Why the Waffen-SS

[dshaday]

Hi Bill

I am not a professional poster to forums, so I use the posting function by intuition. Sometimes I get the formatting right. At other times it just never looks right.

I can give you a synopsis of the posts in the last 4 pages. It goes like:

I post that some SS units are elite. The elite discussion begins in depth (the calibre of unit performances, tactics etc).
I respond to the question that the SS made no military innovations by saying that they have, and then raise some possibilities. Then that separate discussion begins .

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi Christoph

Some answers to your post.

All the best

Dennis

Dennis,

You still know what and about what you want to argue?

It certainly feels like it at times !

There are two issues I am responding to (1/ Are some Waffen SS units elite and 2/ Did the SS bring any military innovations)

The storm of questions/comments are hard to keep track of. Sometimes they are heated discussions.

1) If Peiper was or was not a good Pz.Gren.-or Panzerregiment commander does change something on the Basic Topic? One man in the whole Waffen-SS? We will never know when we weren´t serving under him and know all circumstances of defeat and success. All others is based on oppinions of others.

FACT is that such tactics were used before and were condemned if failed and cheered on when successfull.

Peiper mainly came up in my posts because I mentioned a possible SS innovation, linked to his reputation for night fighting with SPWs.

2) The artillery barrage discussion brings up one point.. do you really believe the Quote and how it is written in the book by Kershaw?? Do you really think that after 5 years of war nobody had this idea? Coordinated fire on preset terrain and map points is a very old procedure. I think common sense tells us that this story wasn´t the way how it was interpreted by Kershaw.
FACT is that fire on preset Points is an old procedure.

This was another possible SS innovation that I mentioned. I found mention of it on the net but did not anything about artillery usage, history etc. I posted it for comment a few days ago but no one responded until now until I placed it in a list. Harmel liked the results very much (maybe because Sonnenstuhl was his friend? or because it was, for him, better than normal?).
The commander of Artillery OB West was interested (which is what Harmel said in the book). We don't know what became of the visit.

Was the idea original? Looks like a No.
Was the idea innovative? Looks like a No
Was the method original or innovative? I must post to find an answer.

3) You always mention fire and movement tactics. What should that be in your oppinion exactly? Do you think Heer infantry Units attacked in a sitting and not firing tactic?

FACT is that during early training the Waffen-SS performed an all up and running straight towards the objective attack which was then changed by order to the common tactics that one part jumps Forward while the Deckungsgruppe fires.

I only mention fire and movement as being the standard procedure in the army and SS. An existing (and good) procedure that was enhanced by the SS innovation of special camouflage clothing.

Dennis

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Dennis,

My original point was that the W-SS "contributed almost nothing original to the military art". None of your points about "innovation", even if true, alter that proposition.

I am not sure that the bureaucratic ability to file a patent on something other people had already developed counts as military originality!

If the W-SS was right about a 15% casualty reduction (perhaps highly unlikely given that nearly half of German casualties were from indirect artillery fire in which the individual's clothing was pretty much irrelevant) then it could be argued that, as W-SS overall casualties were slightly higher than the army's, the use of multi-coloured cammo was a disadvantage. There is a lot obscure in this discussion that has not, apparently, been researched, which makes being definitive difficult.

Peiper may have been an SPW specialist, but one individual's activities are not necessarily a reflection of the wider organization to which he belonged.

The Reichswehr was the German Army. It successor under the Third Reich expanded so fast that its officer corps was drawn from far more diverse origins than hitherto. Goldsworthy's book has some detailed statistical analysis that indicates that the W-SS was not the fast track for previously excluded groups to officer rank and social advancement that its own propaganda and post-war aplogists claim. Until somebody else does some number crunching, Goldsworthy seems to be the best authority available. The W-SS was apparently not the vehicle for social advancement and its alternatives were not the obstacles to social advancement that are claimed.

Cheers,

Sid.

[RichTO90]

Hi RichTO90

Howdy.

Talking about combat effectiveness.

I'm afraid I'm still missing how the clothing worn by troops enables an analysis of their combat effectiveness. An examination of their effectiveness in combat does that.

No, still talking about combat effectiveness. The innovation in the garments is the freedom of movement and the cammo which added to the effectiveness of the fire and movement tactics.

You are serious? So a "helmet cover" adds to "freedom of movement" but a hood attached to a garment does not?

Could be. I see the innovation of the SS cammo clothing as leading to greater combat effectiveness (and less losses). Compared to not using the garments (or that style of garment(s)).

Then you need to show that the SS in similar circumstances - wearing camouflage garments - suffered fewer casualties than comparable non-SS units and thus enjoyed greater combat effectiveness. Good luck...

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

Just some general comments on the post you just sent me:

Hi Dennis,

My original point was that the W-SS "contributed almost nothing original to the military art". None of your points about "innovation", even if true, alter that proposition.

