How much better are elite forces than ordinary infantry ?

ChicagoJoe

Watching a series programme few months ago on training the British Royal Marines and it started to cross my mind, well to be honest, these guys didn't seem to be much different from general infantry (plenty of spotty faced 19 year olds etc). Sure they seemed to go on longer marches etc but well, it wasn't like comparing say a professional boxer to an amateur. I'm not trying to be over critical, but it strikes me that these 'elite' regiments are often talked up at the expense of the ordinary infantry regiment. I'd imagine quite a lot of guys are just happy to do their service in an ordinary infantry regiment and don't see any need to join the so called 'elite' whether it be the US Marines, Airbourne, Royal Marines or whatever.

So for arguments sake, let's say we have some imaginary scale of units and the average infantry man is rated as 100 units for his military capability, what would you rate guys from Marines, Paratroop regiments etc ?

Miceail22

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Watching a series programme few months ago on training the British Royal Marines and it started to cross my mind, well to be honest, these guys didn't seem to be much different from general infantry (plenty of spotty faced 19 year olds etc). Sure they seemed to go on longer marches etc but well, it wasn't like comparing say a professional boxer to an amateur. I'm not trying to be over critical, but it strikes me that these 'elite' regiments are often talked up at the expense of the ordinary infantry regiment. I'd imagine quite a lot of guys are just happy to do their service in an ordinary infantry regiment and don't see any need to join the so called 'elite' whether it be the US Marines, Airbourne, Royal Marines or whatever.

So for arguments sake, let's say we have some imaginary scale of units and the average infantry man is rated as 100 units for his military capability, what would you rate guys from Marines, Paratroop regiments etc ?

In reality, your spot on the cap-badge does not make the soldier. When it comes to the infantry of a country a lot of the time fitness and funding will be the deciding factor.

The Royal Marines are a very fit and capable unit, there is approximately 7,000 of them. The British army have around 40,000 infantry including all their regiments combined, not including combat support ie artillery, cavalry, armour etc . .So the RM can in theory claim more funding per man. Which means more training opportunities.

They are all very well trained be they paras or guardsman but to keep the overall numbers up not every unit can have the same standard of entry. So the RMs and paras have more stringent entry fitness standards, and as a result they can start their recruits on a higher physical training level and as a consequence the end product is fitter than the average. Its just good marketing and making it an attractive recruitment strategy that emphasize it as Commando and P coy. If you were a spotty 19 yr old who would you rather join??? Elite shock troopers like the paras/ marines or a hum drum local infantry regiment as they'd say.

They all get taught a lot of the same syllabus with regard tactics etc . .

However, some units are very proud of their elite status and try to cling onto it at any cost. For instance RM training is 32 wks and is lauded as the longest training in NATO, 15 years ago it was 28 wks. See what Im getting at

This elite status, will become ingrained in the unit ethos which will give them a sense of confidence and pride. That will help in fostering a strong sense of cohesion

Competition is also powerful motivator. No one likes to be second best, unit advocates will always claim their standards are higher ( in reality you either have standards or you don't) it does not matter if you have airborne wings on your arm or a grenadier guards insignia. Good soldiers, like any good worker get the job done. Some people, unfortunately just live off the reputation of their unit.

I think elite is thrown around too much today, if everyone was special no one would be special. In any military there is only one true elite and that is the men with blacked out faces, who have all the best gear and are never seen on the parade square.

Elite implies rare and in short supply, not several thousand with different headgear be it a green or maroon beret. Bearing in mind I have great respect for serving personnel regardless of Corps or branch, in case anyone thinks Im having a go at anyone

bucketybuck

Miceail22 wrote: »

In any military there is only one true elite and that is the men with blacked out faces, who have all the best gear and are never seen on the parade square.

I suspect that is his question though. Those guys with the blacked out faces, how much better are they to the average infantry man?

Miceail22

bucketybuck wrote: »

I suspect that is his question though. Those guys with the blacked out faces, how much better are they to the average infantry man?

I may have picked him up wrong, but royal marines and airborne units are not special forces. They are the so called 'elite infantry'' he was referring to. SF (who are human men like us all) compared to standard infantry is completely different.

It would be like comparing someone in the Premier league with someone in the League of Ireland. The same occupation but the gulf in training, expertise, funding and operational capability is significantly pronounced.

The biggest factor being training and expertise. Its just a higher standard covering a broader range of roles

Miceail22

bucketybuck wrote: »

I suspect that is his question though. Those guys with the blacked out faces, how much better are they to the average infantry man?

I may have picked him up wrong, but royal marines and airborne units are not special forces. They are the so called 'elite infantry'' he was referring to. SF (who are human men like us all) compared to standard infantry is completely different.

It would be like comparing someone in the Premier league with someone in the League of Ireland. The same occupation but the gulf in training, expertise, funding and operational capability is significantly pronounced.

The biggest factor being training and expertise. Its just a higher standard covering more specialist roles

Miceail22

bucketybuck wrote: »

I suspect that is his question though. Those guys with the blacked out faces, how much better are they to the average infantry man?

Edited for double reply

ChicagoJoe

bucketybuck wrote: »

I suspect that is his question though. Those guys with the blacked out faces, how much better are they to the average infantry man?

No Miceail22 has answered my question very well. As he said "elite" is thrown about, I suppose I should have used the correct jargon elite infantry. As for the men with the balcked out faces, I presume you mean SEAL Team Six etc.

Stovepipe

As an example, when I was in, we went to the range once a year, fired a small scale of ammunition and put the guns away when we came home and only drew them for guard duties or ceremonial. Now, bear in mind that I was in one of the less aggressive (for want of a better word) Corps of the DF, so shooting was not a priority. I'm quite sure that elite arms like the RM probably fire a much, much larger scale and range of weapons per man annually. SF people can pretty much fire what they like and when they like and never worry about quantity.

cruasder777

Miceail22 wrote: »

In reality, your spot on the cap-badge does not make the soldier. When it comes to the infantry of a country a lot of the time fitness and funding will be the deciding factor.

