Why the Waffen-SS

[Rob - wssob2]

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

Thank goodness for books.google.com

The exact quote from Tim Newark's The Little Book of Cammo is

...Brandt and Schick's tree camouflage patterns were tested in 1937 during Waffen-SS maneuvers and were found to reduce casualties by some fifteen percent...A Reich Patent was awarded to Schick for this use of his patterns, which ensured that they could not be adopted by the German Army but remained the distinctive pattern of the Waffen-SS.

It's not an international patent.

[dshaday]

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.

You need to check my posts, Rob. I look at the average of a units performance over time. This was my reply to you about your issue with patchy unit performances. So one data point does not a trend make.

So that is why your case in point, on its own, is irrelevant to determining an "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.

See above for an answer.

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

See above for an answer.


Dennis

[RichTO90]

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

No, it was a Reichs patent recognized by 32 other countries in the world under the Paris Treaty. Not quite the same thing. But what was the purpose of the patent? To prevent enemies from using the idea?

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

Perhaps, I've been wrong before and will be again. However, the information I have seen refers to the patent specifically being for the design of the reversible helmet cover, although most accounts are somewhat ambiguous on that exact point. The patent date is given as 3 February 1937 and was assigned to Heinrich Himmler and Johann Georg Otto Schick. Perhaps someone could look it up?

Oh, it is a bit odd that most accounts of the "innovation" attribute the decision to generally issue it was a result of field tests in December 1937. Herren Himmler and Schick were pretty prescient, weren't they? Looks like they were able to put the tree before the horse...

WRT to the "veil" Camouflage Uniforms of the Waffen-SS,

“The camouflaged face mask was one of the early pieces tested beginning in December 1936. Originally the face mask was called “face camouflage” (gesichtstarnung). In 1938 it was referred to as “face veil” (gesichtsschleier). Then in 1940 the term “camouflage veil” (tarnschleier) was applied before its final label as “camouflage face masks” (gesichstarnmasken) appeared in 1942.”

The mask was eventually discontinued since it actually interfered with vision when executing "fire and movement". How does that square the notion that camouflage "helmet cover, smock and faceveil" were conducive to executing "fire and movement"...but apparently Zeltbahn's, camouflage overalls with attached hood, or other non-SS types weren't?

Regards

Dennis

Oh, have we resolved your ultimatum and my reply to it? To refresh your memory,

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?

[RichTO90]

You need to check my posts, Rob. I look at the average of a units performance over time.

I've looked at your posts, but fail to find the data set that you used to derive your "average". So where is your data set? What does it include? What does it exclude? What are its sources? How did you calculate your "average"? Or is your "average" derived from a "feeling"? Or a WAG? Or a wish for it to be so? Which is it?

[dshaday]

Hi RichTO90

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?

My goal is to seriously discuss military issues.

It is up to you if you want to reply seriously or not. But my patience wears very thin when I see ridicule. So I would ask you to avoid it.

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi RichTO09

I've looked at your posts, but fail to find the data set that you used to derive your "average". So where is your data set? What does it include? What does it exclude? What are its sources? How did you calculate your "average"? Or is your "average" derived from a "feeling"? Or a WAG? Or a wish for it to be so? Which is it?

You will have to explain your terms, as I am not familiar with them.

Dennis

[Rob - wssob2]

You need to check my posts, Rob. I look at the average of a units performance over time. This was my reply to you about your issue with patchy unit performances. So one data point does not a trend make.

I think Rich and I are pointing out that you haven't shown us anything.

So let's go for it - let's compare the 18th VGD to the Leibstandarte.

Do you recommend comparing for the Sept 1944-March 1945 period or all of 1939-45?

Will you compare the 18th to the LAH when it was a regiment, brigade, panzergrenadier division or armored division or all of the above?


Getting back to our cammo buddies Brandt and Schick' for a second - couple of points

1) Note the Waffen-SS didn't exist in 1937 (the text is probably referring to the SSVT, which eventually became Das Reich)

2) I am not really sure of this 1937 SSVT wargames how-cammo-reduced-casualties by 15% assertion. (and presumably these are war-game scenario casualties, not actual ones!) It's a war game, not reality. In their war games, the Japanese Navy won the battle of Midway

[Rob - wssob2]

You will have to explain your terms, as I am not familiar with them.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_multiplication and the Depuy Institute link.


If you're going to compare military units, you need to start understanding how military historians make these comparisons in a systematic way.

[dshaday]

Hi Rob

Thank goodness for books.google.com

The exact quote from Tim Newark's The Little Book of Cammo is

...Brandt and Schick's tree camouflage patterns were tested in 1937 during Waffen-SS maneuvers and were found to reduce casualties by some fifteen percent...A Reich Patent was awarded to Schick for this use of his patterns, which ensured that they could not be adopted by the German Army but remained the distinctive pattern of the Waffen-SS.

