Panzerfaust and HQ Units?

[GoofyStance]

During a QB game set in Italy in the fall of '44, a Sherman broke through the defenses of a SS Pzgr. company and began marauding in the rear areas. As I was about to mount a counterattack with a StuG III, a SS platoon HQ hidden in some woods 20 meters away popped off a Panzerfaust and took out the Sherman. Admittedly, I didn't examine this unit for AT capabilities, as it was used to steady the fire from a ATG also hidden in the woods (why didn't I use this ATG against the Sherman? Because an air attack the previous turn took it out.)

This got me wondering - how common was it for a SS platoon HQ unit to tote around a Panzerfaust in the fall of 1944 in Italy? Or any other German platoon-level HQ unit in Italy at the time, for that matter? It seems like it'd have been a potentially disastrous use of a valuable commander in such a close-up AT role. Any comments?

[Kingfish]

Not sure how common it was, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with an HQ unit having one on hand in case of emergency, such as the one you described. Keep in mind that the Panzerfaust also works resonably well against infantry.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by GoofyStance:

During a QB game set in Italy in the fall of '44, a Sherman broke through the defenses of a SS Pzgr. company and began marauding in the rear areas. As I was about to mount a counterattack with a StuG III, a SS platoon HQ hidden in some woods 20 meters away popped off a Panzerfaust and took out the Sherman. Admittedly, I didn't examine this unit for AT capabilities, as it was used to steady the fire from a ATG also hidden in the woods (why didn't I use this ATG against the Sherman? Because an air attack the previous turn took it out.)

This got me wondering - how common was it for a SS platoon HQ unit to tote around a Panzerfaust in the fall of 1944 in Italy? Or any other German platoon-level HQ unit in Italy at the time, for that matter? It seems like it'd have been a potentially disastrous use of a valuable commander in such a close-up AT role. Any comments?

Existence:

A panzerfaust is man portable. If the HQ had transport to bring it along or any ammo supply to its positions, they might have gotten hold of a faust.

Use:

The HQ consists of

Officer (more often a sergeant, sometimes a corporal)

Plt Sergeant (a corporal or pfc)

Runner 1

Runner 2

a) The runners aren't as valuable as the commander.

The plt sarge is usually an experienced NCO. You get experience by taking risks and surviving.

c) The officer has to lead. In crucial moments you have to lead "from the front."

d) What is worse - the loss of a Plt HQ or a tank on a rampage in rear areas, cutting off communications...

e) How can you persuade your men to use a faust when the officers and NCOs don't lead by example?

f) Officer was fresh from the Hitler Youth

g) The tank was stripped of infantry support and approached a hidden position. Guess who gets the first shot. Even if it does not hit, I doubt the tank would stand and fight as it won't be sure how many other faust-wielding men are around.

i) A lone tank is lost... not only in Russia.

Gruß

Joachim

[Michael Dorosh]

There are plenty of officers who had the Tank Destruction Badge. It wasn't a "nice to have", it was a necessity for German infantry units - even platoon HQs - to have anti-tank weapons.

There are many instances even of bailed out tank crews fighting enemy tanks with hand weapons.

Things were different in the Allied sense simply because the Germans had so few tanks. Shermans and T-34s were present in comparatively larger numbers...

As to how often armour was really a concern in the mountainous terrain of Italy is another story, but then again tanks are over-represented in CM in any event.

To answer the question, though, I would agree with Joachim that it was probably not unusual.

[fridericus]

if i remember right, the best german tankhunter was a panzergreneadier-colonel with 23 confirmed tank-kils. when i have time, i will look for the book.

[Grapeshot]

SS tank Destruction Company Dora II formed from skorzeny's SS commandos. It was led by SS-Untersturmfuhrer (2nd Lieutenant) Porsch who already had 4 tank destruction badges. During the battle of Seelow heights (in which this company was formed and deployed) it claimed at least 125 tank kills. Porsch killed 17 personally and lead a counter attack that routed a rile battalion at Neu Zittau and captured the battalion HQ. He was awarded the Knights Cross for this action on 26 of April 1945, one of the last awarded. This counter attack left them in a salient that was cut off by soviet advances. 2 days later surrounded and out of ammuntion, the remaning 11 SS soldiers (including porsche) refused to surrender surrender. They fixed bayonets and counter-charged the soviet coup de grace. Another bloody end to a German unit on the easten front.

