Yet....another stupid question

[Guest Capt_Manieri]

I've looked in my history and world war two books and I can't find the answer to this question: What is the difference between the Waffen Schutzstaffel (SS) and the ordinary Wehrmacht? I know there is a signifigant difference..but what exactly is it? I can't pin it.

[Berlichtingen]

The SS was a political entity, the Wehrmacht a military one. SS loyalty was, theoretically, to Hitler. The Wehrmacht to Germany. Now, the Waffen-SS was just part of the SS, and its role was similar to the Wehrmacht. The main difference would be that the Waffen SS was generally better equipped. Also, the main Waffen-SS units tended to be larger than the official TO&E's. Example: LSSAH had a third battalion (Tigers) on the East Front in 43. In '44 their divisions were more likely to be closer to official strength than their Wehrmacht counterparts.

[Das Boot]

Also, the Waffen SS-officers were schooled extensively in the nazi ideologi. IIRC tactics and ideologi were equally important - each valued about 8 points at exams, whereas weapons knowledge only counted for one or two points. It gave the Waffen SS-soldiers the right fighting spirit that kept them going right to the end.

[Fionn]

The Waffen SS can basically be thought of as being the "elite" troops. They got the better equipment, were more likely to be at TO&E strength, had larger authorised TO&E strengths vis a vis Wehrmacht units.

By later in the war though the Aryan flavour of Waffen SS units was being eroded by the formation of non-Aryan Waffen SS units, including Croat, Dutch etc. The Waffen SS began the war as a formation in which only virtually perfect Germans were accepted and ended the war as one in which even foreign conscripts were accepted. That has to be borne in mind when assessing late-war Waffen SS divisions.

For most of the war ideological indoctrination was an important part of SS training (less so near the end).

Lastly the Waffen SS was a unit which was loyal to Hitler but also, and more importantly, was supposedly unquestioningly loyal to the ideologies of the NSDAP and the Third Reich.

Dan,

During his reign Hitler changed the Wehrmacht oath of loyalty so that no longer did they swear obedience to Germany etc but rather even Wehrmacht soldiers had to swear obedience to Hitler personally.

Obviously though that is just a semantic point since the SS was far more loyal to Hitler personally than the Wehrmacht ever was.

One must also remember that the expansion in the manpower of the Waffen SS was a product of Himmler's need to cement his "Aryan knight" philosophy by the doing of "great war deeds" by Waffen SS soldiers and also a product of his need to create a strong counter-point to the Wehrmacht which could do those jobs the Wehrmacht couldn't be expected to do ( generally, final solution-related).

I see the tension between the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS as being very similar to what happened in Russia with the NKVD and the Red Army and the creation of the separate army under the complete control of the Interior Ministry.

Many tyrannical leaders like to be able to rely on two or three separate military forces since it is unlikely that BOTH separate military forces will rebel at the same time and one force can be used to suppress the other at times when the other rebels.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>During his reign Hitler changed the Wehrmacht oath of loyalty so that no longer did they swear obedience to Germany etc but rather even Wehrmacht soldiers had to swear obedience to Hitler personally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but from what I've read, I get the impression that loyalty to Hitler was still secondary to Germany... at least in the Prussian officer corps

[Fionn]

Yes, in their minds this was so.. I was just making the point that, if we're being precise, BOTH the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht made oaths to Hitler personally instead of Germany by the end of the war.

Most Wehrmacht soldiers fought for Germany and saw their loyalty as being to Germany regardless of what words were in their oath as far as I can see.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Berlichtingen]

Now that I think of it, I think even the Waffen-SS officers were starting to take the "Hitler" oath less seriously. I recall reading somewhere that Sepp Deitrich's response to Rommel about breaking out (after getting orders from Hitler to hold to the last man) was "you're the boss"

[Xyphorus]

I was wondering if technically speaking, and according to Nazi racial doctrines all Western Europeans (such as Dutchs, Scandinavians, Frenchs...) were considered as "aryans"?

I recall reading a book about " La Divison Charlemagne" made out of French anti-communist volonteers. All recruits were politically taught that despite fighting against communism, they were also part of the master race, and as such, guardians of it.

