Rumanian units equipped with 7.62cm AT guns in August 1942?

[jmark]

Hi guys,

Does anybody know if Rumanian units were ever equipped with captured Soviet 7.62cm anti-tank guns? I'm specifically interested in August 1942. Apparently, on 6 August 1942, near Abganerovo Station south of Stalingrad, a couple of German panzers were knocked out by Rumanian 7.62cm anti-tank guns. My research indicates that the 2nd and 4th Romanian Divisions were in this general area (not as far north as Abganerovo, but it's conceivable that small detachments from either division accompanied the German advance).

Are there any documents that show 7.62cm AT guns in the arsenal of these divisions?

I hope someone can shed some light on this matter.

Thanks
Jason

[Sid Guttridge]

Are you sure it wasn't a typo for "Russian"?

If not, what details to you have of the incident?

The largest Romanian anti-tank gun on issue at this time was, from memory, a 75mm piece converted by the Germans from the French Schneider M1897 field gun. It was dubbed something like the Pak 97/38(f). I think there were six issued per infantry division for the 1942 campaign.

However, this doesn't preclude the Romanians from pressing captured Soviet 76.2 guns into service in the field. They also certainly had a number in their depots at home, booty from the 1941 campaign, because they later mounted them on their TACAM R2 and TACAM T60 self propelled guns.

Sid

[jmark]

Hi Sid,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Initially, I thought it was a typo too ("rum." instead of "russ."), but nowhere else are tank losses mentioned. This is from corps records, and this incident is the only one where specific panzer losses are recorded, signifying that this incident was unusual. It was also recorded in two different areas (KTB and Anlagen), so a typo becomes less likely. Other German sources confirm that several men were killed and wounded as a result. If I can prove that Rumanian units were indeed armed with these guns, then further weight is added to the German claim. I'm currently scouring 4. Panzerarmee records to see if there is a report from the Rumanian division.

Jason

[Sid Guttridge]

Have you seen Third Axis, Fourth Ally by Axworthy?

This gives the best account of the Romanian Army in WWII, at least in English.

It is well worth getting.

There is also a Romanian book on Stalingrad using original Romanian documents that I would recommend:

Românii la Stalingrad : viziunea românească asupra tragediei din Cotul Donului și Stepa Calmucă by Adrian Pandea, Ion Pavelescu, Eftimie Ardeleanu.

Author/Creator:Pandea, A.
Language:Romanian.
Publication date:1992
Imprint:București : Editura Militară, 1992.
Format:Book
476 p. ; 21 cm.
Bibliography:Includes bibliographical references.
Contributor:Pavelescu, Ion.
Ardeleanu, Eftimie.
ISBN:9733203130
9789733203131

Sid.

[jmark]

Thanks very much Sid. I'll track down copies of those books.
Jason

[Alex Tijerina]

Thanks very much Sid. I'll track down copies of those books.
Jason

Why can't they print some of these books in English? Surely there would be an interest.

[Dann Falk]

After rereading some old posts…

Looking at the German Ost map for Aug 6, 1942, there are no Romanian units anywhere near Abganerovo Station. The only units in that area were the German 14 panzer and 29 Mortised.

During 5-6 Aug the Soviet 64 Army was counterattacking German forces in the Abganerovo Station area. This would most likely account for any German tank losses. It’s doubtful any Romanian infantry units or AT guns would have present.

I also reviewed the book Third Axis, Fourth Ally by Mark Axworthy and did not find any specific reference to Romanian units using captured Russian 76.2 AT guns, at this time.

So I think the account you cited is somehow in error.

Hope this helps,
Dann

[jmark]

Hi Dann,

Thanks for your reply. The Lage Ost maps only show divisions, occasionally a Vorausabteilung, so they're no use in determining the location of small units. If a Romanian detachment accompanied the Germans, it would not be shown.

Since I posted this question, I've actually found a crewman who was in one of the two Panzer IVs – he's 94 years old – and had a German friend interview him for me. The veteran believes Romanian units were present shortly before his tank was hit (the gunner was killed, the other four members, including the veteran, who was the radio operator, escaped with serious burns). However, human memory is fallible, so it's not definite proof.

Attached is a scan of the primary German document. The relevant sentence is marked.

Jason

[Alanmccoubrey]

The Romanian VI Corps was behind and to the right of 29 ID(mot) at this time providing the flank protection all the way back to the Don River and in the same counter-attack in which these two Pz IV's were destroyed the Soviets threw that Corps back over the Aksai River , this is from Axworthy, Pages 83-84. The Romanian Divisions in VI Corps were all veterans of Barbarossa which had not been reorganised during early 1942 and the only guns of 75mm and above that they had were in their artillery battalions.

I'm inclined to think that it is just a typo for "ru" or "russ" , would the writer of these notes not have made some special mention of a "friendly fire" incident ?

[jmark]

I'm inclined to think that it is just a typo for "ru" or "russ" , would the writer of these notes not have made some special mention of a "friendly fire" incident ?

"Friendly fire" was not a term used by the Germans, so how would they note such an incident? I believe they would write it as shown in the attached scan. Another "friendly fire" incident in German records (3 panzers of 24.Pz.Div. on 15 September 1942) simply states that they were shot by Flak of 71.Inf.Div. No need for a special term.

The fact that 7.62cm guns are mentioned is highly unusual. Normally, panzer losses are rarely mentioned in these records, and when they are, it will say something like "5 Panzer Totalverlust". In no other case is the cause of the tanks' destruction recorded. That is what makes this case so unusual. I've perused tens of thousands of pages of German records and this stands out.

