Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just because GW throws these classifications around doesn't mean they are correctly used. So just because GW says Cadian are shock troops and Elysians are special forces doesn't make it true. Elysians are shock troops, the D-99 are more like special forces. Cadians are portrayed as line troops, not as any sort indoctrinated formation for pushing through enemy lines to generate weak points. Karsikins are the Cadian special forces and shock troop. A whole army of shock troops just move an enemy line back, they don't create the localized moment of weakness that shock troopers do.

The label of Cadians as shock troops originated from 2nd edition when GW wasn't sure if regiments were self contained armies or that an IG army was different IG regiments being specialist that intermixed into that army, where GW thought about using "Cadian Shock Troopers" in the same way they use Fire Dragons or Striking Scorpions as distinct units. Its one reason why the 2nd edition IG regiments all seemed to have distinct specialties.

The question in the thread title seems redundant. Shock Troopers often are a form of special forces . You can be both.

LordofHats wrote:Shock Troopers often are a form of special forces

Uh. Since when? They've got two radically different definitions.

Try a dictionary before posting nonsense all over the internet.

SaintHazard wrote:
Uh. Since when? They've got two radically different definitions.

Try a dictionary before posting nonsense all over the internet.

Definitions? It's hard to define something when the words are used so loosely as you see here. Read a book on military history. It's better.

The German Stosstruppen were classified as special forces. So were the Aditi of WWI. US Army Rangers too. All were formed and organized to fulfill the role of shock troops. Depending on how you look at it you could even call the Airborne shock troops.

Shock Trooper is a combat role. Special Forces denotes a type of military unit that can broadly be called one with more advanced training, experience, and often better equipment that operate in a more specialized chain of command for specific tasks. You can in fact be both. Not all Shock Troops are Special Forces but the title implies a comparison of a combat role and a form of unit organization. They do not mutually exclude one another. Both terms are used rather loosely though so a lot of people get confused as to their meaning. Nothing excludes Special Forces from assuming the role of Shock Troops (EDIT: Well, you could say it's not cost efficient to maintain a Special Forces unit to fulfill the role general units should be capable of in the first place). It's a meaningless comparison.

Most modern special forces units evolved from units of shock troop. The main difference is the tactical and strategic use of the unit. Special Forces are insertionary units that operate within the clandestine towards strategic ends. Shock troops, are more of an advance tactical force. The distinction being the scope of what they want to accomplish. Shock troops act on missions to turn the tide of battle, while special forces act in roles to deal with threats and targets that impact a larger scope, the war or campaign.

aka_mythos wrote:Most modern special forces units evolved from units of shock troop. The main difference is the tactical and strategic use of the unit. Special Forces are insertionary units that operate within the clandestine towards strategic ends. Shock troops, are more of an advance tactical force. The distinction being the scope of what they want to accomplish. Shock troops act on missions to turn the tide of battle, while special forces act in roles to deal with threats and targets that impact a larger scope, the war or campaign.

If all you ever used to define Special Forces were movies and video games and the last 50 years you'd be correct, but that's not what Special Forces are. Special Forces is simply a unit trained and equipped to perform a tasks that general troops are not capable of or whom could not achieve the objectives effectively. They aren't limited to strategic ends. You seem to have over defined the words based on a notion of how they are presented in fictional media and what they do today in modern militaries. If we were to use your definition of special forces, most special forces wouldn't really be special forces. The oldest role of special forces is force multiplication, which isn't strictly strategic and many modern special forces still fill that role (US Army Rangers). You also seem to be under the illusion that Special Forces are somehow new. Special Forces are present in militaries going back thousands of years. Just because their primary role is now in more abstract and unconventional fields of warfare doesn't change how the phrase is defined.

The purpose of shock troops wasn't to turn the tide of battle. Shock troops were merely combat units used to lead assaults; specially trained forces filled the role during WWI and WWII. Specially trained troops is the definition of Special Forces. The goal of any military asset is to turn the tide of battle. By your definition everything is a shock troop, right down to the guys driving supply trucks so the soldiers don't starve on the front lines. Being special forces doesn't exclude you from the role of shock troops. We still use special forces as shock troops in some cases.

We don't see Special Forces used as shock troops much anymore because modern militaries no long believe it cost efficient. Any standard infantry force should be capable of launching such assaults without the need for specialized troops. What Rangers and Aditi were specially trained to do is now considered a standard ability for any properly trained infantry force.

