Joachim Peiper's tactics

[general g]

Do you really believe Peiper would have kept his status in the German military up to the last moment, if he was indeed a tactical idiot?

Yes. Peiper was a political figure, a protege of Himmler, and his postwar reputation as a able commander owes much to the myth that the SS created about him.

Skorzeny is another example of a terrible tactician elevated in absurd heights by Nazi propaganda. The book The Meuse First and then Antwerp covers Skorzeny's military incompetitence during the Ardennes offensive in great detail.

No,he was a very competent officer who had a great aptitude for mobile operations.

[general g]

I believe that appointing Peiper as Commander of the Panzerregiment makes it very clear that the LAH was a ‘soap opera’. It proves that divisional CO. Wisch wasn’t a military genius either and promoted Peiper not only because he was more aggressive than Schönberger but also because of his good personal relationship with the man. It cost the Panzerregiment dearly. Experienced tankers were very surprised and not at all that excited when hearing that Peiper became their new CO. There were better options like Gross. His soon the be adjutant could only give the explanation that – after Schönberger was killed – such a decision(who should lead the Panzerregiment?) had to be made very quickly during battle. I am sure however that Peiper wasn’t a ‘tactical idiot’. He did make the mistake of treating his Panzers like his beloved SPWs - on the other hand trying to live up to his superiors expections. Had he succeeded he was even more of a 'hero' then he is now.

Appointing Peiper was logical because had shown that he had shown the right profile for commanding the armored battlegroup which is what the commander of the panzerregiment will do in practice.The decision did not cost the regiment dearly and it is about getting results and not about in the first place minimizing casualties.

[Dutto1]

I believe that appointing Peiper as Commander of the Panzerregiment makes it very clear that the LAH was a ‘soap opera’. It proves that divisional CO. Wisch wasn’t a military genius either and promoted Peiper not only because he was more aggressive than Schönberger but also because of his good personal relationship with the man. It cost the Panzerregiment dearly. Experienced tankers were very surprised and not at all that excited when hearing that Peiper became their new CO. There were better options like Gross. His soon the be adjutant could only give the explanation that – after Schönberger was killed – such a decision(who should lead the Panzerregiment?) had to be made very quickly during battle. I am sure however that Peiper wasn’t a ‘tactical idiot’. He did make the mistake of treating his Panzers like his beloved SPWs - on the other hand trying to live up to his superiors expections. Had he succeeded he was even more of a 'hero' then he is now.

Appointing Peiper was logical because had shown that he had shown the right profile for commanding the armored battlegroup which is what the commander of the panzerregiment will do in practice.The decision did not cost the regiment dearly and it is about getting results and about in the first place minimizing casualties.

"g"

We have already discuseed Peipers ability to command the Panzer regiment in in several large threads.

What are you trying to acheive ?
It has been demonstrated that the evidence supports a case of Peiper being a BRILLIANT SPW commander but very patchy as CO of the Panzer regiment.
It seems to me once a thread is locked you pull up a old one,to defend Peiper !!!!!!

Dutto1

[general g]

I believe that appointing Peiper as Commander of the Panzerregiment makes it very clear that the LAH was a ‘soap opera’. It proves that divisional CO. Wisch wasn’t a military genius either and promoted Peiper not only because he was more aggressive than Schönberger but also because of his good personal relationship with the man. It cost the Panzerregiment dearly. Experienced tankers were very surprised and not at all that excited when hearing that Peiper became their new CO. There were better options like Gross. His soon the be adjutant could only give the explanation that – after Schönberger was killed – such a decision(who should lead the Panzerregiment?) had to be made very quickly during battle. I am sure however that Peiper wasn’t a ‘tactical idiot’. He did make the mistake of treating his Panzers like his beloved SPWs - on the other hand trying to live up to his superiors expections. Had he succeeded he was even more of a 'hero' then he is now.

Appointing Peiper was logical because had shown that he had shown the right profile for commanding the armored battlegroup which is what the commander of the panzerregiment will do in practice.The decision did not cost the regiment dearly and it is about getting results and about in the first place minimizing casualties.

"g"

We have already discuseed Peipers ability to command the Panzer regiment in in several large threads.

What are you trying to acheive ?
It has been demonstrated that the evidence supports a case of Peiper being a BRILLIANT SPW commander but very patchy as CO of the Panzer regiment.
It seems to me once a thread is locked you pull up a old one,to defend Peiper !!!!!!

Dutto1

There is a formal contradiction between stating that he was a brilliant SPW batallion commander but not good as commander of the armored battlegroup.The qualities shown in command of the SPW batallion were those that you need to command the armored battlegroup.And an officer that has tactical sense will not lose it in another role.And I have already pointed out that many times battlegroups in armored divisions were commanded by the commanders of the Panzergrenadierregiments which means that there is nothing exceptional in an Panzergrenadier officer commanding tanks.This forum has not really had a competent defender of Peiper so I think I am going to continue.

