Waffen ss Panzergrenadier and Panzers vs Wermarcht

German SS and Waffen-SS 1923-1945.
User avatar
Christoph Awender
Patron
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by Christoph Awender »

Hello

There were 12 Pz.38 which don´t effect the overal numbers very much.

\christoph
User avatar
Christoph Awender
Patron
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by Christoph Awender »

Oh forgot to add the Heer Panzerjäger units which were also in support of the operation and gave the divisions additional AT-performance

Stg.Abt.209 29x StugIII
Stg.Abt.911 22 StuG III and 9 StuH 42
Stg.Abt.243 31 StuG III
Stg.Abt.277
Stg.Brig.228
Stg.Bttr.393 12 StuG III
Stg.Abt.905 23 StuG III and 9 StuH 42
Pz.Jg.Abt.559 Marder/5cm, 12,8cm Sf
Panzerjäger-Abteilung (Sfl.) 616 Marder II, Jagdpanzer I
Stg.Abt.177 22 StuG III and 9 StuH 42
Stg.Abt.185 27 StuG III and 5 StuH 42
Stg.Abt.189 31 StuG III
Stg.Abt.244 22 StuG III and 9 StuH 42
Stg.Abt.245 22 StuG III and 9 StuH 42
s.Pz.Jg.Abt.653
s.Pz.Jg.Abt.654
Stg.Abt.904 31 StuG III
Stg.Abt.909 31 StuG III

I think this is quite an additional firepower attached to the various units.

\Christoph
Ron Klages
In Memorium †
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 1:39 pm
Location: Lynnwood, Washington

My Thoughts

Post by Ron Klages »

Gentlemen,

I have been following your discussion regarding who was the stronger, the Waffen SS or the Heer and I have noticed that no where is the authorized Tables of Organization and Equipment [TOEs] is addressed or KStNs in German.

The’Type 44’ Panzer-Divison for the Waffen SS were larger than the ‘Type 44’ Panzer-Division for the Heer at least as was authorized. The differences are:

3082 more manpower
1086 more pistols
105 more Machine pistols
3191 more rifles
30 more heavy MGs
10 more 8cm mortars
8 more 12cm mortars
15 more 7.5cm Pak 40s
12 more 10.5cm leFhs
4 more 15cm sFHs
6 more 8.8cm Flak
178 more motorcycles
252 more field cars
570 more trucks
72 more prime movers
6 more armored cars
8 more SdKfz 250s
9 more SdKfz 251s
Panzer IVs are no difference
Panzer Vs are no difference
Jagdpanzer IVs are no difference
Wespes are no difference
Hummels are no difference
Flakpanzer IVs are no difference
Bergepanzers are no difference
Beospanzers are no difference

As you see the differences were not in armored equipment but in manpower and this was mainly because each Panzergrenadier-Regiment in the Waffen SS division had a III. Bataillon which the Heer division did not. The Artillerie-Regiment also was authorized an additional towed artillerie bataillon. Each Grenadier-Regiment was also authorized a Flak Kompanie, hence more 88s. It is interesting to note that all of the additional men and firepower were not in armored halftracks and the Panzer Regiments of either type of division were equipped the same.

If you look to the ‘Type 44’ Panzergrenadier-Division for the Waffen SS and the Heer they were authorized in an identical manner except for an additional flak kompanie in the Panzergrenadier-Regiments of the Waffen SS division.

When assessing the strength of one unit over another in combat there are, in my opinoin, the following considerations [these are only some]:

TANGIBLE FEATURES:
Quantity and quality of personnel
Quantity of equipment
Type of equipment
Leadership at all levels in the unit

INTANGIBLE FEATURES:
Enemy-quality and quantity
Location where fighting
When fighting-time of year
Moral of the unit and personnel

So where am I going with this you ask?

