Heavy Panzer Divisions?

[Mad Russian]

I just ran across a German source book today that was discussing the 16th Panzer Division as being a Heavy Panzer Division.

This is the first time I can remember seeing this term applied to a German Panzer Division. I know the Americans had Heavy Armored Divisions but they were the only ones I was aware of.

Does anyone have an idea what would make Heavy Panzer Division different from any others?

MR

[JonS]

Typos?

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by JonS:

Typos?

If it was it certainly was a serious typo. It was listed in more than one place as a Heavy Panzer Division. Including the TO&E chart that is in the book.

I was expecting the comment to be a typo when I saw it the first time. But it's in more than one place.

The 16th Panzer Division had a battalion(2nd) of JadgPanthers attached to it's Panzer Regiment. I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it.

It was also one of only a half dozen Panzer Divisions that received the Puma. All the others were elite formations.

That made me wonder if there was a Heavy TO&E that the Germans were working on late in the war.

This is the first time I've ever run across this so I don't really know.

MR

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

The 16th Panzer Division had a battalion(2nd) of JadgPanthers attached to it's Panzer Regiment. I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it.

Was this in addition to its normal 2-battalions of tanks, or were they attached to make up for losses in the panzer regiment?

[uhu]

A strange one, I must say...

I heard about heavy panzer battalions (mostly the Tiger and King Tiger battalions), but not about this one.

How serious is the book from other aspects?

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by uhu:

A strange one, I must say...

How serious is the book from other aspects?

Serious enough to have battle maps. To have TO&E charts for the 16th Infantry Division in 1939/1940, Panzer Division in 1941 and Panzer Division again in 1943/45.

It lists the Knight's Cross winners by divisional unit. It lists all levels of Knight's Cross winners as well as the recipients of the German Cross in Gold.

I bought the book in the early 1970's, between 1970 and 1974. Most likely in either 1972 or 1973, there is no telling when the book was published since it doesn't have a publication date in it.

The ISBN number on it is: 3-7909-0075-3

It was one of those books that was done in both English and German. Quite a few pictures all with German/English captions.

The name of the book is "Die 16 Panzer-Division 1938-1945" by Gunter Schmitz.

One possible explanation now that I think about it is that the Germans may have been referring to the Panzer Divisions as heavy and the PG Divisions as light. But again, I've never seen that anywhere.

The title of the Organizational Chart on page 170 is listed like this:

16 Panzer Division (schwere)

(von der ublichen Gliederung abweichend)

1943/45

The book has six seperate maps, each showing movement and combats for a period of time. These have been draw on what look like OKW/OKH situtational maps like those found in back of the volumes of, "Die Geheimen Tagesgesberichte der Deutschen Wehrmachtfuhrung im Zweiten Weltkrieig 1939-1945".

There are movement/battle location maps for France 1940, Balkans 1941, Russia 1941, Russia 1942, Italy 1943 and East Front 1944/45.

At the time, I believe, it was a serious study on the division, although one made mainly in photographs.

MR

[ June 18, 2007, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:

The 16th Panzer Division had a battalion(2nd) of JadgPanthers attached to it's Panzer Regiment. I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it.

Was this in addition to its normal 2-battalions of tanks, or were they attached to make up for losses in the panzer regiment? </font>

[michael kenny]

currently on PA here:

http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?t=6266&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

"Zurück zum Inhalt des Threads.

Habe in genannten Buch auf S. 170 den Begriff Schwere Panzer-Division gefunden.

"Schwer" deshalb, weil 1943/45 zum Panzer-Regiment eine III. Abteilung mit 42 Sturmgeschützen gehörte.

Ist das dann ein zeitgenössischer Quellenbegriff oder eine Hilfsbezeichnung von nach 1945?"

bablefish mangles this to.

"Back to contents of the Threads.

Property in book mentioned on S. 170 the term weight armored division found.

"heavy", because 1943/45 to the tank regiment a III. Department with 42 assault guns belonged.

Then is a contemporary source term or an auxiliary designation of after 1945".

[tankibanki]

Could it have been a mistake in translation?

