Special Forces

For purposes of this discussion, the distinction between special forces and special operations forces is meaningless. We're not obligated to follow the naming conventions of the US Army, and Wikipedia uses the term Special Forces.

The Charisian Scout-Snipers don't have superior Mobility, and they don't have radio. They aren't any better at deep recon than Merlin's "spys" and "Visions" are, and they can't perform the other missions much better than marines or light cavalry can, either.

The Scout-snipers are basically just clones of the Napeolonic rifle brigades. Which may have ultimatly led to the idea of special forces, and might even be in the heritage line for some special forces units, were not, in themselves, special forces as we mean the term.

Montrose Toast wrote:The term "Special Forces" belongs to the Green Berets exclusively according to the US Army.
What you are calling Special Forces is called "Special Operations Forces" in the US Joint Forces and are under US Special Operations Command.

SOF units existed centuries before the terms SF and SOF were invented. Ussually they were primarily recon. E.G. Rangers. Deep Recon is still a major mission for modern SOF.

What did not exist prior to WWII was the terms SOF/SF .

The functions existed and some specialized forces were formed to fill them but, they were limited in mobility pre-mechanization. Hense the lack of deep raiding due to the lack of mobility. Which is why light Cav ussually performed the duties that are now assigned to SOF - they were the most mobile element in the pre-mech eras.

The US Army Rangers trace their linage to the early 1600s and they are part of US SOCOM.

Effectively, the Charisian Marine Scout/Snipers are an early form of SOF. They just haven't been unleashed for independent duty yet...

Krenn wrote:For purposes of this discussion, the distinction between special forces and special operations forces is meaningless. We're not obligated to follow the naming conventions of the US Army, and Wikipedia uses the term Special Forces.

The Charisian Scout-Snipers don't have superior Mobility, and they don't have radio. They aren't any better at deep recon than Merlin's "spys" and "Visions" are, and they can't perform the other missions much better than marines or light cavalry can, either.

The Scout-snipers are basically just clones of the Napeolonic rifle brigades. Which may have ultimatly led to the idea of special forces, and might even be in the heritage line for some special forces units, were not, in themselves, special forces as we mean the term.

Montrose Toast wrote:The term "Special Forces" belongs to the Green Berets exclusively according to the US Army.
What you are calling Special Forces is called "Special Operations Forces" in the US Joint Forces and are under US Special Operations Command.

SOF units existed centuries before the terms SF and SOF were invented. Ussually they were primarily recon. E.G. Rangers. Deep Recon is still a major mission for modern SOF.

What did not exist prior to WWII was the terms SOF/SF .

The functions existed and some specialized forces were formed to fill them but, they were limited in mobility pre-mechanization. Hense the lack of deep raiding due to the lack of mobility. Which is why light Cav ussually performed the duties that are now assigned to SOF - they were the most mobile element in the pre-mech eras.

The US Army Rangers trace their linage to the early 1600s and they are part of US SOCOM.

Effectively, the Charisian Marine Scout/Snipers are an early form of SOF. They just haven't been unleashed for independent duty yet...

Wiki has the largest GI-GO factor in existance - not a credible source. I say this as someone who has had his own writtings sourced, mangled, and mutilated on Wiki.
[I write on Iraqi Security Force developments.]

Effectively, Safehold has the beginnings of SOF and SF.
The regulars that augmented the irregular forces in Glacierheart for training and leading are the same role SF was formed for. The Charisian Scout/Snipers fill the same role as Force Recon or Rangers.

In the old days, the high-speed transport was not available - so troops that filled SOF roles were not centralized. They were ussually ad hoc formations formed for a specific mission by the local commander and returned to their parent unit afterwards.

The functions of SOF have always been around. What changed in modern times was that aircraft provided fast transport that allowed the centralization of SOF basing and training. Even now, they still tend to operate as small units spread all over the place but, the comms and transport allow for them to be rapidly shifted. Which means less need for ad hoc formations and a higher standardization of SOF.

