another allocation of armour question - plz help

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Designers put in lots of tanks because they think players like lots of tanks, and because they like tanks themselves. Realism has nothing to do with it.

Now that's an answer I can relate to

I think that answers the original question in one sentence.

The rest of the disussion has been excellent learning in addition

[urefinger]

and jason i DO get it i was just asking whether these independendt brigades were designed or stripped from other units and ure answer is obviously they were purpose made... dont pop a vein

NB - fo's dont have ap ammo in cmbb or cmbo but they certainly DID have it in real life becuase spike milligan (famous in britain) was formerly in 56th heavy regiment "D" battery (they were re-equipped with 7.62 inch long range howitzers during the war, and twice in his books he recounts firing ap at german armour and bunkers using AP to penentrate them and one time sitting with his back againjst a farm wall in italy with his best mate edgington recounts curling into a ball as he heard "jerry" 105mm coming over (could tell be the sound) and making (in his own words) "whheeeeeeeeeeee - PLOP" a few seconds later his friend edgington asks "why's he dropping ap on us then?"

so AP shells were used in indrect FO observed fire missions coz its straight from the horses mouth

im also trying to find a page that i saw about a year ago with a MASSIVE list of all types of shells from ww2 (naval and land) which also proves what i say. it sticks in my mind as it ggives details of early U.S. naval proximity-detonating shells (which used a very small internal radar)

[urefinger]

more on spike milligan http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1843963.stm

i REALLY suggest buying one of his war diaries, they are hilarious and compelling stories (and true ones at that)

an example:

(spike milligan and bmb donaldson are testing the wireless sets in A and B "Monkey" trucks)

DONALDSON: Can you hear me spike? over.

MILLIGAN: yes, reading you clear at strength ten. over.

DONALDSON: any other problems? over.

MILLIGAN: no, this s bloody stupid, i can hear you without the wireless. over.

DONALDSON: you got any pipe tobbaco left spike? over.

MILLIGAN:....

DONALDSON: spike?

MILLIGAN ....

DONAlDSON: this is stupid. im coming over

by the time he had arrvived i'd managed to stuff about 2 pounds of tobbaco into my pipe and get it all lit, the entire rer portion of monkey truck A was wreathed in blue smoke and was lying - asphixiated - over the wireless. im not a cruel man but donaldson had a pipe bowl which he hid in during air raids. a fill-up for him meant a whole new lend-lease agreement with the yanks...

[GreenAsJade]

Anyone who quotes Spike Milligan as an authoratative source of historical information must be a goon!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SFJaykey:

I am open to correction but I believe the Panzerjager ("Tank Hunter") battalions in infantry divisions were mostly Pak. Along with ith an SP company that was usually Marders, or Panzerjager Is early on. So still no "tanks."

Dunno what you mean with SP company, but with 'tanks' i followed Combat Mission's convention, of counting Panzerjäger (tank-destroyer) as tanks.

The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers. </font>

[Redwolf]

Well, late in the war there is certainly plenty of narratives seeing small number of AFVs supporting all kinds of random infantry formations from Fallschirmjaegers to Volkssturm.

The key here seems to be that the independent battalions seems to be parceld out a lot. You see a lot of vehicles that would usually belong to independent units, StuGs, heavy tanks, SP AT guns. There seemed to be serious efforts to keep at least the most valuable independent units together (e.g. see the Guderian orders about the usage of the Jagdpanther detachments) but for StuGs it didn't seem to work at all, and only partly for Tiger units.

[ June 19, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[MikeyD]

LOL over the Spike Milligan references. I may be the only yank living who knows who he is AND has read his Desert war memoirs!

About whether armor helped recon/infantry or not, I wonder if all this OOB starts to fall apart by late-war. By that time the Germans were putting 13 year olds and invalids into the front lines, sending tankers without tanks down to the infantry, a bloody mess organization-wise. When the last two Elefants of what was once the 653rd were being called on to desperately plug holes in the crumbling front on the outskirts of Berlin, i doubt anybody was asking whether they'd be supporting a Panzer Grenadiers unit or a Recon unit.

[Haw haw! Edited. Redwolf made just my point while I was typing my post! ]

[ June 19, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[JasonC]

I'm begining to think urefinger is simply a troll.

But that aside, I'm not in any danger of popping a vessel. It is amusing that you needed to be told not once but 4 times that independent armor units were independent.

There is no such thing as a 7.62 inch whatever. It is a 76.2mm whatever which is the same as a 3 inch whatever, and the whatever is an anti-tank gun aka "towed tank destroyer" in US WW II parlance.

