Kingfish Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 How common would it have been to use Jagdpanthers to equip a division's Panzerjager battalion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 mk - that was a description of Panther types depicted in CM (note the "no 'early' comment), and is accurate. Note the deliberate attempt to change the subject, red herring fallacy etc. As for "pedantic", actually when one attempts to enforce a personal usage on others while their own use of a term is perfectly accurate as intended by them and understood by all concerned, it is just deliberately rude, and not being pedantic about anything. Pedantic implies correct, if about a point that is not particularly important. Then he pretends to object to a Zetterling quote being insufficiently respectful while studiously ignoring that he spoke of the 10SS substitution in exactly the same terms, so the silly person is attempting to correct Zetterling's usage. Everyone can see that actual substance has nothing to do with any of it, he is just following me around looking for quibbles to enter, like a yapping little spaniel. It'd be cute if it weren't so pathetic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Kingfish - relatively rare, most Jagdpanthers were organized into separate heavy panzerjaeger battalions, TOE strength 45 vehicles, on the Tiger battalion pattern (meaning 3 command, 3 companies each 3 command, 3 platoons each 4 vehicles). These were corps or army level assets, though often assigned to one PD for the duration of a campaign. In 1945 some PDs got a company or so each, including some of the SS divisions for the Hungary attack. I'm not clear if those were organic or were just the way one of the schwere PzJgr battalions were split up tactically, though - could have been the latter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by JasonC: mk - that was a description of Panther types depicted in CM (note the "no 'early' comment), and is accurate. No it is not. It contains a glaring error. Here it is again: "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........... Originally posted by Kingfish: How common would it have been to use Jagdpanthers to equip a division's Panzerjager battalion? from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=79355 For the West: JUNE 1944: Schwere PJAbt. 654 with 8 units JULY 1944: Schwere PJAbt. 654 with 18 units AUGUST 1944: none SEPTEMBER 1944: Schwere PJAbt. 559 with 30 units OCTOBER 1944: Schwere PJAbt. 519 with 17 units Schwere PJAbt. 560 with 4 units NOVEMBER 1944: Schwere PJAbt. 560 with 5 units Schwere PJAbt. 654 with 38 units Schwere PJAbt. 655 with 5 units DECEMBER 1944: Schwere PJAbt. 519 with 4 units Schwere PJAbt. 560 with 4 units Schwere PJAbt. 654 with 20 units Schwere PJAbt. 655 with 9 units JANUARY 1945: Schwere PJAbt. 519 with 6 units Schwere PJAbt. 559 with 6 units Schwere PJAbt. 560 with 12 units Schwere PJAbt. 655 with 10 units FEBRUARY 1945: Schwere PJAbt. 654 with 16 units 2./PR. 130 [Lehr PD] with 14 units MARCH 1945: 2./schwere Pz.Abt. 507 with 3 units Schwere PJAbt. 559 with 5 units I./PR. 16 [116. PD] with 15 units SS Kampfgruppe "Wiking" with 7 units [formed from personnel from SS PR. 5] APRIL 1945: Schwere PJAbt. 559 with 19 units Schwere PJAbt. 655 with 10 units II./PR. 130 [Lehr PD] with 35 units Originally posted by JasonC: he is just following me around looking for quibbles to enter, like a yapping little spaniel. It'd be cute if it weren't so pathetic. If only you knew as much as you thought you did........... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 For the East: Feb 1945. 1/PzReg 29 2nd SS PD. 4th PD. 9th SS PD. 10th SS PD. 25th PD. By March 1945: PD Holstein. 10th SS PD. 9th SS PD. Fuehrer Grenadier Div. 2nd SS PD. sPzJg. 560. 8th PD. 25thPD. 4th PD. sPzJg. 563. A 10th April report lists 16 operational and 37 'in repair' Jagdpanthers in designated Units but a further 70 were milling about in transit or with other formations that picked them during April. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by JasonC: Kingfish - relatively rare, most Jagdpanthers were organized into separate heavy panzerjaeger battalions, TOE strength 45 vehicles,Sorry but only one Unit (654) got a full complement of 45 vehicles. Due to production shortages no other unit got the full issue. A revised organisation of 1 company of Jagdpanthers and 2 of JgdPzIV/ Stugs was ordered by Hitler in September 1944. Nit pickers note that the issue of 45 Jagdpanthers to 654 was completed 14th October-15th November and thus after the change was promulgated 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by JasonC: Then he pretends to object to a Zetterling quote being insufficiently respectful while studiously ignoring that he spoke of the 10SS substitution in exactly the same terms, so the silly person is attempting to correct Zetterling's usage. When you lift a complete quote from a published work its best to at least acknowledge the source. The reason 'your' quote is the same as 'Zetterlings' quote is simple - they are not your words but Zetterlings. Anyway it would not be the first time I have corrected Zetterling. [ June 23, 2007, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Useful on Jagdpanther units for the east, thanks for those. Quotation marks conventionally refer to another speaker rather than oneself, so I don't have any idea what you think "your quote" means. Obviously I quoted several instances of others speaking of subordinated Tigers in the same way I did, to show it was no idiosyncrasy of mine. It isn't, your attempt to enforce a private usage of your own is not correcting anybody or anything, it is just pointless crossing. On CM Panthers, I just check them again and they are correct as to the features CMBB gives its own categories of Panther models. Since you aren't more specific I have no idea what you think you are talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: [qb] 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.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Isnt TOE strength like paper strength and not actual strength? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by the_enigma: Isnt TOE strength like paper strength and not actual strength? "TO&E" is Table of Organisation & Equipment, so that is the authorised strength. That can be exceeded, too, though, of course, it's much more common for actual strength to be lower. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Thought so, cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by JasonC: Kingfish - relatively rare, most Jagdpanthers were organized into separate heavy panzerjaeger battalions, TOE strength 45 vehicles, on the Tiger battalion pattern (meaning 3 command, 3 companies each 3 command, 3 platoons each 4 vehicles). These were corps or army level assets, though often assigned to one PD for the duration of a campaign. In 1945 some PDs got a company or so each, including some of the SS divisions for the Hungary attack. I'm not clear if those were organic or were just the way one of the schwere PzJgr battalions were split up tactically, though - could have been the latter. Were these assignments done to beef up a PD prior to a special task, such as spearheading an attack, or was it more along the lines of filling in gaps due to attrition? I would think it be the former, since JPs were so rare and valuable, especially in the East. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by Sirocco: As I read it the examples given were of units with absent Panther battalions, it wasn't a general statement. You're coming across as a rutting stag in this thread. This should be about discussion, not dominance. And I gave you the benefit of my experience in this area. You are free to construe this any way you wish. The 'Panther replacement' idea is simply wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 The absolute last word on Jagdpanther allocations. Taken from this thread http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?t=4081 where you will find many photos of the beast. If your German is not up to it try Bablefish http://world.altavista.com/ Die folgenden Listen wurde unter nahezu ausschließlicher Verwendung von Aktenmaterial aus dem BA/MA Freiburg und dem NARA Washington neu zusammengestellt. Einige ergänzende Hinweise - meißt zu Teileinheiten - wurden aus publizierter Literatur entnommen, bereits publizierte Daten wurden verifiziert und ggf. korrigiert. I. Zuweisung von Jagdpanthern von März 1944 bis April 1945 MÄRZ 1944 Mielau (WaAmt) = 2 ab H.Za. am 23. Mrz. 1944 APRIL 1944 Kummersdorf = 1 ab H.Za. am 1. Apr. 1944 Hillersleben = 1 ab H.Za. am 1. Apr. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 8 ab H.Za. am 28. Apr. 1944 MAI 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 = 5 ab H.Za. am 18. Mai 1944 JUNI 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 17 ab H.Za. am 14. Jun. 1944 JULI 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 1 ab H.Za. am 6. Jul. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 8 ab H.Za. am 31. Jul. 1944 AUGUST 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 8 ab H.Za. am 14. Aug. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 = 11 ab H.Za. am 24. Aug. 1944 SEPTEMBER 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 = 2 ab H.Za. am 3. Sep. 1944 (insgesamt 18 geliefert, 1 im Sept. wieder abgegeben an 560) s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 = 5 ab H.Za. am 14. Sep. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 = 4 ab H.Za. am 15. Sep. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 = 3 ab H.Za. am 20. Sep. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 = 3 ab H.Za. am 25. Sep. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 = 2 ab H.Za. am 27. Sep. 1944 OKTOBER 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560 = 4 ab H.Za. am 8. Okt. 1944 (im Sept. 1944 bereits 1 von 559 übernommen) s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 9 ab H.Za. am 13. Okt. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 7 ab H.Za. am 21. Okt. 1944 NOVEMBER 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 6 ab H.Za. am 13. Nov. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560 = 4 ab H.Za. am 22. Nov. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 655 = 5 ab H.Za. am 24. Nov. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560 = 1 ab H.Za. am 30. Nov. 1944 DEZEMBER 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560 = 4 ab H.Za. am 6. Dez. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 = 8 ab H.Za. am 13. Dez. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 = 4 ab H.Za. am 15. Dez. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 10 ab H.Za. am 20. Dez. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 10 ab H.Za. am 21. Dez. 1944 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 655 = 9 ab H.Za. am 24. Dez. 1944 JANUAR 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560 = 2 ab H.Za. am 11. Jan. 1945 WaPrüf 6 = 1 ab H.Za. am 11. Jan. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 563 = 5 ab H.Za. am 13. Jan. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 616 = 5 ab H.Za. am 13. Jan. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 = 6 ab H.Za. am 13. Jan. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 = 6 ab H.Za. am 14. Jan. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 563 = 9 ab H.Za. am 15. Jan. 1945 Ersatzheer = 2 ab H.Za. am 15. Jan. 1945 (höchstwahrscheinlich an Pz.Jg.E.u.A.Abt. 20) s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 616 = 9 ab H.Za. am 16. Jan. 1945 I./Pz.Rgt. 29 = 14 ab H.Za. am 22. Jan. 1945 (Pz.Brig. 103 unterstellt, Restbestand später an 8. Pz.Div.) s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 10 ab H.Za. am 25. Jan. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560 = 10 ab H.Za. am 29. Jan. 1945 Pz.Stp. Mayen = 10 ab H.Za. am 29. Jan. 1945 (höchstwahrscheinlich von s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 übernommen) FEBRUAR 1945 Pz.Lehr-Div. = 14 ab H.Za. am 10. Feb. 1945 4. Pz.Div. = 8 ab H.Za. am 14. Feb. 1945 2. SS-Pz.Div. = 10 ab H.Za. am 14. Feb. 1945 9. SS-Pz.Div. 10 ab H.Za. am 14. Feb. 1945 Fhr.Gren.Div. = 10 ab H.Za. am 15. Feb. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 = 6 ab H.Za. am 24. Feb. 1945 10. SS-Pz.Div. = 10 ab H.Za. am 28. Feb. 1945 (vgl. Anmerkung unten) MÄRZ 1945 Nachsch. Ob. West = 5 ab H.Za. am 13. Mrz. 1945 (von s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 übernommen) Nachsch. Ob. West = 15 ab H.Za. am 27. Mrz. 1945 (von 116. Pz.Div. übernommen) 25. Pz.Div. = 4 ab H.Za. am 30. Mrz. 1945 APRIL 1945 II./Pz.Lehr.Rgt. 130 = 35 ab H.Za. am 7. Apr. 1945 (getrennt von Pz.Lehr-Div. eingesetzt), ursprünglich für 559 und Unterstellung unter 2. Pz.Div. vorgesehen SS-Kampfgruppe 'Wiking' = 7 am 8. Apr. 1945 direkt bei MHN Hannover übernommen s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 655 = 10 ab H.Za. am 8. Apr. 1945 Pz.Div. 'Clausewitz' = 5 ab H.Za. am 14. Apr. 1945 s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 = 10 ab H.Za. am 17. Apr. 1945 (7. Pz.Div. unterstellt) s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 = 9 ab H.Za. am 21. Apr. 1945 (7. Pz.Div. unterstellt) Summe 419 Stück Anmerkung zu den 10 Jagdpanthern für 10. SS-Pz.Div.: Eine Zuweisung an diese Division taucht in den Listen des Gen.Insp.d.Pz.Tr. nicht direkt auf. Vielmehr waren diese 10 Jagdpanther ursprünglich für die 7. Pz.Div. vorgesehen. Hinter der Lieferung findet sich der handschriftliche Vermerk 'Holstein'. Hieraus wurde bereits verschiedentlich auf eine Lieferung an die Pz.Div. 'Holstein' geschlossen. Dies ist nicht ganz korrekt. Eine Erklärung findet dieser Vermerk in dem Fernschreiben H.Gr. Weichsel/Ia BbNr 95/32/45 geh. v. 3.3.1945 in dem es dazu heißt: "2.) Die durch Bahntransport zugeführten 10 Jagdpanther mit kompl. Besatzungen und 1 Offz. sind vorläufig ebenfalls der Div. "Holstein" zuzuteilen, jedoch nur so lange, bis die 10. SS-Div. "Frundsberg" eingetroffen ist. Nach Eintreffen von "Frundsberg" sind die Jagdpanther dieser Division zuzuteilen." Da die 10. SS-Pz.Div. unmittelbar darauf eintraf, fand die Übernahme schon während der nächsten Tagen statt (genaues Datum fehlt mir noch) und das Thema "Holstein" hatte sich damit bereits schnell wieder erledigt. Der im obigen Fernschreiben erwähnte Offizier stammte augenscheinlich vom Heer (auch die Besatzungen???). In einem Reisebericht eines Offz. des Gen.Insp.d.Pz.Tr. zur Heeresgruppe Weichsel vom 14.3.1945 findet man nämlich folgende Anmerkung: "Die für die 7. Pz.Div. vorgesehenen 10 Jagdpanther sind in die Pz.Jg.Abt. der 10. SS-Pz.Div. "Frundsberg" eingegliedert und z.Zt. dem Pz.Rgt. taktisch unterstellt. Führer dieser Jagdpanther: Lt. von Zitzewitz Völlig ungeeignet (kriegsgerichtliches Verfahren beabsichtigt)." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Ergänzung zur Zuweisungsliste folgt jetzt noch eine Zusammenstellung aller mir bekannten Einheiten und Teileinheiten mit den Gesamtsummen der ihnen jeweils zugeteilten Jagdpanther: II. Liste aller mit Jagdpanthern ausgestatteten Einheiten/Teileinheiten: A) Heerestruppen (Pz.Jg.) Stab u. 3./s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 519 (Soll = 3 + 14, insgesamt geliefert inkl. Nachschub 27 Stück) Stab u. 1./s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559 (Soll = 3 + 14, insgesamt geliefert inkl. Nachschub 56 Stück, -1 wieder abgegeben an s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560) April 1945 auch einige Besatzungen 2. Kp. mit Jagdpanthern 1./s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 560 (Soll = 14, insgesamt geliefert inkl. Nachschub 25 Stück, +1 übernommen von s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 559) 1 Kp. der s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 