Question on a troop type.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

What the hell are shock troops? I have seen references to them for both German and Soviet troops durring WWII. What were they? Fanatics with flamethrowers trying to scare the enemy? Or were they so effective at fighting that they "shocked" the other side into inaction? I've always wonderd what they were, and why they were called "shock."

[ March 22, 2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

[Cpt. Cook]

They were MPs armed with tasers.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

I knew there would be at least ONE wisearse!

[Slappy]

Long prior to WWII, shock was close or hand to hand combat. Shock troops are just those intended to close with the enemy and destroy them in the last 50m, in very close combat if necessary. The Sturmcompanie(?) is probably the closest thing in the game and these formations tended to be ad hoc combinatios of SMGs, FTs, tasers, whatever was at hand to give overwhelming local superiority of firepower so that the attacker could shock and overcome the defender.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

What the hell are shock troops? I have seen references to them for both German and Soviet troops durring WWII. What were they?

As far as I know, "shock troops" has no particular definition in British or American military usage. I would guess that it is often used just as a piece of journalese meaning "good soldiers".

However, in both the German and Russian armies of WW2 there was a considerable difference between the mobile striking forces of the army and the broad mass of infantry divisions (often reliant on horse draught). Some authors may use "shock troops" to distinguish the fast-moving, hard-hitting units like Panzertruppen or Motostrelki from the relatively immobile ordinary infantry.

I believe that the German military judged unit quality on whether troops were of sufficient quality to make an assault, and although I have read the term "assault troops" used for these, I don't know what the original German is. It may be the same as that used for the "storm troops" in WW1, which of course acquired a political connotation in WW2 quite distinct from the task of leading an infantry assault. The idea, though, is that some troops are only good enough for holding the line, while others have the offensive spirit and training that makes them "assault troops".

I think it is "Once A Warrior King" that includes an account by an American officer serving in Viet Nam who was in charge of a Popular Forces platoon. They were intended to be a defensive militia only, capable of holding ground, but not regarded as good enough to conduct an assault; he was rightly pleased with them (and I think entitled to be very pleased with himself) when he led them is a successful assault against the VC.

In Russian, the term "Udarniy" is often translated as "shock", as for example in 3rd Guards Shock Army. In this case I believe it denotes a specific level of reinforcement for assault purposes. The word also has a transferred meaning to work practices; when I was in Leningrad, there was a "Komsomolskaya Udarnaya Stroika" building something-or-other just down the road. The term would translate roughly as "Communist Youth League Shock Construction Battalion". I have to say they didn't seem to get a lot of work done.

All the best,

John.

[JasonC]

The word "shock" in this connection was part of an older pair of military concepts (whose meaning changed over time - more on that below), the other being "fire". Shock action is action that destroys the enemy by having a formation pass through him, whereas fire action destroys from a distance. The distinction goes back to the era of musket and pike, and before it to medieval warfare, when the terms would be melee vs. missile action.

Originally, "shock" meant closing to hand strokes. It referred to the first clash of two opposing bodies of troops using hand held weapons - the "shock" of first onset. In a strict sense it meant just that moment of first onset - the "shock" proper - as distinguished even from subsequent, longer lasting fighting with hand weapons - the "melee" that followed if one side or the other didn't run away at the first "shock".

Both the "shock" and the "melee" came to be called "shock" together, to distinguish them from ranged or missile action, as the latter increased in importance. So shock vs. melee became shock vs. fire, with the former now including melee at hand strokes range as well.

In the era of musket warfare, the meaning shifted slightly again, from actual bayonet combat, to point blank fire at ranges of 40 paces and under, as opposed to ranged skirmish fire at 70 to 200 yards. What remains the same is the need to close with the enemy, before fighting him with means that are much more lethal at such ranges. Cavalry charges with swords or lances were also still shock action, obviously.

Now, the way a commander thinks about such things in the grand tactics of that era have a certain logic to them. A compact formation hits a looser one, or a deeper formation hits a thin one, or a more disciplined and determined one hits wavering militia - those are the things that bring victory in shock action. You think of it in terms of forming a tight "fist" of heavy forces and "running over" weaker enemy formations.

You do this only at selected points on the field. Then you move around that heavy "fist", to defeat scattered enemies on after another. Analogies to physical momentum are being used to understand what is going on. Speed times mass generates a measure of "force" or more properly of momentum. Call that "shock" tactical thought.