They were used as artillery because there weren't many German tanks around. Being ATGs, they had AP as a matter of course. And not much to use it on. So they fired it at bunkers and fortified buildings and the like. But direct, not indirect.

As for the German 105 overhead, it was obviously a dud and the comment was a joke - or a misunderstanding by an ATGer, perhaps (though that is a less charitable reading).

Nobody fired indirect missions with AP because it is completely stupid. You wouldn't hit a blessed thing.

[JasonC]

Panzerjaegers were originally all towed gun units. Marders (and a handful of earlier models like 47mm Sf) changed that somewhat around midwar. The first Marders went to PzJgr units of the Panzer divisions. When long 75s on a tracked chassis were still scarce, they were too valuable. In 1942 that is where most of them would be found. A few higher echelon independent Pz Jgr battalions also got them. Those were assigned to armies and attached to whatever unit needed them the most.

Late in the war, the panzer division Pz Jgr units were getting improved types - Jagdpanzer IVs and 70s. (Late, the Jagdpanthers went to independent battalions organized pretty much like Tiger battalions, supporting a whole Panzer corps).

The remaining Marders went elsewhere once the Panzer divisions upgraded. Both StuGs and Marders were sometimes found in the best equipped Heer infantry divisions after that, meaning especially in 1944. In late 1944, Hetzers were sometimes found there - it is even what the Hetzer was meant for (infantry formation Pz Jgr units, that is).

These types all replaced towed 75mm PAK in existing Pz Jgr battalions. A "rich" infantry division in 1944 or 1945 might have 1 company of StuG, 1 company of Marders, and the 3rd company light FLAK (towed).

This practice probably originated (late 1943) with the tendency of higher level commanders (corps and army) to parcel out independent StuG brigades assigned to them all along the line, in company size bits, to provide AT stiffening and some counterattack ability.

Understand that some infantry divisions didn't even have a Pz Jgr battalion, and most had only towed guns in them. The Pz Jgr battalion was generally motorized, meaning the guns were towed by trucks not horses. But only the better off units saw any organic AFVs, and only late - certainly not in 1941.

[ June 19, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Wol]

Soviet Rifle Divisions sometimes kept their integral Tank batallion in their TO&E despite the 2nd round of mechanisation in May(?) 1941.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Wol:

Soviet Rifle Divisions sometimes kept their integral Tank batallion in their TO&E despite the 2nd round of mechanisation in May(?) 1941.

But probably not past summer 1941, I would have thought.

[JasonC]

Basically correct, Andreas, but a little later for some. The organic light tank battalion was dropped in early 1942, officially. (No KVs or T-34s, note). But tanks of all kinds became scarce before that, with the bulk of the pre-war fleet lost by August.

Only lucky units still had any, in practice, by the time of Typhoon-Moscow. But they were still organizationally "allowed", if production provided them. T-60s in particular (the only light model produced in 1941) continued to go to rifle divisions piecemeal. So the quibble is "some T-60s in some lucky infantry divisions in the battle for Moscow".

By the time of the spring 1942 offensive, though, the designated tank units were mixed lights and T-34s, using up the available light production, and the organic battalions were officially gone.

[urefinger]

nice replies - its appreciated guys

jason - pop a chill pill man, im reallllllyyyyy sorry if i was just trying to get my head round a problem. if i piss you off that much then just don't post

[ June 27, 2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: urefinger ]

[urefinger]

there was a 7.2 inch howitzer in service in the brittish army. i made a mistake in saying spike milligan worked with 7.62 inch guns they were actually 7.2 - sorry

[ June 27, 2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: urefinger ]

[urefinger]

jason - you have NEVER read spike milligan's war diaries, being a member of the 56th heavy regiment i would assume that he knows ever so SLIGHTLY more than you about the weapons that he directed (and you dont even know who he is)

his friend - edgington - was a gunner in the same regiment he was and the were hit by about 20 105mm shells all of which failed to explode, thus proving they were ap

[manchildstein (ii)]

--hit by about 20 105mm shells all of which failed to explode, thus proving they were ap

--

they could have been dud HE

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers.

Quite wrong. I am reasonbly certain that no official "Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen" (sic) ever existed in the Wehrmacht. The term was always "Panzerjäger", whether towed or SP. </font>

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by manchildstein

--hit by about 20 105mm shells all of which failed to explode, thus proving they were ap

--

they could have been dud HE

I believe it was Ambrose that wrote (or borrowed) - Many German shells were duds. He attributed this to nazi slave labor. He also stated in ETO, no American duds were reported by the German soldiers.

[ July 31, 2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: DingoBreath ]

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers.