563 [wahrscheinlich 1./563] (Soll = 14, insgesamt geliefert 14 Stück, Rest im Feb. 1945 an 3./616 abgegeben) 3./s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 616 (Soll = 14, insgesamt geliefert 14 Stück + X übernommen von 563 im Feb. 1945) Stab, 1. - 3./s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654, dazu im Feb. 1945 als 4./654 die ehem. 1./s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 525 (Soll = 3 + 3x14, insgesamt geliefert inkl. Nachschub 100 - 110 Stück) 2./s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 655 (Soll = 14, insgesamt geliefert inkl. Nachschub 24 Stück) Andere Verbände 1) Heer 1 Kp. I./Pz.Rgt. 9 (25. Pz.Div.) [wahrscheinlich 1./9] (insgesamt 4 Stück) 1. u. 4./Pz.Rgt. 10 (8. Pz.Div.) [keine direkte Zuweisung, mind. 6 Stück von I./Pz.Rgt. 29 (Pz.Brig. 103) übernommen und auf zwei Kpn. verteilt] I./Pz.Rgt. 16 (116. Pz.Div.) [keine direkte Zuweisung aber 15 Stück 'Nachschub West' kurzfristig zugeteilt, Zuordnung zu Kp. im Einzelnen nicht bekannt] 1 Kp. der I./Pz.Rgt. 29 [insgesamt 14 Stück, Einsatz unter Stab Pz.Brig. 103, bei Auflösung der Brigade im März 1945 Abgabe Rest (mind. 6 Stück) an 8. Pz.Div.] 3./Pz.Rgt. 35 (4. Pz.Div.) (insgesamt 8 Stück) 3./Pz.Rgt. 101 => 3./Fhr.Pz.Rgt. 2 (Fhr.Gren.Div.) (insgesamt 10 Stück) 2./Pz.Lehr-Rgt. 130 [Einsatz mit Pz.Lehr-Div.] (insgesamt 14 Stück) Stab II., 5. - 8./Pz.Lehr-Rgt. 130 [Einsatz in Nordwestdeutschland ausserhalb Pz.Lehr-Div.] (insgesamt 35 Stück) 4./Pz.Abt. 106 [Einsatz mit Pz.Div. Clausewitz] (insgesamt 5 Stück) 1 Zug der 2./s.Pz.Abt. 507 (insgesamt 3 Stück) [Anm.: Wann genau hier die Lieferung erfolgte ist unklar, sie taucht in den Zuweisungslisten jedenfalls nicht direkt auf] 2) Waffen-SS 8./SS-Pz.Rgt. 2 (2. SS-Pz.Div.) (insgesamt 10 Stück) 4./SS-Pz.Rgt. 9 (9. SS-Pz.Div.) (insgesamt 10 Stück) SS-Pz.Jg.Abt. 10 (10. SS-Pz.Div.), Kp.Zuordnung unbekannt (insgesamt 10 Stück) SS-Kampfgruppe 'Wiking' (Teile SS-Pz.Rgt. 5), getrennt von ihrer Division an der Westfront eingesetzt (insgesamt 7 Stück) C) Sonstige, Ersatzheer, Heeres-Waffenamt Pz.Stützpunkt Mayen (insgesamt 10 Stück) Verbleib nicht eindeutig belegt, wahrscheinlich aber an s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654) Ersatzheer (insgesamt 2 Stück) Höchstwahrscheinlich an Pz.Jg.E.u.A.Abt. 20, Einsatz mit 1./Pz.Ausb.(Einsatz-)Abt. 20 im Rahmen des Pz.Ausb.Verbandes GD in Nordwestdeutschland] H.Waffenamt (Mielau 2, Kummersdorf 1, Hillersleben 1, WaPrüf 1) Summe 419 Stück (2./507 und Austausch zwischen Einheiten nicht eingerechnet) a mystery for completeness........... Und ganz zum Schluss noch einen 'Exoten' der mir bis Heute Kopfzerbrechen bereitet und den ich euch auch nicht vorenthalten will: In der letzten mir bekannten Kriegsgliederung der 3. Pz.Gren.Div. datiert vom 1.3.1945 steht neben dem Symbol für Stab Pz.Jg.Abt. 3 fein säuberlich geschrieben "1 Jagdpanther 8,8 cm" Weder im zugehörigen Zustandsbericht noch im beigefügten Waffen-Ist gibt es alledings den kleinsten weiteren Hinweis darauf, und auch sonst habe ich diesbezüglich nie irgendwo etwas gesehen. Möglicherweise nur ein Übertragungsfehler, aber wer weiß, wer weiß .... In diesem Sinne, fröhliches Spekulieren Martin Block im März 2007 [ June 24, 2007, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Is there a summary available? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share Posted June 25, 2007 Well, that answers the question if 16th Panzer Division had any. MR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Ah, Martin Block. Gotta love the guy. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: The 'Panther replacement' idea is simply wrong. As far as I understand it what JasonC meant was that, when a PD was one Batallion short due to that Batallion having left to re-equip and train with Panthers, it was occasionally seen fit to augment the weakened Division's assets with an independent Tiger Batallion, to act in lieu of the missing unit. Did this never happen? If it did then I can only think that you are arguing that Tigers never 'replaced Panthers' because the Panthers in question had never been present as a part of the Division's force prior to the Tigers' assignment? In that case you definitely are being unnecessarily pedantic and confrontational... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Originally posted by Tux: If it did then I can only think that you are arguing that Tigers never 'replaced Panthers' because the Panthers in question had never been present as a part of the Division's force prior to the Tigers' assignment? In that case you definitely are being unnecessarily pedantic and confrontational... Twist it any way you feel best suits your prejudice. In simple terms I am saying a Tiger Abteilung was too useful to be parceled out to augment a weakened Panzer Division. Heaven forbid I should be confrontational. It seems that that right belongs to another poster in this thread. Get a life 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Well then if you read my post properly you'll find I haven't accused you of being confrontational at all (although the tone of that post could make me reconsider, lol): Originally posted by Tux: [JasonC said that]...it was occasionally seen fit to augment the weakened Division's assets with an independent Tiger Batallion, to act in lieu of the missing unit. Did this never happen? If it did then I can only think that you are arguing that Tigers never 'replaced Panthers' because the Panthers in question had never been present as a part of the Division's force prior to the Tigers' assignment? In that case you definitely are being unnecessarily pedantic and confrontational... If you disagree that Tigers ever worked with a Panzer Division which was one Batallion short because a Batallion had left the front to refit with Panthers, then you have a fundamental disagreement with what JasonC said and that's fine. It will now depend whether either of you can provide evidence to back up your argument. My statement that you were being confrontational was conditional. Were you arguing the latter point in my post about whether Panthers had belonged to the PD prior to the Tigers' arrival, then it would have applied. I hope that's cleared things up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Back on topic I'd be very interested to find out whether or not it did happen. It seems like a sound enough concept, but perhaps PDs weakened in this way wouldn't have been assigned to work important enough to warrant Tiger reinforcement in the first place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 JasonC doesn't ever have to quote sources or references. I think he has a note from his doctor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Originally posted by the_enigma: Is there a summary available? JasonC gave the summary several posts above. A good one, FWIW. I believe the outlier in the Panther replacement question was Großdeutschland who, when their proposed Panther Battalion was moved to France in order to re-equip with PzKpfw V tanks, had the I Bataillon of Panzer Regiment 26 substituted - in other words, a Panther Battalion substituted for their non-existent Panther Battalion. They didn't need Tigers because they already had an organic Tiger battalion of their own. And they weren't even a panzer division, but officially a panzergrenadier division. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Originally posted by Tux: Well then if you read my post properly you'll find I haven't accused you of being confrontational at all (although the tone of that post could make me reconsider, lol): I am sure you realised what I was doing but just to clear it up I deliberately used a retort that was aimed at me in an earlier reply. No one seemed to think it was confrontational when aimed at me so I am sure it will not be seen as confrontational this time around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.