Now Sid, you should play nice !
Your earlier posts on this thread about the Waffen SS were:

"It appears to have contributed nothing original to the military art whatsoever." 26 june 2014

"The Waffen-SS was militarily completely unoriginal. It contributed nothing new to the military art and in every branch was a clone of the Army." 17 and 18 july 2014.

If you have modified your original opinion since, then that is a different story.

I am not sure that the bureaucratic ability to file a patent on something other people had already developed counts as military originality!

Being able to lodge a world patent is a sign that other western armies do not have anything substantially similar. A legal test/search of that would presumably have had to been made. That's why I mention the patent.

Even if it doesn't count as an invention (which it may still be) the example of camouflage which you quote is still a military innovation (by the definition of the word). Therefore it is a contribution to the military art.

If the W-SS was right about a 15% casualty reduction (perhaps highly unlikely given that nearly half of German casualties were from indirect artillery fire in which the individual's clothing was pretty much irrelevant) then it could be argued that, as W-SS overall casualties were slightly higher than the army's, the use of multi-coloured cammo was a disadvantage. There is a lot obscure in this discussion that has not, apparently, been researched, which makes being definitive difficult.

We have the SS with their estimate of 15% reduction (as estimated in the 1937 peacetime exercises, which should have factored in your concerns). Actual combat figures are unknown to me at present. Even if the figure was say 3%, then is there really an issue? As an aside, I believe that the helmet cover was seen as a priority in order to minimise head wounds, so that a special effort was made in 1939/1940 so that soldiers at least got one even if they did not get a jacket.

Peiper may have been an SPW specialist, but one individual's activities are not necessarily a reflection of the wider organization to which he belonged.

I see. If an innovation is used by one unit then it doesn't count in practise? That argument has possibilities.

From a research point of view, it is of course not enough to negate the innovation (if it is proven to be one).

The Reichswehr was the German Army. It successor under the Third Reich expanded so fast that its officer corps was drawn from far more diverse origins than hitherto. Goldsworthy's book has some detailed statistical analysis that indicates that the W-SS was not the fast track for previously excluded groups to officer rank and social advancement that its own propaganda and post-war aplogists claim. Until somebody else does some number crunching, Goldsworthy seems to be the best authority available. The W-SS was apparently not the vehicle for social advancement and its alternatives were not the obstacles to social advancement that are claimed.

Once again, I say that the data has problems (the ones I previously listed). So conclusions from it has limitations also.
But don't expect everyone else to use it because it is the only data around in the public domain.
Cheers,

Sid.

[RichTO90]

Then you need to show that the SS in similar circumstances - wearing camouflage garments - suffered fewer casualties than comparable non-SS units and thus enjoyed greater combat effectiveness. Good luck...

Thinking about it, the best sources of empirical data would be the Kursk Data Base (KDB) and the Ardennes Combat Simulation Data Base (ASDB). However, just off the top of my head I would say you wouldn't get the results you expect.

Again off the top of my head, of the three Panzer Korps in the KDB, I would probably give the edge in performance to III Panzer Korps. It was the weakest in terms of manpower, equipment (especially the more recent models of tanks), and supporting artillery, faced some of the most difficult terrain and best deployed Soviet units, and yet executed a very creditable advance without over the top losses IIRC.

And in the ACSDB, AFAICS NONE of the vaunted Panzerwaffe - Heer or SS - performed all that well. Pieper's advance was an excellent example of attacking a seam in an already weak defensive line, so facing little or no resistance, and then failing to coordinate properly with his follow-on forces, which resulted in his entire KG being mousetrapped. He did an excellent job of killing unarmed prisoners and civilians, but did zero towards accomplishing his assigned mission. 12. SS did even worse, taking hours to break through the resistance of the 3rd Battalion, 23rd Infantry in the Krinkelter Wald, even though the Americans had virtually no artillery support and minimal armor support. Then the Germans managed to get themselves entangled in an attrition battle at Lausdell Crossroads against an even weaker U.S. position - albeit this time very effectively supported by artillery and the few tanks available - while also managing to get stuck in the Twin Villages, which they attempted to "Blowtorch" a la Pieper. Follow that up with a dismal performance at Dom Bütgenbach and you have quite a litany of errors. At least 2. SS had some success in exploiting the superiority of their tanks at Parker's Crossroads against the hodge-podge of units there, which isn't saying much.

Not that 5. Panzerarmee did any better. The incompetent employment of 116. Panzer from day one set the pace for their lackluster operations. Sure, send Panthers into action with their flanks exposed to untouched 3" TD guns. Nor did 2. Panzer really do all that well except for beating up on CCR, 9th AD...and we won't get into the cockups committed by Bayerlein at the helm of Lehr...unless combat effectiveness can be measured by his performance with comely nurses...

More seriously, AFAICS the best perfomance, hands down, in the Ardennes was by the lowly 18. VGD.

[RichTO90]

Being able to lodge a world patent is a sign that other western armies do not have anything substantially similar. A legal test/search of that would presumably have had to been made. That's why I mention the patent.

