View Full Version: Weaponology Waffen-ss

Boot Camp > General Chat > Weaponology Waffen-ss


Title: Weaponology Waffen-ss
Description: Gotta love it


Avatar - April 2, 2008 12:22 PM (GMT)
Direct to part 1. Simply follow the leads from there.

Link

Makoto - April 2, 2008 02:56 PM (GMT)
Interesting, if skipping on details (logical due to time-constraints) material.

Worth noting is that quite a lot of weapons shown weren't in fact weapons issued to line squads on regular basis, but instead were only limited number and nearly unknown for the troops (like the StG, FG or MP40 (in part 4, 4:10 "a few" should've been used instead of "many") or just seldom sighted (like MG 42 or PzKfw VI, the latter nearly never encountered outside eastern front), some of them (like MP 18 or both infantry and tank night-vision systems) merely experimental series produced in single digits numbers.
SS troops were usually issued only a XIX century Kar 98 rifle and bayonet, just like every other formation in the Reich.

Also (part 3, 3:30) unlike what's being said, there was no assault on Leningrad. OKH knew there are no forces available for it, so no attempts of actually attacking the city itself were ever made during the entire famous siege.

On a funny note: entrenching tool in part 3, 9:00 and later in part 4 is the russian model, just as popular among germans as the Luger was among Allied troops.

Major of the 58th - April 2, 2008 04:14 PM (GMT)
You can always count on Makoto to dispel Nazi myth...
However, I would have said that the Cossacks were the most feared military organisation in history. Or possibly the Huns. Actually, definitely the Huns.

Sigma - April 2, 2008 04:35 PM (GMT)
I would think the Golden Horde was the scariest. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Nice find though. I'm looking forward to the Foreign Legion one.

Ogiwan - April 2, 2008 05:03 PM (GMT)
Yeah, definitely a good find. I watched the Waffen and the Marine Corps ones.

Oh, but like Mak said, there were a few bad facts. The one that rankled me was the impression that the SS boys ran in to like Poland with MP-44s. Oh, and that the MP-44 was the father of the AK. First true assault rifle, sure. The proginator of every assault rifle since, not so much.

The Marine one, well, they didn't mention the LHDs and whatnot at all, nor did they mention the Harriers.

Makoto - April 2, 2008 05:48 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Major of the 58th @ Apr 2 2008, 04:14 PM)
You can always count on Makoto to dispel Nazi myth...

Not entirely disspell...
Despite what Weaponology team is trying to convince vievers, SS (nor rest of the Heeres) wasn't equipped with modern weaponry. There are few excellent footages of those Waffen units on parades (actuall shots, not all those short pre-set flashes quite similar to that American vs German automatics flick), proudly presenting best equipment Fatherland could give them: rank after rank after rank carries the Mauser 1898 model bolt-action rifle, a weapon that was old during WW1. Few of those men have Lugers in holsters. Not a single one holds an automatic weapon. There probably was an odd MG-34 or two further back the parade, but not much else. All of those men are on foot. Not a single vehicle among them... as was normal in Heeres.
We also know they faced enemies who not only outnumbered them, but also outclassed with weaponry they could only dream about. Or haven't even thought such arms are achievable.
And yet, despite it all, they did manage to become one of the most respected forces in WW2. Ideology aside, it does take brass balls to achieve it, when circumstances are against one in such a way.

David Dark - April 2, 2008 06:50 PM (GMT)
I have to agree with Makoto, it's just a program that says thats nazi ss were the best so u will watch with ecstasy that u didn't know that SS were the best equipped, best trained toops out there and everyone of those guys was a f*cking badass. They never retreated, didn't have to eat or go to toilet, they could wage war 24/7 and allies troops s***ted down their pants every time they heard about them.

Good advice for today:
Start reading books.

Forlorn Hope - April 2, 2008 09:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
They ... didn't have to eat or go to toilet

This is what separates a good soldier from a true ubermensch.
I mean, Russian soldiers were known for being able to live on minuscule supplies, but even they had to poo from time to time.

Ogiwan - April 2, 2008 11:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Forlorn Hope @ Apr 2 2008, 09:21 PM)
I mean, Russian soldiers were known for being able to live on minuscule supplies, but even they had to poo from time to time.

:bravo:

chillin_mickey - April 3, 2008 12:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Ogiwan @ Apr 2 2008, 05:03 PM)
...the MP-44 was the father of the AK.

Just No.

Wodon, the War god - April 3, 2008 01:11 AM (GMT)
Well I happen to know for a fact that parades and demonstration teams almost always bear obsolete weapons rather than the latest and the greatest.

For example the US Marine Corps Silent Drill team. The Marine Corps has had the M16 as standard since the 60s. It was the M14 before that. The M1 Garand went out of use after the Korean war, but the Silent Drill team takes to the field in 2008 with a weapon that is obsolete for 50 years!

