12. PD 1st July 1943 - Org question for PR 29

[Andreas]

On the 1st July, 12.PD had a real dog's breakfast of tanks (runners counted).

15 50L42 Pz III

15 50L60 Pz III

6 75L24 Pz III

2 PzBefWg

2 PzBefWg Pz III short

32 Pz IV long

1 Pz IV short

All of these in one Abteilung, with four companies. The strength return sheet indicates that the organisation in one medium, and two light coys was still active. Additionally, there was another medium company. Does anyone know the mix of short and long-barreled Pz III in the companies, and how the 75L24 IIIs were allocated?

[JonS]

Andreas,

I had a gander at Nafzinger. He has similar, though slightly different, info for that date. Is that where you sourced the info you have, or did you get it elsewhere? If the former, I'll pass on what I have here. If the later then no matter.

Regards

JonS

[ April 27, 2003, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Andreas]

Jon, thanks for responding. My info is from the divisional history by Niepold, and it looks like a copy of the straight KStN sheet, so I would trust it more than Jentz or Nafziger.

Actual numbers as opposed to runners are:

15 50L42 Pz III

15 50L60 Pz III

6 75L24 Pz III

2 PzBefWg

2 PzBefWg Pz III short

36 Pz IV long (4 non-runners)

1 Pz IV short

3 VK1801 (Panzer IIJ?; all non-runners)

Problem with Nafziger: He gives 2 coys with 22 Pz III ea - that would be 44; only 40 on the KStN. Same for the IVs - there are just 37, not 44. And what happened to the seven Pz III Flamm that he says have been assigned on 18 June 43? Nafziger's detailed data seems to be covering a longer period, which is problematic, since the division was in heavy combat until April. He is completely missing 9 3,7cm PAK36 in PGR5's AT Platoon too.

Hmmmm....

[JonS]

According to Chamberlain and Doyle, VK1801 is a PzI ausf F, not a PzII.

Naf also lists 6 x Pz II

From Naf, for 1 July 1943:

2/29th Panzer Regt

. 1 x Regimental Staff Signals Pn

. 1 x Regimental Staff Light Panzer Pn

. 8th Mdm Panzer Coy (listed elsewhere in Naf as a medical coy in the pz regt??)

. 1 x Pz Bn

. . 1 x Pz Staff Coy

. . 1 x Mdm Pz Coy

. . 2 x Light Pz Coy

Totals available:

PzII . . . 6

PzIII(kz). 15

PzIII(lg). 15

PzIII(75). 6

PzIV(kz) . 1

PzIV(lg) . 36

PzBefWg. . 4

Typical org:

Staff Coy: 7 x PzIII flamm

2 x pz coy: 22 x PzIII ea, changed to PzIV by 15JUN43

2 x pz coy: 22 x PzIV ea

Clearly the typical org he lists is bollocks, and god knows where the flammpanzers got to. Maybe they were meant to arrive but never did. From that project we did earlier in the year I have become rather leery of anything in Nafs books, but it does provide a starting point.

Having said that, I would suggest the following org, based on the qtys given:

2/29th Panzer Regt

. 1 x Regimental Staff Signals Pn: 2 x PzBefWg Pz III short and 1 x PzIII short

. 1 x Regimental Staff Light Panzer Pn: 3 x PzII

. 8th Mdm Panzer Coy: 14 x PzIV(long) (2 in HQ, 3 pns of 4 tks)

. 1 x Pz Bn

. . . Battalion Staff: 1 x PzIV(short) and 3 x PzIII(short)

. . 1 x Pz Staff Coy

. . . Signals Pn: 2 x PzBefWg and 1 x PzIII short

. . . Staff Light Panzer Pn: 3 x PzII

. . 1 x Mdm Pz Coy: 14 x PzIV(long) (2 in HQ, 3 pns of 4 tks)

. . 2 x Light Pz Coy: 5 x PzIII(short) and 7 x PzIII(long) and 2 x PzIV(long) each company. (HQ and pn org ... ???)

Spares: 1 x PzIII(long), 6 x PzIII(75)

Using that layout, the four pz coys are all at full strength (though the light companys have a rather mixed org), the light platoons are each short by 4 x PzII, and the battalion staff are also short by 2 x PzII, giving a total deficiency of 10 x PzII.

Regards

JonS

[ April 27, 2003, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Most likely the Flampanzers were assigned to a higher headquarters and not counted as part of the line strength. That is pretty normal for specialized units like that.

The exact vehicles per subunit will probably be hard if not impossible to come by. The tendency was to break them into light, medium, and heavy companies but there was a lot of mixing within the companies. It was not unusual to find new tanks in an old platoon or vice versa. You might be able to luck out and find some personal accounts from that time that will help.

[Brigadier]

Splendid reading all, well done

[JasonC]

I doubt very much they would mix long 4s in with 3s in the same tactical company. Much more likely, it seems to me, would be -

2 "light" companies each 3 75 short Pz IIIs (company level, command platoon in effect) plus 3 platoons each 5 Pz IIIs, short or long.

The III gun lengths for the line platoons would probably be mixed in each company, uniform or close to it in each platoon i.e. 1 gets 5x50L60, 10x50L42, the other the reverse.

2 medium companies each 3 platoons each 5 long Pz IVs. One considered the "organic" medium company, the other the "additional" medium company. In effect, therefore, they are de facto organized as a single 4 company battalion.

command tanks at battalion. Might find 1 each in some companies I suppose.

Pz IV short as a company level Pz in one of the medium companies (i.e. with the rest of the IVs, not the IIIs). 2 long IVs are also at company level.

Some of the line platoons in the Pz IV companies might be low by 1 tank to assign another to company level as a command vehicle. 2-3 IVs in each company are company level tanks, and 1-3 of the 6 "line" Pz IV platoons are 4 vehicles instead of 5.

Why organize them this way, in particular? Several reasons.

1. keeping the chassis type uniform in each company makes repair work, spare parts, station keeping on the move, etc, all easier than mixing chassis types.

2. the IVs can choose their range to exploit their guns to the fullest, without tying IIIs to them. Those need shorter ranges. The IVs do anti armor overwatch from positions farther than the IIIs.

3. the IIIs have mixed guns in each company, but some 50L60 to give decent ranges against T-34s, and some 75s to give good HE vs. guns. The short IIIs would lead and scout, shooting mostly at infantry positions (MGs in particular).

4. each III company has a IV company, so they can work in tandem. A III company alone is underpowered if Russian armor shows up. The combination multiplies tank power against guns and infantry, while minimizing the exposure of the IVs to ATGs.

5. the company is the basic tactical unit, and nothing smaller than it is meant to be employed seperately. So they would not care about some platoons having all 50L42. When the tactical job is e.g. helping infantry against infantry, a light company will do. When enemy tanks are expected, a medium company is needed.

6. The short 75mm IIIs are concentrated in HQ sections to remain at longer range, firing HE and smoke in support of their III companies, instead of closing immediately to effective MG range.

Some guesswork involved naturally. For what it is worth.

[ April 27, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Andreas]

That sounds most likely in terms of organisation, Jason. I know that they mixed long IVs in with the IIIs when the former came out, e.g. in 6.PD during the Winter Tempest battles, and later during the Manstein counter-offensive. But at this stage I would guess something more organised based on the experience of 8-9 months would take place.

Thanks all.