Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#121

Post by RichTO90 » 20 Jun 2014, 04:28

Ok, here's what I'm trying to get at...http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... n/35ID.htm or as close to the pre-"sealion reorganisation" of the infantry divisions in the First Wave as I have to hand...

1/ Would or would not any MT allocated to Pionier-Bataillon 35 comes from the totals on p.188 of Schenk for the 35th ID?
Why yes of course, why wouldn't it? It was an organic part of the division after all.
2/ Would Pionier-Bataillon 35 have been fully motorised for Sealion - given that one of its companies was being put on bicycles to improve their mobility/flexibility?
No, why would it? It wasn't a motorized battalion after all. Nor is there any indication that it was bicycled aside from Schenk's claim that the 35. Infanteriedivision was organized that way.
3/ we have "before" Sealion reorganisation, and "after" Sealion reorganisation MT totals for the 35th ID; if any elements of Pionier-Bataillon 35 were motorised BEFORE the reorganisation, would this MT not be accounted for already in the "before" Sealion reorganisation figures I.E. in the figures Urmel provided...? As opposed to them being allocated MT out of the additional MT that Schenk's figures show?
"We" have nothing of the sort - "that" is YOUR assumption that there was a "reorganization". What in fact is known is the assault scales of the divisions - at least according to Schenk for a typical division.
Actually, the figures from Schenk we've been discussing are for the 35th ID, not the 17th.
Then show me a Gleiderung for it that shows how it differs from 17. Infanteriedivision, which - oddly enough - is its compatriot in
XIII A.K.
This is what I assumed; that they didn't abandon all their support MT of course, that's why I brought the question up last night...I was actually trying to use your figures (or Chris' or whoevers)...
No you weren't.
That's assuming - and no, I'm not nitpicking for the sake of it, Schenk simply doesn't say - that the S- and U-panzer "units" were formated with full mobile support. And that it was included in the MT listed for the First Wave...as opposed to arriving later, remembering what he said about them coming ashore with extra stores and fuel to extend their radius of operations. Thus the First Wave MT figures may not include them...
Unless that typically tortured syntax was meant to read "the Panzers were formated with full mobile support, which was included in the MT list in the First Wave".
You gave him figures for the panzers' MT...he chose for some reason to chalk those numbers up against 35th ID's MT totals! 8O You go on to pick that aspect up in your post of tonight...
Why not? They would be for the 17. Infanteriedivision working from the Gleiderung. Why would it differ so radically from its landing mate the 35. Infanteriedivision?
That's the thing; Schenk's list isn't a TO&E as such, it's what he describes as "the "strength" of a reorganised infantry division"; up until this point I was indeed assuming that the "49 tanks" were the S- and U-panzers that were supposed to go ashore simultaneously with the 35th ID's first echelon...and yes you can see the tanks on the loading diagrams for XIII Army Corps...
Exactly. That's what the translation comes out as...except there was no "reorganization". What is being described is the loading schematic and troop allocation for a specific tactical operation. You might as well try to reconstruct the W.E. of a British division or the TO&E of an American division in June 1944 by taking numbers from the NEPTUNE loading plan. IT DOESN'T WORK. And yet after acknowledging that simple fact - "Schenk's list isn't a TO&E as such" - you are still going to torture the subject until it is inside out - as per usual - but I'm not playing.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#122

Post by Knouterer » 20 Jun 2014, 11:13

Indeed the only thing we can conclude is that the 35. ID seems to have had its normal scale of MT. The difference of 180 or so trucks can be easilty accounted for by the support vehicles of the tank battalion, the additional engineer troops, etc. etc. The self-propelled 47 mm guns by the way were also an addition to the normal Gliederung, and would also have a few support vehicles. It's even possible that the vehicles of the Flakkampftrupps and the Luftwaffe engineer units that had to set up landing grounds, and perhaps even a few vehicles for the naval shore parties, are included in the totals.

After all, from the point of view of the planners what mattered was not so much who exactly those vehicles belonged to, or whether they were on some TO&E or other; they physically existed and were needed for the operation, so had to be stowed somehow, so may well be included in the totals.

