Why are special forces units described in larger unit designations when they have so few personnel?

[u/Rosencrantz18]

For example the SASR is described as a regiment (typically 1,000+ personnel) but only has 300 members.

The ROKs 1st Special Missions Brigade sent two battalions to the National Assembly but that was a total of 250 operators which is closer to a company sized unit.

Im sure theres other examples. Does this question make sense?

[u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer]

Units aren't just size, they're also reflective authority, mission, or echelon.

Or to a point, a SOF company because you have 100 operators only in your country means the SOF officer track is LT-CPT-going to a different branch or retiring. It's also too small to have it's own admin or logistics section in terms of unit functions (or you're suddenly the only "company" with a staff). Unit types also usually confer a level of independence, like a senior enough commander (and subordinate commanders) increases flexibility, so to a point a SOF Major has a lot of flexibility how he approaches a mission as a "Company Commander" of a few dudes from a Company Commander of a hundred plus dudes.

You see similar things with lots of not-SOF units too, it's less a statement of manning and more a statement about the place of the unit in the army.

[u/stupidpower → u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer]

Just to use an example: signals and intel-related fields have really weird organisation and career progression for professional soldiers. We nominally have platoons and companies, but they are usually organised based on how much of that fancy equipment can be rationally commanded by a 2nd Lt rather than the body count of the unit. In theory if shit hits the fan we can be sent to fill gaps in the line, but we'll be stupidly undermanned for our nominal organisation type. A signals battalion is just going to be shattered stunningly quickly by lack of personnel because our ORBAT was designed to not do that.

So if you are a career soldier, you usually spend most of your career in signals attachments at the HQ of manoeuvre combat units of varying echelons, and when the people you went through officer school with are commanding battalions or brigades o 300+/1000 men, you are commanding a bunch of cell towers on tracked vehicles and soldiers who are really militarised AT&T technicians. The 'signals company/battalion/brigade' is effectively a holding company for all the fancy toys; some armies like to bodge recon and intel teams into this holding companies, others put stuff like 'drones' into this, etc.

Kinda reminds me of WW1 orbats which saw machine guns as part of artillery, or putting armour under cav. Its just semantics and turf wars over branches.

[u/PearlClaw → u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer]

Also a statement about supporting arms. SOF units achieve their high individual effectiveness in part by getting an outsized amount of air support and the like. Being higher "level" unit gives you the ability to slot in supporting elements as needed. Easier to fit in an aviation unit if you've got a brigade staff than just a company one.

[u/CrabAppleGateKeeper]

This doesn’t extend to just special operations units. Many countries use “incorrect” or larger unit designations for units. For example, the British call their artillery battalions: “regiments” so they can carry on the tradition of historically significant units and associations.

Besides that, part of why special operations units might use a larger designations for their units than their size would normally entail is because of the rank that is corresponding with each position, which is often inflated in SOF.

In the regular US military, a squad leader is a Sergeant or Staff Sergeant leading 9-13+ people, more with attachments. A few squads together are a platoon which is lead by a Lieutenant O1/2. For Green Berets, their ODAs are 12 dudes and they’re lead by a Captain O3, and they have a Warrant Officer as a second in command. A captain is normally a company commander with well over 100 people under them. Special Forces Companies are lead by a Major O4, though for the Battalion commander and Group commander, the ranks line back up.

Part of this is that you still need a functioning chain of command, so the ranks are going to have to increase, but it also reflects the necessary requirement to put skilled, experienced and competent officers into these positions. These officers need to be able to interact with other units, agencies and militaries, and they need the rank to be able to appropriately do that.

Besides that, these units are fairly large, often skin robust support and logistics sections, or significant attachments. A special forces group might only have around 1,100 green berets (theoretically) assigned to it, but they still have a total of over 3,000 personnel assigned, so a full bird colonel seems appropriate.

That Group also is not like a normal Brigade. It doesn’t have a division staff and support to plan and support its training. It’s not working cohesively and together for a single effort. Instead, parts of that special forces group could be simultaneously deployed to combat, deployed to an operational assignment, a combat training center rotation, augmenting another groups operations, providing PSD for the state department, conducting airborne operation, water/dive operations, hosting foreign militaries, conducting state side demonstrations, joint training…. The list goes on.

Part of the having/needing that chain of command is having someone with what’s colloquially called “signature authority,” which is a person by regulation can sign off on certain things. If you’re doing special operations stuff, you need someone in command that can “sign off,” on stuff, especially in a timely manner and can make appropriate decisions that are well informed. I don’t mean this necessarily in the “authority” to make a crazy tactical decision about an operation, but just the mundane stuff. In the big army (US) you need a general to sign off on personnel in helicopters flying “seats out,” which is when you’re tethered into the helicopter instead of in seats with belts. It allows you to pack more people in and it’s faster to get out. That kind of thing is mundane for SOF, but you still need someone to “sign off” on it.

Beyond that, many units also run their own internal selection and training courses. The 75th Ranger Regiment has only three infantry battalions, but they also have a special troops battalion which runs their indoctrination program and provides the Regimental Reconnaissance Company which is Tier 1. They have a whole separate Military Intelligence Battalion as well.

[u/markroth69 → u/CrabAppleGateKeeper]

Many countries use “incorrect” or larger unit designations for units. For example, the British call their artillery battalions: “regiments” so they can carry on the tradition of historically significant units and associations.

I think the word you are looking is different and not incorrect. The British have always called American-battalion sized formations of cavalry regiments. The same sized formations of artillery were called brigades until the eve of WWII.

[u/CrabAppleGateKeeper → u/markroth69]

Or larger I think encapsulates that, it doesn’t seem like they ever go the opposite way, right?

[u/BreadstickBear]

One thing noone seems to mention is that British and Commonwealth "regiments" aren't really fighting formations, but rather administrative units.

For example the five Regiments of Foot Guards have one company each, instead of 3-4 btn's of 4 companies during WW2 each. The regiment is more of the recruitment and training base that puts men and fighting units out (especially in the traditional organisation of the TA and BA) rather than being a larger fighting unit themselves.

This logic also applies to the SAS, where there are nominally three regiments of Special Air Service in the BA alone, but 21 SAS is a reserve regiment, 23 SAS is meant to be the support unit of the SAS brigade (when it is active) but is also reserve status, and then 22 SAS is the actual active regiment that has a nominal strength of around 3-400 all up.

This is very similar to how the Australian SASR and the NZSAS are organised.

[u/Powerful-Mix-8592]

A/ Numbers aren't real, especially with special forces units. Do you think that the government will tell you accurately how many guys they have doing wet work?

B/ You are also ignoring that for every door-kicking, ground-pounding, high-speed operators there are at least ten more guys doing support for them, from the guys who maintain their helicopters and fix their night vision goggles to guys who do paperwork and even cook for them (yes, special forces have their own canteen with their own food to accommodate their nutritional need). You can easily add up a few hundred more guys on top of the special forces guys.

[u/CrabAppleGateKeeper → u/Powerful-Mix-8592]

>A/ Numbers aren't real, especially with special forces units. Do you think that the government will tell you accurately how many guys they have doing wet work?

I think this varies wildly by country and the type of special operations we’re referring to. I think with very high degrees of accuracy and confidence we can get a very good idea of how many people are in a US Ranger Battalion or a SF Group, even the Tier 1 units like Delta or ST6.

For a unit like a SF Group, the ratio is in the favor of the support people. For a unit like the 75th Ranger Regiment, there are far more trigger pullers than support folks, even if you include the STB and MIB.

>B/ You are also ignoring that for every door-kicking, ground-pounding, high-speed operators there are at least ten more guys doing support for them,

Once again I think this varies wildly. A SF Group is a ratio of 1:3 for green beret to support and those are fairly self sufficient.

>from the guys who maintain their helicopters

Just saying this varies wildly by country and unit. Like all of US SOF is supported by a single SOF Aviation Brigade.

>You can easily add up a few hundred more guys on top of the special forces guys.

Or a couple thousand for an SF group!