lassner.1
-
Posts
193 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by lassner.1
-
-
Jeff,
Oh, and yes Russell Hart is a colleague of mine. He just got a job as a military historian at a university in Hawaii.
-
Jeff,
A few more details on the Zustandberichte first. While the reporting was institutionalized and Wehrmacht-wide, there was still considerable variation depending upon time and place. For example, at the start of the war the reports seem to be only on the divisional level and higher. Further, they took place between campaigns (Austrian, Czechoslovakian, Polish, and French) and on a monthly basis. Once things started going to hell in the east (c. late ‘41 beginning ‘42) the OKH and OKW started the reports again but now from army level all the way down to the regimental level. Then, throughout the war and depending on where you are geographically, there are local variations in the type of information contained within the Zustandberichte, its format and its *frequency* (I have seen weekly reports at the divisional level). However, they *always* are with the 1 to 4 rating. Finally, one can, if the evidence survives, cross reference Zustandberichte; and in certain instances I have seen regimental commanders that rate the unit one way and divisional commanders that rate the same regiments in a different manner. The same is true for corps vs. divisional Zustandberichte. That said, it is a rare occurrence to see, for example, a regimental rate the regiment as a 2 and the divisional commander to rate it differently (either up or down).
Now in (roundabout) answer to your questions 1) “is there an implication as to divisional morale?” and 2) “how was this rating reflected in the 1SS performance in Normandy?”
I do not have any Zustandberichte for the 1SS LAH for the course of the war, *but* the reference to the 1SS from the US Official History of the Normandy Campaign *does* cite the Zustandberichte and gives us the first piece of the puzzle. Out of a “Sollstand” (i.e., the strength a unit should be) of 45 Stug III, 21 Pzkpfw III, 101 Pzkpfw IV, and 81 Pzkpfw V, the 1SS LAH had an “Iststand” (i.e., actual strength) of 45 Stug III, no Pzkpfw III, 50 Pzkpfw IV, and 38 Pzkpfw V. So in terms of armor, the division was almost 50% below strength. This would have been good enough to knock a 1 rating to a 2 or even a 3. (I would be very curious to see the report because the division might well have lost a substantial number of motorized vehicles for supply. Zustandbericht mid war on contained a special section to describe the “Beweglichkeit” (mobility) of the division. This certainly could have contributed to a lower rating.)
Schweppenburg gives us another piece of the puzzle: the unit had been mauled in the east and was shipped to the west to be rebuilt, though not before loosing veterans as the cadre for new SS divisions. This certainly knocked the divisions rating down 1 and probably 2 points. I have seen a number of Zustandberichte in which commanders say “we are a 4 now, but after a few more weeks/months of training we will be a 1.”
So what we can say at this point – without having seen the actual extant Zustandberichte – is that the division was 1) mauled in the east 2) missing almost 50% of its armor and ?% or other support vehicles 3) suffering from yet another personnel loss in the form of vets for “division building” and 4) suffering from the huge intake of green recruits. Thus Schweppenburg’s evaluations of the 1SS LAH - that “discipline was a sham,” “the NCOs were poor,” and that the division did not have time enough to train – are hardly surprising. I think that it would be a safe and balanced judgement to deduce that these negative factors had a significantly negative impact on the morale of the troops.
Your other question is more difficult for me to answer since I am rather vague on the 1SS LAH’s actions in the Normandy campaign. Off the top of my head I believe that the 1SS LAH was held in reserve even after the fighting started. Of the SS panzer divisions engaged in Normandy most of the fighting was done by the 2nd, 10th and 12th SS Panzer Divisions. It may have been due to the 4 rating that the 1SS LAH had received. But there must be some decent sources, both primary and secondary, that discuss the 1SS LAH’s performance in that campaign. Once can just compare them with the 4 rating to see how accurate it was.
Whew! Hope all this helps!
-
Jeff Duquette,
As I wrote in my post (above) Schweppenburg is claiming credit for something that is, in fact not his idea, but rather an institutionalized combat evaluation rating system of the Wehrmacht. It started during the interwar period and was far more nuanced than Schweppenburg gave any indication of.
-
Regarding a comparative analysis of combat performance in the Normany campaign (British, Canadian, US, and German) I highly recommend the recent Ph.D. dissertation by Russell A. Hart (Russell A. Hart, “Learning Lessons: Military Adaptation and Innovation in the American, British, Canadian and German Armies during the 1944 Normandy Campaign,” Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University, 1997) I think that it will be published later this year or next. It is an outstanding and nuanced piece of research, as well as a great read.
