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

#136

Post by RichTO90 » 22 Jun 2014, 15:06

Knouterer wrote: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.
Yes, a couple of interesting things to note about the artillery support.

The 15cm sFH-Abteilung 101 and the 10 cm K Abteilung 103 in support under Artillerie-Regiment Stab 304 are XIII. Korps assets and are not attached to either division. Instead, 17. Infanteridivision has a motorized battery of 15 cm sFH attached, 5./67., landing with the artillery regiment main body in the second echelon and I suspect the otherwise unidentified "II." Abteilung of 15 cm sFH landing with the second section of the first echelon is the main body of II./Artillerie-Regiment 67. OTOH, 35. Infanteriedivision has a motorized battalion, II./66. attached landing as the third section of the first echelon.

Notice also that the Nebel support is provided by Nebelwerfer-Abteilung 2, which makes more sense than the supposition it was Nebelwerfer-Regiment 51, which was at Munsterlager forming during this period. I would speculate that Nebel support for Sea Lion was provided by the nine existing battalions withe their standard 10 cm Nebelwerfer 34.

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

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

#137

Post by Knouterer » 22 Jun 2014, 17:17

Re the motorisation of the 150 mm howitzer battalions, this was urged even before the war, as transport in two loads requiring 12 heavy draft horses was clearly not an optimal solution, but it was never done across the board.
However, at least one unit did it on its own initiative in the summer of 1940, the battery of Hauptmann Becker (later to become famous for his many conversions of captured British and French armoured vehicles). His men were mostly steel workers from the Essen region who (presumably) had little affinity with horses, so they simply re-equipped themselves with captured Dutch and Belgian vehicles.
Sorry for the poor quality scan (from Walter J. Spielberger, Beute-Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutsche Wehrmacht):
Attachments
BatterieBecker 001.jpg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton


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

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

#138

Post by Knouterer » 22 Jun 2014, 19:20

On the subject of horse-drawn vehicles, let's see if we can clear up Phylo's (and possibly other people's) confusion a little.
Schenk's loading list for (presumably) the 35. ID - plus attached units, although it is not entirely clear how far that goes - says:

1. Staffel (two reinforced regiments, 67,62 men, mostly in the barges):
341 Pferde
300 Karren

2. Staffel (rest of the division, 12,376 men, in the transports, except some service/supporting units that would come over later):
4,427 Pferde
933 Fahrzeuge
105 Karren

Now the term "Karren", which should have been translated as "carts" in the English version, would normally denote a smaller, two-wheeled vehicle, drawn by manpower, or alternatively, depending on the model, a single horse, or perhaps a motor vehicle for short distances and moderate speeds (a trailer is an "Anhänger").
A four-wheeled horse-drawn vehicle would be called a "Wagen" or a "Fahrzeug".
The pictures show two types of "Karren" in service in 1940, one for the 105 mm Nebelwerfer 35 referred to in various posts above, the other for the 81 mm mortar, of which the 1. Staffel would bring a double portion (72 instead of 36 for six infantry battalions). Both from Wolfgang Fleischer, Bespannte Fahrzeuge des deutschen Heeres, 2011. Of course there were several other types as well, for signals equipment, fuel for portable flamethrowers, etc. etc.

However, it seems a bit unlikely that this 1. Staffel would have no 4-wheeled horse-drawn vehicles at all - an infantry regiment would normally have quite a few - so we should view all those numbers with due caution.
Attachments
Handkarren 001.jpg
Karren2 001.jpg
"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?

#139

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Jun 2014, 23:44

Knouterer...
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.
..when I posted this...
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...
...that's what I was trying to reinforce for YOU, given your propensity to attrbute anything with wheels and an internal conbustion engine on the 35th ID loading scheme as being drawn from 35th ID's stocks over the last few pages. That's why I posted up BOTH references - and given that a couple of pages ago I DID post up -
35. Infanteriedivision (September 1939):
Infanterie-Regiment 34 (Stab, I.-III.)
Infanterie-Regiment 109 (Stab, I.-III.)
Infanterie-Regiment 111 (Stab, I.-III.)
Artillerie-Regiment 35 (Stab, I.-III.)
Artillerie-Regiment 71 (I.)

Beobachtungs-Abteilung 35
Pionier-Bataillon 35 -consisting of...
1. Kompanie 02912
2. Kompanie 03047
3. Kompanie 22185
Kolonne 05885
Brückenkolonne B ...