What is a bit strange is that the number of horses remains practically the same even though the number of riding horses was drastically cut, supposedly. That would indicate either that the additional units brought a lot of horses too, or that the division itself had more horse-drawn transport than normal.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton


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

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#123

Post by phylo_roadking » 21 Jun 2014, 00:52

1/ Would or would not any MT allocated to Pionier-Bataillon 35 comes from the totals on p.188 of Schenk for the 35th ID?
Why yes of course, why wouldn't it? It was an organic part of the division after all.
All I was looking for was the confirmation of that...
2/ Would Pionier-Bataillon 35 have been fully motorised for Sealion - given that one of its companies was being put on bicycles to improve their mobility/flexibility?
No, why would it? It wasn't a motorized battalion after all.
Ditto for that - just wanted the confirmation.
3/ we have "before" Sealion reorganisation, and "after" Sealion reorganisation MT totals for the 35th ID;...
"We" have nothing of the sort - "that" is YOUR assumption that there was a "reorganization".
No, not my assumption - we have Schenk's statement -
Finally, an idea of the strength of a reorganised infantry division can be gained from the following list:...

That's the thing; Schenk's list isn't a TO&E as such, it's what he describes as "the "strength" of a reorganised infantry division"; up until this point I was indeed assuming that the "49 tanks" were the S- and U-panzers that were supposed to go ashore simultaneously with the 35th ID's first echelon...and yes you can see the tanks on the loading diagrams for XIII Army Corps...
Exactly. That's what the translation comes out as...except there was no "reorganization". What is being described is the loading schematic and troop allocation for a specific tactical operation. You might as well try to reconstruct the W.E. of a British division or the TO&E of an American division in June 1944 by taking numbers from the NEPTUNE loading plan. IT DOESN'T WORK. And yet after acknowledging that simple fact - "Schenk's list isn't a TO&E as such" - you are still going to torture the subject until it is inside out - as per usual - but I'm not playing.
You gave him figures for the panzers' MT...he chose for some reason to chalk those numbers up against 35th ID's MT totals! You go on to pick that aspect up in your post of tonight...
Why not? They would be for the 17. Infanteriedivision working from the Gleiderung.
If you could PLEASE try to answer two simple related questions in a civil manner...

Why are you assuming that the panzer abteilungs with each division would be pulling their MT from the infantry division's MT? Why would they not have brought their own support vehicles from their original units to form their "small transport column"?
Nor is there any indication that it was bicycled aside from Schenk's claim that the 35. Infanteriedivision was organized that way.
Right now, Schenk is the best available tertiary source for the German preparations for Sealion. And he's not claiming that was done for JUST the 35th ID...he's saying that one company in each infantry and engineer battalion in the First Wave was mounted on bicycles for greater mobility - in a paragraph that begins -
"All the divisions assigned to the landing, particularly those of the First Wave, had to be reinforced and better equiped than the back-up support troops...."
...and continues for the next few paragraphs to refer to all the divisions of the First Wave.
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 21 Jun 2014, 01:10, edited 2 times in total.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

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

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#124

Post by phylo_roadking » 21 Jun 2014, 00:53

duplicate
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 21 Jun 2014, 01:11, edited 1 time in total.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

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

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#125

Post by phylo_roadking » 21 Jun 2014, 01:41

Indeed the only thing we can conclude is that the 35. ID seems to have had its normal scale of MT. The difference of 180 or so trucks can be easilty accounted for by the support vehicles of the tank battalion, the additional engineer troops, etc. etc.
1/ what additional engineer troops in the case of 35th ID over the existing Pionier-batallion 35?

2/ do you mind waiting until we actually work out where the Pz.Abt got their transport from before simply assuming they drew it from an infantry division? :roll: You're assuming that they did simply because Schenk lists the tanks as part of the "strength" of a "reorganised infantry division" - it might be a better idea to ask yourself WHY he listed them there....is it perhaps because they were listed on the same ships and barges as the 35th ID...? :roll: They would be loading on the same shipping, of course - because they were going to land in the same place and at the same time to provide armoured support for the 35th's infantry regiments. That doesn't mean they drew their transport from the 35th ID's allocation.
It's even possible that the vehicles of the Flakkampftrupps and the Luftwaffe engineer units that had to set up landing grounds, and perhaps even a few vehicles for the naval shore parties, are included in the totals.
Are you honestly saying that the Luftwaffe's airfield operating units would have drawn THEIR transport from 35th ID's transport pool? Seriously? That's REALLY reaching :lol: And shows once again it's been a long time since you read Schenk...
After all, from the point of view of the planners what mattered was not so much who exactly those vehicles belonged to, or whether they were on some TO&E or other; they physically existed and were needed for the operation, so had to be stowed somehow, so may well be included in the totals.
Yes - in the totals of vehicles needing to be found lading space on the ships and barges....NOT under 35th ID's transport allocation. That's two entirely different "totals".
What is a bit strange is that the number of horses remains practically the same even though the number of riding horses was drastically cut, supposedly. That would indicate either that the additional units brought a lot of horses too, or that the division itself had more horse-drawn transport than normal.
Catch on quick, don't you? 8O http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1881012 Three pages ago...
Looking at the number of horses is also interesting - and more complicated than your simple dismissal -
At regimental level, the only "existing mounted unit" was the scout platoon (Reiterzug) I refer to in that quote. At divisional level the reconnaissance battalion had one mounted company, which also had to switch to bicycles - in fact the whole battalion did, apparently, although they kept their 3 armoured cars, at least in the 17. ID.
c.3% LESS horses...but this isn't the entire picture

