Influence of W-SS training methods on modern armies

[Danny]

Does any one know of documented influence of W-SS training methods on modern armies (more precise: post WW2)?

Specially regarding combat training and tactics?

Or at least, whats your opinion on this issue?

Regards

Danny

[Kameraden]

Don't know too much about the Tactics

But the Waffen-SS pioneered Camouflage clothing.
Firstly the Smocks and then the actual Uniforms in place of Field Grey Tunics and Trousers.
They were ridiculed by the Regular Army at the outbreak of the War'but by the end of the War'this had been adopted by the Heer and Luftwaffe field Units where possible.
Even some American Units adopted Camouflage Clothing in the NW Theatre'but after too many Friendly Fire Incidents this was stopped asap.
Nearly every Modern Army uses some sort of Camouflage Uniform and Clothing and this can be directly attributed to the Waffen-SS.

[MarineGYSGT]

This is my opinion.

I have been a Marine for 13 years. I have studied many of our battles and fighting styles since WWII and have intensely studied Vietnam and the current battle of Iraqi Freedom. Overall I think our tactics are very much the same.

I will give you my own personal example. I think that the way our Recon Battalians are set up and the way the conduct surveillance and the extraction of people from combat zones, That is a direct reflection of some of the Waffen SS commandos. I know that almost all Air Forces in the world are direct tactics and training that the Germans developed during WWII.

[Pirx]

Maybe not training, but idea.
Volunteers and professionals are much better than conscript.
Better have 10 perfect trained divisions with best equipment than 30 with permanent shortage of supplies.

Warsaw Pact armies were large and numerous. Soldiers were bad trained becouse of poor budget. Oficers got poor wages and often they had to work somewere else.

[Casarez]

Does any one know of documented influence of W-SS training methods on modern armies (more precise: post WW2)?

Specially regarding combat training and tactics?

Or at least, whats your opinion on this issue?

None as far as documented influence goes. The Waffen-SS training methods were not that different from the Heer as far as military skills goes. Tactics used by them were basically the same as well. My opinion is that while people have a fascination with them their actual influence over the training methods and tactics of modern armies is limited at best.

When I was in a mech inf unit we used tactics that could be called similar to the Waffen-SS but they were not influenced by them. The way tanks and IFVs travel in formations have not changed that much from when even our Shermans were doing the same thing. The way we deal with an ATGM launch for example can actually be traced to the Israelis from their combat experience which is more relevant to modern warfare. Recon teams are nothing new to any faction in WWII so I fail to see how the Waffen-SS hold the monopoly on that.

I do agree on one point with Pirx that volunteers and professionals are better than conscripts. But the Waffen-SS were not the only formation in WWII to prove that out. So once again associating that decision with the Waffen-SS is stretching it.

As for camo uniforms the Waffen-SS were not the only ones (or even the first) to think about them let alone use them. The British paras also wore camo smocks for instance. Saying that when some modern nations went to camo BDUs (In some cases like the US it was 35-40 years later) it was all the influence of the Waffen-SS is a bit of a stretch.

Now I am not trying to disparage any members of the Waffen-SS by saying these things, I am just trying to be realistic with what influence they had over modern armies tactics and training.

[Laurent Daniel]

The Waffen SS cannot be compared to any of the modern armies units.

What we have, today, are conscripts or volunteers. None of them are POLITICAL fighters, with maybe the exception of few elite units in whatever is left of the Communist countries and, there, I am not sure.

Unlike an average today's soldier, who is fighting "only" for his country, the Waffen SS were fighting for a POLITICAL ideal, for an ideology, for a philosophy. Yeap, we can and must challenge this ideal, but it is a fact.

Such motivated troops are not anymore available nowadays, with, maybe, the exception of the "troops" of Ousama Bin Laden.

We have other examples in history of politically, ideologically motivated troops: The Christians Crusaders came to my mind, but there must be others.

Compared to the political will, to the readiness to die for a cause, training is peanuts. Why the best French troops are within the French Foreign Legion? Because they all were loosers in their "previous" life. The Legion gave them a cause, a family, an ideal.

Forget training, tactics, and all the bla-bla. Give them a cause, brainwash them to the Cause, and you wil get the elite of the elite.

[Reb]

Laurent

I disagree - many nations have gone to volunteer armies.

Where the waffen SS influence came in was during the cold war. Both Nato and Israel faced situations where they faced enemies who outnumbered them massively in tanks and guns.

