StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Whenever someone describe a particular military unit as "elite", many writers often doesn't really describe the actual quality of that unit. The popularisation of the view that the SS is an elite unit is one particular example. The Waffen-SS was given an elite status because of their connection to Hilter and the Nazi party. However, the actual training and combat quality of those troops can be known to be worse than many regular Wehrmacht units.

Another less prominent example would be the Roman army. While we do know that the soldier in a Comitatenses legion was ranked higher than an a soldier from a Limitanei Legion, there are not many evidence to support the idea that one is far more superior than the other in terms of combat ability. There is not much indication or evidence that suggest a limitanei unit is less well equipped or being trained differently from a Comitatenses unit. The same can probably be said regarding the Auxilia and the Roman legion during the Principate era.

So what are the clear examples where the units that were ranked as elites having a clear military superiority over other all the other average unit?

The Sacred band of Thebes comes to mind. The Roman legions as a whole. The Bucellarii of Belisarius. The Byzantine Tagmata (The comitatenses/limitanei split is mainly an idea from writers extrapolating from the Byzantine model of the seventh+centuries). The french gendarmes. The spanish tercios. The French guard regiments. The prussian regiments (both cavalry and infantry) of Frederick the Great. All those would qualify IMO.

ray245 wrote:So what are the clear examples where the units that were ranked as elites having a clear military superiority over other all the other average unit?

Polish Hussars? British Home Fleet? Nazi jet fighter units? Soviet Guard/Desant units? Napoleon's Old Guard?

Polish Hussars never showed up big except in the campaigns of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth and the Siege of Vienna. Nazi jet fighter units...no. Never accomplished much. Soviet Guard units did not enjoy a clear military superiority. The British Home Fleet...are you sure you did not mix them up with Nelson's Fleet?

Napoleon's Old Guard did indeed perform well.

When compared to the rest of the Italian Army, the Bersaglieri and Alpini had a superior performance (most notable in World War II), with the Alpini being rumored to have been acknowledged by the Red Army itself as the only invading force that left Russia undefeated (I've been unable to verify it).

Ther Royal Navy fleet under Nelson's command at and before Trafalgar would count methinks. They were not IIRC deemed "elite" compared to the rest of the RN but were definitely seen as superior by the French and Spanish navies.

I would also submit the SAS and other Special Forces units.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Ther Royal Navy fleet under Nelson's command at and before Trafalgar would count methinks. They were not IIRC deemed "elite" compared to the rest of the RN but were definitely seen as superior by the French and Spanish navies.

The RN of the time was easily the most powerful naval force on the planet, but its superiority over the French fleet was largely due to the complete collapse of the French as a result of the revolution. Don't forget that less than a quarter of a century earlier de Grasse had inflicted a strategic defeat on the RN, the thumping he later got at the Saintes notwithstanding.

If there's any British force that can be considered elite in that era, its the 95th Rifles.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Ther Royal Navy fleet under Nelson's command at and before Trafalgar would count methinks. They were not IIRC deemed "elite" compared to the rest of the RN but were definitely seen as superior by the French and Spanish navies.

The RN of the time was easily the most powerful naval force on the planet, but its superiority over the French fleet was largely due to the complete collapse of the French as a result of the revolution.

I would question that. It is my understanding that the British fleet had superiority in it's trained sailors, since they maintained an effective blockade of French ports, meaning RN sailors were trainin/fighting every day while French sailors were lucky to train once a week, and only in harbour.

To illustrate, there was a comment from The Trafalgar Compantion to the effect that a RN crew could fire, reload and fire again with a 32 pdr in one minute forty seconds, whilst a French crew on a comparable gun woudl take upwards of four or five minutes. That's a hell of an edge.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:I would question that. It is my understanding that the British fleet had superiority in it's trained sailors, since they maintained an effective blockade of French ports, meaning RN sailors were trainin/fighting every day while French sailors were lucky to train once a week, and only in harbour.

To illustrate, there was a comment from The Trafalgar Compantion to the effect that a RN crew could fire, reload and fire again with a 32 pdr in one minute forty seconds, whilst a French crew on a comparable gun woudl take upwards of four or five minutes. That's a hell of an edge.