The Initial release of the Cadian's new line if I remeber was built around the Shock Mentality. Just because they are guard doesnt men they cant be shock troops. Like with anything in this setting the 40k universe is what you make it! If you think there is good in the Imperium then there is. Not saying they are the good guys, not even close. But ITs not all Death and Despair and hopelessness.

With that said, You can have a Cadian Shock Army. Its what the Russians did. There were the Infantry Divisions and Artilliery Regiments and there were Shock Armies. What classifies Shock & Special Forces, and Line Infantry I believe depends on what you equip them with.

Space Marines have their own Line formations. See I think the Auxillery Companies like 6th, 7th, and 8th which are just Tactical Squads & Devestator Squads. They are not ALL small elite forces. Yes they excellence at Orbital Deployments, but once down there, they are front line Troops. Holding the beachhead while the rest of the chapter or allies deploy.

Same thing with Imperial Guard.
They have their Shock Forces. Specifically equipped forces that are mobile, close action forces. Special Weapon Groups Backed up by mobile Infantry Platoons. However, Im sure Cadians also have their "frontline" formations that just dig in.

About the only force I would say are not capable of Frontline operations are Sisters of Battle. Not that they couldnt. They just dont have the equipment. They cant have Longrange Weapons. They are built for Close actions. Which makes them more like Firebrigade Units (in WWII concepts.) Like the SS Regiments (not to make an idelogical comparison) Just, Elite battle groups sent to shore up where the line is thinnest. High Morale and campable of making more common soldiers around them fight harder! Whether through fear or inspiration.

So, in the end! Going to say that all armies in the Imperium are capable of all aspects of war. Especially Spacemarines. Afterall, the Imperial Guard cant wait around for a Chapter to come aid them if a Planet has to be taken. They sometimes have to do it themselves. Thus, Elysium Drop Drops Valks the whole Nine Yards come into play.

( I say no to proper puncutation!)

I gather that the Aditi were shock troops, but i've never heard or read about them in any WWI or WWII material i've seen.

LordofHats wrote:If all you ever used to define Special Forces were movies and video games and the last 50 years you'd be correct, but that's not what Special Forces are. Special Forces is simply a unit trained and equipped to perform a tasks that general troops are not capable of or whom could not achieve the objectives effectively. They aren't limited to strategic ends. You seem to have over defined the words based on a notion of how they are presented in fictional media and what they do today in modern militaries. If we were to use your definition of special forces, most special forces wouldn't really be special forces.

This is the Defense Departments definition... A military unit that performes

(DOD) wrote: Operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations often require covert, clandestine, or low visibility capabilities. Special operations are applicable across the range of military operations. They can be conducted independently or in conjunction with operations of conventional forces or other government agencies and may include operations through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces. Special operations differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, mode of employment, independence from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets. Also called SO.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/s/470.html
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/s/49.html

That's the definition I'd use. Me defining the ends of their goals is a paraphrasing of "hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives" since those are not conventional goals and do not insist upon the conventional goals of a battle.

LordofHats wrote:The oldest role of special forces is force multiplication, which isn't strictly strategic and many modern special forces still fill that role (US Army Rangers). You also seem to be under the illusion that Special Forces are somehow new. Special Forces are present in militaries going back thousands of years. Just because their primary role is now in more abstract and unconventional fields of warfare doesn't change how the phrase is defined.

Except only the 75th Ranger Regiment is a special forces unit. The rest are organized as elite light infantry and are considered conventional warfare forces.

Force multiplication is a measure of elite unit capabilities and not a measure of special forces units; though special forces are rated for because they are elite, they are not done so just because they're special forces. It is for the sake of book keeping more than anything else.

LordofHats wrote:
The purpose of shock troops wasn't to turn the tide of battle. Shock troops were merely combat units used to lead assaults; specially trained forces filled the role during WWI and WWII. Specially trained troops is the definition of Special Forces. The goal of any military asset is to turn the tide of battle. By your definition everything is a shock troop, right down to the guys driving supply trucks so the soldiers don't starve on the front lines. Being special forces doesn't exclude you from the role of shock troops. We still use special forces as shock troops in some cases.

You're taking a single color phrasing and using it as my definition. I was trying to contrast the scopes of the two, based on what I had said in previous posts. I don't think its necessary to repeat myself or right paragraphs in every post.

