Elite Units

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Elite Units

Post by randallw »

I don't have numbers in front of me but I suspect that Stugs were built in numbers much larger than Panthers and heavy tanks, partly resulting in that heavy kill ratio ( kills by Stugs vs kills by tanks ).  Now if the Stugs were built in these huge numbers and also had elite crews, doesn't that make most German armor crews elite?.....which is sort contrary to the concept of being elite?
 
Part of the idea of having a Stug is that it used less resources to build than a tank, something you needed on the battlefield in reasonable time.....but wouldn't a lot of them be sitting around waiting if the crews are getting an amount of time to train them to elite status?
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: Elite Units

Post by jzardos »

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
"The Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G was the most common of the StuG's produced with over 1053 units in service and over 9000 units of various designs completed from 1942-1945.
Though Tigers and Panthers have earned more notoriety, assault guns (like the StuG) collectively destroyed more tanks than any other vehicle. The crews of Sturmgeschutz were considered the Elite and their kill record showed for it with over 20,000 enemy tank kills by 1944."

By that reasoning, AT guns should be SUPER elite, as they were far more numerous and were generally the primary killer of enemy tanks. Since Wittmann has been mentioned in this thread, IIRC he took more pleasure in destroying AT guns than tanks, as he hated them the most because they were such a tank killer.

Don't follow your logic or lack of logic here. You're wrong about what was killing tanks on the east front if you think it was AT guns. Also, you need to look at the survival ratio of the units involved. I think Stugs had a very high(elite) ratio of loses to kills. That's like saying, well the Americans Sherman killed so many German tanks so they should be elite? Really? No not really, because they lost a fricken ton of shermans to kill a few Germans tanks.

Schmart, I suggest next time you post you might want to back it up with something intelligent.

And Randallw, do some research and you'll find out the stugs that fought on the east front had the highest kill ratios.

Bottom line is the stug units should be elite, if you don't understand than you need to educate yourself.

thanks
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: Elite Units

Post by lastdingo »

ORIGINAL: wosung
They weren't even part of the schnelle Truppen but until late war solely of the arty branch. And even in late war Inspektor der Panzertruppe, Guderian couldn't get admin competence for all StuG, because as the arty branch chief put it, the StuG was the only weapon for arty men to earn the knight's cross.
Source: Karl Walde, Guderian, p. 187.
Edit: http://www.feldgrau.com/artillery.html

They were part of the artillery branch because that was the idea all along. They were not Guderian's idea, but Manstein's. There was a meeting where Manstein and other officers attempted to convince the then-General der Artillerie of the concept and made him accept the idea over old-fashioned horse-mounted field cannon batteries.
The idea was to give the infantry mobile, protected offensive direct fire HE support. It was basically an "infantry tank" concept, and in stark contrast to Guderian's sharp focus on concentrating all armor in operational exploitation formations.

A justification for the "Elite" status would be that StuG crews were volunteers until late in the War, just as were Waffen-SS personnel. Many of these crews were composed of experienced artillerymen, not 19 year-olds. In cotnrast to early Waffen-SS, the StuG units were tactically competent all the time. The Waffen-SS was too reckless until it was bled white of officers who believed to know tactics better than the army.
wosung
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by wosung »

ORIGINAL: lastdingo

Yes, the idea was to give the infantry mobile, protected offensive direct fire HE support. It was basically an "infantry tank" concept, and in stark contrast to Guderian's sharp focus on concentrating all armor in operational exploitation formations.

Thank you, lastdingo, for posting infos, even if without sources, and not opinion.

That’s the point. StuG originally were meant to give some punch to the I.D.s, being cheaper than tanks and being separated from tank branch. It was about concentrating or parcelling out ressources. Later on they became a stopgap measure even for the P.D.s simply because they were cheaper to produce than tanks. Yes because of their sheer numbers, they shot down a considerable ammount of Soviet tanks.

So does being volunteer equal being elite? Maybe some more info on this point by those who support the StuG = elite idea would help.

How many StuG members during the war were volunteers?
What was their background?
How long were they retraind for the StuG?
Was this retraining time longer than the one for the tankers?
Is this true for heavy and light StuG?
And last not least what exactly warrants “elite status” inWitE?