The obvious place to look for ideas was Normandy. And most of the panzer divs that fought those defensive battles were SS. Both the Israelis and Nato took long looks at this. See the SADF Journal (roughly '75) and the British Army in roughly the same period who did numerous walkthroughs of the Normandy battles with former Heer and SS vets.

The Russian front battles were closely examined as well since Nato was defending Europe Normandy seemed a good starting place. And both the Brits and Americans had recent organizational memories of the stiff resistance they encountered there where the Germans used "mobile defense by armoured groups."

I doubt they were specifically looking to the SS for tips but just looking at the units that did that particular fighting who happened to be W-SS.

cheers
Reb

[dduff442]

Wehrmacht doctrine had been worked out in great detail by 1933 at the latest. Defensive doctrine was perfected by 1917 or so, with only modest refinements coming subsequently; offensive infantry tactics in time for the Kaiserschlacht of 1918. By 1930, the Reichsheer was conducting exercises using trucks as mock tanks etc., with the only (albeit very major) innovation compared with Liddell-Hart & Fuller's exercises of the 20s being that the logistics were fully motorized. All this happened before the W-SS was even formed.

Regardsio,
dduff

[Laurent Daniel]

Interesting thread. It seems that we are reaching a point where we can only mutually disagree.
But, before calling to the rescue our personal private Kampfgruppe, let's see if we cannot find a common ground. It seems that in fact we have 2 topics here:

1 - The military influence of the 3rd Reich on modern armies:

Definitely important. They created and developped the concept of the Armoured Divisions. De Gaulle created it also, Guderian was reading his books before the war, but, unlike Guderian, De Gaulle never got the support of the his government so he couldn't develop it.
Based on that, they also created the concept of Blietzkrieg and developed it in the Western theaters.
Then, they get a huge experience about fighting with the Red Army.
Let's also mention the invention of several new weapons: Rockets V1 and V2, Panzerfaust, Jet fighters, tip top tanks such as the Tiger, etc...
All that was extensively surveyed and used by many sides after the war.

2 - The military influence of the Waffen SS:

OK, they were part of the units implementing the new tactics and using the new weapons. But their influence as such was not bigger than the one of the Wermacht or other units. The question of the original poster is about them and, in fact, is about the kind of fascination the Waffen SS, as a military unit, is still creating nowadays.

There, I think that the difference between them and standard units does not lie with the training methods but with the political "ideal" that was the bond, the cement of those units. This also apply to the foreign volunteers within the Waffen SS. I have read reports from French volunteers about the training and can post details if you wish: After that, they were feeling like being "new men" (Quote). Political ideology training (Not to say brainwashing) is the cause, not some special military training.

Can we agree on that, or shall I engage my first Sturmbrigade

[Reb]

All right Laurent - you've forced my hand!

I'm activating the 1st African-Confederate Panzer Grenadier Brigade "Jefferson Davis"


cheers
Reb

[Casarez]

tip top tanks such as the Tiger, etc...

I never thought I would see "tip top tank" and Tiger in the same sentence . What do you mean by "Tip top" anyways out of curiousity?

As for tank development I do not think any of the Allies used a specific German tank as a blueprint. I think they used some concepts known to all parties (such as crew survivability or ease of maintenance) and finally put some real effort into it after WWII when they had the luxury of time.

As for combined arms warfare while the Germans used it effectively in the beginning the other factions caught on rather quick. The military concept of Blitzkreig is really not new, it was just the tools that were.

Panzerfausts were a good idea and concept but portable anti-tank weapons were, again, not something entirely new. Hell, it was a long time (~15-20 years) before the Americans and Russians went to a one-shot weapon similar to the Panzerfaust like the LAW for instance. A lot more things influenced that than the German Panzerfaust although it did contribute I am sure.

Jet Fighters were a good concept but once again the Germans were not the only ones developing them. They just got them done first and built better ones. The American XF-2D was contracted to be built in March '45. The British Meteor entered production in Spring of '44 and the first squadron got them on 12 July 1944. The German squadrons got the Me-262 eight days later. Now I will say the ME-262 was superior to the British Meteor.

[Laurent Daniel]

Ooops, using a Frog meaning in my Franglish post

Tip-top = the best of his time, at the top of the scale, that sort of thing.

[Casarez]

Tip-top = the best of his time, at the top of the scale, that sort of thing.

heh, thats ok just wanted to know what you were referring to.

The Tiger was good as far as armor and main weapon goes. From what I have read maintenance might have been another story. Not to mention how long it took to manufacture them.

