Was the Waffen SS Elite?
>had better equipment
>had higher standards (at least in the beginning)
>had reputation for being hardasses
But they also suffered higher casualties than the Heer. Some of this can be chalked up to them being put in extreme situations more often, however alot of it can also be blamed on incompetence. So are they l33t?
>
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Waffen SS were pretty much glorified cannon fodder, even Wehrmacht thought so of them
They were usually put in impossible to win positions because they were dumb fanatics
Not that much, they lost a lot. The US Airborne ran circles around them. Being fanatical and having good equipment doesn't make you the best, good training and tactics does.
>The US Airborne ran circles around them.
Saving Private Ryan isn't real, dude.
I have never understood why they gave them all of the good shit when they just wasted it on zerg rush tactics.
Saving Private Ryan follows Army infantry fool.
Airborne accounts are. They were often against them and significantly outperformed them.
Because they were idiots who believed that spirit would prevail over machine guns.
>>had better equipment
Not prior to 1943
>>had higher standards (at least in the beginning)
No they didn't. They couldn't conduct basic infantry militia manoeuvres.
>>had reputation for being hardasses
And the ridiculous loss rate.
Sovietboo bolshevists projecting hard again ITT.
>HURRR zerg tactis were actually german guise xDDD
>It was the germans who thought running into machine gun fire en masse is a good idea, it TOTALLY WASN'T the soviets xDD dats just fascist propaganda
Protip you dumb revleft tumblr faggots, the axis COULD NOT have possibly afforded any kind of "zerg rush" tacticts at ANY theather during WW2.
So that's why they simply didn't employ them. Any statement claiming otherwise is allied-influenced propaganda plain and simple.
If you weren't functionally retarded you would realize this pretty quickly.
>they also suffered higher casualties
Because they were literally used for everything, especially later in the war when the well trained and veterans become fewer.
They suffered higher casualties 1939-1942 before the national units. They did this because they were untrained militia. Read, chap.
>had better equipment
Only a few divisions such as the 1st SS and the 2nd SS did. And most of that was more trucks for better logistics.
>had higher standards (at least in the beginning)
Their standards were almost always lower than the Wehrmacht throughout the war.
>had reputation for being hardasses
Political indoctrination allowed for fanatical morale which did contribute to their heavier losses.
Being fanatical obviously does count for a lot, otherwise ISIS and Al Qaeda would have been BTFO long ago.
To my knowledge, they lacked a lot of the precision of the Heer, at least in the early war. One could assume as they became more experienced they became more precise.
Their main advantages were better equipment and higher dedication to the fight. In situations where the Heer might surrender or fall back the Waffen SS would not. This became pretty evident particularly in the late war.
>Saving Private Ryan isn't real
Correct, but the Crossroads and Arnhem were very real and the SS got BTFO both times. Hell, the fucking Panzergrenadiers stood a better chance during Caen and the Bulge than the SS did during Market Garden. I know, I know. Market Garden was OVERALL a failure, but not because of the SS. The SS folded like a wet paper bag during Market Garden. It was the ineptitude of the British combined with the successes of Panzer and Fallschirmjager divisions that caused the failure of Market Garden. Mostly the former.
You're thinking of Band of Brothers
>You're thinking of Band of Brothers
No, I'm thinking of real life.
>where the heer would surrender or fall back
And just where did they do this unnecessarily? Normally they only fell back whenever there was no other option. I mean fuck, look at Stalingrad.
>unnecessarily
Overlord. They weren't really pushed back during Overlord and instead fell back to the Bocage and tried to counter-attack there instead of pushing to the sea when it was still an option.
I couldn't say. I just know the general trend.
Weren't most SS soldiers hitler jügend teens during Normandy?
>>tried to counter-attack there instead of pushing to the sea when it was still an option
Counter attacking into a massive amount of air bombardment and naval gunfire is an option for who exactly? Not anyone who wants their counter attack to be successful.
Because SS were always used first, the army always came 2nd.
