Division types - historical

[coe]

A few questions:

what exactly was the purpose of a Panzergrenadier division? Now I understand that a Panzer division was supposed to have hitting power but a Panzergrenadier division is kinda half isn't it (of course more mobile than an infantry division)

What were the the equivalents to PzGr divisions in the US and British Armies? For instance was the 1st Infantry Division really infantry (wasn't it totally mechanized with a tank battallion etc. etc.)

I notice the russians also made distinctions between tank, mechanized and infantry units.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by coe:

A few questions:

What were the the equivalents to PzGr divisions in the US and British Armies? s between tank, mechanized and infantry units.

British and Canadians had only two types of Divisions for the most part.

Armoured Division - generally one armoured brigade and 1 infantry brigade. In Italy, the 5th Canadian Armoured Division had two infantry brigades and one armoured brigade.

Infantry Division - three infantry brigades, no tanks.

There were also independent armoured brigades which often acted as tank support for the infantry brigades of infantry divisions, so while the infantry divs did not have armour of their own directly attached, they did have access to armour support.

Infantry brigade - three infantry battalions.

Armoured brigade - three tank regiments (in US or German terms, a regiment was equal to a battalion - about 50 or 60 tanks).

In the armoured brigades of armoured divisions, there was also a Motor Battalion with motorized infantry in halftracks, carriers or armoured trucks. Independent armoured brigades did not have this Motor battalion.

------------------

CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission

[Croda]

My understanding of the PanzerGrenadiers (and I may be way off) was that they were assigned to move with the Panzer Divisions. They would move fast and hold the ground gained by the advancing Panzers.

[Guest wwb_99]

Panzergrenadier divisions were Hitlers redesignation of Motorized divisions. They were mainly motorized infantry, with a battalion or so of assault guns. They were few and far between. The germans had such limited amounts of motorized transport, etc that they ended up making more armored divisions rather than motorizing infantry divisions.

An American infantry division was in effect what the germans dreamed of for panzergenadier divisions, after the additional support is taken into account. Most US infantry divisions gained an additional TD or Tank Bn, and sometimes both., attached on a semi-permenant basis. Not to mention they all became effectively motorized as time passed.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Michael Dorosh]

To muddy the waters further, Großdeutschland was officially a Panzergrenadier Division, but was equipped like a Panzer Division...

Croda is correct that the "panzergrenadier" was a motorized infantryman trained to fight with as a part of tank units.

wwb is correct that they were a redesignation of Schützen regiments in 1943. Most "panzergrenadier" regiments, whether in panzer or panzergrenadier divisions, were mostly lorry-borne, with perhaps one battalion in the regiment having halftracks.

There were a number of good discussions of panzergrenadier units, a search for schützen and panzergrenadier will yield you decent results.

------------------

CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

By late in the war, the panzer-grenadier division was relatively rare and was used for much the same purposes as a panzer division. To understand the issue, you have to know that the composition of the panzer division itself was not static. It changed over the course of the war, and different types were also in existence side by side.

Before the war, the Germans had tank-heavy armor formations, though not as tank-heavy as other powers had until much later on. The original panzer division had 2 armor regiments, each of 2 battalions, and 1 infantry regiment, with 2 battalions in trucks plus a motorcycle battalion. There was also a division recon battalion with armored cars, 1 battalion of engineers, 2 artillery battalions and 1 (towed) anti-tank battalion. By later standards, it was light on the artillery and infantry, heavy on recon and tanks. Tank-infantry, the ratio is 4 to 3, not counting recon and engineers. And the portion of artillery and towed guns was 3 to those 7.

This formation type was found to be too tank-heavy as early as the Polish campaign. So one of the panzer regiments would be split off to a new panzer division, leaving 2 panzer battalions in one panzer regiment. The infantry portion of the division was raised to 4 battalions, not counting the motorcyle one, and a 3rd artillery battalion was added. This was the organization at the time of the French campaign. The armor-infantry ratio was now 2 to 5, a large swing from the previous. The artillery and towed gun portion was 4 to 7, a small adjustment upward.

