Waffen-SS - Consistently strong throughout the war?

[Lysimachus]

Do you feel that in the late war, that the Waffen-SS was as strong as it had been in earlier years? I would give a lengthy opening post, but I think i'll choose to gauge peoples' opinions and then offer my insight on to it.

[Kagemusha]

Atleast in the start of the war, during Polish campaign SS was performing very poorly.

[Juvenal]

The Waffen SS was a mixture of units of every conceivable quality. Here is a partial list.

Many of them weren't German, some were comprised of enemy POWs, even Russians.

EDIT: The Waffen SS became much stronger in the late war because more and more resources (both equipment and the best conscripts) were diverted to it and away from the Wehrmacht (which Hitler distrusted). In the end what had been a few SS regiments had swelled to entire SS armies.

[Dr. Croccer]

Their quality really depended. They were generally fanatics who received preferential treatment in getting supplies, so they were ''better'' than most Wehrmacht soldiers, who weren't nutjobs and were often poorly supplied.

[Mangalore]

Their quality really depended. They were generally fanatics who received preferential treatment in getting supplies, so they were ''better'' than most Wehrmacht soldiers, who weren't nutjobs and were often poorly supplied.

in the late years anyone could be drafted into the Waffen SS. It was just a different military branch. The "elite" status it had maybe in its heyday had largely disappeared (safe for the Panzerdivisions which had additional strength to Wehrmacht panzer divisions and panzer divisions in themselves were considered kind of elite)

[Poach]

How late are we talking? They were obviously not as strong as they once were during the taking of Berlin...

[Yorkshireman]

Were'nt some of the best troops by the later stages of the war the foreign volunteers ? (or traitors, whichever you prefer)

[OTZ]

Just as with any branch of any armed force, quality varied. The W-SS was no different. They had units that performed well, and others that were virtually useless in terms of combat effectiveness. Their elite status is as much a product of legend more than anything else. I am also starting to believe that their preferential treatment in terms of equipment is also somewhat baseless.

Technically speaking, in relation to the OP's question, for obvious reasons the W-SS of 1944 was much stronger than the W-SS of 39/40.

@Yorkshireman - again, this may be a case of legend becoming reality. There were cases of exemplary combat performace by some units (i.e. Charlemagne), others just simply evaporated, deserted, or walked away.

[Yorkshireman]

@Yorkshireman - again, this may be a case of legend becoming reality. There were cases of exemplary combat performace by some units (i.e. Charlemagne), others just simply evaporated, deserted, or walked away.

Yes, I think thats what I'm thinking of, Charlemagne in the Defence of Berlin.

[OTZ]

Yes, I think thats what I'm thinking of, Charlemagne in the Defence of Berlin.

There were others, but Charlemagne's exploits have become legendary, and were a beacon for anti-Bolshevism at the time. Mind you, the Division was mauled very badly prior to ending up in the inferno of Berlin. It's definitely a fascinating story (Beevor gives it plenty of page-time in his book) - probably worthy of a movie if people could get past the whole "Nazi/W-SS mass murder of jews" thing...

[KayRim]

the whole "Nazi/W-SS mass murder of jews" thing...

Oh, the thing where at least eleven million people were killed? That little ole' thing? Yeah, society should get over that thing ASAP!

[Hanny]

Do you feel that in the late war, that the Waffen-SS was as strong as it had been in earlier years? I would give a lengthy opening post, but I think i'll choose to gauge peoples' opinions and then offer my insight on to it.

By wars end they as a agreagate body, they were crap, the principle waffen units themselves however were still of ahigh standard. Having the fitst call on recruits, extra MG and arty in all formations also helped it achieve more.


