Commonwealth and German battalion organisation

[Andreas]

From Leavenworth Paper No.4 "he Dynamics of Doctrine:

The Change in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War":

An important aspect of the application of the new offensive doctrine was the role of the storm battalions in teaching the new small unit techniques to the other German infantry units. Each German field army had a storm battalion that acted as a teaching cadre during periods of training. This instruction was so highly regarded that German units on the eastern front began sending officers and noncommissioned officers to the western front to attend storm unit training courses in late 1916. Field armies on the eastern front then imitated their counterparts in the west by establishing their own storm battalions, based on Rohr's unit.30

The composition of storm units varied within these possibilities:

1 to 5 storm companies (infantry assault units)

1 to 2 machine gun companies (heavy machine guns)

1 flamethrower section

1 infantry gun battery (light mountain howitzers or captured Russian guns)

1 Minenwerfer company (trench mortars)

I think it is quite interesting to look at how similar the organisation looks to the standard WW2 infantry battalion. You have three batteries of IG18 in all of the regiments at the start of the war, question is - where they supposed to work on a 2-gun section basis with a battalion each? That would make it even more similar. Did WW 1 German regular infantry battalions have an HMG company?

[JonS]

Originally posted by David I:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> IIRC, that was the book of fairy tales read to newbie coy cmdrs to scare them awake at night. Some ok-ish stuff in it, lots of nonsense.

Gee Wiz you undermine my faith in the War Department. A War Department that, I might add, had every German document West of the Elbe, and a few million German POW's. </font>

[David I]

Jon,

Point taken. Still not a bad start.

DavidI

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On Brit MG organizational differences, they date from WW I and the effort of MG gunners to distinguish themselves from other branches of service. The Germans and US treat MGs as portions of the infantry arm as a matter of course. The Brits do not.

Wrong. "Did not" might be more correct. The MG Corps was disbanded in 1920 IIRC. After that, MGs were definitly part of and treated as Infantry.

In WW I, the Brits started out with a few Vickers at battalion - like 4. Not enough to do much. Then they add Lewis guns, which are pushed down to company level and actually move with the infantry. Not as SAWs, but setting up on a new trenchline when one is taken, going into the line wherever the company does, that sort of thing. This was initially 4 Lewis guns per company as a heavy weapons platoon (along with others for mortars).

Except by 1918, each section had a Lewis. I'd recommend reading Paddy Griffiths, "Battle Tactics of the Western Front".

The British had by 1917 evolved very similar tactics that the much vaunted "Stormtroopers" are usually credited with. MMGs were indeed centralised and that made sense, as they were considered a technical art, requiring considerable training to make work properly and keep working. That logic began to fall apart with the introduction of the Lewis. However, other facets of centralisation such as close co-ordination of fire, ammunition resupply and so on continued to have a bearing on how they were employed.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with such centralisation, as it ensures that the weapons are used most effectively, compared to penny-packetism.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by David I:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> IIRC, that was the book of fairy tales read to newbie coy cmdrs to scare them awake at night. Some ok-ish stuff in it, lots of nonsense.

Gee Wiz you undermine my faith in the War Department. A War Department that, I might add, had every German document West of the Elbe, and a few million German POW's. I find, in general, that its is not a bad rough guide to German TOE's for '44.

</font>

[Dandelion]

Regrettably the Handbook and Nafziger are both riddled with error. One has to admit that the Handbook is amazingly accurate considering the date of publication though. Nafziger is not a scientist or a researcher, he does only very shallow research if any at all, he jumps into conclusions and extrapolates wildly, he frequently misinterpret Germans sources (often in a humoristic way to any German) and he projects his own ideas on the material at hand. In fact I consider his works (the biggies I mean, with the OOBs) rather useless. I own them, but I sincerely regret the buy.

The best work around for German organisation is that of Tessin, supplemented by Dr Niehorster. While German (Tessin I mean, Niehorster is completely bilingual), it's basically a bunch of tables and does not require any conversational skills. If you can read math tables or the stock market tables, you can learn to read these lists of abbreviations and figures. Of course, it costs some 1400 USD to buy a reprint collection, but I found mine second hand for only 700 USD. The official TOE tables consist almost entirely of numbers and the abbreviations every wargamer already knows. These can be bought from national archives. I think that includes the USNA.

And if one does, one finds that the K.St.N. (TOE, WE etc) tables for the MGK, later schwere kompanie, of infantry battallions include no 12cm at any date. These are the 150 series, in the relevant case (Neuer Art) 155b I should think. Might be c.