The Royal Marines are a very fit and capable unit, there is approximately 7,000 of them. The British army have around 40,000 infantry including all their regiments combined, not including combat support ie artillery, cavalry, armour etc . .So the RM can in theory claim more funding per man. Which means more training opportunities.

They are all very well trained be they paras or guardsman but to keep the overall numbers up not every unit can have the same standard of entry. So the RMs and paras have more stringent entry fitness standards, and as a result they can start their recruits on a higher physical training level and as a consequence the end product is fitter than the average. Its just good marketing and making it an attractive recruitment strategy that emphasize it as Commando and P coy. If you were a spotty 19 yr old who would you rather join??? Elite shock troopers like the paras/ marines or a hum drum local infantry regiment as they'd say.

They all get taught a lot of the same syllabus with regard tactics etc . .

However, some units are very proud of their elite status and try to cling onto it at any cost. For instance RM training is 32 wks and is lauded as the longest training in NATO, 15 years ago it was 28 wks. See what Im getting at

This elite status, will become ingrained in the unit ethos which will give them a sense of confidence and pride. That will help in fostering a strong sense of cohesion

Competition is also powerful motivator. No one likes to be second best, unit advocates will always claim their standards are higher ( in reality you either have standards or you don't) it does not matter if you have airborne wings on your arm or a grenadier guards insignia. Good soldiers, like any good worker get the job done. Some people, unfortunately just live off the reputation of their unit.

I think elite is thrown around too much today, if everyone was special no one would be special. In any military there is only one true elite and that is the men with blacked out faces, who have all the best gear and are never seen on the parade square.

Elite implies rare and in short supply, not several thousand with different headgear be it a green or maroon beret. Bearing in mind I have great respect for serving personnel regardless of Corps or branch, in case anyone thinks Im having a go at anyone

The Paras syllabus 2 weeks is longer as recruits learn how to Parachute and more advanced fieldcraft (FUPs, platoon level tactics ) then just on the CIC course.
Everything is done to a higher standard then the infantry of the line.

Royal Marines do a lot more map work, solo navigation marches including overnight, rock climbing, underwater helo escape drills, more advanced field craft, boat handling, survival skills. Also have to score higher on marksmanship...and the commando tests.

I would say Royal marine commando training is harder then most countries special forces selection and training, most countries Special Forces selection is not all that, nothing like SAS selection.

As for not having the experience of Special forces units, RMs, Paras, infantry of the line have far more experience then most of the worlds Special forces, most of whom do nothing.

UK Special Forces have much more emphasis on solo map work, as opposed to route marches where you can switch off and advanced ambush drills, advanced fieldcraft, then specialist skills like demolition, Close quarter protection etc etc.

Manach

Historically there was another meaning to elite. In the context of from the development of the regimental systems in Europe, 17thC onwards, it would have mean dependable or loyal to the ruling crown. For instance guard regiments were more closely linked to the dynasty so least likely to mutiny or side with their fellow soldiers against the state.

Tenger

I would hazard a guess that all modern infantry would qualify for the 'Elite' title as compared to the WWII interpretation of it. 60 yrs ago you got a rifle,a uniform and some kit to carry. The 'Elite' units got the tactics and the advanced training. As mentioned above the historic 'Elite' units will increase their training to stay ahead of the improving general population.

I read a book quite recently that talked through the recurrent training cycle of the US Rangers. It described their base assault training. Full run thorough 3 times with blanks, when the DI's were happy once with live ammo. Then that evening 3-4 times in the dark with blank, again the DI's decided repeat until they decided a final time with live ammo. In this one anecdote the company did the excercise 9 times in a day.
In an actual normal vs Elite combat situation I think we could agree that the side who practise the assault 9 times in a day will probably overcome the side that did it 2-3 times with blanks.

This comparison however doesn't really help the OP's query on man vs man comparison.

Jawgap

Tenger wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that all modern infantry would qualify for the 'Elite' title as compared to the WWII interpretation of it. 60 yrs ago you got a rifle,a uniform and some kit to carry. The 'Elite' units got the tactics and the advanced training. As mentioned above the historic 'Elite' units will increase their training to stay ahead of the improving general population.

I read a book quite recently that talked through the recurrent training cycle of the US Rangers. It described their base assault training. Full run thorough 3 times with blanks, when the DI's were happy once with live ammo. Then that evening 3-4 times in the dark with blank, again the DI's decided repeat until they decided a final time with live ammo. In this one anecdote the company did the excercise 9 times in a day.
In an actual normal vs Elite combat situation I think we could agree that the side who practise the assault 9 times in a day will probably overcome the side that did it 2-3 times with blanks.

This comparison however doesn't really help the OP's query on man vs man comparison.

It's worth having a look at a guy called Lionel Wigram who was heavily involved in infantry training at the start of WWII.

He noted that the army tended to get the people no one else wanted - all the clever chaps were hoovered up by the RAF. Of what was left, the Engineers, Artillery etc took the best - leaving the residue for the infantry!

However, he found that the qualities that made for a good infantryman weren't necessarily prized by other branches - for example, when it came to the infiltration tactics he was a great advocate of he found that being a sneaky fooker was better than being a clever fooker!

Lemming

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the biggest single differentiator between SF and infantry (whatever moniker they bear); mindset. Very, very few people have what it takes to pass SF selection, fewer still to go on to be badged, and the DS are looking for a specific type of individual; the rest get actively binned from selection. Infantry training is a different beast to that; it's classic 'apples & oranges' territory.