But the Germans were still experimenting with the mix of tanks and infantry that would work best in practice. Too little infantry in the division had the drawback that any heavy fighting quickly burnt it out, and it then needed support by other formations (operationally bad), or to be pulled out of the line to refit and take replacements (often worse). Too much infantry would dilute the fighting power of the tanks, (e.g. winding up with a wider frontage) and unnecessarily slow the division down by lengthening its columns and its supply needs.

Similarly, more tube artillery greatly increased the staying power in slogging matches, as indirect fire bore more of the weight. Other types of towed guns increased the defense ability of the division without over-taxing the tanks. In turn, that took some of the weight off of the infantry too, who are called on to take the losses in defensive fighting.

Incidentally, in France it was found that the infantry, if backed by tube artillery and towed guns, could stop massed enemy tanks, even types the German tanks could not handle because of their heavy armor (e.g. British Matildas at Arras).

Another division type was tried, basically going in a slightly different direction than the main development above. The infantry was kept to 1 regiment, which kept 2 truck and 1 motorcycle battalions. So armor-infantry-artillery was in this case 2-3-3. The ratio of towed guns to others is in this case 4 to 5, considerably higher than in the previous cases. This was called the "light" division, since it was like the panzer division except for less infantry. The 5th light was Rommel's spearhead in Africa, later renamed the 21st Panzer.

The next development modified the previous 2-5 panzer division formula. The motorcycle battalions were turned into recon battalions and not kept as a seperate formation. This reduced the infantry to 4 battalions. In a few cases a 4th artillery battalion was added, and a battalion of heavy FLAK, 88s. So the towed guns are going up, and infantry is going down. Meanwhile, the panzers were reduced to a single battalion. This left a formation that was 1 to 4 armor to infantry, and 5 to 5 (or 6) maneuver elements to towed guns.

That proved to be too little armor. But these were panzer divisions, in 1942 and fighting in Russia. You noted that the later Panzer-Grenadier division had only 1 panzer battalion. Well, for a period, so did the panzer divisions. But they soon went back to a 2-battalion panzer regiment.

At this point, the late-war German panzer division is recognizable. A panzer regiment of 2 battalions, 2 pz gdr regiments of 2 battalions each, 3 artillery battalions, plus AT, recon, engineers, and when available heavy FLAK. The tank-infantry ratio finally stops bouncing around at 1:2, and the maneuver-element to towed gun ratio is hovering between 3:2 and 1:1. Notice, that is close to the ratios of the rather successful light divisions too. Those just needed a smidgen more infantry.

At the same time this whole process of discovery by trial and error was going on, the army was trying to create more mobile formations. It would take and infantry division and equipped the unit with trucks, to enable it to keep up with the panzer divisions. These were called motorized infantry divisions and there were always new ones being added. But they were also disappearing "out the other end".

Some of the motorized infantry divisions were remade into light divisions (2-3). Some were made into panzer divisions (2-4). And some were made into - panzer grenadier divisions (1-6). The last was in some ways simpler, as the formation just needed a tank battalion attached, plus an ungrade of its recon battalion to the armored type (with armored cars and halftracks).

Compared to a panzer division, these units had more infantry and fewer tanks. This gave them longer staying power before burn-out by loss of front-line rifle strength, but less hitting power on the attack. It was therefore well suited to mobile defensive operations. But it was not heavy enough on the armor for the full benefit of combined arms.

In the late war, there was another new unit type, the SS Panzer divisions. These used the same structure was the Heer Panzer divisions, except that they had 6 infantry battalions, 3 in each regiment, instead of 4 (2 in each). Which means, they had the infantry of a Pz Gdr division, and the tanks of a Pz division. Alone, this would have dropped the tank-infantry ratio somewhat, to 1:3, and the towed gun portion, to 1:2.

But there was another development going on at this time and a bit before. The anti-tank battalions of these mobile divisions were being re-equipped with armored tank destroyers - Marders, StuGs, later Jadgpanzers. And that meant that the armor ratio was going back up somewhat. So the 1:2 armor to infantry ratio was actually being maintained in the 2-6 SS Pz division structure, because it was really more like 3-6.