46% MORE horesedrawn carriages/wagons ...

So while there may only be fractionally less horses in toto...the numbers being used for drawing transport vehicles out of that total has nearly doubled.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#126

Post by RichTO90 » 21 Jun 2014, 03:44

phylo_roadking wrote:If you could PLEASE try to answer two simple related questions in a civil manner...
I have been civil. I suggest you do the same.
Why are you assuming that the panzer abteilungs with each division would be pulling their MT from the infantry division's MT? Why would they not have brought their own support vehicles from their original units to form their "small transport column"?
I am assuming nothing of the sort. They are niot being "pulled" from anywhere. They are the units.

It is your assumption that the assault scales reported by Schenk is the Soll or Iststaerke the 17. Infanteriedivision alone. There is absolutely no basis for that. You apparently failed to note my final statement - or at least to acknowledge it. I assure you it was highly relevant and you should think again about the assumptions you are making.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#127

Post by Knouterer » 21 Jun 2014, 14:39

One other addition to the 35. ID, according to Schenk's Verlade-Übersicht - but not mentioned in the list discussed above - was a motorized battalion of 150 mm howitzers (II/66).
The division's own 150 mm battalion was according to this scheme (still) horse-drawn (and loaded on the convoy from Rotterdam, with the rest of the divisional artillery, apart from 2 lFH batteries re-equipped with 75 mm Skoda M1915 mountain guns which were with the first Staffel (II. Gruppe Dünkirchen)).
That unit would seem to have been a prime candidate for motorisation in the context of Seelöwe (like those of the other divisions), not only because it needed so many horses (over 600, about half of the heavy type), but also because these guns were at 6300 kg too heavy for horse traction in one load and the gun barrels were transported on separate vehicles (Rohrkarren), which would have made unloading into barges, harnessing the horses, landing and eventual reassembly a difficult and time-consuming operation. So providing them with SdKfz 7 halftracks (or other suitable towing vehicles), as was mostly the case for corps artillery of the same calibre/class, would have had many practical advantages.
In the 17. ID, there was an additional motorized 150 mm battalion too (Ansel's and Schenk's schemes agree on this), with 2 batteries in the first Staffel (from Ostende) and the third with the divisional artillery in the Rotterdam convoy.
Attachments
35.ID 002.jpg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#128

Post by RichTO90 » 21 Jun 2014, 19:16

Knouterer wrote:One other addition to the 35. ID, according to Schenk's Verlade-Übersicht .
Thank you for posting that. Now phylo can make his own assumptions instead of telling us what ours are.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#129

Post by Knouterer » 21 Jun 2014, 19:55

Just to be helpful, I also circled the various engineer (Pionier) units (apart from those with the infantry regiments and the Vorausabteilungen), so Phylo can work that out at his leisure :milwink:
As Schenk explains, the Sealion divisions as a rule received a second engineer battalion and a regimental HQ, although I don't see the latter here. It is however clearly visible on both the schemes we have for the 17. ID (triangular black flag is a battalion HQ, rectangular is a regimental HQ). In Ansel's scheme, it's in the box just below the 8th MG Battalion.
Attachments
35.ID 003.jpg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#130

Post by RichTO90 » 21 Jun 2014, 20:20

Knouterer wrote:Just to be helpful, I also circled the various engineer (Pionier) units (apart from those with the infantry regiments and the Vorausabteilungen), so Phylo can work that out at his leisure :milwink:
As Schenk explains, the Sealion divisions as a rule received a second engineer battalion and a regimental HQ, although I don't see the latter here. It is however clearly visible on both the schemes we have for the 17. ID (triangular black flag is a battalion HQ, rectangular is a regimental HQ). In Ansel's scheme, it's in the box just below the 8th MG Battalion.
It is with the Dritte Gruppe out of Ostende. Pioenier-Regiment Stab (mot) 304. Oddly enough, after all this talk about a motorized division, it is interesting to note so few elements that are motorized.

