The thing is the top down statistical and mathematically correct result does not really illuminate much from the bottom-up. The complex causes and conditions, many of which are unknown or maybe even misdiagnosed/misgathered, is embedded in the data. People try to guess what is going on by looking at top-down statistics all the time, but the most straightward way is bottoms-up and the attitude of being satisfied with a hazy image. Personally I prefer the bottoms-up, ground perspective over the top down 10,000 feet view, if I had a choice I would usually choose the former, albeit with reservations.TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑27 Nov 2021 12:17
...also fine if you're some guy curious about army performance, with no practical purpose.
As height is only a proxy and intrinsically worthless to combat effectiveness (I'd guess), SS officers would be (I'd guess) of lower quality (ceteris paribus).Cult Icon wrote:This tall height was combined with an officer corps of lower educational status (SS officer candidates did not require a secondary school diploma unlike the Army) but had gone through an educational program that was more political/athletic in character (OCS at Bad Tolz and other places).
According to the SS divisional histories/profiles it looks like the SS officers and SS units got very similar training as Army officers after Bad Tolz/etc. Notably however few SS officers received General staff training, there was a shortage of officers of this type in their divisions (which was remedied from assigning Army officers). This hints that they were in no way an intellectual elite.