Joachim Peiper's tactics

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Post Reply
User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#16

Post by Harro » 11 Sep 2009, 22:45

Dream your dream Streckenbach.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#17

Post by Marcus » 12 Sep 2009, 20:08

A post about the Military service of forum member Streckenbach was split off into a new thread.

/Marcus


alan
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 21 Jun 2002, 23:47
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#18

Post by alan » 14 Sep 2009, 23:04

NOX NOCTOM, "reconnaissance by fire" was a basic part of German "Blitzkrieg" tactics. One would drive fast and keep one's guns firing to locate resistance, and small pockets of resistance might be ignored, in order to get behind and disrupt the enemy lines. One did not stop to take prisoners, one just told them to drop their arms and walk to the rear. If one met stronger resistance one would go arround it. Calvary tactics up-dated for SPW's. This is not just a WSS tactic, the Army ( e.g. Rommel) also pushed this doctrine. Even if you do not intend to start fires, your tracers will start fires. War, in itself is brutal, the purpose is to kill people and destroy anything that may be of use to the enemy. The war in Russia was extra brutal, both sides committed atrocities on an everyday basis.
Peiper was noted for being very agressive in the attack. That is what his superiors expected of him. Some of his contempories thought that Peiper was too willing to lose troops and equipment and did not want to have their troops under Peiper's command. Peiper's superiors however, thought that Peiper's losses were acceptable and promoted him. No matter which side of this argument one takes, one has to admit that Peiper led from the front and was a very brave man.
Many times Peiper was ordered to forget his flanks and just push through the enemy lines. In the 'Battle of the Bulge' Peiper was told to 'just get to the Meuse with one tank'. His superiors did not care about his losses, they relied on his aggressiveness in the attack.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#19

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 16 Sep 2009, 03:20

Hi Alan, you wrote:
"reconnaissance by fire" was a basic part of German "Blitzkrieg" tactics.
Just curious - what is your source?

BTW for other AHF members, "reconnaissance by fire" is a highly technical term for shooting at bushes to see if they shoot back (I believe Phillip Caputo first said that ;) )

This is the first I've ever heard that this tactic as a part of Blitzkrieg doctrine.

One would drive fast and keep one's guns firing to locate resistance, and small pockets of resistance might be ignored, in order to get behind and disrupt the enemy lines.
I would point out that all weapons firing while driving pell-mell may make a lot of noise, but it's not so good for accurate aiming and it probably won't scare seasoned troops, though it may keep their heads down.

One did not stop to take prisoners, one just told them to drop their arms and walk to the rear.
Again, what is your source?
If one met stronger resistance one would go arround it. Calvary tactics up-dated for SPW's. This is not just a WSS tactic, the Army ( e.g. Rommel) also pushed this doctrine.
Just Rommel or was this standard operational doctrine. Why do you mention Rommel and not Guderian?
Even if you do not intend to start fires, your tracers will start fires.
I don't think anyone is claimed Peiper's unit was called the "Blowtorch Battalion" because they accidentally set fire to buildings. They weren't called "The Careless with Tracers Battalion"

War, in itself is brutal, the purpose is to kill people and destroy anything that may be of use to the enemy. The war in Russia was extra brutal, both sides committed atrocities on an everyday basis.
While accurate as a general statement, in this discussion it's too much of a simplification. I'd also like to point on that between 1941-43 they bulk of the Eastern Front atrocities were committed by the Germans.
Peiper was noted for being very agressive in the attack.
By who? Can you give an example?
That is what his superiors expected of him.
Again, an example?
Some of his contempories thought that Peiper was too willing to lose troops and equipment and did not want to have their troops under Peiper's command.
Other than Harro's brief aside, what evidence do you have to support this theses?
Peiper's superiors however, thought that Peiper's losses were acceptable and promoted him.
Can you cite an example of one of his commanders forgiving Peiper for excessive losses?
No matter which side of this argument one takes, one has to admit that Peiper led from the front and was a very brave man.
He was unquestionably very charismatic, a character trait documented by both his SS peers and his American captors. IMO, his record as a commander becomes less stellar when one researches it in detail.
Many times Peiper was ordered to forget his flanks and just push through the enemy lines. In the 'Battle of the Bulge' Peiper was told to 'just get to the Meuse with one tank'.
Again, what is your source? Your quote also begs the question - what would be the point of reaching the Meuse if one can't hold it? (and you can't hold it with just one tank.) Though your quote ties nicely into Sepp Dietrich quip along the lines of "They call us the SS Sixth Panzer Army because we only have six Panzers left."