And the Pz Gdr divisions, when or if they made a similar equipment changeover, move to more like 1:3 - a large change, making them much more like panzer divisions had been for most of the war. But they did not always get the equipment. Regular infantry divisions were also getting armored TDs. A Ps Gdr division that wasn't sent new TDs, was organizationally similar to an infantry division that did get them - provided the infantry division were at least somewhat motorized that is (enough to move its guns and HQs, etc).

What in the world is all of this about? Up front, it is about making battle groups with a good combined arms mix. Then giving the formation enough depth to relieve the infantry portion if it gets burned out.

Now, let's look over at the Americans. They started out with tank-heavy formations too, and kept them until 1942. In 1943, they went to a 3-3-3 armor, infantry, artillery mix for the armored divisions. TDs could add another 1 to the armor though. These were well balanced for combined arms work, and bigger than the German panzer divisions. But compared to the German organization, there wasn't enough infantry to sustain intense combat for long.

The U.S. infantry division had 9 infantry battalions, 4 artillery, plus extra guns that could amount to 2 more (chemical mortars, 105mm cannon companies), plus recon, engineers, and AA. And then the U.S. fielded enough "independent" tank and TD battalions, that half the infantry divisions had both, and half had one or the other.

The U.S. infantry divisions therefore wound up similar to the Pz Gdr divisions in weapons mix. They were more infantry-heavy and more artillery-heavy, but marginally so, especially since, by mid-war, typical infantry divisions had 2/3rds rifle strength compared to their TOE.

If you scan ahead to post-war developments, there is a near consensus that the right ratio of armor to infantry is between 1:1 and 1:3. Anything in that range can work well. 1:1 does lack staying power somewhat, but not hitting power. The Germans bounced around a lot, but the panzer divisions found the 1:2 area pretty fast and mostly stuck with it.

When the Heer divisions started becoming a bit armor-heavy again, from inclusion of TDs in the divisional anti-tank battalion, they lowered the tanks per platoon from 5 to 4, which more or less kept the armor-infantry ratio steady with the TDs included.

This is by now so long that it is probably incomprehensible - LOL. Well, you get what you pay for and it is free...

[Simon Fox]

Michael wrote

Independent armoured brigades did not have this Motor battalion.

Which is not strictly correct because two of them did have Motor battalions (the 8th and the 4th I think). The two armoured brigade organisation of the Canadian division in Italy was a historical one since that was the pre-1943 organisation.

Following on from Jason's epic tome (long winded as ever). The British generally assigned the independant tank or armoured brigades (they are different) to support infantry divisions for specific operations although some worked together for long periods. Thus British infantry divisions when they got tank support would get an entire brigade (ie 3 regiments/battalions) rather than the tank battalion typically attached to US Inf. Div. This is in addition to their organic AT regiment which was equipped 50% SP and 50% towed (eventually becoming fully SP). So using Jasons ratio terminology the British ID under many circumstances was operating at a 3-9 or 4-9(factoring in the ATk Rgt) armour-infantry ratio, ie in the area of 1-3 to 1-2.

As for the British AD that had 3 Rgts (battalions if you like) of armour and 4 battalions of infantry plus an engineer battalion. Which makes for a 3-4 ratio compared to the 3-3 for the US AD and 2-4 for the panzer division.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

The two armoured brigade organisation of the Canadian division in Italy was a historical one since that was the pre-1943 organisation.

The 5th Cdn Armd Div had two INFANTRY bdes, not armoured bdes. It was unique among Commonwealth armoured divs as far as I know, but I am far from expert on British orders of battle. You are correct that armoured divs at first had two armoured brigades, and the Canadian armoured division was no exception upon formation and for its period of training in England.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I was under the impression that the British armor divisions had rather more armor than that, even late. I've seen reports like 600 tanks in the Grds. Arm. plus one armor brigade, for instance. Was the Grds. a special division, retaining 2 armor brigades, or were 2 of them standard in the late war British AD? If the latter, when did they make the changeover to 1 brigade? Or perhaps my source was simply wrong.

Earlier, I know the Brits used a 6-1-3 ratio (the 3 meaning artillery) in North Africa, which they later modified to 6-2-3 plus 1 AT and 1 armored car recon.

Another interesting fact is that apparently, there was between 1942 and sometime in 1943, an experiment to assign one brigade each to infantry divisions, in place of one of the infantry brigades. This would have meant 3-6-3, a very good ratio. They went ahead with it for 5 different divisions, but then dropped the idea and abandoned them. I have no idea why.

The 1-3 ratio of the British divisions when they had armor attached, was indeed a useful one. The Germans were remarking even as early as the Africa fighting that commonwealth infantry divisions that worked well with their "infantry" tanks, gave them the hardest time. Notably, the New Zealanders in the relief of Tobruk fighting.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

I was under the impression that the British armor divisions had rather more armor than that, even late. I've seen reports like 600 tanks in the Grds. Arm. plus one armor brigade, for instance. Was the Grds. a special division, retaining 2 armor brigades, or were 2 of them standard in the late war British AD? If the latter, when did they make the changeover to 1 brigade? Or perhaps my source was simply wrong.

Earlier, I know the Brits used a 6-1-3 ratio (the 3 meaning artillery) in North Africa, which they later modified to 6-2-3 plus 1 AT and 1 armored car recon.

Another interesting fact is that apparently, there was between 1942 and sometime in 1943, an experiment to assign one brigade each to infantry divisions, in place of one of the infantry brigades. This would have meant 3-6-3, a very good ratio. They went ahead with it for 5 different divisions, but then dropped the idea and abandoned them. I have no idea why.

The 1-3 ratio of the British divisions when they had armor attached, was indeed a useful one. The Germans were remarking even as early as the Africa fighting that commonwealth infantry divisions that worked well with their "infantry" tanks, gave them the hardest time. Notably, the New Zealanders in the relief of Tobruk fighting.

The order of battle provided in the book The Long Left Flank lists the Guards Armoured Division as having

5th Guards Armoured Bde - 3 armoured regiments and 1 motor regiment

32nd Guards Bde - 3 infantry battalions

Divisional units

The same order of battle is listed for the British 7th Armoured, 1st Polish Armoured, and the two Canadian Armoured Division.

This would be a 1944-45 order of battle. I can't speak for earlier organizations, except to say that earlier incarnations did indeed appear to have two armoured brigades.

Of course, after Africa, the main theatre was Sicily, then Italy, which was decidedly not great tank country - hence Fifth Canadian Armoured's adoption of an extra infantry brigade. The brigade was dropped when 5 Div rejoined the rest of the Canadian Army in Holland in Feb-Mar 1945.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Another interesting fact is that apparently, there was between 1942 and sometime in 1943, an experiment to assign one brigade each to infantry divisions, in place of one of the infantry brigades. This would have meant 3-6-3, a very good ratio. They went ahead with it for 5 different divisions, but then dropped the idea and abandoned them. I have no idea why.

This vaguely rings a bell. I think they had a peculiar name like "semi-armoured" or something like that. One was tried in Tunisia and found wanting. I think the tank brigade was equipped with Churchills and they weren't mobile enough to make the concept useful. I'll poke around and see if I can come up with more precise information.

Michael

[IPA]

Michael,

You're spot on as usual with the GAD 1944 OOB. Here's the early OOB for info.

1941-1942

Divisional Headquarters

Guards Armoured Divisional Signals Regiment, RSC

2nd Bn, Household Cavalry Regiment

5th (Guards) Armoured Brigade

1st (Motor) Bn, Grenadier Guards

2nd (Armoured) Bn, Grenadier Guards

1st (Armoured) Bn, Coldstream Guards

2nd (Armoured) Bn, Irish Guards

6th (Guards) Armoured Brigade

4th (Motor) Bn, Coldstream Guards

4th (Armoured) Bn, Grenadier Guards

3rd (Armoured) Bn, Scots Guards

2nd (Armoured) Bn, Welsh Guards

32nd (Guards) Brigade

5th Bn, Coldstream Guards

4th Bn, Scots Guards

1st Bn, Welsh Guards

Guards Support Group

153rd Field Regiment, RA

21st Anti-Tank Regiment, RA

94th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RA

1st Bn, Welsh Guards (lorried infantry)

Royal Engineers

14th Field Sqn

15th Field Sqn

148th Field Park Sqn

Thanks

Peter

[This message has been edited by IPA (edited 03-16-2001).]

