I've read what the numbers mean in terms of rating divisions by what type of operations they're capable of, but how did they come up with those figures? And who did the grading?
Lastly, where there other systems of rating divisions?
Kampfwert Rating System
Re: Kampfwert Rating System
Hello!
The grades were given the divisional commanders themselves. Or rather by the divisions operations department and then signed by the commander. In the monthly reports (Zustandsberichte) with a statement of the next higher command and in shorter weekly ones (Wochenmeldung) without any commentary. The ratings were based on available personal, equpiment, mobility, moral, supply, training level etc. Although I've never seen a detailed explanation of each individual grade i.e. why specifically a unit was II and not I.
There was another more secretive system that graded the "Innerer Kampfwert" (~internal combat value) based on factors like toughness, esprit de corps, capability, experience and cohesivness of the men and the leadership of divisions. This second system also used four grades (I-IV) that were given by corps, army and armygroup commanders and obviously not shared with the respective divisions/divisional commanders. I haven't found a detailed explanation of the latter system's four grades either but they were somewhat comparable to the normal Kampfwert ratings:
I = excellent, highly experienced, extremly reliable
II = good, capable, reliable,
III = mediocre, unproven, limited reliability,
IV = bad division, destroyed, not crisis-proof
The grades were given the divisional commanders themselves. Or rather by the divisions operations department and then signed by the commander. In the monthly reports (Zustandsberichte) with a statement of the next higher command and in shorter weekly ones (Wochenmeldung) without any commentary. The ratings were based on available personal, equpiment, mobility, moral, supply, training level etc. Although I've never seen a detailed explanation of each individual grade i.e. why specifically a unit was II and not I.
There was another more secretive system that graded the "Innerer Kampfwert" (~internal combat value) based on factors like toughness, esprit de corps, capability, experience and cohesivness of the men and the leadership of divisions. This second system also used four grades (I-IV) that were given by corps, army and armygroup commanders and obviously not shared with the respective divisions/divisional commanders. I haven't found a detailed explanation of the latter system's four grades either but they were somewhat comparable to the normal Kampfwert ratings:
I = excellent, highly experienced, extremly reliable
II = good, capable, reliable,
III = mediocre, unproven, limited reliability,
IV = bad division, destroyed, not crisis-proof
Ciao
Re: Kampfwert Rating System
KW I and II were considered attack capable. III and IV were defense-only.
Re: Kampfwert Rating System
Thank you!DirkAH wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020, 12:25Hello!
The grades were given the divisional commanders themselves. Or rather by the divisions operations department and then signed by the commander. In the monthly reports (Zustandsberichte) with a statement of the next higher command and in shorter weekly ones (Wochenmeldung) without any commentary. The ratings were based on available personal, equpiment, mobility, moral, supply, training level etc. Although I've never seen a detailed explanation of each individual grade i.e. why specifically a unit was II and not I.
There was another more secretive system that graded the "Innerer Kampfwert" (~internal combat value) based on factors like toughness, esprit de corps, capability, experience and cohesivness of the men and the leadership of divisions. This second system also used four grades (I-IV) that were given by corps, army and armygroup commanders and obviously not shared with the respective divisions/divisional commanders. I haven't found a detailed explanation of the latter system's four grades either but they were somewhat comparable to the normal Kampfwert ratings:
I = excellent, highly experienced, extremly reliable
II = good, capable, reliable,
III = mediocre, unproven, limited reliability,
IV = bad division, destroyed, not crisis-proof
That's just the answer I was looking for. Really good info, thanks for sharing.
Are there any sources you know in English which gives further background? Most sources Ive read that mentioned Kampfwert ratings gave a basic definition and then what the numbers meant, but nothing about how the number was come up with and by whom.