What does "Conscript" mean in CM terms?

[Sgt Joch]

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

JasonC had done a good overview of SS divisions in normandy here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1256228&postcount=123

1st SS had a lot of combat experience, but had many fresh replacemnts because of heavy losses in the East so you probably had a mix of veteran leaders with a lot of green recruits, so "regulars" with a few "veterans" mixed in is probably closer.

12th SS were mostly raw recruits with veteran leaders. It would be hard to justify more than mostly "regulars" with a few "greens".

9th and 10th SS were filled out with conscripts, not volunteers.

17th SS was a green outfit.

[JonS]

no side has a monopoly on courage.

If you're down "but my team had courage!" well ...

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 ...

Oh, goody - an appeal to authority!

You know, degrees are a dime a dozen these days. I have an honours degree, am 2/3rds of the way through another, and I have various other certificates and whatnot.

At the very least I think that makes me competent to open a book. Maybe look at the words, and perhaps even read the captions to the pictures. With your permission of course.

Anyway, getting back to the question of ratings I would ...

FWIW, your suggested ratings sound to me like they'd make for terrible game play.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Bear in mind that the nature of the German replacement system, taking a division out of the line and trainng the conscripts would allow the veteranms the time to train the new replacements, take time to get to know them As opposed to the Allied method of committing the replacements n the front line. Both methods had their pros and cons. For he Germans it would improve unit skills and cohesion but, on the down side would result in greatly under strength units after prolomgerd combat

So yes, the overall rating HJ might have on June 7 would be regular thouh you are well within your rights to include veteran squads and a good sprinkling of +1 and +2 leaders. This mix changes as the campaign continuesand experienc gained in prolonged and intensive combat.

Liebstandarte might well have the overall rating of Veteran I suggested but it would be quite reasonable to give lower ratings to companies, platoons and squsds early in the campaign. Again they should tend toimprove later in the campaign but suffer from reuced headcount penalties due to thwe German replacement system.

The divisional history of 9th and 10th SS (In the Firestorm of the ast Year of the War Helmut Tieke) indicates these unts were trained for quite some time but their first combat experience in Russia was not particularly impressive Maybe veteran overall but with a greater ratio of lower grades at combat unit level and definately lower quality leadership. But quite high morale

17th SS does not seem to have performned that well in Normandy so yes Green or Regular might seem to be reasonable grades

[poesel]

Please - it's 'Leibstandarte' not 'Liebstandarte'. The latter would translate to 'love pennant'...

[dieseltaylor]

Please - it's 'Leibstandarte' not 'Liebstandarte'. The latter would translate to 'love pennant'...

Now that sounds like a proud thrusting formation! : )

[LUCASWILLEN05]

If you're down "but my team had courage!" well ...

Oh, goody - an appeal to authority!

You know, degrees are a dime a dozen these days. I have an honours degree, am 2/3rds of the way through another, and I have various other certificates and whatnot.

At the very least I think that makes me competent to open a book. Maybe look at the words, and perhaps even read the captions to the pictures. With your permission of course.

FWIW, your suggested ratings sound to me like they'd make for terrible game play.

So the Waffen SS in Normandy were cowards who broke and ran at the firstshot? Thay is not what happened And regarding ratings there is also a price the Germans pay for it such as use of the Headcount Penalty in the scenario editor. As you probably know you can reduce unit sizes by 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90% and you can do this on any unit. So you might have highly motivated, high quality Waffen SS but there are not many of them.

The Alllies on the other hand are more likely to be close to full strength though if your scenariois set during a magor engagement like Epsom or Goodwood you can and probably should consider earlier casualties . Plu plenty of air, artillery and even naval gunfire support.

Regarding history degrees these train you to assess historical source material and be aware of possible bias in those sourrces. Among many other things. And by the way, I earned that degree by working hard for it - over 20 years ago, So hardly one of the "dime a dozen" degrees you might get these days.

I am sure you are just as competent of course but it is possible that your interpretation is coloured by the SS role in the Holocaust. As I am sure you are aware the Waffen SS was the military wing intended to be used in combat The Allgemeine were primarily responsible for the camps. This of course simplifies it as things were not actually that clear cut and they were all ultimately part of thesameorganisation reporting to the same boss - Himmler. Ceryinly the Waffen SS were guilty by association and to some extent in fact but that does not mean that the premier units were not tough opponents wh put up a very hard fight.

