U.S. 57mm APDS combat use in ETO confirmed

[John Kettler]

While reading the excellent AGAINST THE PANZERS, by Karamales and Vannoy, on page 280 I not only found a clear statement that 7-10 rounds per gun were supplied by the British to the Americans prior to D-

Day, but that penetration was 154 mm against armor plate sloped at 30 degrees. Unfortunately, no range

was listed! The chapter then goes on to describe these rounds in use against both Jagdpanzer IVs and Jagdpanthers during the defense of Dom Butgenbach during the Battle of the Bulge. This is the first time I can ever recall a combat history's mentioning this projectile in use by U.S. forces. Shall start another thread later devoted to the simply astounding range of material and incidents in the book, but wanted to record this one before I forgot. CMAK, CMETO and CMBO fans alike will want to read that one.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

There do not appear to have been any actual Jagdpanthers at Dom B. Jagd-70s (which had skirts BTW) are the apparent source of the mis-ID.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Per page 273 of the book, the Twelfth SS Panzer Regiment, being down to one battalion, was reinforced by cross attaching a Wehrmacht unit, the 560th Heavy Panzerjaeger Battalion, to it. As if this weren't weird enough, the crews even seem to have been composed of admixed SS and Wehrmacht. It goes on to say: "The battalion was composed of heavily armored Mark IV Jagdpanzer and Mark V Jagdpanther self-propelled tank destroyers." Later, this point is reinforced when the composition of the II Bn. of the Regiment is listed as "fourteen Mark V Jagdpanthers and twenty-one Mark IV Jagdpanzers in the 560th Heavy

Panzerjaeger Bn." Later in the account, we read on page 289 of "a company of Jagdpanthers" (note capitalization and model specificity, as opposed to lower case generic "jagdpanzers") working with Panzergrenadiers to clear defenders from the Schwarzenbuechel on Hill 503. On page 290, referring to the same action, we read of "three giant jagdpanzers," a term I wouldn't use to describe a vanilla Jagdpanzer IV but would use if I encountered a Jagdpanther, let alone three. On page 296, a Captain Hils of the 560th is explicitly identified as being "in his Jagdpanther," moments later seen to be "on fire...Hils himself nowhere to be seen"

Offhand, the above seem to be pretty solid to me.

Do you have an ironclad OOB for the 560th showing it had no Jagdpanthers at the time? Would love to see your sources regarding the Jagdpanzer IV/70 argument.

Here's the citation for the original SAIC study upon which the book is based. SAIC is one of the premier defense think tanks.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA284379

This site offers decals for a Jagdpanther at Dom Butgenbach, and the set reportedly includes photos of the specific, individual AFVs from which the decals were derived. Note the unit designator:

s.Pz.Jg. Abt 560 Dom Butgenbach, Ardennes December 1944

http://tinyurl.com/3a5dtn

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 28, 2008, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[JasonC]

I am willing to stand corrected, on looking into it further.

Yes 560 was there working with 12 SS. Yes it had one company of Jagdpanthers on strength, to 2 companies of Jagdpanzer-70s. 12SS itself has Panthers (mostly fought for the villages ahead of Dom B though), and Panzer IVs (mostly used vs. Dom .

There is photographic evidence for 3 Jagdpanthers knocked out or abandoned. At least one with gun damage (perhaps from the massive Elsenborn artillery group) and the pair mired in a ditch along the road from Bulligen to Dom B, maybe KOed by hits, maybe not.

I am somewhat less convinced by a "3 huge" comment, though it fits that evidence. Even the Jagd-70s look unusually large due to their very long barrels. There is a mid-IDed "perhaps a Tiger" about at least one AFV immobilized earlier (pre Dom B I mean, but from 12SS) that seemed particularly resistent to bazooka fire - which no Tigers anywhere near the location.

I also saw a report of part of 1 company 560 (the Jagdpanther subformation) being cut off from the rest of the unit for two days, then withdrawn - which suggests bypass rather than assault.

I also note that 12SS had Jagds later in the battle, in January, so losses cannot have been too complete, to their handful. Perhaps 4, with others out of action for bogging or isolated from the rest of the unit.

Actual US descriptions of the sequence of attacking German AFVs are "12 jagdpanzers", then "1 jagdpanzer and 1 PSW", then "8 jagdpanzer", then "20 tanks" and a more details "10 panzer IVs and 8 jadgpanzers" (in the most famous incident, the overrun of the 57mm battery), later in the same fight 8 "tanks", and the next day 6 "tanks". 47 total German AFVs claimed.