Do we know for certain that Romanian units did not pick up a few 7.62cm for the own use? Dozens were captured during the advance in the first days of August. Look in the record I attached: 5 such guns were captured by 29.I.D. alone on 6 August. These guns were everywhere!

Admittedly, I'm in two minds about this. It would be easy to dismiss this as a typo, but why did the clerk feel the need to add a nationality to the gun? Why not just write "2 IV am 6.8. durch 7,62 abgeschossen"? That makes perfect sense. Adding "russ." to the sentence is redundant. It'd be like adding "deutsch" in front of "Panzer IV". Do you seen my point?

[Alanmccoubrey]

We're not talking to each other in WW2 German but 21st Century English in which "Friendly Fire" perfectly describes what may have happened here. As for the mention of the 7.62cm gun being unusual, or even highly unusual I'm afraid that you are wrong, the Germans mention enemy equipment all the time in their reports, they even had a nickname for the 7.62 gun. It was important for them to record how they lost their tanks and also how many enemy guns they destroyed.
The Germans are never afraid to use redundancy in their sentences , so no I don't see your point at all.

[jmark]

I'm afraid you are missing my point, in fact, you're missing all of them.

1. I know the Germans would not use the actual term "friendly fire", but there was no WW2 German equivalent for that term. If a report stated that a panzer was shot by 71.Inf.Div. Flak or a Romanian gun, that's all that needed to be said, that is the "special mention of a friendly fire incident".

2.Have a look at the report I posted. Notice that the numbers down the left are 1, 2 and 6. This is part of the standard German reporting system, Nr. 1 being combat situation, Nr. 5 location of command post and Nr. 6 panzer strengths. The number system varied slightly, but you get the gist. Anyway, in all of 29.Inf.Div. reports during this period, Nr. 6 is only for panzer strengths, not losses. In this one instance, on 6 August, the division thought it noteworthy to record the loss of two Panzer IVs. Why, in the previous days, did they not report panzer losses? Why didn't they do the same in the coming days, especially on 7 August when panzer numbers dropped dramatically? That's what makes this entry so unusual. And what's even more unusual is the fact that they record how the panzers were destroyed, in this case a 7.62cm gun with the prefix "rum.". That is the context in which I meant the mention of a 7.62cm gun is unusual. I work with German reports every day (full-time author here), so I'm fully aware of what's in them and what's out-of-the-ordinary.

3. The report posted is the epitome of succinctness, so redundancy seems out of place.

[Dann Falk]

Greetings,
Trying hard to find something for you.

Going back and looking over the book, Third Axis, Fourth Ally by Mark Axworthy on Pages 83-84

1. It talks about how the Romanian VI Corps took part in the drive to the Don as part of IV Pz Army (this is known info).

2. Then it goes on to say, the corps marched 450 Km in twenty days trying to keep up with the German mechanized troops, and then..."Its advance was led by a two-squadron motorcycle reconnaissance group which captured the HQ of the Soviet 278 Division, 3,100 troops, fourteen guns and four tanks."

3. Then it goes on to say how the corps was the link between the German troops still across the Don and the advancing 14 Pz Div and 29 Motorized Div.

4. Then further on it specifically comments about the Aug 8 Soviet counter attack against the 14 Pz Div and 29 Motorized Divisions without saying anything about Romanian troops at all. (as if they were not involved)

So…from this I conclude two things:

First, it’s unlikely any large Romanian units were engaged during the Aug 6-8 counterattack.

Second, it might have been possible that another motorcycle reconnaissance group was formed and sent out ahead of the largely static Romanian VI Corps. This recon group might have been scouting the far right flank of the corps, as well as maintaining contact with German units. If this is true they might have once again, during the battle, overran a small Soviet unit and seized weapons and equipment, including 76.2 mm AT Guns.

This is I think, a plausible scenario…but not proof.

I hope this helps.

[Victor]

On 6 August, the 2nd Infantry Division reached the Aksay Valley and established bridgeheads at Slainsky, Doroteev, Shestakov and Klikov. To reinforce these positions, lt. gen. Dragalina introduced the 4th Infantry Division on the right flank of the 2nd Division and the 20th Infantry Division crossed the Don and advanced approximately 75 km. It secured a 40 km frontline on the Aksay Valley, while the rest of 4th Panzer Army pushed on towards Stalingrad. By 8 August, the 6th Corps had reached the city's exterior defensive belt on the Myshkova River.

"Slainsky" is probably present day Zalivskiy on the Aksay Esaulovskiy River, "Doroteev is probably Dorofeevskiy. The 6th Corps was still some 25 km South East of Abganerovo Railway station on 6 August and in the following two days advanced to the Myshkova Valley, in the vicinity of the station.

The only 76.2 mm artillery the 6th Corps possesed at that momment were the old Tsarist Army Schneider-Putilov models retubed for 75 mm ammo in the 30s, as they had been continously on the front line since late 1941 and did not benefit from any of the improvements of the infantry divisions that had returned to their garrisons in October. Not a very potent AT weapon and not usually used for this task unless it was under attack by enemy tanks behind the front line.

[GregSingh]

This map from http://www.rkka.ru/ shows 4th ID(rum) near Abganerovo Station as early as 5th of August.
Not sure how accurate it is...

Abganerovo 1942