German ranks

[narwan]

Figured out what the SS kampfgruppe Nord is all about. That is in fact the 6 SS gebirgsjager division Nord. From what I've found they were a kampfgruppe for a short while before attaining full divisional status. The division was still being formed when the deployments in advance for Barbarossa were taking place in the eastern parts of the german reich and those of its allies (the 'kampfgruppe' went to Finland). That's were the reference to the kampfgruppe originates. However, it appears the formation did attain divisional status on the 17th of june 1941; so after the deployments began but before Barbarossa itself was launched. Which is why you usually don't see the Kampfgruppe appear on OB's for Barbarossa but the 6th SS division Nord does appear.
One mystery solved!

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.

The 4th and 5th regiments formed the SS-Brigade 2 Reichsführer-SS and 8th and 10th regiments formed the SS-Brigade 1 Reichsführer-SS. For these to it would seem they were 'regular' waffen SS regiments, although it could well be that (some of) the men were recruited from Totenkopf units. I'll if I can find something on the origin of their recruits.

[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.

[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.

[wulfir]

chuckfourth said:
Banzai is usually done when ammo is out and is a charge using swords, grenades and bayonet.

hmm..., the Japanese did believe in the offense, it was not until the final battles in the Pacific they abandoned this for a protracted war of attrition meant to bleed US forces as much as possible before perishing.

Following a US landing the Japs would often quickly mount a banzai at night, and get slaughtered, with whatever was left melting into the jungle. Not even at Okinawa were they able to break free from this idea of the one decicive attack and got good parts of the 24th Division and the 44th Mixed Brigade shot up for no gain.

[PatG]

Perhaps this needs its own thread. Chuck, I wasn't just referring to the stereotypical last ditch banzai charge but the general tactic of infiltrating the enemies position then charging to get into close combat range. The "easier to kill" idea comes from the Japanese willingness to accept casualties to get into close combat. By the American accounts I have been reading, the Japanese would just keep coming - taking horrendous casualities - but not breaking.

Snipers up trees falls into a similar line of thinking. A sniper who ties himself into a tree has accepted he will die once he opens fire thus is hard to break but has also comitted himself to a fixed firing post that allows him to be easily located and destroyed.

Removal of the 10 supression would be one way to go as would adding the hand to hand bonus. However until I have played a lot more with the Japanese, I will assume that any egregious errors have been caught and the Japanese behave reasonably historically. Note that if we start giving the Japanese a probably deserved bayonet bonus then we might have to do the same for the Brits - the other kings of infantry close combat. What we would then have to do for the Ghurkhas is frightening.

Slow snipers - not really needed. They do not need to maintain cohesion like a full section does and are relatively lightly equipped so the speed bonus is deserved. Now if you want to have sniper sprinting races in enemy line of sight.... As for snipers being deployed in static situaions - I have to disagree. Snipers can be used very agressively and were often used for information gathering and scouting - not shooting- by all sides in WWII. This is even more so in modern conflicts. Their lesser brethren - the marksman - is ideal for simulating small patrols, single sentries and point-men.

[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