michael kenny Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Originally posted by Tux: 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..........Absurd overstretch. Tiger could and did work with a number of other Units. By their nature they were always in the most critical areas. That is not disputed. The idea that they could be sent to replace a missing Panther or PzIV Regiment is the contention. You will find just as many instances of sSSPzAbt 102 fighting alongside 9th SS as you will 10th SS. A Tiger Abteilung could be split up into company sized units (and smaller) and parceled out for particular tasks but it would not be sent to replace an organic Divisional asett. Most German Divisions and Tiger Abteilung in Normandy were understrength anyway. Maybe it was a case of 10th SS being attached to sSS PzAbt 102 to augment its shortages? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: 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. I'm afraid I missed that, lol. My mistake, sorry. Originally posted by michael kenny: Tiger could and did work with a number of other Units. By their nature they were always in the most critical areas. That is not disputed. The idea that they could be sent to replace a missing Panther or PzIV Regiment is the contention. You will find just as many instances of sSSPzAbt 102 fighting alongside 9th SS as you will 10th SS. A Tiger Abteilung could be split up into company sized units (and smaller) and parceled out for particular tasks but it would not be sent to replace an organic Divisional asett. Most German Divisions and Tiger Abteilung in Normandy were understrength anyway. Maybe it was a case of 10th SS being attached to sSS PzAbt 102 to augment its shortages? So does that mean they were portioned off to fight wherever they were needed, but were never put under the actual control of another Division or command? I think I get the distinction you're trying to draw now, in that it would have been perfectly natural to employ Tigers in the same area as a weakened Division, but they weren't 'assigned to that division'? I realise I'm boring people by being dense here, but the whole structure of ground operations in Europe is only slowly being revealed to me through threads on this forum - I'm still very much a learner. Sorry. 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 Tux: I realise I'm boring people by being dense here, but the whole structure of ground operations in Europe is only slowly being revealed to me through threads on this forum - I'm still very much a learner. Sorry. Not at all; JasonC's replies have been very interesting, and illuminating, as always. I think we're all learning something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 The question of Tiger Battalions being subordinated to Panzer Divisions is simple. They were. I'm not sure that they were for reasons of missing tank battalions but they could have been. As has been pointed out by both sides, the Tigers were sent to areas of critical need. Whether that meant an area of a PD without it's Panther Bn or not seems irrelevant to me. There are almost countless situations where the Tiger Bn's were under the operational control of a Panzer Division. I'm sure that authority came from Korps/Army/Army Group. No matter where it came or why. The Tigers may well have ended up supporting Panzer Divisions that were short their Panther Bn's. If they did, it may not have been the case of that specific issue, but just that they were weak in a critical operational area and needed more support. I see this arguement as being two sides of the same coin. MR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudenheimer Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 In the book "Das Reich-the military role of the 2nd SS division" by James Lucas; the author speaks of the crack SS divisions as being "fire birgades". Held in reserve and used to either plug holes in the front line or to spearhead counter attacks. These SS "reserves" would not be all from one division, or all under one command, until mobilized that is. At that time they would be. As quoted from the book, page 120 Chapter entitled "2nd campaign on the Eastern front": "On the 17th of December 1943 the Panzer Battle Group was constructed out of Panzer Grenadier Regiment 'Das Reich': a composite formation of 1st Battalion 'Deutschland' and 2nd Battalion 'Der Fuhrer' regiments." This Panzer Battle Group was placed under the command of XLII Corps, which was holding a vital area at the time. The Germans liked to use their panzers, especially the Tigers and Panthers, as tools to exploit weak areas of the line or for desisive counter-attacks. BTW, the book is an interesting read. dude 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Originally posted by dudenheimer: In the book "Das Reich-the military role of the 2nd SS division" by James Lucas; the author speaks of the crack SS divisions as being "fire birgades". Held in reserve and used to either plug holes in the front line or to spearhead counter attacks. These SS "reserves" would not be all from one division, or all under one command, until mobilized that is. At that time they would be. As quoted from the book, page 120 Chapter entitled "2nd campaign on the Eastern front": "On the 17th of December 1943 the Panzer Battle Group was constructed out of Panzer Grenadier Regiment 'Das Reich': a composite formation of 1st Battalion 'Deutschland' and 2nd Battalion 'Der Fuhrer' regiments." This Panzer Battle Group was placed under the command of XLII Corps, which was holding a vital area at the time. The Germans liked to use their panzers, especially the Tigers and Panthers, as tools to exploit weak areas of the line or for desisive counter-attacks. BTW, the book is an interesting read. dude Yeah, but that's not any different from any of the other mobile divisions late in the war when no offensive action was possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 GD's nickname was actually ''die Feuerwehr'' and they named their divisional newspaper that. But I'd be wary of using postwar conclusions by non-German speaking historians to support ideas about wartime intentions by the Germans... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Wouldnt one also be wary of any wartime conclusions by German speakers too? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Originally posted by the_enigma: Wouldnt one also be wary of any wartime conclusions by German speakers too? I'd expect their ability to access their own archives (primary sources) to be superior to those that don't speak the language. Not to say that they actually do, or that English speakers can't pay German-speaking researchers, naturally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma: Wouldnt one also be wary of any wartime conclusions by German speakers too? I'd expect their ability to access their own archives (primary sources) to be superior to those that don't speak the language. Not to say that they actually do, or that English speakers can't pay German-speaking researchers, naturally. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Posted by the enigma: i was just joking around referring people writing there memoirs and dairies (its all there fault unless its going good then it was all because of me etc), wasnt being seriousThey don't sound like very exciting memoirs if it's about their time down on the farm with the cows. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Meh it was late, you know what i meant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: GD's nickname was actually ''die Feuerwehr'' and they named their divisional newspaper that. But I'd be wary of using postwar conclusions by non-German speaking historians to support ideas about wartime intentions by the Germans... I'd just be wary about conclusions by Lucas, regardless of what they are dealing with. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Originally posted by the_enigma: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma: Wouldnt one also be wary of any wartime conclusions by German speakers too? I'd expect their ability to access their own archives (primary sources) to be superior to those that don't speak the language. Not to say that they actually do, or that English speakers can't pay German-speaking researchers, naturally. </font> 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.