Until Safehold is using high-speed aircraft and radio - modern SOF is unobtainable. Which means you need to be thinking old-school which does include what is now called SOF.

By the way, I'm using official NATO definitions. As the largest military alliance on Earth, I'd say they were the most prevalent official military definitions. Wiki uses Hollywood definitions - pop culture. Hollyweird couldn't get anything right if their life depended on it...

Official mission of SF is training and leadership of Indiginious Guerrilla warfare and Counter-insergency forces with secondary roles as long-range recon, raiding, and counter-terrorism. That is what they are legally paid/funded to do...

Montrose Toast wrote:

Krenn wrote:For purposes of this discussion, the distinction between special forces and special operations forces is meaningless. We're not obligated to follow the naming conventions of the US Army, and Wikipedia uses the term Special Forces.

The Charisian Scout-Snipers don't have superior Mobility, and they don't have radio. They aren't any better at deep recon than Merlin's "spys" and "Visions" are, and they can't perform the other missions much better than marines or light cavalry can, either.

The Scout-snipers are basically just clones of the Napeolonic rifle brigades. Which may have ultimatly led to the idea of special forces, and might even be in the heritage line for some special forces units, were not, in themselves, special forces as we mean the term.

Wiki has the largest GI-GO factor in existance - not a credible source. I say this as someone who has had his own writtings sourced, mangled, and mutilated on Wiki.
[I write on Iraqi Security Force developments.]

Effectively, Safehold has the beginnings of SOF and SF.
The regulars that augmented the irregular forces in Glacierheart for training and leading are the same role SF was formed for. The Charisian Scout/Snipers fill the same role as Force Recon or Rangers.

In the old days, the high-speed transport was not available - so troops that filled SOF roles were not centralized. They were ussually ad hoc formations formed for a specific mission by the local commander and returned to their parent unit afterwards.

The functions of SOF have always been around. What changed in modern times was that aircraft provided fast transport that allowed the centralization of SOF basing and training. Even now, they still tend to operate as small units spread all over the place but, the comms and transport allow for them to be rapidly shifted. Which means less need for ad hoc formations and a higher standardization of SOF.

Until Safehold is using high-speed aircraft and radio - modern SOF is unobtainable. Which means you need to be thinking old-school which does include what is now called SOF.

By the way, I'm using official NATO definitions. As the largest military alliance on Earth, I'd say they were the most prevalent official military definitions. Wiki uses Hollywood definitions - pop culture. Hollyweird couldn't get anything right if their life depended on it...

Official mission of SF is training and leadership of Indiginious Guerrilla warfare and Counter-insergency forces with secondary roles as long-range recon, raiding, and counter-terrorism. That is what they are legally paid/funded to do...

Sorry, but the claim that the term 'special forces' belongs exclusively to the Green Berets is nonsense. As is the idea that if this isn't worldwide then it is across NATO. It may be the case in the US armed forces, but it certainly isn't elsewhere. A quick check of official tables of organisation of my own country's military gives me the United Kingdom Special Forces directorate (approximately a division) commanded by the Director of Special Forces.

Also, the comment about the term commando coming from the Boar war is rather missing the point. Those commandos would not fall under the definition of special forces. Those re-invented in 1941 would. Unless, of course, you expand your defintion of 'Special Operations Forces' to include evey elite unit which ever engaged in irregular/unconventional combat, scouting, raiding, sabotaging etc.

I suspect that this thread is no longer heading anywhere - we are just restating positions. As in the Monty Python sketch, it is a contradiction rather than an argument.

You are aware that UK's Commandos of WWII were just infantry units tasked with raiding? Which is a standard function of combat arms of all types...

Even today, the RM 3rd Marine Commando Bde is not listed as SOF. SAS and SBS are the UK SOF types and they don't call themself commando.