Regards
wosung
wosung
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by wosung »

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

[:-]

Sorry Wosung, but I think your very wrong if you don't think Stug units shouldn't be considered elite. Here's something you may or may not know. Quoting this, but I've heard the same facts from many other sources.

"The Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G was the most common of the StuG's produced with over 1053 units in service and over 9000 units of various designs completed from 1942-1945.
Though Tigers and Panthers have earned more notoriety, assault guns (like the StuG) collectively destroyed more tanks than any other vehicle. The crews of Sturmgeschutz were considered the Elite and their kill record showed for it with over 20,000 enemy tank kills by 1944."


- Military Vehicle Technology Foundation


I'm not sure where you came up with this concept of them being inferior??
"German tank doctrine saw StuG as inferior to tanks, less flexible due to missing turret"

what is your source?

Also, did you know Manstein was one of the major factors to get stugs into mass production? He loved them.


Thank you for the info.

But it remains to be proven if the fact that big numbers of StuG killing big numbers of enemy tanks made them elite. My source below says that StuG only counted for 70% of Pz IV enemy tank kills. And Pz IV even wasn’t the German tank with the highest first shot kill probability. This was the Panther. Besides, in German doctrine the tank had more tasks then killing tanks.

“Notoriety” is a very subjective fluid concept, like in enemy grunts & tankers fearing StuG because usually this were the only German armoured vehicles they encounterd. But if StuG for German standards were the mass armoured weapon, it makes them just the opposite of elite.

Jentz, Die deutsche Panzertruppe, Vol. 2
(Same as in post to Mr. Kirkgregerson)

Report Panzer Reg. 36, 7.12.1943 [p.122]
“The only advantage of StuG compared to tanks in a mission is that they they have a lower profile than Pz IV. Disadvantages are: ... A StuG always has to orientate its front to the enemy. ... This turning delays the combat with the enemy targets and slows down the attack of the Panzergruppe. Esp. hard and restricting is this when one has to fight enemy targets in rough terrain or rain season. The frequent steering overburden the gear and the breaks. Sometimes in rough terrain even the tracks are thrown down.
[...]
It’s best to use the StuG together with the Panzergrenadiere.
[...]
StuG kill relation compared to Pz IV is roughly 70%.”

Report III/ Panzer Reg. 24, 9. 11. 1943 [p. 120]
“1. To the question whether Panzer and StuG should be used in a mixed formation, I stay firm, never mix them in any case in one formation.
2. ... The advantage of the StuG is its small silhouette, which makes it easier to hunt down tanks. It’s disadvantage is its lack of a M.G.. The StuG is an ideal weapon for fighting tanks in Southern Russia. But never ever it will substitute the tank.”


Regards
wosung
wosung
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by wosung »

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

Yeah, wosung I think your 'whack' to even throw some of that nonsense out there without any legit source. I've read Mainstein's Lost Victories and he does praise the Stugs and their valiant crews. It's a good read, suggest you look into it.

Sure it was turret-less and not as powerful as some German tanks, but that doesn't equate with them not being elite units. Considering how cheap they were to produce in respect to tigers and panthers, they gave you more bang for your buck!



Thank you for calling my post „nonsense“.

My “legit” sources I already did present in that “nonsense” post. Please take a second look.
To be more precise, I’ll even add some citation from Jentz, Die deutsche Panzertruppe, Vol. 2
(Same as in post to Mr. abulbulian)

Report Panzer Reg. 36, 7.12.1943 [p.122]
“The only advantage of StuG compared to tanks in a mission is that they they have a lower profile than Pz IV. Disadvantages are: ... A StuG always has to orientate its front to the enemy. ... This turning delays the combat with the enemy targets and slows down the attack of the Panzergruppe. Esp. hard and restricting is this when one has to fight enemy targets in rough terrain or rain season. The frequent steering overburden the gear and the breaks. Sometimes in rough terrain even the tracks are thrown down.
[...]
It’s best to use the StuG together with the Panzergrenadiere.
[...]
StuG kill relation compared to Pz IV is roughly 70%.”