Quite wrong. I am reasonbly certain that no official "Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen" (sic) ever existed in the Wehrmacht. The term was always "Panzerjäger", whether towed or SP. </font>

[Andreas]

By looking at the official Wehrmacht organisation tables for a German infantry division - so thanks, I am feeling very well on the horse. The change was made official on 21st March 1940. Source is "Die Magdeburger Division - Zur Geschichte der 13. Infanterie und Panzerdivision 1935-45" by Dieter Hoffmann. How did you come to the conclusion that they are two different things?

Let me tell you a story. How does a PAK hunt? Imagine you're a tank. You're prancing around. You get bored. You spot a little brook. You put your little tank tracks down to the clear water - BAM! A f*ckin' AP round rips off part of your turret! Your TC's brains are lying on the turret floor in little bloody pieces. Now I ask you, do you know how you call the unit that the PAK doing this to you was attached to? That's right, "Panzerjägerabteilung" after 1940, but if you were a Polish tank in 1939, it would be "Panzerabwehrabteilung". (With apologies to Marisa Tomei, who would look cute even in Feldgrau.)

Now, you may not know this, but in German "Jagen" also applies to hunting where you just sit on a little wooden tower (Hochsitz), and wait for the deer to prance out of the forest. You don't move, you don't stalk, you just wait in ambush. Just like a PAK. But the same word also applies to hunting by a group of people (Treibjagd) or by stalking/following something or someone.

So I ask again, where are the official documents showing that your definition is correct? Nothing cripped from a website please.

And yes, I am German. Are you, or is German your native language?

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Andreas:

How did you come to the conclusion that they are two different things?

Because when the nomenclature 'Panzerabwehrabteilung' was choosen, it was meant to be an organization for defensive tasks against tanks, to give infantry a better chance to withstand tank attacks or breakthroughs.

But soon it became clear, that also an 'offensive' element is needed (Jagdpanzer, Sturmgeschütze) to be more effective.

Therefore the Panzerabwehrabteilungen turned into organizations capable of active tank-hunting and the change of the name was only logical.

I didn't think about that 'jagen' hunting could also mean just to sit and wait.

But i would say this is the only exception.

Usually 'jagen' means to follow something actively.

And that was the reason, why they were renamed from 'Abwehrabteilungen' into 'Jagdabteilungen'.

If i remember correctly, an Infanteriedivision had around 15 and a Panzerdivision the double amount of tank hunting units (usually StuGs and Hetzer) in their Panzerjägerabteilung.

Maybe someone can give you the exact numbers.

[ July 31, 2003, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Andreas]

Maybe you can give me a single source for your claim? I have given you one that you can look up, if you care. So far all we have from you is 'it is basic knowledge'. Well, in medieval times it was basic knowledge that the earth is flat, and the sun is rotating around it. So unless you can come up with something better than your posts so far, I am afraid I have to decline the kind offer of further expertise by you, and will instead stay on my horse.

BTW - care to tell me how many SP AT guns were present in the Wehrmacht on 21st March 1940? Maybe someone can give you the exact numbers.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Because when the nomenclature 'Panzerabwehrabteilung' was choosen, it was meant to be an organization for defensive tasks against tanks, to give infantry a better chance to withstand tank attacks or breakthroughs.

But soon it became clear, that also an 'offensive' element is needed (Jagdpanzer, Sturmgeschütze) to be more effective.

Therefore the Panzerabwehrabteilungen turned into organizations capable of active tank-hunting and the change of the name was only logical.

All GE unit designations were inspired by propaganda. Sitting there, waiting for the tank is a passive task. "Abwehren" is only passive. Now if you want to win an offensive war, you won't tell your soldiers to just sit there and wait. The term "Jäger" - while still valid thru its potentially passive role - is a more aggressive, active word. If you had to designate a class of units, what would you use?

I didn't think about that 'jagen' hunting could also mean just to sit and wait.

But i would say this is the only exception.

Usually 'jagen' means to follow something actively.

And that was the reason, why they were renamed from 'Abwehrabteilungen' into 'Jagdabteilungen'.

Ever heard the designation "Lauerjäger"(ie "hunter in ambush")? I remember it from my biology lessons. There are quite many animals specified as such a type of hunter (eg spiders with their nets).

Even if you want to hunt using only ambushes, you need good tactics and can fill this role actively, e.g. by deciding where to set up.

In short:

Abwehr = if it comes along, I'll fend it off! Purely passive!

Jagen = I'll try to get it! Active!

Gruß

Joachim

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Maybe you can give me a single source for your claim?

