True effectiveness of SS units?

General WWII and Reenactment Topics Only. Post anything else in Off Topic, please.
User avatar
Brigardefuhrer
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: Chatham,kent

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Brigardefuhrer »

ssparatrooper wrote:In reenacting you can be whatever you want, i want to be (as i have allready stated) Smurfett!

Brigadefuehrer your first ooooooooohhhhhhh.

Seriously history shows the waffen ss premier divisions as elite, there is nothing we can do to change history, dont confuse reenactment groups with the real units (god help us all) :lol:
:shock: You've got no chance,you odious little Troll!
As for the effectiveness of SS units,their exploits are well documented,in some case's the mere mention of SS was enough to put fear into the enemy,like saying 'Tiger' to allied tank crews.
"I require able bodied men,with good horse and gun.
I wish none but those who desire to be actively engaged".
"Come on boys,if you want a heap of fun and to kill some yankees".
Nathan Bedford Forest.
User avatar
rednas
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:56 pm
Location: De Weere (The Netherlands)
Contact:

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by rednas »

ssparatrooper wrote:Seriously history shows the waffen ss premier divisions as elite, there is nothing we can do to change history
Correct, but also the primary Heer, the primary US, the primary UK divisions were elite. What exactly does that say about the overall effectiveness of Waffen SS? Every army has its elite units, the Waffen SS had them too. You point on great archievements made by some Waffen SS divisions, but you can make such a list of every army there was during ww2 (even from the Italians). Like I said, when talking about the Waffen SS, people talk about the results from the well known and elite SS divisions, while the Waffen SS was a lot larger with plenty of divisions which were just from regular to real crap.
Image
ssparatrooper
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by ssparatrooper »

I think you should look at the Waffen ss as a seperate army, there were 910,000 at the end of the war, although they worked within the Wehrmacht order of battle they were a seperate entity and were trained seperate from the Wehrmacht in waffen ss grundausbildunglager.

They also had seperate nco and officer schools, the premier divisions were second to none and from the veterans i have have spoken to they believed in themselves and their kamaraden, there are good and bad in all and it takes allsorts to make a battalion.

That rule some are good and some are crap apply to all armys from all countrys from all time, at least we are not having the "waffen ss were all war criminals" debate.
ssparatrooper
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:23 pm

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by ssparatrooper »

Waffen ss attack windmill while the real soldiers are fighting :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-dVuSught8
Ruimteaapje
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Ruimteaapje »

Hello forum,

If people want to discuss the elite status of the Waffen-SS that’s fine with me but please use some sound sourced information.

Problem with the myth is that before and during the war the Nazi regime portrayed the Waffen-SS as the elite in the media and post war authors perpetuated this myth: the though racial and physical selection, the best training, the best weapons, first in line to receive the best and newest equipment, etc. But everybody who studied the Waffen-SS beyond the parroted myths knows that it's all generalization. The Nazi’s wanted the Waffen-SS to be an elite, they failed to build them into an elite, but people want to believe the myth.

The though racial and physical selection – before the war, yes. But as soon as the war started the selection criteria became less strict, by 1942 they were almost gone and by 1944 the Waffen-SS accepted basically every man who could carry a rifle. From 1943 the Waffen-SS prime divisions started to compensate the losses with the so-called “Göring-Spende”, thousands of ground personnel from the Luftwaffe was transferred to the Waffen-SS involuntarily. From 1944 the Waffen-SS also gained access to the conscription pool.

The best training – the SS "groupies" make a lot out of nothing. Yes, before the war they received different training than the Heer. But after the Waffen-SS learned the hard way that their performance was terrible in Poland and in the western campaign they quickly dropped their own training methods and adopted the regular Heeres doctrines. From 1941 on there was no serious difference between training in the Waffen-SS and the Heer. Which makes sense because why, if SS training had indeed been superior, would one keep this doctrine from the rest of the armed forces. Try to find a single Dienstvorschrift that reads "just for the SS". You won’t find any.

The best weapons – before the war and during the early years of the war the Waffen-SS did not have access to modern equipment because it all went to the Heer, the only exception being the Leibstandarte. The rest of the Waffen-SS had to do with old stock, a load of captured weapons from Czech depots, later completed with Polish, Dutch, Belgian and French stuff. Only in 1942 the I. SS-Panzerkorps was formed which was at that time a formidably equipped force. The Waffen-SS was at the height of it’s military power at that time but Charkow, Kursk and a whole series of other bloody engagements would soon finish that. From mid 1943 on Waffen-SS divisions were organized like their Heer counterparts.

First in line to receive the best and newest equipment – another hobbyhorse of the SS fans. But when you look at it, they simply cannot name a serious weapon that was first received by the SS that made a difference, or they cannot name a serious weapon that was first received by the SS at all. Tiger tanks? By the time the Waffen-SS deployed it’s first platoons of Tigers the Heer already had several complete heavy Tiger battalions (of which one was already lost in Africa). Panther tanks? Made it's debut with the Heer at Kursk and after that it was delivered to both Heeres and Waffen-SS Panzer-Divisions. The Sturmgewehr? The bulk went to Heeres Volksgrenadiere long before the Waffen-SS received some. I can list more but I think I made myself clear. Not surprising because they received their equipment through the Heeres-Waffenamt.

