Special forces before WWII

Number24

World war II is seen as the start of modern special forces, and many special ops units were born then. But were there special forces before WWII? Just to make it clear: there were elite units before then (French foreign legion, US Marines, Gebirggjeger units and even paratroopers). But special forces tend to be smaller units trained to operate far behind enemy lines. Their missions are often raids, sabotage and scouting. This is what I know: The Soviets backed special units in the Spanich civil war, conducting sabotage. I know of a Norwegian communist who was a member in such a unit. I belive the Soviets trained so called "diversionary units" at home. I found this in Wikipedia:

"October 22, 1938: During wargaming between units of the Russian Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok, a group of Soviet military divers exited a Shch-112 submarine through a torpedo tube, entered the naval base and completed certain acts of sabotage. These combat divers were equipped with oxygen rebreathers, dry suits, handguns and grenades. This did not lead to a permanent combat diver unit being set up, but it was the beginning of the history of combat divers."

I read in a book that the Italians too had naval special units pre-dating the famous divers in Decima Flottiglia MAS, training for raids with fast and small boats. It looks like the western democracies didn't favour special forces units befor 1939, but I read somewhere the French chasseur alpini (mountain troops) had a small long-range recon unit before the war.

There were units in earlier history that can be called "special forces" such as boer and the British had lang-range raiding parties during the Boer war, and the boer units and operation were called'commando'. Some ninja missions in old Japan could prhaps be called special operations. But let's restrict it to inter-war units.
Can anyone contribute more to this subject?

0073

Hi,

Very interesting question! Thank you for that.
To my knowledge, special missions units as we know them today were infact quite scarce or non existent as such. The broader military doctrine just did not support the idea of independent units with strategic missions.
But there were units that were part of the BIG army made up of men who possessed extraordinary skills or traits to make them "kinda-sorta" special forces. Because they were used as force multiplier in the battlefield. Such units could be the German trench raiders of the WW1, the Indian scouts of the american west, the Scout Snipers of the American war of independence, The sharp shooters in the myriad wars in Europe, the Hakkapeliitta's in the 30 year war all the way to the long bow men and charioteers in the historical times.

Some of these units were used as raiding- and recon forces, for targeted killings and to take important map points like villages, bridges and fordings in support of the big army.

So; it is a thin green line, and more of a semantic than historical question.

Number24

I knew of most of the units mentioned here, but not all. I was especially interested in the inter-war years and there is very little information on that. I think the advent of portable radio, dynamite, light automatic firearms and parachutes were the factors that made the special forces so popular in WWII. Now troops were able to drop far behind enemy lines, cause great destruction out of proportion to the number of soldiers and still be in contact with friendly forces. This is probably the reason most pre-WWII "special forces" were scouts and scirmishers.
I wonder why the western democrasies were slower than the dictatorships in developing special forces? One would think the individual freedom and initiative so typical of special forces would thrive more in a democratic setting.

0073

Number24 wrote:

I wonder why the western democrasies were slower than the dictatorships in developing special forces? One would think the individual freedom and initiative so typical of special forces would thrive more in a democratic setting.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because sometimes these special missions are/were seen as suicidal; the conventional doctrine calls for something like 3to1 advantage in offence for the operation to have any chance of success. In dictatorships the survival or voluntary participation of the troops are not factors.

Number24

You may be on to something. An other factor could be that the totalitarian stats were not only more militaristic, but their ideologies and military forces stressed agressive tactics more? Commando raids are after all agressive operations. The "winners" of WWI obsessed with defence and avoiding further great losses in war, while the losers of WWI fostered regimes that were set on revenge and taking back lost territories? "Winning" WWI made the western powers more concervative in their thinking, too.

Number24

Some special forces did not use parachutes and were not airborne trained, such as the Alamo Scouts and (I belive) the LRDG. But most special opes units were airborne units, so I think it was a factor. Not the most important ones, that's probalbly portable radios and efficient explosives. I too think many unrelated events and inventions led to the more widespread use of SF units during and after WWII. I also agree the seeds of modern SF was in WWII when they searched for ways to end the stalmate of trench warfare by using stormtroopers or shock troops.
German special forces in WWII performed other missions than being shock troops before Eben Emael. I know Brandenburgers performed sabotage and infiltrations of enemy lines dressed in foreign uniforms or civilian clothes in Denmark and Norway in April 1940, before Eben Emael.

Number24

I know the article about the Brandenburgers and I have read a couple of books about the unit. Soviet, Japanese and perhaps German special forces units in WWII are still largely unknown, but I find them interesting. I have even read books on special forces claiming USSR and Japan didnt have SF units in WWII!

Ornithologist

0073 wrote:

Number24 wrote:

I wonder why the western democrasies were slower than the dictatorships in developing special forces? One would think the individual freedom and initiative so typical of special forces would thrive more in a democratic setting.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because sometimes these special missions are/were seen as suicidal; the conventional doctrine calls for something like 3to1 advantage in offence for the operation to have any chance of success. In dictatorships the survival or voluntary participation of the troops are not factors.

Number24 wrote:

You may be on to something. An other factor could be that the totalitarian stats were not only more militaristic, but their ideologies and military forces stressed agressive tactics more? Commando raids are after all agressive operations. The "winners" of WWI obsessed with defence and avoiding further great losses in war, while the losers of WWI fostered regimes that were set on revenge and taking back lost territories? "Winning" WWI made the western powers more concervative in their thinking, too.

All valid points. Although while the U.S. didn't / don't have an aristocracy (France and GB certainly do), all the western powers had their own military traditions which weren't necessarily what we call democratic today. Nobility played a role, so did esprit de corps, and both (might have) contributed to their leaders' tactical conservatism. Their military leaderships never got the kind of shake-up which a dictatorial takeover entails.

The Nazis' and especially Hitler's contempt for the "old elites" allowed many more creative commanders from the lower and middle classes to rise through military ranks quickly, and in the beginning of the war, when he still listened to his generals sometimes, he usually favored those. The "blitzkrieg" strategy (which was never called that in German at the time) was developed and applied by precisely these commanders like Guderian and Rommel, while strongly opposed by the older ranks (the possible exception being Erich von Manstein).

Does this necessarily apply to the use of special forces, too? I don't know. But my point is the militaries of Britain and France at the time weren't exactly oases of free thinking, which largely contributed to their early losses. In the same way, they might have opposed unorthodox ideas like Special Forces as a "threat" to their traditions.

Number24

True. Italy, Germany and USSR had shake ups in the inter war years. Hitler gained power in 1933, Mussolini in 1922 and almost all the Soviet generals were killed or imprisoned during Stalins purges in the 1930s. This might have given room for new thinking.