What does "Conscript" mean in CM terms?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

"Not really."

Yes really. It was Glantz reading Russian actual tank strength accounts that documented the true losses to 5th Tank, just as it was German staff reports that documented German tank strengths. (Although their TWO accounting is a silly basis, abused in some sources - reduction in runners being the relevant variable). I also apparently need to point out that George Nipe is not a German general officer.

German claims for Russians losses are not believable, any more than Russian claims for German losses. Accountant level claims for own side losses are what corrected both - not general officer accounts on either side. Manstein was as misleading about Kursk as Rotmistrov.

As for "decisive tactical victory", that is another round square and misunderstanding, as your own closing admissions show. Was 5th Tank badly misused? Sure. But the fact that the Germans were down to 250 runners by then is already enough to determine the strategic outcome - there was never any prospect whatsoever of that few running tanks breaking through an entire reserve Front. Was Kutuzov more important for the Russian operational victory than anything that happened in front of 1SS Panzer Corps? Absolutely, and Russian general officers directly concerned in the latter lied about it to puff themselves, as general officers routinely do. Guess what? The tactical performance of 1SS Panzer Corps that late, was equally irrelevant to the operational outcome. (Then we get the Germans claiming Sicily mattered more than Kutuzov, an equal distortion of reality).

Yes 5GTA was badly maule. Read Zamulin and Nipe. Not the older sources which rely on the now discredited acounnt by Rotmistrov and his Soviet masters in Moscow. The truth could not be admitted in the early 1960s because Nikita Khruschev was Commissar to the Voronezh Front which gave 5GTA its orders which very likely came direct from Moscow in any case. Had thge truth been revealed then it would have reflected very badly on Khruschev even if he was not directly involved. And it is hard to beieve that, given his position he did not have some invlovement. And later it was too difficult for the politicians to admit they had lied about Prokorovka. Politicians will do thesame in the democratic West if it suits them - look at how long it took to expose the truth (or some of it) concerning the Hillsborough stadium Disaster.

And because the German records, though held inthe US were available and since most historians of the 1950s to 1980s believed the Soviet line most, if not all Western accounts gave what has now been revealed a false view of the battle. Which was used as evidence for the qualitative inferiority of the Waffen SS Panzer Divisions.

Yet it was these "qualitatiivel inferior" SS Panzer Divisions who held off the Britishand US in Normandy for two months. This despite Allied air supremacy, intensive artillery barrages and often superior numbers. So, if the Waffen SS were inferior why did it take over a month to ta\ke Caen from thm? Hre is a clue - he Waffen SS in Normandy were far grom being inferior soldiers. They were, whatever elsethey may have been, were highly trained, corageous 9or fanatical) fghting force.

Yes they executedcaptured Allied soldiers on the battlefield but there are cases of Allied soldiers doing exactlly the same thing. SS front line units also committed atrocities against civillians nd that Allied soldiers are not known to have done.

But war crimes are irrelevent to th task of judging a unit's combat effectiveness. To do that we must assess the only admissible evidence, their combat performance on the battlefielf

[womble]

...if the Waffen SS were inferior why did it take over a month to ta\ke Caen from thm?...

Well, there could be a lot of reasons that an inferior force could hold out against a superior one for that long. It was a major urban centre that was key to the defense and it got bombed to rubble, making it even easier to fortify and defend. The invaders were operating on the narrow side of a beach head with their own supply problems until well after the fall of Cherbourg.

Holding on in such a position is no evidence whatsoever that the SS were particularly highly trained.

[JonS]

War crimes are not irrelevant, because combat doesn't happen in some idealised vacuum. As someone once said; war is the continuation of politics by other means. If the way you conduct war - and politics - is by executing civilians, then yes: that absolutely has a bearing on combat performance.

WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

War crimes are not irrelevant, because combat doesn't happen in some idealised vacuum. As someone once said; war is the continuation of politics by other means. If the way you conduct war - and politics - is by executing civilians, then yes: that absolutely has a bearing on combat performance.

But Allied troops also committed war crimes, specifically a well known case during the Sicily campaign. And there were instances of Allied soldiers in Normandy doig the same thing we condemn the Waffen SS as doing. The matter of civillian exrcutons are however a different matter. But, the historical record shows that theGerman army held the Allies up in Normandy for two months.