Feldersatz-Bataillon 35
Panzerabwehr-Abteilung 35
Aufklärungs-Abteilung 35
Infanterie-Divisions-Nachrichten-Abteilung 35
Infanterie-Divisions-Nachschubführer 35
...I was of course ENTIRELY unaware of 35th ID's OWN divisional arty... :roll: Yeah, right...

Rich picked up on that about them being korpstruppen - and also the position with the 1. Lehr and the Bruecken-Baut Bataillionen. Can I suggest, Knouterer, that you sit down with the 35th ID loading diagram and work out what on that WASN'T a 35th ID asset rather than attributing first and automatically?

Regarding this -
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.
Rich, if you look back, in the last few pages I've already noted at least twice, maybe more, that Schenk calls his list on P.188 "the strength of A reorganised infantry battalion"...

Later in the book - I'll have to chase down the reference - he notes back that it refers to the 35th....and Knouterer has already confirmed the identity of the "example" reorganised ID on p.188 as being the 35th by the number of panzers...

But you'll note I've also called it a number of times a thumbnail TO&E...not every reorganised infatry division is going to have exactly the same numbers of everything on p.188...

The one thing however we DON'T know is how Schenk came up with those figures...I.E. did he just work backwards from the loading diagrams...
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?

#140

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Jun 2014, 23:59

However, it seems a bit unlikely that this 1. Staffel would have no 4-wheeled horse-drawn vehicles at all - an infantry regiment would normally have quite a few - so we should view all those numbers with due caution.
Why would it be unlikely? The "advance parties" and the First Echelon would have been the barges and assault boats etc. going ashore under direct small arms fire on the beaches until the defenders were cleared. It makes sense to reduce as far as possible the number of horses in the first echelon...panicking horses under fire, blocking ramps, running amok in the wells of barges etc...and so the infantry hitting English soil first and assaulting the coastal crust first will be taking their own ammunition resupply and stores along with them by handcart. As I noted before, the distances aren't going to be great - a couple of miles at most, and in contact with the enemy all the way to a greater or lesser extent; horse-drawn drayage isn't going to be actually that necessary before it arrives with the Second Echelon.

After all - there's nothing particularly notable about the Germans' use of handcarts for the infantry's light stroes and weapons right up at the pointy end... http://www.theliberator.be/handcart.htm
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?

#141

Post by RichTO90 » 23 Jun 2014, 01:12

phylo_roadking wrote:Rich picked up on that about them being korpstruppen - and also the position with the 1. Lehr and the Bruecken-Baut Bataillionen. Can I suggest, Knouterer, that you sit down with the 35th ID loading diagram and work out what on that WASN'T a 35th ID asset rather than attributing first and automatically?
Oh dear, you still aren't quite getting it are you? :lol:
Rich, if you look back, in the last few pages I've already noted at least twice, maybe more, that Schenk calls his list on P.188 "the strength of A reorganised infantry battalion"...
I see, so first the dance is that it was the 35. Infanteriedivision and NOT - OH HEAVENS NO! - the 17. Infanteriedivision. Quelle horreur! Now, of course, its about a "reorganised infantry battalion". :roll: So just how many Germans do dance on the head of a pin in your cosmology?
Later in the book - I'll have to chase down the reference - he notes back that it refers to the 35th....and Knouterer has already confirmed the identity of the "example" reorganised ID on p.188 as being the 35th by the number of panzers...
Yes, why don't you just chase down that rabbit hole...sorry, I mean reference of course. It will make all the difference in the world. :roll:
But you'll note I've also called it a number of times a thumbnail TO&E...not every reorganised infatry division is going to have exactly the same numbers of everything on p.188...
Sigh...the divisons were not "reorganised" or even "reorganized"...however, since you seem so sure they were you can of course reference the specific KSTN/KAN with the dates of the re-organizational changes? I'll wait for it...
The one thing however we DON'T know is how Schenk came up with those figures...I.E. did he just work backwards from the loading diagrams...
Gee...you know, it might actually help if you went back to my original statement you've been so studiously ignoring...just to refresh your memory...
It is your assumption that the assault scales reported by Schenk is the Soll or Iststaerke the 17./35. Infanteriedivision/A reorganised infantry battalion/thumbnail TO&E 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.

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

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

#142

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Jun 2014, 01:34

But you'll note I've also called it a number of times a thumbnail TO&E...not every reorganised infatry division is going to have exactly the same numbers of everything on p.188...
Sigh...the divisons were not "reorganised" or even "reorganized"...however, since you seem so sure they were you can of course reference the specific KSTN/KAN with the dates of the re-organizational changes? I'll wait for it...
And now who's making assumptions? You're assuming that the "reorganising" was what you would term an organisational change, aren't you?...

