Waffes SS vs. US Marines

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: waffen-ss

#16

Post by Logan Hartke » 09 Sep 2002, 07:42

Nagelfar wrote:the Waffen-SS had rigid standards. you had to be atleast 5'11" to join and of very solid build. (before the stresses of losses in war made them lower standards).
Yes... I see what you mean...

Image

Logan Hartke

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
Location: United Kingdom

#17

Post by Gwynn Compton » 09 Sep 2002, 10:45

The problem in making such a comparison is that the two forces fought very different wars. Using examples outside of World War 2 is equally fruitless, as war in the modern era, changes quickly.

And as for Marine vs Japanese KIA ratios, I suggest you consider that on these Islands, the Japanese were completely cut off, starving, and could either surrender, or die, many choosing the latter option. The US Marines were fighting against a beaten enemy, the SS, against victorious forces. No comparison is possible due to their such different circumstances.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen Rommel against Manstein, pit the two against each other with equal forces and see who conquers the world first :P

Gwynn


User avatar
Aristotle
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 13:31
Location: Australia

#18

Post by Aristotle » 09 Sep 2002, 13:35

I think Gwynn is right in saying that you can't really compare the Marines and the SS fairly because they never fought under the same conditions during the period of history that they shared. Both units however were just as courageous, motivated and strong.

About the only place the two probably weren't equal was firepower after 1941. The SS, never able to get the numbers of automatic weapons they wanted through offical channels, commondered huge quantities of Russian Tokarev self-loading rifles, PPD & PPSh SMGs and Degtyarev light machine guns and threw away their 98k's.

As far as I know, and I might be wrong, the Marines never had that many SMGs and machine guns.

Both the USMC and the Waffen-SS have/had a record of famous fighting withdrawals and last stands. In my opinion it would come down to the wire with neither side giving up. I think in this case the group that was the most lucky would limp away badly mauled while the other side would be dead.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

#19

Post by Logan Hartke » 09 Sep 2002, 18:49

Gwynn Compton wrote:And as for Marine vs Japanese KIA ratios, I suggest you consider that on these Islands, the Japanese were completely cut off, starving, and could either surrender, or die, many choosing the latter option. The US Marines were fighting against a beaten enemy, the SS, against victorious forces. No comparison is possible due to their such different circumstances.
Yeah, I know. Take Wake Island for example. Oh, wait. That would make you WRONG, as would Guadalcanal. As would much of the other 1942-43 fighting. So, go learn your Corps history, then rejoin the argument, because right now, these pro-SS comments that keep saying that the Marines never faced hardship and success are driving me NUTS. Read a book about Wake, and then tell me that their enemy was always at the disadvantage. *SCREAMS* Argh. Learn your history folks!
Aristotle wrote:As far as I know, and I might be wrong, the Marines never had that many SMGs and machine guns.
The Marines used plenty of both. They used the Reising and the Thompson SMGs. They used the BAR and the Johnson LMGs. They used many M1917A1s and M1919A4s. Later they used M1919A6s. They were quite proficient and fond of semi-auto and auto weaponry.

Logan Hartke

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#20

Post by Caldric » 09 Sep 2002, 19:04

Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, Tarawa also make him wrong in his assessment of Japanese forces, Jima had supplies for years. Also in the Marshal Islands, which had been built up for a long defense they were not starving, not when they got there anyway.

It makes little difference we all know the German's were SUPER MEN. :roll:

I mean that is the reason they defeated the poor Soviet's on the Eastern front, oh wait they got the hell kicked out of them there, guess not so super after all.

So any argument to the contrary of the popular SUPER GERMAN mentality on this board is wasted. German SS Divisions were completely destroyed on a few occasions, consider the 3rd SS Division had 1/3 casualties in Poland and France, compared to the much smaller loses to the Heer divisions. Fanaticism? Or was it just plain poor leadership and tactics in warfare? Sure they improved and still got decimated on the Eastern Front.

b_c_ries
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002, 05:25
Location: California USA

#21

Post by b_c_ries » 10 Sep 2002, 00:42

I still think terrain and climate will make all the difference, the Nazi machinegunners would have an advantage in firepower based upon the MG-42 and they would also be better in the use of mortars as well as in digging trenches. The Marines would have better individual firepower and could manuever and apply this individual firepower more flexibly than the Nazis, as the terrain becomes more difficult to traverse the Marines advantage becomes more pronounced as one guy with a BAR can locate and manuever into a position more readily than a MG-42 gunner and all the guys with the ammo cans. Also, as the area covered by the units in conflict becomes larger and the forces more thinly dispersed the Marines would also benefit. Individual marksmanship would be a Marine advantage as well as individual initiative and small unit flexibility. With the Nazis a unit of company size usually breaks down to a MG-42 and guys to feed and protect it. With the Marines you have Riflemen and a MG that supports them. If the Nazis can keep their MG-42 fed and protected they are hard to beat but the Marines can figure this out and manuever into a position of advantage and since they are "cowardly" as noted by another person, they will only attack from a position of advantage. The hardest people to fight against are cowards that know how to shoot, have superior manueverability, are prepared to kill you, work as a team and say things like improvise and overcome. btw, I don't think that Marines are cowards though I will admit that I and most others that have been in the US military won't live up to the Japanese example of rushing up to a flamethrower tank with a AT charge tied to a bamboo pole across an open field in broad daylight.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