Also to dovetail on this, Overlord began on June 6th. There had yet to be a German counter-attack when Eisenhower took command on September 1st. Don't get me wrong, it was hard fought given the urban nature of where the Allies landed, but the fact that the Heer just kept falling back is unacceptable.
They lost 3 ports, most of Britanny, along with the landing area without counter-attacking. Don't give me that shit.
Only in Caen, but they were a minority there.
Zerg rushing, or exploiting weaknesses in enemy lines with overwhelming force, is a part of every military doctrine that relies on mobility.
>is a part of every military doctrine that relies on mobility.
[Laughs in American]
Begging to take an untrained highly motivated selected militia in first is generally considered idiocy. I think this reinforces my point.
I don't remember the SS capturing Eben-Emael btw.
I guarantee you nobody will produce a list detailing entry requirements for Waffen SS or Heer. It will just be a shitfest of MUH NAZIS mixed with NAZIS SUX
New to the thread, but you might want to look up Salerno back during the invasion of Italy. The Germans did try the immediate armored counterattack there, and it failed rather miserably.
What makes you think it would have worked at Normandy, when the Western Allies were in a position of even greater relative strength?
How am i a soviet whatever, i said the US forces were superior to them..
If your entire argument rests on a terrible strawman then you obviously have lost already
>when the Western Allies were in a position of even greater relative strength
They wouldn't have been if they had counter-attacked before Cherbourg. Salerno is also a poor comparison considering the nature of Sicily, where the Allies had complete control of supply lines to the island, compared to Normandy.
>They lost 3 ports, most of Britanny, along with the landing area without counter-attacking. >Don't give me that shit.
And? How does this mean they should have counter-attacked and how does it at all guarantee that said attack would be successful?
Furthermore here is one counterattack that happened before September 1st.
>had higher standards (at least in the beginning)
actually it was the opposite, they became 'elite' comparative to the average german soldier, eventually but were despised as worthless and wasting all the good gear in the beginning
literally meme tier, with fancy uniforms and various lies about how amazing they were
I read somewhere that the the average Allied soldier was trained to at least the same standard as the supposed "elite" arms of the Nazi military
>people attributing Großdeutschland victories to the Waffen SS
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE y
>They wouldn't have been if they had counter-attacked before Cherbourg
You're basing this assertion on what exactly? The ground troop ratios were roughly even, but you're a fool if you think that the Americans hadn't made significant improvements between 1943 and 1944.
>Salerno is also a poor comparison considering the nature of Sicily,
It is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
>where the Allies had complete control of supply lines to the island, compared to Normandy.
Are you seriously implying that the Allies didn't have complete control of the English channel by Normandy?
the fuck else were gonna do? oh yeah, get annihilated kek
You either failed to notice that this tread bash SS and almost praise normal army or you are such naziboo that any criticism of Hitler and Himler chosen people triggers you.
No one even mentioned zerg tactics sperglord
To be fair, they didn't launch a counter attack due to the belief that the Normandy landings were a diversion from the 'real' landings at another location.
Doesn't help the commanding officer was away in a CO meeting during the D-Day landing. . . and the week of extremely heavy bombardment didn't help.
Yeah the US only faced outnumbered Hitlerjegund SS. AKA 13-18 year old boys who never had a shot anyway.
The Waffen SS started otu shit and turned into a very effective fighting force by the end of the war.
>Yeah the US only faced outnumbered Hitlerjegund SS. AKA 13-18 year old boys who never had a shot anyway.
Horseshit. The only Hitlerjungen SS division the US faced was at Caen. The US btfo an SS Panzer division at Nijmagen, among others during Market Garden.
>MUH SS WAS THE GREATEST
>US ONLY FACES LITTLE BOYS AND NOT REAL SS
>THEY WUZ GOOD SOLDIERS AND DIN LOSE NUFFIN
Face it. The SS were the second worst elite force of the war. Second only to the Alpini.
>The US btfo an SS Panzer division at Nijmagen
Proofs?
Wasn't that failure also due to the Darby's Rangers getting almost completely annihilated and emergency airborne reinforcments?
They didn't
The SS got garbage equipment
You might want to read your source because that says nothing to support your claim
Why do I even bother?
It really depends on which division you're talking about.
It depends.
There were few very elite units but most of them were very incompetent scraps that didn't made it to Heer.
>THE SS WUZ BEST
>E-EXCEPT ALL THESE TIMES, T-THEY WERE JUST KIDS OR O-OUTNUMBERED
the 10th SS Panzer Division was there at market garden and did get BTFO by paratroopers though
From some of the accounts I've read, I think they are when their personal ability is in account they are the best. They've never really surrendered like their Army counter parts have, like for example, Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket.
Also, the last soldiers defending Hitler were foreign SS.
>Because they were idiots who believed that spirit would prevail over machine guns.
Yes the Soviets did believe that -- OH WAIT! And They succeeded too! The German military had employed more automatic weapons than any other military and still got BTFO anyway, moron.
Now before you reply to me, let me reply to you BEFORE you are wrong again. No, having more artillery and tanks does NOT make your infantry better or worse.
So all in all from what I've said: SS troops > your favorite infantryman.
I thought the Finnish Waffen SS pretty much shat on soviets according to Himmler. I mean that one guy even ended up in the green berets and had John Wayne starring in the movie based on him.
Alright I'll just take your word for it friend
Actually the Soviets had more automatic weapons per man
See: ppsh
Soviets had more men and the bolt action Mosin Nagant was still standard, so technically, per squad too, Germany had more automatics when it's 100 vs 100 men
Germans had few SMG users and instead were centred around the MG
Russians were renowned for the widespread using of SMGs, equipping entire squads or more.
>He actually thinks the only SS divisions the U.S. fought were made of teenagers
>He actually thinks the SS improved instead of regressed during the war
Holy shit you have to be joking.
>>He actually thinks the SS improved instead of regressed during the war
this is kind of true, generally speaking
the military arm of the ss started out with hand-me down weapons and poor training because the professional military did not want to have anything to do with them
(not because of ideology or whatever but because of perceived encroaching into their territory)
Waffen-SS started off shit, got pretty good then turned to shit once they started filling the ranks with foreigners and conscripts.
When most people think of the Waffen-SS, they think of the LSSAH, Das Reich, Totenkopf, Wiking, etc. Not the shitty random Croatian/Estonian/whatever division.
>So all in all from what I've said: SS troops > your favorite infantryman.
What if Heer infantryman is my favorite?
There's an old story in which a Wehrmacht general watched the Waffen SS in combat. He says they formed into a column and marched down the road towards their objective before they got hit by a machine gun and massacred.
The Waffen SS were known for their political affiliations and were given the best tech, but were otherwise lackluster, to be honest.
How much of this boils down to the Wehrmacht not liking the Waffen SS? I just assume there would be some resentment there, and as such they would talk shit about the Waffen SS. Not saying the SS didnt have problems.
They were politically reliable and fanatical. Exactly the traits that hitler was looking for. It wasn´t so much about combat effiency but more about having a core group of very loyal, ideologicaly hardened battle troops over which hitler had an even stronger grip. Actually a better comparison for SS are the italian blackshirts. The SS just was very successfull in the internal fightings of the reichs polycracy. They impressed hitler with fierce devotion and fanatism so often had dibs on the best equipment. This lead to them beeing deployed at the most critical points. This explains their reputation for beeing elite. This quickly detoriated though when they started deploying foreign nationals and started building completly foreign SS-Units.
I would argue though that the more important function of the SS was political suppression (guerilla fighting etc.) and the holocaust. They had a shitton of other functions like policing railways or uniting all military geologists for example. The Waffen SS is way to overmemed and represented only a part of the SS empire.
tl,dr SS was hugely successfull in amassing responsibilities and ressources in the third reich. They were politically were very influential and so they got their hands on the good equipment. The fighting weren´t the most important ones, the most important function of the SS actually was political surpression.