Are you suggesting that the Allied soldiers were completely incompetemt? Because if the Waffen SS divisions they were fighting were the low grade incometennts some people apparently still suggest that is the only explamation of why it took so lomg to win despitre the Allied air supremacy, naval gunfire support and probably superior numbers in the end.

The truth is that the Allied troops were far from incompetent. They were up against a tough and resourceful opponent and it took a lot for the Allies to finally achieve victory in Normandy and, in the end, a final victory in Europe.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Well, there could be a lot of reasons that an inferior force could hold out against a superior one for that long. It was a major urban centre that was key to the defense and it got bombed to rubble, making it even easier to fortify and defend. The invaders were operating on the narrow side of a beach head with their own supply problems until well after the fall of Cherbourg.

Holding on in such a position is no evidence whatsoever that the SS were particularly highly trained.

Except most of the fighting took placwe outside the city in the fields and villages.

Sure the Allies had their own probles. Supply as you say. Also terrain whether that be villages, bocage, more open areas (ef Operation Goodwood)or indeed Caen itself. It only took a few days to take the city itself (Operation Charnwood. Plus, as every historian from Wilmot to Hastings to Reynolds agree was a determined and competent German opponent.

Normandy was a hard fought and bloody campaign. By no means a cakewalk. So, where is your evidence that 1st and II SS Panzer Korps were not particularly competent. When you answer this bear in mind wht they were up against.

And bear in mind other examples such as the Falschirmjagers defensding Cassino. Were the Allied troops trying to take the place incompetent or were they up against a tough, resourceful opponent in a strong defensive position. Then apply the same criteria to Normandy

[Lt Belenko]

But Allied troops also committed war crimes, specifically a well known case during the Sicily campaign.

Are we talking about Gen Patton slapping incident of the combat fatigued soldier?

[dieseltaylor]

Are we talking about Gen Patton slapping incident of the combat fatigued soldier?

Try to keep up Lt. !

: )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_Massacre

From this concurrent thread.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1439729#post1439729

[womble]

...where is your evidence that 1st and II SS Panzer Korps were not particularly competent...

You mistake me. I'm not asserting anything about any SS divisions. Just that your arguments aren't providing any evidence that they were subject to any better training methods than the other formations involved in the war in that theatre on either side. I don't have to provide any evidence for the weakness of your arguments other than your arguments. Go me. The specific nature of the combat really doesn't matter one jot, since it was hardly advantageous for the attacker in any location in Normandy: the defender had advantages, and the attacker was suffering their own problems. Combined those are enough to mean a region like that around Caen might have been defended as effectively by poorly trained troops - time taken to victory is not a marker.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Are we talking about Gen Patton slapping incident of the combat fatigued soldier?

No. We are talking about the Biscari Massacre on 14 July 1943 which was actuallly two seperate incidents. The first, known as the ompton incident involved the shooting of 35 unarmed Italian POWs. The second, known as the West Incident was the shooting of 35 (again unarmed) Italians and two Germans. Captai Compton was court martialled but acquited and later KIA. Sergeant West was court martiialled and dishonourably discharged. The commander of the US unit involved was never called to account for the actions of his men.

And consider issues like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

The truth seems to be that no side was competely innocent and there were even cases like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canicatt%C3%AC_massacre.

The difference being Allied soldiers were not always held accountable either during the war or afterwards. The Waffen SS were often held accountable at put on trial. Then thre are questions about the way some of the post war trials such as the Dachau Trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_Trials were conducted. These are described in some detail in Reynold's Books. Certainly the SS involved were probably guilty or partially so but some of the methods used to establish guilt were niether fair nor just. Some indeed are reminiscent of more recent scandals fro the Iraq War such as the Abu Ghraib scandal.