So saying the RM/Paras/etc. are better than most SF is a bit uninformed and overly simplistic as a statement. Do they have more stand-up fighting experience; at the moment possibly, but SF tend not to just do stand-up fighting so again what experience are you trying to compare?

folbotcar

But SF are not infantry so outside the discussion. The term elite is an old one. In the past elite units may be no more than men with battle experience or simply cooler uniforms or sometimes with extra roles beyond that of ordinary infantry. Grenadiers being the obvious example. Napoleon's Old Guard being another.

But you can make any unit elite. Ireland has no elite units but you could for example rename the 5th battalion as the 5th Para- Commando Battalion, give them extra training, red berets and a highly developed sense of regimental identity and can be fairly sure they would perform better than other battalions. It's partly psychological and partly training. Paras and commandos are better than other units because they have tougher and more training and because they believe it about themselves.

Military commanders have always understood this.

cruasder777

Lemming wrote: »

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the biggest single differentiator between SF and infantry (whatever moniker they bear); mindset. Very, very few people have what it takes to pass SF selection, fewer still to go on to be badged, and the DS are looking for a specific type of individual; the rest get actively binned from selection. Infantry training is a different beast to that; it's classic 'apples & oranges' territory.

So saying the RM/Paras/etc. are better than most SF is a bit uninformed and overly simplistic as a statement. Do they have more stand-up fighting experience; at the moment possibly, but SF tend not to just do stand-up fighting so again what experience are you trying to compare?

Very few people can pass commando training, p coy etc. The Royal Marines and Paras have more experience then most special forces, that's a reality. The Paras Pathfinders and royal marines brigade reconnaissance force do the same phase 1 selection as the SAS inc long tabs etc. So its hardly misinformed.

Most of the worlds special forces are not particularly well trained in their green role, nor do they have combat experience across the globe from mountains to deserts to the arctic.

The anti terrorism drills Special forces units learn can be drilled and learned by anyone, cops even perform many of these roles nowadays, having vast combat experience in different theatres is a different matter.


The simple reality is most special forces units are highly overrated, their weakness is the fact their role is so broad, example in the Falklands, the Royal marines tactically defeated Argentinian special forces in nearly every engagement.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Very few people can pass commando training, p coy etc. The Royal Marines and Paras have more experience then most special forces, that's a reality. The Paras Pathfinders and royal marines brigade reconnaissance force do the same phase 1 selection as the SAS inc long tabs etc. So its hardly misinformed.

Most of the worlds special forces are not particularly well trained in their green role, nor do they have combat experience across the globe from mountains to deserts to the arctic.

The anti terrorism drills Special forces units learn can be drilled and learned by anyone, cops even perform many of these roles nowadays, having vast combat experience in different theatres is a different matter.


The simple reality is most special forces units are highly overrated, their weakness is the fact their role is so broad, example in the Falklands, the Royal marines tactically defeated Argentinian special forces in nearly every engagement.

here we go..........:p

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

The simple reality is most special forces units are highly overrated, their weakness is the fact their role is so broad, example in the Falklands, the Royal marines tactically defeated Argentinian special forces in nearly every engagement.

That shouldn't be a surprise. No special force, from SAS through Delta Force, is expected to win against a line infantry unit in a conventional fight. Making such comparisons is daft. Indeed, even if you got an equivalent number of typical SF against a professional line infantry unit of that same country and took set them against each other in conventional combat, my money's still on the line infantry unit. It's what infantry are equipped and trained to do. SF are not equipped or trained for it, even if, in the back of their minds, they may vaguely remember the training from when they were in 5th Infantry.

I would also add that 'how hard it is to pass selection' has very little relevance to 'how good at the job they are'. It certainly gives a sense of pride, which counts for something, adding to esprit and staying power. But not much else. So RM course is 32 weeks. Bully for them. Any serving man knows that the real training occurs in the line unit, not in the schoolhouse.

If the RMs, or Rangers, or anyone else are to be allocated the term 'elite', I don't think it is based on the fact that they are, unit-for-unit, better than anyone else. It is because they are trained and equipped for a role which 'conventional' units are not trained and equipped to do. They are special.

Napoleon's Old Guard were elite for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they were the old guys. The experienced guys who were reliable and knew what they were doing. RMs aren't really any more experienced than The Rifles. Everyone's gone to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Western militaries no longer (and justifiably so) try to keep experienced people in one unit. But the Old Guard had a higher than average proportion of people who had seen combat before, and who had learned the skills of how to kill/avoid being killed which much of the rest of the Army lacked. Rangers, Airborne etc have little, if any, more higher percentage of battle experience in their units than a random passing Stryker Brigade.

Elite units sometime also are called such because they get the best equipment, to make them more effective. Say, Iraq's Republican Guard, or often Guards units in the Red Army. But in the US recently, National Guard units were getting the same stuff the Regular Army were. Who got which piece of equipment was basically determined by "when the tanks came off the production line, which unit was in a position in their deployment/training cycle to actually accept them?" This is no different to the situation in WWII. You couldn't tell a 1st ID soldier from a 28th ID soldier from his equipment. Even Rangers were generally equally equipped excluding equipment required specifically for their specialized role. SF, however, are a different kettle of fish. They -do- get the most high-speed, top of the line equipment. But then, they're accepted as being elite to begin with.

A unit may be considered elite because they are better trained than the average. Again, though, is a Ranger Battalion better trained than a Light Infantry Battalion from 1st Infantry Division? They are differently trained they are slightly differently equipped. But both have to do gunnery twice a year, both have to do routine cycles through the Training Centres (NTC, JMTC etc), both are provided soldiers trained side-by-side in the Infantry School in Fort Benning. Rangers will spend more time learning how to consolidate at after a paradrop or assault an airfield than a light infantry battalion. A light infantry battalion will spend more time learning how to assault defended positions in restricted terrain or defend against a mechanised attack than a Ranger battalion will. Different. Not necessarily better.