As a Ph.D. in military history and an internationally published historian may I suggest that people who are interested in the issue of the combat effectiveness of German units examine the Zustandberichte (situation reports) located either at the NARS (National Archives and Records Services, Washington, D.C.) or the BA/MA (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, Freiburg, Germany). While incomplete, these are an **invaluable** resource for obtaining the combat effectiveness of German units at any given moment in time throughout the war. This is not to say that they are objective in a “scientific” sense, since they are ultimately judgements. But they are the judgements of the soldiers and officers at that front and at that moment in time. Moreover, if one is lucky, one can even cross check them, for example finding both regimental and divisional Zustandberichte on a particular unit. To back up for a moment, the idea of a combat evaluation rating was already well entrenched in the German army during the interwar period, but during the annexation of Austria in 1938 the Germany army began to evaluate how einsatzfähig (operational) a unit was or was not. It is essential to note that this term was not used synonymously to mean fully combat ready. Units were denoted einsatzfähig that were at the same time identified as either questionable or not suitable for combat. Einsatzfähig was used to denote a unit that had been able to be mobilized in a more or less complete fashion, and then able to join the invasion of Austria but which may have had significant combat inhibiting problems. A unit deemed not einsatzfähig was one that was unable even to mobilize properly and march out to the border (See, for example, Erfahrungen bei der Probemobilmachung, Bad Reichenhall 8. April 1938, Stab Geb. Jäg. Reg. 100, RH 37/6717, BA/MA.). The German army high command (Oberkommando des Heeres) converted it peace time evaluations into a combat rating system which reflected these nuances in September 1939. This was a four level rating for units that were einsatzfähig and included the following ratings: 1) “[e]insatzfähig für alle Aufgaben” (operational for all assignments); 2) “operational, though only partly for the attack”; 3) “fully operational for defensive assignments”; and 4) “partly operational for defensive assignments.” Units that were below a 4 rating were “nicht einsatzfähig.” (Beurteilung des Kampfwertes der Divisionen Mitte Dezember 1939, 13.12.1939, Generalstab des Heeres, RH 2/1520, p. 68, BA/MA). As I mentioned before there are varying forms and types of what are soon referred to in the Wehrmacht as Zustandberichte and they are, in many cases, very detailed above and beyond the 1-4 level combat rating. One finds the number of operational AT guns, in the case of infantry divisions and regiments, as well as tanks, in the case of panzer divisions. They also include juicy details such as, “the panzer division is a 2 rating but would be a one if not for the fact that our panzer grenadiers were slaughtered last week by some IS-2s and these new guys suck.” This, of course is the rating system to which Schweppenburg is referring. Unfortunately almost all of the reports that I have in my library are from the Austria campaign, the Polish campaign, the Russian campaign, and some for the Norway and Finnish campaigns. I might have some from the west but I would have to check. If anyone is interested please feel free to write me an e-mail. I am very busy these days but I would be happy to help out any scenario designers if I can.
-
the "c" stands for a sloped mantel that provides differing degrees of slope depending upon where the AT round strikes.
-
Maximus: Did you post that picture in order to argue for or against the argument that has been going on in this thread (i.e., is this supposed to show a "realistic" assault or an "unrealsitic" one?).
As far as I am concerned the above picture by Maximus is completely understandable, and, IMHO, realistic. These US grunts are taking massive fire and hunkering down while the Germans move in for the kill. Concentration of force, is, after all, one of the fundamental tenets in the assault.
-
Alec - I hope you will consider developing other "terrain sets" for use with batch files. One for Western Germany, the Ardennes etc. Please know that I really admire your work.
-
In English I think that, as a start, you should read two books:
1). David M. Glantz and Jonathan House, "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler"
2). D. M. Glantz "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War."
These give a good basic overview of what problems the Red Army going into the war and what it got right. "When Titans Clashed" also does an excellent job at highlighting what the Germans got wrong.
You might also begin with The Journal of Slavic Military Studies (great articles in Dec 1993 on technological surprise in the Russo-German war, and in 1995 on the Soviet pact with Germany and ideas on Offensive war), the 1996 Yale Ph.D. dissertation by Mary Ruth Habeck "Imagining War: German and Soviet Armored Doctrine 1919-1939," Williamson Murray's book "German Military Effectiveness," and Alexander Lassner's article in Contemporary Studies Studies, vol. 8, "The Invasion of Austria in 1938: Blitzkrieg or Pfusch."