All correct, but the reason behind that was the overwhelming preponderance of aristocrats in the officer corps of the navy of pre-Revolutionary France. This officer corps was, predictably, gutted by the revolution and the Reign of Terror, either by arrest or legging it into exile. The close blockade certainly made matters worse, but the lack of a professional backbone was the root cause of the problem.

Ah yes of course, I misunderstood your original post.

Still, I woudl think that the RN of that era would count as a justified "elite" force.

It does. The RN was the only Navy that managed to hold on to and develop a core of professional sailors. It did not matter how well-built the French or Spanish ships were if your guns manage 5 salvos to every 3 of them.

It's an extremely difficult question to answer because of a lack of clear definitions of what constitutes 'elite', 'military superiority' and the regimental history mysticism that characterises many elite units. If nothing else, many 'elite' units are regarded as such because the standards of entry are higher than the rest of the army, not because of their battlefield performance - and battlefield performance is often characterised by extremely simplistic metrics such as bodycount, which are useless without context. Certainly I find it hard to see how Nelson's fleet or the Roman legions could be considered 'elite' as opposed to 'better than their opponents'.

Thanas nailed something, at least by implication- standards of comparison matter.

In a milieu where most militiaries aren't professional, keeping a core of professional troops as the center of your military can give you "elite" status. Professional legionaires, professional sailors, professional mercenaries, and so on.

When all major forces are professional (17th-18th century land warfare, by and large), you get 'elites' by restricting entry requirements. Sometimes this helps, sometimes it doesn't: the Royal Grenadiers aren't necessarily more dangerous than the rest of the army. On the other hand, thinking they are can make them so- because there are a lot of battles that can be won by a unit which is convinced it's obliged to keep fighting after taking 10-20% casualties, the limit at which normal armies tend to break.

In a modern mass-mobilization environment, "elites" tend to be something of an illusion- except for that morale factor. The SS were never elite; they had equipment and manpower priorities at times which helped them stay strong while other German units were collapsing, but they weren't better than normal German units as far as I know.

The exception is special forces units, which are so small you can select for a handful of individuals with absolute dedication- that's the limiting factor in there again; a force of soldiers is often about as effective as it expects itself to be, and believes that it has to be. On the other hand, there are arguments against forming such elites or allowing them to grow large: see Viscount Slim's statements on the "Royal Corps of Tree Climbers."

Well, it's not like there aren't certain ways to determine a unit's military superiority besides looking at the kill-death ratio.

A unit that can often go against a much larger force and defeat them on a consistence basis could be labelled as an "elite" unit.

The issue I am interested in is whether those units that performed well in combat is a result of being given an elite status, or being able to perform well despite not being given any elite status. Just how much importance does the extra pay and welfare given to some units like the Praetorians actually translate into a better battlefield performance?

What is 'Elite' compared to also?

An example being Hussein's Republican Guard constantly and consistantly being described as 'elite'. Then getting utterly hammered in what few land engagements there were. They were notably better equipped and trained than the rest of Iraq's army, yes. But what about them being trounced by forces that are not self-described 'Elites'?

Nephtys wrote:What is 'Elite' compared to also?

An example being Hussein's Republican Guard constantly and consistantly being described as 'elite'. Then getting utterly hammered in what few land engagements there were. They were notably better equipped and trained than the rest of Iraq's army, yes. But what about them being trounced by forces that are not self-described 'Elites'?

Technically they got crushed by what is considered by most to be the elite units of the US Army. The 1st Armored Division, the 82nd and 101st Airborne and 3rd ID are basically our best as far as Divisions(although the 1st Infantry and 10th Mountain Divisions are on that level as well) and all 4 were involved in engaging the Republican guard.

Thanas wrote:Polish Hussars never showed up big except in the campaigns of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth and the Siege of Vienna.

In the campaigns of the Commonwealth around Thirty Years' War Hussars managed to score a number of victories against Swedes (then, one of the best infantry forces on the planet) despite showing up in smaller numbers (example), feat no one else managed to replicate.

Nazi jet fighter units...no. Never accomplished much.

They did not, but only due to enemy numbers. Question in the OP was if there was a force better than any else in the period - and seeing jets had both equipment and manpower (since all pilots were fighter aces) superiority, I think they qualify.

Same can be said about Panzer-Lehr-Division - best tanks and personnel in the period, did not accomplished much due to enemy aircraft.