At this point, much of the usage of 'elite' comes from history and prestige, as opposed to any particular superiority on average. The rest, in a modern Western military, comes from the use of 'elite' as opposed to 'specialised'. If you wish to consider 'specialised' as a form of 'elite', there are certainly arguments to be made for it, but I think in today's professional militaries, there is far less of a distinction between 'elite' units and 'standard' units in practice than there is in non-Western or historical militaries.

IRLConor

Manic Moran wrote: »

At this point, much of the usage of 'elite' comes from history and prestige

I'm sure the history and prestige can help improve the standards in some cases though. For example, how many cadets in Sandhurst interview for the Parachute Regiment versus, say, the Royal Anglian Regiment? If the more prestigious regiments get more applicants then surely they're better placed to cherry pick the best cadets?

cruasder777

IRLConor wrote: »

I'm sure the history and prestige can help improve the standards in some cases though. For example, how many cadets in Sandhurst interview for the Parachute Regiment versus, say, the Royal Anglian Regiment? If the more prestigious regiments get more applicants then surely they're better placed to cherry pick the best cadets?

Also if units are all at the same level, how comes the Rifles etc are never Spearhead units. It was the marines and Paras who were first on the list for the Falklands not infantry of the line.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Also if units are all at the same level, how comes the Rifles etc are never Spearhead units. It was the marines and Paras who were first on the list for the Falklands not infantry of the line.

The clue is in the title.....the Rifles - they were originally formed as skirmishers.

In fact you couldn't have picked a worse comparator - the Rifles were originally formed as the 95th Rifles and were part of the Light Division.

They were the spearhead for Wellington in the Peninsular War!! (the history of the British Army doesn't start in 1982!)

Just a quote from a recruiting poster for them

"On Service your post is always the Post of Honour and your quarters the best in the Army; for you have the first of everything...."

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

The clue is in the title.....the Rifles - they were originally formed as skirmishers.

In fact you couldn't have picked a worse comparator - the Rifles were originally formed as the 95th Rifles and were part of the Light Division.

They were the spearhead for Wellington in the Peninsular War!! (the history of the British Army doesn't start in 1982!)

Just a quote from a recruiting poster for them

"On Service your post is always the Post of Honour and your quarters the best in the Army; for you have the first of everything...."

That's history in the 70s, 80s and 90s the infantry regiments who today make up the Rifles of today were all pretty rubbish. There is no way they could have yomped over the Falklands. Comparing the likes of the Royal Green Jackets in the 70s, 80s etc to the Royal marines, Paras in terms of professionalism is ridiculous.

Lemming

cruasder777 wrote: »

That's history in the 70s, 80s and 90s the infantry regiments who today make up the Rifles of today were all pretty rubbish. There is no way they could have yomped over the Falklands.

That's a lot of servicemen (and women) whom you have just paid a rather large amount if disrespect to. Plenty of those "rubbish" troops gave their lives throughout the decades too I should hasten to add, so what did you ever do besides slag them off on an internet forum?

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

That's history in the 70s, 80s and 90s the infantry regiments who today make up the Rifles of today were all pretty rubbish. There is no way they could have yomped over the Falklands. Comparing the likes of the Royal Green Jackets in the 70s, 80s etc to the Royal marines, Paras in terms of professionalism is ridiculous.

Again you're lack of historical grasp does you no service......

In the 20th Century, the RGJ produced more officers of the rank of Maj-Gen; Lt-Gen; Gen & Field Marshall than any other regiment - hence the regiment being known as the "Black Mafia" and the suggestion that the "the Green Jackets run the Army." - they must have being doing something right?

'Professionalism' is a subjective word - just because a soldier / unit can march further than another doesn't make him any more or less professional that the soldier who perhaps drives or flies into combat. I'd have thought how you do your assigned job is the hallmark of professionalism?

What about the support troops - are they not professional? I mean an ATO drives to his 'job' (or is more likely to be 'chauffeured' to it) , probably only has to walk a few hundred metres on any given day carrying a few kilos of kit - is he / she 'elite'?

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Again you're lack of historical grasp does you no service......

In the 20th Century, the RGJ produced more officers of the rank of Maj-Gen; Lt-Gen; Gen & Field Marshall than any other regiment - hence the regiment being known as the "Black Mafia" and the suggestion that the "the Green Jackets run the Army." - they must have being doing something right?

'Professionalism' is a subjective word - just because a soldier / unit can march further than another doesn't make him any more or less professional that the soldier who perhaps drives or flies into combat. I'd have thought how you do your assigned job is the hallmark of professionalism?

What about the support troops - are they not professional? I mean an ATO drives to his 'job' (or is more likely to be 'chauffeured' to it) , probably only has to walk a few hundred metres on any given day carrying a few kilos of kit - is he / she 'elite'?

I talking about ranks in the RGJ, Light etc infantry being filled with recruits who joined to escape borstal, in the 70s, 80s, young offenders were sometimes given that choice.it was later Reflected in their high rates of criminal behaviour in Germany, Cyprus etc.

One of their ex COs is even chair of the ex armed forces prisoners group, so many of them later end up in the nick. There was even one unit in Germany who became prolific bank robbers, it was quite a big story in Germany, then there was their mutiny on the Falklands, which lasted three days, before RMPs were flown in from the UK. In the 80s the RGJ were totally wild.

Also the you not only need to score higher on the physical but also the Barb tests to join the elite 3, RAF regiment, Paras, Marines.

This used to be run of the mill stuff in the RGJ.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/soldiers-used-ira-tactics-in-orgy-of-serious-crime-1401432.html

Beano

Didnt take long for the RAF Regt to be mentioned did it.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

I talking about ranks in the RGJ, Light etc infantry being filled with recruits who joined to escape borstal. Reflected in their high rates of criminal behaviour in Germany, Cyprus etc.

