Best soldiers of WWII?

[Chupacabra]

Small point. By the end of the war the Waffen-SS was using conscripts. So no, they didn't all volunteer to join a criminal organization.

[Skipper]

Since when, approximately?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that to a young German of military age the lure of joining an elite armed force when deciding how to best serve your country would have been great (refer previous posts). Bear in mind also that the Waffen SS was NOT illegal in Germany during the war (naturally enough). Although you could argue that any reasonably intelligent person should have realised that many of their actions were not exactly exemplary examples of armed conflict I wonder how widely reported the illegal massacres or other reprehensible actions were actually reported in the civilian press? I'm guessing probably none.

Therefore, I think it is a bit of a simplification to imply that any German joining the SS during the war MUST have known they were joining an illegal organisation whose illegality was only apparent to the Allies fighting against them. Possibly the SS recruits once they had been sucked in to join this elite force would have then found out about some of the, shall we say darker moments, but by then I would suggest it would be all to late to say "hang on... I wish to join the Heer instead thanks very much".

Just my take on the situation when circumstances were VERY different then to how they are now when we can analytically sit in our armchairs and make generalisations without actually living through that period.

Regards

Jim R.

[FinnN]

The Germans were responsible for huge crimes during the war, but I think it's a bit misleading to pick out the Waffen SS (the units that are in the CMBO game) from other German units as being the ones solely repsonsible for war crimes. Certainly the more infamous crimes were committed by them, but the Wermacht was also responsible for the ill treatment of civilians and POWs, in the East especially. The issue has been subject to over-simplification as certain other criminal units (such as concentration camp guards) were also within the SS structure under Himmler. I'm not saying that the SS didn't commit crimes, just that they weren't the only ones.

On the subject of political indoctrination although SS units were obviously the most 'nazified' within the German forces, both the Luftwaffe and the Navy were regarded as highly politicised by the Nazi leadership. Partly this was because their leaders were staunch Nazis themselves, but also because those branches had gained the most from the pre-war rearmament programmes.

Finn

[Guest Babra]

Oh dear. Here it comes again...

[PasssoP]

To get back on topic...

Sure, every army have there good and bad formations, the Germans consciously weakening some to enhance their 'elite' divisions, ie compare the static divisions guarding the Normandy coast to the panzer divisions which were to arrive later.

Yet for some reason,I've always accepted as 'given' that the Germans possessed finest army of ww2, definately in 1941, perhaps still by 1944. One of the books in my rapidly growing WW2 library is Overlord by Max Hastings (1984), notably a British historian. He quotes a detailed statistical study conducted by American Colonel Trevor Dupuy.

"On a man for man basis, the German ground soldier constantly inflicted casualties at about a 50% higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES [emphasis in original]. This is true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

Make of this what you will.

PasssoP

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: PasssoP27 ]

[Mark IV]

I guess it's because I like statistics, but... has anyone else noticed that threads about atrocities ALWAYS get locked? 100% of the time?

It's enough to hypothesize a causal relationship, it is.

I wonder if that's Anyone's way of telling us that such discussions are unwelcome on their free, privately-owned board?

[PawBroon]

Mr4, you've been spiting your dried frog pills again.

Just because some privately owned company released a game and went so far as asking beforehand if it was suitable to put SS in it while at the same time avoiding the use of nazi memorabilia doesn't mean that they are prone to lock threads about SS and their atrocities when they keep bumping at the top of a forum which could be seen as a self saling and promoting tool for would be buyers.

Or it's me?

[Alex heritage]

I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. the sas we're the first real special forces but the american books i've read all seem to put american s.forces far above ours. However i'm not just being over-patriotc it is my strong opinion that the russian spetsnaz are the strongest force in the world...

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:

I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. the sas we're the first real special forces but the american books i've read all seem to put american s.forces far above ours. However i'm not just being over-patriotc it is my strong opinion that the russian spetsnaz are the strongest force in the world... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all Alex. Some folks do realize what the SAS and SBS is and their professionalism. They are among the finest specially trained troops in the world. Their qualification course is one of the most difficult there is.

I for one tremendously enjoyed Timothy Dalton as James Bond and thought it added a bit of realism and flair to the whole concept. Alas, the critics actually believed he was to REAL and his contract was never extended.

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Stalins Organ]

The SAS got mentioned several pages ago!!

[Major Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

To be honest here Dr "BrIAn", I always assumed your name was Dr "BrAIn" by simply glancing at it every time until I recently noticed that my assumption was incorrect. I believe Major Tom may also suffer from the same assumption so don't think the worst in his case, I believe he simpy has your name wrong by not looking at it properly.

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, how red is my face. Little did I know that I was spelling it wrong! I did read it wrong, Dr. Brian. When I read your last post, I could not figure out why you were so upset. I was not trying to be a jerk, by calling you BrAIn, but somehow just typed it as so. Frankly, I thought it was BrAIn, and not BrIAn. I really meant no offense as Kanonier (did I get it right?) states in his post.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the very first post.