I believe that the Waffen SS units were no better or no worse than the Heer units. Many factors that were discussed in this thread, such as kill ratios, are a function of many intangible features. At Kursk, the Waffen SS units were in an area where they could charge ahead with their armor but in the Ardennes, the vaunted Waffen SS units were humbled by small Allied units such as combat engineers. This does not indicate that the Waffen SS was weak and unuseful but it was probably the wrong force structure for the mission while at Kursk it had the correct force structure. Kingtigers were not the best choice for combat in the Ardennes in the weather of the winter and the narrow weak bridged roads.

The Waffen SS units fought with great resolve, but I also believe so did the Heer units. Hitler used the Waffen SS as a fire brigade and rushed then about as such. This was most likely hard on them and there losses in personnel became very dibilitating as the war wore on. I believe the Wiking had the highest losses of any unit in combat. Does this make them the best?

Great organizations, either military or civilian, are a result of excellent leadership, training and equipping, but those that make the greatest contributions are a result of many intangibles. Just look to various sports teams in your country. The winners are not always those with the best individual players.

In the military in the United States there is always arguments that a US Marine unit is better than a US Army unit. This argument has never been statistically resolved nor will it ever be. The same situation applies to the Waffen SS unit versus the Heer unit.

Hey,why not ask, is a Fallschirmjäger unit better than a Infantry unit or a Panzergrenadier unit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Best regards to all,

Ron Klages
Ron Klages
Lynnwood, Washington USA
User avatar
Nibelung
Patron
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:37 am
Location: Europe

Post by Nibelung »

Interesting as always Ron! :D

Thanks.

best,
Miha / Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
User avatar
Christoph Awender
Patron
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by Christoph Awender »

Hello Ron

As I said before the explanation for the additional artillery and support weaponry is and was always the difference between the use of Heerestruppen of the Heer and the low number of them in the W-SS.

I cannot argue against the (at least) authorized 3rd Pz.Gren.Btl. But we all know that there were also some out of the norm Heer divisions but you got me - the Waffen-SS was better supplied and equipped.

\Christoph
Last edited by Christoph Awender on Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
liuanru
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:48 pm
Location: NEW YORK CITY

Post by liuanru »

What is the difference in training b/w a fallashimager and a Panzegrenadier?

i think fallashimagers have preferred statis for light auto/semi auto weapons like the G43/MP43/MP44. I also believe that they may get more MP40s.
corderex
Enthusiast
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:01 am

Post by corderex »

Hi Cristoph

Weren't you somewhat unfair by listing all these assault gun and antitank detachments to prove the point that the Heer was as well supported as the II SS Pz.K during Kursk?

You know well that the list you gave us corresponds to units that were deployed all along the front, both North and South of the salient. It wasn't like Lemelsen's Korps was getting all that support!!

But now that we are speaking about supporting elements, and I hate to bring this one up since I was thinking that the discussion was not getting anywhere, we should mention that the II SS Pz.K., and more specifically the Totenkopf Division, counted with the dedicated support of what was perhaps the most powerful artillery unit present at Kursk: SS-Werfer-Abteilung 102.

regards,

corderex
User avatar
Christoph Awender
Patron
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by Christoph Awender »

Yes you are right that was unfair from me because I didn´t check which of these units were actually involved.
Weren´there any Heer Werferabteilungen also? We know there was a lot of artillery support from the Heer.

This thread shows that the same people that believed that the W-SS was supplied with best first/better still think like that and that those not agreeing with that still think so also.
My job is not to convince anyone of anything here. I made my points and people can consider them. What I don´t understand is the constant one sided view where the Heer "has to proof" that it was as well trained and equipped by picking situations where the W-SS was obviously stronger. Nobody speaks of the time where the W-SS had to come along with czech machineguns, french trucks and obsolete firearms. Nobody speaks of the ill equipped "volunteer" divisions of the SS with the higher numbers and bad performance. Nobody speaks of the well euqipped PzLehr, GD, 1.Skijäger-, 78.Sturm-, 24.Pz. and the well experienced Panzerdivisionen in operations where they were involved additional to Kursk and Ardennen. etc.etc.... Nobody speaks of the professionalism the Heer showed in France, Greece, Barbarossa etc...
It is always the W-SS which is OF COURSE better, better trained (although I doubt anyone of these people ever saw an original training schedule), better supplied (although I doubt anyone saw an order which proofs that W-SS units had to be supplied better), better equipped (although I doubt that there was a weapon system which was exclusively reserved for the W-SS) etc.. etc..
Who speaks of the victories of the W-SS which weren´t any because they were achieved by Heer formations (e.g. Tscherkassy) but the W-SS got credit for it in the news and propaganda (which is still alive today).
OK I have to stop myself now.

This kind of discussion always ends with an dissatisfactory result.

\Christoph
corderex
Enthusiast
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:01 am

Post by corderex »

Hi Cristoph
What I don´t understand is the constant one sided view where the Heer "has to proof" that it was as well trained and equipped by picking situations where the W-SS was obviously stronger
Well, the Heer has nothing to proof, as far as I am concerned. See, my point of view is precisely this: from 1943 on, the Heer had to carry out the same missions as the SS divisions, without the priority given to the SS in terms of new equipment and weapons, and it did its duty as well as, if not better than the W-SS formations.

By the way, if you ask my opinion on the matter, I'd say that the majority of the most daring missions carried out successsfully by the Germans during the war had not a single W-SS member involved. Two come to my mind right now:
1. The crossing of the Meuse at Sedan and Dinant, on May 13-14, 1940
2. The airborne landings on Crete, on May 20, 1941

regards,

corderex
User avatar
Christoph Awender
Patron
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by Christoph Awender »

without the priority given to the SS in terms of new equipment and weapons, and it did its duty as well as,
Here we go again. If this is that what you draw out of the above discussion it is your business. But everyone is free to see history like he wants to.

My "resignation" above was not because I changed my oppinion. It is just that people after Ron posted the info about the additional Btl. will now argue with this without accepting anything else. As I said above I can give you dozens of examples of Heer units which were over strength during the war starting with the 1.Geb.Jg.Div., 1.Ski-Jg.Div., 24.Pz.Div. etc.. etc...
These things are totally ignored by some people because out of these examples nobody would say the Heer was favoured.
Priority in best equipment?? Where, when, which equipment was just given to the SS first??

Nowhere the meeting protocols of the OKW where they discuss and plan replacements, refreshments etc.. there is a single sentence that says "we have to give the best equipment to the W-SS first". The discussion was always about which units are available, which we can withdraw from the front for this and that operation, when, is the transport situation ok to refresh etc.. etc..

\Christoph
Jan-Hendrik
Patron
Posts: 1984
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
Location: Wienhausen
Contact:

Post by Jan-Hendrik »

To underline this :

who had the first fully equipped Tiger-Abt ( As W-SS still pulled auround with their heavy Kps. Heer already had an elite Abt. :D ) ? Heer or Waffen-SS ? Who got first equipped with Panthers ? Heer or Waffen-SS ? Who was equipped with Tiger II first ?

Sorry , nothing personal against anybody , bit this endless discussions again and again on nearly every board are getting boring ...

Jan-Hendrik
corderex
Enthusiast
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:01 am

Post by corderex »

Hi

Yes, I know we shouldn't be discussing this anymore (actually I had decided to call it quits) but here I go again... :D

Yes Cristoph, I didn't want to bring up the issue of the III Battalion until Ron mentioned it in his very good post, because you could very well say that it was seldom achieved in reality.

Hey, Jan-Hendrik. "Priority" is not limited to the question of "who-got-first-what." It also means issues like the fact that one of every three Tiger II tanks delivered to operational units went to the SS. But that's enough.

As for me, I don't take anything personal in here. As I understand it, it's just a discussion board for people interested in World War Two. I just put my two cents worth in those discussions I find more interesting. As Cristoph, I am not here to convince anybody (why would I want to do that in the first place??) If a particular theme strikes me as boring or repetitive, I just move on to the next one and that's it. Nobody's feelings gets hurt.

In the end, though, you're right. The discussion is coming to a dead end. I can only say I come out satisfied with the new knowledge I got from participating in the thread. Many people here know a LOT more than I do, so it will always be a pleasure to be able to exchange points of view with them.

Corderex
User avatar
Christoph Awender
Patron
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
Location: Austria
Contact:

Post by Christoph Awender »

corderex wrote:...Hey, Jan-Hendrik. "Priority" is not limited to the question of "who-got-first-what." It also means issues like the fact that one of every three Tiger II tanks delivered to operational units went to the SS. But that's enough....
We already had this corderex so why do you bring this twisted argument again. Yes 319 were delivered to schwere Heeres Panzer-Abteilungen, 124 to schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilungen, 30 to other units. But deliveries were replacements of casualties. Would we say if a Heer unit lost all tanks and was refreshed and got 30 TigerII while a SS unit with just 3 casualties receives two that the Heer was favoured?? Just the raw numbers of deliveries say nothing about who was preferred!
A total of 473 Tiger IIs were delivered to units, of whom 121 went to SS schwere Abteilungen, and the remaining 356 to Heer schwere Abteilungen. There were 3 SS and 10 Heer schwere abteilungen. Thus the averages are 40.3 Tiger IIs for the SS, 35.6 for the Heer. Particularly when you consider that some of the Heer abteilungen were dissolved before the war's end (thus dragging the Heer average down) while none of the SS abteilungen were, it is clear that there is no significant difference between the scale of allocation to SS units and Heer units for this tank type.

\Christoph
Epaminondas
Supporter
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:59 am

Post by Epaminondas »

Christoph Awender wrote:It is always the W-SS which is OF COURSE better, better trained (although I doubt anyone of these people ever saw an original training schedule), better supplied (although I doubt anyone saw an order which proofs that W-SS units had to be supplied better), better equipped (although I doubt that there was a weapon system which was exclusively reserved for the W-SS) etc.. etc..
Who speaks of the victories of the W-SS which weren´t any because they were achieved by Heer formations (e.g. Tscherkassy) but the W-SS got credit for it in the news and propaganda (which is still alive today).
OK I have to stop myself now.

This kind of discussion always ends with an dissatisfactory result.

\Christoph
Last first, yup- seems pretty solid that those here involved in the discuession are sticking to their guns.

I question your use of the "OF COURSE"; the conversation started going downhill right about where I posted a link to the Sledgehammer thesis; where a number of people took issue with my off hand comment about the SS getting better access to supplies.

I think a large part of the problem has to do with the number of newbies on the web, or end up here who start topics like "Panthers rock." If actually read most of the threads in this topic; the partisans of both sides are pretty good about tossing qualifiers out.
- I did mention looking at the kill/loss tables for tigers that one waffen SS unit was pretty close to average
- I did mention an awareness that Grossdeutchland was an exceptional Heer unit; second to none in terms of equipment and quality manpower

I can understand that you take issue with the battle of Kursk. It is a very well documented battle however... and the Waffen SS pre1941 was quite a different animal then midwar or late war. And both the heer and Waffen SS were scraping the bottom of the barrel in 1945.

====

Short of a well researched article up to par with a PhD thesis; I don't think anyone (who is not a newbie) will change their position based on this thread.

I've set up a hypothesis, and limited the scope to a reasonable level. If you object the timeframe chosen; you are more then capable of choosing a different time period and comprasion of units.
User avatar
Nibelung
Patron
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:37 am
Location: Europe

About such discusions

Post by Nibelung »

OK, I know how tiring these sorts of threads are for Christoph and others. I, with a pitiful knowledge on the matter, allways enjoy any new things which are mentioned. Not to mention that people like Christoph and Ron Klages really know what they are talking about...and everyone, who want's to learn something probably will.

Just my two cents...

best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
Post Reply