Elite? – Was the Waffen-SS an elite? NO. Did the Waffen-SS have elite units? YES. The Waffen-SS contained too many second and third rate units. The Waffen-SS did have some elite divisions. Roughly the Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Totenkopf and Wiking. Out of 38 divisions that’s not enough to call the Waffen-SS as a whole an elite. The Heer had it’s elite as well: the prime Panzer-Divisions (1., 2., 3., 4., 6., 9., etc.), Grossdeutschland, Panzer-Lehr and off course some excellent infantry divisions. And obviously these elite divisions suffered from the same problems as the Waffen-SS elite divisions during the war.

So where did this myth come from? It's clear that wartime German media profiled the Waffen-SS as the elite at the cost of the Heer. All to often the press gave the Waffen-SS credit for Heeres achievements. Simply because in Nazi propaganda the Waffen-SS had to be the elite. SS veterans, allied veterans and post war authors happily parroted this myth and due to the internet it is by now almost impossible to look at the facts without SS groupies diluting the discussion with fairytales.

Regards,
Ruimteaapje (Timo)
User avatar
dog green 1
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: Stockton

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by dog green 1 »

A lot of what Timo seems to make a lot of sense. However as for the training didn't the WSS do a lot of training under live fire?? Also weren't NCO's and Officers encouraged to mix with enlisted men a lot more than the regular army counterparts, in doing so building a much stronger 'spirit de corps'

My conclussion is the WSS was the same as any other armed formation. It had it's regular units and its elite units. To call the WSS an Elite force as a whole may be a misconception but has become engrained in histories mythology.
"To a New Yorker like you a Hero is some sort of wierd sandwich"

Image
Ruimteaapje
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Ruimteaapje »

Hello "dog green 1",

Using live ammo during training was not invented by the Waffen-SS nor was it anything specific or "Waffen-SS only". Life fire exercises were used by both the Heer and the Waffen-SS in these days and were very different to nowadays. There were hundreds of pages of security regulations for officers and NCO's for such exercises. Ammo was NOT wasted for useless firing around on a training ground. It was desperately needed at the front. A lot of Leibstandarte veterans I know said that apart from fire practice (learning how to aim and fire their weapons) they never saw a single round fired untill they entered frontline service.

Regards,
Ruimteaapje (Timo)
Peiper

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Peiper »

Hi Ruimteaapje :D
I agree with a lot you are saying, at the start of the War the SS were poorly equipped
as i said in my earlier post on this thread and certainly towards the end of the War the
quality of manpower suffered even the "Racial" enlistments went out the window and the
SS were accepting all racial origins.
But i must say that even after all this the SS were still a breed apart, especially from the
early War onwards and this was due to the doctrine that the SS were fed straight from
enlistment, basically it seems this "doctrine" made the Waffen SS stand firm while others
had fled, that is why the SS losses were unbelievably high even more so than the
Wehrmacht and especially at the start of the War.
There's no denying that a lot of the "mytholigy" was hype and especially after the Nuremburg
and Dachau War trials, but the fact remains that the Waffen SS had some of the best combat
troops of Gemany in WW2.

Regards Peiper :wink:
Ruimteaapje
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Ruimteaapje »

Hello "Peiper",

You wrote...
Peiper wrote:But i must say that even after all this the SS were still a breed apart, especially from the early War onwards and this was due to the doctrine that the SS were fed straight from enlistment, basically it seems this "doctrine" made the Waffen SS stand firm while others had fled, that is why the SS losses were unbelievably high even more so than the Wehrmacht and especially at the start of the War.
I wonder what makes you so sure that the Waffen-SS stood firm were others fled? I can give you dozens of examples of SS units that gave way and Heeres units which stood fast. I can even give you a fast number of examples where the Heer stood fast or did the bulk of the work but credits went to the Waffen-SS for propaganda purposes. Your hero Peiper being one of the prime examples of a lousy tank leader who kept receiving high awards and promotions to keep his godfather Himmler and the high command of the Leibstandarte happy. It shows us exactly how the myth surrounding the Waffen-SS was created during - and perpetuated after the war. Would you like to read about the mess he created that won him the Eichenlaub? Peiper was a very skillful, very impressive SPW commander but as a Panzer leader he failed miserably. His command of the LSSAH Panzer-Regiment in the 1943/44 Ukrainian battles was a disaster. The other officers in the regiment feared that his gung-ho "SPW-style" methods would destroy the regiment and they were right. Peiper simply did not understand tank warfare. He burned down his panzers in a series of catastrophic attacks against dug-in Soviet AT guns, moved deep into enemy territory without any protection on the flanks, to such an extent that LSSAH commanders like Albert Frey refused to attach their men to Peiper's outfit in fear of losing them. Each and every attack, even when succesful, cost too many tanks and too many men. The fighting near Radomyschl on December 10, 1943, was especially disastrous. Peiper did not care about recconaissance or tactical manouvres, he send his troops forward and smashed his regiment head first into strong Russian defensive positions. The German tanks were helpless. Divisional commander Teddy Wisch witnessed the slaughter of his tanks and he ordered to abandon the attack to prevent further "turkey shooting" by Soviet AT guns. A few hours later Peiper insisted to try again and in similar fasion, and the result was the same. Again, a furious Wisch had to stop the attack and ordered Peiper back. It was only three weeks after he had taken command after Schönberger was killed and after those three weeks Peiper had only 12 tanks left. He was ordered back to the divisional staff to be replaced by Kuhlmann. Peiper was with the divisional staff and in Germany for rest and holiday while Kuhlmann led the remnants of the Panzer-Regiment through the Hube Pocket. In April the survivors of his unit were send to Belgium were Peiper joined them again. His Oak Leaves and promotion were a propaganda present for his godfather Himmler.

Regards,
Ruimteaapje (Timo)
Franz repper
Posts: 5732
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Location: TAMPERE FINLAND
Contact:

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Franz repper »

What would we class as elite ? every one has jumped on the SS Panzer Divs what about the other SS Divisions ? Herr Peiper listed the first 5 their was more and some of them were outstanding . My beloved 6 SS Nord I would say was one from a very poor start at the begining of the war it ended as A high class dear I say Elite . I have some of the few victorys of the Nordwind campain Wingen was one .
others never made it to that standard and others were alot of hipe
What I would say was one sign of the SS that made them an Elite was the Kameradenschaft that they had and still have
ImageImageImageImageImage
Ruimteaapje
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Ruimteaapje »

You mean there was no Kameradenschaft in the Heeres units?
Last edited by Ruimteaapje on Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Franz repper
Posts: 5732
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Location: TAMPERE FINLAND
Contact:

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Franz repper »

Ruimteaapje wrote:You mean there was no Kameradenschaft in the Heeres units?
Good point LOL , I just found that the SS veterans had and still do , With the SS this was a key part of the training eg no locks on their kit lockers for one . Yes I know that the Heer had this to but no to the level of the SS
ImageImageImageImageImage
Ruimteaapje
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:49 pm

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Ruimteaapje »

I think you're perpetuating yet another myth about the Waffen-SS. I would like to see some facts that proof that the SS had comradery on a higher level than the Heer. The locker story is nice but real comradery was formed in battle, not in the Kazerne. I would never say that comradery was limited to the Waffen-SS and I would certainly never say that comradery was strong in every Waffen-SS unit. Would you?
Peiper

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Peiper »

Greetings Herr Ruimteaapje.
I hear what you are saying, even though i think you have under estimated
Peiper's career, :lol: and as for being my hero, there were a number of WW2 German
figures i admire, including men from other services, such as the flyer Werner Molders
for example, but that does not mean i agreed with their political views.

I think you will find that the real Peiper earn't his decorations, try reading
"Jochen-Peiper" by Charles Whiting or "The Devils Adjutant" by Micheal Reynolds,
Peiper may be many things but not a man who would wear decorations which
he was not entitled.

You mention the way he smashed up his Division, this is what im talking about,
these men rolled on regardless, this is the mindset with which im refferring to,
in the same vein as "Panzer" Meyer, Klingenberg, Wittmann and various others i
could name, they all came from the same mould, they may have been Nazi's but
damn fine soldiers for all that.

There are numerous events which i could mention where Peiper pulled the Wehrmacht
chestnuts out of the fire but there are too many, the events you are refferring to i
would imagine needed a headstrong leader to do the job, it is well known Peiper was
always ahead of his main columns, the same as in the Ardennes, sometimes he would be
miles infront of the main group and be "behind enemy lines", that was his style, sometimes
it paid off, sometimes it didn't!.

The end of the day which ever way you want to look at it, in my opinion the Waffen SS,
like them or not were: A BREED APART!

Regards "Peiper"
Last edited by Peiper on Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Franz repper
Posts: 5732
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Location: TAMPERE FINLAND
Contact:

Re: True effectiveness of SS units?

Post by Franz repper »

Ruimteaapje wrote:I think you're perpetuating yet another myth about the Waffen-SS. I would like to see some facts that proof that the SS had comradery on a higher level than the Heer. The locker story is nice but real comradery was formed in battle, not in the Kazerne. I would never say that comradery was limited to the Waffen-SS and I would certainly never say that comradery was strong in every Waffen-SS unit. Would you?
Now how would I give proof of the comradery of the waffen SS that is hard to do in the written form . I know that many veterans of SS units still meet .and some flew over to england to see one of their kameraden who was dying and help out his wife . Why dont you prove it was not ? and it is all a myth yes I agree that the Kameradenschaft was higher in some units but that wold be the same with the Heer would it not ?
ImageImageImageImageImage
Locked

Return to “Anything WWII!”