The 12cm appears in regimental units and in independent motorised mortar battallions.

Aside from the acute scarcity of the weapon, unlike the 8cm it could not be horse towed. The infantry battallions regrettably had no RSOs or Lkws to tow them around with. The heavy company had only two trucks when at authorised strength. Supply trucks.

If 12cm are found in battallion units - quite possible in a given situation I suppose, if speaking armoured/motorised infantry and not infantry as such - it can only be weapons taken from regiment. As regimental weapons were ferquently attached to battallions temporarily, I much suspect it is this that we see, rather than permanent incorporation at battallion level.

From production figues must be deducted losses in the field, so the weapon was more rare even than Andreas' figures would indicate. Buchner states in his book that by late 1944 only 3000 some were reported in army field unit stocks, though he gives no source for this. I would presume it is the normal HWa WuG figures that everyone else use.

Those are, by the way, probably also available in the USNA.

Before we got stuck on the mortars, there was a considerably more interesting debate on the tactical availability of UK machinegun assets. We weren't really finished with that were we?

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Before we got stuck on the mortars, there was a considerably more interesting debate on the tactical availability of UK machinegun assets. We weren't really finished with that were we?

No, it is being carried on in the US Infantry Company 1:1 thread, where we have gone to simply making stuff up out of thin air to agree with Wartgamer so he will shut up and go away.

[JasonC]

On German 120s, I find no mention of them in TOE reports, no mention in ammo use reports, no mention in loss reports, for 5 panzer divisions, 3 panzergrenadier divisions, and 8 infantry divisions, at the time of Kursk.

In the Normandy database a year later, there are the following mentions of them -

9th SS - 12 12cm mortars in 15 company of combined KG formed from both pzgdr regiments. They also have 12 sp 150mm sIG (again combined).

FJ regiment 6 - 9 12 cm mortars in 13 company. No sIGs.

272 infantry division (exceptionally well equipped in all respects, relieves 1SS in mid July) - 32 sGrW, 54 mGrW, along with 9 sIG. This would appear to the the only case where the 4 per battalion idea was actually met.

There are 2 10cm mortars, not 12cm, reported in one heavy company of a regiment of 3 FJ (otherwise a quite understrength unit).

That is it. In every other case where calibers are specified, mortars are 81mm, or occasionally some 50mm (in static divisions, Ost battalions, etc).

Some units the coverage is spotty. It is possible some other "rich" PDs had 12 cm mortars, in units where the database is thin. But every report with numbers of real weapons in actual units, besides the above, they aren't there.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No, it is being carried on in the US Infantry Company 1:1 thread, where we have gone to simply making stuff up out of thin air to agree with Wartgamer so he will shut up and go away.

The acceptable method for making warty and his ilk depart does not generally involve engaging them in any form of conversation.

[JasonC]

Michael,

I do not consider abolishing a separate legal branch of service in 1920 remotely dispositive on such a question. The Vickers were at brigade and above under the influence of the MG gunners branch. And in WW II they are kept in a separate battalion at division level. Meanwhile, everywhere there were Lewis guns in WW I, there are Brens directly supporting their own infantry formations in WW II.

Why did they centralize the Vickers and decentralized the Brens? I thought I already explained that, but if anyone doesn't get it, the standard deployment should make it clear.

4 vickers in a "battery" like position at locations along the front, perhaps 1km distant. Each with 2 guns facing right front, 2 facing left front, and an angle as low as 30 degrees from the front line. Directly forward may be completely blocked by sandbags.

Ahead of any position along the front, then, there are 4 vickers that bear, 2 from each of 2 different directions, at ranges of 500 to 1000 yards.

Locking screws set to prevent traversing the guns onto friendly positions. Occasionally these stops are reset if the front moves. Otherwise, over to the stop. Pull trigger, tap tap on the barrel. Repeat to the far stop.

It is designed to prevent massed infantry attack, and on the frontages of units a km to either side of the position. These would then be strung out along the entire divisional frontage. It is not designed to support an infantry company or battalion attacking straight ahead of the position.

This is not infantry heavy weapons thinking, nor organic support for the line infantry companies. It is something else entirely, part of a general defense scheme against heavy manpower based attacks. It may still have its uses - call for FPF ahead of a position just taken to stop a counterattack, drizzle bullets into no man's land to stop enemy intel patrols, etc. But it is fundamentally countering a threat that is just never going to materialize.

