What were the best Panzer divisions?

Richard,

I have no problem with people quoting facts and figures from sources.

I was purely pointing out the problems that historians have with facts and figures due to wartime accounting.

It is understandable that figures can get inflated by tank commanders due to the very limited vision when buttoned down in combat.

When a large amount of tanks are on the offensive it must be very difficult for the commanders to know just how many of the enemy they have actually taken out, when bearing in mind the terrain, dust and smoke created.

Regards
Tom

 

Richard,

I have no problem with people quoting facts and figures from sources.

I was purely pointing out the problems that historians have with facts and figures due to wartime accounting.

It is understandable that figures can get inflated by tank commanders due to the very limited vision when buttoned down in combat.

When a large amount of tanks are on the offensive it must be very difficult for the commanders to know just how many of the enemy they have actually taken out, when bearing in mind the terrain, dust and smoke created.

Regards
Tom

Hi Tom,

In total agreement with you mate. I think we are very much of the same opinion that you can only go so far into putting across accurate figures. I think we are closer on this than originally thought. Just out of curiosity, How did you think the SS Tiger divisions fared in comparison with the Heer Tiger Units?

 

Richard,

I have not gone into that subject and so cannot state one way or the other.

Perhaps that is a good question to ask our resident experts by way of a new thread.

Regards
Tom

 

i agree the panzer lehr division was the best german tank formation of ww2

 

i agree the panzer lehr division was the best german tank formation of ww2

Great that it's finally settled what the best axis Pz.Div. was!

 

Great that it's finally settled what the best axis Pz.Div. was!
Yes, its been bothering the Admin team that we hadnt reached consensus on this important issue. Now are we sure we're not confusing the word "best" with "coolest". But nay, we have not still reached a decision....... well was Panzer Lehr really the best? I mean, it got flattened in the bombardment preceding Operation Cobra. Given that it went into action on D-Day well its didnt see that much action did it? Compared to its counterparts on the Eastern Front! Now are we limiting it to 1944 Divisions. I only ask because well the table of organisation for the 1944 Panzer Division was different to that of a 1941 Panzer Division. How were the lads in Panzer Lehr better than say the boys in 5th Panzer Division? Was there a football match or a beer drinking contest where the "Lehr" lads finished off the "5th" thus giving them the title? No wait, I know........ because Lehr was stationed in France the Couture of the Lehr's uniforms far exceeded the rest of the Panzer divisions. Time has not made this thread any less ridiculous

 

I've hear of pi$$ing contests, but in this one it's about which German pi$$ed farther.

I have to be careful with this kind of statements as I once was the target of three separate neg.reps by three posters with 0 post counts because of one post in a similar vein. Was I impressed!

 

Did the negative rep awarders identify themselves?

 

Replied to by PM

 

Those kind of questions (Original Post) are akin to a WHAT IF question.

We all know where those lead.

Regards
Tom

 

I remember buying a copy of David Fraser's '...and we shall shock them' from ebay several years ago. In the appendix' at the back, listing British Army Divisions of WW2, each Division had either 'a good division' or 'not a good division' scrawled next to it. So if anyone wants to know, I have the gospel

Besides, the question takes no account for the fact that units performance changes over time and is based on a multitude of factors. For example Monty brought back the 50th, 51st Highland and 7th Armoured from Italy as he wanted experienced troops, but later decided that their performance was 'sticky' compared to the fresher troops. But by the end of the war the seem to have picked up.

Just my thoughts...

 

Oh dear, some of the intolerance on this forum brings me to question whether or not it is the right place for me. I will reflect upon it for a few days. In the meantime , i'll just venture this ; SSdiv Wiking was both feared AND respected by its russian foes , its commanders, Felix Steiner , and later, Herbert Otto Gille , were recognized as highly competent officers ,and certainly among the best that the waffen ss had to offer. As to who was the best ?, far to complex a question to answer definitavely, way too many variables . There were some fine combat divisions in the waffen ss , 1st,2nd,3rd,5th,9th,10th,11th,12th & 17th, for example , and other lesser known outfits such as the latvian ,walloon, charlemagne etc. Most of the rest were just psychopathic vermin who bought nothing but disgrace to their more "accomplished" brethren. Astounds me that a gutless peice of shit like Himmler organized an outfit like the waffen ss . Yellow prick didn't even have the balls to stick around and take the rap.