The point again is that nobody was entrely guiltless. Finally one might also consider this http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/Historians_Controv.html and this http://historyimages.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/waffen-ss-german-elite-fighting-machine.html within the context of the historical evidence. Certainly the SS fought for an evil cause and certainly committed war crimes.But they were not the only ones, The Panzer Divisions and the Falscirmjager fought for the same cause but do we judge them as harshly as we do the Waffen SS. If not, why not? And soldiers from all armies committed war crimes (like the Biscari incident) And, if we don't judge them as harshly as the Waffen SS (or at all) then why not? And did the German Panzer Diviions and Falschirmjager fight more or less effectively than the Waffen SS. Or were the best units of both broadly the same quality based on their combat performance?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You mistake me. I'm not asserting anything about any SS divisions. Just that your arguments aren't providing any evidence that they were subject to any better training methods than the other formations involved in the war in that theatre on either side. I don't have to provide any evidence for the weakness of your arguments other than your arguments. Go me. The specific nature of the combat really doesn't matter one jot, since it was hardly advantageous for the attacker in any location in Normandy: the defender had advantages, and the attacker was suffering their own problems. Combined those are enough to mean a region like that around Caen might have been defended as effectively by poorly trained troops - time taken to victory is not a marker.

Look at the evidence of the Battle of Normandy. Why was did Liebstandarte, Hitler Jugund, Frundsburg and Hohnstauffen repel so many attaccks and by the way mount so many effectve counter attacks against Allied forces. The British troops were even forced to withdaw from posittons they had previouslty captured (for example the abandonment of the Epsom Salien. That despite beating off the German counter attacks which were in large part the work of I and II SS Panzer Korps any history book will tell you.

Surely you do not believe that British troops in Normandy were incompetent???? They weren't though some units might have been a bit "sticky" due to factors such as war weariness and being asked to fight in unfamiliar terrain to that they had previously used to.

Now I am sorry if you don't likle this but the truth is that British troops ansd for that matter the US as well were up against a well trained, disciplined and highly effective opponent when they went up against I and II SS Panzer Korps. The SS were not very nice people to put it mildlty and they did some reprehensible things BUT we must judge their combat performance on THE FACTS as they would be admissible in a court of law. IN THIS CASE we are judging Waffen SS BATTLEFIELD COMBAT PERFORMANCE and, as anyone who has undertaken any formal training in assessing historial evidence is concerned WE MUST TRY TO PUT ASIDE personal or any other form of bias and make our assessment SOLELY on the basis of the RELEVENT historical evidence. I think we have taken this as far as we can/should though and perhaps we should call a halt here andmove on

[Sgt Joch]

And consider issues like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Even if we take those numbers at face value, we have 292 German/Italian prisoners killed by U.S. troops, although the verifiable number is probably closer to 105.

That is totally dwarfed by the number of POWs killed on the German side which are closer to 3,000,000.

The difference being Allied soldiers were not always held accountable either during the war or afterwards.

That is not true, the U.S. Army generally investigated all cases of unlawful killings and all those involved in the Biscari incident were prosecuted. The Germans however, never prosecuted anyone for killing Allied POWs.

The point again is that nobody was entrely guiltless.

Agreed, but the scale and volume of atrocities on the German side, even by regular German Army units dwarfs anything on the Allied side.

Its like comparing a shoplifter with a serial killer.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yes te Germans committed a lot of war crimes particularly on the RussianuropFront and in the Balkans. Also in European Theatre. And yes, while Allied War Crimes were often (but not always) investigated they were not always actioned or thoseresponsible punished. There is a case for the Victor's Justice argument. And whether the methods used by the Allies in te Dachau trials were legally fair (such as mock executions and mock prosecutions) is a good question. Because of these methods many of those charged got off and it is always possible that some of these were actuaolly guilty as charged. But that debate has nothing to do with the combat effectiveness of the units concerned. Yes they shot POWs but that mmakes the unit somehow ineffectve in combat? Committing atrocities, while reprehensible is irrelevent to the assessment of combat effectiveness. End of debate on that point.

So, can you offer evidence that the units of I an II SS Panzer Korps performed poorly in combat in NormandyDid they fail to press counter attacks without good reason such as Allied Naval gunfire? Did unit break and run particulary without good reason. Did tey even become "sticky" like certain British Desert Veteran divisions?Or did these units put up a highly determined fight against the odds.

And if they did it took a lot of hard slogging for the Allied troops who finally defeeated them. Which, in short, describes the entire Normandy campaign.

[Lethaface]

WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

War crimes are not irrelevant, because combat doesn't happen in some idealised vacuum. As someone once said; war is the continuation of politics by other means. If the way you conduct war - and politics - is by executing civilians, then yes: that absolutely has a bearing on combat performance.

