Question: 9.PzD at Kursk?

[Sgt AA]

In Glantz book he give the number of tanks:

8 Mk III s.

30 Mk III l.

8 Mk IV l.

30 Mk IV s.

I'm puzzled about the "s." and "l." Is they for "short" and "long"? And more, what models are we then talking about here?

I try my luck with one more:

It is often refered to "Hill 195.3" e d.

I always thought that "195" was for the height, but what stands the ".3" for?

[Tux]

Assuming 's' stands for 'short' and 'l' for 'long', which seems to make sense:

The Pz III 's' would have either a 37L47 gun (F), a 50mm 50L42 (H or J) or a 75L24 (N).

The Pz III 'l' would have a 50L60 (J, L or M).

The Pz IV 's' would have a 75L24 (C, D, E or F).

The Pz IV 'l' would have a 75L43 (F2 'special' or G [early/ mid]) or a 75L48 (G [late], H or J).

Hope that helps with the tank part of your question. In a moment someone with actual contextual knowledge will doubtless be along with the exact Panzer marks you're dealing with in this case.

[Philippe]

I would have assumed that if someone named a hill Hill 195.3, it meant that they didn't want it to be confused with another 195 meter hill in the vicinity. Another possibility is that it's the surveyor's fault (he took the trouble of recording the extra third of a meter, so it stuck).

I'm still wondering why people insist on thinking that the W. Nile is the West Nile. When I studied African geography there was a White Nile and a Blue Nile, and they met at Khartoum.

[Sgt AA]

Thanks a lot!

About the panzers: I guess best thing, so far, is to go by rarity.

Hills: My guess too, but nov I feel more confident. The 0.3 meter maybe works today with GPS-mesuring

[John Kettler]

Sgt AA,

For the time period cited, a Panzer III short mounts the 50/L42, the long a 50/L60. A Panzer IV short mounts a 75/L24, but the long is indeed very much a matter of specific model (and even hull number), as Tux noted.

Edited to add that the Panzer Profiles here should be helpful in understanding what we're trying to say.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/profiles.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 29, 2008, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Sgt AA]

Thanks again! I think I get it, but it seems that I have a hard time to express myself in foreign languages.

Since I don't know exactly the specific versions, is probably my best guess made with help of the lowest rarity figurs in the editor.

So e g for a scenario design:

Short

Mk3 J has 30%

Mk4 D/E has both 100%

Long

Mk3 L has 20%

Mk4 G/H has both 5%

so this is the models, without any further information, I would take my chances on.

[JasonC]

A couple of issues -

First, Glantz's chart gives 30 Panzer IV long and 8 short, not the other way around.

Second, it is suspicious that the 8 and 30 figures are exactly repeated for the two chassis. Zetterling gives 9th Panzer tank strength before the offensive as 28 Panzer III and 61 Panzer IV.

Third, while Glantz also gives 6 command tanks, meaning the special built models with extra radios and no guns, it is likely the remaining older short gun tanks were being used in that role, as well. As the extras at company level for example - 2 each would fit the 8 figures given etc.

One possible explanation for the discrepancy between Glantz and Zetterling as to Panzer IV long strength (a material difference in the assessment of the division) might be tanks still in transit. 9th Army was adding vehicles right up to jump off and in some cases beyond. And 9th Panzer was in second echelon.

9th Panzer had 3 fighting periods really. The insertion late on day 2 to flank one of the front line Russian RDs. Then commitment to the big 47 panzer corps attack west of Ponyri trying to take the long low ridge in that area. After that it was pulled out of the north face Kursk attack and sent to deal with the eastern face portion of Operation Kutuzov, east of Orel.

The late arriving tanks would certainly be around for the last and might well have been there for the second. Not for the first, if that is the explanation for the Glantz - Zetterling discrepancy. If Glantz's figures are just wrong, though, which the 8 30 8 30 sugggests is possible, then 9th Panzer might have had more like 50 Panzer IV longs.

Certainly it didn't have 30 Panzer IV shorts - that is just misreading the chart. Its main hitting power is coming from a flock of IV longs, probably G model with skirts, supplimented by half as many to around as many, III longs, probably L model. Non-platooned company command tanks would be older short models (F1 or E for the IVs, early J or H for the IIIs).

