German ranks

[narwan]

Since I'm at it anyway I'll keep going 'till I've got it figured out!

The 1 SS Brigade was indeed raised from Totenkopf Verbande. You are completley right on this Chuck. To be more precise:

8. SS-Totenkopfstandarte
circa 2,600 men
Raised 11/39 Cracow from SSTK Std. 4; became part of SS-Brigade 1 (SS Infantry Regiment 1) under Kommandostab RFSS April 1941; then tranferred to 18th SS Horst Wessel Jan. 1944 as SS-Grenadier Regt. 39. Directly involved in Holocaust assisting Einsatzgruppen A.

10. SS-Totenkopfstandarte
circa 2,500 men
Formed 11/39 Buchenwald from SSTK Std. 3. Became SS Brigade 1 (as SS Infantry Regiment 10) under Kommandostab RFSS April 1941, then tranferred to 18th SS Horst Wessel division Jan. 1944 as SS-Panzergrenadier Regt. 40.


So two TV verbande were turned into two regiments that then formed the 1 SS brigade. It's not clear when exactly it came into being as it had a couple of slightly different names in a short time span. Dates range from spring '41 to late summer '41 (the source where I got the above info use april '41 which is probably right). What does seem clear from it's record is that while it was a combat unit capable of regular combat operations (of which it conducted several) it was also or perhaps even mostly used for antipartisan duties and Einsatzkommando duties. Sounds like this was one of the most nasty units the waffen-ss had...

So far no luck on the other brigade but since the 1st was attached to the reserves of army group center I bet the second brigade was attached to army group south (and with similar origins).

Edit: the 1 SS brigade was not attached to army group center but was part of the OKH reserves, the command staff of the RFSS to be more precise. It didn't become 'active' till july. Can't find anything substantial on the 2nd brigade, except that it existed at some point.

For those interested I did find this reference to a source:

"PRECHTL, G.M. "Unsere Ehre Heißt Treue": Kriegstagebuch des Kommandosstabes Reichführer-SS - Tätigkeitsberichte der 1. und 2. SS-Inf.Brigade, der 1. SS-Kav.Brigade und von Sonderkommandos der SS. Wien: Europa Verlag, 1984. As I recall, this is a HUGE book - maybe 850 pages or more."


The SS cavalry brigade mentioned seems to have been used in a similar role as the two brigades. It later became the Florian Geyer division.

Narwan

[wulfir]

narwan said:
Edit:
Still a difference though, the kampfgruppe was formed from regiments 6, 7 and 9 (so not 5). And these appear to be regularly raised waffen-SS, so VT and not totenkopf units.

I have a source* stating that the 9th Regiment was formed from the Totenkopfstandarte "Kirkenes" - a fully motorised formation deployed to the desolote northern Finnish regions. It participated in the fighting around Salla and Kiestinki and performed with a serious lack of profesionalism, suffring heavy losses in these early fighting (something that was true for NORD as a whole).

Gyllenhaal, L - Slaget om Nordkalotten

[narwan]

The 9th was originally part of the kampfgruppe but when they went to Finland the 9th was detached. The rest formed the division, perhaps the 5th was added then to fill out the division with a 3rd regiment?

The 9th went on as an independent regiment and was send to Finland not much after the rest. It seems all of these were very undertrained. I read a quote on another board to the effect that they weren't much more than civilians in uniforms when they were send into action.

Narwan

[chuckfourth]

Hi Narwan

Just for interests sake, do you think the Japs should get a "no surrender" bonus?
Best Chuck.

[PatG]

chuckfourth said:
Hi Narwan

Just for interests sake, do you think the Japs should get a "no surrender" bonus?
Best Chuck.

Not Narwan it would be better to make them very hard to break but easier to kill. This would reflect the samurai spirit behind the Banzai charge and putting snipers up trees.

Also from recent reading, all true snipers - not marksman - should get a "no surrender" bonus.

[narwan]

chuckfourth said:
Hi Narwan

Just for interests sake, do you think the Japs should get a "no surrender" bonus?
Best Chuck.