The use of the term Commando as SOF is mostly pop-culture/Hollywood. Most of the units in the world that are called Commando are not SOF - they are Lt Inf/Lt Mech/Recon formations that are considered elite but are not SOF.

In NK, the SOF units are designated Recon/Lt Inf.

It can be argued SOF tactics are the oldest. They are mostly speciallists in close quarters combat which was the only form of combat in antiquity. Effectively the regulars evolved to longer range combat while the elements that continued to work at close ranges became SOF. It is not a perfect fit but, who is more likely to use a blade? Who fights in small-unit tactics and use raids as primary offensive method like city-states did in the days of old when the weapons were all up close and personnal.

As I keep saying, the FUNCTIONS of SOF have always been around. They just got renamed and centralized as SOF when transport/communications made it practical.

Safehold requires high-speed transport/comms to make it practical before that centralization can happen there. Until that happens [post-Rakkuri], they will have to do it the old fashioned way - ad hoc units drawn from available local forces as needed.

As someone who has experience with snakeaters - your use of pop-culture sourcing is not impressive. Try looking up NATO's Special Operations Command and their definitions...

[Edit: FYI, what the UK/FR call a Regiment - most of the rest of NATO call it a Battalion. For the Brits is halfway makes sense due to their decentralized training/recruiting. Normal UK Regiments have a deployable Battalion, A Territorial (reserve) Battalion, and a training establishment. UKSF is a reenforced Brigade in actual size.]

Montrose Toast wrote:You are aware that UK's Commandos of WWII were just infantry units tasked with raiding? Which is a standard function of combat arms of all types...

Even today, the RM 3rd Marine Commando Bde is not listed as SOF. SAS and SBS are the UK SOF types and they don't call themself commando.

The use of the term Commando as SOF is mostly pop-culture/Hollywood. Most of the units in the world that are called Commando are not SOF - they are Lt Inf/Lt Mech/Recon formations that are considered elite but are not SOF.

In NK, the SOF units are designated Recon/Lt Inf.

It can be argued SOF tactics are the oldest. They are mostly speciallists in close quarters combat which was the only form of combat in antiquity. Effectively the regulars evolved to longer range combat while the elements that continued to work at close ranges became SOF. It is not a perfect fit but, who is more likely to use a blade? Who fights in small-unit tactics and use raids as primary offensive method like city-states did in the days of old when the weapons were all up close and personnal.

As I keep saying, the FUNCTIONS of SOF have always been around. They just got renamed and centralized as SOF when transport/communications made it practical.

Safehold requires high-speed transport/comms to make it practical before that centralization can happen there. Until that happens [post-Rakkuri], they will have to do it the old fashioned way - ad hoc units drawn from available local forces as needed.

As someone who has experience with snakeaters - your use of pop-culture sourcing is not impressive. Try looking up NATO's Special Operations Command and their definitions...

[Edit: FYI, what the UK/FR call a Regiment - most of the rest of NATO call it a Battalion. For the Brits is halfway makes sense due to their decentralized training/recruiting. Normal UK Regiments have a deployable Battalion, A Territorial (reserve) Battalion, and a training establishment. UKSF is a reenforced Brigade in actual size.]

The first commandos of WW2 (which i see as the first true special forces) were army units not the marine units that we currently have in the UK. The marines converted into commandos later in WW2 and then the army commandos evolved into current special forces. The SAS, SBS and SRR are the UKs current 'special forces' units according to their own Ministry of Defense. That isn't pop culture, that's official. Yes, the marine commandos of today are certainly not special forces (or even SOF). I didn't mean to imply that they were. Today they retain much of the same doctrine but are instead elite infantry/marines due to the different strategic role they fulfill. But in the second world war they were SF.

The whole reinforced brigade vs division thing is something where I don't know enough about the NATO definitions to be sure. I know we do things differently. I'll take your word for it being a reinforced brigade (although of course technically its simply a 'directorate' due to being a mish-mash of forces from multiple services).

