses his head.

Troublesome is great if you have a scroptwriter to bail you out of trouble. In a real military not so much.

There are some soldiers that dont fit a given job, that can become much better when they change jobs or enviroments. I dont know if there is any way to guess about thaat though as there are just as many that go down hill when they do something new.

I have had a number of friends try out for special forces, and a number of fellow gamers that where in a ranger batalion. None of them are what you would call trouble makers. One of them failed Special forces selection because he was given a task that didnt strike him as very special forcesie, and in fact felt it was beneath his dignaty as an NCO, and refused to do it. It was not hard, or complex, just repitisious and boring. i suspect it was given just to see if you could do something that didnt make sense to you and wasnt fun, but might be vital to the mission. I dont think most rroubled soldiers are going to make it through that part.

In the US, misfits are highly regarded in out movies and books. It seems every successful cop or effective soldier is a renegade. I dont know why, just something we do I supposes, like the British for some inexplicable reason understanding and liking Criket. Nobody knows why.

As to why that can hurt a regular unit, if you take to many good motivated people out of any organization, you hurt the organization whether it is a military unit or a sports team or a manufacturing company. The key is to balance how many to recruit.

As to why that can hurt a regular unit, if you take to many good motivated people out of any organization, you hurt the organization whether it is a military unit or a sports team or a manufacturing company. The key is to balance how many to recruit.

This slightly reminds me of the British army in early WWI. First they sent in the regulars, then they enlisted volunteers and sent them in, and only then started a general conscription.

I have seen some authors state that the whole army could have been overall more effective if those volunteers had been mixed amongst the general conscripted population to stiffen them up, rather than being sent to the front in their own units.

Well just another lesson learned from the carnage of WWI … The concept that special forces takes good soldiers away from regular units, to me really does not "hold water". Special units are only a small percentage of the entire strength of an Army. And most soldiers in Ranger Bns, SF etc. don't spend there entire time in a special units. Maybe with Delta & Seals they may spend more time … But bottom line … there are not that many Special Ops guys in any army. And when they got back to regular units all the training and experience goes with them … and is spread among the new unit. If only top soldiers are in Spec Ops units, that certainly does not make any sense. The US Army for example only has 3 Ranger BNs, only a few thousand SF, the same goes for Navy Seals, etc. … among hundreds of thousand in the whole force.

What they tie down, in enemy forces to counter their 'possible'actions, compared to the number of actual actions they do carry out makes them worth the effort.

Among other things …