Heres how I would define: Shock troops are elite, specially trained, conventional warfare units, whose purpose as a front line combatant is to identify and exploit tactical weak points in enemy formations and battle positions and exploit them through mobility, speed, and insertional methods in conjunction with and through the support of more conventional forces.

LordofHats wrote:
We don't see Special Forces used as shock troops much anymore because modern militaries no long believe it cost efficient. Any standard infantry force should be capable of launching such assaults without the need for specialized troops. What Rangers and Aditi were specially trained to do is now considered a standard ability for any properly trained infantry force.

You're talking out your posterior. To make it clearer, the 75th Rangers are special forces, the rest of the army Rangers are shock troops. What I said was that the majority of Special Forces units originated from the specialized shock troop units. Yes while a conventional force can be used in the role of shock troops, that doesn't mean they are trained as shock troops and that is often to the failing of such an inadequately tasked unit.

I don't think you know all the differences between Ranger training and standard infantry training. There are aspects of overlap, and that overlap has grown as the emphasis on certain abilities have grown but there are still a number of distinctions. The lines have blurred because of the growing distance between units and the smaller operational sizes of those units.The main way modern shock troop units are used, are as the conventional warfare elements that directly support special operations.

By that definition, mythos, an unarmed diplomat can be an elite shock trooper.

Melissia wrote:By that definition, mythos, an unarmed diplomat can be an elite shock trooper.

Exactly.

Welcome to the DoD.

This is why nobody uses the government's definitions unless they're making money off of it.

aka_mythos wrote:Operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations often require covert, clandestine, or low visibility capabilities. Special operations are applicable across the range of military operations. They can be conducted independently or in conjunction with operations of conventional forces or other government agencies and may include operations through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces. Special operations differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, mode of employment, independence from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets. Also called SO.

Just because the DoD defines something as such doesn't make them factually or historically correct. Above is the modern usage of Special Forces and how the US Military and most modern Militaries now organize and deploy their Special Forces. Special Forces have been deployed in conventional combat. They still are in spite of the above stated mandate for Special Forces (And I'll add this sounds more like a definition of Special Operations than Special Forces).

Except only the 75th Ranger Regiment is a special forces unit. The rest are organized as elite light infantry and are considered conventional warfare forces.

The 75th is what I intended. And they are often deployed to operate in conventional roles of warfare.

Force multiplication is a measure of elite unit capabilities and not a measure of special forces units; though special forces are rated for because they are elite, they are not done so just because they're special forces. It is for the sake of book keeping more than anything else.

Force Multiplication is not a measure of elite unit capabilities at all. It a phrase used to describe a combination of elements or assets that make a military force more effective. The Multiplication factor is derived from what it would take to achieve that same level of effectiveness without said asset or element. For example, lets say that 50 infantry are going to assault an enemy position. The position is heavily fortified. We can give them a tank, or we can give them 50 more infantry to enable them to take that objective. The value difference between the tank and the 50 infantry is the multiplication factor. In the example, the factor is 2. You just enable fifty infantry and a tank through combined arms to achieve a goal that otherwise would have taken 100 infantry.

Being elite has nothing to with it. It is a measure of effectiveness. The same example could have been used saying that instead of a tank, we gave those 50 infantry support from a sniper team and a squad of Green Berets. In this case special forces are seen operating in conventional combat using their own nature to multiply effectiveness. This can be a boost to ally moral from having these elite soldiers present, or improved effectiveness from their greater experience and superior training etc.

Heres how I would define: Shock troops are elite, specially trained, conventional warfare units, whose purpose as a front line combatant is to identify and exploit tactical weak points in enemy formations and battle positions and exploit them through mobility, speed, and insertional methods in conjunction with and through the support of more conventional forces

Special Forces often engage in conventional combat operations even today. The role of Special Forces in warfare has shifted time and time again for thousands of years. They have always been and always will be practitioners of the unconventional, but in conflicts throughout history we've seen them perform conventional roles. They are differentiated by being able to do things standard forces can not. You seem to have a limited understanding of convention as it pretains to warfare. Convention is not limited to the role you perform in combat. Shock Troops is a conventional role; lead an assault and break enemy lines. But there are unconventional ways to go about it.

I don't think you know all the differences between Ranger training and standard infantry training. There are aspects of overlap, and that overlap has grown as the emphasis on certain abilities have grown but there are still a number of distinctions. The lines have blurred because of the growing distance between units and the smaller operational sizes of those units.The main way modern shock troop units are used, are as the conventional warfare elements that directly support special operations.