Why? the drill for the weapo is well established. The weapon appears to be what the public expects a weapon to be. Old vets can relate to the Drill team's maneuvers. The old wood and gunmetal can be polished in a way that black plastic and anodized finish can't. And they are available in significant numbers, cheaply, and won't be pressed into service for battle.

That said, the entire of the German Military organization had to contend with weapons that were relatively poor in quality, as in up to date. Even their latest and greatest were not always the best. For example the MG 34 was a precision weapon, crafted to the tighest engineering tolerances. Its rate of fire was often triple that of similarly classed Allied weapons. Problem with that is it goes through triple the ammunition for a nation that has shallow resources. And the tight tolerances meant that any contamination, dirt, carbon build up, or even brass shavings, would cause the weapon to misfire or jam. Not exactly well trusted. The MG 42 solved the tolerances issue by being looser in construction, like a lot of Russian designs, but it was an even worse bullet hog. Of course that is an over-generalization, as I am sure that there are several exceptional weapons in the allied arsenal. But the Bren, Besa, 30 cal, and 50 cal firing sound like a washing machine chugging while the fire of an MG 42 sounds more like ripping paper or a chainsaw.

doom_diver - April 3, 2008 03:10 AM (GMT)
I never talk in Military stuff since I barely know about the topic. But C'mon Mongolians. China needed to build a bloody wall to stop those guys. and they just went around it and burned down Bejing. They were the masters of their time. Could've captured a whole lot more if the Mongol Emperor didn't die.

Avatar - April 3, 2008 06:26 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Makoto @ Apr 2 2008, 02:56 PM)
Interesting, if skipping on details (logical due to time-constraints) material.

Worth noting is that quite a lot of weapons shown weren't in fact weapons issued to line squads on regular basis, but instead were only limited number and nearly unknown for the troops (like the StG, FG or MP40 (in part 4, 4:10 "a few" should've been used instead of "many") or just seldom sighted (like MG 42 or PzKfw VI, the latter nearly never encountered outside eastern front), some of them (like MP 18 or both infantry and tank night-vision systems) merely experimental series produced in single digits numbers.
SS troops were usually issued only a XIX century Kar 98 rifle and bayonet, just like every other formation in the Reich.

Also (part 3, 3:30) unlike what's being said, there was no assault on Leningrad. OKH knew there are no forces available for it, so no attempts of actually attacking the city itself were ever made during the entire famous siege.

On a funny note: entrenching tool in part 3, 9:00 and later in part 4 is the russian model, just as popular among germans as the Luger was among Allied troops.

For once I concur. I almost cried when they presented the Stg44 as the Waffen-SS main weapon.

Ogiwan - April 3, 2008 01:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Avatar @ Apr 3 2008, 06:26 AM)
For once I concur. I almost cried when they presented the Stg44 as the Waffen-SS main weapon.

Yeah, actually, that's what I should have said. Not only the for once agreeing with Mak, but getting all twitchy over the MP-44 thing.

Severus - April 4, 2008 12:34 AM (GMT)
i havent got a clue as to what you guys are talkin about :lol:

Avatar - April 4, 2008 06:58 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Severus @ Apr 4 2008, 12:34 AM)
i havent got a clue as to what you guys are talkin about :lol:

You need to read up on weapons.

Major of the 58th - April 4, 2008 10:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (David Dark @ Apr 2 2008, 06:50 PM)
SS were the best equipped, best trained toops out there and everyone of those guys was a f*cking badass. They never retreated, didn't have to eat or go to toilet,

I believe there was a version of the FallschirmJager equipment which actively prevented the soldier relieving himself. Not SS exactly but the paras were badass too...

QUOTE (Wodon @ the War god)
For example the US Marine Corps Silent Drill team. The Marine Corps has had the M16 as standard since the 60s. It was the M14 before that. The M1 Garand went out of use after the Korean war, but the Silent Drill team takes to the field in 2008 with a weapon that is obsolete for 50 years!

Name one other example. The foot guards of HM household division use modern SA-80s when on public duties, The Russians have a parade dedicated to showing off modern weaponary... Sweden, Denmark, France, The Czech Republic... all do ceremonial drill with modern weaponry, all of which drill has been adapted as time progresses. Even the Beefeaters have glocks these days... so in other words the SS' weapons were not for show.

chillin_mickey - April 4, 2008 10:21 PM (GMT)
Russians still use the SKS as did East Germany for ceremonial purposes, a weapon that was quickly rendered useless by the AK-47. I believe the russians have at least one unit with PPSh-41 submachineguns on May 9th.

Makoto - April 5, 2008 08:37 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wodon, the War god @ Apr 3 2008, 01:11 AM)
Well I happen to know for a fact that parades and demonstration teams almost always bear obsolete weapons rather than the latest and the greatest.

