Sinking a Panzer-Division

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Alanmccoubrey
Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#16

Post by Alanmccoubrey » 08 Jan 2009, 14:48

The Podzun-Pallas-Verlag history of 2. PD has 4 pages of pictures of the loading and of the sinking of these two ships and while it doesn't say exactly what the equipment loses were it does say that they were sunk "on their second trip" so perhaps they weren't as bad as they might have been. The book does say that the German dead were buried at Agustoli. Alan
Alan

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#17

Post by Urmel » 08 Jan 2009, 23:52

Here is the relevant passage from the RN staff history:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4wNYYkex7A0C

My guess is that the 93 tractors are in fact tanks, since Lexikon der Wehrmacht states that all tanks of Panzerregiment 3 were lost, and the number seems about right for a Panzerregiment after a campaign with some fighting.

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... /PR3-R.htm
Nach dem Polenfeldzug verlegte das Regiment an die Westgrenze. Am 10. Mai 1940 bestand es aus 22 Panzer I, 55 Panzer II, 29 Panzer III, 16 Panzer IV und 8 Panzerbefehlswagen. Nach dem Frankreichfeldzug nahm das Regiment am Balkanfeldzug in Griechenland teil. Im Frühsommer 1941 wurden die beiden Kolonnen des Regiments an den Divisions-Nachschubführer 82 abgegeben und bildeten dort die 13. und 14. große Kraftwagen-Kolonne. Im Mai 1941 wurden die Schiffe, mit denen die Panzer vom Balkan an die russische Grenze verlegt werden sollten, versenkt, so dass das Regiment vollkommen neu ausgerüstet werden musste.
Attachments
kybfels.JPG
kybfels.JPG (48.34 KiB) Viewed 2689 times
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42


Alanmccoubrey
Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#18

Post by Alanmccoubrey » 09 Jan 2009, 14:48

The figures given in that do appear to be rather high for two realatively small freighters, I mean the "680 other vehicles" in particular. Alan
Alan

mhorgran
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Dec 2006, 14:21
Location: munich

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#19

Post by mhorgran » 09 Jan 2009, 20:36

Marburg
645 soldier
61 tanks
140 trucks + trailer
19 motorcycle

Kybfels
683 soldier
61 tanks
100 trucks + trailer
10 motorcycle

AA-Guns 27 (Kybfels + Marburg)

Source: (BAMA RM 109/194; Freiburg)
Last edited by mhorgran on 12 Jan 2009, 22:48, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#20

Post by Urmel » 11 Jan 2009, 13:33

Great!
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
William Russ
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: 18 Feb 2006, 01:40
Location: Columbia, SC USA

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#21

Post by William Russ » 28 May 2009, 16:23

Hi All,
While scanning microfilm the other day I ran across related documents to the sinking of the two ships in the 12th Army records. There is a report of what happened and two lists of the casualties and equipment losses. I thought it would be good to upload these two pages as they give a breakdown by ship and the number of losses by unit in men and vehicles. It closely follows what mhorgran had previously posted. What I don't see are the tanks. Were they listed separately prehaps?
These pages were taken from microfilm series T-314, roll number 427, frames 8005230 and 8005231.

Just hope someone will find this useful, Bill
8005230.jpg
8005230.jpg (88.73 KiB) Viewed 2388 times
Attachments
8005231.jpg
8005231.jpg (93.03 KiB) Viewed 2392 times

Alanmccoubrey
Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#22

Post by Alanmccoubrey » 28 May 2009, 20:39

William that is brilliant, the Podzun history of 2PD certainly has pictures of Pz II's and III's being lifted onto the ships so you may well be correct and there is a seperate list for them.
Last edited by Alanmccoubrey on 28 May 2009, 20:45, edited 1 time in total.
Alan

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#23

Post by phylo_roadking » 28 May 2009, 20:43

Does the "Pkw." not stand for Panzerkampfwagen...?

Alanmccoubrey
Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#24

Post by Alanmccoubrey » 28 May 2009, 20:46

No Pkw is Personenkraftwagen, a personnel car.
Alan

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#25

Post by phylo_roadking » 28 May 2009, 23:09

Alan, thanks for that; makes sense, looking at some of the units that "Pkw" losses are attributed to 8O

User avatar
William Russ
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: 18 Feb 2006, 01:40
Location: Columbia, SC USA

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#26

Post by William Russ » 29 May 2009, 01:55

Hi Guys,
Well, I guess someone did find this useful :D .
The only armored vehicles shown as losses are the 10 armored cars with the reconaissance battalion. There is a listing of the Panzer Regiment but it shows no AFVs as losses. I saw an article about this incident years ago in WW II magazine. It gave the losses but I cannot remember if it mentioned tanks being lost. I'll try and find it to clear this up. I would like to know if there were any tanks lost during the transport of the 2. Panzer-Division.

Inquiring minds want to know :wink: .

Best regards, Bill
Last edited by William Russ on 30 May 2009, 02:08, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10550
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#27

Post by tigre » 29 May 2009, 20:13

Thanks for sharing those pages here Bill :wink:. Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

User avatar
Bronsky
Member
Posts: 825
Joined: 11 Apr 2003, 10:28
Location: Paris

Re: Sinking a Panzer Division

#28

Post by Bronsky » 29 May 2009, 22:00

Thanks very much, most interesting.


LC

User avatar
William Russ
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: 18 Feb 2006, 01:40
Location: Columbia, SC USA

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#29

Post by William Russ » 30 May 2009, 02:07

Hi Guys,
Your welcome :D .
Come to think of it, I need to look at the report that was with the above info. It may mention in general what the material losses were. Maybe it will mention the tanks.

Later, Bill

Postscript: Well, this did not take long. I looked out the report and it only mentions personnel losses :( . I guess I'll have to keep searching.

User avatar
William Russ
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: 18 Feb 2006, 01:40
Location: Columbia, SC USA

Re: Sinking a Panzer-Division

#30

Post by William Russ » 11 Sep 2009, 01:43

Hi All,
I ordered two of the microfilm rolls for the 2. Panzer-Division that would have the information about losses incurred during this time period. Well, I was throughly disappointed. Little was mentioned about the sinking of the ships. Only a couple of general reports. Maybe someone can find another source for the tank losses for the 2. Panzer-Division?

best regards, Bill

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”