"Most Over-Rated Unit of WWII?" Topic

Which military unit in WWII do you think gets over-rated by gamers or historians?

The Waffen SS. Robert

Agreed. Hard SOBs for sure, but uebermensch? Nein.

"The Waffen SS."

Seconded. Especially towards the end of the war.

The Folgore. At the end of the day, they were still Italians. (Ducks and runs.)

Seriously though, they were a tough bunch, but I think FOW overrates them in an effort to make the Italians a viable or more attractive option for players.

Any unit that is claimed as 'elite' by their army, in general.

Many regular units put up a better fight, or suffered more casualties, etc., than most of the pretty boys who hogged newsprint.

Dan

"Which military unit in WWII do you think gets over-rated by gamers or historians?"

Their favourite ones.

French armored units, prior to the Blitzkrieg, along with the Maginot Line…..

Sergeant Fury and His Howling Commandos.

Fallschirmjaeger

Horrocks was unimpressed with Guards Armoured. He thought them less flexible than the other British armoured divisions. They preferred to fight in regimental battlegroups (Grenadier arm and Grenadier infantry).

British 1st Airbourne Division. Despite popular myth they actually lost at market garden and I believe they weren't facing two full strength Waffen SS panzer divisions. Heroic they where but hardly the elite every rule set makes them out to be IMO.

The Waffen SS in general is overrated by gamers. Not that there weren't exceptions… 6th SS in '45 was still a top notch unit by anyone's standards

Any Nazi unit equipped with Tiger II tanks.

The Waffen SS aren't a unit but an organisation. It would be erroneous to rate every single Waffen SS unit as 'elite' just because a few were, even in 1940.

If you want to treat 'SS' as aunit type, then yes, most overrated.

This would be followed by any unit equipped with what appear to be bigger and better tanks than their opponents. IRL training, experience and tactics count for far more in tank battles than equipment differences, this is often not reflected in wargames rules where all too often big tank = game winner. This is not to say that equipment quality doesn't matter at all, but it isn't enough to make up for deficiencies in tactics. An enemy with superior tactics and better equipment is to be treated with extreme caution – just ask the Iraqis.

The Haunted Tank. I mean really, with all that crew had going for it, how did they NOT take Berlin before the Russians? Sgt. Rock was a big disappointment to me also.

I agree with lumping all Waffen SS units together. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, you get the idea, the ones up to about the 12th were really tough mamba jambas all the way through like it or not. The 28th, 34th, ect. well they were not quite the same stuff now were they? So, I don't think you can consider the entire organization as over rated.

All units changed as their experience in the war progressed. Formations that were not that good at the start became very good after combat experience, then fell off again as they became worn out (British 7th Armored, 28th US Infantry and 82nd Airborne-post Market Garden for example).

For overrated to paint with such a wide brush I'd give it have to give it to:

Herman Goring Division – did not perform well at all in Sicily, but did become a good division later on in Italy, but never up to the hype.

Germans, in CROSSFIRE (In the rules ANY Germans have superior command control to any other force. As the rules read, '44 Volksgrenadiers would be more maneuverable than British paras)

I can think of a few 'Sacred Cow' units who to suggest they were not neccesarily all they are cracked up to be would anger some on here, so I won't.

I would say rating a unit or formation is always going to be a hit and miss affair.

Pst

For the British, Seventh Armoured and Guards Armoured.

11th AD, the best performing British armoured division in NW Europe on the other hand, is usually underrated.

For the US I'd go with 82nd Airborne. They had chances that they failed to take in Market Garden. Subsequent performance was competent, but not spectacular.

Any German unit in 1940. The German victory was based on their doctrine and strategy. At the platoon and company level the Allies often performed as well as or better than their opponents, yet all the wargames rules with which I am familiar seek to afford the Germans of '40 a super man status in order to get the "campaign feel".

In a strategic level game, this is warranted. In actions up to battalion level, not so much.

Just look at the vaunted Gross Deutschland's performance at Stonne against a hodge podge of non descript French units.

I'd probably not say overrated, but over-emphasised.

If, for example, you want a book on one of a trio of Allied Abn Divs in Europe (and most readers already know who that troika is made up of) there are shed loads. Finding something on say 52nd (Lowland) Div or a higher end serial US Inf Div that arrived late 1944 however, well that might be a bit tougher! In fact, I'm tempted to say that three Abn Divs in particular have had more written about them than all that has been written combined for a good quarter of the Inf Divs that fought in the same campaign. Can't prove it, just opinion.

Applying absolutes to units based on their type is a bit like extending national stereotypes. All Panzers were elite, likewise any and all Airborne and/or Marine, and for elite here perhaps qualify as 'better than the run of the mill Inf or Armd forces'. Yet the Panzers failed on more than one ocassion, airborne and marine forces had assaults repulsed, and 'ordinary' inf/armd units marked up success; sometimes against 'elite' opponents.

It would be nice to see a more even handed, wider view of WW2 in certain media, History Channel are you listening? Oh, you're not, never mind then. It sometimes feels like the man of the match/MVP principle is applied to the forces involved. Too much effort directed at elevating particular units and particular events to the podium, and as a result ignoring or glossing over the majority of the units that did their fair share of the fighting, and the dying.

Fred, you're a very naughty boy!

Posted by Dan – "Any unit that is claimed as 'elite' by their army, in general.

Many regular units put up a better fight, or suffered more casualties, etc., than most of the pretty boys who hogged newsprint."

I tend to agree.

My first reaction was the Waffen SS. Then as I thought about it I can also lump in Guard units from whatever nation, the US Marines (they got alot of press, but the Army fough just as hard in the Pacific), and units with the newest weapon system (heck, that's what made them better).

I used to do military living history and I always told myself that I would never join a unit such as the: Stonewall Briagde, anything SS (more than one reason), something Roman, AWI British Grenadiers, etc. Just give me an everyday unit.

It also bugs me that many gamers start an army based on an "elite" formation. Let's face it, these are the exceptions, not the rule. However, the everyday grunts do.

Jim

What is an Abn division?

"Easy Company" led by Sgt. Rock.

The 1357th Mess Kit Repair batalion. They performed no better than any of the other MKRBs, but they got all the glory from the Van Johnson and Ward Bond movie by RKO.

"What is an Abn division?"

Like an Amd or Inf division but easier to pick up.

The US 8th Airforce.

All those poor boys slaughtered before spring 44 in a vain attempt to prove the viability of unescorted daylight bombing just so the Airforce could get it's independence from the Army.

Another vote for any German unit in "Crossfire." Absolutely ridiculous.

Any unit that I command in Flames of War.

Well, regardless of what the rules say in CF, one with any WWII knowledge shouldn't give "German" CC characteristics to Volksgrenadiers. Which is all well and good for folks like me, but….

The problem is when someone who is a regular other period player, say ACW, comes to WWII, one needs to have more specific guidelines. I think in his organization lists, Arty should have had VG with CC restrictions like Soviets. For ACW, which I play, I'm not nearly as familiar with the period as I am with WWII and rely on the rules I use – on my own, I don't know the Iron brigade from militia rabble and the same is true of a novice WWII player who can't be expected to know the difference between VG and GD, say.

For VG in my CF games, I rate them green and give them "Soviet" CC plus I don't allow crossfires or fire groups because my contention is these are untrained soldiers who don't know anything about designating targets, etc. Also, late war Germans I generally have as US/British CC.

The rules do actually say the "German" CC is also for elite troops, but I don't think this is enough. Like I said, in his army lists, Arty should have had CC characteristics as well.
--
Tim

Well, regardless of what the rules say in CF, one with any WWII knowledge shouldn't give "German" CC characteristics to Volksgrenadiers.

That would depend on the VG unit in question. Some such as the 26th VG Division were formed from the cadres of experienced Infantry divisions. The 26th in particular had nearly 3 months in a quiet sector of the front to integrate the new recruits and complete unit training. A luxury that few units allied or axis got at that stage of the war. In December '44 they were one of the best units in the German army. I certainly wouldn't rate them green.

Interesting question.I think with gamer's it is Tiger tanks and historians probably The Waffen SS.Not sure if I should mention over rated WW2 Hollywood units :)
Saving the under-rated for the next one.

Wonder if Allied units should get a bonus of some sort for fighting against the SS?

From chats with the old boys, they mostly (apart from the commando and Burma railway victims) agreed that the Wermacht were pretty much OK (as far as could be expected) in the West. But everybody, even the Germans, hated the SS.

Practically, less chance of surrendering to SS units?

"Practically, less chance of surrendering to SS units?"

I should think so; later in the war certainly. As early as 1940 Senegalese troops fighting for the French were summarily executed along with their European officers, if those officers intervened. Once those stories gained currency, I can't imagine any of the French going quietly into that dark night.

Wingates Chindits

Wittman's Tigers. Villers-Bocage continues to be used as an example of how wonderful Tiger tanks and the Waffen-SS were, much more on the strength of the de-brief than the actual outcome of the battle. Consequently we hear at semi-regular intervals drivel like "a single tank that stopped an armoured division", and the over-coloured account written by Obersturmbannführer Schmidt ("Paul Carrell") gleefully recounted as if it were fact.

All the best,

John.

If you knew who was opposite you, maybe you'd be less willing to surrender, but I doubt that many troops knew at the actual time of combat.

I think that it was more likely that when 'news' traveled the lines that Germans (I doubt many knew which kind) had shot down the surrendered troops early in the Bulge fighting, that many troops decided not to surrender (or take prisoners) for a time.

Combat troops know every little that is going on beyond the vision from their foxhole, so many troops would surrender (like to the Japanese early in the war) without a clue as to the 'big picture' of how they'd be treated. Once the atrocity stories got around, officially or not, then the soldier would react by either fighting to the death if they could not escape; or surrender if they knew they'd be treated fairly.

Covering up such war crimes, officially or not, played a major part in how armies treated one another soldiers as prisoners in the war.

Interesting examples are the differences in how the Japanese treated German prisoners in WWI and their approach to all prisoners in WWII. Same goes for German treatment of Russian prisoners in WWI and their treatment of Soviet prisoners in WWII.

Even in the modern conflicts, once word got around about how the VC/NVN treated prisoners, few Americans (non-airmen) were captured. Same goes for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are some forces that one would rather die fighting than risk capture, but advanced knowledge is required.

Dan

Just about any late war heavy tank. It irks me to no extent to see heavy tanks spammed on a wargame table when in fact they would have been much more rare than our movies and games let on. And on top of that they were not very mobile when compared to their Medium tank counterparts.

To drive my point home, post WW2 most countries adopted the Main Battle Tank which are the equivalent of WW2 medium class tanks.

Any Nazi unit equipped with Tiger II tanks.

BINGO!

101st Airborne…oh no sorry, they won the war apparently

Airrrrrrrrborne All The Way! How dare one mock the 101st and how they single handedly winning the war, what rubbish.

Elite: Commando type units only, period.

All others had their moments in time, but they were always fleeting. Only Commando type units maintain the high level of proficiancy to maintain an elite status, IMHO of course.

Derek, how's the 7th Armoured overrated? Perhaps for the Western Desert, but I've rarely heard a kind word about them in NWE in 1944-45.

HMSResolution – I guess I've met more Desert Rats fanboys than you.

What division is your 15mm desert armour derek?

8_)

7th. But that doesn't stop me thinking they are often overrated.

Yes paras of all nations tend to be overrated..

But yes SS tank units…When in defence they were pretty good--But then so were the British/US when THEY were being attacked and were nicly dug in!!

IIRC 7th armored was the only division to fight the entire desert campaign start to finish? Good excuse for it to get all the press. During the NWE campaign both the 7th armored and one other desert veteran division (51st?) became complacent and got a severe boot to the nether regions to get them back in the war.

I think many SS units were overated too … But I do NOT think the Chindits, Airborne/Para and Marines were overated … Sometimes they just got a lot more publicity, then other units.