One of their ex COs is even chair of the ex armed forces prisoners group, so many of them later end up in the nick. There was even one unit in Germany who became prolific bank robbers, it was quite a big story in Germany, then there was their mutiny on the Falklands, which lasted three days, before RMPs were flown in from the UK. In the 80s the RGJ were totally wild.

Also the you not only need to score higher on the physical but also the Barb tests to join the elite 3, RAF regiment, Paras, Marines.

The 'elite 3'??!?!?!

What about the SRR, SBS, 18 Signals? Never mind the likes of the SFSG, the Pathfinders, 24 Commando RE, the RM's Arctic & Mountain Warfare Cadre etc etc......

.....and do you still regard RLC ATO's as not being 'elite'? it's only an 18 month course and I don't think they go anywhere near Brecon?

.....btw - what about nuclear sub drivers (most of those are fat lads), fast jet and AH-64 (AAC) pilots? Are they elite?

As for your assertion about the RGJ - have you any data on that. The NAPO Report I found indicates that in 2008/2009 there were in one prison examined as a representative sample 53 offenders with Armed Forces connections - of these 42 were associated with the Army and of those 2 were associated with the RGJ.

The Green Howards and Signals (and RM) had more, and the RGJ figure was the same for the Duke of Wellington's and the Prince of Wales Regiments.

knucklehead6

Beano wrote: »

Didnt take long for the RAF Regt to be mentioned did it.

Ah give him credit... he lasted, what, 4 or 5 posts?? :P :pac:

Beano

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Ah give him credit... he lasted, what, 4 or 5 posts?? :P :pac:

he is a model of restraint. I wonder if he posts on ARRSE? He'd go down a storm over there.

Tenger

Think this is going off course. The original direction is on how to compare efficiency of "elite" versus regular/ line troops.

I would hazard a guess that SF cannot be easily compared as their roles are different in the overall force structure.

Stovepipe

It's more difficult these days to set "ordinary" troops apart from supposedly elite troops. Armies are well down the path of getting away from the great mass of conscripts to more specialised, smaller armies, employing more technology, requiring more specialist personnel. If you look at the Russians, their Strategic Rocket troops were among the highest qualified, educationally, of them all, up there with submarine crews and air crew and the great mass of the Army were just ordinary boots, conscripts with limited training and still are to a great extent. In modern armies, the ordinary soldier is increasingly looking more like the SF type, with specialised firearms, headgear, night vision and personal comms instead of just being a boot with a standard rifle and a steel pot on his head. Modern infantry are much more educated and expected to do more; ie; have more personal input with heavy arms such as artillery by being able to call down fire from guns or aircraft or to have a much greater level of cooperation with armour, as well as being much more aware of his place in the modern war.

cruasder777

Tenger wrote: »

Think this is going off course. The original direction is on how to compare efficiency of "elite" versus regular/ line troops.

I would hazard a guess that SF cannot be easily compared as their roles are different in the overall force structure.

Getting back on track, the difference between professional well trained infantry and elite troops is the fact elite units are geared up to moving at very short notice as a spearhead force, have more demanding selection and wider on going training, a wider set of skills, better fitness beyond that of professional infantry of the line. In regards to the Royal Marines as an example, they regard themselves as sea, air and land troops.

cruasder777

Lemming wrote: »

That's a lot of servicemen (and women) whom you have just paid a rather large amount if disrespect to. Plenty of those "rubbish" troops gave their lives throughout the decades too I should hasten to add, so what did you ever do besides slag them off on an internet forum?

I previously posted about my military experience on here in NI, the Gulf war and Croatia, I am not one to boast.


In terms of professionalism, the unit with the highest percentage of those who pass SAS selection when attempted is 2 Sqn RAF Regiment, the RAF Regiments Para unit. The army can slag off the RAF Regiment, but its a fact. Next comes the Parachute Regiment.

"II Squadron RAF Regiment is a parachute-capable Field squadron and can be used to jump in to capture and secure a landing strip or refuelling point. The Sqn operates as a normal Field Sqn, but its capability is used on specific operations as well, such as Op Silkman in Sierra Leone in 2001. Members of II Sqn are required to pass the arduous Pre-Para Selection course, in order to attend a military parachuting course at RAF Brize Norton".

The reason for this is because their role develops the kind of initiative needed by Special Forces soldiers.

Forward Air Control

"RAF Regiment personnel man the majority of Tactical Air Control Parties (TACPs) that coordinate Close Air Support for the British Army. These small teams move with Airborne, Armoured and Infantry units in order to identify enemy targets and call in air assets to attack them. They are also trained to call in artillery fire. TACPs are required to move quickly around the battlefield and can be inserted by vehicle, helicopter or parachute."

Its absurd to compare their set of skills with thumb in bum, brain in neutral infantry of the line soldiers.

Which is why the RAF regiment is also, like it or not an elite unit.

Manic Moran

It was the marines and Paras who were first on the list for the Falklands not infantry of the line.

I suspect they were chosen because they were available and prepped. Their whole function given their specialised role is to be kept away from the front line until needed to conduct an assault. Most everyone else was either in Germany, Northern Ireland, or on spin-up for those roles. Again, though, specialised and available doesn't necessarily mean more elite.

cruasder777 wrote: »

There is no way they could have yomped over the Falklands.

On what basis do you say this? Are you saying that the RGJs or Scots Guards did not do any ruck marching and were physically incapable of doing the job? Or do you think they would just lay down and stop walking, complaining "Oi, Sar-Major, my feet hurt." Patton's National Guard reservists seemed to do a fairly good job at driving through the pretty horrible conditions in the Battle of the Bulge, right next to the regular units.

Comparing the likes of the Royal Green Jackets in the 70s, 80s etc to the Royal marines, Paras in terms of professionalism is ridiculous.