A "Panzer Division (verstärkt)" would be any Pz Division with anything added, e.g. a PzDiv + 1 Coy of Panzergrenadiere.

Could that have been the original term instead of "schwer"?

[Redwolf]

I U.S. terminology a heavy armor division is one with more tank than mech infantry, which is not the default.

The author of that quote probably transplanted that terminology.

[Kingfish]

MR,

Any chance you can scan / copy / whatever the TO&E of the division showing the heavy division org?

[Joachim]

IIRC I once read about 9th & 10th SS fighting as one "heavy" armored division in the Ardennes: Both were far from their paper strength. "Heavy" was an euphemistism in that context: Making up one division from the remnants made sense, but probably nobody wanted to admit (to Hitler? the public?) that both divisions were unable to refit to full strength.

For the 16th PD I'd expect the "schwer" as just a reminder to corps/army staff that the division was better equipped than the standard division. Maybe not an official designation, but once in use it would fulfill its role.

Gruß

Joachim

[Mad Russian]

Okay, here is what I see so far.

Heavy appears to have not been a mistake or mis-identified. Although this is the first time I ever remember seeing a TO&E for a Panzer Division marked as such.

Michael Kenny in his post seems to have it correct. A Heavy Panzer Division seems to be one with three panzer battalions instead of two. The third battalion seems to be made up of StuG of some sort.

I went to everyones all time encyclodedia for the answers I was looking for.

"Panzer Truppen,,,Volume 2: 1943-1945" by Thomas Jentz. Here I DO NOT find a TO&E marked as schwere. What I do find are the units themselves.

When going back in looking at the original document it clearly shows a third panzer battalion and is marked as a StuG unit.

So, with that in mind off in to Panzer Truppen I went.

Here is what I found. There were a select number of Panzer Divisions that show by their strength charts to have StuG's in the division, as well as tanks that you expect, both Panthers and PzIV's. As you might expect 16th Panzer Division is one of those.

From 1943 on, here are the others:

December 1943 16th Panzer Division shows to have 98 PzIV(lg), 42 StuG, 12 PzBef. Nothing unusual there. In fact, nothing unusual starts taking place until the Panthers start arriving.

On page 165 for the first time I find that there are listing for three battalions in Panzer Divisions beyond the 1940 break up of the divisions to form more.

Here is the information on the Heavy Panzer Divisions:

2nd Panzer was authorized 28 StuG, 30 PzIV and 60 PzV.

9th Panzer was authorized 14 StuG, 30 PzIV and 60 PzV.

116th Panzer was authorized 14 StuG, 30 PzIV and 60 PzV.

2nd SS Panzer Division was was authorized 28 StuG, 30 PzIV and 60 PzV.

9th SS Panzer Division was was authorized 28 StuG, 30 PzIV and 60 PzV.

At first I thought this was an attempt to just fill the PzIV battalion with StuG's to make up the difference between the 30 PzIV's and 60 PzV's in the divisions, and that it was common practice. But it wasn't. The only other Panzer Division listed on this list of refitting Panzesr Divisions for 3 November 1944 that had 60 PzV's was the 11th. All the others were only authorized 34 PzIV's and 38 PzV's. Making the "normal" Panzer Division being refitted a total of 72 AFV's, whereas 2nd Panzer Division for instance had an authorized total of 90 tanks and 28 assault guns, for an overall total of 118 AFV's.

Again, for June 1944(page 187), 2nd SS Panzer Division shows a strength of 13 StuG, 78 PzIV(lg), 79 PzV. The StuG's are not being used to offset a lack of PzIV's.

At the same time, 9th SS Panzer Division shows a strength of 40 StuG, 46 PzIV(lg), 79 PzV. This could show the StuG's as being used as tank replacements.

In August(page 194) PG Division shows to have only 37 StuG's and no tanks the 15th PG Division shows 36 PzIV's and no StuG's. It's quite obvious that the Germans were using StuG's for replacements of tanks. The question is did they actively add a StuG battalion to certain divisions to make them Heavy?

Page 202 shows that there were 598 StuG's, 503 PzIV, 471 PzV and 123 PzVI available on 15 Decemeber for the Wacht am Rhein offensive. Obviously StuG's played a big part in German TO&E's by late 1944.