Probably "jagdpanzer" is being used generically. But it is also likely, given the state of the roads, known survivals to much later, and the cut off description, that only a handful engaged the ridge position directly. It is unclear whether the 3 identifiable wrecks were abandoned to bogging and artillery damage shy of the AFV vs AFV engagement, or whether they took AT fire from the US TDs on the ridge (which eventually included 90mm Jacksons in quantity, thus certainly sufficient to have stopped them).

FWIW...

[michael kenny]

sPz.Jg.Abt 560 on 3/12/44 had 13 Jagdpanther and 31 Panzer IV/70(V)

27 Jagdpanthers in total(9 in the 519th, 5 in the 559th and 13 in the 560th), were available at the start of the offensive and only 5 were total losses up to 30/12/44. 4 of these were from '560' and the other from '559'.

16 were writtren off in January.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Roger. Appreciate additional info!

Regarding your argument, if you look at the pictures from tank shows where reenactor crews are on and around them to give a sense of scale, the Jagdpanther has a simply stunning visual impression: big, tall, powerful (that 88 L/70), and the Jagdpanzer IV/70 is a relative nonevent by comparison, beautiful camouflage job notwithstanding. It simply lacks the former's presence and visual impact, not least because it's so low slung.

michael kenny,

Great info! Seems to track well with JasonC's data.

Regards,

John Kettler

[michael kenny]

[JasonC]

Yeah, the one on the bottom is in Cavanagh...

[John Kettler]

Michael kenny,

Great pics! Remarkable how different the scenery and weather make the same vehicles look.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Claus B]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

While reading the excellent AGAINST THE PANZERS, by Karamales and Vannoy, on page 280 I not only found a clear statement that 7-10 rounds per gun were supplied by the British to the Americans prior to D-

Day, but that penetration was 154 mm against armor plate sloped at 30 degrees. Unfortunately, no range

was listed! The chapter then goes on to describe these rounds in use against both Jagdpanzer IVs and Jagdpanthers during the defense of Dom Butgenbach during the Battle of the Bulge. This is the first time I can ever recall a combat history's mentioning this projectile in use by U.S. forces. Shall start another thread later devoted to the simply astounding range of material and incidents in the book, but wanted to record this one before I forgot. CMAK, CMETO and CMBO fans alike will want to read that one.

John,

Seems that the book only repeats what the SAIC study has to say about the use of 6-pdr APDS in US 57mm guns and as you may or may not recall, Jeff Duquette brought that to our attention on this very forum in 2001

It's on p. 21 of the SAIC study, if you have it downloaded.

US Army ammunition expenditure data found at US Army Military History Institute by Kurt Laughlin in 2002 confirms that the US Army had APDS available and recorded its use from August 1944 to May 1945.

I dont mean to be obnoxious about it, I just thought the issue of US use of 6-pdr APDS had been cleared up years ago

Claus B

[John Kettler]

Claus,

Talk about a blast from the past! Hi! ISTR we concluded that such ammo was issued pre D-Day from British stocks, but this was for me the first time I actually read of its combat use and of the huge consequent jump in lethality for the otherwise anemic U.S. 57mm AT gun. Since it figured so heavily in the fighting at Dom Butgenbach, I thought it worth mentioning. Also, I think many here would really enjoy the book.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Given that AtP has been out for about a dozen years ...

[MeatEtr]

Now on to the next obvious question. Anybody know of any scenarios for CMAK based on this battle?

[Claus B]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Claus,

Talk about a blast from the past! Hi!

And hello to you too

Dug up the old thread, just for the fun of it:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=022446

If anyone is interested, vol. 1 - 3 of the SAIC study can be downloaded from SAIC:

Vol 1: Technical Report

Vol 2: U.S. Anti-Tank Defense at Mortain

Vol 3: U.S. Anti-Tank Defense at Dom Butgenbach

Go to http://stinet.dtic.mil/index.html and do a search for "anti-armor defense data study"

cbo

[ February 19, 2008, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Claus B ]

[John Kettler]

Claus B,

Great thread! And for the guy looking for ETO 37 mm canister combat use, he needs to read Doubler's CLOSING WITH THE ENEMY. There, he'll find a fascinating actual hedgerow breaching drill for Stuarts described, wherein after the hedgerow's breached with explosives, a pair of Stuarts, infantry on the back, pop in and blaze away left and right with canister fire, meanwhile covered by other weapons. Shall definitely download the SAIC Study.

JonS,

My memory's porous, and I found the book only recently.

Regards,

John Kettler