[fridericus]

Originally posted by Grapeshot:

SS tank Destruction Company Dora II formed from skorzeny's SS commandos. It was led by SS-Untersturmfuhrer (2nd Lieutenant) Porsch who already had 4 tank destruction badges. During the battle of Seelow heights (in which this company was formed and deployed) it claimed at least 125 tank kills. Porsch killed 17 personally and lead a counter attack that routed a rile battalion at Neu Zittau and captured the battalion HQ. He was awarded the Knights Cross for this action on 26 of April 1945, one of the last awarded. This counter attack left them in a salient that was cut off by soviet advances. 2 days later surrounded and out of ammuntion, the remaning 11 SS soldiers (including porsche) refused to surrender surrender. They fixed bayonets and counter-charged the soviet coup de grace. Another bloody end to a German unit on the easten front.

died on their own feet!

[Michael Dorosh]

No, the high scorer was Günter Vizienz (sp?) from the Army; I have the Vernichtungsabzeichen book at home; lots of good photos and stories. Konopka of the GD was another famous one; he "only" had four IIRC, but that's not bad for a captain and company commander! Nice photos of him in Spezzano's picture book teaching classes in tank destruction techniques.

[GoofyStance]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No, the high scorer was Günter Vizienz (sp?) from the Army; I have the Vernichtungsabzeichen book at home; lots of good photos and stories. Konopka of the GD was another famous one; he "only" had four IIRC, but that's not bad for a captain and company commander! Nice photos of him in Spezzano's picture book teaching classes in tank destruction techniques.

What was Vizienz's rank during his exploits? I'd also assume that the aforementioned lieutenant-colonel was promoted to that rank in recognition of the bravery of his actions in knocking out enemy tanks? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if, during the fall of 1944 in Italy - when the Germans were still relatively organized, as opposed to the chaos in the spring of 1945 - was it unusual for an officer, at least above the rank of lieutenant, to risk his skin by using Panzerfausts against enemy tanks?

[Michael Dorosh]

By the fall of 1944, I would be willing to bet that most German companies were run by lieutenants; in the spring of 45 there was at least one entire regiment commanded by a lieutenant, the only officer left.

I don't think it was a matter of risking one's skin by setting out to stalk enemy armour; if your command post comes under fire because of a breakthrough, well, you defend it. And if it so happens you're the only person to have any experience, or knowledge of how to use the AT equipment, where the weak spots on a Sherman are, etc., well, you go ahead and take charge regardless of rank. This seems, to me, more likely than what you may be picturing - ie the company commander off hunting.

Sorry I can't offer more specfic examples, but it just doesn't strike me as unusual to think of company or battalion commanders doing this. As pointed out earlier, "lead by example" was something of a maxim. If I can find some references more specific, I'll share them - I'll try and find the ranks of Vivienz, et al., but probably not tonight.

You do hit on a good point, in that Knight's Cross holders, tank destruction badge holders etc. with officer rank may indeed represent former NCOs who were promoted for their deeds.

As an aside, promotion to officer rank wasn't always the case (and IIRC the Germans frowned on commissioning NCOs). Johan Schwerdtfeger (the soldier who Steiner in Cross of Iron was based on) was a Feldwebel platoon commander when he was awarded the Knight's Cross in Russia. He also eventually had two tank destruction badges. He was awarded the Oakleaves a year later, astonishingly enough still ranked as a Feldwebel - an almost unheard of award for non-commissioned soldiers.

[ February 25, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[MadGav]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

and IIRC the Germans frowned on commissioning NCOs

By Germans I presume you mean the Heer? IIRC the SS commonly commissioned NCOs?

Martin

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... As to how often armour was really a concern in the mountainous terrain of Italy is another story, but then again tanks are over-represented in CM in any event.

What do you mean by this statement?

[Fredi]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... As to how often armour was really a concern in the mountainous terrain of Italy is another story, but then again tanks are over-represented in CM in any event.

Jack Carr: What do you mean by this statement?

Which statement do you mean?

In mountainous terrain with limitied mobility, an AT-gun would be cheaper and preferable.

Whether tanks are too numerous just do the math.. I havent counted them but the Germans fielded maybe a couple thousand tanks at any time. This compared to a couple million infantry soldiers.