Good Bibliographies in all sources for further reading.
Good Luck
-
And just in case I was not clear : YES YES YES I want and need this mod Magua!!!!!!!
-
I too am of the "if Magua made it I gotta have it" school. Alec's M3 (winter) and German 251/1 halftracks are absolutely outstanding. And the foliage on the 251/1 sets a new standard. I also loved his previous buildings - though I did not use all of them.
This new "Normandy set" is equally outstanding. I am really impressed. I would *love* to see this and additional ones for the 44-45 Western Front with batch files. Please Alec keep up this spectacular work.
-
Kitty,
That KT has had me dying of anicipation for weeks. Any idea when it might be done? BTW - will it be weathered? Just curious. I would take it as is in a second
-
Agreed. Elefant is my favorite German AFV, period.
-
Having seen so many respectable members off the CM community post in rely to Gunny Bunny's (unending) complaints, I feel I should comment as well.
As a lifelong dedicated wargamer who owns a high end computer I feel that the Gunny Bunny creature's remarks are designed to be inflammatory. They are also ludicrous. Anyone who has wargamed for any length of time knows that CM is really a major step forward in wargaming. Maybe the graphics could be better, but they are really quite satisfactory at this point. Moreover, the continual availability of free high quality mods completely changes the look of the game. The current mods that I have installed make the game look like a photograph at times.
In short GB’s constant protestations about the supposed sub-standard graphics in CM are unwarranted. CM is both a great game and eye-candy.
-
Mr. Carrera Buil has made some of the best mods for CM and recently done so with the addition ofthe 250 line of half-tracks.
BUT
It's killing me that there is no 250/8 in there; now when I play my fleet of 251s and 250s look soooooo wonderful *except* for one ugly bastard (250/8) who is totally out of place and just downright hideous.
PLEASE Mr. Carrera Buil we need a replacement mod for the 250/8!!!!!!
-
Always keep your Tigers (I and II) and other heavy armor on the road unless you have dry/damp ground conditions. Jagdtigers will not last even one move off-road in snow.
-
I have actually played the SL game and can say *unequivocally* that it is awful awful awful.
Don't waste your money. Buy CM.
-
Yes Yes Yes - Chaffee!!!! PLEEEAASSEEE
-
One Hetzer should be no problem for a force that size - even in open terrain. In a ladder QB game several days ago I used three (pathetic) Chaffees to stalk a Tiger I. The Tiger got one Chaffee kill, and so too did a German halftrack. The last Chaffee got a 200m side shot into the Tiger and knocked it out.
-
In fact at the ranges suggested above (60m) I have had extraoridinary success with Pumas: its victims include knocking out Fireflies from the front at 80m and Churchills from the side. Stuarts are a piece of cake provided you can get the first shot. This is admittedly difficult with their turret speed but it can be done.
-
(accidentlly posted above)
Yes that was the first place I looked but only the autosave was there. It is rather perplexing. I wonder if its a but with the public beta? -
Yes, that was my first thought besides the "undo" button, but all that was in the recycle bin was the "autosave."
-
I spent the last two days converting an Advanced Squad Leader scenario to CM (Race for the Bridges) and I had play tested it about 5 times against the computer. I was trying to make some changes before giving it to friends to play-test when
AHHHHHHHGGG
I accidentally deleted the file.
Unfortunately I did not notice that I had deleted the file *until I rebooted the computer* so I culd not click "undo" and get the file back.
All I was able to recover was the auto-save file which I renamed. But it is still a "save game" file as far as CM is cooncerned so I cannot modify it. Is there **any** way to get the file to change to a modifiable scenario format or am a scr^*ed?
-
-
awsome! just awsome!!
Leibstandarte Division and Schweppenburg
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Jeff,
One point of clarification - the Zustandberichte were done weekly and monthly, so it would be very interesting to see just when the 1SS LAH started "moving up" in the ratings. What I mean to highlight here is that just becasue it was a IV rating in June 44 doesn't mean it was in July.
Certainly a study like Russell's for a given campaign in the east would be extrememly interesting. It would also be far more problematic, and not just for reasons of language. Right now, however, I have my hands full with a project that has me writing (and rewriting) up to 15 hours a day. Whatever time is left over goes to CM