[Simon Fox]

Oops, sorry there Michael got confused with the I vs A in your post. As you say 2 Inf Brigades. Could be due to the nature of the Italian campaign?

Earlier, I know the Brits used a 6-1-3 ratio (the 3 meaning artillery) in North Africa, which they later modified to 6-2-3 plus 1 AT and 1 armored car recon.

I don't fink so Jason, I have never seen a Brit armoured division with one battalion of infantry (except after a hard battle ). Could be a specific exception you are referring to but generally early war it would be 6-5-3 (at best 6-6-3 if there is an Inf battalion in the support group or at worst 6-3-3 if there is no infantry brigade) then in 1943 this was changed to 3-4-3 as pointed out by Michael and IPA. This is why some of the independant armoured brigades had motor battalions. They were the ones hived off the armoured divisions when reorganised but the retained their motor battalions. These had a bit more firepower than your standard line infantry battalion IIRC.

Now I'm starting to confuse myself so I'm gonna stop.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Could be due to the nature of the Italian campaign?

Definitely correct.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I found my mistake about the Guards - you are quite right. The ~600 figure I saw was for the Guards Armored and 2 brigades, the 29th and the 33rd, not for one other. Those ~600 were in the Bulge.

As for the Brit armor changes, they did start with a 6-1 mix when the first ADs were organized pre-war. By the time of France, the 1 AD had a 6-2 organization, but both infantry battalions were attached elsewhere, while the arty was sent up to BEF HQ. In Wavell's offensive in Libya against the Italians, 7 AD seems to have been on a 6-2 basis too. By 1942, 1 AD moves to 3-4 before the Gazala battles. 7 AD was 6-5 by the time of El Alamein. 10 AD was also 6-5 around the time of El Alamein.

The transition from 6-2 style tank-heavy to mixed, seems to have occurred during the North Africa fighting. Operationally, I know they were still seperating the armor too much there. In Crusader, the armor formations were largely destroyed while fighting independently, while Valentines working the the New Zealanders fought well (3-9). At Gazala, the attack at Knightsbridge conspicuously lacked support from other arms, and that is May of 1942, after 1 AD had already moved to a 3-4 layout.

By El Alamein, there is combined arms in the field as well as the TOEs. The "attaching out" of supporting arms, seen in the 1940 case, seems to have persisted too long in North Africa. But it was eventually corrected there.

I also found this on the mixed divisions -

"By mid-1942 5 of these brigades ("Army" being dropped) replaced the 3rd infantry brigade in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 43rd, and 53rd Infantry Divisions. These weren't suitable and the 'mixed' divisions were abolished in 1943."

For those who thought the Brits never fielded a 6-2 AD, here is an OOB of 1st AD in France -

HQ 1st Armoured Division

2nd Armoured Brigade

The Queen's Bays

9th Queen's Royal Lancers

10th Royal Hussars

3rd Armoured Brigade

2nd Bn The Royal Tank Regiment

3rd Bn The Royal Tank Regiment

5th Bn The Royal Tank Regiment

1st Support Group

1st Royal Horse Artillery Regiment

*attached to BEF

2nd Royal Horse Artillery Regiment

*attached to BEF

101st Light Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Tank Regiment RA

1st Bn The Rifle Brigade (mot)

*attached to 30th Inf Bde (55th Inf Div)

2nd Bn King's Royal Rifle Corps (mot)

*attached to 30th Inf Bde (55th Inf Div)

Divisional Troops

1st Armoured Divisional Signals

Royal Engineers

Royal Army Service Corps

Royal Army Medical Corps

Royal Army Ordnance Corps

Divisional Admin Troops

Fun stuff, and thanks for the corrections.

