I realize that proficiency does not directly equate with combat ability, but it's pretty close.
I expected that my proficiency recommendations would meet with some objections.
However, the most important recommendation was my proposed House Rule requiring all SS units to be set to 'Ignore Losses'. I figured that this would be the recommendation most objected to.
Anyway, on to specifics.
Nord. Yeah it didn't perform well the very first time it went into combat (understatement). However, the Americans at Kasserine broke and fled, too. Yet, the Americans turned out okay. Nord turned out okay, too. The current Directive 21 rating is 60% (untried). As poor as Nord was initially, it was not as bad overall as the late-war SS formations (which I recommend 60% (untried)). Also, Nord was only a 'Kampfgruppe' at first, so the entire division did not suffer that initial ignominy, only a kampfgruppe did. One possibility would be to completely revise Nord in Directive 21, providing only a Kampfgruppe in June, 1941 (as 60% untried), and then bring in the whole division in 1942 (as 70% (veteran)). I thought it would be easier to simply let the division be a division as it currently starts in Directive 21 (mainly because if we start to go down this road with Nord, there are many units in Directive 21 that could equally qualify for substantial revision). I recommended 70% (untried) as a compromise to avoid additional complications to Directive 21, and I still stand by that.
Leibstandarte. Leibstandarte was never the best division in the German Armed Forces. It was one of the most notorius and well-known and well-equipped, though. This division, more than any other, has perpetuated the SS Myth. I’ve stated my view in a previous post in this thread, that only three divisions should receive a 90% proficiency (Panzer Lehr, Grossdeutschland, and 7th Flieger/1st Fallschirmjager). [As an aside, I don’t think any Allied/Soviet divisions deserve a 90% rating (mainly due to their leaders), with the single possible exception of British 1st Airborne (which I would still probably rate as 85%).] The main reason that I oppose the 90% proficiency for any SS formation is due to their officers, who were chosen as much for their political reliability as for their combat ability (think Sepp Deitrich). The officers who commanded the best Wehrmacht divisions were superior in combat ability (EDIT: Think Rommel commanding 7th Panzer, or Bayerlein commanding Panzer Lehr, or von Manteuffel commanding Grossdeutschland). The best of the Wehrmacht was better than the best of the SS. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. None. Since 85% is better than the vast majority of all units in Directive 21, then I recommended 85%. However, if you want to raise that to 86%-87% for LSSAH and DR, I would still complain, but not too much.
Prinz Eugen. Fighting partisans in Yugoslavia was not easy, but it was easier than facing the Red Army in front-line combat. You know that. I cannot in good conscience recommend rating any anti-partisan unit better than a Wehrmacht security division. And Wehrmacht security divisions are 70% in Directive 21.
Totenkopf. The same applies here as with LSSAH and DR. It should be remembered that if TK could obtain about the same results as a standard Wehrmacht division in 1941, that TK was more lavishly equipped and supplied. Thus, if equipped and supplied by normal Wehrmacht standards, then TK is slightly inferior in combat effectiveness to a standard Wehrmacht division. Hence, my recommended 75% proficiency. My proposed house rule pertaining to ‘Ignore Losses’ takes care of Manstein’s observation of higher losses by the SS on the Eastern Front (and this is corroborated by Guderian’s observations of DR).
< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/31/2008 7:13:41 AM >