BTW, note that it in fact had three Pionier Bataillionen attached rather than one (1. Lehr (mot), 296, and 654) , as well as a Bruecken-Bau Bataillion (577).

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

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#131

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Jun 2014, 01:13

It is your assumption that the assault scales reported by Schenk is the Soll or Iststaerke the 17. Infanteriedivision alone. There is absolutely no basis for that. You apparently failed to note my final statement - or at least to acknowledge it. I assure you it was highly relevant and you should think again about the assumptions you are making.
Rich, can I refer you to the number of times over the last few pages where it has in fact been noted that the material on p.188 of Schenk refers to the 35th ID, not the 17th?
Just to be helpful, I also circled the various engineer (Pionier) units (apart from those with the infantry regiments and the Vorausabteilungen), so Phylo can work that out at his leisure
Knouterer, suprisingly enough I HAD noticed - which is why I checked two days ago now for confirmation from Rich that the three companies of Pionier-Batallion 35 were indeed NOT motorised. Nor will the three companies of THIS...
As Schenk explains, the Sealion divisions as a rule received a second engineer battalion and a regimental HQ, although I don't see the latter here


It's their bridging companies etc that will be motorised.
Oddly enough, after all this talk about a motorized division, it is interesting to note so few elements that are motorized.
Hardly remarkable, given what I said previously -
...I certainly didn't claim that the reorganised infantry divisions were "motorised" as such, they certainly weren't turned into motorised infantry! What I DID say was that the First Wave was MT heavy and posted up what Schenk said as a qualifier...
Most of the German infantry divisions of that time, unlike those of today, were not fully motorised and were mostly foot soldiers in the truest sense of the word. Some signals units had horses and some artillery units used them to pull their guns and ammunition supply wagons. The deficiencies were alleviated somewhat by using captured vehicles, at least in the first echelons. Karetten, light tracked vehicles commandeered during the Western offfensive, were well suited for the first echelon. One company in each infanty and Engineer battalion in the First Wave had bicycles for greater mobility. All existing mounted units were reassigned to bicycles, because horses were difficult to transport.
Why are you assuming that the panzer abteilungs with each division would be pulling their MT from the infantry division's MT? Why would they not have brought their own support vehicles from their original units to form their "small transport column"?
I am assuming nothing of the sort. They are not being "pulled" from anywhere. They are the units.
I was far more interested in the potential answer to the second question - but I'll take this earlier reply of yours as the answer...
Panzer-Abteilung A wurde am 26. Juli 1940 im Wehrkreis X aufgestellt. Die Abteilung wurde aus dem Stab der I. Abteilung vom Panzer-Regiment 2, der 2. Kompanie vom Panzer-Regiment 1, der 2. Kompanie vom Panzer-Regiment 2 sowie weiteren Abgaben der 1. Panzer-Division aufgestellt. Die Abteilung wurde mit 3 Kompanien als Heerestruppe aufgestellt.

Panzer-Abteilung B wurde am 26. Juli 1940 im Wehrkreis XVII aufgestellt. Der Stab und die 3. Kompanie der Abteilung wurden aus Abgaben vom Panzer-Regiment 4, die 1. und 2. Kompanie wurden durch Abgaben vom Panzer-Regiment 3 aufgestellt. Die Abteilung wurde mit 3 Kompanien als Heerestruppe aufgestellt.

Panzer-Abteilung C wurde am 24. Juli 1940 im Wehrkreis III aufgestellt. Die Abteilung wurde aus Abgaben vom Panzer-Regiment 5 und vom Panzer-Regiment 6, von letzterem auch die 2. Kompanie, aufgestellt. Die Abteilung wurde mit 3 Kompanien als Heerestruppe aufgestellt.