Year - USSR losses - German losses
1941 - -20,500 - 2,758
1942 - -15,000 - 2,648
1943 - -22,400 - 6,362
1944 - -16,900 - 6,434
1945 - --8,700 - 7,382

Total - 83,500 - 25,584

Ratio: 3.26:1 in favour of Germany. Now, lets take Tiger units out of the totals, both losses and kills, the ratio vs non-Tiger afvs is:

Total - 73,650 - 23,869

Ratio: 3.12:1

Now lets reexamine Tiger unit's records:
Formation (SPzAbt/Kompanie) - Losses - Kills
501 - 120 - 450
502 - 107 - 1,400
503 - 252 - 1,700
504 - 109 - 250
505 - 126 - 900
506 - 179 - 400
507 - 104 - 600
508 - 78 - 100
509 - 120 - 500
510 - 65 - 200
13/Pzreg GD - 6 - 100
Pzreg GD - 98 - 500
13/SS Pzreg 1 - 42 - 400
8/SS Pzreg 2 - 31 - 250
9/SS Pzreg 3 - 56 - 500
SS SPzAbt 101 (501) - 107 - 500
SS SPzAbt 102 (502) - 76 - 600
SS SPzAbt 103 (503) - 39 - 500

Total: 1,715 - 9,850

Kill/Loss Ratio: 5.74

If we take out the elite 502,503 & 505 SPzAbt from the equation, the Tiger unit's ratio looks like this;

kills - 4,300
losses - 1,230
Ratio - 3.5:1

If we compare the non-elite Tiger SPzAbt to the overall non-Tiger afv's record (3.5/3.12), it turns out the Tiger's had a 12% better kill/loss ratio than other afv units.


If we limit ourselves to the period '43-'45 (Tiger's operational period) rather than the whole war, the non-Tiger unit's ratio is 2.06:1, comparing to the non-elite SPzAbt's 3.5 kill/loss ratio (3.5/2.06) gives a 69% better kill/loss ratio to the Tiger units.

As you can see from the above, the SS Tigers were extremly effeiecnt killers, compared to whermacht.

[Lysimachus]

How late are we talking? They were obviously not as strong as they once were during the taking of Berlin...

I'm on about from start to finish. Obviously the SS enjoyed far more success in the earlier stages of WWII, whereas by the end whole formations were getting annihilated and the remnants were either reconstituted or new divisions were formed to supposedly compensate for it.

Technically speaking, in relation to the OP's question, for obvious reasons the W-SS of 1944 was much stronger than the W-SS of 39/40.

May I ask why you think that? Yes, they would have had stronger weaponry but wouldn't that have been balanced out by the gradually improving Allied & Soviet weaponry? Or are you on about that the Waffen-SS was better in another way?

[Domen123]

As you can see from the above, the SS Tigers were extremly effeiecnt killers, compared to whermacht.

Or simply... were overclaming more than the Wehrmacht.

Atleast in the start of the war, during Polish campaign SS was performing very poorly.

Which ones? "Deutschland" peformed badly on the first day and well during further battles. The same applies to "Leibstandarte" (on the first day "Leibstandarte" couldn't reach it's daily objectives at all and suffered heavy losses in combats against inferior in numbers forces of Polish National Defense - something like Home Guard in Britain ). "Germania" was overhelmed by Polish units in mid-September not because it performed badly but because Polish units facing it performed very well, that's the reason. So I can't agree that SS performed very poorly - they simply encountered though enemies.

Btw - in 1940 campaign SS "Totenkopf" division also performed very poorly at Arras and around Dunkirk.

In the later stages of the war (like 1944 - 1945) some SS divisions also performed poorly (for example "Nordland").

In fact out of 38 Waffen SS divisions that existed in total, ONLY SEVERAL (up to 7 - 8, no more) can be considered as elite.

I'd say that only 1 "Leibstandarte" and 2 "Deutschland" SS divisions were elite (maybe also 5 "Viking", 9, 10, 23 "Nederland" & 28 "Wallonien"). 3 "Totenkopf" in theory was, but it's performance in 1940 and 1941 was poor, as I wrote above. The remaining 30 - 31 divisions were either very average or just poor.

Soldiers of 11 "Nordland" division (mainly Scandinavian volunteers) were very brave but in many cases their division peformed poorly, mainly because of lack of experienced officers and general lack of training and experience among it's soldiers.

[Hanny]

Or simply... were overclaming more than the Wehrmacht.
.

Nope thats was not the case, both used a target hit and on fire to be classed as a kill.

[Domen123]

both used a target hit and on fire to be classed as a kill.

In many cases such tank could be later repaired or rebuilt (contrary to those German "total losses" you listed).

If it comes to overclaming - Max hit a tank, Gunther hit a tank and Adolf hit a tank = 3 kills.

But what if Max, Gunther and Adolf all hit one and the same tank?

Moreover - confirming air victories was similar to confirming tank kills - yet all Air Forces of WW2 overclaimed.

[OTZ]

In many cases such tank could be later repaired or rebuilt (contrary to those German "total losses" you listed).

If it comes to overclaming - Max hit a tank, Gunther hit a tank and Adolf hit a tank = 3 kills.

But what if Max, Gunther and Adolf all hit one and the same tank?

Moreover - confirming air victories was similar to confirming tank kills - yet all Air Forces of WW2 overclaimed.

There is also the issue of how the stats (even if accurate) are interpreted. A kill ratio doesn't really tell the story. What were the combat conditions? Were the units equipped with I's or II's? Who were they fighting against - i.e. units/equipment. It's one thing to say that SS SPzAbt 103 had the highest kill ratio, but it's another thing altogether to say that it was better than everyone else because of it.

[Hanny]

In many cases such tank could be later repaired or rebuilt (contrary to those German "total losses" you listed).

The list is kills reported and acepted as kills, this is a total loss in terms of the report its drawn from, that any AFV could be repaired, killed again is a different issue.
[quote[

If it comes to overclaming - Max hit a tank, Gunther hit a tank and Adolf hit a tank = 3 kills.
[/quote]

It did not work that way, Max hit and saw no flames, continued to fire on traget, Gunther hit and saw flames reult from the hit, as did Adolf, each shares a kill.

But what if Max, Gunther and Adolf all hit one and the same tank?

Same as in the GAF a shared kill when each meets the critweria of a kill.

Moreover - confirming air victories was similar to confirming tank kills - yet all Air Forces of WW2 overclaimed.

Actually tank kills were consistantly underclaimed, Allied Air claimed more kills than the oposition built of air assets, WW2 Germany AFV kill claims do not suffer from that problem.

Are they as acurate as possible?, no onwe has come up with better acedpted numbers, so yes.

[OTZ]

May I ask why you think that? Yes, they would have had stronger weaponry but wouldn't that have been balanced out by the gradually improving Allied & Soviet weaponry? Or are you on about that the Waffen-SS was better in another way?

Sorry - I was being literal in the sense that the W-SS fielded a much larger force than was available in 39/40. I wasn't commenting on a "per capita" basis, so to speak...

[cegorach]

Vast majority of Waffen SS divisions was of avarage or below avarage quality.

Of course that varied a lot, but the fact many SS divisions were equipped with newest weapons or just were given priority in receiving replacements played its part.
Many Wehrmacht divisions were better in general - more experienced, better commanded and so on, but since the elite of the SS units faced the allies in Normandy, at Arnhem or in Ardennes we hear about them all the time.

SS is not only the famous Panzer divisions, but also 'wonders' like SS-Sonderregiment "Dirlewanger" -

Besides engaging in mass murder, rape and pillage, the "Dirlewanger" fought against the insurgents in Warsaw, suffering extremely high losses. The regiment arriving in the city numbering 881 men and officers; during the course of the two-month urban warfare it received reinforcements of some 2,500 soldiers and lost 2,733. Thus, total casualties numbered 315% of the unit's initial strength.

or Waffen-Sturm-Brigade RONA

The RONA volunteers, now decimated and infamous even among the SS, were then assigned to the Kampinos Forest to help seal off Warsaw. During their stay in the forest, the unit's artillery battery and one of its infantry battalions were suddenly attacked by 80 Polish partisans led by Lieutenant Colonel "Dolina" (Adolf Pilch) while stationed at the emptied village of Truskaw. Nearly 100 Russian and German SS-men died in the midnight assault; the remnants of the battalion, which was mostly drunk at the time of the attack, fled in disarray discarding their weapons. In Truskaw the 1st Regiment lost its entire artillery and much of the loot from the city.

One example of each - mainly German and non-German SS units.

As Kagemusha wrote - initially ALL SS units performed rather badly - especially much overlooked SS units in Danzig.

Later it got better, but mainly because SS formations were relatively small and almost all could be called elite units, but expanding this branch of the armed forces was politically inevitable so was their decreasing quality.