User avatar
Aristotle
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 13:31
Location: Australia

#22

Post by Aristotle » 10 Sep 2002, 01:33

I still
Last edited by Aristotle on 10 Sep 2002, 01:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aristotle
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 13:31
Location: Australia

#23

Post by Aristotle » 10 Sep 2002, 01:47

Aristotle wrote:
Aristotle wrote:As far as I know, and I might be wrong, the Marines never had that many SMGs and machine guns.
The Marines used plenty of both. They used the Reising and the Thompson SMGs. They used the BAR and the Johnson LMGs. They used many M1917A1s and M1919A4s. Later they used M1919A6s. They were quite proficient and fond of semi-auto and auto weaponry.
I did know the Marines used semi-auto carbines and BAR's but I didn't realise they used so many other auto, semi-auto weapons.

This being the case The firepower is evenly matched too so I believe even more strongly that it would come down to who had the most luck on the day all other things like ammo supplies being equal.

Also I think someone mentioned USMC use of support, I am assuming they mean aircover and artillery. The SS also had planety of both depending on which time period of WW2 you lift them from to this imaginary battlefield. Also they had close tank support which was stronger than the tanks the marines could bring to bear.

But still I think luck would be the deciding factor
:| :| :| :|

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#24

Post by Caldric » 10 Sep 2002, 01:49

Actually the firepower is not even, the Marines had the following also:

Armor
Artillery (light and heavy)
Aircraft (Fighters and Bombers which were manned by Marines for Marines, in other words no reliance on others.)
Mortars
Engineering
Medical
Recon


The Marines were a self-contained combined arms organization, reinforce it, which is not uncommon is actually is very common, and the Marine division can push 40,000 men.

Also the Marine General's (who never get credit) in WWII were some of the finest the US ever produced. Smith and another Smith come to mind, not to mention General Vandergrifth.

The only thing the SS had over the Marine's would be more divisions, but they were smaller then a Marine division I do believe.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

#25

Post by Logan Hartke » 10 Sep 2002, 02:03

...and the rains would come and the SS would be stuck in the mud like Russia. The Marines, however, would load up in their LVTs and take up after and around them, cutting their supplies and attacking them where the Germans thought that no attack could be made. They storm across rivers that would keep the Germans at bay for days. That's the terrain advantage you pro-SS guys were talking about?

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Aristotle
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 13:31
Location: Australia

#26

Post by Aristotle » 10 Sep 2002, 02:05

Caldric wrote:Actually the firepower is not even, the Marines had the following also:

Armor
Artillery (light and heavy)
Aircraft (Fighters and Bombers which were manned by Marines for Marines, in other words no reliance on others.)
Mortars
Engineering
Medical
Recon


The Marines were a self-contained combined arms organization, ...

Also the Marine General's (who never get credit) in WWII were some of the finest the US ever produced. Smith and another Smith come to mind.
The SS were also as self contained as they could be. They had SS personel in all the roles your list mention except aircraft where I admit they did have to rely on the Luftwaffe. Bu the rest of your list is identical to the arms of service within SS combat divisions.

Indeed a ten man SS recon squad led by Hauptsturmfuhrer Fritz Klingenberg bluffed the mayor of Belgrade into surrendering the city without a shot being fired.

The SS also had some fine generals, unfortunately they also had a number of butchers and murders who gave the rest of the professionals on chance to shine.

So we are still at a fairly even keel, if you'll excuse the Marine joke :D

Daniel
Last edited by Aristotle on 10 Sep 2002, 02:22, edited 1 time in total.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

#27

Post by Logan Hartke » 10 Sep 2002, 02:08

Ten SS men aren't going to bluff a Marine into giving up his beer, let alone his postition. Also, you are right, the SS didn't have air support; the USMC did.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Aristotle
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 13:31
Location: Australia

#28

Post by Aristotle » 10 Sep 2002, 02:20

Logan Hartke wrote:Ten SS men aren't going to bluff a Marine into giving up his beer, let alone his postition. Also, you are right, the SS didn't have air support; the USMC did.

Logan Hartke
You mention heavy rain in your second last post in this discussion. 8O

Tell me, what good are your much vaunted Marine aircraft in the pouring rain! Bad weather works both way Logan. Advantages and disadvantages. :P

Daniel

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

#29

Post by Logan Hartke » 10 Sep 2002, 04:30

Who says they'd take place at the same time? During the rainy season, the Marines have the advantage with their LVTs. During clear weather, the SS can't bring out their heavy armor for fear of Corsair napalm and 1000lb bombs.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Nagelfar
Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: 08 Sep 2002, 07:31
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Himmler

#30

Post by Nagelfar » 10 Sep 2002, 10:02

Logan Hartke,

are you trying to be facetious? Himmler was in good shape, just thin, after his 'body' was examined by a coroner of the british military, he went on to make a statement on its condition in an official context that the body was well built with very muscular legs... of course, even albert speer laughed when he heard this, because everyone had the impression that he was spindly, though speer admitted to having never he never seen himmler's legs bare.

anyway, thats not the point, himmler joined the SS before its standards were in place, standards made mostly by himself. though he kept in shape as all SS men were expected to, even taking up vegetarianism

Locked

Return to “What if”