Units equipped with StuG's, Panzer IV's and Panzer V's all at the same time seem to be fairly rare though.

The Strength of Panzer Units in the East chart on page 205 shows only one panzer unit with all three. That was the 5th SS Wiking.

On page 206, August 1944, he shows the III Bn of Panzer Division "Hermann Goering" as being equipped with 31 JPIV and apparently Pz Bn I missing from the division. Possibly for refit.

The last entry for 16th Panzer Division I found was on page 228 with a TO&E. It shows only 2 tank battalions and a mix of Panzer IV's, V's and StuG's.

So, I'm not sure if the Germans tried somewhere in there to actually make heayy Panzer Divisions or not.

MR

[JasonC]

It was normal for PDs to have 3 battalion sized units of armor from mid 1943 to late 1944, but the third was the divisional Panzerjaeger battalion, not a third Panzer battalion. And the Panther upgrade cycle prevented many divisions from actually having all 3 for most of the period (while older units in the line were also understrength of course).

In the summer of 1944, the Germans experimented with a new lighter panzer formation, the independent Panzer brigades. These were not a success and were abandoned as a design by the late fall - although a few special formations retained the basic structure (e.g. Fuhrer Begleit).

Instead they fielded a much smaller panzer division model, which still nominally had 3 battalions of AFVs, 2 panzer and 1 panzerjaeger. But now the panzer battalions were significantly weaker than they had been earlier in the war. Most divisions made this transition during rebuilding or by being topped up with replacements only to the new, lower strength.

It would have been sensible to begin calling any PD still equipped to the old, full TOE, "heavy" compared to the new lighter TOE, from the end of 1944 on. But I don't think that is what is going on in the schwere designation.

First the panther upgrade issue. As Panthers became available, the planned practice was for the 1st battalion of each division's panzer regiment to be sent to Germany to be re-quipped with them, trained on them, and then to rejoin their division. In the meantime, the PD was left on the line with only 1 panzer battalion, but a large one with a TOE around 90 panzer IVs, plus its divisional panzerjaeger battalion.

Those large battalions come from a "square" formation - 4 companies each of 4 platoons each of 5 tanks per platoon, plus command tanks at each level. The Panther battalions are typically around 80 vehicles, from 4 tanks per platoon plus command vehicles at all levels again. Some cases I see the number of Panzer IVs in a single battalion rise as high as 102.

The time between the 1st battalion staff being sent to Germany to upgrade to Panthers, and actually rejoining the division with them, could stretch as long as a year in some cases. But 3-6 months is more typical. Sometimes the new Panther battalions were "loaned" to other PDs as they arrived or otherwise separated from their parent PDs. Often the rejoining happened during a PD's period off the line refitting.

The divisional panzerjaegers went through their own transitions. A typical early load-out was 1 company of 14 Marders and 2 companies of towed heavy PAK. The best units have full battalions of 31 StuGs (3 companies of 10 plus a command vehicle). By 1944, the best units have transitioned to 31 Jagdpanzers (and by the end of that year, to Jagdpanzer 70s).

Note that 31 StuGs was also the standard equipment of an independent StuG brigade serving as an army level unit, typically assigned to support an attacking infantry division, or acting as a local AT reserve.

There were also cases of shortages of Panzer IVs from mid 1944 on, that led to use of assault guns in the panzer regiment in their place. A typical practice was for 2 companies of the 2nd battalion to have IVs - totaling 30-40 AFVs - and the other 2 to have StuG (or more rarely, Jagdpanzer). These were in addition to those in the divisional panzerjaeger battalion, and typically the same vehicle type used there.

Note that Panzergrenadier divisions had only a single AFV battalion, which could be Panzer IV or (just 31) StuG. Also, the transition to Jagdpanzers sometimes involved an extended absence of the Panzerjaeger battalion, just as the Panther upgrade did.

Now, late in 1944, these large panzer battalions give way to more streamlined ones, due to overall AFV shortages and the continued increase in the number of mobile formations. (Part of the rear echelon tendency to make new formations instead of fully replacing losses in old ones, to have more units to throw around on the map). The platoon size drops to 4 vehicles, and in some cases a triangular rather than square formation structure is adopted.