You might argue that the tanks were always at the front though..

Either way I dont care since I like tanks

[Jack Carr]

I was referring to the statement made by Michael Dorosh. He said that, "tanks were over-represented in CM in any event."

Not disagreeing, just trying to understand the point that's being made.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

I was referring to the statement made by Michael Dorosh. He said that, "tanks were over-represented in CM in any event."

Not disagreeing, just trying to understand the point that's being made.

My own regiment's experience in 10 months of combat in NW Europe from July 1944 to April 1945 suggests that tank support was not always allocated to them, even for major operations. This was of course partly a function of the terrain they had to fight in. (They fought with 2nd Cdn Div in Normany, then Holland (street fighting in Hoogerheide, the South Beveland peninsula (flooded) and Walcheren Causeway (no road for armour)), the Nijmegen salient (minor patrol actions), the Hochwald (mud and mines) and Rhineland, and finally northern Holland (Groningen - street fighting).

The Allied armies used artillery-based doctrine. While armour gets a lot of the press, and was of course used in major breakthrough battles, I would suggest a large number - perhaps even the majority - of infantry company and battalion actions were unsupported - moreso on the Russian Front, but even in NW Europe, and probably most of all in the mountains of Italy.

But we do like our tanks, don't we - and with an incredibly detailed armour penetration model such as CM has, who can blame us. Certainly more rewarding trying to get a tank to advance into harm's way in CM than an infantry company.

Another reason to clamour for some sort of infantry company level campaign game; tanks could then be much less common without having the game lose some of its appeal.

I think one can look at the numbers - especially for the Germans - of tanks to infantry companies. This has been done on this forum in the past, I suspect JasonC contributed to that discussion. I wish I could remember the end results, but the ratio of German tanks to men in the East was extremely low. StuGs were included in those figures.

The Canadians in II Corps, for example, had 7 brigades of infantry (three battalions per brigade) and 2 brigades of tanks. Including the armoured recce regiment of 4th Div (which was equipped as a standard armoured regiment) that gives 7 "battalions" of armour and 24 battalions of infantry (including the Motor regiment of 4th Armd Div).

Of course, the Corps was not homogenous and armoured support may have shifted around a bit - there were Brit, Czech, US, Polish, Free Belgian, and Dutch units under command at various times. Though perhaps their ratio of tanks to men were similar in any event?

CW infantry divisions did not have their own armour as US infantry divisions did.

One armoured "battalion" per infantry brigade is not a bad amount; during Charnwood one squadron was used to support each infantry battalion (three squadrons to an armoured "battalion"). But things didn't always work out that way, as reading individual infantry battalion histories will show.

[ March 02, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JonnyBlademan]

If I may digress back to the original topic.

"The Forgotten Soldier" By: Guy Sajer, would be a great book for you to check with GoofyStance. Although I don't remember specifically if he refers to platoon leaders using AT weapons, he does describe "delaying and fire brigade actions" that he was involved in. Ironically, I can't check this myself as my copy was loaned to and never returned by MY platoon leader.

[kenfedoroff]

For what it's worth...

In his book, "In Deadly Combat..." by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann, on page 261 starts the story of the 3rd battle of Courland (Dec, '44) in which he relates his own personal experience as an infantry officer while attacking T-34's. I believe, at this point in the war, he is a Lt. in command of a Company? (not 100% sure).

Great book. Incredible tale of survival.

Ken

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonnyBlademan:

If I may digress back to the original topic.

"The Forgotten Soldier" By: Guy Sajer, would be a great book for you to check with GoofyStance. Although I don't remember specifically if he refers to platoon leaders using AT weapons, he does describe "delaying and fire brigade actions" that he was involved in. Ironically, I can't check this myself as my copy was loaned to and never returned by MY platoon leader.

This piece of fiction is discussed in detail at my GD site at http://members.shaw.ca/grossdeutschland/sajer.htm

True or not, I would try and find other books...Infantry Aces by Gordon Williamson has some good stories in it, all about Knight's Cross winners. I believe he mentions at least one (Remy Schrynen) who won the Tank Destruction Badge though I don't recall if he was a troop leader at that time.

