Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge

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

Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge

#1

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 20 Oct 2012, 16:34

[Split from "Why the Waffen-SS"]

The fighting record can stand or fall on its own merits. As to exceptionalism, again, the record speaks for itself. Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Totenkopf and Wiking all performed exceptionally well throughout the war,
But skrable, you are completely wrong; making assertions completely at odds with historical facts.

The LSSAH did NOT perform well during the Battle of the Bulge. It performed MUCH WORSE than the German Army 2nd Panzer Division. That's the reality, yet you insist on this fantasy that the LSSAH was "the best".

skrable
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 03 Oct 2003, 18:56
Location: New York

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#2

Post by skrable » 20 Oct 2012, 18:20

Rob - wssob2 wrote:
The fighting record can stand or fall on its own merits. As to exceptionalism, again, the record speaks for itself. Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Totenkopf and Wiking all performed exceptionally well throughout the war,
But skrable, you are completely wrong; making assertions completely at odds with historical facts.

The LSSAH did NOT perform well during the Battle of the Bulge. It performed MUCH WORSE than the German Army 2nd Panzer Division. That's the reality, yet you insist on this fantasy that the LSSAH was "the best".
Please Rob, I have never said (nor do I believe) that the LSSAH was “the best”. I’m not a little kid and frankly as an adult, I’m not even sure what that means when considering the length of the war and the many different factors that can affect the performance of a unit in an operation. In my opinion LSSAH performed well during the Bulge, considering the terrain and conditions. They were given a basically impossible task. The terrain was completely inappropriate for the units assigned. It’s clear that enemy forces did not actually stop the LSSAH advance (though I believe they would or could have), lack of fuel, poor weather and difficult terrain made an already difficult task impossible.

Your counterargument is that the 2.Panzerdivision performed better? I think Lauchert was a much better Panzerkommandeur than Peiper and the 2.PzDiv performed exceptionally well (despite clearly being defeated by the enemy), however, to say one division performed better than the other in this situation….. I’m not comfortable going there. Please, convince me they were! Always admired Lauchert a great deal from his time with the 11.PzDiv.


skrable
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 03 Oct 2003, 18:56
Location: New York

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#3

Post by skrable » 20 Oct 2012, 19:58

Thank you for the book recommendation. Reading the reviews on Amazon and these volumes sound excellent. I will definitely be purchasing them. Ironically, in a lot of ways Peiper is the man who most personifies many of the issues made in this thread. His career is like a microcosm of the previous 25+ pages of opinion. Talk about a guy who is idolized (and maybe demonized too) beyond all proportion to his actual importance. Sort of like the W-SS. Anyway, these look like excellent books, even if about a much covered Kampfgruppe.

jrutman53
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 12 Apr 2012, 23:06

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#4

Post by jrutman53 » 21 Oct 2012, 21:19

Rob!!
Hello wssob2,
OK,I am an old man and don't know how to copy and paste your previous comment but you said something about the 2nd Pz of the Heer out performing the LSSAH in the Ardennes. You were pretty assertive about how much better the Heer did.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing,just want to know on what criteria are you basing that conclusion?
Tank kill versus loss ratio? Number of casualties on both sides? The only thing the Heer Dv did better was advancing a longer distance. Both LSSAH and 2nd Pz did not achieve their objective,both were boxed in by the allies,lost a lot of men and equipment,ran out of fuel and abandoned a lot of vehicles at the tip of their advance. Both units faced an aweful road network that did not run in the correct direction,bad combat power ratios against the allies and chronic supply problems.
I would say the 2nd Pz had a much better Div Kdr and staff that made sure coordination of the Div combined arms capabilities was properly utilized.
I still don't know why you would say the Heer Div did so much better?
I am not being sarcastic or in your face so please don't bite my head off.
J

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 16:35
Location: Authie

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#5

Post by BillHermann » 21 Oct 2012, 21:57

This would be a brilliant discussion and topic as well as I am fascinated by the Battle of the Bulge and the comparing and contrasting of units. There would be much to talk about as well.

Without straying off topic to two much and there are some details here that do relate to the grater topic why the Waffen-SS.

As stated above the Heer divisions almost made it to the Muse in yet little has been published in great detail about their advance. Where as we know that numerous books and chapters have been written that give a play by play of Peiper's advance. Some of which are so slanted that they have turned him into a misunderstood hero. It is obvious that much of the original stories were put together from a well documented advance but how this has evolved. This fictional grandiose from this story of the Battle of the Bulge of 1st Waffen-SS is interesting.

Back to the comment above from jrutman53, the partial reasons for the loss of the Peiper and the rest of the LSSAH was the tactics of the US army and the lay of the land but a great deal of the reasons of the loss was the poor planning, execution, organization and tactics from the beginning from by the LSSAH and the 6th panzer army. Much of the failures had as much to do with the Waffen-SS and its leadership as is did with the US army and terrain. There were many times in the first week where there could have been decision that made by the 6th panzer army that could have made a difference in the success of the advance as a whole.

Back to the " why " a simple example of how inflated the W-SS is how much is know and written about Peiper r but how many know of Major von Cochenhausen ? Again superficial mystique has been created because at the very basic level of military planning and roles there is little difference, the only thing Peiper had that was different was his association with the SS, Hitler and crimes. " The why " lies with the last three points as training, skill and equipment was very much the same.
Last edited by BillHermann on 21 Oct 2012, 22:17, edited 2 times in total.

jrutman53
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 12 Apr 2012, 23:06

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#6

Post by jrutman53 » 21 Oct 2012, 22:06

I agree about how Peiper became more well known. Of course it was from the Malmedy prozess. But as to improper planning or decisions I would still say in both the LSSAH and 2nd Pz during the bulge bad decisions were made in the first week. In the southern front way was Bastogne not reduced immediately? That would have made life so much easier for the Manteufle people?
So I suppose my question is as far as this threads' topic is concerned,why NOT the W-ss in this case? The results were very similar?

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 16:35
Location: Authie

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#7

Post by BillHermann » 21 Oct 2012, 22:24

jrutman53 wrote:I agree about how Peiper became more well known. Of course it was from the Malmedy prozess. But as to improper planning or decisions I would still say in both the LSSAH and 2nd Pz during the bulge bad decisions were made in the first week. In the southern front way was Bastogne not reduced immediately? That would have made life so much easier for the Manteufle people?
So I suppose my question is as far as this threads' topic is concerned,why NOT the W-ss in this case? The results were very similar?
No the question is why in a larger context, not just with the Bulge. If we want to start a why not that is for another forum or thread.

In case of the Bulge one can say that the success and speed of the 5th panzer army was better because of distance and the lack of conquering Bastogne in no way trumps their success. Tactically in the first stages of the battle it was a good move to surround and move forward. One can say the lack of ability or will to surround and move forward with St Vith and the North shoulder cost the 6th army.

jrutman53
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 12 Apr 2012, 23:06

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#8

Post by jrutman53 » 22 Oct 2012, 02:17

Well yes Bill,I get the point about the larger context of this thread. I posted in answer to what Rob had said about the LSSAH and the 2nd Pz and was just addressing that comparison.
What are the criteria he used to come to that conclusion?
I am also impressed with certain small unit actions by the Heer so I am not a SS glory hound. The Battlegroup that led the breakout from the Tcherkassy caldron comes to mind as do the 4thPzDiv on the Baltic coast in '45 and the Von Der Hydte battlegroup in Normandy.
I only started studying the German military after I had studied my own Military and I still say to belittle ones' enemies,current or past,is to somehow belittle ones' self .

berlichingen
Banned
Posts: 44
Joined: 25 Aug 2012, 17:55

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#9

Post by berlichingen » 27 Oct 2012, 16:26

Rob - wssob2 wrote:
The fighting record can stand or fall on its own merits. As to exceptionalism, again, the record speaks for itself. Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Totenkopf and Wiking all performed exceptionally well throughout the war,
But skrable, you are completely wrong; making assertions completely at odds with historical facts.