That is the point I have been making for the last few days. Why is it s hard to see when the historical facts speak for themselves? I don;t like the Waffen SS and would certainly regard them as a nasty, brutal bunch at least sometimes. But they were also soldiers who fought for their country even if it was run by one of the most reprehensible dictatorships of modern times.

And if you look at published scenarios such as Bloody Buron you will see that others also rated the Hitller ##jugund very highly in game terms. If you take a look at that scenasro yu will see they are graded as Elite Fanatics.

And a final thought. If the Waffen SS in Normandywere cowardly and incomnpetent as alleged then the Allied troops must have been even more cowardly and incompetent because it took over two months for them to win. Of course, the premise that both sides were cowardly incompetents is quite wrong as we all know very well. Normandy was a hard fought campaign seeing some of the hardest and bloodiest combatof the war.

[agusto]

Please - it's 'Leibstandarte' not 'Liebstandarte'. The latter would translate to 'love pennant'...

The Leibstandarte:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m86rpoynRj1r3gfw3o1_1280.jpg

The Liebstandarte:

http://static2.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/1200-1/photos/1340711567-shouts-of-joy-for-gay-pride-in-new-york_1299801.jpg

Always those fine differences in the german language...

Sorry for posting off-topic, btw.

[Michael Emrys]

Please - it's 'Leibstandarte' not 'Liebstandarte'. The latter would translate to 'love pennant'...

"I'm gonna fly my love pennant high..."

Michael

[Lt Belenko]

"I'm gonna fly my love pennant high..."

Michael

TMI - Too Much Information.

[JonS]

So the Waffen SS in Normandy were cowards who broke and ran at the first shot?

... strawman ...

I earned that degree by working hard for it - over 20 years ago, so hardly one of the "dime a dozen" degrees you might get these days.

... no true scotsman ...

If the Waffen SS in Normandy were cowardly and incompetent as alleged then the Allied troops must have been even more cowardly and incompetent because it took over two months for them to win.

… and false dichotomy.

That’s quite the trifecta you’ve got going on there! Maybe you could have included some logic papers in that degree of yours?

degree … over 20 years ago.

20 years ago Hastings’ Overlord was all the rage, the Soviet archives were closed, German generals – including K. Meyer, von Luck, Manstein, and von Mellenthin – were viewed as reliable sources, and the prevailing consensus was that the Germans were über übermen while the Allies were pants at everything. Quite a lot has changed in the past two decades

... it is possible that your interpretation is coloured by the SS role in the Holocaust.

It’s possible. It’s also possible that I have the ability to separate the two things, when separation is appropriate. But, did you effectively just Godwin yourself?

This of course simplifies it as things were not actually that clear cut and they were all ultimately part of the same organisation reporting to the same boss - Himmler.

Not to forget the revolving door between the Waffen and Allgemeine SSs. Although the two organisations were formally separate, men who made up those organisations moved between the two. So it’s a tad more than simple ‘guilt by association.’

the point I have been making for the last few days. Why is it so hard to see when the historical facts speak for themselves? ... they were also soldiers who fought for their country …

Technically, yes, they were fighting for their country* … just like the soldiers from the Heer and the US Army and the British Army and the Canadian Army and the rest. It is my understanding, though, that unit motivation and cohesion is based on far more pragmatic concerns than something as esoteric as “their country.”

And if you look at published scenarios such as Bloody Buron you will see that others also rated the Hitler Jugend very highly in game terms. … they are graded as Elite Fanatics.

Multiple wrongs make a right? That’s not really all that convincing.

There is also a distinction between objectively ‘correct’ settings - and I use ‘objectively’ in an extraordinarily loose sense here, given that there isn’t yet a loose consensus on what the various experience terms even mean in CM, let alone their relationship to the real world – and settings that make for good gameplay.

Jon

* Although, given the extraordinarily broad and permissive recruitment net that the SS used, it’s not at all clear that a major fraction of the SS were fighting for “their” country.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Nationalism is one of the more important factors and would certainly contribute to unit cohesion and motivation. Hate the cause for which they fough as both of us do these specific units certainly believed in what they were doing and stuck together even in the Falaise Pocket, in the final stages of the war and in the camps afterwards.

IMHO youappear to besuggesting particular HJ and Leibstandarte were not much good but you produce no vvidence to support this hypothesis If you have evidence to the contrary the produce it. Otherwise it is a waste of my time contioneing this debate

An intelligent person who knows a reasonable amount of history can work something out and should be quite capable of understanding, at least roughly what the various ratings mean. We can discuss the definitin of the various troop ratings on another thread if you want. And there was a pretty good definition in the old CMBB. How exactly you classify a unit for a scenario is up to you. Also, as I have said before there is nohing rong in having an overall "divisional" classification and different ones for sub units right doewn to squad level if that's what you want to do. You can fine tune your units in other creative ways using the headcount, motivation and leadership options.

And if you really want to ensure a balanced game you can always calculate your force with the points system first as you do in many tabletop wargames rules sets. Snd you may fine tune your victory conditions to quite a sophisticated level if you want which is agnother way to balance a scenario. What is important is it needs to be as challenging as we can make it. A scenario gaming the Falaise pocket where the Germans must hold the road opnwith the battered remnants of a HJ battlgroup for other units ro escape while fighting against vastly superior Allied forces tryimg to close the pocket might seem very unbalanced at first glance but you could balance it by careful consideration of victory conditions. Units can be tasked to exit for points and some rear echelon types could be very valuable. For instance that column of trucks is actually a headqurters unit trying to escape. Or it could be a convoy carrying stolen art treasures.

[JonS]

Nationalism is one of the more important factors ...

That's what civilians often think. Civilians are often wrong about that.

IMHO you appear to be suggesting particular HJ and Leibstandarte were not much good but you produce no evidence to support this hypothesis

Womble has already responded to this bit of nonsense, and I can do no better than to quote him in full:

Originally Posted by womble:

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.

Take the time to read it, this time, and consider what he is saying.

Otherwise it is a waste of my time continuing this debate

I'm not wasting your time, bro, you're wasting your own time chasing after shadows.

[agusto]

EDIT: Deleted. Further research into the matter using google proved my statement wrong.

[sburke]

agusto I have to say I laughed long and hard after checking the link in your signature, thanks.

[JasonC]

To cut through the straw men and baiting, a little at least...

There is how green or veteran a unit was at the start of the campaign, and there is how well it was equipped, and there is how well it actually fought. The first two influence expectations about the last, but there is independent variation in that third item. Overall, there is variety - as usual. In that variety, there is nothing special about the SS mobile divisions.

17SS was green, poorly equipped for a mobile division, gave a poor initial performance and later improved to about average.

1SS was veteran, very well equipped, fought well.

12SS was green, well equipped, fought well.

9+10SS were regular, middling equipped, fought relatively poorly for mobile divisions.

Lehr was new to combat but experienced personnel, the best equipped mobile division in the German armed forces, and fought well.

2nd Panzer was veteran, well equipped, and fought only middling well, plagued by piecemeal commitments.

21st Panzer was new as a division, weirdly equipped (middling, non-standard items), fought pretty well early but lost much of its strength in that early fighting.

116th Panzer was green as a division, well equipped, and fought very poorly (committed late, bad performance both in Mortain and defensively).

The best of them was Lehr, in actual performance and in experience level of the men.

The second was 1SS.

The worst was 116 Panzer, despite being well equipped and committed as a unit, though late in the campaign.

The next worst was 17SS.

9SS and 10SS were below average for mobiles; 2nd Panzer underperformed its experience and equipment levels in this specific campaign (it was strong again later). 12SS was above average in performance for its prior experience level, just par for its equipment level, which was strong.

Were any one of these the best performing armor formation in the Normandy campaign? No. That accolade arguably goes to the US 2nd Armored division, which was a veteran formation at the start of the campaign, and fought rings around them all. It made Cobra a clean breakthrough, fought its way through half a dozen formations in the process including major armor in the later portions of the breakout, was instrumental in defeating the Mortain attempt, bested 116 Panzer, 2nd Panzer, 1SS, overran half of France, etc. There weren't any slashing Guderians on the other side of the hill, but "Hell on Wheels" made it look like 1940 again. Of course it had help, and a favorable operational chance - the outstanding armor formations always do when they get their chance to shine.