Nowadays Wodon, nowadays. Not 60-odd years ago, when units went into trains and towards the battlefield straight from parades.

Avatar - April 5, 2008 10:08 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Major of the 58th @ Apr 4 2008, 10:34 AM)
Name one other example.

The Norwegian Royal Guards(Garden) drill team still use the Garand. They use the AG3 on duty, but the Garand is in use for their flashy drills.

Forlorn Hope - April 6, 2008 11:36 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wodon, the War god @ Apr 3 2008, 01:11 AM)
The MG 42 solved the tolerances issue by being looser in construction, like a lot of Russian designs, but it was an even worse bullet hog.

You can tell the quality of the MG42 by the fact that the MG3 used by the German military today is little changed from the 42. They've even kept the excessively high fire rate.

In terms of machine guns at least, I'd say the Germans were ahead of the times in developing general purpose machine weapons, even if the MG32 proved flawed. Compare that to the US, UK and USSR. The Americans had WW1 era light and medium MGs (the BAR in particular was poorly suited for the LMG role, though made up for it by being used in large quantities). Britain and the USSR still used what were basically maxim heavy machine guns - the sledge mounted versions weighing more than 62kg! LMGs supplementing them were the DP1928 (not an inspired design, but effective enough) and the Bren (usually regarded as the best LMG of the war).
Although we shouldn't forget the mighty American fifty calibre, over two decades old at the outbreak of WW2 and still being used today. That shows how age isn't everything in a machine gun.

Major of the 58th - April 6, 2008 04:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (chillin_mickey @ Apr 4 2008, 10:21 PM)
Russians still use the SKS as did East Germany for ceremonial purposes, a weapon that was quickly rendered useless by the AK-47. I believe the russians have at least one unit with PPSh-41 submachineguns on May 9th.

QUOTE (Avatar)
The Norwegian Royal Guards(Garden) drill team still use the Garand. They use the AG3 on duty, but the Garand is in use for their flashy drills.

I stand corrected. :P

QUOTE (Makoto)
Nowadays Wodon, nowadays. Not 60-odd years ago, when units went into trains and towards the battlefield straight from parades.

Make it 120 years and those self-same parade-ground tactics were being used on the battlefield. Successfully.

Makoto - April 6, 2008 05:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Major of the 58th @ Apr 6 2008, 04:49 PM)
Make it 120 years and those self-same parade-ground tactics were being used on the battlefield. Successfully.

Although against single-shot, barrel-loaded smoothbore muskets, not bolt-action repeater rifles - makes a tad of a difference ^_^

Also, let's not forget those "parade ground" tactics were made a neccesity because of the cavalry.

Major of the 58th - April 6, 2008 05:59 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Makoto @ Apr 6 2008, 05:30 PM)
Although against single-shot, barrel-loaded smoothbore muskets, not bolt-action repeater rifles

Battle of Ulundi, 1879: in reaction to the defeat at Isandlwana, the british army abandons its modern skirmishing tactics for a close order square - wherein vast amounts of firepower can be concentrate from all sides - an impregnable wall: the weapon: the Martini-Henry mkII, a breech-loading single-shot rifle: hardly muskets is it?

In general though, you are right - armies adapted their tactics rather slower than their weaponry - the british army deployed parade-ground practices in battle after clashes like Tulega river in the Boer war...

Makoto - April 6, 2008 07:09 PM (GMT)
[offtop]
Would say "touche", except that the British seldom fired at their own men ^_^
Seriously though, that was the reaction to the Spahi tactics, who (out of neccesity) relied quite strongly on close combat and lacked access to modern weaponry, thus the Redshirts square needed tight formation for protection in close combat more than the dispersed one for protection against incoming fire.
[/offtop]

General Panic - April 7, 2008 04:27 PM (GMT)
When I was in the British Army (some 16 years ago) my regiment still had a handfull of Vickers heavy water cooled machine-guns in working order for regiment command post defence :angry: :B): :thumbs-up:

Forlorn Hope - April 7, 2008 06:57 PM (GMT)
Wow. I suppose as long as you don't have to move them (and the barrels are still in acceptable condition) they're still perfectly effective weapons, just like the big fifty hasn't been superseded in ninety years.

Col. Tartleton - April 11, 2008 01:57 AM (GMT)
Well I think garands are still used because they're such beautiful rifles. Although I've never fired a gun (im a teenager who doesn't hunt) I have held several Garands and the German rifle mentioned earlier. Garands are heavy as hell, but so solid, i didn't want to fire it as much as want to use it as a club or as a spear with the enormous bayonets those puppies have... M16s are so light, its an entirely different beast, and not one I'd see as as good a drill weapon.




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards