Differences between SS and Waffen-SS...

[sid guttridge]

Hi Nibelung,

Long before the war it was intended that the Waffen-SS (or rather its predecessors) should have a combat role.

I wonder whether the NKVD divisions weren't designed for internal or border security and only got dragged into front line combat out of desperation?

A good test might be to see if full NKVD divisions were integrated into Red Army front line strength from the start (like the Waffen-SS was into the German Army's order of battle at the beginning of every campaign) or were only used later.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ChadCrompton]

What do you mean the W-SS and Heer had no difference in training? Talk to any vets from both services and you could see that W-SS training emphasized sports, and individual physical preparation. The Heer had a completely different focus. Do your research a little better, any book on the W-SS or Heer could tell you of a differentation. Have you ever heard of Felix Steiner?

LAUGHINGSAWPHISHYYYY,
Chaad

[Nibelung]

Have you ever heard of Felix Steiner

That's a funny thing to ask around here, isn't it?

[Craig Soward]

I think he is just being sarcastic Nibelung, having a go at Sid.

[ChadCrompton]

I meant no personal attack on any member, guess my semantics made it appear as if I were. I was being sarcastic Nibelung. I originally responded to the statement that the W-SS and Heer had no different training methodologies, which I thought was absurd.

Yes the SS was a political motivated and created organization, as is any military service in the world. To some extent the Waffen-SS performed tasks that the Heer could have well done on there own, but it didn't happen like that. Yes the W-SS was at first a proxy or copy of the Heer, but more advanced personal and hands on training made the W-SS (the premier divisions) excell in comparison to a Heer division assigned the same task. When you think of something as being a copy (proxy) of somthing else, especially in military terminology (and science), you think of it as being inferior to the original copy. Not so in this case the W-SS may have served no special purpose but its tough training and organizational self-imposed political ideology formed a fierce fighting force with an unshakable elan.

The major W-SS divisions superiority over Heer units assigned the same duties, is due manly to political indoctrination. So yes the W-SS like all armies, navies, motor corps, basically anything government sponsered is a political motivated organization. Being political motivated, I'm not saying I agree with the politics, but political propaganda does work. Breeding hate in soldiers may not be ethical, but militarily it makes for more effieceny. When one thinks of hate one thinks of fear. People say they "hate" things because they are afraid of what they do not know or understand, everyone uses this innately natural mechanism in there daily lives. Nazism, like most other modern politcal ideologies of the then contemporary world relied on hate to fuel there campaign of sheer savagery. The WWII German armed forces accomplished this feat to a greater extent, though most (save the LAH) were not as fanatical as the stubborn ane tacit Japanese infantry-man, who achieved astounding victories for many years over the various second rate colonial powers and the Anglo-American military forces stationed in the pacific. Once again the Japanese army, a political motivated and created force, used the powers of propaganda and hate to create an elite land force capable of withstanding more powerful weapons, less provisions, and much more psychological trauma associated with jungle/small island warfare.

39

C

[Nibelung]

Yes the SS divisons became more worshiped than the Army, but if you look at the facts all of the major succesfull operations were pulled of by the Heer. The fall of France (where the SS didn't have such a great role), or Barbarossa. Seem's the SS were becoming better and better while other Heer divisions didn't advance anymore like they used to.

best,
Nibelung

[ChadCrompton]

Yes the Heer carried the victory for France during Fall Geib and Rot, primarily because the W-SS barely numbered 10,000 men with a mere 4 divisions, in comparison to the armies hundred some infantry divisons, etc.

Lets not also forget that France was the first time that W-SS units fought as a cohesive unit on a divisional level. Heer formations had divisional combat experience prior to the campaigns in France (i.e. Poland).

Performance wise if memory serves me correct most W-SS units suffered heavy casulities, mainly due to the fact of being under the heel of OKH and being assigned to more "dangerous" combat tasks. For instance the SS-LAH fought in Holland and was pivotal in holding holding various canal crossings and bridges, and in capturing 'Fortress Holland'. The Totenkopf was held in reserve I believe at the beginning of the campagin but had some sound combat victories during the drives to cross the Meuse river and take northern France. Das Reich's regiments also proved themselves succesful for the most part, but suffered from heavy casulities. The only W-SS division off the top of my head that did poorly was the Polizei division, which consisted of military conscripted ordungpolizei and equipped with outdated foreign weaponry. France was the turning point for which the W-SS proved itself a viable and tough fighting force capable of holding its own in combat. Also the title Waffen (weapon)-SS was adopted to designate all members of the combat SS.

