|WikiProject Germany||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 Stormtrooper
- 2 Canadians called Storm Troops by Germans
- 3 Merge
- 4 Does Naval Infatry count?
- 5 updates to this page
- 6 Canadian Stormtroopers
- 7 Move discussion in progress
- 8 Difference between Shock troops and Stormtrooper?
- 9 "Stormtroopers"
- 10 English translation of Laffargue's work ?
- 11 Laffargue's Tactics
German "Sturm" means "storm" or "tempest" but also "assault" and Mayan for "Elite"
That last sentence seems a little non-objective...
General Hutier was too cautious in using his troops and if he had spent less time consolidating his gains he could have broken far enough through the Allied line to win the war.
There's no proof that that would have won the war, so i've removed it. If anyone wants to put it back on then get a ref Ultre 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Canadians called Storm Troops by Germans
The below discussion is all over the place, this one is limited to nomenclature and doesn't address issues such as tactics.
The initial paragraph states that "Stormtroopers were German... etc." As alleged elsewhere, the term was also used by the Germans in reference to Canadians. Here are two references attesting to this: The first, is by Captain J.B. Paulin, of the British army (Canadian corps) the Empire Club of Canada. He specifically uses the term "Storm Troop", not "Stormtrooper": http://speeches.empireclub.org/62664/data?n=1 The second reference is from former British Prime Minister Lloyd George. Shown in the second paragraph of this page from Veterans Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/feature/fww/remembrance/90th_speced/last-100-days
- I think this article and Shock troops should be merged either under the name of the former or under Assualt troops which is the proper translation of the German name stosstruppen. Nik Sage • Talk Nik Sage 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the merge should be the other war around. Stormtrooper should be merged into "shock troops" initally with a redirect to that name and with a section in the merged article called Stormtrooper. Once done then we can discuss if the combined article should be moved to "Assualt troops". There are other articles around like fireteam which have to be considered if the article is moved to "assualt troops" so better one thing at a time.
However there is a complication with this. If is article is merged into "shock troops" then the disambiguation page Stormtrooper (disambiguation) should be moved here because the term also has other meanings as the disambiguation page makes clear. If this is not done then there will be edit wars over which page the redirect should link to (Imperial stormtrooper or Sturmmann). I suggest that a new redirect is created of Stormtrooper (World War I) and all the current links to this page are edited to use that redirect. This should be done before any merge, as this will reduce disambiguation problems which can occure during such processes. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Phlip. Sorry for the delayed response, but I was busy for the last few days. There is a problem with the merge. Shock troops were used before von Hutier. For example, cavalry troops armed with lances were considered shock troops because of their implementation of shock tactics. I use the definitions of classical military historians, the like of Delbruck, which preceded and probably influenced von Hutier. If you don't like this historical instances about shock troops to be in the same article then find me an alternate name for shock troops before von Hutier. BTW in my opinion this shock troops article should be merged with stormtrooper under the title of assualt troops. That's the proper tranlation of Stoßtruppen. I also think it was originally written Stosstruppen and the alternate emerged after the 90s reform in the German language. Waiting for your resopnse. Nik Sage • Talk 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge? Stormtroopers may have been employed, -sometimes-, as shock troops. But didn't SS troops also run concentration camps? Hardly a task for shock troops. And, prior to the war, weren't they also employed for "political" duties, like "crystal night", and wading into, and brutally disrupting, the competing political parties' conventions and demonstrations? Also hardly the task of shock troops. I think this merge is a really, really, bad idea. — Geo Swan 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, you are mixing up different types of German soldiers. The SS stands for Schutzstaffel which began as a praetorian guard for Hitler and became a fighting force which was seperated from the Wehrmacht. The Crystal Night pogrom was done by the ordinary German citizens and the Sturmabteilung , i.e. the storm divison (which is frequently refered to as stormtroopers. The Stosstruppen was a German unit developed during WWI. I agree there is some confusion with the terms and articles. I'm waiting for Philip's response before I'll start editing. Nik Sage • Talk 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. The terms being used, IMO, preclude any merging of these articles. Terms like assault troops, shock troops or impact troops all apply generically to combatants who have received additional training specifically to achieve a short term, battlefield, tactical advantage. As a military genre these forces would include such units as norse bezerkers as well as WWI German Army Stormtroopers. The use of the term Stormtroopers is an anglicisation of a German phrase which has become accepted terminology in English. As with most translations there is a grey area of usage but generally the term Stormtrooper is used, militarily, to define German assault troops using special training and tactics as described in this article. There is also some seeming confusion with the SS, the SA and the term Stormtroopers. The Stormtroopers were the SA, while the SS were originally a bodyguard for the party leader, with their loyalty directly to the leader, Adolf Hitler. It is most likely that Hitler saw this as being necessary since the SA's loyalty would seemingly lie with their own leader, Ernst Rohm. The role of the SS though was varied. The combat element, the Waffen (Armed) SS fought as politicised soldiers, although one division Totenkopf (Death's Head) was largely raised from the ranks of concentration camp guards. Interesting discussion. user:Daryn Reeds/ Darynreeds . 23.11, 12 February 2007 (Sydney,Aus.)