Nevertheless, I think that the hatred of communism seems to have been the main vector in leading these men to betray their country and wear the uniform of the ennemy.

Interesting thread.

Karl

[Das Boot]

I don't know about the other europeans, but the scandinavians were thought of af aryans, and thought so themselves. In fact, at the end of the war, a lot of Danish Waffen SS troops complained about the soldiers from Eastern Europe, their lack of morale and tactical ability, and put it down to them being an inferior race.

Xyphorus, I think you're right about many of the volounteers joining to fight the communist danger. In fact, the first commander of the Danish Free Corps in the Waffen SS was an ex-Army officer who was so diasppointed with the Danish resistance to the German invasion, that the joined Waffen-SS to fight the bolschevics. How's that for reasoning?

He wasn't a nazi and resisted the idological indoctrination. Later he was removed from command after revolts amongst the conscipts calling him a bloody democrat (the original meaning, not the US party) and he was replaced by an iron-nazi.

[Major Tom]

Hello, I have just been through a thorough study of the Napoleonic Wars and the topic of Napoleon's Imperial Guard came up. They were basically the same as the Waffen SS, except for their racist tone. The were the best equipped and came from the best ranks. However, the fact that the Guard got so large, like the Waffen SS, they actually handycapped the rest of the army. Indeed, there are many more better Waffen SS NCO's and battle officers than in the regular German Army, especially the one encountered in France in 1944. The fact was brought up that the Imperial Guard drew too many good soldiers away from their formations and concentrated them in one force. Sure, this created a virtually unbeatable entity, but, it severely weakened the rest of the army. Do you think that this is what happened to the German army? Too many of it's best and brightest were drawn over to the flashy uniforms and status that the Waffen SS offered resulting in regular forces experiencing a quality drop? Maybe the 10 million man German Army couldn't feel the same loss of a few hundred thousand quality officers to the SS more than the hundred thousand French Army felt the loss of 10,000 quality soldiers to the Imperial Guard? Any thoughts about the SS actually handycapping the German war effort?

[Spook]

Well, Major, it's an interesting comparison to make, and fairly made in both situations----the SS & the Napoleonic Imperial Guard (IG).

For the IG, however, I think that the suggested "funneling" of the best troops out of the French regular line didn't have a significant impact during the earlier Imperial war years (1805-1811). Even in 1809, the size of the IG was quite limited compared to the rest of the French Army. For example, the Old Guard infantry alone (grenadiers & chasseurs) consisted of a grand total of four battalions. Compared to 80+ line infantry regiments (with 3-4 battalions per regiment), I don't think that the quality "funnel" was too severe at this time. Rather, I think the attrition of French troops in Spain did more overall "quality damage" as well as the Russian Campaign. After that, the rebuilding of the IG in 1813 definitely did a quality hit on the French line units still intact.

For that matter, in the earlier Imperial years, many French Guard soldiers & officers would be returned to line units for the purpose of improving the training & discipline of those units. A Guard member transferred to the Line would usually get a promotion by 1-2 grades.

For the Waffen SS, I'm less able to say how many "regular" Germans got tapped into the SS units. But with certainty, the Waffen SS formations would get first dibs on newer weapons & equipment, which represented a quality boost in its own way.

[Major Tom]

Yeah, Spook, the quality of the regular French wasn't that affected for most of the duration. But, by the end, especially Waterloo, the drain on NCO's was very apparent. Plus, when you have such an elite unit such as the SS or Guard, if they ever fail, there goes the morale of the rest of your army.

[Johan Brittz]

Mayor/Spook - Small world - Just been reading Dunnigan's "The Russian Front" and in discusing the organization of the German forces he makes this point:

"These elite divisions (SS, Grossdeutschland etc) were another German mistake. To be sure, in many cases these units performed better than similar non-elite units. This can be attributed to the larger organization and superior equipment of these units. They also had first pick of available manpower, but this was their biggest drawback. Qualified men who could be be NCO's or officers in regular units were used as privates or NCO's in the "elite" units.

Germany could not afford to underutilize her manpower in such a fashion. The same applied for the concentrations of scarce weapons and equipment. While these units (primarily armored) were held in reserve, other mobile units were beaten to a pulp, unable to obtain the men and equioment they needed..."