Meanwhile, the actual fire support for the actual infantry doing the actual attacking, comes from their organic Brens, which carriers help reposition and resupply etc.

[Wartgamer]

http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/Weapons/Mortarsandguns/Mortars%20&%20Infantry%20Guns.htm

This above source states the Germans did not start supplying them to infantry battalions till 1944

Panzerfaust website...

12cm - Granatwerfer

After germany attacked russia in 1941, they encountered the large russian PM 38 12cm mortars. Not only were any captured weapons immediately used in german service under the designation 12cm Granatwerfer 378®, the germans were so impressed by this weapon that they immediately prepared to produce their own copies. This design was called 12cm Granatwerfer 42. The tube had a length of 186.5cm and the complete weapon weighed 285kg. It fired the Wurfgranate 42 that had a length of 72.1cm and weighed 15.8kg incl. 3.1kg of explosives. The warhead was usually fitted with the Abstandszünder 41 ("distance detonator") extender fuse. With a Vo of 283 the maximum range was slightly over 6km. The weapon proved a very successful design, total production (1943-1945) was 8,461 12cm Gr.W.42; it was comparably cheap and cost the germans 1,200.- RM apiece to produce. Of it's ammunition, the Wurfgranate 42, a total of 5,373,000 was built from 1943 - 1945.

Link from Panzerfaust website..

Heavy Company (3 Officers, 202 men)

Company HQ (1 Officer, 19 men)

Company Train (17 men)

Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 54 men)

8 cm Mortar Platoon (66 men)

12 cm Mortar Platoon (1 Officer, 46 men)

Heavy Mortar Platoon - the Germans had encountered a new threat on the Eastern Front, the Red Army's 120 mm mortar. They were suitably impressed and copied the weapon for German use. It was effectively a light artillery piece, and required a notably high concentration of motor transport to move. The Platoon served four tubes, each with a massive range of almost 6000 m. Production never met demand, and in some units additional 8 cm mortars may have been used, or even Infantry guns as described earlier.

[ March 15, 2005, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No, it is being carried on in the US Infantry Company 1:1 thread, where we have gone to simply making stuff up out of thin air to agree with Wartgamer so he will shut up and go away.

The acceptable method for making warty and his ilk depart does not generally involve engaging them in any form of conversation. </font>

[Wartgamer]

There are so many reports of the 120mm being used in Normandy that it must mean that it was, of course, in some regt or below grouping. I have not read of it being in very large groupings like I imagine the Soviets probably used.

Some readings indicate rarity of ammo but that just mean they had more targets than rounds.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox:

The acceptable method for making warty and his ilk depart does not generally involve engaging them in any form of conversation.

You're so much better at that than me.

I shall endeavour to do better. </font>

[Andreas]

So, since there is no real evidence that the 12cm GrW made it to battalions, let's put that to rest.

Now about the HMGs. AIU the Leavenworth paper, Storm Battalions were non-standard formations. Something quite similar to their configuration had however become standard by the mid-1930s at the latest.

A long time ago (probably in the running with HMGs thread), it was stated that the advantage of the German air-coold HMG design was mobility, allowing the heavy weapons to keep up with the advance. Greiner & Degener confirm that aim. Since technically the Vickers is not as mobile without recourse to e.g. carriers (which has its own restrictions), this would indicate that the standard German infantry battalion (all other things being equal) was capable of somewhat more independent action in the offense than its Commonwealth counterpart. How much of a difference would that have made IRL™?

[JonS]

Tighter leash on the CW Bns? Especially later once they'd figured out that Bad Things tended to happen if they got out from under the umbrella.

Still, with the greater inherent tpt in a CW bn boring stuff like food, water, ammo, would have found it easier to get fwd to the tps. How much difference would that make, IRL?

[Andreas]

Not much, since the Wehrmacht would just plunder stuff from the natives

Seriously though, I think that in a combat situation like that, delivering your supplies by carrier is a bit marginal - you do not know if it can go where your infantry is beforehand. The terrain may not be suitable, the environment maybe too hostile for a lightly armoured vehicle.

In reality I do not think there would have been big differences BTW, because Commonwealth BNs were not short of high-level support. I am interested in the thinking behind the differences in design, not in the differences in outcome.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Andreas:

So, since there is no real evidence that the 12cm GrW made it to battalions, let's put that to rest.

So if I were running a miniature game that calls for a German battalion HW company to have an MG platoon, an 81mm mortar platoon, and a 120mm mortar platoon, I should remove all three batalion level 120mm mortar platoons and place one 120mm mortar platoon in the regimental weapons company (with the IGs and ATGs?)