As I said before: I think that if there is a merge should be the other way around. Stormtrooper should be merged into "shock troops" initially with a redirect to that name and with a section in the merged article called "Stormtroopers". Once done then we can discuss if the combined article should be moved to "Assault troops". There are other articles around like fireteam which have to be considered if the article is moved to "assault troops" so better one thing at a time. The other possibly better alternative is to create a section in the "Shock troops" article called "Stormtroopers" and put a "Maim article" at the top or the section referencing this article. As two editor have suggested that the merge does not take place I would suggest that is the course of action to take at the moment. However the use of "Shock troops" for anything other than "Stormtroopers" and soviet formations is limited, and I suspect it used by post world War I historians to describe units in the past that had an impact like "Stormtroopers".
One other point assault troops would tend to imply troops used for an assault on a fortified or entrenched position. Usage would suggest that heavy cavalry can be called shock troops, but cavalry would not usually be called assault troops. Further now that the term "shock and awe" has been introduced to describe a blitzkrieg attack with emphasis on the air arm, I am not sure that combined arms attacks are best placed under "assault troops". --Philip Baird Shearer 09:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I am in favour of a merging. The meaning behind the terms are similar enough, though we should certainly make note of any differences between the words themselves, as well as any particular cases where the words should not be used interchangedly, presuming such a case exists. MVMosin 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the merge is necessary. Stormtroopers are German, whereas ANZACs in WW1 were often used as shock troopers. It would be a mislaying of information --Will James 07:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Naval infantry are used too land the first blow during an amphibious assault. They are usually highly trained, highly disciplined, and better equipped that "normal" soldiers. Naturally the nature of their works means that they will suffer heavy causualties. Shouldn't naval infatry (i.e. marines) be counted as stormtroopers? (Demigod Ron 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
In my humble opinion Marines, or other forms of beach assault units are an entirely different category from Storm Troupes as amphibious assault is its own discipline, separate from infiltration or trench clearing. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Matt
updates to this page
I have started a rewrite of the history section of this article.
I intend to also update the methods section later. It seems a bit confusing, and not exactly what was used in the First World War, at least not specifically by the stormtroops. Perhaps it is a left-over from when this article also covered other uses of the word Stormtrooper?
About "Hutier Tactics", I think the article (and that on Oskar von Hutier) should mention this in some form:
There has been some confusion about the name of these new German offensive tactics. After the German offensive of 1918, the French called the tactics "Hutier tactics," attributing them to General Oskar von Hutier. After serving on the eastern fronts, von Hutier was transferred to the west for the 1918 offensives, during which his Eighteenth army achieved the greatest successes against the enemy. The French credited him with the invention of the offensive tactics, and perhaps this erroneous conjecture provides another example of the personality-dominant thinking of the Allies. The first Allied reaction to the new German tactics was to attempt to identify an individual inventor. The Germans themselves never used the term "Huiter tactics," and recent research has established clearly that von Hutier did not invent these tactics.23 The tactics were the product of an effective corporate effort.
Also the word "Stormmann" does not appear to have been used about the Stosstruppen of the First World War. It seems to be a later word about men of the SA or of some Second World War unit? Lifelike (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- To add to the confusion, Sturmann was a junior rank (equivalent to lance-corporal) in the Waffen SS. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The referenced information about WWI Canadian storm troopers were removed from the page. Though most of the information seemed unnecessary, I find it unfair to remove all information of it with out a discussion. -Firedragon2133 22 June 2009
- More unreferenced material about the Canadians has just been added. I have to say I am extremely sceptical about what look like POV claims. The mere fact that the Canadians may have had something called storm troops does not make them Stosstruppen or prove that they invented infiltration tactics, still less that the Germans learned the tactics from the Canadians. The claims seem to contradict the earlier claims that the Russians invented the tactics. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I personally have somewhere information relating to German WWI soldiers coining the name of 'Storm Troopers' in reference to attacks BY Canadian Soldiers. Unfortunately I forget which battle is tied to it exactly but I think it is Vimy or Passchendaele (of course they are the most famous ones). To be accurate, I will look it up and supply the proper annotations. Canada in WWI, however did NOT have anything called 'Storm Troops' either as a casual name OR formal. If one is interested about the tatical side that has since been tied by name to assault/storm or shock troops, I DO recommend reading about Vimy Ridge.... and perhaps a glance at the 'Hindenburg Line' battles to get a better understanding of the tatics FIRST introduced by Canadian Soldiers. There are also some interesting segments and articles about how the German soldiers in WWI reacted to the knowledge that Canadians were across the lines.... Canadians weren't the only ones in WWI, but a careful review of history will definately inform those who think we weren't a force. Luckily once Candians were removed from direct British command and allowed to function independantly, our success rate went up markedly and our casualty count dropped MORE than significantly.