On the other hand, I think we're seeing a crystallization of our different points of view. I agree that the tasks SF currently perform have always been there. I think the difference between us is that I see their centralisation as a result of modern technology (and its resultant applicability on their strategic role) as being what makes them special forces. You on the other hand see the tactical role as the defining feature of 'SOF'. Reconciling a maco and a micro perspective is generally impossible so i don't think we're going to advance on this issue.


edit:
Actually, I just realised that you said current commandos aren't special forces - something I agree with. But they employ the same tactics and operate under the same tactial doctrine as special forces recognised by NATO. So your argument cannot revolve around the tactical scale. So what is your argument? Insofar as I can see, its that SOF are anything recognised by NATO as SOF. While I recognise that as true, that is somewhat circular and doesn't help with hypotheticals, such as we might see on Safehold. Or is your argument that SOF/special forces is a non-term and irrelevant as these functions have always existed and all we've done is centralized the role and given it a name? That point certainly has merit.

We are getting there.

Tactically and operationally, SOF is classic high-end Lt Inf/Lt Cav small-unit tactics/operations.

The differences in modern Marines/Airborne and SOF is:

1) SOF is more elite, higher trained. Most SOF is airborne but most airborne don't make the grade to be SOF. Most SOF are trained in waterborne attack like Marines but, most Marines don't pass the screening to be SOF. Ditto for the rest of the elite regulars. The only thing SOF doesn't do better on a man-for-man basis is armor - killing armor yes, operating it NO.

2) SOF is speciallist in small-unit tactics. They tend to operate in Squad detachments where regulars rarely operate below Company level. Regulars tend to look at Battalion as their smallest deployable size formation. SOF regularly operate in Squad sized detachments.

3) Roles and missions. SOF are Unconventional Warfare speciallists. Guerrilla Warfare. Operating against [COIN] or conducting Guerrilla Warfare. Including what most of the world calls terrorism. [Still not legally defined.] When used in conventional combat - they are just high-end small-unit Recon/raiders. [Arguably a mis-use of assets, but you work with what you have.]

4) SOF are normally legitimatly subject to execution if caught under the rules of war because they are normally covert and not operating in uniform.

FYI: SRR [Bn] and 1st Paras [Bn] are attached to UKSF but, are not SOF.
- SRR is specialists in recon/surveilance and was invented to free up SOF from Stakeout duty. When the shooting starts - they yell for the SAS/SBS to come quick.
- The 1st Paras are regulars attached to provide perimeter security while SOF does the close quarters assault.
The only UK SOF Battalions are:
22nd SAS
23rd SAS [reserve]
SBS

Squadron in UK terms [like US Cav terms] is Battalion equivalent.

[Edit note: UK does not have a US SF equivalent specializing in training/leading indigs. SAS/SBS pull double-duty when that is needed.]

Safehold has the beginings of SOF since SOF is elite small-unit, Lt Inf and Lt Cav.
What they are missing to make them modern SOF is air mobility and comms - which can't happen until Rakkuri is gone.
After Rakkuri is gone as a threat, some of those existing elite Lt Inf/Lt Cav formations will probably reorganize/retask/retrain...

Montrose Toast wrote:We are getting there.

Tactically and operationally, SOF is classic high-end Lt Inf/Lt Cav small-unit tactics/operations.

The differences in modern Marines/Airborne and SOF is:

1) SOF is more elite, higher trained. Most SOF is airborne but most airborne don't make the grade to be SOF. Most SOF are trained in waterborne attack like Marines but, most Marines don't pass the screening to be SOF. Ditto for the rest of the elite regulars. The only thing SOF doesn't do better on a man-for-man basis is armor - killing armor yes, operating it NO.

2) SOF is speciallist in small-unit tactics. They tend to operate in Squad detachments where regulars rarely operate below Company level. Regulars tend to look at Battalion as their smallest deployable size formation. SOF regularly operate in Squad sized detachments.

