Talk:Shock troops

Names

An un-named contributor changed the link I had, to a dictionary definition of shock troops. That definition says it is a literal translation of the German stosstruppen. They changed the link to storm trooper. But storm trooper is a translation of sturmtruppen.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 31 January 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to speak more of the history of Shock Troops and the development of elite forces rather than about what Shock Troops are and what role they serve in military warfare. I'll try and htink of ways to expand and edit this entry to make it more precise and usable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beatdown (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "shock troops" is a translation of "stosstruppen" is definetely wrong, since "stoss" means "thrust", not "shock". I think it should be called an approximation, at best. --Kamagurka 06:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I think that Stormtrooper should probably be merged in here and become a disambig page. Any comments? Grant65 | Talk 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article and Stormtrooper should be merged either under the name of the latter or under Assualt troops which is the proper translation of the German name stosstruppen. Nik Sage • Talk Nik Sage 16:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Stormtrooper#Merge for more on this. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The two terms describe entirely different things, which merely share similar but distinct names. I see no advantage in merging the two articles merely because some readers are confused by the similar names. Geo Swan 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The two terms stosstruppen and sturmtruppen seem to apply to different types of units who have the same job describtion; there were the sturm battalions held in reserve at Corps and the stosstruppen battalions held at Division. Both however do the same thing: breaking lines. I think a good case can be made that they particular specimens of the same species, both falling under the category of shock troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.72.157 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tags; seems like the discussion died. MWShort (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Brusilov Offensive

Why doesn't the article mention anything of the Russian use of shock troops during the Brusilov Offensive? Since the offensive predates the use of Stormtroopers, it would definitely seem a relevant point. ASWilson 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What,, Only the Soviet Union?!

Surely in WW2 more than just the Sovit Union used shock troops. John 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I feel like there should be something said about the blitzkrieg through france. Weren't they the first to use armored spearheads combined with "shock troops"?74.104.126.137 (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they are the only army to use the term. But I think this article conflates two very different tactical ideas anyway. There's little connection between the Red Army shock army doctrine and WW1-type von hutier tactics. DMorpheus 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I think the German Sturmpioneers deserves a place in a section about shock troops. They are elite troops who recieved special training and equipment for breaking an enemy fortified line. That IMHO fits the definition of Shock Troops perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.72.157 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, German Wikipedia is more precise there. Felix Steiner brought the tactic to the SS in WWII. -- 89.61.165.190 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cavalry

Technically heavy cavalry are shock troops as well aren't they? AllStarZ (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, they are. since the civil war and before both mounted and dismounted cavalry have been used as shock troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.156.164 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WWI units of Russia

There is an extensive article on WWI Russian shock troops ru:Ударные части Русской армии. Perhaps someone could translate this into en: --Miaow Miaow (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix for Citation Needed in U.S. Civil War example

Propose changing this to: In the course of campaigning all of these élite units suffered heavy casualties, with 60% losses or more in some battles. The Stonewall Brigade, for example, lost 96 percent of its men by 1865.[ ref as given below with added information in a "note cite"]

NOTE: http://www.hoodstexasbrigade.org/pages/history.html Hood Texas Brigade sustained a 61 percent casualty rate. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Stonewall_Brigade Stonewall Brigade lost more than 96 percent of its men by 1865. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/6thwisconsin.aspx Union Iron Brigade had about 63% casualty rate at Gettysburg. http://www.historynet.com/the-irish-brigade-fought-in-americas-civil-war.htm Irish Brigade in total killed and wounded exceeded the number of men enrolled in it at any given time.

If no scholarly objections in a few weeks I'll check back and make the changes. SteamWiki (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Soviet Union

There is a confusion about Soviet WWII "shock armies" (ударная армия), see ru:Ударная армия. In particular, our article 1st Shock Army writes that in course of the war they lost their specific purpose dictated by the prewar military doctrine and were used in a regular military way. - Altenmann >talk