I don't remember anymore from where i have the knowledge, because i heard/learned about that from several sources.

I can't understand, why you are that stubborn and can't accept such a simple (and quite logical) fact.

If you are interested in, simply take a look at the history of anti-tank weapons.

There are enough books and surely websites about that topic.

Due to the well known Panzerschock from WWI, Panzerabwehrabteilungen were included into infantry-divisions.

Their name was program: simply to be able to withsand tank-attacks, or at least to give the soldiers the psychological feeling, that they are not completely helpless.

If you don't believe me, inform yourself.

After war against Poland, tanks (i.e. Panzerjäger I) were attached to the Panzerabwehrabteilungen and in consequence soon they were renamed to Panzerjägerabteilungen.

Anti-tank weapons, their use and the organizations were in the same way developed as every other weapon.

And as reaction to the Panzerschock the PzAbwAbt. were included.

And as logical evolution when enough experience was collected, they were supported by flexible AT-weapons.

@Scarhead:

All GE unit designations were inspired by propaganda.

Have you ever heard from the old german saying: Mehr Sein als Scheinen? (being more than seeming to be).

Don't make the mistake to believe, all times were that shallowly and full with advertisements everywhere like actual times.

Panzerabwehrabteilungen were renamed not because of fooling the own soldiers, but because of the included tank-hunting units.

[ August 01, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Moon]

From "Die deutsche Panzerjägertruppe 1935-1945" by Wolfgang Fleischer and Richard Eiermann, published by Podzun-Pallas (ISBN 3-7909-0613-1) (I can very much recommend this book!):

(pages 48/49)

Wesentliche Faktoren, mit denen die Einsätze der Panzerabwehrtruppe im ersten Kriegsjahr charakterisiert werden können, waren die vom Geist offensiven Handelns geprägte Beweglichkeit und Schnelligkeit. In der Namensgebung fand das seinen sichtbaren Ausdruck in der am 16. März 1940 verfügten Umbenennung sämtlicher Panzerabwehrabteilungen in Panzerjägerabteilungen (Allgemeine Heeresmitteilung 353/1940 vom 21. März 1940). Es folgte die Panzerabwehr der Infanterie; sie nannte sich fortan Infanterie-Panzerjäger. Aus den Panzerabwehrkanonen wurden Panzerjägerkanonen, aus den Panzerabwehrkanonen (Sfl) Panzerjäger.

Bemühungen, die Panzerabwehrtruppe in Panzerhägertruppe umzubenennen, hatte es in den 30er Jahren mehrfach gegeben. Dabei war im August 1936 die Verwendung des Wortes "Panzerjäger" ausdrücklich verboten worden, wohl aus Sorge, im Ausland könnte man aus dem Namen Erkenntnisse über die Einsatzgrundsätze der Panzerabwehr ableiten. Die Verbote hatten wenig Sinn. Bereits im Heft 11 der Zeitschrift "Kraftfahrkampftruppe" vom November 1937 polemisierte ein namentlich nicht genannter Autor gegen der Begriff Panzerabwehr: "Psychologisch, das heißt in ihrer eigentlichen Wirkung ist... die Waffenbezeichnung "Panzerabwehr" nicht gerade glücklich gewählt, weil Zweckbestimmung und Vernichtungsprinzip nicht genügend herausgestellt sind." Im Heft 10 des Jahrgangs 1938 der "Kraftfahrtruppe" wurden die Grundprinzipien der Panzerabwehr sogar noch deutlicher hervorgehoben: "Der brutalen Angriffswut der Panzer muß ein überlegener Führungsgeist der Panzerabwehr und eine angriffsfreudige Truppe von unerhörtem Angriffsschwung und fanatischem Vernichtungswillen entgegentreten". Ihr Waffenspruch: "Stets lauer-, sprung- und vernichtungsbereit". In diesem Beitrag, der unter dem Titel "Geist und Sinn der Panzerabwehr" veröffentlicht worden ist, sind auch die Anforderungen an einen Soldaten dieser Truppe skizziert worden: "Neben der selbstverständlichen Beherrschung der Waffen verlangt diese Aufgabe... mutige Menschen mit starken Nerven, gut durchgearbeiteten Körpern und persönlicher Energie... also Männer mit ausgesprochenem Angriffsgeist!"

Aus heutiger Sicht sind die nachteiligen Folgen der Überbetonung einer offensiven Panzerabwehr in Verbindung mit der nicht mehr ausreichenden Leistungsfähigkeit der 3,7cm-Panzerjägerkanone L/45 offensichtlich"

(end quote)

I'll leave it to somebody else to translate and draw conclusions

Martin