Panzer-Abteilung D wurde am 27. Juli 1940 im Wehrkreis VIII aufgestellt. Die Abteilung wurde aus Abgaben der Panzer-Regimenter 15 und 31 als Heerestruppe aufgestellt. Die Abteilung wurde mit 3 Kompanien als Heerestruppe aufgestellt.

In other words, they were all "formated" [sic] from existing Panzer units. Are you under the impression that they abandoned all their unit organizational equipment and were simply a bunch of tank crews that took over some submersible tanks as their sole equipment? How would they function?
I.E. they brought their own support train with them from their previous units.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

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

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#132

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Jun 2014, 01:24

One other addition to the 35. ID, according to Schenk's Verlade-Übersicht - but not mentioned in the list discussed above - was a motorized battalion of 150 mm howitzers (II/66).
The division's own 150 mm battalion was according to this scheme (still) horse-drawn (and loaded on the convoy from Rotterdam, with the rest of the divisional artillery, apart from 2 lFH batteries re-equipped with 75 mm Skoda M1915 mountain guns which were with the first Staffel (II. Gruppe Dünkirchen)).
That unit would seem to have been a prime candidate for motorisation in the context of Seelöwe (like those of the other divisions), not only because it needed so many horses (over 600, about half of the heavy type), but also because these guns were at 6300 kg too heavy for horse traction in one load and the gun barrels were transported on separate vehicles (Rohrkarren), which would have made unloading into barges, harnessing the horses, landing and eventual reassembly a difficult and time-consuming operation. So providing them with SdKfz 7 halftracks (or other suitable towing vehicles), as was mostly the case for corps artillery of the same calibre/class, would have had many practical advantages.
Isn't it?

Look under the "Second echelon" on P.188...
"12 heavy howitzers"
and -
All First and Second Wave Armies were allocated one artillery regiment staff, a 10cm gun detachment (motorised), a heavy field howitzer detachment (motorised) and a reconnaissance detachment.
That last from Schenk on p.184 would hint at them being motorised before being allocated to the First and Second Wave Armies...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#133

Post by RichTO90 » 22 Jun 2014, 04:36

phylo_roadking wrote:Rich, can I refer you to the number of times over the last few pages where it has in fact been noted that the material on p.188 of Schenk refers to the 35th ID, not the 17th?
Oh, sorry, yes of course it makes such an enormous difference. Let me correct that.

It is your assumption that the assault scales reported by Schenk is the Soll or Iststaerke the 35. Infanteriedivision alone.There is absolutely no basis for that. You apparently failed to note my final statement - or at least to acknowledge it. I assure you it was highly relevant and you should think again about the assumptions you are making.

Now you can get back to studiously missing the point.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#134

Post by RichTO90 » 22 Jun 2014, 04:43

RichTO90 wrote:
Knouterer wrote:Just to be helpful, I also circled the various engineer (Pionier) units (apart from those with the infantry regiments and the Vorausabteilungen), so Phylo can work that out at his leisure :milwink:
As Schenk explains, the Sealion divisions as a rule received a second engineer battalion and a regimental HQ, although I don't see the latter here. It is however clearly visible on both the schemes we have for the 17. ID (triangular black flag is a battalion HQ, rectangular is a regimental HQ). In Ansel's scheme, it's in the box just below the 8th MG Battalion.
It is with the Dritte Gruppe out of Ostende. Pioenier-Regiment Stab (mot) 304. Oddly enough, after all this talk about a motorized division, it is interesting to note so few elements that are motorized.

BTW, note that it in fact had three Pionier Bataillionen attached rather than one (1. Lehr (mot), 296, and 654) , as well as a Bruecken-Bau Bataillion (577).
Ooops, just noticed, the 1. Lehr and the Bruecken-Baut Bataillionen are Korpstruppen.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Seelowe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#135

Post by Knouterer » 22 Jun 2014, 12:17

phylo_roadking wrote:
One other addition to the 35. ID, according to Schenk's Verlade-Übersicht - but not mentioned in the list discussed above - was a motorized battalion of 150 mm howitzers (II/66).
The division's own 150 mm battalion was according to this scheme (still) horse-drawn (and loaded on the convoy from Rotterdam.
Isn't it?

Look under the "Second echelon" on P.188...
"12 heavy howitzers"
..
I'm begining to think you're being deliberately obtuse Phylo - the "12 heavy howitzers" are the division's own (horse-drawn )battalion; the additional (motorised) battalion with another 12 150 mm howitzers is not listed.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”