[JasonC]

sburke - my favorite in the genre (tweaking the "Dear Little Leader"'s tail) just shows him in a bugeye moment with a elderly general awkward and stiff in front of him, and the caption "when I said nuke the Chinese, I meant 'put the takeout in the microwave'". A small misunderstanding...

[sburke]

sburke - my favorite in the genre (tweaking the "Dear Little Leader"'s tail) just shows him in a bugeye moment with a elderly general awkward and stiff in front of him, and the caption "when I said nuke the Chinese, I meant 'put the takeout in the microwave'". A small misunderstanding...

rotflmao, would love to see that one

[Lethaface]

There you go

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Goodnight Kim

[LUCASWILLEN05]

To cut through the straw men and baiting, a little at least...

There is how green or veteran a unit was at the start of the campaign, and there is how well it was equipped, and there is how well it actually fought. The first two influence expectations about the last, but there is independent variation in that third item. Overall, there is variety - as usual. In that variety, there is nothing special about the SS mobile divisions.

17SS was green, poorly equipped for a mobile division, gave a poor initial performance and later improved to about average.

1SS was veteran, very well equipped, fought well.

12SS was green, well equipped, fought well.

9+10SS were regular, middling equipped, fought relatively poorly for mobile divisions.

Lehr was new to combat but experienced personnel, the best equipped mobile division in the German armed forces, and fought well.

2nd Panzer was veteran, well equipped, and fought only middling well, plagued by piecemeal commitments.

21st Panzer was new as a division, weirdly equipped (middling, non-standard items), fought pretty well early but lost much of its strength in that early fighting.

116th Panzer was green as a division, well equipped, and fought very poorly (committed late, bad performance both in Mortain and defensively).

The best of them was Lehr, in actual performance and in experience level of the men.

The second was 1SS.

The worst was 116 Panzer, despite being well equipped and committed as a unit, though late in the campaign.

The next worst was 17SS.

9SS and 10SS were below average for mobiles; 2nd Panzer underperformed its experience and equipment levels in this specific campaign (it was strong again later). 12SS was above average in performance for its prior experience level, just par for its equipment level, which was strong.

Were any one of these the best performing armor formation in the Normandy campaign? No. That accolade arguably goes to the US 2nd Armored division, which was a veteran formation at the start of the campaign, and fought rings around them all. It made Cobra a clean breakthrough, fought its way through half a dozen formations in the process including major armor in the later portions of the breakout, was instrumental in defeating the Mortain attempt, bested 116 Panzer, 2nd Panzer, 1SS, overran half of France, etc. There weren't any slashing Guderians on the other side of the hill, but "Hell on Wheels" made it look like 1940 again. Of course it had help, and a favorable operational chance - the outstanding armor formations always do when they get their chance to shine.

Hitler Jugund also a bunch of fanatics. Like many German divisions it can be argued that they get better with experience of intensive combat but, given thwe nature of the German replacement system the price for that is lower headcount as the Normandy Campaign continues.

Agree with you on 116th Panzer. As anyone who has read the excellent divisional history From Normandy to the Rhine: with 116th anzer Division in World War II by HeinzGuntherGuderianthe division was only formed in the spring of 1944 and was not even considered combat readyIt was held in reserve for most of the Normandy campaign and was only committed to combat in early August (in terrain that was less than favourable to tanks) Considering the inexperience as a unit and the other factors cunting against it perfrmance, to say the least was somewhat lacklustre. A grade of Green or Regular (if we are feeling very generous) with normal motivation seems about right.

For 9th and 10th SS they had seen their baptim of fire in Russia in April 1944 so I would be inclined to start them, off as Regular in Norm,andy. As thy saw heavy and intensive fighting I would be inclned to raise them to Veterans by avbout the middle of July. Motivation was I think quite good but not aboveand beyond the call of duty so Normal or high seems about the right level

On theAllied side 2nd ~US Armourd likely deserve at least a Veteran rating and perhaps even Crack. Brtish 7th Armoured were Veteran but tended to have a "sticky" reputation so I would put Motivation on the low side for most of the campaign. Though this might change later in the campaign after various changes were implemented