484

[Nibelung]

France was the turning point for which the W-SS proved itself a viable and tough fighting force capable of holding its own in combat. Also the title Waffen (weapon)-SS was adopted to designate all members of the combat SS.

Even in Barbarossa the SS units were to few in comparison to Heer units. They had Pz.Gren.Divs in Barbarossa and not Pz.Divs like the Heer had, that's why I think they still didn't really reach the quality of some Heer divisions until they became full Pz. divisions although they were an impressive force from the start.

best,
Nibelung

[sid guttridge]

Hi Chad,

I cannot find any reference to training differences before your post.

But, although the Waffen-SS gradually developed variations on the army's training, they remained grounded in inherited army doctrine and are not a military justification for its existence as an independent arm. The army had successfully developed the far more radically different panzer doctrine (which the Waffen-SS followed) within its own ranks without the Wehrmacht having to create an independent panzer arm outside the army.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Michate]

Yes the SS was a political motivated and created organization, as is any military service in the world.

Sorry, no, there is a difference between a military service of a country, that has to fulfill the main task of securing the souvereignity of its country regardless of the political leadership of the country, and the Waffen-SS, one child of the SS, basically a service to fulfill "special" tasks for a political party/movement/regime.
Thus, a normal army is in the first place an apolitical organisation serving its country, the SS, and this includes the Waffen-SS, a political organisation serving a party/regime.
Not withstanding to this principal difference is the fact that any army in practice is politicised, its leadership more ofthen than not does have political aims and most Waffen-SS units, especially the "elite" units were used as combat units similar to the army.

To some extent the Waffen-SS performed tasks that the Heer could have well done on there own, but it didn't happen like that. Yes the W-SS was at first a proxy or copy of the Heer, but more advanced personal and hands on training made the W-SS (the premier divisions) excell in comparison to a Heer division assigned the same task.

The more selected rank and file personnel, consisting of mostly volunteers that had to fulfill high requirements on health and fitness was an advantage of the premier Waffen-SS units compared to army units, whereas the professionality and tactical capabilities of its leaders and officers was sometimes markedly inferior to those of the army, which was a disadvantage.

And while the premier Waffen-SS divisions certainly held a record of high combat effectiveness me at least remains to be convinced that it was actually higher than that of comparable army units, basically the army's Panzer divisions which in most instances were also highly effective in combat. And to compare the capabilites of a Waffen-SS Panzer or Panzergrenadier division to an army infantry division just is not meaningful.

Further it should not be forgotten that many of the -non premier and later Waffen-SS divisions, in the first place those consisting largely of ethnic Germans and Eastern Europeans (with exceptions), were absolutely non-elite, had a poor record and often fell apart in heavy combat.

When you think of something as being a copy (proxy) of somthing else, especially in military terminology (and science), you think of it as being inferior to the original copy. Not so in this case the W-SS may have served no special purpose but its tough training and organizational self-imposed political ideology formed a fierce fighting force with an unshakable elan.

The notion of the Waffen-SS having no special expertise in special ways of fighting IMHO does not imply the notion of their combat units being inferior to those of the army.

And giving those very fit and motivated men as recruits to the army would probably have resulted in units with comparable combat effectiveness.

[Tegetdorff]

...consisted of the following:RSHA,WHVA,RuSHA,SIPO,(Security Police:Gestapo,SD),and ORPO,)Order Police:Gendarmerie,Schutzpolizei,later Zolldienst,Wasserpolizei,even Teno,Techinal Office,{waterworks,electric,gasworks},SS-VT,(subdepartment,administratively,SS-TK:this later became the Waffen SS and Totenkopfverbade),Anneherbe:each branch had many adminstrative 'desks' and subdepartments--help me out if I have left out something