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I would have assumed that if someone named a hill Hill 195.3, it meant that they didn't want it to be confused with another 195 meter hill in the vicinity. Another possibility is that it's the surveyor's fault (he took the trouble of recording the extra third of a meter, so it stuck).

I'm still wondering why people insist on thinking that the W. Nile is the West Nile. When I studied African geography there was a White Nile and a Blue Nile, and they met at Khartoum.

I concur, but OTOH you can always tell them to go and take a dive into or a long swim in the 'West Nile', lol!

[Sgt AA]

Thanks again!

Since we now are in the vicinity of Ponyri, I have another question. I read about the hard fighting for the railway station and I found some scenarios that (partially)cover the subject, on TPG and B&T. But the autors seems to have different sources for their map-making.

I really tried to find a good map for the area but there is not much on the Internet. The best I found was this

Do you think it's close to reality and does anyone has an idéa about the scale (the size of a square e g)?

[JasonC]

Sgt AA - no, that doesn't look close to reality at all. It looks like a board layout for a miniatures.

Ponyri is a several km long north to south. The important heights west of it form a long low ridge 15 miles long, in an arc with the outer "bow" facing south.

Not exactly a scale that works well with individual tanks on the map, hence the largely fictionalized depictations in most tactical games.

[Sgt AA]

Thanks again!

JasonC! So was my understanding too, here is a satellit picture:

Just wonder if the "targets" (watertower eg) in the board-map at least can be assumed to be on the same side of the railway in reality, as they are on the map?

[JasonC]

I looked into this in some detail for my Ponyri campaign, a linked set of a half dozen scenarios depicting the northern drive into Ponyri. Here is what I found, as near as I was able to tell from contemporary map sources and unit history descriptions of phases of the battle.

On your google earth shot, that north north east to south line of double green extending out of the town to the north, is the actual railway line. The overlayed RR symbol somewhat to its right is in error, approximate, two sources not lining up exactly. The RR actually runs directly down the center of that doubled line of green.

The railway is an elevated embankment above the fields on either side.

The water tower is at the northern outskirts of the town, directly next to the railway embankment. Think watering station for the locomotives.

The railway station itself is further south, in the town interior around the level where the east-west main roads intersect the railway line.

There is a school that was fought over heavily west of the rail-line and slightly farther south than the station.

Notice the open ground to the northwest of the town. There are some seams of lower ground reaching closer to the town in that area. Those and directly astride the rail line were both routes of advance for the Germans.

Once inside the town, part of the reason for the seasaw fighting there by waves of reinforcement from both sides, is that the area has the form of a crest. Specifically, north of the town edge and railway tower, the ground falls away gradually. This means once the Germans were past that point, they could feed forces into the town without direct observation from ahead of them.

But the ground isn't that high. With town buildings obstructing LOS, you can't see much southward, unless you are up a tower of some sort. The Russians could feed men in too. If you took the whole town you'd be past the military crest, and could hold approachers from the south at bay with ranged fire. But before you take it all, they can get in unobserved until close.

The other way to interdict units trying to get into the town from the south would be to get fully across the long ridge west of the city, at a point somewhat south of it. This ridge bows southward with its southernmost crestline point at least ten miles west of the city itself. As you approach the city eastward along this ridgeline, it is trending north.

The Germans attempted first to just take the whole city directly along the rail line, and across the fields to its north. This got them into the city but they were then reduced to brawling inside of it, due to the ease of feeding in reinforcements for both sides. They next attempted to take the whole ridge west of the city with a full panzer corps attacking 3 divisions abreast. They got onto the ridge but Russians remained on its reverse slope, while the crest itself changed hands many times. They were not able to take such undisputed possession of the crestline, as to interdict the approaches to Ponyri proper.

Instead the Germans largely destroyed the Russian forces in Ponyri in straight ahead fighting there. By late in the fighting, they controlled most of the town, but were running out of infantry, and the Russians continued to hit them with reserve formations (notably an entire guards airborne corps operating as infantry). Operation Kutuzov in the north pulled away such armor as they still had in reserve, and they had to go over to the defensive as a result.

FWIW...