So this brings up the question for modern armies: Where do you draw the line. Certainly some elite units are needed for specific jobs. But the line need to be drawn at the size of these units. It also looks like it might be a problem specific to dictators (Saddams Guards?) who need loyal (well paid) elite units in case of revolt by the army. I also remeber the mess that mixing the two types can cause - remember what happened with "Blackhawk Down" in Somalia - Rangers and the Delta's - comm FUs for Africa (pun intended)

BTW - that must be the best coverage of a (recent) battle I've ever seen - have a look: http://www.philly.com/packages/somalia/nov17/default17.asp

[This message has been edited by Johan Brittz (edited 01-05-2000).]

[Major Tom]

EXACTLY! How often do you hear of SS troops other than in critical situations? The 21st Panzer was indeed a great unit, but, it was reduced to using obsolete or captured equipment which really knocked down it's efficiency. SS Panzer divisions were the equivalent to a typical Army Panzer division, except that they were usually always at full strength, and had a battalion of Tigers. If the Germans lost one SS Division a great bulk of their force's power would be defeated. Plus, one SS Division can be in only one place at a time. This results in a certain part of the line being virtually impregnable, but, the rest is relatively weak.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I'll chip in a few thoughts here as I did several fairly extensive papers on this back in College.

The military formations of the SS (Waffen SS eventually) changed dramatically from the early 1930s to the fall of the Third Reich. As the war dragged on the Waffen SS divisions became more and more like their WH counterparts. The elan and preferential treatment continued all the way to the end of the war, but the physical/racial quality the SS started the war with eroded rapidly in the last 2 years of the war.

Ayran was, at first, only applied to those of pure German blood (whatever that was!). As Himmler's desire to grow the fighting units of the SS increased, he was hindered by the Army, Georing, and Hitler himself. Equipment in the first year of the war was generally substandard, foreign (lots of Czech stuff), or from private contracts. The funding for purchasing of their own weapons came from the plunder of Jews and other prisoners in the concentration camps. This is just one reason why the Waffen SS can't totally distance themselves from the horrors of the "other" SS.

Anyhoo, when Himmler found that he couldn't get recruits from normal means, the definition of Ayran was extended to include Scandinavians and Dutch. It was then extended to include all peoples of Western Europe. As the war went on the definition changed again to include Volksdeutsch (non-Germans who were of German lineage). This included a huge load of men from Eastern Europe. Then in a bid to gain more power Himmler managed to secure all foreign troops under the SS banner, including existing French, Spanish, Estonian, Latvian, etc. combat formations. In the last year or so of the war conscription was standard, meaning that the volunteer aspect of the Waffen SS nearly vanished. In fact, Luftwaffe personnel were transfered (without their consent) to SS divisions en mas. As the war closed even Kriegsmarine men were stuck in Waffen SS divisions.

As for their "elite" status, some divisions could certainly claim this, others could not. Think of the full Panzer Divisions as being "elite", most pre-45 PzGrenadier Divisions as being above average, and Grenadier (infantry) anywhere from horrible to outstanding. Various Kavalrie and Gebirgsjäger units also fit this latter definition.

So... the conclusion is that some units could be called elite, some good, others piss poor. Heck, Himmler himself had the 13th SS Handschar division disbanded because it was too murderous even by SS standards!!! As for the ethnic makeup of the soldiers, name a country in Europe and Soviet Asia and I can probably point you to a unit where a significant number served. Even Swedes and Swiss fought in SS units.

OK, enough of that

Steve

[PanzerLeader]

One question: what exaclty were the Totenkopf SS for?

I used to think they were the ones who served in concentration camps. However last summer I visited a relative in Finland who was in the Wiking SS division. He fought in Russia, all the way to the Caucasus with Army Group A I think, and yet I saw that horrible Totenkopf badge on his cap...

So were they part of the Waffen SS? Or what?

[Major Tom]

The Totenkoph SS was a fighting division. I think that it was the one cut up in the British attack on Arras in 1940. The funny thing was, the SS troops broke and fled before the British, and they were only stopped due to achieving most of their goals and running into the 7th Panzer Division.

