The Military Successes of the Waffen-SS

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Dennis,

I would reinforce what Cult Icon says about Wikipedia. It is a source of last resort.

I am also a little sceptical about Mitcham. I got his first book, which was, I think, titled Hitler's Legions, a good 20 years ago. It seemed to be largely based on Allied intelligence on the German Army and is full of limitations and errors. Today it is better avoided. I hope he has got better and The German Defeat in the East, 1944-45 is an improvement.

Cheers,

Sid.

[rossmcpharter]

Hi rossmcpharter,

You write, "In general, the problem as I see it, is these Waffen-SS Mechanized Divisions were used as Fire brigades, always butting themselves against the enemies strongest points, always bleeding themselves white, as at Kursk, so expertise is being lost as it's being built up."

That is the role and problem of the entire Panzerwaffe, not just of the Waffen-SS armoured units.

Indeed, the creation of numerous Waffen-SS armoured units in the middle of the war aggravated these problems for the Army, because it drew resources away from its own training, expansion and rebuilding. The Waffen-SS created no extra armoured assets for the Wehrmacht at all. You are, in effect, reinforcing the argument against armouring the Waffen-SS.

Cheers,

Sid.

Absolutely Sid , The 6th Army was doing this earlier at Stalingrad as well, so it's not just a Waffen-ss thing. I believe that the regular panzer divisions would be able to do it with a little more finesse though, but would struggle with their smaller infantry regiments.

[dshaday]

Hi Cult Icon

The original comment was pertaining to the search for 'outstanding successes', btw.

If you look through my posts you will see that I replied to specific combat figures/comment you made. This thread is not about outstanding combat successes.

The counterstrike Aug. 1-6th was neither a success nor outstanding.

The counterstrike did not achieve all its goals, nor did it fail completely.

No one has said that the attack results were outstanding.

Regards

Dennis

PS
The link you gave axishistory estimates: viewtop...13345#p1613345 does not seem to work.

[Cult Icon]

To repeat, according to 'Viking Panzers', the highlight of 5.SS in 1942-1944 were 1. Caucasus 2. summer of 43': Izyum/Belgorod-Kharkov 3. fall/winter 43' 4. Korsun 5. Warsaw

How about 3.SS in 1943-1944?? Highlights: 1. Kharkov III 2. Citadel, Mius, Belgorod-Kharkov. 3. Fall/winter 43' 4. Warsaw

Does anybody have a copy of: "The Caucasus and the Oil" (Tiecke?) Does it have detailed tactical coverage of the mobile divisions eg. 3., 23., 13.,5.SS, etc.?

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

The Waffen-SS created no extra armoured assets for the Wehrmacht at all.

Since the Waffen SS armoured units in the field were subordinated to OKH, it is misleading to say that the Wehrmacht was deprived of extra armoured assets. You of course mean that Army Panzer units were deprived of some additional armoured resources due to the creation of Waffen SS armoured units.

Regards

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi Cult Icon

To repeat, according to 'Viking Panzers', the highlight of 5.SS in 1942-1944 were 1. Caucasus 2. summer of 43': Izyum/Belgorod-Kharkov 3. fall/winter 43' 4. Korsun 5. Warsaw

How about 3.SS in 1943-1944?? Highlights: 1. Kharkov III 2. Citadel, Mius, Belgorod-Kharkov. 3. Fall/winter 43' 4. Warsaw

Does anybody have a copy of: "The Caucasus and the Oil" (Tiecke?) Does it have detailed tactical coverage of the mobile divisions eg. 3., 23., 13.,5.SS, etc.?

Don't know who you are addressing this reply to, or for what purpose ?

If it is to me, then I don't see any mention of outstanding military success in the quote above. ( Since military highlights are not the same as outstanding military successes).

Regards

Dennis

[Cult Icon]

The battle was not even a tactical success.

I do not engage in useless semantic debates. I am moving the thread back on track.

[dshaday]

Hi Cult Icon

The battle was not even a tactical success.

The battle was certainly not a tactical failure.

I do not engage in useless semantic debates. I am moving the thread back on track.

Good, then please stick to possible Waffen SS successes, and avoid misleading comments about battles, medal entitlements and loss figures.

Regards

Dennis

[Sid Guttridge]

Double post.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Dennis,

I don't have to defend propositions that are not mine.

I think you may have misread what I actually wrote.

Had I written, as you suggest, "that the Wehrmacht was deprived of extra armoured assets", I would, indeed, have been misleading.

However, I didn't write that.

Furthermore, as you quoted me correctly in writing, "The Waffen-SS created no extra armoured assets for the Wehrmacht at all.", this should have been clear.

Furthermore, in writing, "You of course mean that Army Panzer units were deprived of some additional armoured resources due to the creation of Waffen SS armoured units." you are absolutely correct. I did mean that.

Indeed, not only did I mean that, but I actually wrote it thus: "Indeed, the creation of numerous Waffen-SS armoured units in the middle of the war aggravated these problems for the Army, because it drew resources away from its own training, expansion and rebuilding."

In fact, contrary to appearances, on this occasion, we seem to be in agreement!

Happy New Year,

Sid.

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

The Waffen-SS created no extra armoured assets for the Wehrmacht at all.

You seem to have missed my point about the Waffen SS being subordinated to the OKH, and is therefore an extra armoured asset for the Wehrmacht to use. This means that armoured assets were not excluded from the Wehrmacht.

As was pointed out to you in a previous thread by another poster, the total armoured assets of the Army did not decline during the Waffen SS armoured build up. Your statement as it stands is misleading.


Regards

Dennis

[Art]

That 3rd Tank Army was encircled and the pocket later cleared on 11 August. Perhaps not all of 3rd Tank Corps was deployed or destroyed in the vanguard? Hundreds of Soviet tanks and AFV are mentioned as being lost in the operation, with 3,00 killed and 6,000 captured.

Elements of the 3 Tank Corps broke out from the pocket on 3 August 1944 (there was no cohesive encirclement front around it) yet with losses. Nothing indicates that it was destroyed, as quoted above the entire army reported the loss of ~2300 men 1-10 August 1944, while the corps had more than 10 thousands men. According to the German intelligence officers' reports the entire Army Group Center took 6800 POWs during the months of August:
http://ww2stats.com/pow_ger_okh_aok.html
6 thousands prisoners captured in one engagement is certainly an overstatement. There was a certain tendency for overblowing German tactical successes late in the war for propaganda ends, I can remember allegedly "destroyed" Pliev's group at Debrecen, "destroyed" 2 Guards Tank Corps at Gumbinen, "destroyed" 3 Tank Army at Lauban from the same vein.
As for tank losses according to N.Baczyk the 2 Tank Army lost 113 tanks and SP guns as total write-offs between 1 and 4 August 1944, of them 87 were abandoned at Radzymin-Wolomyn during retreat. German losses are estimated by the same author as about 50 vehicles. One can find scans of the article in Polish here:
http://imf.forum24.ru/?1-15-0-00000018-000-0-0

[Cult Icon]

^
2TA, not 3TA................

Stating the obvious.. those numbers are no good for the germans. I had previously posted a page of figures directly from the book...seemingly unread? N.Baczyk, if you check my earlier post actually estimates German losses at 150-100 tanks destroyed and damaged, not 50.

This was the only major counterstrike executed by the 5 Pz. divisions in these months. This battle was a minor slugfest that went on for a few days. 2TA deployed for defense. 3TC was able to pull back its forces in tact. It cost the germans more than it did the soviets as they could not afford these losses, and it was their main chance to do real damage to 2TA. After the battle, the Pz. were re-organized, with 4.Pz joining 4.SS PzK (3.SS/5.SS) and HG/19.Pz relocating.

3.SS participated on the periphery. 4.Pz sent a KG. HG, 19.Pz, and 5.SS were more heavily engaged. SS were only a minority of the units there so it is not worth discussing as a 'SS operation'. It was an army operation.

This debate has gone off-topic, and now revolves around research free semantics. It makes more sense to look at the performance of individual SS Pz. divisions and see how they performed in the overall context of an operation.

[dshaday]

Hi Cult Icon

I had previously posted a page of figures directly from the book...seemingly unread?

Your post with the figures was indeed read by me at least. It mentioned losses at various times before and again after the battle. There was no mention of German irrevocable losses with which to compare the Russian figures (apples-to-apples thingy). The German data of 150-100 damaged + destroyed is a loose figure and gives no indication of irrecoverable losses for comparison.

N.Baczyk, if you check my earlier post actually estimates German losses at 150-100 tanks destroyed and damaged, not 50.

Your post with the reference of 150-100 damaged + destroyed tanks linked back to an Axis History Forum thread with a broken/incomplete link. I pointed this out to you but you did not respond. As such, I could not verify the information or its context.

Regards

Dennis

[dshaday]

Hi Sid

I would reinforce what Cult Icon says about Wikipedia. It is a source of last resort.

A better way to look at it is that this Wiki article is a good firs-in overview. To give the reader ideas on what to search on in reference books and some background. This is what I did I any case. Though I would not use it as a sole information tool.

Incidentally, some of the figures and notes in that Wiki article are quite interesting and useful - which is the main thing.

I am also a little sceptical about Mitcham. I got his first book, which was, I think, titled Hitler's Legions, a good 20 years ago. It seemed to be largely based on Allied intelligence on the German Army and is full of limitations and errors. Today it is better avoided. I hope he has got better and The German Defeat in the East, 1944-45 is an improvement.

Looks like we will both have to read the book to find out if it is good or not.

All the best

Dennis