The LSSAH did NOT perform well during the Battle of the Bulge. It performed MUCH WORSE than the German Army 2nd Panzer Division. That's the reality, yet you insist on this fantasy that the LSSAH was "the best".
This is incorrect . Put the army divisions in the north shoulder and they would not have gotten far either. There were other factors which limited the advance in the north.

berlichingen
Banned
Posts: 44
Joined: 25 Aug 2012, 17:55

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#10

Post by berlichingen » 27 Oct 2012, 16:37

BillHermann wrote:
Back to the comment above from jrutman53, the partial reasons for the loss of the Peiper and the rest of the LSSAH was the tactics of the US army and the lay of the land but a great deal of the reasons of the loss was the poor planning, execution, organization and tactics from the beginning from by the LSSAH and the 6th panzer army. Much of the failures had as much to do with the Waffen-SS and its leadership as is did with the US army and terrain. There were many times in the first week where there could have been decision that made by the 6th panzer army that could have made a difference in the success of the advance as a whole..
The lay of the land played a large role in the north shoulder. The alleged poor planning,etc.. is not the reason for the failure of the advance there.

skylinedrive
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 25 May 2009, 07:44

Re: Why the Waffen-SS

#11

Post by skylinedrive » 27 Oct 2012, 16:59

berlichingen wrote: The lay of the land played a large role in the north shoulder. The alleged poor planning,etc.. is not the reason for the failure of the advance there.
And the lay of the land is, just like a lottery, totally imprevisible, something you can't factor into any staff work or planning!

Christ on a push bike! This place is the Muppets Show of military history.

berlichingen
Banned
Posts: 44
Joined: 25 Aug 2012, 17:55

Re: Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge

#12

Post by berlichingen » 27 Oct 2012, 18:35

skylinedrive wrote:
berlichingen wrote: The lay of the land played a large role in the north shoulder. The alleged poor planning,etc.. is not the reason for the failure of the advance there.
And the lay of the land is, just like a lottery, totally imprevisible, something you can't factor into any staff work or planning!

Christ on a push bike! This place is the Muppets Show of military history.
It is not because you know the lay of the land that you can conjure it away by a magic trick. It was what it what was and it made any armoured advance very difficult. Easy for the defender, difficult for the attacker.

skylinedrive
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 25 May 2009, 07:44

Re: Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge

#13

Post by skylinedrive » 27 Oct 2012, 18:44

You can't conjure it away but you have to plan accordingly, eventually you should come to the point where you realize that maybe it would be a wise move to reconsider your choice regarding the place where you are planning to attack. Of course if the planning is done by political cronies and sycophants that's a little much to ask. But it wasn't the lay of the land that made the difference in the VI Panzer Armee sector, Von Manteuffel's sector wasn't any better when it comes to the terrain.

berlichingen
Banned
Posts: 44
Joined: 25 Aug 2012, 17:55

Re: Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge

#14

Post by berlichingen » 27 Oct 2012, 19:24

skylinedrive wrote:You can't conjure it away but you have to plan accordingly, eventually you should come to the point where you realize that maybe it would be a wise move to reconsider your choice regarding the place where you are planning to attack. Of course if the planning is done by political cronies and sycophants that's a little much to ask. But it wasn't the lay of the land that made the difference in the VI Panzer Armee sector, Von Manteuffel's sector wasn't any better when it comes to the terrain.
The attack was done in the Ardennes because there was the allied weakness.
Your description of the planners is not to be taken very seriously.
The terrain was much worse in the 6.SS Panzerarmy sector. And the defenses were stronger.

skylinedrive
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 25 May 2009, 07:44

Re: Performance of Heer and Waffen-SS in the Bulge

#15

Post by skylinedrive » 27 Oct 2012, 19:52

If you had read Cole and Parker, just to cite two of the standard works on the Ardennes battle, you would know that my description of the planners is dead on, I was even gracious to them. If a staff officer falsifies march tables, if he puts in half a day to build a pontoon bridge instead of two and a half that are needed in reality,etc. etc. etc. etc. just to please the Führer, well he is well served with scyophant. As to the terrain, how many times have you driven along the different Rollbahn's? How many times have you driven from Dasburg to Marnach, then carrying on to Clervaux, Eselborn, Antoniushaff...........?

Let me guess.....you haven't heard half of the names. So once again, the terrain wasn't worse for Sepp Dietrich then it was for Manteuffel.

Finally terrain is not the same as defenses, two pairs of shoes.

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”