It's not an international patent.

I knew it was a Reichspatent, but I assumed that a German patent would have protection overseas. Are you sure the patent is only for Germany? Does it cover Europe?

It is probably best if I just mention the Reichspatent when I refer to the innovation.

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi John

The example used by Dennis in Post 691 to illustrate that 12 SS Panzer Division was an elite formation is I think wrong, that is they did not destroy 53 Sherman tanks on 9 June 1944.

I was not trying to illustrate that the 12th SS was elite by using this example.

I was trying to quickly give an example where the division performed well around Caen.

I did get the date wrong. Sorry about that. I was using an internet source and misread the date sequence in the article. The article incorrectly identified the AFVs as Shermans. I did not have my proper books to hand.

Still, the Division made a good show of itself on the day. Thanks for the correction.

"Sonnenstuhl was responsible for providing concentrated artillery fire against allied advancements and positions"
I don't know if his map reference system was new but FMS C-024 says "After 10 June, upon orders of the Corps, the fire power of the entire artillery was coordinated by being placed under the control of Arko 1 and this factor was of great importance in our defence. We were able quickly and deftly to direct the fire to the most endangered sectors" Kraemer doesn't say whose idea it was (him as an ex-army officer or the Arko as an experienced SS artillery officer or someone else?)

Doesn't look like the tactical concept was new in September 1944, may be an improvement in implementation?

I will see if I can find out anything on the implementation aspect. Thanks.


Regards

Dennis

[Rob - wssob2]

Hi Dennis - you wrote

I will see if I can find out anything on the implementation aspect. Thanks.

As several people have pointed out, there is nothing to find out. The SS Arko ("artillery commander") at Arnhem just did a standard artillery barrage, but just did it well.

To use a football metaphor - each time a midfielder does a good throw-in, we don't say he "innovated" it.

But I am interested in the fact that you seem to exhibit confirmation bias regarding the Waffen-SS.

Despite being provided evidence to the contrary, you doggedly insist that the Leibstandarte was elite.

You doggedly insist that the Waffen-SS implementation of camouflage clothing was an innovation.

You doggedly insist on an allegation that an SS artillery commander somehow revolutionized a type of artillery fire mission after cursorily pulling a quote from a website, even after posters (some with military experience, BTW) assure you it was no such thing.

So why the Waffen-SS Dennis - there are a lot of things in the world you could call elite - Rock stars, Hedge fund managers, the Blue Angels, Beyonce's Backup Singers, Manchester United, etc. - but why do you in particular keep insisting the Waffen-SS was elite?

Curious to see if you will reply.

[Marcus]

A number of uncivil posts were removed. Get back on topic and discuss things in a civilized way.

/Marcus

[seaburn]

Why are they such a hot topic .

It’s pretty ironic that this bemused question on the first post has been proved by the volume of replies/views it has generated, including the many contributions of the original poster. It seems that those who oppose the WSS make them as much a hot topic as the ‘promoters’.

While the debate on the factual continues apace, what is as interesting to me is the ‘perception’ of the Waffen SS that has taken hold over the years rather than the reality. The Waffen SS appeal has almost always been exclusively aimed at and welcomed by, young adolescent males whose thirst for adventure is insatiable. From the inception of the Leibstandarte, the N.S. propaganda-mill worked overtime to cultivate the myth of the LSAH’s physical superiority and bravery in battle. ‘Personalities’ were promoted, battles won were hi-lighted and defeats were buried. Couple this with their close association to Adolf Hitler and you had an intoxicating allure that drew willing recruits into their ranks in droves.

Post war, the literature written by men who served with the WSS or others equally determined to fight back against the perceived injustice of their post-war labelling as a ‘criminal organisation’ enthralled the next generation of young men, who latched onto every story of daring-do and bravery in battle that these pages told. Of course these books never covered the true reality of suspected war crimes committed by these ‘heroes’ or any humiliating defeats by the enemy. Subsequent generations have followed this trend, being enamoured by the perceived ‘kick ass’ reputation of the WSS which has sometimes been enhanced by the men who fought against them.

Current generations, it seems as posted previously are influenced by online war games that imply their superiority and glamour. The fact that so many re-enactors choose to be WSS units and the photo of the American unit pictured in front of a suspicious looking faux SS flag proves this point. Many of their admirers may have scant knowledge of the true facts as discussed here, their perceptions may solely be based on one specific unit or one small point in time. But invariably these young men grow up, mature and begin to realise that their boyhood ‘heroes’ were actually quite flawed. From personal experience, I have seen how some of these old ‘fanboys’ keep a tiny place in their hearts forever loyal while others have moved on to become their biggest detractors in order to atone for their youthful indiscretions. But love them or loath them, as shown here at least, there are many who continue to find them a fascinating subject too hard to resist.

[ljadw]

[ljadw]

One correction : after Charkow III,the time of the willing recruits in droves was over .