3) Roles and missions. SOF are Unconventional Warfare speciallists. Guerrilla Warfare. Operating against [COIN] or conducting Guerrilla Warfare. Including what most of the world calls terrorism. [Still not legally defined.] When used in conventional combat - they are just high-end small-unit Recon/raiders. [Arguably a mis-use of assets, but you work with what you have.]

4) SOF are normally legitimatly subject to execution if caught under the rules of war because they are normally covert and not operating in uniform.

FYI: SRR [Bn] and 1st Paras [Bn] are attached to UKSF but, are not SOF.
- SRR is specialists in recon/surveilance and was invented to free up SOF from Stakeout duty. When the shooting starts - they yell for the SAS/SBS to come quick.
- The 1st Paras are regulars attached to provide perimeter security while SOF does the close quarters assault.
The only UK SOF Battalions are:
22nd SAS
23rd SAS [reserve]
SBS

Squadron in UK terms [like US Cav terms] is Battalion equivalent.

[Edit note: UK does not have a US SF equivalent specializing in training/leading indigs. SAS/SBS pull double-duty when that is needed.]

Safehold has the beginings of SOF since SOF is elite small-unit, Lt Inf and Lt Cav.
What they are missing to make them modern SOF is air mobility and comms - which can't happen until Rakkuri is gone.
After Rakkuri is gone as a threat, some of those existing elite Lt Inf/Lt Cav formations will probably reorganize/retask/retrain...

Yes, we seem to be getting there.

While I accept your disctinctions overall, I don't know how much you know about the Royal Marines (they aren't as similar to US marines as you might expect). Depending on battalion, their doctrine really is incredibly close to that of special forces, especially SBS. The major differences seems to be that the SBS gets more jungle and counter-interrogation training as well as longer independant deployments at the squad level. Which is why I tend to focus on how they are used rather than what their training/doctrine is for distinction between special forces and elite units.

Just FYI, the SRR actually is a SOF unit (albeit not true battalion size I believe), not simply a special forces support unit. Very little is known about the SRR due to its high classification combined with its recent formation - there haven't been any former members writing books and spilling the beans yet. However it doesn't seem to be simply a straight up recon unit, and it seems to have been involved in several domestic covert ops as well. Much as I dislike wikipedia, it actually does have the simplest summary of UKSF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Special_Forces_%28UK%29.png.

I'm not surprised that SRR is expanding in capabilities. Something about working with Snake-eaters tends to be contagious. Officially they remain non-SOF Stakeout speciallists formed to replace SOF troops on routine CT surveillance ops. Basically, an under-strength military intelligence battalion.

Of course, officially US SF has never trained foreign indigs in Guerrilla warfare - OFFICIALLY.

It is the nature of militaries that there is always mission creep.

Yes the UK Marines are good - they are not SOF.
Just as USMC's MEU(SOC)s are not SOF despite the claim that they are Special Operations Capable.
Close but no cigar.

Note: USSOCOM has 71,000 personnel assigned - slightly smaller than what the Royal Army is building down to [79k]. But that includes support forces just as the UKSF includes support units [E.G. SRR]. Of that 71,000 in USSOCOM, 60 percent is supporting non-SOF troops leaving ~28,000 actual SOF.

Of a country of over 300 million only 1.2 million in the active armed forces. Of those 1.2 Million - only 28,000 actual SOF.

That the UK has a Bde of SOF is actually doing good considering the high quallity required by NATO to be recognize as SOF.

Most countries claim to have SOF forces - most countries have SOF in name only...

Montrose Toast wrote:I'm not surprised that SRR is expanding in capabilities. Something about working with Snake-eaters tends to be contagious. Officially they remain non-SOF Stakeout speciallists formed to replace SOF troops on routine CT surveillance ops. Basically, an under-strength military intelligence battalion.

Of course, officially US SF has never trained foreign indigs in Guerrilla warfare - OFFICIALLY.

It is the nature of militaries that there is always mission creep.