Report III/ Panzer Reg. 24, 9. 11. 1943 [p. 120]
“1. To the question whether Panzer and StuG should be used in a mixed formation, I stay firm, never mix them in any case in one formation.
2. ... The advantage of the StuG is its small silhouette, which makes it easier to hunt down tanks. It’s disadvantage is its lack of a M.G.. The StuG is an ideal weapon for fighting tanks in Southern Russia. But never ever it will substitute the tank.”

Besides:
The fact that your only source for “all StuG must be elite” is, as you call it, “Mainstein’s Lost Victories” in so many ways speaks volumes, that I frankly wouldn’t know were to start.

Regards


wosung
wosung
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by wosung »

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
This is why I hate historians.
Only out to make others look wrong.

Thank you for hating historians.

You know, maybe some other posters want to take a look at the sources as a proof.
You may find sources disgusting. All the power to you.

Besides, with posts like these you really don’t need anybody else to make you look wrong.
You are fully capable of accomplishing this yourself.

Regards
wosung
User avatar
Wild
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:09 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by Wild »


Delete
wosung
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by wosung »

Thank you.

Funny thing is

1. somebody just states StuG units must be elite, without any source.

2. He is applauded, "+1".

3. I post doubts and give references.

4. Now a *dwarf* hell breaks loose.

5. Some people are yelling "nonsense!", "hate historians!", "where are the sources?", yadda, yadda...

6. I answer, pose more questions, cite unit reports with reference.

7. Next thing that will happen is that my questions won't be answered, my citations will be done away with and the demand for immediately upgrading all WitE StuG outfits to elite status will be renewed.

That's it.



Now what I'm really interested in are those questions:

What makes an elite unit in WitE?
How are proficiency and weapon efficiency and other factors weighted when translating IRL unit high kill ratios into WitE?
How to weight the status of different unit types in relation to each other? Like in StuG III was more numerous than the Panther but less efffective per unit.
How to grasp a rather fluid concept of "elite" in numbers? (If somebody fails to grasp the connection between "elite", "myth" & good propaganda, he certainly is lacking life experience).


I mean, should all StuG outfits made elite in WitE, because IRL they were numerous? Or because their former main proponent, "Mainstein" after the war said so?

Regards
wosung
vinnie71
Posts: 966
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:32 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by vinnie71 »

ORIGINAL: wosung

Now what I'm really interested in are those questions:...

What makes an elite unit in WitE?


Regards

I agree that Stugs shouldn't be considered elite - its like saying that the Africa Korps was elite when in point of fact, it was a normal outfit fighting admittedly in hostile territory.

Actually I feel that wosung hit the nail on the head? What exactly makes an elite unit in the game? Is it high morale only? Coz if its just that, than the Axis player will have no elite units by '42 due to replacements.
User avatar
Wild
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:09 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by Wild »

delete
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Elite Units

Post by Cavalry Corp »

All SP guns were defensive and relied on ambush STUG was not for attacking very much. They however seemed to be pretty good at ambushing etc as were Russian SP tanks, the German heavy tanks were always fearful of the IS122 and 152. They have no turret and limited vision ( cheap) but if you are defending in a prepared position that is not so much of a disadvantage.

Later SP guns like Nashorn relied on range these guys were open topped and weakly armoured etc. However they relied on the range of the gun as well as concealment.

I think so many wargamers forget that actually the German tanks were rather weak in defence even the Tiger and Panther on side/ rear but always relied on the range of the gun for victory combined with optics, crew training, radios etc. Later allied tanks including Russian excellent T34/85 and JS2 etc were probably better than most German tanks but not and never handled as well. Lucky that the Germans could not copy the T34 and put a better gun in it at the same kind of cost but instead came up with the Panther.

Its fair to say that on historical losses the Germans seemed to always out perform their opponents, in some cases by incredible ratios. Its another new trend the flag down people who run up the superman germanic flag but the results speak for themselves.
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: Elite Units

Post by lastdingo »

More on assault guns:

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/06/assault-guns-past-and-future.html

I provide sources in Wikipedia and in professional or scientific texts, but it's too tiresome in general writing. Much of what I write is simply in my head and not necessarily attached to a link to the original source even in there.

I do think that the volunteer thing appeared in some Osprey publishing book about assault guns, though.
And I saw a recount of the meeting in which the artillery branch was convince by Manstein et al to adopt the Sturmartillerie just recently somewhere in the intertubes.
Manstein's "Verlorene Siege" book was another source (see later).


I personally would not rate the StuG units to be elite units, but I would do so with a handful of divisions. The distribution of Ritterkreuz and Hero of Soviet Union medals could help to determine elite units and not-so elite units. That's a common improvised method in old literature IIRC. IIRC there were four Waffen SS and four Heer divisions which were known for their elite status (not called like that, though).
Some German infantry divisions of the first wave, one or two airborne formations and a handful of mountain formations were very good as well + the motorised troops were generally manned with superior (=younger enlisted men, better rated officers) personnel and better (=newer design) material.

There was nothing really "elite" about the Waffen-SS. It was more like the USMC - heightened sense of self-importance and esprit de corps, but not necessarily more proficient.
In fact, Manstein wrote in IIRC "Verlorene Siege" critically about the high early war (till '42 iirc) attrition of Waffen SS divisions. Some Waffen-SS units were well above average (comparable to Grossdeutschland Division), but that wasn't difficult. 80% of the German army was ill-equipped, ill-trained, ill-supplied and overage - if you take German quality aspirations as benchmark.


In case anyone is interested; there's a great, great, great 1954 book of Eike Middeldorff (an insider from OKH, 1943-1945 responsible for lessons learned stuff) et al about the Eastern Front (mostly about the 1943-1945 period). It's called "Taktik im Russlandfeldzug" in German and was translated in several languages. Maybe you can grab one copy somewhere.

All SP guns were defensive and relied on ambush STUG was not for attacking very much.

To the contrary, the original purpose of the assault gun was:

To advance together with infantry skirmish line (next to it, not behind or ahead of it!), stop when enemy positions were spotted (turn/pivot if necessary), eliminate the position with 75mm HE and catch up with the infantry again (infantry was meant to continue the advance).
It was originally a 100% (counter)offensive weapon. The AT emphasis only came with the 75 mm L/43 gun and general lack of AT capability against the many T-34s and KVs.
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: Elite Units

Post by lastdingo »

In 1935 General Erich von Manstein1 drafted a memorandum to the
Chief of General Staff indicating that technical studies had shown the
need for a self-propelled armoured gun to work under infantry control
and give them support as required: he further suggested that each
infantry division should contain an integral assault gun battalion
consisting of three batteries each of six guns. Thanks to von Manstein's
efforts, and the support of Generals von Fritsch and Beck, the project
was approved: the artillery was given the task of designing the weapon
system under the supervision of the General Staff's Technical Section 8,
commanded by the then-Colonel Walter Model.
To save time it was decided to employ the already proven chassis and
running gear of the Panzerkampfwagen III as a carriage. On this was
placed a low, fixed superstructure with overhead cover and heavy frontal
armour, mounting a limited-traverse L24 howitzer. The vehicle itself was
constructed by Daimler Benz, while the gun was installed by Krupp. The
completed prototype of this 'Sturmgeschiitz III' was ready for trials on
Kummersdorf Ranges early in 1937, and proved to be entirely
satisfactory. It was hoped thereafter that by the autumn of 1939 each
active infantry division would have its assault gun battalion, as would
each reserve division sometime in 1940, although the number of guns in
each battery had been reduced to four. In the event, such optimism was
quite unfounded.
First it had to be decided who was going to accept responsibility for
the new weapon. Ought it to be the infantry, for whose benefit it had
been developed? Or perhaps the Panzer troops, who were specialists in
manning tracked vehicles? Or the artillery, who had been responsible for
developing the original idea?
A conference was held between the respective Inspector Generals
and their personal staffs. It was a conference which was to become
memorable for its combination of histrionics and bathos. The Inspector
General of Infantry began by explaining that his branch of service did
not have the vehicle establishment that would be necessary to keep the
assault guns supplied with fuel and ammunition; nor could it provide the
technical services required to maintain the guns in the field. Rather than
have to face these insuperable difficulties, he said he was prepared to let
the whole idea drop.
The tank men wanted the project squashed at once on the grounds
that it interfered with their own tank production programme, for which
they wanted all available industrial capacity. In reply it was pointed out
that the production of assault guns would leave the tanks free to get on
with their own work; that if they were not produced, tanks would have to
be diverted to support the infantry; and that the production figures for
armoured carriages were rising so steadily that no manufacturing crisis
was likely to arise. The Panzer officers were not impressed and remained
stubborn and intractable. Tempers began to rise. Someone drew their
attention to the fact that the assault gun's fixed superstructure permitted
the installation of a larger calibre gun than that carried by the tanks,
commenting with some asperity that their short-sighted views and lack of
experience were combining to blind them to the meaning of this; that
assault guns would be able to knock out enemy
armour at a range beyond their beloved tanks'
capacity. At this point one Panzer officer
completely lost control and, banging the table
furiously, yelled that the conference 'had just
passed sentence of death on the Panzer arm!'
Somehow, it survived ...
It was now the turn of the Inspector General of
Artillery to speak. He seems to have been a sleepy
old gentleman, perhaps dreaming of the balmy
days before 1914, when amid the thunder of
hooves, his blue-coated gunners had swung their
weapons into the battery line. He was aware that
the subject under discussion concerned a new gun
to support the infantry, and that it was causing a
great deal of ill-feeling. In an effort to achieve a calmer atmosphere, he
said that modern technology was all very well, but he felt that before any
serious decision was taken trials should be held to decide whether the
new support gun would not be better horse-drawn, in the manner of the
First World War. While jaws gaped in astonishment, his embarrassed
personal staff gathered round to explain von Manstein's ideas on tactical
employment, as well as the nature of the weapon itself. It took a little
time to bring the general up to date, but once he had arrived he began
to warm to the concept, which he agreed was best handled by
artillerymen, much to the relief of everyone present. (Thereafter, it was
very much an 'in' joke among senior officers when referring to assault
guns to describe them as 'Horse-Drawns'. The crews called them
'Snouts', a corruption of Geschiitz into Geschnauze.)
Thus, after a period of being everyone's baby and nobody's child, the
assault gun returned to the control of artillery. The Artillery School at
Jiitebog was detailed by the Inspector General to establish basic training
facilities and a tactical school for assault artillery. In the autumn of 1937
an Experimental Battery was set up by the 7th Motorised Artillery
Demonstration Regiment, and this carried out a variety of exercises
throughout the following winter. Once the results of these had been
evaluated, the Experimental Battery spent a year carrying out combined
trials with the Infantry Demonstration Regiment
at Doberitz, during which tactical principles were
established for the mutual benefit of both arms.
Sturmartillerie & Panzerjäger 1939-1945, Osprey Publishing


I think Manstein's original memorandum is available in English somewhere in the intertubes.


Btw, this author was wrong. The Pzkpfw III running gear etc was NOT proven at that time. In fact, that tank got several running gears until finally one (the modern torsion bar design of the E-version, in production since Dec 1938) was found to be good.
wosung
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by wosung »

Thank you, Lastdingo, for sharing all this info & sources about intra-branch rivalries when establishing the StuG & about its original tactical use.

It fits nicely. Again we have well known aspects. The tank branch didn’t really like the StuG and wanted to control everything armoured on tracks.

I think, that you are right, the Wehrmacht used the StuG, like every other AFV mainly in an offensive role, be it as part of the I.D., the P.D. or of the Heerestruppen units. But from mid-war on this tended to be more and more an offensive-role just only on the tactical level. Then, armoured forces at the company or platoon level more often had to be parcelled out at the numerous hot-spots.

I also think, that you are right, about elite thought, Waffen-SS and tough German ideal performance standard. I even could imagine, that the WitE team itself used some Ritterkreuz-counting for determining unit profiency. Now it would be really interesting if & how different weapon performance IRL was taken into account for determining medal worthiness. Did you need more kills in a StuG than in a Panther?

All in all it remains for the "all StuG units are elite, or, in fact, even particular ones"-crowd on this forum to prove this and bring up the data. Interestingly, in the meantime other forumites here have presented more info without being half as vocal.

Regards

P.S.: Two days ago just stumbled over the Middeldorff-title and since then were contemplating whether it’s worth to get it.
Edit: It's Middeldorf.
wosung
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: Elite Units

Post by lastdingo »

Both "Taktik im Russlandfeldzug" and "Handbuch der Taktik" are well worth it. Diamonds.

I can also recommend Gudmundsson's "On Artillery" for a context on artillery support. His "On Infantry" book is fine, too. Buy them cheap, there aren't many pages in them.


The armour branch was so assertive because of the Schwerpunkt idea and because the infantry (Stoßtrupptaktik) and artillery (Bruchmüller innovations) had proved in 1917-1918 that a breakthrough without tanks is feasible even against high-density front lines.

They would have been more generous if there had been enough resources.
The armour combat team-based operational exploitation coupled with classic 19th century German Cannae fixation was not yet generally accepted doctrine and in fact quite unproved till the Nomonham battle. The armoured and motorised troops did thus not get nearly enough resources. Much money was wasted on quite useless Kriegsmarine capital ships (one battlecruiser ~ 2 Panzerdivisionen) and the Luftwaffe required huge funds for aircraft that were crashed, worn out or obsolete after 2-3 years, too.


Btw, 75 mm HE was initially found to be good, but an almost irresistable demand for bigger shells arose (especially for demolishing houses). Thus the 105 mm Sturmhaubitze and various 150 mm sIG SPGs up to the StuPa.
Meanwhile, 75 mm AP L/43 was great in 1942, but increasingly unsatisfactory against frontal armour (especially JS series) by 1944/45. Thus a move to 88 mm (Jagdpanther).

HE projectors bigger than 152 mm (Sturmtiger) and tank destroyer guns bigger than 88 mm (Jagdtiger) were impressive, yet inefficient exaggerations.
vinnie71
Posts: 966
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:32 am

RE: Elite Units

Post by vinnie71 »

ORIGINAL: wosung


I think, that you are right, the Wehrmacht used the StuG, like every other AFV mainly in an offensive role, be it as part of the I.D., the P.D. or of the Heerestruppen units. But from mid-war on this tended to be more and more an offensive-role just only on the tactical level. Then, armoured forces at the company or platoon level more often had to be parcelled out at the numerous hot-spots.


The Wehrmacht had expanded too quickly to create real elite units except in a minor way. It is well known that certain divisions, mostly those that were motorised, paras and premier SS units attracted the best volunteers or conscripts over the years, and frankly that is the only criterion which differed from 'run of the mill' divisions. As far as I know, all conscripts recieved the same level of training before dispatch to the front. Also 'elite' units tended to be diluted over time, the classic case being the Brandenburgers and Grossdeutschland itself, both of which expanded to divisional status, with the second expanding to Korps status by absorbing the former. Frankly, that was pure crazy - turning commandoes into PGs. The point is that the Wehrmacht was essentially a continously evolving body, trying to keep up with the technological/tactical/strategic advances of their enemies.

One last thought. If we are counting the kill rate etc that particular units and/or weapons system to find out which is the elite of the army, we'd have to claim that the whole German army was made of supersoldiers[;)] Now that is patently untrue, but the kill ratios were pretty lopsided, and not just for the army but also for the airforce. Thus another criterion should be found to define elite units. If anything, constant performace should be seen as an indicator (ex Wiking division which fought so hard in all its battles).
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Elite Units

Post by randallw »

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


One last thought. If we are counting the kill rate etc that particular units and/or weapons system to find out which is the elite of the army, we'd have to claim that the whole German army was made of supersoldiers[;)] Now that is patently untrue, but the kill ratios were pretty lopsided, and not just for the army but also for the airforce. Thus another criterion should be found to define elite units. If anything, constant performace should be seen as an indicator (ex Wiking division which fought so hard in all its battles).

In that case, War In the West better have U.S. Army Air Corps fighter units as elite, or I will declare the game borken. [:D]
User avatar
JSBoomer
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:58 am
Location: Edmonton Alberta

RE: Elite Units

Post by JSBoomer »

Q-Ball, how do you get to that list?
Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Elite Units

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: J Boomer

Q-Ball, how do you get to that list?

Go to Units screen. There is a column marked "E/G" or something like that; units with an "SSE" are SS Elite, units with "SS" are non-elite SS, units marked "E" are Elite non-SS, everyone else just a (-) which is regular.

If you click on the E, it will give you a list of all Elite units
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”