Soviet Guard units did not enjoy a clear military superiority.

They did enjoy better men and equipment than most of the Soviet army, or indeed most armies of the period.

The British Home Fleet...are you sure you did not mix them up with Nelson's Fleet?

Seeing no one else came close to number of trained men, best ships on the planet, and force projection capabilities until US Navy decided to outweight rest of the planet, I'd think they qualify, too. Even Hochseeflotte had on average smaller, worse armed ships and less confident personnel despite a few procedural advantages.

Though, yes, I meant Nelson and XIX century UK navy too, despite it not being technically called Home Fleet back then.

ray245 wrote:The issue I am interested in is whether those units that performed well in combat is a result of being given an elite status, or being able to perform well despite not being given any elite status. Just how much importance does the extra pay and welfare given to some units like the Praetorians actually translate into a better battlefield performance?

Think of it like this: off the top of my head, I can think of three kinds of 'special' military units.

There's combat troops. These are the units you send in when it's desperately important, when the mission is especially challenging by regular infantry standards, when you need a fast victory that would otherwise seem difficult, and so on. Insert blather about special forces and so on here.

There's parade troops. These may not be exclusively for parades and you might not think there's anything about it, but they do need to do a lot of extra training and selective recruitment to look that good. Think of the Blue Angels in the US Air Force: they're professional formation-flyers. I doubt they'd do any better than anyone else in combat, so they're not what we normally think of as elites.

And there's regime protection troops. These soldiers are chosen for political reliability, not superb battlefield skill. They need to excel at controlling civilian populations and protecting the head of government. As a practical matter, they're usually also very good at staging military coups: they know how to subdue the capital city without breaking it, they have plenty of access to the levers of power, and so on. Because of this, they're carefully picked by the ruling authority to be trustworthy. Often such a unit includes foreign soldiers loyal only to the ruler, or members of the ruler's own clan or faction- whatever works to get political reliability.

The Praetorians were regime protection troops. Nothing special on the battlefield as far as I know, at least compared to a normal legion. All the extra pay and honor wasn't there to make them combat troops: it was to make them loyal enough to protect the ruling emperor against his political enemies.

Block wrote:

Nephtys wrote:What is 'Elite' compared to also?
An example being Hussein's Republican Guard constantly and consistantly being described as 'elite'. Then getting utterly hammered in what few land engagements there were. They were notably better equipped and trained than the rest of Iraq's army, yes. But what about them being trounced by forces that are not self-described 'Elites'?

Technically they got crushed by what is considered by most to be the elite units of the US Army. The 1st Armored Division, the 82nd and 101st Airborne and 3rd ID are basically our best as far as Divisions(although the 1st Infantry and 10th Mountain Divisions are on that level as well) and all 4 were involved in engaging the Republican guard.

We could probably have trounced them with National Guard formations; they were pretty broken.

What wrecked the Iraqi military in such a lopsided way was the doctrinal divide. Iraq was pretty well prepared to refight the Iran-Iraq War, which like World War One, only with better weapons. Their command structure was rigid, their tactics designed to fight big pitched battles over static positions, and their troops not really trained to handle mobile, technology-intensive warfare. So even the equipment they had didn't do them as much good as it could have.

Which kind of shows you the limits of "elite" status: an "elite" cavalry unit that forms up with lances and charges a wall of enemy riflemen is going to die as fast as anyone else.

Irbis wrote:Nazi jet fighter units...no. Never accomplished much.

They did not, but only due to enemy numbers. Question in the OP was if there was a force better than any else in the period - and seeing jets had both equipment and manpower (since all pilots were fighter aces) superiority, I think they qualify.

Same can be said about Panzer-Lehr-Division - best tanks and personnel in the period, did not accomplished much due to enemy aircraft.[/quote]German jets were piloted either by very good pilots (with years of experience; someone saying "okay, let's give you the last plane in Germany since you're the best pilot")... or very bad pilots, trainees with little or no experience flying aircraft, because trying to train used up precious fuel and made you a target for wandering American Mustangs.

Is that combination "elite?" Hard to say.

Soviet Guard units did not enjoy a clear military superiority.

They did enjoy better men and equipment than most of the Soviet army, or indeed most armies of the period.