[Dutto1]

I believe that appointing Peiper as Commander of the Panzerregiment makes it very clear that the LAH was a ‘soap opera’. It proves that divisional CO. Wisch wasn’t a military genius either and promoted Peiper not only because he was more aggressive than Schönberger but also because of his good personal relationship with the man. It cost the Panzerregiment dearly. Experienced tankers were very surprised and not at all that excited when hearing that Peiper became their new CO. There were better options like Gross. His soon the be adjutant could only give the explanation that – after Schönberger was killed – such a decision(who should lead the Panzerregiment?) had to be made very quickly during battle. I am sure however that Peiper wasn’t a ‘tactical idiot’. He did make the mistake of treating his Panzers like his beloved SPWs - on the other hand trying to live up to his superiors expections. Had he succeeded he was even more of a 'hero' then he is now.

Appointing Peiper was logical because had shown that he had shown the right profile for commanding the armored battlegroup which is what the commander of the panzerregiment will do in practice.The decision did not cost the regiment dearly and it is about getting results and about in the first place minimizing casualties.

"g"

We have already discuseed Peipers ability to command the Panzer regiment in in several large threads.

What are you trying to acheive ?
It has been demonstrated that the evidence supports a case of Peiper being a BRILLIANT SPW commander but very patchy as CO of the Panzer regiment.
It seems to me once a thread is locked you pull up a old one,to defend Peiper !!!!!!

Dutto1

There is a formal contradiction between stating that he was a brilliant SPW batallion commander but not good as commander of the armored battlegroup.The qualities shown in command of the SPW batallion were those that you need to command the armored battlegroup.And an officer that has tactical sense will not lose it in another role.And I have already pointed out that many times battlegroups in armored divisions were commanded by the commanders of the Panzergrenadierregiments which means that there is nothing exceptional in an Panzergrenadier officer commanding tanks.This forum has not really had a competent defender of Peiper so I think I am going to continue.

Competent defender ????

I think you need to take a reality check in previous threads your argument has been disproven your bias clearly illustrated by your blind faith and the rejection of various authors a nd researchers findings .Unless you can produce something NEW it is pointless to argue from your same old tune !

[general g]

I believe that appointing Peiper as Commander of the Panzerregiment makes it very clear that the LAH was a ‘soap opera’. It proves that divisional CO. Wisch wasn’t a military genius either and promoted Peiper not only because he was more aggressive than Schönberger but also because of his good personal relationship with the man. It cost the Panzerregiment dearly. Experienced tankers were very surprised and not at all that excited when hearing that Peiper became their new CO. There were better options like Gross. His soon the be adjutant could only give the explanation that – after Schönberger was killed – such a decision(who should lead the Panzerregiment?) had to be made very quickly during battle. I am sure however that Peiper wasn’t a ‘tactical idiot’. He did make the mistake of treating his Panzers like his beloved SPWs - on the other hand trying to live up to his superiors expections. Had he succeeded he was even more of a 'hero' then he is now.

Appointing Peiper was logical because had shown that he had shown the right profile for commanding the armored battlegroup which is what the commander of the panzerregiment will do in practice.The decision did not cost the regiment dearly and it is about getting results and about in the first place minimizing casualties.

"g"

We have already discuseed Peipers ability to command the Panzer regiment in in several large threads.

What are you trying to acheive ?
It has been demonstrated that the evidence supports a case of Peiper being a BRILLIANT SPW commander but very patchy as CO of the Panzer regiment.
It seems to me once a thread is locked you pull up a old one,to defend Peiper !!!!!!

Dutto1

There is a formal contradiction between stating that he was a brilliant SPW batallion commander but not good as commander of the armored battlegroup.The qualities shown in command of the SPW batallion were those that you need to command the armored battlegroup.And an officer that has tactical sense will not lose it in another role.And I have already pointed out that many times battlegroups in armored divisions were commanded by the commanders of the Panzergrenadierregiments which means that there is nothing exceptional in an Panzergrenadier officer commanding tanks.This forum has not really had a competent defender of Peiper so I think I am going to continue.

Competent defender ????

I think you need to take a reality check in previous threads your argument has been disproven your bias clearly illustrated by your blind faith and the rejection of various authors a nd researchers findings .Unless you can produce something NEW it is pointless to argue from your same old tune !

Nothing was ever disproven and I offered a lot of evidence which was all neatly sourced.Armored warfare is my specialized subject so I know what it is about.It is very easy for me to continue the argument here.I have heaps of literature on the subject.
And the bias is not on my side.
From you I have never seen anything but generalities and no substance.Your choice.

[Dutto1]

What is A FACT is it was PROVEN on the two previous threads that there was evidence that Peipers command of the Panzer regiment was not good.the works you quote from particularly Leibstandarte by Lehamann is clearly biased.Why would there be restrictions on acess to the Lehmann files ???? The reason is there is documents in there that portray the LSSAH in an unfavorable light

[Dutto1]

BTW the point of this topic is Peipers SPW tactics on the Eastern front NOT Panzer regiment tactics.If you feel the need to defend Peipers Panzer tactics perhaps you should start an appropiate thread and offer some NEW evidence.