[Claus B]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

This vaguely rings a bell. I think they had a peculiar name like "semi-armoured" or something like that. One was tried in Tunisia and found wanting. I think the tank brigade was equipped with Churchills and they weren't mobile enough to make the concept useful. I'll poke around and see if I can come up with more precise information.

The "mixed" divisions were considered to be too light in infantry. Equipped with Churchills, it seems their role was to remain that of the infantry division in which case 6 infantry battalions was proabably too little to ensure the "staying power" of the division in combat.

By keeping the infantry division with 3 infantry brigades/9 battalions of infantry and then attach a 3 battalion armoured brigade, you would maintain the durability in combat of the infantry and allow each infantry brigade to have the support of one armoured battalion when necessary.

None of the "mixed" divisions ever saw combat as such (except, perhaps, the 2nd NZ division) but the 25th Tank Brigade which were part of the 43rd Division in its days as a "mixed" division was sent to Tunesia - but without the rest of the division which reverted to the "normal" configuration in October 1943.

The UK 1st division was also "mixed" from June 1942 until November 1942 when it was shipped to North Africa for "Torch".

In Italy, some divisions did have a "mixed" configuration but I dont think these were of the "proper" kind, more like an expedient to overcome the troubles of the Italian battlefield as suggested by Simon and Michael.

The 5th Canadian Armoured has already been mentioned (5th Armoured Brigade, 11th and 12th Infantry Brigades) but the British 6th Armoured Division had a similar organisation (26th Armoured Brigade, 1st Guards and 61st Infantry Brigades) as did the 6th South African Armoured Division (11th SA Armoured Brigade, 12th SA and 24th UK Infantry Brigades).

The odd one out is the 2nd New Zealand Division. It appears to have adopted the "New Model" organisation in 1943 with the 4th NZ Armoured Brigade and two NZ Infantry Brigades (5th and 6th?). Interestingly, despite having 20,000 men (and 4500 vehicles), it soon transpired that the division was too light in infantry for its role and the two infantry brigades were expanded from 3 to 4 battalions and later a third Infantry Brigade was added (the 9th) by converting the armoured car rgt(?) and the motor battalion to "normal" infantry battalions.

As for the Panzergrenadier Divisions, the redisignation from Schützen to Panzergrenadiere took place in July 1942. In November 1942 the three SS-Divisions where reorganized as SS-Panzergrenadier Divisions, a status they kept until October 1943. The Waffen-SS divisions that were forming in 1943 were all designated SS-Panzergrenadier Divisions including the 9th, 10th and 12th.

The SS-Divisions where not all "normal" Panzergrenadierdivisions though, in mid-1943 some had a two-battalion PzRgt, others had an attached Tiger company etc.

The interesting bit is that the SS-Panzerdivisions kept their 6 battalions of infantry (Panzergrenadiere) as they converted to Panzerdivisions in late 1943 and thus had 2 battalions of armour and 6 of infantry while the "normal" Panzerdivison would have only 2 battalions of armour and 4 of infantry.

Compare with the British mixed divisions with 3 battalions of armour and 6(7?) of infantry.

Btw, when counting the tanks in a British Armoured division, dont forget that the divisional recce regiment was in fact an armoured regiment (battalion). So the standard British 1944/45 armoured division would have 4 battalions of armour and 4 battalions of infantry (3 in the Inf Brig. + Motor Bn - not counting the A/Tk and AC Rgt).

Sorry for the long-winded reply

Claus B

[This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 03-16-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

The UK had some fun formations...

The independent Armoured Brigades (4th and 8th) operating in NWE 44-5 had a motor batallion. They were Corps level assets, AFAIK, 8th AB was assigned to XXX Corps throughout the campaign. They were equipped with Sherman tanks.