Nice quote from On War, but I fail to grasp how this (warcrimes and or politics) influences the known BATTLEFIELD performance of waffen SS soldiers fighting Allied forces in Normandy and, back on topic, how that should differentiate on the CM 'conscript' status.

In all, in that quote Clausewitz probably explains better than anyone in this thread on why the Bulge offensive coin-flip for Ze Germans was not 50-50 ;-)

[Lethaface]

Perhaps the waffenSS indoctrination got those soldiers close to the fulfillment of "Absolute War" ;-)

[JonS]

You can't curtain off an aspect of behaviour, ask people not to look behind the curtain, then pretend that what's behind the curtain has no effect on anything else.

In the conclusion of his 1984 book Overlord, Max hastings had this to say:

One lesson from the fighting in Normandy seems important for any future battle that the armies of democracy might be called upon to fight. If a Soviet invasion force swept across Europe from the east, it would be unhelpful if contemporary British or American soldiers were trained and conditioned to believe that the level of endurance and sacrifice displayed by the Allies in Normandy would suffice to defeat the invaders. For an example to follow in the event of a future European battle, it will be necessary to look to the German army; and to the extraordinary defence that its men conducted in Europe in the face of all odds against them, and in spite of their own demented Fuhrer.

Apart from once again demonstrating what a tremendous hard-on Hastings had for the WWII German military, this thought is seriously out to lunch. Like a number of posters in this thread, Hastings has managed the considerable mental contortions necessary to divorce aspects of behaviour he dislikes from aspects he admires. They are two sides of the same coin. Killing civilians and prisoners wasn't an occasional aberation for the German military in the 1940s, it was offical state policy and a major reason that Germany went to war in 1939. In the case of Germany, and particularly the SS as a military manifestation of the Nazi party, non-combat murders are inextricably linked to combat performance.

He has also managed to gloss over the somewhat significant point that the example he's espousing failed to achieve its aim!

It's unrelated to the thrust of this thread, but he also managed to trivialise the efforts of the Americans, British, Canadians, and others in Normandy, which goes a long way towards explaining the number of very good memoirs that came out over the following decade or two.

[JasonC]

Lucas is now doing his best stormtrooper impersonation - it gets old the 5000th time.

"SS Panzer Divisions who held off the British and US in Normandy for two months"

Nope, not even remotely.

First, the US faced 2 SS formations and a plethora of Heer and FJ formations. Second, the US wasn't "held off" for two months. The US spent the month of June taking Cherbourg, quite successfully, and inflicting a resounding defeat on the German forces fought in the process, whose axis of advance was first west across the Cotentin, then north to the city. In the process the US inflicted better than 2 to 1 losses on the German defenders, and more likely 3 to 1 or better. Specifically the US lost 22,000 casualties in the period, and took 39,000 prisoners (alone). And a large portion of the US losses in that period were to the 2 airborne divisions in the initial drop - they had 4450 MIA as a result. The fighting after the initial losses of the drop was even more lopsided than the above indicates. This campaign took all of 3 weeks.

It is true the US wasn't attacking *south* in that period, but not because it was stopped - by anybody - but because its logistic strength ashore would support only one major thrust and it had always planned that would be for Cherbourg, not south. This worked a treat.

The US starting attacking south again in July, specifically on July 3, after a pause of all of 1 week to reorient its attack front from the extreme north of the Cotentin driving north, to the southeastern base of it, facing south. Then it attacked frontally through the famous hedgerows in a frontal slog through the German defenders, which took St Lo on July 19th, 16 days into the southern drive. On July 25, the breakout operation, Cobra, was launched, and broke clean through the remaining German defenders in the US sector within 48 hours.

At the most generous, then, the Germans (not the SS) "held off" the Americans for all of 3 weeks, losing ground the while, and cracking wide open at the end of it. They then proceeded to lose all of France in the month of August. The losses to the German army in the west in the course of all of the above far exceeded anything they inflicted on the Allies, and the campaign as a whole was as resounding a defeat as they ever suffered - a more lopsided one, for example, than the contemporary Bagration in the east.