Michate
Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 02 Feb 2004, 11:50
Location: Germany

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#20

Post by Michate » 16 Sep 2009, 11:56

This is the first I've ever heard that this tactic as a part of blitzkreig doctrine.
Just curious as well, what is the "blitzkrieg doctrine" and where did the Germans formulate it?

As to armed reconnaissance: That Germans believed in "reconnaissance in force" is stated in the American army's "Handbook on German Military Forces". This is not a proof, just an indicator, but it may may be inferred as well from the composition of the Aufklärungsabteilung as a small combined arms team in itself, including a heavy company.

As a sidenote, post WW2 German officers concluded role and nature of reconnaissance had not been properly recognized during WW2.
To specifiy, reconnaissance should be regarded as a command function involving all kinds of weapons branches instead of, as had been, a combat mode delegated to a special subunit (Aufklärungsabteilung).
Also, the uneven composition of the Aufklärungsabteilungen caused often cuased their dissolution in combat - companies on halftracks were often used as reinforcements of the armoured Panzergrenadiere instead in their proper reconnaisance role. These points are made in various books written by F.M. von Senger und Etterlin, most notably "Die Panzergrenadiere" and his divisional history of the 24th Panzerdivision.
I don't think anyone is claimed Peiper's unit was called the "Blowtorch Battalion" because they accidentally set fire to buildings. They weren't called "The Careless with Tracers Battalion"
It would be nice to know whether this buring occurred as a means of forcing an enemy out during capturing a villlage or as a scorched earth tatctic during retreat.

As to the former, setting buildings on fire was an accepted tactic of German armoured forces by 1941 especially during night attacks, it is mentioned for army units e.g. in R. Steiger: "Panzertaktik im Spiegel deutscher Kriegstagebücher". Actually unsurprising, as 1. tanks without close support by other weapons branches are vulnerable in urban terrain, 2. houses in Russian villages were often of materials that could easily be set on fire and then enemy troops could no longer hide in the villages.

As to the latter, scorched earth procedures were also an established ingredient of German retreat operations from at least the beginning of 1943 (not to mention the history of scorched earth tactics from the 3rd Punic war via the Palatine in the 17th century or the American civil war to operation "Alberich" in early 1917 and similar operations in autumn 1918).
One did not stop to take prisoners, one just told them to drop their arms and walk to the rear.
Again, what is your source?
Many sources for the French campaign in 1940 (e.g. Frieser, "Blitzkrieglegende"), but that would be an anachronism for the Soviet-German war.

j keenan
Financial supporter
Posts: 1575
Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 12:22
Location: North

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#21

Post by j keenan » 16 Sep 2009, 17:56

Hi Robb,
Rommel by Richard Law + Craig Luther published by Bender
page 24 Rommel wanted smoke to get the assault moving again
"i now gave orders for a number of houses in the valley to
be set alight in order to supply the smoke we lacked."
Also in The Rommel Papers by L Hart
says in the French campaign he ordered troops to open fire with all weapons
in the direction of the enemy and push through and ignor there flanks.
But Rommel was unorthodox in his tactics
Best Jamie

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#22

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 24 Oct 2009, 06:18

Hi Michate & J - thanks for your informative posts.