-dale

[David I]

Well I have learned alot from this thread.

I will point out, however, that it was the loss from Stalingrad and Kursk that caused the building of '44 divisions and the resultant upgrade in mortars. To say you can't find any mention of 120's in July of 43 when production of them didn't start until that year does not suprise me in the least (a little like saying their was no expendeture of Kurtz rounds at Kursk means that no MP44s were issued to battalions in 44). Another poster says that the Germans made 8,000 plus of the buggers between 43 and 45, that equips 2,000 battalions, or for the sake of argument 1,000 Regiments, or 333 divisions (minus for losses, plusses for captured Russian tubes). They had to be used somewhere.

But I digress...

Are there any TOE's available in print, in English, that might shed light on the darkness of my ignorance? I mean if the only English source for TOE's are limited to "The Handbook" and Nafzlinger then that is all I can know.

Oh by the way SPI (Simulations Publications Inc)

was a wargaming magazine where spirited debates on these matters occured, in print, back in the '70s.

DavidI

[Andreas]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

So, since there is no real evidence that the 12cm GrW made it to battalions, let's put that to rest.

So if I were running a miniature game that calls for a German battalion HW company to have an MG platoon, an 81mm mortar platoon, and a 120mm mortar platoon, I should remove all three batalion level 120mm mortar platoons and place one 120mm mortar platoon in the regimental weapons company (with the IGs and ATGs?)

-dale </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by David I:

Well I have learned alot from this thread.

I will point out, however, that it was the loss from Stalingrad and Kursk that caused the building of '44 divisions and the resultant upgrade in mortars. To say you can't find any mention of 120's in July of 43 when production of them didn't start until that year does not suprise me in the least (a little like saying their was no expendeture of Kurtz rounds at Kursk means that no MP44s were issued to battalions in 44). Another poster says that the Germans made 8,000 plus of the buggers between 43 and 45, that equips 2,000 battalions, or for the sake of argument 1,000 Regiments, or 333 divisions (minus for losses, plusses for captured Russian tubes). They had to be used somewhere.

But I digress...

They were, in the regimental gun companies There would have been a number of the 120s by 1943, mainly captured ones. But you have to substract the very high losses during the constant retreats in the east in 1943/4 from the production number. At any given time there probably won't have been many of them in service, despite the 8,000 produced, and maybe thousands captured.

Originally posted by David I:

Are there any TOE's available in print, in English, that might shed light on the darkness of my ignorance? I mean if the only English source for TOE's are limited to "The Handbook" and Nafzlinger then that is all I can know.

Oh by the way SPI (Simulations Publications Inc)

was a wargaming magazine where spirited debates on these matters occured, in print, back in the '70s.

DavidI

German TO&Es are easy to understand, since they mostly work with symbols. You need little more German than you need for a CM game. I am not aware of many translations into English, and could not point you towards one at the moment.

Thanks for the info on SPI.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

So, since there is no real evidence that the 12cm GrW made it to battalions, let's put that to rest.

Rumor time: I recall reading in a source I don't recall but tended to take as reliable that by Normandy the 120 had begun to replace the 81 in the heavy weapons companies. Now whether he meant in plain vanilla Heer battalions, SS, or FJ I do not know. I take it you are definitively gainsaying that?

Michael

[Andreas]

Dale, let me correct my statement slightly. What I am talking about is the TO&E of the regiment. Actual tactical control of the 120s could well have been with battalions in cases - especially in the east, where a regiment may have had a 10km frontage, it may have been better to split and give the 120s (or the IGs) to the two battalions, because they would not be able to cover the frontage from a central position anyway.

So tactical control (and I presume that is what you are mostly interested in simulating with the miniatures) is different from TO&E and where the weapon sat in the overall structure.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

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

So, since there is no real evidence that the 12cm GrW made it to battalions, let's put that to rest.

So if I were running a miniature game that calls for a German battalion HW company to have an MG platoon, an 81mm mortar platoon, and a 120mm mortar platoon, I should remove all three batalion level 120mm mortar platoons and place one 120mm mortar platoon in the regimental weapons company (with the IGs and ATGs?)

-dale </font>

[Wartgamer]

The Germans made about 4800 75mm IGs and 1600 150mm IG in 1944.

The number of 120mm manufactured sort of lends itself to approximately a battalion level weapon. I do not think anyone has shown it was a Regt weapon.