[Doug Beman]

"Totenkopf" (literally, Death's Head) was the nickname of a SS Panzer Division created in 1939.

Here's a link to a website with some quick-reference stuff about it:

http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/ss-3.htm

The Germans, like every other army, took to giving their units cool nicknames (oh God, that sounded REALLY wrong ) that were either scary (Totenkopf) or authoritative (Das Reich and Leibstandarte "banner")

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 01-05-2000).]

[Fionn]

Ok, you're going to have to forgive my spelling here but this is one issue which is often brought up.

There is a difference between the SS Totenkopfverbaende and the Waffen SS Totenkopf Division.

The SS-Totenkopfverbaende were the Death's Heads Camp guards and extermination squad members while the Totenkopf Division was a Waffen SS division (although I believe that some of the guards formed a part of the cadre of this division.. ). I know some people say this isn't so but either way the Totenkopf division shouldn't be equated to the camp guards any more closely than any other Waffen-SS division is IMO.

As for the Waffen-SS deterioration (racially and in terms of raw performance of new recruits) I think it suffices that Volksgrenadier division personnel were supposed to be interchangeable with non-elite Waffen SS divisions.

What this means is that while the Panzer and some of the Panzer Grenadier SS divisions were elite a lot of the Waffen SS infantry divisions were in such a poor state that they were as variable in quality as Volksgrenadier divisions. Some performed well but others performed terribly.

As for the Waffen SS being a drain on Army resources... Well, I think that the German idea of creating a "high-low" army in which the majority of units were low quality, low mobility throwbacks to WW1 and a small core were high quality, high mobility divisions has a lot to recommend it for an army which is faced with such constraints on production as the Germans.

While it might be ok for the Americans to go with an all medium army the Germans could only fully motorise etc a small portion of their army. Sensibly enough they decided that they'd be sure to put the best recruits into these units so that they could get the most out of the limited amount of equipment they produced.

What you are seeing is nothing more than an understanding of the Schwerpunkt principle on the strategic/operational planning stages. To achieve a decisive breakthrough one must concentrate ones force. The best way to achieve a concentration of force is to meld your best men and your best equipment together. Since you ONLY need to achieve a local superiority at the Schwerpunkt it is quite acceptable to only have 20 or 30 motorised, high quality divisions in an army of 300 divisions since they can attack at your enemy's weak point and create a breach which the poor quality divisions can flow through and consolidate.

I'm a believer in concentration of force and it works out well. In a PBEM of Wir I have going at the moment it is June 1943 and I, as the Russians, have taken Rumania, Hungary, Serbia and half of Poland and set a line running from the Italian border in the south to Stettin in the north..

I only have 7 Offensive Armies in my entire army but each consists of 4 to 5 Soviet Armoured Corps. I simply arranged them in two lines 3 units wide, 1 in the north and 1 in the south..

I advanced these units at the rate of 2 hexes per week with my infantry armies simply following along behind to protect the roads along which I advanced from being cut off.

I've been advancing without a single setback for 1 year of game time now. I have advanced all the way from Moscow and Dnepropetrovsk to the Italian and German borders.

I have used zero fancy tactics but have merely stripped every single tank brigade and corps from every infantry army along my entire front and concentrated them in 7 armies ( 5 tank, 2 shock). My opponent has proven totally incapable of stopping them and my reserves are at ridiculous levels ( I have over 8000 T34s sitting in depots in the rear simply because my losses have been so light since these armies now have experience levels of 99% each since they are the only ones doing any fighting ).

My point is that to the Germans the concentration of men and materials made sense and, when applied on the strategic and operational levels, a rigid adherence to a ruthless doctrine gets results.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Major Tom]

I thought Lehr meant training? There were a bunch of Lehr divisions, of which only 1 I think were Panzer. I think that it was only an after thought to have them as actual fighting units.

I have War in Russia, and one thing happened that bugged me. It was 1943 as the Germans (I have a little more cautious plan than Fionn's) and I dislike the sheer numbers of reserve vehicles that I got. Indeed, it was against the AI, but, I was getting a few hundred tanks per month of a new type that I wasn't even producing?!? I had the difficulty set to benefit the Allies, so, it was not because of that.