I am unsure. It's not as if National Service was still going on, I'm willing to bet that the RGJ were fairly professional. The question is how much training the two units obtained, what was their training and real-world optempo, their training budgets etc. A question I'm not sure I can answer.

I'm sure the history and prestige can help improve the standards in some cases though. For example, how many cadets in Sandhurst interview for the Parachute Regiment versus, say, the Royal Anglian Regiment? If the more prestigious regiments get more applicants then surely they're better placed to cherry pick the best cadets

That's a fair point. Then again, if you graduate Sandhurst, even in the bottom 10%, are you really a bad officer, at least sufficiently bad to drag down a unit (especially when compared to militaries whose officers did not go to Sandhurst)? It's not as if Eisenhower or Patton graduated at the top of their classes in West Point. (Both were bang in the middle)

AbusesToilets

The two main differences between regular units and Special Forces are mindset and budget. SF tends to attract and select those with more aggressive, agile mindsets.

They also have more funds to conduct higher levels of training, which the regular units don't have access or reason to perform. Things like advanced CQB, Intel collection and development courses, advanced insertion techniques (MFF, Scuba) etc.

IRLConor

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a fair point. Then again, if you graduate Sandhurst, even in the bottom 10%, are you really a bad officer, at least sufficiently bad to drag down a unit (especially when compared to militaries whose officers did not go to Sandhurst)? It's not as if Eisenhower or Patton graduated at the top of their classes in West Point. (Both were bang in the middle)

I don't think it's necessarily a question of the less talented cadets turning into bad officers that drag their units down. Even someone who graduates dead last in their class is still considered at least "good enough". I just assumed (dangerous, I know!) that units with more prestige would have a better chance of attracting the exceptional cadets which would translate into better unit performance.

Your point about Patton and Eisenhower is well taken, but I'm not sure exactly how fair it is on either of them. Eisenhower may have finished in the middle of his class in West Point but he finished first in his Command and General Staff course. Anything I've ever read about him suggested that his real talents lay in his work as a general and his work as a young officer wasn't anything special. As for Patton, as I understand it he ranked poorly in West Point due to being below average in the academic side of things. I can only presume that his middle finishing position was due to being above average everywhere else.

Stovepipe

Any unit that considers itself elite is less likely to attract time-servers, whose first thought is for an easy life and an eye on the pension and has a "garrison" mentality, ie, no hardship, no rough field service, indoors job,etc,etc....it's harder to do these days but there are cushy numbers in every Army and no shortage of fellas willing to fill them.

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

Very few people can pass commando training, p coy etc. The Royal Marines and Paras have more experience then most special forces, that's a reality. The Paras Pathfinders and royal marines brigade reconnaissance force do the same phase 1 selection as the SAS inc long tabs etc. So its hardly misinformed.

Most of the worlds special forces are not particularly well trained in their green role, nor do they have combat experience across the globe from mountains to deserts to the arctic.

The anti terrorism drills Special forces units learn can be drilled and learned by anyone, cops even perform many of these roles nowadays, having vast combat experience in different theatres is a different matter.


The simple reality is most special forces units are highly overrated, their weakness is the fact their role is so broad, example in the Falklands, the Royal marines tactically defeated Argentinian special forces in nearly every engagement.

Could you knock off the the British fanboy-jingoistic-tabloid propaganda masterbation. In The Falklands - How Close to Defeat, Argentina had a border conflict with Chile to worry about - they knew that in the event of a conflict with England the Chileans may use that as an opportunity to invade (they had come close to war in 1978). The elite Argentian troops were stationed along the Chilean border for the duration of that war to protect their homeland. IF that was not a consideration and they had been available for the island campaign it would be a different story. The bulk of the Argentinians on the islands were poorly trained conscripts and unprepared from the warmer northern part of Argentina.

See 12 minutes in

ChicagoJoe

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The two main differences between regular units and Special Forces are mindset and budget. SF tends to attract and select those with more aggressive, agile mindsets.

They also have more funds to conduct higher levels of training, which the regular units don't have access or reason to perform. Things like advanced CQB, Intel collection and development courses, advanced insertion techniques (MFF, Scuba) etc.

Stovepipe wrote: »

Any unit that considers itself elite is less likely to attract time-servers, whose first thought is for an easy life and an eye on the pension and has a "garrison" mentality, ie, no hardship, no rough field service, indoors job,etc,etc....it's harder to do these days but there are cushy numbers in every Army and no shortage of fellas willing to fill them.

Yes guys, you have answered quite a lot from my OP questions.

cruasder777

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Could you knock off the the British fanboy-jingoistic-tabloid propaganda masterbation. In The Falklands - How Close to Defeat, Argentina had a border conflict with Chile to worry about - they knew that in the event of a conflict with England the Chileans may use that as an opportunity to invade (they had come close to war in 1978). The elite Argentian troops were stationed along the Chilean border for the duration of that war to protect their homeland. IF that was not a consideration and they had been available for the island campaign it would be a different story. The bulk of the Argentinians on the islands were poorly trained conscripts and unprepared from the warmer northern part of Argentina.