Note that heavy battalions (the Tigers and also the heavy Jagdpanzer formations with Elephants, Nashorns, and later Jagdpanthers) have been using 45 vehicle battalions throughout, with 3 command vehicles at battalion, 2 at each of 3 companies along with 3 platoons each of 4 vehicles.

Those 60 Panther formations are 1st battalions of a 2 battalion panzer regiment using 4 14 vehicle companies. The mixed IVs and StuGs are the remaining battalion with 2 companies of each, again on a reduced 3 platoon and smaller platoon size (3 for StuG, 4 for Panzer IV) structure. That is the late 1944 and 1945 pattern, and it is a large step down from the TOE of mid 1944. But notice, it is similar in size to the AFV force a PD had in 1943 while its Panzer IV battalion was still large but its Panther battalion was missing (not yet available, off training in Germany).

There is another practice that probably does not bear on the schwere question, but might be mentioned. This was the expedient of using a corps level Tiger battalion in place of the missing Panther battalion, while the latter was away training. 102SS was used by 10SS in place of its missing Panther battalion in Normandy, for example. The 16th PD in August 1944 it famously had the first King Tigers subordinated.

In early 1945 I have more detail on the structure of the 16th Panzer regiment. It was somewhat unusual, in that there was a single company of Panzer IVs, designated the 8th company, incorporated in the otherwise all Panther I battalion of the regiment. The I battalion had around 50 Panthers - organized into 4 companies - so it might be considered somewhat understrength.

The III battalion just had assault guns, initially 3 companies of StuG. It received a bit above single company's worth of Jagd-70s in February 1945 and these were mostly incorporated into the III battalion as its last company (numbered 12). A few went in I battalion to replace missing IVs.

Very late it also had a Panzerjaeger battalion with 30 Hetzers, but that is like April 1945.

My understanding of the schwere designation as applied to a PD, is an attempt to centralize the AFVs in a 3 battalion panzer regiment instead of distributing them between Panzer regiment and panzerjaeger battalion.

Notice that the 16th's assault gun battalion is designated III battalion rather than II battalion, and its single company of Panzer IVs is numbered 8, as though they meant to have a full complement of IVs in a II battalion, as well as Panthers in I and assault guns in III (in lieu of a Panzerjaeger battalion). There isn't an actual II battalion staff because they don't have enough IVs to merit one, and the IVs are just subordinated to the other turreted tanks in I, instead.

[Mad Russian]

Interesting. The Organizational chart, I have for the 16th Heavy Panzer Division, does not show a JgPz Bn as you say. So, the apparent localization of all the combat AFV's in the Panzer Bn seems to have been the direction the Germans were going.

It's interesting that this is the very first time I ever remember seeing an organizational chart with the term Heavy on it though.

Also, the I and II battalions were to be organized on 66 tank TO&E's but the III battalion (StuG) was to be organized on a 42 vehicle TO&E.

Your comment: A few went in I battalion to replace missing IVs.

Doesn't make much sense though since the I Bn was always the Panther Bn. Are you saying they put StuG's in that Bn to replace PzV's or are you talking about II Bn?

Also, the numbers I quoted from Jentz are for authorized strengths. Not all Panzer Divisions were authorized the same number of tanks per their battalions. So then, would a Panzer Division with an authorized strength like

MR

[ June 23, 2007, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]

[Mad Russian]

Double Post.

MR

[JasonC]

They got 17 Jagd-70s. 10 were formed into 12 company, added to the existing 3 companies of StuGs as the 4th company in III battalion. The remaining 7 were added to 8 company, which had all the Panzer IVs. They didn't have any 5, 6, or 7 companies, because the Panzer IV battalion was never at full strength.

So, the clear idea is, have I battalion as Panthers, II battalion as IVs, and III battalion as the "Panzerjaegers" with pure assault guns. If there aren't enough IVs and there are an excess of assault guns, use assault guns in place of IVs in the II battalion - as was common enough in other PDs.