One problem about throwing all your good units in one batch, if you lose them, or if they get severely bashed about you lose your offensive, and counteroffensive edge. It happened with the Allies in May 1940 and with the Germans in December 1942 with Stalingrad and the summer of 1943 with Kursk. If your enemy could somehow bust through your weaker units and cut off your 7 armies you are pretty much toast. However, that is probably just the pesimistic view. Maybe I am just too Montgomerish for my own good.

Also, we have to remember that every army in WWII that bases itself on an elite core was defeated (Germany, Japan, and even Italy), and those who had large numbers of regular or sub-regular troops prevailed.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-05-2000).]

[Fionn]

Actually Lehr means "Training" or "Demonstration".. Lehr units were actually training academies.

E.g. the Panzer Lehr unit was a teaching unit which taught panzercrew.

The Panzer Lehr unit was basically formed from a Panzer teaching unit and thus had a large number of veteran tankers in it. Put in some experienced Panzergrenadiers and you have a pretty good unit. Also the fact that it had a ver high TO&E helped.

The reason you got thousands of tanks of a type you weren't producing was that old vehicles were refitted to newer types. E.g If you retire the Pz III f the fs will eventually be refitted to H standard.

I suffered very few tank losses early on in the war as the Russians and had about 5000 BT7s and T-60s sitting in my reserve. A few months ago they began to be converted to SU-76s... Now I have a few thousand of them and I never built a single one. I also have about 1500 KV-1s but haven't built a single one yet. They are all refits.

As for your "maybe they'll get cut off" approach.. Ah, the armies which immediately follow them comprise 6 Rifle Divisions and two massive AT Battalions. Some of these armies have 1400 squads and 200 AT guns...

I've shrugged off entire Panzer Corps .. Plus the fact that I have had air superiority since the end of 1941 over the entire front helps me a lot .. I can put 500 to 600 bombers and 600 to 800 fighters over any formation during any battle. That helps a lot

BTW I think your conclusion regarding core units is wrong. Check out the Soviets... They believe in exploiting breaches created by rifle armies with tank armies. Tank armies are smaller than rifle armies BUT they have a much more concentrated punch.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest JonS]

I remember reading somewhere that the powers-that-be in the UK (and possibly in the US also) had some serious reservations about forming elite units such as the Paras, Rangers, Commandos and Marines (RN, not USMC). This was mainly since it was seen as a kind of too many eggs in one basket thing, and also a drain of the ofensivly minded personnel from all the line units. Considering that these regular infantry and armoured units did the majority fighting anyway there may be something in that, but mainly I suppose because of the radically different doctrines of the US/UK and the Germans.

Regards

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[Aacooper]

Okay, so SS troops would be more motivated, even if they are not better trained.

What about the generals? I would think Heer generals with a longer military background would have been better than ideological SS generals. I can't think of a single SS officer famous for being a good general - Peiper was famous for his TOE. Please correct if I´m wrong.

[Major Tom]

Yeah, I forgot about those pesky AT Guns in WIR. They can really smash an armoured thrust. I guess as being predominantly the Germans I am not used to such an overwealming number of spare weapons to fill up all of my Divisions, except for all of those damn mystery tanks! Thank's about that mystery tank thing, it was really bugging me and kind of brought me down on the realizm thing. I think I will try that game again sometime.

Actually, I tried in CM a few times to organize my forces into qualitative groups. Seeing as all Veteran troops have the same delay would make advances more speedy and coordinated. But, for some reason the Squads tend to want to keep connection with their original HQ as well as the new one. This really sucks as the original HQ uses up the 2-3 avalible command slots on the reassigned units. Will this be corrected in the final version, or will it be what you see is what you get? The Support units seem to behave much differently though. I am sorry if this has come up before, but, it seems applicable to the discussion here.

[Fionn]

Squads are assigned to platoons and companies.

You can't put a squad near another platoon HQ (not his platoon HQ) and expect him to take orders etc with the same delay he normally would.

Basically if your squd is A3 then ONLY platoon leader A0 and the company commander platoon A is under can order him around...

Well, Bn COs can order them around too.

Teams are treated aas being relatively independent and so have smaller delays if out of C&C.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers