I've heard that special forces guys tend to be smaller, but I'm not sure that's true. It seems like there could be a few tactical advantages to being shorter, less likely to bump your head maybe, but who knows.
Spec ops tend to be more averaged sized, with denser builds (as opposed to bulkier muscle mass)(1). Although, quick caveat, take a look at old photos of Vietnam War era special forces vs modern late GWOT; the difference in average muscle mass is rather stark.
Historically, military selection emphasized calisthenics and load carrying capacity (body armor/weapons/rucks) + endurance. Although modern assessments have somewhat shifted towards weightlifting components, calisthenics/rucking are still a major focus. There is generally a disadvantage with height, where longer limb length creates more leverage to overcome, which is a disadvantage in both calisthenics and moving external weight around.
I've heard the expression "gazelle build" used there. Think more long distance runner than weight lifter. Long legs, short back. Strong sure but even more than that, high endurance.
Historically, military selection emphasized calisthenics and load carrying capacity (body armor/weapons/rucks) + endurance. Although modern assessments have somewhat shifted towards weightlifting components, calisthenics/rucking are still a major focus. There is generally a disadvantage with height, where longer limb length creates more leverage to overcome, which is a disadvantage in both calisthenics and moving external weight around.
Average size is ~5’10” @ 180lbs at selection
(1) https://sofprepcoach.com/special-forces-selection-body-compo...