In the process, the US ground through 17SS and most of 2SS (it arrived piecemeal, spending half its time killing civilians in southern France), along with a corps plus of FJ, the Panzer Lehr and 116th Panzer divisions (the latter after the breakout, it is true), and lots of Heer infantry divisions, both good veteran ones like 352 and lousy coastal ones, and everything in between. 17SS didn't fight particularly well in that process. 6 FJ did , but was reduced early. The strongest unit the US faced was very clearly Lehr, and the destruction of what was left of it enabled the breakout proper. Mostly they ran the Germans out of infantry by attacking daily with all arms, and letting HE firepower boosted by air observation grind the Germans to sawdust.

With standout "victories" like these, who needs defeats?

Yes yes, the Brits under Monty were dumber with their armor handling, and the Germans could still beat up the little sisters of the poor, too. But the Americans handed them their heads, twice, on a three week time scale each time.

[Lethaface]

While I admire lengthy elaborations about specific fighting over which I have no specific knowledge, I expect you to agree that the Germans offered relatively stiff resistance against the Allied invasion, considering the situation of both sides and scale of forces. Which brings us to the point of how those truppen performed in battle. The point that was being made, if I understand you correctly, is that waffen-SS troops have poor battlefield performance. While that is certainly true from an ethical point of view, it remains to be proven (to me and in this thread) that they showed poor combat effectiveness - against overwhelming odds, being understrength, losing the war in the east, facing enemy air superiority, fighting a lost cause, etc etc. Obviously everything that was going on at that time had had influence on every soldier on the field, but which factors contributed to battlefield performance, positively or negatively and which didn't? Does non-combat murder increase or decrease combat effectiveness?

Common sense would actually make me believe that non-combat murders and state indoctrination will increase combat effectiveness since I would guess murdering people in cold blood will 'prepare' people a bit for bloody combat (they have seen a leg of the Elephant).

Proper (state) indoctrination can make people believe complete BS as the world shows every day, so that will do good for motivation.

Most important I guess is still training and previous combat experience. So in the end probably SS troops had similar varieties to other German forces, perhaps with some better materials and motivation.

On which point where all of you disagreeing with Lucas?

[JonS]

The Normandy campaign, particularly around Caen, saw among the highest force-to-space ratios of the entire war, if not the actual highest (and excluding events like Tarawa). Combined with generally competent employment all round, it should be staggeringly obvious that any attacker in that environment should have a very difficult time ... which is exactly what we find.

For most of the campaign, when the US attacked - they took a lot of casualties and didn't advance very far very fast*.

For most of the campaign, when the UK attacked - they took a lot of casualties and didn't advance very far very fast.

For most of the campign, when the Canadians attacked - they took a lot of casualties and didn't advance very far very fast.

For the entire campign, when the German army attacked - they took a lot of casualties and didn't get anywhere, although they did get there quickly.

For the entire campign, when the SS attacked - they took a lot of casualties and didn't get anywhere, although they did get there quickly.

That's what you get from an attritional campaign, which is the kind of campaign you get with high force-to-space ratios and a continuous coast-to-coast front. But the Allies won that campaign hands down.

The SS weren't especially bad in Normandy. No one has said that, it's just a strawman Lucas made up to cover for his weak argument. But neither were the SS especially good. Their training wasn't special, and their performance didn't especially stand out from the rest of the similar German forces in Normandy, nor from Allied forces in similar circumstances on either attack or defence.

On the other hand, I'll grant you that the motivation of SS units was generally pretty high, which we can see in the number of murders they left in their wake.

Edit:

* I should probably point out that 'very far very fast' here is relative to some imaginary standard. The Allies destroyed the best army the Germans ever fielded, and another not as good army, from a standing start, in less than three months. Objectively, that's a pretty amazing performance, but all anyone wants to talk about is "yeah, but why did it take so long?"

[Sublime]

On the other hand, I'll grant you that the motivation of SS units was generally pretty high, which we can see in the number of murders they left in their wake.

hahaha good one

[Lethaface]

Well I actually didn't read a lot about uber SS in Lucas posts, just that some SS troops have put up a brave fight given the circumstances and showed, at times, high endurance in dire situations (hence high motivation).

The Allies destroyed the best army the Germans ever fielded,

I think you mean the Russians?

[JonS]

No, The Allies never destroyed a Russian army.

I was referring to 5th Pz and 7th Armys.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You can't curtain off an aspect of behaviour, ask people not to look behind the curtain, then pretend that what's behind the curtain has no effect on anything else.