It wasn't a "world patent" (it would only apply to the 32 signatories of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in any case), it was a German patent, in the name of Himmler, apparently intended to PREVENT the Heer from copying the design and was specifically for the helmet cover. Similarly, Himmler also backed the patent on an invention of one of Hitler's chauffeurs for what was basically a bicycle reflector, then used the power of the SS to push the adoption of his patent over a rivals and then used his position as head of the police to enact a law requiring them on all bicycles, which generated revenues for the SS...and the production of Heer camouflage helmet covers generated additional revenues for the SS. Now granted that practice has also been recently followed by the USMC with regards to MARPAT, but I'm not at all sure the practice is a sign of military innovation. :roll:

[Rob - wssob2]

More seriously, AFAICS the best perfomance, hands down, in the Ardennes was by the lowly 18. VGD.

Clearly then, the 18th Volksgrenadier Division is elite, according the the DEM (Dennis' Eliteness Methodology)

[RichTO90]

Clearly then, the 18th Volksgrenadier Division is elite, according the the DEM (Dennis' Eliteness Methodology)

Well, the term "elite" in a military sense is pretty squishy in any case. It gets bandied about with little real justification. The "elite" Iraqi RG did little better against Coalition Forces in either GW1 or GW2 (the Shrub Sequel) than any other Iraqi forces despite their "eliteness". AFAICT Soviet "Guards" units at Kursk performed no better and no worse than the "regular" units. The U.S. 90th Infantry Division was a "problem" until late July 1944, when somehow it became an "elite" division that Patton wanted awarded the PUC at the end of the war...along with the 5th Infantry Division, but neither the 4th or 6th Armored Division entered his calculation.

And so on...the whole thing is highly period, unit, event, and advocate specific.

[dshaday]

Hi

Then you need to show that the SS in similar circumstances - wearing camouflage garments - suffered fewer casualties than comparable non-SS units and thus enjoyed greater combat effectiveness. Good luck...

Hard to tell if you are using a serious forum to make jokes or if you are grossly misunderstanding my posts. The Smilies are not my cup of tea and I don't think you should hide behind them.

So which is it?

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi Rob

Clearly then, the 18th Volksgrenadier Division is elite, according the the DEM (Dennis' Eliteness Methodology)

Good to see that you have run out of logic and have to resort to ridicule. Shows your true character at last.

Dennis

[Rob - wssob2]

Well, the term "elite" in a military sense is pretty squishy in any case. It gets bandied about with little real justification. The "elite" Iraqi RG did little better against Coalition Forces in either GW1 or GW2 (the Shrub Sequel) than any other Iraqi forces despite their "eliteness".

Yes my point exactly - and you see authoritarian regimes commonly ascribe military units to be "elite" when these units have been set up to a) preserve both internal and external security and b) have above average loyalty to the dictator or ideology

Interestingly enough, with all this camouflage digression I pulled out my copy of Michael Beaver's Uniforms of the Waffen-SS (Vol. II) which described the smock as "visually unique" and a "identifying feature" of the Waffen-SS. (p.815) - which leads me to wonder if the smock wasn't so much to hide SS troops as identify them as "unique," special or different.

The smock was an interim thing anyway - the SS introduced the M-44 Drill Uniform in 1944, which is much more akin to modern cammo BDU.

Can't help but point out that stuff like the Waffen SS cammo smock and M-44 were produced by concentration camp slave labor.

[Rob - wssob2]

Good to see that you have run out of logic and have to resort to ridicule. Shows your true character at last.

Dennis - please! I am merely pointing out the issues with the argument you have presented.

You have mentioned that combat performance sets a unit as elite.

If that is the case, then based on the Bulge data from the ASDB (see http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/data/ardennes.htm) and your methodology, the 18th VGD is elite and the LSSAH is not.

So, if that is the case, why should the LSSAH be considered elite?

[RichTO90]

Hard to tell if you are using a serious forum to make jokes or if you are grossly misunderstanding my posts. The Smilies are not my cup of tea and I don't think you should hide behind them.

So which is it?

Neither. I have no need to hide behind Emoticons, but rather use them very seriously in a humorous fashion on this site. I also have a sense of humor and try to remain cognizant of it even when my patience is worn thin, which others will certainly testify is not hard to do.

However, if on the other hand you have no sense of humor and remain unwilling to actually discuss the arguments and evidence that have been presented to you, then I will be quite happy eliminate the Emoticons, dispense with my patience, and stop replying seriously to you.

So which is it to be?

[dshaday]

Hi RichTO90

Being able to lodge a world patent is a sign that other western armies do not have anything substantially similar. A legal test/search of that would presumably have had to been made. That's why I mention the patent.

It wasn't a "world patent" (it would only apply to the 32 signatories of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in any case), it was a German patent, in the name of Himmler, apparently intended to PREVENT the Heer from copying the design and was specifically for the helmet cover.

Ok, the patent is International. Patent is lodged in Germany.

The helmet cover, smock and faceveil were patented. Not just the helmet cover. So you are incorrect there.

Regards

Dennis