When the lethal ranges of the main firepower weapons were limited, and their effects small enough that tight formations were practical, it was particularly important. Then the nature of warfare changed, as magazine rifles, high explosive artillery, machineguns etc raised the importance of ranged firepower.

Formations spread out, to what in the old days was "open order", used for "skirmishing" and ranged fire exclusively. It becomes much easier for thin formations to defend a given length of front against any density or depth of attackers.

But assaults still go on. Now they are thought of as specialized parts of the fighting. It is a particularly risky task under such conditions to advance into the midst of the enemy formation, even if it is thin. To carry out such tasks more effectively, select units were sometimes formed - veterans or picked men, men equipped with specialized weapons or given special training, or men rehearsed for a particular role in a particular planned attack.

When such units were formed, they were given some special designation in planning. Whether that designation was made formal or not, how temporary or permanent it was, and the term used, varied from army to army. "Storm" or "assault" or "shock" troops were contrasted with "line" or "regular" troops. (Notice that with the term "storm", the analogy is to seige operations - the group that is first into a breech or to scale a wall is the "storming party"). In this period (WW I, basically), it designates a specialized breeching force, a first wave that leads the ordinary attackers.

The same term is carried over because of obvious analogies between the old role of a column of men closing to point blank, and the new role of such specialized "breeching" units. If you look along the line in such a plan, you see "line" forces at something like uniform density all along the front. At the points of attack, extra forces are massed to make the break-in and to exploit it.

You are "stacking" the men there, packing them in at more than "line" density". Some of the "extra" men compared to the "line" density are the "shock troops", that transform that area from one where you could defend to one where you can attack.

By WW II, that meaning remains but the term has again undergone some changes. Unit densities varied much more along the more mobile fronts than in the WW I era. Because of the danger of breakthroughs, deployments became much deeper from front to back, which increases the range of variation for the same number of troops. (Basically the troops are spreading out in 2 dimensions instead of 1).

Now look along the line and see where the unit density varies. It is higher where there are deep reserves. In other areas you have some uniform manning of the front, with modest reserves in some fixed pattern (2 up 1 back at regimental level e.g.). Those become "the line". The excess over and above them at any given point, are "stacked up".

Now, sometimes the designation "shock troops" would mean only specialized infantry assault units, the analog of WW I breeching parties. Or picked units with specialized training for such missions, whether being employed for that task or not.

But a looser sense of the term was also possible. All the "packed", denser portions of the formation in a given area, are there to create "shock" effects (compared to a uniformly manned line). That is, to repel assault by mass or to give an assault "weight", etc. So "shock troops" can become nearly equivalent to "reserves". Especially since the connotation of "picked men detailed for attack" can looser carry over to any elite or specially powerful formation e.g. a reserve tank corps.

There is no direct military equivalence between all the functions of reserves and the idea or function of assault or breeching troops. But there is a similarity of deployment - greater depth, column vs. line. And the mass and momentum analogies to physical intuition may also carry over (though that may depend on the use made of a reserve).

What does any given use of the term mean, in a WW II case? It varies. Sometimes it means any force *used* for an assault or breeching action - a WW I usage. Sometimes it means any unit *formed* for that purpose, whether actually used for that or not - a *planned* WW I use formalized and added to a unit name. These uses are particularly common for *small infantry* formations - a shock company or battalion.

Sometimes it means whatever forces are added to an area to concentrate there, whether for an assault, or in reserve. This usage is particularly common in operational analysis - divisions and corps on large scale maps. Sometimes it is a formal designation added to the name of a unit formed (or more exactly, organized out of sub-units) because it is *planned* to use them that way, whether they are used that way or not. This last usage is basically restricted to very large Russian formations - "3rd Guards Shock Army" e.g.

Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had governing ideologies that used military terminology of the WW I era for political and other social designations. The Germans called things "storm" this or that as a generalized way of saying "select" or elite or first to do something hazardous, as a reference to storming parties in WW I trench fighting. Similarly, the Russians called things "shock" this or that with the same sense, of select, trusted, leading formations for this or that. That is where designations like "shock worker" come from.

I hope that explains the evolution of the concept.

[ March 23, 2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Thanks for the great explination JasonC! Are you a military history professor?!

Thanks guys for the responces. This sheds light on the subject for me.