In the conclusion of his 1984 book Overlord, Max hastings had this to say:

Apart from once again demonstrating what a tremendous hard-on Hastings had for the WWII German military, this thought is seriously out to lunch. Like a number of posters in this thread, Hastings has managed the considerable mental contortions necessary to divorce aspects of behaviour he dislikes from aspects he admires. They are two sides of the same coin. Killing civilians and prisoners wasn't an occasional aberation for the German military in the 1940s, it was offical state policy and a major reason that Germany went to war in 1939. In the case of Germany, and particularly the SS as a military manifestation of the Nazi party, non-combat murders are inextricably linked to combat performance.

He has also managed to gloss over the somewhat significant point that the example he's espousing failed to achieve its aim!

It's unrelated to the thrust of this thread, but he also managed to trivialise the efforts of the Americans, British, Canadians, and others in Normandy, which goes a long way towards explaining the number of very good memoirs that came out over the following decade or two.

Well it took 6 years to defeat the Wehrmacht including 11 months to liberarte NW Europe. This was because the Wehrmacht as a whole were a very tough, resourceful and determined opponent. The fact that they were defeated in the end is, in itself, a compliment to the Allied soldiers who finally achieed that victory. However, no side has a monopoly on courage. I actually have relatives who fought on both sides in WW2. One of my Dad's sisters married a German who fought in Russia. Another relative, on the Britsh side of the family was killed during he war. I think it might have been in the Western Desert. So perhaps it is easier for me to see that there are two sides to this and, with my degree level training in history I can recognise the importance of using both Allied and German source material. Plus of course recognising a writer may, and probably does have bias.

Anyway, getting back to the question of ratings I would start Hitler Jugund at Regular on June 7 because they hadspent a year in training and effectve training at that but lacked combat experience. Morale ratings of Fanatic or Extreme to reflect their very high motivation. After a week or two they could rise to veteranbut morale goes down slightly to Extreme or Highas they have seen serious action by this point and, while remaining motivated and determined have lost their illusions. Towards the end of the campaign we might raise them to Crack because of their very intensive combat experience.

But there is a price to be paid for this, bearing in mind the nature of the Wehrmacht replacement system. Firstly, while the HJ might start the Normandy cmpaign with many +1 and +2 leaders these should be lost as the campaign progresses. By August we might have only the occasional +1 or +2 leader particularly at small unit level. And we should make use odf the Headcount function at all levels. Hence in August our HJ forve might still be Crack troops and are still highly motivaed there jmjust aren't that many left.{lus of course we can simulate their supply problems by giving them limited, sparse or even severe ratings for supply.

Allied troops are much more likely to be up to strength but ay for this by having ratings much closer to average ratinfgs. We can allow for certain Desert Veteran Divisions like 7th Armoured to be prone to "stickiness" by allowing them Veteran status but giving them only "Normal" or more likely "Low" morale after they have seen action once or twice.

Though these rating suggestions are for the unit as a whole we can certainly manipulate ratings belowe that level fr individual companies, platoons and even squad. Generally up or down one level from that of the parent unit would be enough.

[Hurrying Heinz]

hastings also wrote a book called das reich.......lots of evil ss behavior in there. 12 ss was the outstanding divisional formation in their theatre......period

[LUCASWILLEN05]

hastings also wrote a book called das reich.......lots of evil ss behavior in there. 12 ss was the outstanding divisional formation in their theatre......period

I think Liebstandarrte were superior to HJ in experience though not quite as fanatical. Most, if not all Waffen SS divisions did commit war crimes, including against civillians at one time or another though.

In terms of ratings I think Crack with Extreme to High motivation would be about right for Liebstandarte. However Hohenstauffen and Frundsburg I would be inclined to give them a slightly lower rating though still good. Veteran with high motivation seems about right as they were well trained, had seen combat in Russia in April 1944 and tended to perform well during the Normandy campaign. Havng said that a good case could be made for rating them as Regular early on in the campaign. Probably a similar rating for 17th SS though I don't know too much about them to make a really informed decsion

[Lethaface]

No, The Allies never destroyed a Russian army.

I was referring to 5th Pz and 7th Armys.

I was referring to German armies destroyed by Russians

I'm a lot less groggier than you, but as I see it a lot of the 'best' troops the Germans had perished in Russia.