There is a definate place for Canadian references in this article. Mandatory I might add. (S.Sampson)
- Actually one really has to look no further than the "we" and "our" for POV. Seriously, though, there is a tendency in military science articles for any tactic or innovation to be claimed by many nations and tacticians. Tactics evolve, and no-one has a monopoly on ideas, so it is no surprise if various people come up with similar solutions to a problem, whether they copy each other or not. Often a name is ill-defined, and may mean different things at different times or to different forces. Unless there is very clear documented evidence of the evolution from one tactic to another, the best approach is to describe the actual tactic under discussion, as used by a particular force, and not to attempt to include antecedents, derivations or similar tactics. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I found a number of references to Canadians referenced as Storm Troops but all seem to be written after the war. The best I could do was that Sir Basil Lidell Hart wrote that in 1918 at Amiens "it was more important to conceal from the enemy the intentions of the Canadian Corps than any other formation. Regarding them as storm troops, the enemy tended to greet their appearance as an omen of a coming attack". This however refers to the use to which the Canadian forces were put in 1918 rather than to any particular regiment or unit within the corps. There is a reasonable argument to include that Canadians formalized the process of trench raiding to strengthen the intelligence, beginning in 1916 under Victor Odlum’s leadership, and that they certainly excelled in the process. However, it is not reasonable to suggest that they invented this tactic, nor that they were the first to have the words Storm Troops applied to any section of their forces. As outlined in Tim Cook's excellent books on the subject of Canadians in WWI they were far too amateurish and small an organization to have much of an impact in 1915 and 1916. The battles at 2nd Yypres in 1915 were successful because the Canadians had to defend rather than attack, and it should also be noted, that the Canadian GIC Alderson had many as 20 British Battalions under his command in the first few days of that battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stschofield (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In the reference to canadians we have a problem. Half of the article talk about the german development of the Stormtrooper units since 1915, but when the article arrives to the canadian section, it says that germans copied the stormtrooper idea from canadians !!, who used they in Vimy. This is highly contradictory --Bentaguayre (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I have delted the paragraph. Whether or not Canadians were referred to as storm troops is beside thepoint. The article is not about anyone who as ever been described as storm troops; it is, as the first line says, about the German troops trained in Hutier tactics. Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know any of the annotation but in reference to Canadian stormtroops... canada never called anyone a storm trooper. It was, in fact something the GERMANS called candians. The name was then addapted to be used to refer to the soldiers mentioned in this article. Anyways, canada never called them that, germans called canadians that and it was entirely informal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Imperial stormtrooper which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Imperial stormtrooper was moved to Stormtrooper (Star Wars), so no longer affects this page. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Difference between Shock troops and Stormtrooper?
A few years back, it was proposed that the two articles, Shock troops and Stormtrooper, be merged. Even though a few more editors were in favor than against, the merge didn't happen, mostly just from lack of conviction and confusion about what these two terms mean.
The confusion is understandable. Both terms come from German – Stosstruppen and Sturmtruppen. These two words are usually directly translated as "shock troops" and "storm troops" respectively, but either may be more usefully translated as "assault troops".
That's the start of the confusion, but it gets worse. During WW1, Germany used both terms when describing troops involved in the same thing – infiltration tactics. After WW1, these tactics were reviewed and modified, and ended up mixing the terms even more. There wasn't any specific "official" definition of either that had any lasting use in Germany. Even if there was, these articles are part of the English Wikipedia, about the Anglicized versions of these terms, so must follow their current use of these terms in English.
If we are going to keep these two articles separate, we must make some distinction between them. Otherwise we have two articles duplicating each other – not allowed.
Here's the only distinction I can find. Shock troops spearhead direct attacks on enemy strong-points, while storm troops infiltrate and thus bypass strong-points (perhaps to be followed up by shock troops). That somewhat follows the name (shock implies a sudden all-at-once thing, while storm implies an ongoing thing), and somewhat follows the initial German uses. Thus medieval heavy cavalry might be an example of Shock troops but not Stormtroopers, and modern commandos might be an example of Stormtroopers but not Shock troops.
But all that just amounts to WP:SYNTH on my part. To avoid that, we need WP:RSs stating the distinction. Without those, we can't state a distinction, and therefore cannot keep these articles separate.
English translation of Laffargue's work ?
At present, the "Development of tactics" section of this article states that: "Infiltration tactics in the Allied armies were first formally proposed by French Army captain André Laffargue. In 1915 Laffargue published a pamphlet, "The attack in trench warfare", based upon his experiences in combat that same year. … The British Empire armies did not translate the pamphlet, … "
However, Wikipedia's article "Infiltration tactics" states that: "The British, like all combatants during 1914-18, made frequent use of wave attacks and translated and published Laffargue's pamphlet in December 1915." A reference and a link to the reference is provided. That references lists "CDS 333 A Study of the Attack in the Present Phase of War: Impressions and Reflections of a Company Commander (December 1915) [Translation of Laffargue Manual]".
It states that Laffargue's pamphlet was translated into German, but by that time "More sophisticated" German tactics had already been developed, on the infiltration tactics page it explains that the difference between German and French tactics at the time was that the French were wedded to the line, and the Germans were not, is there any additional differences that make the German tactics developed by Willy Rohr "More sophisticated"?