As opposed to checking what Schenk meant by "a reorganised infantry division"...
I see, so first the dance is that it was the 35. Infanteriedivision and NOT - OH HEAVENS NO! - the 17. Infanteriedivision. Quelle horreur! Now, of course, its about a "reorganised infantry battalion".
Schenk titles the p.188 material "the strength of a reorganised infantry division"...but it's later AND by what Knouterer notes shown to be 35th ID; we don't know how exactly typical it is as a "thumbnail TO&E" for other First Wave infantry divisions - which is why it's only "safe" to apply it to the 35th ID. Which was what I was trying to do...until other parties attempted to answer points I made about the 35th ID by referencing the 17th. Had I been talking about the 17th when I made the various points I would have said so.
So just how many Germans do dance on the head of a pin in your cosmology?
19,168 if it's a 35th ID pin...depending on the particular map the pin's stuck in...
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?

#143

Post by RichTO90 » 23 Jun 2014, 03:06

phylo_roadking wrote:19,168 if it's a 35th ID pin...depending on the particular map the pin's stuck in...
So then you do understand the divisions were not augmented with motor assets as you initially inferred? Glad it only took three pages to clear that up. :lol:

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

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

#144

Post by Knouterer » 23 Jun 2014, 10:06

Knouterer wrote: 1. Staffel (two reinforced regiments, 67,62 men, mostly in the barges):
341 Pferde
300 Karren

2. Staffel (rest of the division, 12,376 men, in the transports, except some service/supporting units that would come over later):
4,427 Pferde
933 Fahrzeuge
105 Karren

Now the term "Karren", which should have been translated as "carts" in the English version, would normally denote a smaller, two-wheeled vehicle, drawn by manpower, or alternatively, depending on the model, a single horse, or perhaps a motor vehicle for short distances and moderate speeds (a trailer is an "Anhänger").
A four-wheeled horse-drawn vehicle would be called a "Wagen" or a "Fahrzeug".
The most likely explanation seems to be that Schenk forgot to include the Fahrzeuge in his list for the 1. Staffel. Two infantry regiments would normally have had more than 200 (including caissons for the infantry guns). We may reasonably assume that nonessential or unsuitable horse-drawn vehicles were put on the transports - in fact we know this was the case for the heavy infantry guns.
If we further assume - just to get a rough idea - that half of the Karren were drawn by a single horse, and the other half pulled by the troops, that would leave 341-150 = 191 horses, enough to draw say 70-80 vehicles (the 75 mm infantry guns were normally drawn by 4 horses), which seems a very reasonable number.
That would bring the total of Fahrzeuge to around 1,000, which again seems a reasonable number, in view of the extra engineer units etc.
Attachments
PferdePrahm.jpg
"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: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#145

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Jun 2014, 01:25

So then you do understand the divisions were not augmented with motor assets as you initially inferred? Glad it only took three pages to clear that up.
On the contrary, I've seen nothing yet that actually contradicts Shenk's statement -
Most of the German infantry divisions of that time, unlike those of today, were not fully motorised and were mostly footsoldiers in the truest sense of the word. Some signals units had horses and some artillery units used them to pull their guns and ammunitions supply wagons. The deficiencies were alleviated somewhat by using captured vehicles, at least in the first echelons.
We've seen the percentage increases in MT between the figures Urmel provided, and what Schenk notes in his list on p.188 that an example "reorganised infantry division" had for Sealion - and all the way through....as I've noted previously, I've been talking about THE DEGREE of motorisation.....not that the "reorganised infantry divisions" were wholly motorised.

What Knouterer failed to grasp several pages ago now is that the divisionsal signals units using trucks, and other divisional elements that used the extra lorries, the extra field cars etc. WAS the increase in degree of motorisation. It didn't have to be the INFANTRY elements of the divisions being motorised for there to be an increased degree of motorisation in the sample division - any divisional element that was using MT by September 1940 for Sealion that wasn't using it before, using up those large numbers of extra lorries, field cars etc. WAS "the division's" degree of motorisation increasing.