I think you have a incomplete understanding of military history. Shock Troops is a combat role. Not necessarily a kind of soldier.

I may have gotten sidetracked by my ramblings in my previous post and lost track of my point. This is what I'm trying to say:

Your definition of Special Forces leaves much to be desired. It doesn't stand to history, where special forces have been used as shock troops. In WWI, Special forces were created and took the name shock troops from the Stosstruppen, the most well known force at the time this transition was taking place. When conventional troops were proven unable to perform the role of breaking trench lines through conventional means, Shock Troops, special forces that used unconventional means, were created to perform a conventional task.

Being Special Forces doesn't by it's own nature stop a unit from functioning as shock troops and in history the only units actually called shock troops were special forces. As war evolved, militaries evolved with it and so does what is or is not conventional. We saw Shock troops in WWII because everyone expected another trench war. When that never materialized, what was then called shock troops began a transition to what are now modern special forces as war again evolved. The tactics pioneered by these forces were unconventional at the time they existed, but mostly are now considered convention. Fire teams for example were created by the Stosstruppen and adopted by other shock troops. In between the two World Wars, fire teams became standard convention along with other tactics they pioneered.

We just don't generally see Special forces in the role of conventional assault today because we don't need them for it.

This is why I defined shock troops using the Soviet Shock Army as the prime example, while special forces I defined via the British commandos.

Using historical examples rather than modern definitions-- I think they're more useful. The Shock Armies were effectively vanguard forces, trained in close quarters combat, house to house clearing, etc. The commandos were trained in sneaking around, silent deployment behind enemy lines, sabotage, etc.

Both were vicious combatants even when found outside of their primary role (war is imperfect-- you cannot always have the ideal force for each battle, and so you make due with what you have).

Melissia wrote:By that definition, mythos, an unarmed diplomat can be an elite shock trooper.

I said:

Heres how I would define: Shock troops are elite, specially trained, conventional warfare units, whose purpose as a front line combatant is to identify and exploit tactical weak points in enemy formations and battle positions and exploit them through mobility, speed, and insertional methods in conjunction with and through the support of more conventional forces

Diplomats are not conventional warfare unit and do not do any of the things I described. Learn to read.

SaintHazard wrote:Welcome to the DoD.

The DoD definition is correct. Because it is a cumulative statement that means that Special Forces do all of those things, while any number of other options or units or civilian groups may only do a smaller part. The definition doesn't exclude conventional warfare.

LordofHats wrote:Just because the DoD defines something as such doesn't make them factually or historically correct. Above is the modern usage of Special Forces and how the US Military and most modern Militaries now organize and deploy their Special Forces. Special Forces have been deployed in conventional combat. They still are in spite of the above stated mandate for Special Forces (And I'll add this sounds more like a definition of Special Operations than Special Forces).

The DoD defines how American Special Forces are used. So in America they make the definition of what they are now. Just because a unit is a Special Forces unit, doesn't exclude its participation in conventional warfare. The term special forces is not to the exclusion of the fact that they are soldiers and can function in a conventional role. It is just that when they are functioning in a Special Forces role, they are performing in the way the above definition describes.

Effectively Special Forces perform all those tasks on top of all the normal functions of a military combat unit, those additional roles are what distinguish them.

If you go back to my original posting I linked to the definitions... Special Forces are the organizational body of troops who conduct special operations. So in my original posting of this I said:

aka_mythos wrote:This is the Defense Departments definition... A military unit that performs: "Operations conducted..."

Let us take the definition even more basic... Special Forces are elite military units who specialize in unconventional warfare.

None of my above definitions exclude Special Forces from fighting in a conventional method.

LordofHats wrote:

Except only the 75th Ranger Regiment is a special forces unit. The rest are organized as elite light infantry and are considered conventional warfare forces.

The 75th is what I intended. And they are often deployed to operate in conventional roles of warfare.

My definition was not to the exclusion of conventional roles. I was saying Shock Troopers do "X" while Special Forces do "Y", where training for "Y" is what distinguishes them from from the former.

It is the same as saying Tactical Squad are the front line infantry of the Space Marines, while Assault Marines wear jump packs. Yes Assault Marines can take off those jump packs and fight as front line infantry, but what distinguishes the two similar things is the unlike quality.