I recently finished Osprey's campaign account of the Battle of the Bulge and it briefly mentioned German Army criticism of of SS recon operations. Apparently SS recon units were too eager to engage the enemy as opposed to bypassing enemy units and reporting on their strength, location, the terrain, etc.

Dutto1
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 19:34
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#23

Post by Dutto1 » 16 Nov 2009, 22:27

Jochen Peipers 3/gep batallion of ss pz gren rgt 2 was known throughout the LSSAH as the blowtorch battalion Peiper was idolised by his men and he led from the front amongst his decorations he earned the Tank destruction badge and the Close combat clasp to prove this.Peiper served on Himmlers staff twice it does not make him criminal no 1 or being part of the final solution.Peiper would have been aware of what was going on but still it does not make him a bad man in a sense that he was criminal.Jens Westemeier s book on him titled the new biography was written by the same Jens Westemeier that wrote a biography on him 10 yrs earlier in a more favorable light.I am not being biased i feel but his career was very complex and no definitive book has ever been written on Peiper that is not written to two different extremes notably the books by Agte and Westemeier ie hero and criminal views.

phillip burke
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Dec 2004, 03:18
Location: united kingdom

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#24

Post by phillip burke » 23 Nov 2009, 01:58

hello, about peiper s tactics on the easternfront, i ve just read jens and agtes books on peiper as well as platz der leibstandarte and last victory in russia, and there is a neat symetry in these books regarding peipers tactics.And yes they did burn down villages and kill all prsoners expect a couple to interogate, all the information is in these books as well as in this thread earlier, also there is a series of pictures in platz der leibstandarte showing the killing of prisoners,its quite weird how some people are just not prepared to admit to themselves the nature and conduct of war on the eastern front. and this way of waging war was also done during this period by the army as well as ss. it does seem that in the middle of the winter in a mobile war , while waging a war of annhilation, you just dont take prisoners.

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#25

Post by Harro » 23 Nov 2009, 11:47

Rob - wssob2 wrote:I recently finished Osprey's campaign account of the Battle of the Bulge and it briefly mentioned German Army criticism of of SS recon operations. Apparently SS recon units were too eager to engage the enemy as opposed to bypassing enemy units and reporting on their strength, location, the terrain, etc.
This is very true. During the opening stages of the Balkan campaign and Barbarossa this worked out very well. Smashing through weak enemy positions and pursuing them when they were on the run was exactly what the combined arms in SS recce battalions (often strengthened with some StuGs) were supposed to do. However, this eagerness to engage the enemy turned against them as soon as they smashed into stronger enemy positions and it turned out that they were very stubborn in not accepting that something was impossible to achieve. This resulted in burning down troops in repeated senseless attacks and way to often recce parties or even the complete battalion got trapped deep in enemy lines. Those who read Meyers "Grenadiers" and look behind the brawls about dashing heroism realize that more than once the AA LAH was saved from destruction in the nick of time and after Kursk things only got worse. Commanders who were more careful were deemed to be not "aggressive" enough. Applied to the situation in the Ardennes we can see that the initial task of the recce battalion - avoid enemy contact and just follow Peiper or Hansen until you're near the Meuse then use speed to capture a bridge) turned into something completely different: the attack of Peiper was too dashing, Knittel had to follow and with nobody taking care of their flanks the American recaptured Stavelot behind their backs. Instead of heading for a Meuse River bridge the recce battalion was forced into repeated attacks on Stavelot to recapture the bridge and reopen the supply route for Peiper. Senseless attacks against a much stronger enemy but "no" was no option so they just tried and tried again until the increasing enemy pressure forced them back. But even then the recce battalion was sacrificed to save Peipers skin.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#26

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 24 Nov 2009, 07:32

Hi Dutto1,

you wrote
Jochen Peipers 3/gep batallion of ss pz gren rgt 2 was known throughout the LSSAH as the blowtorch battalion
Can you confirm when this nickname was given to the unit?
Peiper was idolised by his men
Can you confirm this with contemporary (WWII) documentation, as opposed to postwar recollections.
and he led from the front


I just have to point out that leading from the front isn't always the best place for a commander.
amongst his decorations he earned the Tank destruction badge and the Close combat clasp to prove this.

