# The Waffen SS soldier of the Leibstandarte.



## cbiwv (May 24, 2010)

How good were they? Were their skills and discipline as refined as a modern day U.S. Ranger?


----------



## Trip_Wire (May 24, 2010)

cbiwv said:


> How good were they? Were their skills and discipline as refined as a modern day U.S. Ranger?


 

I think the WW II Ranger BN's and Airborne Soldiers (82nd, 101, 17th ABN IDs) would kick their ass! The Leibstandarte SS were responsible for a lot of atrocities!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_SS_Division_Leibstandarte_SS_Adolf_Hitler


----------



## pardus (May 24, 2010)

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The 1st SS Div was an armored unit. Highly skilled and motivated the best of the best armored units in the world _at that time_.

Trip, with all due respect, the units you mentioned didn't have the strength or gear to take on a unit like the 1st SS, also there were plenty of allied units that committed atrocities during WWII. :2c:


----------



## Trip_Wire (May 25, 2010)

pardus said:


> You are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> The 1st SS Div was an armored unit. Highly skilled and motivated the best of the best armored units in the world _at that time_.
> 
> Trip, with all due respect, the units you mentioned didn't have the strength or gear to take on a unit like the 1st SS, also there were plenty of allied units that committed atrocities during WWII. :2c:


 
We'll never know for sure since they lost the war and we won! The Victors have no 'War Criminals.' :)


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 25, 2010)

Pardus, I'm pretty sure you'd summarily execute concentration camp guards. 

I would.


----------



## AWP (May 25, 2010)

pardus said:


> You are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> The 1st SS Div was an armored unit. Highly skilled and motivated the best of the best armored units in the world _at that time_.



Yep. The SS formations were armored/ mech infantry and not light infantry/ SOF/ airborne so you can't really compare a Ranger BN with a BN of Waffen SS.


----------



## pardus (May 25, 2010)

Ranger Psych said:


> Pardus, I'm pretty sure you'd summarily execute concentration camp guards.
> 
> I would.


 
Oh yeah, for sure, no doubt.
I don't necessarily have a prob with it, just pointing out that both sides were guilty of it.




Trip, We know very well it happened, it was just never prosecuted, Ive actually seen footage of US Soldiers murdering SS Soldiers.

I know of a NZ Officer murdering German troops in Italy as well.


There are no innocents in war...


----------



## 7point62 (May 25, 2010)

Sounds like a job for _The Deadliest Warrior._


----------



## SexyBeast (May 25, 2010)

7point62 said:


> Sounds like a job for _The Deadliest Warrior._


 

Ha ha that would definitely be something I'd watch...it would be a nice break from all the sorority girl porn.


----------



## 0699 (May 25, 2010)

A better comparison would probably be Army Rangers vs. SS-Jäger-Bataillon 502.  IMO the Rangers would win, just because of improvements in training, selection, and equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Jäger-Bataillon_502


----------



## cbiwv (May 25, 2010)

I know the two units are entirely different. My comparison was based on quality of training and discipline.


----------



## cbiwv (May 25, 2010)

0699 said:


> A better comparison would probably be Army Rangers vs. SS-Jäger-Bataillon 502.  IMO the Rangers would win, just because of improvements in training, selection, and equipment.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Jäger-Bataillon_502


 
Were they a Brandenburger unit?


----------



## pardus (May 25, 2010)

0699 said:


> A better comparison would probably be Army Rangers vs. SS-Jäger-Bataillon 502.  IMO the Rangers would win, just because of improvements in training, selection, and equipment.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Jäger-Bataillon_502


 
Yes, also the 500th & 600th SS Parachute Battalions as well as the Kampfgeschwader 200 (a Luftwaffe unit).
Cannot forget the original Wehrmacht Spec Ops unit the Brandenburgers.


----------



## pardus (May 25, 2010)

cbiwv said:


> Were they a Brandenburger unit?


 
No, see my post above.



cbiwv said:


> I know the two units are entirely different. My comparison was based on quality of training and discipline.


 
Quality of training and discipline in both the US Rangers and The Waffen SS are/were superb, so the comparison would really put them on a par in this respect. :2c:


----------



## cbiwv (May 25, 2010)

pardus said:


> Yes, also the 500th & 600th SS Parachute Battalions as well as the Kampfgeschwader 200 (a Luftwaffe unit).
> Cannot forget the original Wehrmacht Spec Ops unit the Brandenburgers.


 
A former Soviet Spetsnaz soldier told me and another fella that they learned alot by studying the history and tactics of the Brandenburgers.


----------



## 0699 (May 25, 2010)

pardus said:


> Yes, also the 500th & 600th SS Parachute Battalions as well as the Kampfgeschwader 200 (a Luftwaffe unit).
> Cannot forget the original Wehrmacht Spec Ops unit the Brandenburgers.


 
You just HAD to top me, didn't you? 

It's all about comparing apples - apples, not apples - oranges.


----------



## pardus (May 25, 2010)

cbiwv said:


> A former Soviet Spetsnaz soldier told me and another fella that they learned alot by studying the history and tactics of the Brandenburgers.


 
That is interesting.



0699 said:


> You just HAD to top me, didn't you?
> 
> It's all about comparing apples - apples, not apples - oranges.


 
LOL, I read your post and I thought fuck I need to go read some more as I knew about the 500th and their raid on Tito's HQ but not the unit details.


----------



## cbiwv (May 25, 2010)

pardus said:


> That is interesting.



He also said they studied the SAS and our Army Special Forces.


----------



## AWP (May 25, 2010)

At the risk of drifting from the OP's intent, a better comparison would probably be the Fallschirmjager around the time of Crete to the Army's Airborne after North Africa or Sicily. In that regard I'd give it to the US, but not by much.

Plus, you have to stipulate a timeframe for the Waffen SS. Those that formed the core of the SS divisions (which started out as battalions, then Regiments) went through a very rigorous selection process. It has been some years since I read up on it, but the "pipeline" as it were was longer than than the Army Rangers. Does that equal "better?" Not necessarily. The Waffen SS also enjoyed the latest gear the Germans could produce whereas our Rangers were more or less equipped the same as a regular rifle BN...and I think it was the SS who started pushing MG42's down to the squad level but my memory is fuzzy there.

Getting back to timeframes, by '44 the SS was decimated on the Eastern Front. While units were still higly combat effective even at 50% or less strength, the core of the highly selected and trained men were dead whereas our Rangers in 44-45 were really hitting their stride. See also Point Du Hoc and Cabanatuan.

So, if you were to say 1942 I'd give it to the SS, but in 44 the guys with the Sunoco patch are clearly on top. If you paint with a broad brush for the whole of WWII I'd give it to the Rangers by a nose.

But it is all subjective to timeframe, criteria, etc.


----------