See 12 minutes in

Your post is inaccurate. Argentine marines were professional troops, as were their various special forces and commando units in the Falklands, inc 601 commando company, 602 commando company who held South Georgia. Not all were conscripts as you claim.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/602_Commando_Company
That night, Captain Peter Babbington's K Company of 42 Commando, Royal Marines arrived nearby via helicopters. At about the same time, the 2nd Assault Section, having hidden all day, emerged from their hides intending to withdraw from the area but came under prompt and heavy fire from the SAS. That night, Captain Peter Babbington's K Company of 42 Commando, Royal Marines arrived nearby via helicopters. At about the same time, the 2nd Assault Section, having hidden all day, emerged from their hides intending to withdraw from the area but came under prompt and heavy fire from the SAS./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]5[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc
The 1st Assault Section fought in the Battle of Top Malo House on 31 May 1982. In an action lasting 45 minutes, the section under Captain Jose A. Verseci was defeated and the survivors captured in the encounter with the British Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre, a Royal Marines unit, attached to the 3 Commando Brigade


3 Para defeated the 601st Commando Company and 601st National Gendarmerie Special Forces Squadron, on Mount Longdon.The 7th Regiment companies who supported them had trained for possible war against Chile and carried out some helicopter drills with the 601st Combat Aviation Battalion. Some of the 7th Regiment had been trained on a commando courses run by 601 company.

Bear in mind, 3 Para had been yomping 3 days and spending overnight outdoors with no tents in minus conditions, as they had been lost when the Arctic conveyor sank.

Quote3 PARA made a desperate march across the hills north of Mount Simon to seize the key piece of high ground above the settlement of Estancia, also known as Estancia House. The weather conditions were atrocious, with the Paras marching through steep slippery hillocks to the objective. Nick Rose was a private in 6 Platoon under Lieutenant Jonathan Shaw:


The terrain dictated exactly how we advanced. A lot of the time if we were going along on tracks – what few we did go on – we used Indian file, which is staggered file on either side of the track, like a zig-zag. But there are great rivers of rock – big white boulders – and you have to cross them and then there's the heather and the gorse and its constantly wet. So the wind chill factor was – I think somebody said minus 40 degrees – and storm force winds and horizontal rain – a nightmare scenario. Unquote

..Could an infantry of the line Battalion have done a 70 mile loaded tab/yomp in atrocious conditions, then fought a battle while exhausted against an enemy holding high ground ? I doubt it.



Other Argentine Special Forces in the Falklands war :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Commandos_Group


On April 2, 1982, the unit integrated with the Amphibious Task Force in the Falklands Islands War, taking part in the Governor's House battle, the assault on Moody Brook barracks, the combat of the South Georgia Islands and a couple of recce missions. The group was awarded the Honor al valor en combate condecoration.

MrHogan35

Western ''Special Forces Troops'' are all hype look at how many of them got Ambushed in Afghanistan
and got their asses handed to them by the Taliban its only the weapons that gives them the upper hand
put them against ISIS without Airpower the same thing would happen.

cruasder777

MrHogan35 wrote: »

Western ''Special Forces Troops'' are all hype look at how many of them got Ambushed in Afghanistan
and got their asses handed to them by the Taliban its only the weapons that gives them the upper hand
put them against ISIS without Airpower the same thing would happen.

Where was this then ? In your imagination?

AbusesToilets

MrHogan35 wrote: »

Western ''Special Forces Troops'' are all hype look at how many of them got Ambushed in Afghanistan
and got their asses handed to them by the Taliban its only the weapons that gives them the upper hand
put them against ISIS without Airpower the same thing would happen.

I'm sure you speak from a position of authority earned through hard won experience. Or are just talking out of your 4th point of contact.

Jawgap

MrHogan35 wrote: »

Western ''Special Forces Troops'' are all hype look at how many of them got Ambushed in Afghanistan
and got their asses handed to them by the Taliban its only the weapons that gives them the upper hand
put them against ISIS without Airpower the same thing would happen.

Really?

Maybe you have different figures but the US and UK data shows that blast injuries and IEDs caused the majority of injuries and fatalities. In the case of the UK IEDs accounted for nearly twice as many deaths as gunshots did.

Likewise the US data lists "Hostile fire - Ambush" as causing less than 10 fatalities.

Incidentally, if anyone was wondering if a line infantry unit can move over significant distances on foot maybe the following from the PDF's website might help (posted up yesterday).....

Exercise Cambrian Patrol is a long-range, mission orientated International patrolling exercise held in Wales.

Physical Fitness, endurance, teamwork and determination must be combined with excellent infantry skills to complete this challenging patrol. A total of 119 teams (National and International) entered this year. The Irish Defence Forces team was drawn from 6 Infantry Battalion based in Custume Barracks, Athlone.

Navigating both by day and by night covering approximately 50km over 48 hours, over some very harsh Welsh Terrain and carrying between 80 – 100 lbs each, the teams were assessed at a number of stands on the long and arduous route.

Military skills, leadership and stamina are constantly evaluated during the patrol and marked with a system of points. Teams that successfully complete their mission can receive a number of different awards based on the number of points accumulated throughout the patrol. There is a Gold, Silver or Bronze medal or a certificate of merit depending on the total number of points they have gained throughout the patrol.

The Irish Defence Forces Team was one of only five teams to achieve a Gold Medal. This achievement is put into perspective by the fact that only approximately 4% of participants achieved the Gold Medal and almost one third of teams did not complete the patrol which is again a testament of how challenging this Exercise actually is.

The five teams who were awarded a Gold Medal were: 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment; Gurkha Sittang Company; 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles; 8th Battalion Garwhal Rifles (India) and the Irish Defence Forces.

The team consisted of Lt. Glennon, Sgt Ryan, Cpl Pilkington, Pte Ward, Pte Moriarty, Pte Dunne, Pte Sherrif, Pte Loonam.

cruasder777

The teams in Cambrian Patrol train for it, they are of a higher standard then the average infantry unit.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

The teams in Cambrian Patrol train for it, they are of a higher standard then the average infantry unit.

sure they do - but are they line infantry units? or......

cruasder777

They hadn't just spent 5 weeks on a ship, nor was it the whole battalion doing this, so its an invalid comparison.

cruasder777

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The two main differences between regular units and Special Forces are mindset and budget. SF tends to attract and select those with more aggressive, agile mindsets.