Now compared to the Sherman and T-34 the Tiger rocked in terms of armor and main weapon. But the Sherman and T-34 had it beat as far as speed, ease of maintenance, and sheer numbers that could be produced.

Compared to the later tanks such as the JS-1/2s though and it was started to be given a run for its money. The Pershing, although seeing limited combat, performed well enough to also give it a run for its money. Some tanks like the Firefly did not have the same armor but did have just as good as a main gun.

I will agree that German tanks did influence the evolution of tank design during the war. But that only makes sense since the allies were fighting against these tanks. Once WWII was over and the cold war began it was Soviet tank design and capabilities that influenced western tank designs then since we thought we would be fighting them.

[Paddy Keating]

The Waffen SS cannot be compared to any of the modern armies units.

What we have, today, are conscripts or volunteers. None of them are POLITICAL fighters, with maybe the exception of few elite units in whatever is left of the Communist countries and, there, I am not sure.

Unlike an average today's soldier, who is fighting "only" for his country, the Waffen SS were fighting for a POLITICAL ideal, for an ideology, for a philosophy. Yeap, we can and must challenge this ideal, but it is a fact.

Have you ever met any former Waffen-SS soldiers? I think Hitler and his gang would have been very pleased if every Waffen-SS soldier was a political fanatic but they were not fanatics.

A lot of the foreign volunteers from Western European countries perceived a very real threat from Moscow. Stalin had already shown himself to be aggressively expansionist, with the war against Finland, the attempt to subvert Spain, the invasion of Poland in 1939 at the same time as his Nazi allies and, of course, the invasion of the Baltic states. Many of the volunteers from the Eastern territories were rebelling against the Bolsheviks and the cruel Soviet repression of their countries and cultures.

It was not even necessary to be a Nazi party member to join the Waffen-SS. There was quite a strong anti-Nazi element in the Waffen-SS, most visibly in the Wiking Division under Felix Steiner. The majority of young Waffen-SS soldiers - I am not talking about the pre and early war SS-VT men, many of whom were Nazi believers - joined to fight the Red Menace. I know this fact infuriates people who like their history in simple Black & White, but that is the truth of it. And once they were in the front line, they were fighting for themselves and their comrades.

Such motivated troops are not anymore available nowadays, with, maybe, the exception of the "troops" of Ousama Bin Laden.

What rot! To equate the average Waffen-SS soldier with an Al Quaeda fundamentalist is ill-informed rhetoric.

We have other examples in history of politically, ideologically motivated troops: The Christians Crusaders came to my mind, but there must be others.

How about any of the Communist armies of the 20th century? Well, OK, the average Russian soldier had to be persuaded to advance by NKVD thugs behind him. So how about the Khmer Rouge? How about the Viet Minh, who chased the French out of Indo-China?

Compared to the political will, to the readiness to die for a cause, training is peanuts.

Rubbish! Untrained soldiers die fast, as the Chinese showed in Korea in the early 1950s.

Why the best French troops are within the French Foreign Legion? Because they all were loosers in their "previous" life. The Legion gave them a cause, a family, an ideal.

That statement says more about you than anything else. Not every recruit to La Légion has been a loser in his previous life, Laurent. It sounds like you have met as many legionnaires as you have Waffen-SS veterans!

Forget training, tactics, and all the bla-bla. Give them a cause, brainwash them to the Cause, and you wil get the elite of the elite.

Well, this former paratrooper can assure you that it wasn't brainwashing that turned my comrades and myself into elite soldiers! It was training, training and more training! We weren't taught that our 'cause' - whatever that was - was all-important. We were taught that we were the centre of the universe, the best of the best.

Yes, I suppose you could call it "brainwashing" of a kind, and it turned us into potential savages, but we were never unquestioning. In fact, we often questioned authority and often ended up in jail for it. And most of us would have shot politicians on sight if we thought we would get away with it.

You should come over to our forum - http://www.militariacollecting.com - and talk to some of the WW2 veterans we have there. We have at least seven former Waffen-SS soldiers as members and they contribute. I expect they would find your remarks rather amusing. You might even get an education.

Mort aux cons!

PK

[Tom Houlihan]

Well put, PK! I've personally sat and talked with a few SS vets. They were nothing like some of the things posted here! Thanks for saving me some typing!

BTW, at one point in my life, I considered the Foreign Legion, but not because I was a loser. I wanted something different, and that was about as different as I could find!

One night in Marseilles, as a Marine corporal on liberty, we walked by a bunch of Legionaires getting off a train. One of them had Rhodesian SAS wings tattooed on his arm. I'd like to see someone call him a loser!