Could you please cite? Or could Thanas maybe cite? I don't know who to believe...

The British Home Fleet...are you sure you did not mix them up with Nelson's Fleet?

Seeing no one else came close to number of trained men, best ships on the planet, and force projection capabilities until US Navy decided to outweight rest of the planet, I'd think they qualify, too. Even Hochseeflotte had on average smaller, worse armed ships and less confident personnel despite a few procedural advantages.

There were frequent design flaws with British ships of the WWI era ("There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today...")

For training the British were by that time about on par with everyone else, with the only major difference I can think of being a function of how often sailors get to go out on training missions. And the Germans could train; unlike Napoleonic France they weren't under close blockade of their own harbors, they could get into the Baltic.

For force projection they had the advantage of size working for them; Germany couldn't afford to put well-protected coaling stations everywhere on Earth, but Britain could.

To me, the way you're approaching this smacks of romanticization, which is always a problem when people start talking about elite units.

Block wrote:

Nephtys wrote:What is 'Elite' compared to also?

An example being Hussein's Republican Guard constantly and consistantly being described as 'elite'. Then getting utterly hammered in what few land engagements there were. They were notably better equipped and trained than the rest of Iraq's army, yes. But what about them being trounced by forces that are not self-described 'Elites'?

Technically they got crushed by what is considered by most to be the elite units of the US Army. The 1st Armored Division, the 82nd and 101st Airborne and 3rd ID are basically our best as far as Divisions(although the 1st Infantry and 10th Mountain Divisions are on that level as well) and all 4 were involved in engaging the Republican guard.

You've just named half the divisions in the Army. Does anyone seriously think the US Army beat the shit out of the Iraqis twice because the unit were 'elite' or because the US had massive qualitative advantages across the board? For another example - look at the US Army in Vietnam. Even scrubber units like the Americal routinely touched up PAVN/PLAF equivalents - not because they were 'elite' (they weren't in any sense) but because the US had enormous advantages in firepower and mobility.

These examples might suggest that the whole paradigm of 'elite' units is essentially a fallacy. I'd suggest units are either 'elite' because they are consciously recruit the physically and mentally best soldiers, or a particular group of personnel peak in terms of combat experience, training, command etc - and these units are extremely hard to identify because they are defined purely by performance, not overt status, and battle simultaneously proves and exhausts that. They are not the same as armies like the Roman legions, or Frederick the Great's armies, or the modern US Army, whose sustained excellence is the result of a superior military system across the board.

Irbis wrote:

Nazi jet fighter units...no. Never accomplished much.

They did not, but only due to enemy numbers. Question in the OP was if there was a force better than any else in the period - and seeing jets had both equipment and manpower (since all pilots were fighter aces) superiority, I think they qualify.

The fighter jets do have other problems that resulted in them not being tactically effective. Take for example, the issue of maintenance and fuel. This severely restrict the jets fighting ability. This is one good example of a fighting unit that was only "elite" unit on paper.

thejester wrote:These examples might suggest that the whole paradigm of 'elite' units is essentially a fallacy. I'd suggest units are either 'elite' because they are consciously recruit the physically and mentally best soldiers, or a particular group of personnel peak in terms of combat experience, training, command etc - and these units are extremely hard to identify because they are defined purely by performance, not overt status, and battle simultaneously proves and exhausts that. They are not the same as armies like the Roman legions, or Frederick the Great's armies, or the modern US Army, whose sustained excellence is the result of a superior military system across the board.

One of the more modern examples would be the Gurkas regiments. They have a very strict criteria of entry, and have very good combat performance to back up their reputation.




The issue I have with quite a number of history books is that the authors tend to describe or paint a particular unit as elite without further elaboration. This gave many readers and especially war gamers a false idea about those units.

This is perhaps one of the main reason why so many computer games and war games portray the Waffen-SS or even the Praetorians as an elite unit with better stats.

Is not there also a problem that many elite units were not actually good at fighting and picked for political reliability ?

Irbis wrote:In the campaigns of the Commonwealth around Thirty Years' War Hussars managed to score a number of victories against Swedes (then, one of the best infantry forces on the planet) despite showing up in smaller numbers (example), feat no one else managed to replicate.