They also have more funds to conduct higher levels of training, which the regular units don't have access or reason to perform. Things like advanced CQB, Intel collection and development courses, advanced insertion techniques (MFF, Scuba) etc.

Most fail UK Special forces selection due to their map reading not being up to it, this is what stops them completing marches in time. followed by fitness and injury.

Map reading during UK Special forces selection is nails, you have to learn to visualise what's on the map in a 3d image, as opposed to lines on a map, anticipating every ravine, stream, every contour, you have to know every symbol on a map as second nature. Even a night, you also have to memorise grid references you get told once.

Those who do orienteering have a big advantage.

The solo loaded march element is what separates UK SF from other SF units who do loaded route marches in groups.

This is why Forward Air Controllers have the best SF selection rates, because their map reading skills are so much better then the average squaddie who applies.

jimmybeen

Hi, regarding Mount Longdon, it was indeed a tough nut to crack especially after setting off from San Carlos on foot on the 27th May and marching without stopping till we reached Teal Inlet, there we rested for one night then set off to Estancia house arriving over 31st May / 1st June, this journey was undertaken in the most extreme weather, we then lay up in the mountains till we attacked Mount Longdon, during this time it was absolutely freezing, we were in the grip of an Arctic winter, the Falklands campaign showed the Parachute Regiment at its very best, for anyone interested in an accurate account, including for the first time the Argentine view of the Sgt Ian McKay VC account, you need to read 'Three Days in June'
Youtube search: Parachute Regiment, Mount Longdon
Available on kindle and ebay search: Three Days in June
please read the book reviews on Amazon, 79 five star reviews and also a five star review from Soldier magazine.

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

Your post is inaccurate. Argentine marines were professional troops, as were their various special forces and commando units in the Falklands, inc 601 commando company, 602 commando company who held South Georgia. Not all were conscripts as you claim.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/602_Commando_Company
That night, Captain Peter Babbington's K Company of 42 Commando, Royal Marines arrived nearby via helicopters. At about the same time, the 2nd Assault Section, having hidden all day, emerged from their hides intending to withdraw from the area but came under prompt and heavy fire from the SAS. That night, Captain Peter Babbington's K Company of 42 Commando, Royal Marines arrived nearby via helicopters. At about the same time, the 2nd Assault Section, having hidden all day, emerged from their hides intending to withdraw from the area but came under prompt and heavy fire from the SAS./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]5[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc
The 1st Assault Section fought in the Battle of Top Malo House on 31 May 1982. In an action lasting 45 minutes, the section under Captain Jose A. Verseci was defeated and the survivors captured in the encounter with the British Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre, a Royal Marines unit, attached to the 3 Commando Brigade


3 Para defeated the 601st Commando Company and 601st National Gendarmerie Special Forces Squadron, on Mount Longdon.The 7th Regiment companies who supported them had trained for possible war against Chile and carried out some helicopter drills with the 601st Combat Aviation Battalion. Some of the 7th Regiment had been trained on a commando courses run by 601 company.

Bear in mind, 3 Para had been yomping 3 days and spending overnight outdoors with no tents in minus conditions, as they had been lost when the Arctic conveyor sank.

Quote3 PARA made a desperate march across the hills north of Mount Simon to seize the key piece of high ground above the settlement of Estancia, also known as Estancia House. The weather conditions were atrocious, with the Paras marching through steep slippery hillocks to the objective. Nick Rose was a private in 6 Platoon under Lieutenant Jonathan Shaw:


The terrain dictated exactly how we advanced. A lot of the time if we were going along on tracks – what few we did go on – we used Indian file, which is staggered file on either side of the track, like a zig-zag. But there are great rivers of rock – big white boulders – and you have to cross them and then there's the heather and the gorse and its constantly wet. So the wind chill factor was – I think somebody said minus 40 degrees – and storm force winds and horizontal rain – a nightmare scenario. Unquote

..Could an infantry of the line Battalion have done a 70 mile loaded tab/yomp in atrocious conditions, then fought a battle while exhausted against an enemy holding high ground ? I doubt it.



Other Argentine Special Forces in the Falklands war :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Commandos_Group


On April 2, 1982, the unit integrated with the Amphibious Task Force in the Falklands Islands War, taking part in the Governor's House battle, the assault on Moody Brook barracks, the combat of the South Georgia Islands and a couple of recce missions. The group was awarded the Honor al valor en combate condecoration.

Wiki's as ' proof ' !!! Did you write them up yourself ? Just like a Brit douche bag, still mouthing off sh*t about a conflict 32 years ago long forgotten about by the rest of the world as proof of the Brit military's 'superiority' over everyone else :rolleyes:

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Wiki's as ' proof ' !!! Did you write them up yourself ? Just like a Brit douche bag, still mouthing off sh*t about a conflict 32 years ago long forgotten about by the rest of the world as proof of the Brit military's 'superiority' over everyone else :rolleyes:

Not really, the US Naval War College still teaches it as a case study (REF: NWC 1036).

.....and this year the US Army's Capabilities Integration Center (part of Training and Doctrine Command) re-issued it as a case study.

Leaving aside the various staff papers and theses published by Navy and Marine officers examining various aspect of the conflict.

The Dutch book "Stopping Wars and Making Peace" (2009) gives over a chapter to it.

There was also some joint Australian / Argentinian research published on it this year dealing with the air aspect of the war.

.....as well as some French research into the TV coverage.

In the last two years (based on Google Scholar) research about the war has been published in Romania (on the use of the exocet), Canada (diplomacy / expeditionary seapower), India (aircraft carriers) and Germany (signals intelligence).

cruasder777

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Wiki's as ' proof ' !!! Did you write them up yourself ? Just like a Brit douche bag, still mouthing off sh*t about a conflict 32 years ago long forgotten about by the rest of the world as proof of the Brit military's 'superiority' over everyone else :rolleyes:

Reported