Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
A couple of quick examples, taken at random, which may give you the evidence you are looking for…Epaminondas could you give me facts with sources that gives evidence that the W-SS was better supplied and how exactly this should have worked considering that it was supplied through Heer channels???
During my researches in the last 10 years I was not able to find any evidence that this was the case and nobody who claimed it was able to provide proofable facts.
No objection but as I said the percentage count does not work here because as I said the Heer had a large, large list of other duties to fullfill than the Waffen-SS had. Count just the Heer divisions which were always kept at Combat-level "Useable for all attack operations" you will have a different picture.- Out of ten heavy panzer battalions created during the war, three belonged to the Waffen SS.
But you yourself know that this wasn´t for long that they were organic.Besides the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Waffen SS divisions, there was only one other unit equipped with an organic heavy panzer battalion, the GD division...
Yes 319 were delivered to schwere Heeres Panzer-Abteilungen, 124 to schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilungen, 30 to other units. Don´t you think this depends more on casualties? Casualties have to be replaced and they were replaced in the Heer AND the Waffen-SS. Some Heer Abteilungen also didn´t persist to the end of the war so this draws the percentage to the W-SS again. I say it again.. these number games don´t say anything.- Out of 473 Tiger II tanks actually delivered to operational units until the end of the war, 124 (26.2%) ended up in one or another of the three Waffen SS heavy panzer battalions...
Why the focus in the Tiger? But anyway shall I give you a randomly picked example (like yours) where a Heer unit was eqipped and a W-SS unit not?? I know very well these percentages and as I said above you cannot compare the huge number of different army units with the Waffen-SS. BTW How many Panther did the W-SS have in Kursk? I know you can asnwer that yourself. Or was the Panther a crappy tank for the Heer and the W-SS got the great Tiger? And please don´t start with the performance of the Panther units at Kursk which is more matter of tactics and technics than W-SS - Heer.- At the start of Kursk offensive, Germany had 133 Tiger I tanks in its order of battle (on-hand strength). Forty-two of them (31.5%) belonged to one or another of the three Waffen SS PzGren. Divisions...
(T. Jentz, Panzertruppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force, 1943-1945, vol. 2)
Furthermore, of the 19 Tigers sent as replacements during the battle, 5 (26.3%) went to the LSSAH Pz.Reg. Interestingly enough, the LSSAH division only lost one Tiger during Zitadelle, against the 4 lost by s.Pz.Abt. 503, which did not get a single one of these 19 Tigers.
Again, you cannot simply play this number game. How many garrison, defense units (e.g. France) did the W-SS have to build and maintain???Those figures would make sense only if the Waffen-SS constituted about 30% of the entire German land forces during the war, which of course, and as you know, was not the case.
These facts say nothing and if it was a higher echelon decision there must be written orders that the Waffen-SS had to be better supplied and equipped. None ever showed up.I don't know how this worked, "considering that it was supplied through Heer channels", but these are the facts, and examples abound. Maybe some decision from higher echelons?
So I could respond to your statement which reads:Why the focus in the Tiger?
Why not play these number games? In a topic like this, the only way we can contribute seriously to the discussion is citing numbers and statistics.The claim that the W-SS received best equipment first was already debunked in several other discussions before.
And what did you expect?? LSSAH was not upgraded from Brigade to a full-fledged PzGren. Div. until July 1942...Until early 1942 the W-SS didn´t have tanks (except StuGs) at all. But obviously these years don´t count for the W-SS better and best "fans".
You got me wrong. I was not making comparisons with the entire Heer. That would be ridiculous for me to do that! Please note that I was comparing the allocation of Tiger IIs between several first-priority formations, and the allocation of Tiger Is among the various first-class units, both Heer and W-SS, prior to the launching of Zitadelle.Of course if you compare it with the entire Heer the percentage was high but if you look how many types of divsisions the Heer included the picture looks different. The Heer had also its main forces and the untis which had to come out with second rate equipment, low strength etc...
Really? Then explain how is it that out of sixteen Panzer and Pz.Grenadier divisions directly involved in Zitadelle, only four had its own organic heavy panzer company, of which three happened to belong to the SS.There is no doubt that the Waffen-SS was a major offensive weapon and for this was supplied with first rate equipment - LIKE the first rate divisions of the Heer.
But you do the same the other way round!! Just because two W-SS divisions were well equipped for the Kursk battle you generalize that the W-SS at a whole was better equipped. I can give you timeframes when Heer units were quite overstrength to some W-SS units not taking into consideration the second and third rate ill equipped divisions which were formed during the war. And by the way.. Kursk was not the only battle fought and the Tiger was not the only tank type we speak about.I am aware Wiking in particular was a hollow shell of a panzer unit at the time, and that GD was comfortably overstrenght.... and had the two only two panther units at the time. Just because there is one SS unit somewhere that is less well supplied then the showcase heer unit (GD) doesn't negate at least the perception that the Waffen SS in general was better equiped then the army.
I don´t understand what you want to say with this sentence. Most of the W-SS units were under average quality and just a few can be counted to be the "workhorse units". Like the Heer had also its workhorses. I see no difference there.As far as fire brigade units, units selected for priority, in actual numbers the waffen SS probably fairs about as well as the army. Considering the hundreds of army units compared to the much fewer number of Waffen SS units (20-40 divisions depending on how count; in any case under 50); at minmium, Waffen SS units were six times as likely to have priority.
Again.. why do you just talk all the time about Kursk??? I always thought that the war started 1.Sept.1939 and ended Mai 1945!! We will find lots of dates where Heer units were equipped to full strength and W-SS were not. So why always Kursk??The difficulties in keeping multiple panzer battolions up to strengh was problem for both the heer and waffen SS. Comparitively, the heer suffered much more from this then the Waffen SS. Yes, the Pz III and 75L24 Pz IV were out of date for 1943... but they still made up the majority of tanks for the vast majority of units. GD was one of the few units lucky enough to have more long barrelled Pz IVs. The Waffen SS panzer divisons (LAH, DR and Totenkopf) committed at Kursk were better equipped then the majority of heer panzer units. Only heer unit comparable would be GD.
I would be very interested in these data and how the situation was. Was it because the W-SS was preferred or was it because of the tactical circumstances?Sure, the SS panzer units were in heavy fighting at Kursk, Kharkov and the Mius in 1943 before D-day. As my interest is on the East Front, I am not aware the degree to which they were brought up to strenght or not after being withdrawn from the Eastern front in 1943. I do know from my research that while they did take alot of punishment in the Kharkov counter attack after stalingrad (like everyone in that Army Group), they were brough up to srenght better then the rest of the heer panzer divisions involved. And yes, I am excluding GD.
I nearly agrre with everything you say here but you always refer to the W-SS and the Heer but you just mean the entire Heer but just the few first rate W-SS divisions. This is the blue eyed oppinion I would like to change. THE Waffen-SS with all of its second rate divisions was NOT well equipped as a whole. The workhorse divisions were prefered as the Heer workhorses received as much replacements and equipment as possible.From what they acheived the SS panzer divisons were clearly some of the best units in the war period... and 1942/3 was their peak. Clearly from the course of events in Kursk, the SS panzer corps was the best formation for the Germans... niether Kempf's forces nor the army corps lead by GD and the 11th panzer did nearly as well as the SS panzers, and AG South was much better then AG Center.
Because I did so already dozen times and these threads can easily be found by searching this and axis history forum.Why not play these number games? In a topic like this, the only way we can contribute seriously to the discussion is citing numbers and statistics.
My point is that everybody just sees the years where the W-SS was well equipped and comes to the generalisation that the Waffen-SS was better equipped which is not correct because in many stages, situations, time periods Heer formations were the better equipped part of the german armed forces.And what did you expect?? LSSAH was not upgraded from Brigade to a full-fledged PzGren. Div. until July 1942...
I showed you a number game with TigerI which shows no favorism for the W-SS in my last thread.You got me wrong. I was not making comparisons with the entire Heer. That would be ridiculous for me to do that! Please note that I was comparing the allocation of Tiger IIs between several first-priority formations, and the allocation of Tiger Is among the various first-class units, both Heer and W-SS, prior to the launching of Zitadelle.
Because the Heer had Heerestruppen (several Panzerabteilungen etc..) which supported them while the W-SS units tried it with organic units which as you know was soon stopped. The Heer wanted their heavy tank supports as mobile as possible which was as you know later adopted by the W-SS.Really? Then explain how is it that out of sixteen Panzer and Pz.Grenadier divisions directly involved in Zitadelle, only four had its own organic heavy panzer company, of which three happened to belong to the SS.
There were not enough of them to go around? Ok, sure But then, why give priority precisely to the SS Panzer Corps? The three Panzer Divisions up in the 47th Pz.K. were as good as the Waffen SS, if not better, and had an equally difficult task ahead, and yet none of them got their own heavy panzer company nor their very own detachment of StuGs.
Interesting table... take a look at the type of tanks, and while the Waffen SS is about on track with the heer in absolute numbers of tanks; the Waffen SS also has a much higher percentage of the newer, more effective tanks (long barrelled 50mm and 75mm for example) then the army.Christoph Awender wrote:Here another number game for Kursk.
W-SS divisions were ~18% and you see the percentage of tanks is 17,71%
Looks quite equal to the Heer with its attached Heerestruppen.
http://chrito.users1.50megs.com/panzer/ ... ergame.htm
Well the Heer had the majority of the Pz.III with the 75mm L/24 KwK which wasn´t bad either.Interesting table... take a look at the type of tanks, and while the Waffen SS is about on track with the heer in absolute numbers of tanks; the Waffen SS also has a much higher percentage of the newer, more effective tanks (long barrelled 50mm and 75mm for example) then the army.
Absolute number sure; but if you were to pick IIIs with short 50mm or PzIVs with long 75s for your unit in 1943, I think we both know what you would want.
With all respect I doubt that you know the performance details of all Heer Panzerdivisionen to make a decision based on facts (as far as effectiveness can be compared at all in war).The performance of the waffen SS panzer divisons 1942-1943 is second to none.