 

I had the dubious pleasure of dealing with some of these characters at Ferdorf in Austria
Axis History Factbook: 16. SS-Panzergrenadier-Division Reichsführer-SS

See this next link for the full story.

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/veteran-accounts/21973-dotting-%22i%22s.html
(See comment #26)

Ron

 

Try as I might I cannot get my head around the nice guys theory in an evil organization! If the ethos and doctrine was based on evil am I then to believe the nice guys thrived? Knights in armour - pure tosh.

 

Well I should question the theory that the SS divisions were that good :already in june 1944,most of them were only a shadow of what they were .Their performances were not better than the other PzD
And,why only the PzD? A lot of the ID/VGD were also doing not bad (considering their meagre resources )

 

Its a ridiculous question to ask in the first place - As regards Wiking well true enough it performed well. was it the best? I dont know, to me this is not a question with a definitive answer. I think a better way to look at this sort of thing is to ask was a formation effective?

 

Oh dear, some of the intolerance on this forum brings me to question whether or not it is the right place for me. I will reflect upon it for a few days.
Yes, you should do that. We wouldnt want to waste your time after all. I love your comment about how the non-Waffen SS were "just psychopathic vermin who bought nothing but disgrace to their more "accomplished" brethren." As if the Waffen SS werent capable of being psycopaths on their own or if not then certainly extremely rascist and violent .

Anyways you have a nice think about whether we're good enough to have you grace us with our presence. We'll try to live up to your expectations.

 

Or not.

 

As if the Waffen SS werent capable of being psycopaths on their own or if not then certainly extremely rascist and violent .



The Heer were no slouches in those areas either.

Dave

 

As with other organisation, working out what is the best panzer divisions is like arguing about which is the all time greatest team in any sport. Its harder for panzer divisions given that the technology and organisational structure changes. Could a 1944 Panzer division beaten a 1940 in a fight? - probably, but for their time the 1940 panzer divisions had a better record against the enemy.

Here is an assessment of the Panzer Divisions in the West made by General Geyr von Schweppenburg Inspector of Armoured Troops in the West when working post war with the US Army. He reckoned that the efficiency of the units in 1944 was only 30-40% of the average divisional performance in 1939.

Order of Combat Efficiency- 6 June 1944

A
2nd Pz Div (Good field commander, not so good as a trainer. well backed with personnel and material)

9th SS Pz Div (Outstanding military personality of commander Bittrich, 1st class trainer and well practiced and efficient in anti airborne operations)

12th SS Pz Div (Good Commander with advanced training methods. Good quality soldiers, however subordinate NCOs and Officers weak)

Panzer Lehr (well equipped. Commander with very modern thoughts and methods - weak in all arms co-operation and infantry tactics)

B
11th Pz Div Commander Experienced in mobile warfare, training using higher training methods. Adequate cadre of subordinate officers and augmented by conscripts from 273 Pz Trg Div.

2nd SS Pz Div Remnants of division , reforming in France had sufficient veterans from the period when its first commander (Hausser) had given the Division v high standard. Best Tank Battalion in the West)

21st Pz Div ("Reorganised with undesirable personnel from a large number of divisions. Even very thorough training could not overcome this basic fault. Part of its material of French manufacture.)

C
9th Pz Div Too many changes in divisional commander and principal staff officers and too much interference in its training by using its troops for construction work.

17th SS PG Div. Its performance depended on two men Its first commander Ostendorf and Fick commander of one PG Regiment. Poor material. The division was organised in haste , was quite efficient by deteriorated rapidly after Ostendorf was wounded.

116th (Probably)

10SS Pz Div. "Unlucky in its assignment of divisional commanders"

1st SS Pz Div "A type of Praetorian Guard", The division had been bled white in Russia and was unable to refill gaps resulting from casualties and sending out cadres (e.g. to form 12 SS). Discipline was a sham; the NCOs poor . The division did not have the time for thorough training before the invasion.

(Source US Army post war interview B- 466)