[general g]

What is A FACT is it was PROVEN on the two previous threads that there was evidence that Peipers command of the Panzer regiment was not good.the works you quote from particularly Leibstandarte by Lehamann is clearly biased.Why would there be restrictions on acess to the Lehmann files ???? The reason is there is documents in there that portray the LSSAH in an unfavorable light

I simply disproved it with the numbers which showed that there was no more attrition under Peiper.And it was also showing what the experiences of another panzerdivision was in the same fighting.And also general evidence about who commands what in a panzerdivision.And the restricted files have certainly nothing to do with military operations in the strict sense of the word.

[Dutto1]

What is A FACT is it was PROVEN on the two previous threads that there was evidence that Peipers command of the Panzer regiment was not good.the works you quote from particularly Leibstandarte by Lehamann is clearly biased.Why would there be restrictions on acess to the Lehmann files ???? The reason is there is documents in there that portray the LSSAH in an unfavorable light

I simply disproved it with the numbers which showed that there was no more attrition under Peiper.And it was also showing what the experiences of another panzerdivision was in the same fighting.And also general evidence about who commands what in a panzerdivision.And the restricted files have certainly nothing to do with military operations in the strict sense of the word.

The files IMO are restricted bescause there is info in there about Military ops that the surviving LSSAH vets don t want certain researchers to see why else would it be restricted ?

[general g]

BTW the point of this topic is Peipers SPW tactics on the Eastern front NOT Panzer regiment tactics.If you feel the need to defend Peipers Panzer tactics perhaps you should start an appropiate thread and offer some NEW evidence.

It will be very easy for me to point out that the way he conducted certain operations as SPW commander were an application of basic principles of mobile warfare which apply to mobile forces in general.Presenting evidence is easy.
It must not be forgotten that SPW borne infantry and tanks should work close together.

[general g]

What is A FACT is it was PROVEN on the two previous threads that there was evidence that Peipers command of the Panzer regiment was not good.the works you quote from particularly Leibstandarte by Lehamann is clearly biased.Why would there be restrictions on acess to the Lehmann files ???? The reason is there is documents in there that portray the LSSAH in an unfavorable light

I simply disproved it with the numbers which showed that there was no more attrition under Peiper.And it was also showing what the experiences of another panzerdivision was in the same fighting.And also general evidence about who commands what in a panzerdivision.And the restricted files have certainly nothing to do with military operations in the strict sense of the word.

The files IMO are restricted bescause there is info in there about Military ops that the surviving LSSAH vets don t want certain researchers to see why else would it be restricted ?

It has without much doubt nothing to do with military operations in the strict sense of the word.

[Dutto1]

What is A FACT is it was PROVEN on the two previous threads that there was evidence that Peipers command of the Panzer regiment was not good.the works you quote from particularly Leibstandarte by Lehamann is clearly biased.Why would there be restrictions on acess to the Lehmann files ???? The reason is there is documents in there that portray the LSSAH in an unfavorable light

I simply disproved it with the numbers which showed that there was no more attrition under Peiper.And it was also showing what the experiences of another panzerdivision was in the same fighting.And also general evidence about who commands what in a panzerdivision.And the restricted files have certainly nothing to do with military operations in the strict sense of the word.

The files IMO are restricted bescause there is info in there about Military ops that the surviving LSSAH vets don t want certain researchers to see why else would it be restricted ?

It has without much doubt nothing to do with military operations in the strict sense of the word.

Have you seen the files ???? Or maybe its to do with warcrimes ?????

[Marcus]

[Moved from "Wittmann, Villers Bocage and his kill claims."]

This topic is getting hilarious.

This is all so similar to your claim that Peiper was stopped in the Ardennes by the Allied airforce: you bring in one book as a source (Robin Cross for Peiper and Daniel Taylor for Wittmann), you state some far fetched assumptions as "facts", you ignore everybody who points out the flaws in your "facts" en then you stick your fingers firmly in your ears and start praying the matra that you're right and everybody else is crazy.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1401446

Peiper's column was heavily delayed by the airplane attack, because a hit Panzer in front blocked the rest. Further: Peiper didn't look at his flanks, because he had strict orders not to care about his flanks and go ahead. Peiper limited his recons because he was almost out of fuel. Fuel shortage was a trouble from the start.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=203641

All facts you ignored because you want to 'prove' Peiper was a bad tactician there, while his mission was impossible from the start. You, who never even drove a tank. I wonder how your so called many friends LSSAH veterans think about you.

[Harro]

It's interesting to note that you've finally decided to change your tune to "heavily delayed", given your initial claim that Peiper was "finished off" by the RAF instead of crushed by the 3rd US Armored, 30th US Inf and 82nd Airborne. As for my contacts with veterans, don't worry, they've enjoyed helping me with my research over the past 14 years and the few remaining veterans I know continue to help me to this very date, so I guess the fact that I never drove a tank and think Peiper was a bad tactician didn't put them off