The independent tank brigades were equipped with Churchill infantry tanks, and had no motor batallion. They were Army Group level assets, AFAIK, and were assigned for specific operations, to provide tank support to the PBI. 31st TB worked with XXX Corps during JUPITER, taking heavy losses around Maltot. They worked with 53rd Welsh and 43rd Wessex in the Reichswald battles IIRC. Speed was not an issue for these units, since they were supposed to work closely with the infantry.

The UK armoured division pattern had about 260 medium tanks (Sherman/Cromwell), in four regiments. Three of these would be in the Armoured Brigade of the division, the fourth is the Armoured Recon regiment, equipped with Cromwells (or Shermans in case of the Canadian ADs). 7th AD (of Villers-Bocage fame) was equipped with Cromwells only. Guards Armoured in June had 157 Sherman V, 36 Sherman V Firefly, and 65 Cromwells (excluding ARVs and OP tanks), for a total of 258 medium tanks. They also had 44 Stuart light tanks. These would not be used in an offensive role in this stage in the war, since they had outlived their usefulness for anything but very careful recce or as command vehicles by 1943.

The Commonwealth Armoured Division was really tank-heavy, which led to the lack of punch when Guards Armoured tried to push through Holland during Market Garden. They simply did not have the infantry to clear the German resistance in front of them. Ivo Thomas, GOC 43rd Wessex was heavily criticised by Urquhart, GOC 1st Airborne for his cautious approach in putting his division into battle during the operation, since he would have been able to supply the infantry needed by the tanks.

If you want to know what this may have been like, play Hell's Highway from Moon's website. Don't play it PBEM, play as the UK.

A lot of this info is really from Simon Fox or from this site http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/index.html#pol .

Forgot...

The armoured division would have a fully (?) SP artillery medium artillery contingent of Sextons, may have had a TD regiment (not sure) with either towed or TD AT guns.

The infantry would be in HTs or lorried, with a lot of carriers.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 03-16-2001).]

[patboivin]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Panzergrenadier divisions were Hitlers redesignation of Motorized divisions. They were mainly motorized infantry, with a battalion or so of assault guns. They were few and far between. The germans had such limited amounts of motorized transport, etc that they ended up making more armored divisions rather than motorizing infantry divisions.

WWB

Ha, hah!

They were using.... HORSES!

Horses, horses, horses!

We need horses in CM!

Atleast in CM2, if not in CMBO.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Claus B:

Btw, when counting the tanks in a British Armoured division, dont forget that the divisional recce regiment was in fact an armoured regiment.

Absolutely right; this obviously slipped my mind. The excellent history of the South Alberta Regiment (recce battalion for the 4th Cdn Armd Div) illustrates clearly that they were equipped and employed as a regular armoured unit.

[Claus B]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Absolutely right; this obviously slipped my mind. The excellent history of the South Alberta Regiment (recce battalion for the 4th Cdn Armd Div) illustrates clearly that they were equipped and employed as a regular armoured unit.

Slightly OT Michael, but would happen to have

"The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps: An Illustrated History" by John Marteinson

If so, what do you think of it? I need a good, general reference to Canadian armoured units in WWII (Italy and ETO).

I leafed through the South Albertas book and it looks great but at that price and its limited scope (one regiment) it is a tad over the top.

Claus B

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by patboivin:

Ha, hah!

They were using.... HORSES!

Horses, horses, horses!

We need horses in CM!

Atleast in CM2, if not in CMBO.

Did they use those horses in a tactical role?

I thought they used them primarily to move supplies and such.

Berkut

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Did they use those horses in a tactical role?

I thought they used them primarily to move supplies and such.

Berkut

Jeff, you should know better than that - there is no logical reasoning with horse-lovers

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Claus B:

Slightly OT Michael, but would happen to have

"The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps: An Illustrated History" by John Marteinson

If so, what do you think of it? I need a good, general reference to Canadian armoured units in WWII (Italy and ETO).

I leafed through the South Albertas book and it looks great but at that price and its limited scope (one regiment) it is a tad over the top.

Claus B

I haven't read Marteinson's book yet, though I head good things over at Maple Leaf Up about it. I'll probably wait for the local University Library to get a copy, if they haven't already.