I don't think there have ever been aspersions cast on Peiper's personal bravery.
Peiper served on Himmlers staff twice it does not make him criminal no 1 or being part of the final solution.
Other than the fact that he was a first hand witness to the planning of genocide.
Peiper would have been aware of what was going on but still it does not make him a bad man in a sense that he was criminal.
Other than complicit in the conspiracy to murder millions of European civilians.

Jens Westemeier s book on him titled the new biography was written by the same Jens Westemeier that wrote a biography on him 10 yrs earlier in a more favorable light.
I believe Jens is a member of the AHF; there are a couple of threads around in which he discusses why his additional research on Peiper caused him to revise his initial opinions documented in the first edition of his biography.
I am not being biased i feel but his career was very complex
"Complex" is usually a word people use when they can't bear to admit word such as "criminal."

and no definitive book has ever been written on Peiper that is not written to two different extremes notably the books by Agte and Westemeier ie hero and criminal views.
Given what has been written on Peiper, I'll quote Kurt Meyer: "The evidence is damning enough."

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#27

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 24 Nov 2009, 07:35

This is very true. During the opening stages of the Balkan campaign and Barbarossa this worked out very well. Smashing through weak enemy positions and pursuing them when they were on the run was exactly what the combined arms in SS recce battalions (often strengthened with some StuGs) were supposed to do. However, this eagerness to engage the enemy turned against them as soon as they smashed into stronger enemy positions and it turned out that they were very stubborn in not accepting that something was impossible to achieve. ...But even then the recce battalion was sacrificed to save Peipers skin.
Good comment, Harro. It's interesting, because it echoes the 1939-40 complaints that Heer commanders had about SS troops - that they were too enamored with "Hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" assaults when intelligent and less bloodthirsty tactics would have resulted in better gains and fewer casualties.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#28

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 24 Nov 2009, 07:38

hello, about peiper s tactics on the easternfront, i ve just read jens and agtes books on peiper as well as platz der leibstandarte and last victory in russia, and there is a neat symetry in these books regarding peipers tactics.And yes they did burn down villages and kill all prsoners expect a couple to interogate, all the information is in these books as well as in this thread earlier, also there is a series of pictures in platz der leibstandarte showing the killing of prisoners,its quite weird how some people are just not prepared to admit to themselves the nature and conduct of war on the eastern front. and this way of waging war was also done during this period by the army as well as ss. it does seem that in the middle of the winter in a mobile war , while waging a war of annhilation, you just dont take prisoners.
Phillip, you must be referring to the photo sequence of SS crewmen on Stug's machine gunning stray Red Army troops with their horses and panje wagons on the steppe during the battle for the recapture of Kharkov. Dulce bellum inexpertis.

User avatar
Harro
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 19 May 2005, 19:10
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#29

Post by Harro » 24 Nov 2009, 11:40

Dutto1 wrote:Peiper served on Himmlers staff twice it does not make him criminal no 1 or being part of the final solution.Peiper would have been aware of what was going on but still it does not make him a bad man in a sense that he was criminal.
What exactly does "would have been aware" mean? As adjutant of Himmler Peiper visited the concentration camps and witnessed the gassing of T4 victims. He described what he saw when he looked into the gas chamber. Peiper is also the man who told SS-Sturmbannführer Dr. Ernst Schäfer in 1939 that "die Polnische Intelligenz die Kartoffeln nun von unten ansehe". He was part of the close inner circle of high ranking nazis surrounding Himmler and he was more than "aware" of the crimes.

j keenan
Financial supporter
Posts: 1575
Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 12:22
Location: North

Re: Peiper's SPW tactics on the Eastern Front

#30

Post by j keenan » 24 Nov 2009, 12:30

What is the point of these post's?
What are you trying to prove?

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”