And again, they did not leave such a lasting impact that people sought to emulate them across the board, which is in no small part due to the different terrain in Europe. If you want elite polish cavalry then the polish forces employed by Napoleon might be better qualified IMO.

Same can be said about Panzer-Lehr-Division - best tanks and personnel in the period, did not accomplished much due to enemy aircraft.

Soviet Guard units did not enjoy a clear military superiority.

They did enjoy better men and equipment than most of the Soviet army, or indeed most armies of the period.

The two examples above show that elite "among a given army" does not mean "elite".

Seeing no one else came close to number of trained men, best ships on the planet, and force projection capabilities until US Navy decided to outweight rest of the planet, I'd think they qualify, too. Even Hochseeflotte had on average smaller, worse armed ships and less confident personnel despite a few procedural advantages.

Sorry, but no. If your performance does not seperate you from the rest of the pack (and you cannot say that the performance of the Home Fleet was pound per pound better than that of the USN or the HSF) then you are not an elite force.

Simon_Jester wrote:The Praetorians were regime protection troops. Nothing special on the battlefield as far as I know, at least compared to a normal legion. All the extra pay and honor wasn't there to make them combat troops: it was to make them loyal enough to protect the ruling emperor against his political enemies.

No. That is wrong - certainly they were regime protection troops but there are several emperors who used them as his shock troops on campaign, where they fought very hard and very well. See Trajan, Domitian and Septimius Severus (who picked the best of his veteran danube legionnaires to form his praetorian guard).

**********************************

ray245 wrote:This is perhaps one of the main reason why so many computer games and war games portray the Waffen-SS or even the Praetorians as an elite unit with better stats.

The Praetorians should have better stats.

**********************************

thejester wrote:These examples might suggest that the whole paradigm of 'elite' units is essentially a fallacy. I'd suggest units are either 'elite' because they are consciously recruit the physically and mentally best soldiers, or a particular group of personnel peak in terms of combat experience, training, command etc - and these units are extremely hard to identify because they are defined purely by performance, not overt status, and battle simultaneously proves and exhausts that. They are not the same as armies like the Roman legions, or Frederick the Great's armies, or the modern US Army, whose sustained excellence is the result of a superior military system across the board.

I would argue that the true elite would be a mixture of several, if not all, of these criteria. Take for example the Roman legions.

a) Recruitment - check, only a very small portion of the populace would qualify (0.5-3% of all males between 18-21).
b) training, command, combat experience - check. They had the hardest training of their day and were the first to carry a professional officer/NCO corps
c) status - check. I don't think I need to elaborate on that one, or the pay and veteran benefits.
d) Performance - check.
e) Superior military system across the board - check.

Thanas wrote:

ray245 wrote:This is perhaps one of the main reason why so many computer games and war games portray the Waffen-SS or even the Praetorians as an elite unit with better stats.

The Praetorians should have better stats.

But the Praetorians weren't necessary heads and shoulders above the rest of the legions. The mere fact that Septimus Severus dismissed the existing Praetorians and replaced them with his own Danubian troops is an indication that there isn't a huge disparity between a veteran legion and the Praetorians.

Wasn't the Praetorians defeated at the battle of milvian bridge as well?

ray245 wrote:But the Praetorians weren't necessary heads and shoulders above the rest of the legions. The mere fact that Septimus Severus dismissed the existing Praetorians and replaced them with his own Danubian troops is an indication that there isn't a huge disparity between a veteran legion and the Praetorians.

Yes there is because a) he took care to select only the best for his Guard, aka not simply Joe Schmuck b) he dismissed the existing guard because they were politically unreliable c) We have the Praetorians forming the core of the Roman Field Armies at that point.

"Head and shoulders above" is a pretty subjective term. Was one Guardsmen worth two legionnaires? Maybe not. But was he on average, especially in the Age of Vespasian, Trajan and Severus better? Sure.

Wasn't the Praetorians defeated at the battle of milvian bridge as well?

Every army in history has suffered defeats. There is no undefeated unit in history.

Thanas wrote: Every army in history has suffered defeats. There is no undefeated unit in history.

Doesn't the Praetorians have a pretty poor track record whenever they are going against various rebelling Roman armies? Forming the core of the field armies doesn't necessary mean they are much better than the average legion, especially the veteran legions who have gone through a number of wars.