Panzer III July 1944 Operation Goodwood

[jpz4]

Dyslexic SP gun? If so MK 3 SP gun could be e.g. StuG III.

x 2

[RichTO90]

Any idea what an S.F. tank is? Could it be a schwere flak tank? Interesting that they captured one.

Likely a text conversion anomaly not caught in the editing process. They are most likely StuG-III "S.P. Guns"...unless they are StuG-IV.

[Michael Kenny]

The War Diary entry seems to be that of an infantry Unit. I believe the 'X Company' gives it away but just in case which Unit is it?

[RichTO90]

The War Diary entry seems to be that of an infantry Unit. I believe the 'X Company' gives it away but just in case which Unit is it?

The War Diary in question is that of 3 Irish Guards, but the 'X Company' referenced is actually Scots Guards, which was attached at the time.

[keith A]

Possible but there are mentions of S.P.Guns elsewhere in the text which surely are StuG IIIs. I think these could be Hummels (Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer sFH18/1 (Sf) Hummel)? Which could explain their proximity, perhaps moving as a battery?

[RichTO90]

Possible but there are mentions of S.P.Guns elsewhere in the text which surely are StuG IIIs. I think these could be Hummels (Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer sFH18/1 (Sf) Hummel)? Which could explain their proximity, perhaps moving as a battery?

Keith, the full text of the diary entry is:

"1944 August Saturday 5
COURTEIL
Today we laid on a “full dress” fire plan. No 4 Coy gained COURTEIL. Then a combat group, consisting of X Coy, one troop of tanks of 2 Armd COLDM GDS, two 6-pr guns, two 17-pr guns, and two 3” Mortars (later reinforced by a platoon of No. 2 Coy) was pushed through COURTEIL to gain the village of MAISONCELLE, 600 metres S.E. They had a great fight, gained their objectives and although in immediate contact with at least 10 German tanks and a coy of infantry, held their positions for 48 hours, and, ably assisted by the two 17-prs, destroyed four MK 3 S.F. guns, one PANTHER tank, one lorry, and captured a Mk 3 S.F. gun intact. The knocked out lorry was from 2 (Armd) I.G. Two pls of No. 2 Coy (commanded by Capt. E.M. WOODS) and one troop of tanks (1 Armd COLDM GDS) with a section of carriers as escort, were ordered to the EAST of BEALIEU to support a bty of S.P. guns. They had some stiff fighting for 48 hours and Capt. WOODS, Major BATT (Sqn Comd of the COLDM GDS tks) were killed. No 1 Coy made a sweep SOUTH from Courteil, passing through No. 2 Coy and X Coys, searched some woods and returned to the area of Bn. HQ at COURTEIL. Total casualties for the day were three Offrs and one OR killed and three ORs wounded."

I have made extensive use of intelligence reports in British War Diary entries for Normandy and have yet to see any other mention of "S.F. Guns". OTOH, the use of "MK 3 S.P. guns" to identify what are clearly - in context - StuG-III is commonplace. The Hummel was an uncommon beast in Normandy; AFAIK only 48 were present (8 were recorded lost in July and 6 in August). Also, the problem with Adobe and similar text conversion software confusing a blurred or faded typeface "S.P." as "S.F." is also commonplace. Without some additional evidence showing otherwise I would lean to the likelihood that what were encountered were StuG-III.

[Michael Kenny]

Enemy tanks were decribed as 'hornets' which leads many today to jump to wrong conclusion. The correct German tank terminology (think hard Jones, was it a Pz IV 'J' or a 'H' you got today and was the Tiger an 'E' or a re-turreted early ?) was not a priority for the Diary compilers.

[keith A]

Possible but there are mentions of S.P.Guns elsewhere in the text which surely are StuG IIIs. I think these could be Hummels (Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer sFH18/1 (Sf) Hummel)? Which could explain their proximity, perhaps moving as a battery?

[peeved]

I have made extensive use of intelligence reports in British War Diary entries for Normandy and have yet to see any other mention of "S.F. Guns". OTOH, the use of "MK 3 S.F. guns" to identify what are clearly - in context - StuG-III is commonplace.

Hi Rich,

Is the "MK 3 S.F. guns" in the second sentence a typo? Otherwise I find a discrepancy between no other mentions of "S.F. Guns" but common usage of "MK 3 S.F. guns".

Markus

[RichTO90]

Is the "MK 3 S.F. guns" in the second sentence a typo? Otherwise I find a discrepancy between no other mentions of "S.F. Guns" but common usage of "MK 3 S.F. guns".

Markus

Oooooops! Sorry, thanks Markus for noticing that. Fixed now.

[Alanmccoubrey]

I'm a bit disappointed to find that the date of this action was 5th August, Goodwood had been over for 16 days by then.

[keith A]

my mistake. There was no actual date for the action in the history I read and I assumed July from other chronologic events.

The guards diaries are pretty specific (although the unit history is not). Although the GAD text uses the term Hornets for all enemy tanks the diaries do mention Hornets(Hornisse), Rhinoceros and Elephant SPG and there are many instances of a 7.5 SP Gun in the diaries, which surely mean StuG. The "Mk 3 S.F. Gun" is quite specific and I think s.f. is "schwere Feldhaubitze", a name gleaned from an intelligence briefing or an examination of the captured gun. The MkIII identifying it as a Hummel. But again I have no direct evidence. I know there were StuG III of the Hohenstaufen division involved in the night attack but also that the SS-Pz-Divisions had Hummel barreries.

[Michael Kenny]

Although the GAD text uses the term Hornets for all enemy tanks the diaries do mention Hornets(Hornisse), Rhinoceros and Elephant SPG

We know the 'Elephant' claim is an error. The Scots Guards entry for the Jagdpanther attack on the Churchills clearly say one of the attackers was a Tiger and the Irish Guards entry for July 18th says Gorman rammed a Panther. They sometimes get it wrong!

[keith A]

I am sorry, Michael I am obviously not being clear. Your punctuation seems to express exasperation that I cannot see the obvious? The problems of identification have been accepted and I am not arguing that they are always accurate, just that they did have the information about German AFV. Both your examples do not address my point. I go back to the fact that they capture a "MkIII S.F. Gun" That is why I believe the description is accurate and unusual and that "7.5 S.P.Gun" is the StuG III. There are no other entries as detailed as this. . Would a 17pdr gun be able to destroy three or more StuG III from distance? I haven't seen any other incidences of this but am willing to be shown them. The Hummel was a big high-sided target easy to see, identify and take aim at.

[RichTO90]

my mistake. There was no actual date for the action in the history I read and I assumed July from other chronologic events.

The guards diaries are pretty specific (although the unit history is not). Although the GAD text uses the term Hornets for all enemy tanks the diaries do mention Hornets(Hornisse), Rhinoceros and Elephant SPG and there are many instances of a 7.5 SP Gun in the diaries, which surely mean StuG. The "Mk 3 S.F. Gun" is quite specific and I think s.f. is "schwere Feldhaubitze", a name gleaned from an intelligence briefing or an examination of the captured gun. The MkIII identifying it as a Hummel. But again I have no direct evidence. I know there were StuG III of the Hohenstaufen division involved in the night attack but also that the SS-Pz-Divisions had Hummel barreries.

Sorry, but no Keith, the designation of the Hummel as given in British Intel Sums is "15 cm S.P. Hows". StuG are variously identified as "MK 3 S.P." or "7.5 cm S.P.".