The only wrinkle specific to 16th was that the II battalion staff was just skipped, since there weren't enough AFVs outside the Panther and Panzerjaeger formations to require a 3rd battalion staff. All the IVs barely filled one company. So I battalion had staff, 1-4 companies of Panthers, and the "extra" 8th company subordinated to the I battalion.

There is also an obvious inter-operability gain to putting Jagds with IVs, since they are the same chassis and therefore can share automative maintenance and parts etc. You would not put them with the Panthers for that reason. They didn't go over 10 per company in the III battalion because the doctrine there was set by the dominant arm, the StuGs, which used 3 gun platoons plus a company command vehicle etc.

The actual vehicle strength at this time was 51 Panthers, 15 Panzer IVs, 28 StuGs, and the 17 Jagdpanzer-70s from February on. Not "heavy", but typical for that era at around 100 AFVs in a PD. (200 each had been typical in the summer of 1944 - of course units in the line a long time might run as few as 30).

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

This was the expedient of using a corps level Tiger battalion in place of the missing Panther battalion, while the latter was away training. 102SS was used by 10SS in place of its missing Panther battalion in Normandy, for example. The 16th PD in August 1944 it famously had the first King Tigers subordinated.

The Tiger Abteilung were never used as Panther replacements.

sSS PzAbt.102 may have served in the same area or alongside 10th SS, it may have been subordinate to 10th SS but it was never as Panther replacements.

16th PD? Lehr got 5 Tiger II in January 1944 and as far as as I am aware this is the only instance of anyone other than the Heavy Abteilung getting TII's.

TII's were in action in Normandy from July onwards

[JasonC]

"The main part of the German strike force was Schwere Panzer Abteilung 501, (which arrived in Kielce on August 9th), as a part of the 16th Panzer Division with 20 PzKpfw VI Ausf B Tiger II (“Kingtigers”), 20 PzKpfw IV and 4 battalions of mechanized infantry. The rest of sPzAbt 501 was still in Ohrdruf (Germany) due to the technical problems with their tanks..."

Not sure I believe the low number for the other equipment, though it may have been true enough of the immediate battlegroup involved.

(Of the 102SS in Normandy) "During July the battalion was with II. SS-Panzer Corps, usually as a substitute for the missing Panther battalion in Frundsberg (10. SS-Pz.Div.)".

A PD without its Panther battalion was not nearly as strong as a full PD. When a Tiger battalion was subordinated to it instead, the whole division could be expected to perform the same operational roles performed by PDs that did have their Panther battalion. That is substitition for missing Panthers, any way it is sliced.

[michael kenny]

As I said Tiger Abteilung (or parts thereof) were attached/served with a number of Units in Normandy(it was there purpose anyway)but they were never used as Panther replacements.

sSS PzAbt.101/102 and Heer 503 tended to get moved around a lot.

sPzAbt 501 in Russia likewise.

11/08/44 assigned to 16th PD.

01/09/44 assigned to XXXVIII Panzerkorps.

01/12/44 assigned to XXII Armeekorps.

21/12/44 assigned to XXIV Panzerkorps.

Direct quotes from Zetterling should be sourced.

[JasonC]

Get a life.

[michael kenny]

Thats how you thank me for not bothering to correct your earlier attempt to describe the history of the Panther.

I kept quite about errors like the one here:

Originally posted by JasonC:

"The A model (no "early") on the other hand starts to show the late war Panther pattern. It has the Nahv. close defense system, as do all later models. It loses the side skirts...........

[Sirocco]

If the unit was subordinated effectively in lieu of an absent Panther battalion it's a little pedantic to object to the use of the word "replacement", IMHO, if I understand this spat correctly.

[The_Enigma]

lol what is it with you two guys?

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

If the unit was subordinated effectively in lieu of an absent Panther battalion it's a little pedantic to object to the use of the word "replacement", IMHO, if I understand this spat correctly.

And what of the units who had full Panther compliments? They sometimes had Tiger Abteilung attached to them.

The Tigers were Korps assets were moved around wherever they were most needed and never as 'replacements' for any equipment shortages in individual units.

Originally posted by the_enigma:

lol what is it with you two guys?

Some posters seem to believe they are incapable of error and react badly when reproached