LordofHats wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Heres how I would define: Shock troops are elite, specially trained, conventional warfare units, whose purpose as a front line combatant is to identify and exploit tactical weak points in enemy formations and battle positions and exploit them through mobility, speed, and insertional methods in conjunction with and through the support of more conventional forces

Special Forces often engage in conventional combat operations even today. The role of Special Forces in warfare has shifted time and time again for thousands of years. They have always been and always will be practitioners of the unconventional, but in conflicts throughout history we've seen them perform conventional roles. They are differentiated by being able to do things standard forces can not. You seem to have a limited understanding of convention as it pretains to warfare. Convention is not limited to the role you perform in combat. Shock Troops is a conventional role; lead an assault and break enemy lines. But there are unconventional ways to go about it.

I was not defining it as exclusive to the other. The whole point of my original point was to show the fine difference between the two types of units that are largely similar; that distinction is what I pointed out. Special Forces are both a conventional and unconventional warfare unit, though there is a higher emphasis on the unconventional. Shock Troops, while the may have some aspects of unconventional warfare training, are first and foremost a conventional warfare unit.

Conventional warfare is any act of military force to reduce the number of enemy combatants through open confrontation. The fact that the role of "Shock Troop" is constrained by a battle field role makes them a conventional warfare unit.

Yes even conventional fighters can engage in unconventional tactics, but that is not the same as unconventional warfare. Occasionally conventional warfare units will participate in an unconventional role, but it is not their primary purpose for which their training emphasizes.

LordofHats wrote:
Shock Troops is a combat role. Not necessarily a kind of soldier.

When I say Shock Troop, I am referring to units that have the additional training to better excel in that role. Through history there have been many units trained with that role in mind. I have never insisted upon the term as being exclusive and disallowing other roles or functions. These different terms can stack.

This whole conversation started because, Melissa wants the Caetus to be a SoB unit. I've been insistent upon the fact that doctrinally SoB are not a shock troop styled force that would utilize the sort of lander, because their style of warfare favors larger landing craft. This is not to say SoB can't be used as shock troop, just that they aren't organized at higher level as such.

LordofHats wrote:
I may have gotten sidetracked by my ramblings in my previous post and lost track of my point. This is what I'm trying to say:

Your definition of Special Forces leaves much to be desired. It doesn't stand to history, where special forces have been used as shock troops. In WWI, Special forces were created and took the name shock troops from the Stosstruppen, the most well known force at the time this transition was taking place. When conventional troops were proven unable to perform the role of breaking trench lines through conventional means, Shock Troops, special forces that used unconventional means, were created to perform a conventional task.

Being Special Forces doesn't by it's own nature stop a unit from functioning as shock troops and in history the only units actually called shock troops were special forces. As war evolved, militaries evolved with it and so does what is or is not conventional. We saw Shock troops in WWII because everyone expected another trench war. When that never materialized, what was then called shock troops began a transition to what are now modern special forces as war again evolved. The tactics pioneered by these forces were unconventional at the time they existed, but mostly are now considered convention. Fire teams for example were created by the Stosstruppen and adopted by other shock troops. In between the two World Wars, fire teams became standard convention along with other tactics they pioneered.

We just don't generally see Special forces in the role of conventional assault today because we don't need them for it.

I completely agree with you, I think you have been misreading what I've been saying.

I do not view the terms Shock Troop or Special Forces as being types of units so much as particular skill sets or roles different elite units have received specialized training for. The 75th Ranger Regiment is many things, they are Special Forces, the are Shock Troops, they are light infantry, they are airborne... they are all those things and more. It is just that Special Forces refer to one distinct aspect of their mission while the other refer to another. The special forces label is not anyone skill set but the combination of a diverse skill set.

Melissa took something I said to describe the distinction of the shock troop role from a more basic infantry role and then asked for how that shock troop role is distinguished from the special forces role. I was attempting to distinguish these two terms from each other, that through history have overlap and an intertwined past. They are much alike because of that shared history, but in more recent history have diverged.

I appreciate the fact that you're making an intelligent argument, more than anyone else here you've made a concerted effort to express in no uncertain terms a definition of these two things that is based on facts and not just raw opinion.

I completely agree with you, I think you have been misreading what I've been saying.

So... we've been disagreeing about... agreeing? Or was that just me?

Irony

Lol... good word play there; I think that nails it.

Anyways, I'm afraid I must agree with Melissia that overall SoBs are closer to shock troopers than Space Marines who are usually spec ops. Shock troopers aren't even neccessarily more elite than normal infantry they are simply frontline "first-in" soldiers. I know because the British called their WW1 shock troopers "Canadians".
To me the SoBs are alot like the the SS both in the fact that they are elite troops that strategically. you'd want in the thickest of the fighting and also that they routinely cleanse populations of "undesirables". (yes, another thread ruined by Hitler). They were elite but also shock troopers.

Marines of course are spec ops in the fact that they operate behind enemy lines, are tasked with the most important and time sensitive objectives. However, much to the chagrin of many dakkaites despite being the galaxy's least numerous troops the are by far the most developed fiction-wise. So for every traditional spec-ops chapter there are many other flavors of marines. Death Guard in their hey day for example where little more than WW1 General Infantry tactics-wise and Flesh Tearers prefer to fight by biting their enemies faces off. So in other words there's a Space Marine for any tactic or really anything you can think of.

Sisters of Battle are glorified police forces/suicide troops.

End of story.

Kanluwen wrote:End of story.

Do you just enjoy baiting Melissia?

Because you should realize that the rest of us are all rolling our eyes at you, and at her.

Nope, it's simple facts.

Sisters of Battle are not used in real combat formations, except when Astartes aren't available or when even the Adeptus Arbites are on the frontlines.

Pretty simple to find out.

Space marines are special operation warrior monks . sisters of battle are special force warrior nuns,marines are genetically enhanced super humans.sisters of battle are not genetic supermen in anyway there devotion to the emperor and man kind is what gives them there furious fighting ability marines in my idea are shock troopers and special operatives because the have a edge with being superhuman while the sisters are strictly special opps cause there not hulking freaks so space marines could be like the USMC Grunt and the sisters are like the SS no disrespect intended just it fits there comparison in history. political warrior body guards devoted to one individual-the emperor and the Inquisition is the Gestapo and the gestapo could do what the please like the Inquisition as long as it benefited to find the heretic the daemon the xeno The Mutant and kill it.if i rant im sorry

Sorry, but no. Sisters of Battle are completely useless in any kind of battlefield role, unless they're facing far far inferior troops.

Sisters are kind of a blunt instrument, you just point them in a direction and scream 'HERETIC!' then they go off trying to shoot them with boltguns.

With that i quote Duty Calls, By Sandy Mitchell,

'This is Commissar Ciaphas Cain,' I transmitted at once, swinging the bolter to take down a pack of hormagaunts that had leapt
over the heads of the Sisters on the left flank and were now bounding towards us with baleful intent. I noted the sudden renewal of
their fighting spirit with trepidation. Clearly at least one synapse creature was coming within range and the tide of battle was about
to turn, perhaps within a matter of seconds. 'Disengage and fall back!' The squad leader, who, now we'd come close enough to
distinguish one psychotic psalm-singer from another, stood out from the others by virtue of the chainsword and bolt pistol in her
hands, turned and looked in my direction. Like most of her Sisters she disdained the use of a helmet, despite the manifest
foolishness of such a course,2 and her narrow face was clearly visible, framed by the rather unflattering hairstyle common to most
women of her calling. Dark eyes glared at me from beneath a crudely cropped black fringe, which didn't quite manage to hide the
fleur de lys tattoo emblazoned on her freckle-spattered forehead.
Thin lips compressed in disapproval. 'We're servants of His Blessed Majesty,' she snapped, 'and not subject to the authority of
your office. Go and shoot a few malingering Guardsmen like you're supposed to, and leave us to our holy task.'
'You're about to be overrun,' I said. 'Getting yourselves slaughtered isn't going to help the Emperor very much, is it?'
'Our destinies lie in His hands alone,' she responded, turning to disembowel a gaunt, which had just discharged its fleshborer at
one of her comrades from point-blank range.

SoB aren't either just because both shock troops and special forces by their definition require the SoB to be military when they are only paramilitary.

The assertion that space marines are Special Forces, actual sell them short; as its already been discussed labels like shock troops and special forces will only represent individual aspects of a military unit. Now looking more closely at space marines, I would say they have many units that act like special forces, but I wouldn't say the whole chapter is a special operations force. Sternguard/Vanguard/Deathwatch and Scouts certainly carry out the sort of operations to deserve the moniker; but standard marines don't conduct themselves in that way. Now there are the odd chapters who do follow more of a Special Forces modus operandi, so the the statement that marines aren't all special forces shouldn't be taken too definitively.