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

1st SSF

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:

I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. the sas we're the first real special forces but the american books i've read all seem to put american s.forces far above ours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to read more books about British special forces. I've read quite a few and can provide a list if you really need one. They hardly ever mention Americans at all. In fact, I can't remember a single instance offhand. British war movies seldom have American characters either. Wonder why...

BTW, I'd consider the Brandenburgers the first special forces of WW II. And I think the British Commandos were first among the Allies. But I may easily have overlooked some obscure organization or other.

Michael

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But I may easily have overlooked some obscure organization or other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jedburghs & OSS? Many many others, I'm sure. Germany had a plethora of them.

Gyrene

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:

... in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you've missed "The Rock"?

Sean Connery's character there is an ex SAS officer.

Cheers

Olle

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I really meant no offense as Kanonier (did I get it right?) states in his post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference is that I couldn't give a S*** if you did spell it incorrectly which, by the way, you didn't.

Regards

Jim R.

[BloodyBucket]

Originally posted by Dwight Eisenhower:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let us have no part in the in the profitless quarrels in which other men will inevitably engage as to what country, what service, won the European war. Every man, every woman of every nation here represented has served according to his or her ability, and the efforts of each have contributed to this outcome. This we will remember - an in doing so we shall be sending comfort to the loved ones of comrades who could not live to see this day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Part of his victory message to the troops

[Jeff Duquette]

How good were the Germans, well according to the Depuy Institute, US ARMY Colonel T.N. Depuy “Numbers, Predictions & War”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>EFFECTS OF AIRPOWER, AND GERMAN PROWESS

Despite the complaints of our airmen that we were not giving due consideration to the effects of air weapons, we seemed to be getting a pretty good fit for most engagements, and were not distressed when a few failed to fit into the pattern. After all, human behavior will vary from time to time and place to place. Suddenly, however, it became disconcertingly obvious that the deviations from the norm were most evident in those battles in which Allied airpower was not employed, or in which its involvement was slight—usually due to bad weather. At the same time another phenomenon became evident in our results. Where the Allied power superiority in the Pf/Pe ratio was very great, the result was usually (but not always) an Allied success. Where the Allies' Pf/Pe ratio was slight or marginal, the Germans were usually successful, or the outcome was inconclusive (an outcome value between +0.5 and —0.5); where the Pr/Pe ratio suggested an indeterminate outcome (a value between 0.9 and I.I), the Germans were invariably successful, as they were when the Pf/Pe ratio was in their favor. We had started out with an assumption that the Germans probably had something like a 10 percent combat effectiveness advantage over the less experienced British and Americans at the time of the Salerno landings. But we also assumed that (discounting the inevitable differences that will exist among units due to leadership and other indefinable causes) by mid-1944 the Allies would, on the average, have closed this experience-capability gap. Our results now indicated that this was not the case.

Suddenly, answers for these various discrepancies fell into place within our theory of combat. We had been getting reasonably consistent results for most of our engagements because our underestimation of German combat effectiveness had been offset by an underestimation of the effect of predominantly greater Allied air strength. We listed both the power ratio and outcome values in order of descending magnitude, and drew a line through the middle of the indeterminate engagements (on the P/P listing) and through the middle of the inconclusive outcomes (on the R-R listing), and found that these midpoints did not match. We found, however, that we could bring these two midpoints into close conformity with each other by applying a 1.2 relative combat effectiveness value (CEV) factor to show the German superiority, and by doubling the values we had been applying for the effects of air weapons. We didn't like one of the two conclusions which this adjustment forced upon us— that 100 Germans were roughly the combat equivalent of 120 Americans or British—but we could not ignore the fact that our numbers demonstrated that this was so. Our airmen, of course, felt justified by the other conclusion: that air weapons had about twice as much effect on ground combat outcomes as we ground soldiers had initially been willing to recognize.

This decision substantially reduced the number of engagements of our Development Data Base that did not fit the theory of combat represented by our two basic formulae and the factors for variables of combat. As noted above, only five out of sixty, less than 10 percent, did not fit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Want to know what the Depuy Institutes studies came up with for Combat Effectiveness Values on the Eastern Front?

[Stalins Organ]

Absolutely!

FWIW the NZ Divivion's DECREASED it's combat effectiveness later in the war, from about late 43 or early 44 in Italy.

The soldiers knew the war was being won and weren't quite so keen on taking riskes for the cause. Also new drafts from home were not as experienced as the old desert-veterans they were replacing and weer not as well motivated in the first place.

[BloodyBucket]

I would be willing to agree to the 100 Germans equals 120 allied soldiers formula. I think the allies were satisfied with winning the war that way.

The side with the advantage in fire support saw no pressing need to best the enemy on a man for man level. A nice luxury, if you can afford it.

[Berlichtingen]

One thing which may account for the 100:120 statistic... the Allies kept their units on the line. By this I mean that replacements were fed directly into units that were conducting active operations. On the other hand, the Germans usually pulled units out of the line before adding replacements. This gave the Germans the ability to integrate the replacements into the unit prior to going back into action. Where as (particularly in the US Army), men were sent into action only partially trained and unfamiliar with their unit.

[Stalins Organ]

Not every allied nation did this Mk IV - Commonwealth practice was to pull out entire divisions.