Good question. I'm not sure. The japanese were very different from other soldiers. They did tend to go on where others did not. Even though SS troops were often shot when captured, that statement itself shows that they did indeed surrender. Some, on the western front even most, survived surrendering. It did happen and with some regularity. Even on the eastern front.
And while the occasional surrender did happen amongst the japanese, that was quite exceptional. So there is ample reason to distinguish here. Whether that means a complete 'no surrender' option or whether surrendering (including disbanding when losses are too high) should simply be much, much rarer amongst them is a more of a code issue I think. If the choice is between the same surrender mechanic as other nations have or none I'd say none as that would be a closer approximation of the historical truth in my opinion. Having said that, there is another factor that obscures this even more. While the japanese tended not to surrender, that does NOT equal fighting to the end. Fighting to the end implies dying at the hands of the enemy. There is ample evidence to show that suicide was often preferred over (possible) capture. In game terms the effect would be similar though. Still the point remains whether it was common enough to justify treating the japanese the same as the other nations with regards to surrendering. I feel special circumstances are warranted and prefer the current set-up over treating all the same.

I feel that the USMC's no surrender is more problematic. I understand the reasoning there, but I think it is a much 'greyer' area than with the japanese. For instance, if marines had been deployed to the european theatre of operations, would they have shown the same reluctance to surrender facing the germans or italians as they did opposing the japanese? In my view the surrender record of the USMC in the war is more testament of the behaviour of their opponents (so a reaction) that it was something inherent to the corps itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying in any way that the USMC surrender(ed) easily. Just that it has more to do with circumstances.
As the game is a historical game and the USMC does mainly face the japanese and they did rarely surrender to them there is justification for the current situation. But it remains a judgement call (and I'm not the one who has to make it).

Narwan

[chuckfourth]

This is very interesting, are you telling me that the USMC and Japanese currently dont surrender? or that they are treated differently to the other OOBs as regards surrendering?
Best Chuck.

[narwan]

As far as I know they fight to the last man (no dispersing of the last few men of a squad) and they don't surrender either. From a quick check of the design history this dates back to spww2v2.

Narwan

[chuckfourth]

Hi Narwan
Well I agree that the Japs are in a "no surrender" class of there own. If I were to rank the various nations/OOBs in order of "no surrender" I would have thought it might go something like Japs, SS/NKVD, eastern front wermacht/Marines I think its a bit odd that the marines get the -same- no surrender bonus as the japs and better than SS. Looking at the Marine campaigns/landings it seems that in common with the dodgy political SS units they actually had very little chance to surrender anyway, hence the surrender record, ie
(and without trying to belittle the efforts of the Marines)
The Marines did have enormous material advantages over the Japs. ie complete air control and so thorough pre-landing reconassience, Artillery support was phenominal, in the pre-landing bombardment Io Jima got 1950 rounds of 16", 1500 14", 400 12", 1700 8", 2000 6", 31000 5" plus air, plus rockets. So the Marines were never going to fail. Best I can find using memory here didnt bookmark it, is a Marine Battalion did get to about 60% casualties before being pulled out of the line and replaced by a fresh unit. The Marines had excellent supply, hospital ships etc etc, the Japs were usualy completely isolated and often hungry, their minute artillery was quickly located and smashed. So the few Japanese counter-attacks (excluding banzai suicide charges) they actually made (This is where the Marines get the chance to surrender) were basically unsupported and hence failed especially in the face of the massive artillery that must have been directed at any japanese troop concentration.
Considering this Im not sure the marines deserve the in-game "no surrender" bonus. If the "no surrender" bonus is because they 'thought' the Japs would butcher them the same applies to the SS I would think.
Best Regards Chuck.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat
Im not sure why they should be 'easier' to kill. Banzai is usually done when ammo is out and is a charge using swords, grenades and bayonet. So you dont need to model this you just need to 'play' it, ie wait until your out of ammo and rush the opponent Im sure the result will be satisfyingly realistic (ie easy to kill). With regards to 'hard to break' maybe the 10 suppression that units suffer when down to less than half man squads could be removed or lessened for the Japanese?
If you really wanted to 'model' banzai then I think it would be best modeled with a melee bonus.
Snipers I dont really like I seem to meet so many in PBEM. maybe they should get a lesser speed to model creeping around? they are after all a specialist type like engineers mainly employed in static situations, ie defensively.
I wouldnt worry to much about them being up trees.
Best Regards Chuck.