I'm still looking for my copy of the TDB book, incidentally.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The Canadians in II Corps, for example, had 7 brigades of infantry (three battalions per brigade) and 2 brigades of tanks. Including the armoured recce regiment of 4th Div (which was equipped as a standard armoured regiment) that gives 7 "battalions" of armour and 24 battalions of infantry (including the Motor regiment of 4th Armd Div).

What about the independent (?2nd?) Can Armd Bde?

CW infantry divisions did not have their own armour as US infantry divisions did.

US Inf Divs didn't have their 'own' armour. They typically had a bn attached (and a AT bn , and a 4.2" coy, and more arty, etc, etc), but it wasn't organic.

One armoured [regt] per infantry brigade is not a bad amount; during Charnwood one squadron was used to support each infantry battalion (three squadrons to an armoured [regt]).

I think in most theatres that ratio was found to be 'about right' for the CW from '43 through '45.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

What about the independent (?2nd?) Can Armd Bde?

What makes you think I didn't include it? There was 4 Arm Bde in 4 Arm Div, and 2 Arm Bde (independent) for a total of 7 armoured regiments. Unless I missed someone?

CW infantry divisions did not have their own armour as US infantry divisions did.

US Inf Divs didn't have their 'own' armour. They typically had a bn attached (and a AT bn , and a 4.2" coy, and more arty, etc, etc), but it wasn't organic.

One armoured [regt] per infantry brigade is not a bad amount; during Charnwood one squadron was used to support each infantry battalion (three squadrons to an armoured [regt]).I think in most theatres that ratio was found to be 'about right' for the CW from '43 through '45.

Regards

JonS

But in Italy, they found they had too little infantry and beefed up armour divisions by an extra brigade - at least for 5 Cdn Arm Div and I thought at least one Brit div as well?

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

This piece of fiction is discussed in detail at my GD site

I second the fiction motion.

Kitty

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

What about the independent (?2nd?) Can Armd Bde?

What makes you think I didn't include it? There was 4 Arm Bde in 4 Arm Div, and 2 Arm Bde (independent) for a total of 7 armoured regiments. Unless I missed someone?</font>

[GoofyStance]

Originally posted by JonnyBlademan:

If I may digress back to the original topic.

"The Forgotten Soldier" By: Guy Sajer, would be a great book for you to check with GoofyStance. Although I don't remember specifically if he refers to platoon leaders using AT weapons, he does describe "delaying and fire brigade actions" that he was involved in. Ironically, I can't check this myself as my copy was loaned to and never returned by MY platoon leader.

Whoa nelly - I am once again amazed by the level of erudition and passion displayed by people on this board. I started out with a squad-level question, and it was elevated to divisional status Not that I don't appreciate the effort you folks have put into answering my question and expanding on the original concept - I do! It's very interesting to read, and I learn a lot. In response to Jonny's recommendation, I am actually reading "A Forgotten Soldier" at the moment, having learned of this book from previous mentions of it on this board. Yes, I'm well aware of the numerous caveats surrounding this book, but it's still an interesting read, keeping in mind its shaky foundations I've just started it though, so I haven't seen anything yet about delaying and fire brigade actions. Thanks, though!

To everyone else, a big THANK YOU for all your contributions. They make an great game even better and more informative.

[Michael Dorosh]

I just typed out a big long list of tank destruction badge winners, then turned my computer off by accident. doh!

Anyway, the book you want to see is TANK KILLERS: HISTORY OF THE TANK DESTRUCTION BADGE by Thomas Breyette and Roger James Bender.

The list of holders of this award seem to be all Knight's Cross winners. If this is a deliberate sampling or not, I don't know - surely KC holders are the ones easiest to research given the amount of data on them.

Lots of platoon and company commanders included, of course. I would say that anyone with the bravery to knock out a tank would also likely possess the qualities necessary for leadership of a platoon or company, and the bravery to get the Knight's Cross.

Reading some of the award info, they were definitely in command positions at the time of the award, though as suggested, many were commissioned after the award of their Knight's Cross also.

The high scorer was Viezenz, a senior lieutenant who commanded an infantry company. He refused to talk about his 21 tank kills after the war, and died in 1999 as a retired colonel (Oberst).

[JonnyBlademan]

Well, it makes sense one way or the other with the state of the German Army during it's retreat back to Germany, that anyone who could pick up an AT weapon would use one (I would). As for "The Forgotten Soldier" being fiction, I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. Great read anyway.