Yes the UK Marines are good - they are not SOF.
Just as USMC's MEU(SOC)s are not SOF despite the claim that they are Special Operations Capable.
Close but no cigar.

Note: USSOCOM has 71,000 personnel assigned - slightly smaller than what the Royal Army is building down to [79k]. But that includes support forces just as the UKSF includes support units [E.G. SRR]. Of that 71,000 in USSOCOM, 60 percent is supporting non-SOF troops leaving ~28,000 actual SOF.

Of a country of over 300 million only 1.2 million in the active armed forces. Of those 1.2 Million - only 28,000 actual SOF.

That the UK has a Bde of SOF is actually doing good considering the high quallity required by NATO to be recognize as SOF.

Most countries claim to have SOF forces - most countries have SOF in name only...

While I can't find an official source on SRR being SOF or support, the MOD website about selection criteria and processes does list it alongside SAS and SBS as special forces rather than with the support groups. But with something so secretive its hard to know for sure - if you do know for sure you aren't allowed to say.

I've really not been trying to get into a patriotic/xenophobic my forces are better than yours thing. Its just that my own nation's military is the only one I really know stuff about outside movies, popculture etc. And i'm not trying to compete or compensate for thing my nation vs yours. My country's military is obviously going to be smaller than yours. That said, I might quibble about the 'hanging out with snake-eaters' remark - i might feel its more like your guys caught quie a bit of stuff from ours! (as ridiculous as its is to call them 'yours' and 'ours').

I wasn't arguing that the RM were or should be considered SOF. My point was that if if your definition is all about tactical doctrine then their might not be a distinguishing line. The commandos ended up being re-organised to deal with recent operational needs Afghanistan and Iraq, but it used to be that the 'front-lne' commandos were divided into 4 groups (there were also of course other intel, logistics, engineering, signals and training groups): amphibious specialists, security specialists, jumping-out-of-helicipoters specialists and cold-weather/mountain specialists. Obviously the security and helicopter specialists were tied to their support due to the nature of their missions, but the cold-weather specialists in particular were accustomed to medium-length independant missions at the squad level and their tactical doctrine was pretty identical to special forces. I'm not saying that they were special forces, I'm just using this as an example to ask 'what is the dividing line?'. And it wasn't something like jump training: i'm not sure how it currently stands but at the time neither the marines nor SBS had jump training as a core qualification.

Yes. The US followed the UK's lead in forming dedicated SOF [or reforming in the case of the Rangers].

Did so despite the best efforts of the US Airborne Mafia and the USMC leadership which considered SOF to be an oxymoronic concept of an elite within an elite. [And a way to undermine the quallity of their commands by taking the best away from them.]

Almost all formation, upgrades and expansions of US SOF were opposed by the Regular leadership in the five-sided rubber-room and rammed down their throats by the political side. Including the establishment of USSOCOM as an equal Combatant Command and the resulting promotion of a SOF LTG to General despite his only having a corps-sized force...

The boundry between SOF and elite Lt Inf forces [E.G. UK Marine Commando] is quallity and mind-set.
Those Marines that try for and make it into SBS are SOF. Those that are unwilling to tryout or don't make the grade are Royal Marine Commandos. Every SBS troop can do the job of a RM - not every RM can make the cut to be in the SBS.

Even within SOF there are varying levels of elite.
USA SF is considered the low-end of US SOF.
USA Rangers are a bit higher.
Then you get into the bare-knuckles bar-fight between SEAL, SFD-D, and Marine Recon over who is top-dog.

[SFD-D requires Ranger and SF quallifications to be eligible to try out and still flunks 90%.]

Edit: Note that by UK standards USA SF and Rangers would not be SOF. UK 1st Para Bn fills the role/mission the USA Rangers fill in USSOCOM and USA SF training role is just a secondary function of all troops in the UK system.

Each country has varying definitions and capabilities of SOF based on their philosopy/role/missions and available strength...