Questions for Steve (General PBEM) #6

[Bil Hardenberger]

Steve,

"On top of that, the MG isn't very effective at long distances. Keeps some guys' heads down, but it would have been a drop in the bucket."

Fionn did not lay a base of fire really, before he assaulted. I agree when you say his real mistake lay in coordination of his forces.

[This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-21-99).]

[guachi]

Steve,

The Handbook on German Miltary Forces shows that a Panzer Grenadier Company (Armored) had an organic AA Platoon. I'm sure you have the book and the relveant pages are 126 & 127, figures 64 and 66. It shows the makeup of the company as 3 Pz. Gren. Platoons (Armd), 1 Heavy Weapons Platoon (Armd), and 1 AA Platoon (Armd). The table shows the AA Platoon had 6 20mm AA guns, but it isn't clear on whether they were towed or SP.

The motorized Pz Gren companies do not have an organic AA platoon. They have 3 Pz Gren Platoons (mtz) and 1 MG platoon. Although the MG platoon is virtually identical to the Heavy Weapons Platoon in the armored company. What I do find strange, though, is that the armored Pz Gren Platoon has 30 men whereas the motorized Pz Gren platoon has 43. For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out exactly why there is a difference.

There is another difference at the battalion level between and armored Pz Gren Battalion

and the motorized battalion. The Heavy Weapons Companies are different. The armored company has 4 120mm mortars and 6 75mm Infantry guns. The motorized company has 4 120mm mortars and 6 towed 20mm AA guns.

This gives the armored battalion 18 20mm AA guns and the motorized battalion 6 20mm AA guns.

To make things even more confusing, SS motorized and armored Pz Gren regiments had an AA company, giving the regiment an additional 12 20mm AA guns.

In short, I will have to disagree with your statement that a Panzer Grenadier Company (armd) did not have organic AA support and will agree that the Heavy Weapons Company didn't, at least with regards to the armored battalion.

Of course, the books I get my information from are all subject to being wrong. But I can't imagine that if this town was really important enough that the Germans wouldn't have sent along some AA support, whether it was organic or not. Fionn's chances were pretty much doomed by the appearance of the airplane. If I was the comander, I certainly would have complained even before the attack about needing AA and definitely would have done so after it destroyed so many vehicles.

Jason

P.S. Something has been bugging me ever since the plane destroyed the Panther. The Panther was being driven by von Kelly, right? Presumably that was supposed to be Fionn in the tank commanding the relief of the town. But the Panther was destroyed and, if I'm remembering correctly, everyone in the tank was a casualty. If that is the case, how can Fionn still be commanding his troops?

[Mike D]

"AAA guns were not organic to either a Panzergrenadier (Armd) Company or a battalion's Heavy Weapons Company."

Steve, FWIW the following would appear to contradict your statement to some degree,

In German Squad Tactics in WWII by Gajkowski on p. 99 is the following:

Under heading of:

"Authorized Strength, Armored Panzer Grenadier Company (freie Gliederung) or Panzer Recon Company (freie Gliederung), July 1, 1944"

We find:

4th Platoon

and under this we find, "Flak and Heavy Machine Gun Squad",

Where we finally come upon (after various MG units are detailed):

3 half-track drivers

No personal weapons, & 3 SdKfz 251/17 half tracks w/ 1 20mm Flak gun each.

This is a PG company by the way, no tanks are mentioned in any of the other 3 platoons. Only HT's and grenadiers are mentioned. The 4th platoon also contains a mortar squad w/ 2 80mm mortars intrinsic to the unit.

The other units such as a Schutzen Rifle Co. as of May 1, 1944 (p.98), do not have these intrinsic company AA mobile guns, so you appear to be correct in some respects though. Of course this was before June 6, 1944. In fact, the authorized strength of Panzer Gren. Company (freie Gliederung) as of Apr. 1, 1944 does indeed not have the mobile flak guns in the 4th (heavy) platoon either (p.97). My guess is that after June 6, 1944 the Germans learned real quick that they needed better mobile AA cover for at least these more highly "prized" infantry units and decided to quickly convert some HT's to AA mounts for some mobile support at the company level. Of final interest is the authorized strength of Panzer Gren. Company (freie Gliederung) as of Nov. 1, 1944 (p.101). Here, the entire 4th (heavy) wep's platoon has been removed from the entire company, including the mobile flak guns.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-22-99).]

[guachi]

It must have been maddening for Steve and Charles trying to find all the TO&E for the Germans. And CM1 only covers one year of war. How many divsion types did the Germans have? 10? 15? And how many times did they reorganize those divisions in the last year of the war?

You must have something like 100 different formations for the Germans alone.

Jason

[Guest Big Time Software]

hehe... people must be VERY careful when looking at German unit formations. There is no standard anything for them

For Fionn's forces I picked a standard, run of the mill, Panzergrenaider Kompanie. As I said, there are NO organic AA units attached to such a formation. The 4th platoon (heavy) does not have AA guns in its formation, but rather two sections of HMGs and one of 80mm mortars.

Now, something you have to remember about the Handbook... it is based on contemporary intelligence data, not post war study. Because of that some of the information in there is wrong, and therefore everything is suspect. I have an original 1945 printing and we did use it as a base, but we also used about 3 other sources to figure out what really was what. I am pretty sure I remember this one and that we found two other sources that said there were no AA guns for CM's time period. There might have been earlier on, but I haven't checked.

Mike, Recon has its own makeup and therefore can't be compared. Neither can you look at anything listed as "freie Gliederung". These are independent units (i.e. not part of a division), usually acting as Korps or Armee reserve. Their formations were highly variable. I have about 4 or 5 PzGren (freie Gliederung) TO&Es from the same time period and they are all different

Now, the real question is... would Fionn's forces been packing AA capabilites from some other formation (i.e. Kampfgruppe principle). Perhaps. But remember that there is NEVER enough support weapons to go around, so while it is possible it is not a sure thing. So I decided that this little KG couldn't get AA support for their little trip into town

Steve

[guachi]

I'm certainly not surprised that the Handbook is wrong. Thanks for setting me straight.

I suspect that the books you list in the bibliography will be of great interest to many players. They will certainly help clarify some of the finer points that crop up in the game.

And the bibliography will make a great Christmas list to give to relatives.

Jason

[Henri]

"Most of Fionn's HTs were knocked out by air and artillery fire. All of his armored

vehicles (except for the Puma) were lost in normal battlefield conditions. The

problem with this map for the attacker is that you really HAD to rush. Fionn's

problem was that he rushed in an uncoordinated manner and that was what hurt

him so bad. In other words, the fact that he rushed forward wasn't the problem,

rather HOW he rushed forward."

I don't dispute that, but it is unclear to me exactly how he should have rushed forward in order to have a better chance, even had he known the enemy dispositions (which he didn't). It seems to me that osing the scouting halftrack had a negligible effect on the battle. What could that halftrack have accomplished otherwise? At least it gave info on enemy dispositions.

Leading with his infantry would have been suicide as they would have been mowed down by machine guns, and getting his MGs close enough to make a difference would have been chancey at best. So what should he have done?

Two more questions: it is generally considered that a ratio of 3/1 in forces is required to attack a defensive position. Did Fionn ever have such an advantage, or could he have maneuvered to obtain it, taking into account fog of war? How should Dionn have scouted the position, given his lack of time? The Puma? Or should he have waited to have his whole force together (giving Martin time to prepare) and launched an all-out attack on the town? I doubt it, but who knows?

Henri