America's Shock Troops

[Jabberwock]

Looking at America's military history it hasn't been so easy to identify who are America's shock troopers up to this point in time. British shock troops today and German shock troops during WW2, for example, are easily identifiable. So looking at America's military who can we say today is officially considered America's shock troops?

One of the obvious choices that comes to mind is the Marine Corps. I believe maybe at most two engagements they have been shown to be shock troops. The most famous being perhaps WW1. Maybe early 20th century they would be considered shock troops. Today, there are Army unit training and missions that would better fit the shock troop profile.

My choice is Army Rangers.

[hellheaven1987]

Shock troops, huh??

Generally, better performance and training divisions were used as shock troops during WWII; I don't remember which divisions US used during France campaign, but I did read it from some books that several divisions were always used as shock troops because their effeciency.

By the way, I don't understand why Airborn divisions are used to fight street warfare during the invasion of Iraq?? Can someone explain that to me??

[Jabberwock]

By the way, I don't understand why Airborn divisions are used to fight street warfare during the invasion of Iraq?? Can someone explain that to me??

Because they're still infantry, just with specialized training/qualified for Air Assault and Jumping.

[Captain Jin]

The Rangers might have acted in a schock trooper capacity in the past but they certainly are not now. They specialize in direct action operations now. Direct action being defined as:

"Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and which employ specialized military capabilities to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets. Direct action differs from conventional offensive actions in the level of physical and political risk, operational techniques, and the degree of discriminate and precise use of force to achieve specific objectives."

The idea behind a shock trooper is to hit heavily defended positions along a front, penetrate those defenses and then press on behind enemy lines and attack vulnerable rear-echelon areas. This is something more suitable for units like the 101st or 82nd, but especially suited for the Marine Corps.

The 101st and 82nd conventionally operate on the idea of going to key terrain locations utilizing the air. Be it helicopters or by means of parachuting in. They can, but aren't necessarily meant, to be used as shock troopers.

Marine Corps is designed around the principal of striking hard and fast at enemy positions. We're not light infantry, but well armed with our own significant support structure capable of self sustainment for great periods of time without any outside support. In addition to that Marine Corps training and doctrine fits perfectly with the sort of fighting you'd need in order to utilize a shock trooper sort of capacity.

Looking back historically you might have problems finding any one of these units as the premiere 'shock troops' of America. They've all been used in that role at some point or another throughout history. But now-a-days, I'd say the Marine Corps is best suited for the task.

By the way, I don't understand why Airborn divisions are used to fight street warfare during the invasion of Iraq?? Can someone explain that to me??

3 weeks of jump school makes you a paratrooper. Not a big deal really. As Jabberwock said, they are still infantry.

[hellheaven1987]

3 weeks of jump school makes you a paratrooper. Not a big deal really. As Jabberwock said, they are still infantry.

Except using light infantry to fight street war??

[Captain Jin]

Except using light infantry to fight street war??

They are no lighter in that regard than regular Army or Marines. It's called SASO, or security and stability operations. Another way of putting it would be what General Krulak described as the three block war.

The Three Block War is a concept described by General Charles Krulak in the late 1990s to illustrate the complex spectrum of challenges likely to be faced by soldiers on the modern battlefield. In Krulak's example, soldiers may be required to conduct full scale military action, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian relief within the space of three contiguous city blocks.

This is something that can be handled by 82nd/101st as easily as USMC infantry. As far as light infantry, they are equipped and outfitted in the same manner as the Marine Corps. They are not out of place fighting in the streets of Iraq anymore then they have been in the many fights they've been in inolved in in the past.

[Barry Ferguson]

They are not out of place fighting in the streets of Iraq anymore then they have been in the many fights they've been in inolved in in the past.

In Holland the main problem the paratroopers faced was being too lightly equipped to defeat the Germans. Does the Airborne now have the same anti-tank capacity, ofr example, as any other US division?

[pwf224]

The Marines

[Monarchist]

I tend to vote for the Rangers, especially thanks to their actions at the Pointe du Hoc in 1944. Such deep, nearly unsupported penetrations, detonation of enemy artillery, and achievement of goals was quite the feat for such a small landing force. Can you imagine having to scale those cliffs, run across nearly open cliff-face fields, and face 4-5 concrete pillboxes? The solid wall of steel which met the Rangers at nearly every turn in Normandy, Aquitaine, during Cobra, and through the march into Belgium was only something which true shock troops could handle. On cliffs, hills, valley walls, and seawall, rangers lead the way.

[Count of Montesano]

I tend to vote for the Rangers, especially thanks to their actions at the Pointe du Hoc in 1944. Such deep, nearly unsupported penetrations, detonation of enemy artillery, and achievement of goals was quite the feat for such a small landing force. Can you imagine having to scale those cliffs, run across nearly open cliff-face fields, and face 4-5 concrete pillboxes? The solid wall of steel which met the Rangers at nearly every turn in Normandy, Aquitaine, during Cobra, and through the march into Belgium was only something which true shock troops could handle. On cliffs, hills, valley walls, and seawall, rangers lead the way.

I have to vote for the Rangers too, as Army ranger units have served as elite infantry in major battles since the Revolutionary War. The Marines played a much smaller role in conflicts before World War I, although the Germans did consider the "Devil Dogs" to be shocktrooper quality.

Just have to say though that really Special Forces/Seals/etc shouldn't be on the list, as they rarely if ever are engaged in head-to-head battles but rather work behind the scenes.

[Captain Jin]

I have to vote for the Rangers too, as Army ranger units have served as elite infantry in major battles since the Revolutionary War.

No they haven't. There were two units of Rangers raised in the Revolutionary War and used as Light Infantry not elite infantry. They never acted, nor were they ever known as elite American infantry. In addition to that, aside from serving in the French and Indian War they were disbanded, re-raised in the Revolutionary War, and then disbanded again until WWII. Aside from the Rangers that served under the Confederate Army in the Civil War they weren't used again until WWII (disbanded again after the war until Korea), and in that instance you'll find about the only example of Rangers being utilized as a shock infantry sort. In Korea, and then in Vietnam they were not used in such a capacity, but rather acted as small special operations units that specialized mainly in raiding and and long range recon.

I'm starting to wonder if you guys have a grasp of what shock infantry is.

The Marines played a much smaller role in conflicts before World War I.

Interesting considering the Marine Corps has been in existence since before the United States whereas the Rangers have come and gone and participated in few conflicts before WWII.

[motiv-8]

I tend to vote for the Rangers, especially thanks to their actions at the Pointe du Hoc in 1944. Such deep, nearly unsupported penetrations, detonation of enemy artillery, and achievement of goals was quite the feat for such a small landing force. Can you imagine having to scale those cliffs, run across nearly open cliff-face fields, and face 4-5 concrete pillboxes? The solid wall of steel which met the Rangers at nearly every turn in Normandy, Aquitaine, during Cobra, and through the march into Belgium was only something which true shock troops could handle. On cliffs, hills, valley walls, and seawall, rangers lead the way.

Big deal, Marines did this many times over in the Pacific.

[Azog 150]

I voted USMC. I have always saw them as the unit that will spearhead the assault right into the heart of the enemy positions, with enough heavy fire power etc to pull it off.

On the other hand- Airborne are a bit more specialized and (Conventionally) are trained to drop in and hold an area. Not really shock troops stuff- they lack the firepower for that

Same with Rangers. They are a bit more specialized and nowadays (Correct me if I am wrong) they are more based on working behind enemy lines and working alongside spec-ops, not really for going straight in

[Heinz Guderian]

Interesting question, i wonder if anyone can tell me who were the "first in" in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? I'm assuming it was Special Operations? What about spearhead Armour? E.g. during the 1991 Gulf War.

[Azog 150]

First in isn't neccesarily what I would class a spearheading though.

For example, anairdrop by the 101st behind enemy lines would be first in, but thats not really the spearhead. They would be creating havoc and confusion, but its not really a head-on attack, and they also lack the heavy fire power. The spearhead would be the people that make the push to link up with those behind enemy lines (At least thats how I view it). So in that sense it would be the USMC with their heavy fire power

[Heinz Guderian]

First in isn't neccesarily what I would class a spearheading though.

For example, anairdrop by the 101st behind enemy lines would be first in, but thats not really the spearhead. They would be creating havoc and confusion, but its not really a head-on attack, and they also lack the heavy fire power. The spearhead would be the people that make the push to link up with those behind enemy lines (At least thats how I view it). So in that sense it would be the USMC with their heavy fire power

yes, this is a good point. But what about Armour? Who were the guys doing the "thunder runs" in downtown Baghdad? We now know that Baghdad's defence was sold out by a high ranking Iraqi General, but it still required shock troops to go in and seize it.

[motiv-8]

The main axis of advance was along the Najaf-Karbala-Baghdad corridor, composed mostly of the 3rd ID and elements of the 82nd and 101st AB. The supporting axis was along Highway 1 through Nasiriyah onto the eastern suburbs of Baghdad, primarily the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

The first armored thrust into Baghdad, the "Thunder Run" you refer to, was performed by Task Force 64 of the 3rd ID. The actual storming of the city was performed by both Army and Marine elements attacking from the south and east, respectively.

The Marines' "time to shine" was during the occupation and fight against the insurgency, IE Vigilant Resolve, Phantom Fury, etc.

For Desert Storm, the Marine Central Command composed mostly of the 1st and 2nd MarDivs were tasked with liberating Kuwait and turning away the Iraqi army while the Army Central Command -- VII Corps and XVIII Airborne Corps -- cut off the Iraqi retreat.

[Caelius]

I can't believe that people are talking about "America's Shock Troops" and no one has yet to bring up the soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division or the independent Armored Cavalry Regiments.







The 82nd and 101st don't really qualify for that definition IMO. Shock troops are found at the "tip of the spear" in any major operation, and typically go in with good old traditional heavy firepower. Nothing fancy, just "straight up the middle" so to speak.

That's what the Cavalry forces of the US Army have always done, I know it's an exaggeration but....the usual expectation of what happens when the Cavalry units are sent in is that everything in the immediate area will be smashed by the time they've completed their objective. The Airborne formations operate along a completely different philosophy of warfighting, they're more like the "Anvil" to the Cavalry's "Hammer".

There's no better example than simply looking at the US order of battle for the 2nd Battle of Fallujah. There's a reason why a Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division operated in conjunction with the USMC units during the assault.

If I had to take my pick it'd be the US Army Cavalry and Armored formations, the combat arms of the USMC, and the actual 75th Ranger Battalion (not the Ranger School itself)....in that order.

[Last Roman]

As just a regular joe (ie, no military experience) the Marines would be the first thing to come to my mind if I thought "shock trooper"

[Bleda]

Typically the Marines are the first in aside from any special recon units. Whether its supported by air power or armor, they typically comprise that tip of the spear in an major engagement.