By the way - have you checked yet what Schenk meant by "reorganised"?
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: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#146

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Jun 2014, 01:31

The most likely explanation seems to be that Schenk forgot to include the Fahrzeuge in his list for the 1. Staffel. Two infantry regiments would normally have had more than 200 (including caissons for the infantry guns). We may reasonably assume that nonessential or unsuitable horse-drawn vehicles were put on the transports - in fact we know this was the case for the heavy infantry guns.
And exactly WHY is that the most likely explanation? You really think the Wehrmacht wasn't capable of identifying the issues with attempting to land and use draught horses in the First Echelon...as opposed, say, to artillery draught horses, more accustomed to the sound of the guns? Or the difficulties in trying to land non-essential horses in the face of small-arms or artillery fire from the defenders - problems that would have been very largely eliminated in the immediate vicinity by the time the SECOND echelon started to land?
If we further assume - just to get a rough idea - that half of the Karren were drawn by a single horse, and the other half pulled by the troops, that would leave 341-150 = 191 horses, enough to draw say 70-80 vehicles (the 75 mm infantry guns were normally drawn by 4 horses), which seems a very reasonable number.
And THAT is just plucking figures out of mid-air. That's not history - that's writing fiction.
That would bring the total of Fahrzeuge to around 1,000, which again seems a reasonable number, in view of the extra engineer units etc
What do you think the role of the engineers/pioneers in the First echelon was actually going to be? :roll:
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: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#147

Post by RichTO90 » 24 Jun 2014, 03:06

phylo_roadking wrote:On the contrary, I've seen nothing yet that actually contradicts Shenk's statement -
You have eyes, yet you refuse to see.
We've seen the percentage increases in MT between the figures Urmel provided, and what Schenk notes in his list on p.188 that an example "reorganised infantry division" had for Sealion - and all the way through....as I've noted previously, I've been talking about THE DEGREE of motorisation.....not that the "reorganised infantry divisions" were wholly motorised.
Again, please show me where these divisions were "reorganised infantry divisions". Please show me where these division's motorization was increased to ANY DEGREE. You have the Gliederungen, so it should be easy.
What Knouterer failed to grasp several pages ago now is that the divisionsal signals units using trucks, and other divisional elements that used the extra lorries, the extra field cars etc. WAS the increase in degree of motorisation. It didn't have to be the INFANTRY elements of the divisions being motorised for there to be an increased degree of motorisation in the sample division - any divisional element that was using MT by September 1940 for Sealion that wasn't using it before, using up those large numbers of extra lorries, field cars etc. WAS "the division's" degree of motorisation increasing.
Really? Except the divisional signals units ALREADY USED TRUCKS. Ditto the OTHER DIVISIONAL UNITS. So please indicate for me all those other divisional units that weren't using MT prior to Sea Lion. You have the Gliderungen so it should be easy.
By the way - have you checked yet what Schenk meant by "reorganised"?
Is it what "Schenk meant" or what his translator translated it as? Or do you have a special channel on what "Schenk meant"?

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

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

#148

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Jun 2014, 03:19

Is it what "Schenk meant" or what his translator translated it as?

Again, please show me where these divisions were "reorganised infantry divisions".
Well, he does spend five whole pages discussing it...

Or do you have a special channel on what "Schenk meant"?
No, I leave that to Knouterer...

Really? Except the divisional signals units ALREADY USED TRUCKS. Ditto the OTHER DIVISIONAL UNITS.
Obviously NOT ALL...
Most of the German infantry divisions of that time, unlike those of today, were not fully motorised and were mostly footsoldiers in the truest sense of the word. Some signals units had horses and some artillery units used them to pull their guns and ammunitions supply wagons. The deficiencies were alleviated somewhat by using captured vehicles, at least in the first echelons.
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
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

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

#149

Post by sitalkes » 24 Jun 2014, 05:09

Nice picture of the horse transport barge, where does that come from? This thread currently reads like a bunch of grumpy old men bickering, but there's some good information nevertheless!

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

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

#150

Post by Knouterer » 24 Jun 2014, 09:46

phylo_roadking wrote:
The most likely explanation seems to be that Schenk forgot to include the Fahrzeuge in his list for the 1. Staffel. Two infantry regiments would normally have had more than 200 (including caissons for the infantry guns). We may reasonably assume that nonessential or unsuitable horse-drawn vehicles were put on the transports - in fact we know this was the case for the heavy infantry guns.
And exactly WHY is that the most likely explanation? You really think the Wehrmacht wasn't capable of identifying the issues with attempting to land and use draught horses in the First Echelon...as opposed, say, to artillery draught horses, more accustomed to the sound of the guns? Or the difficulties in trying to land non-essential horses in the face of small-arms or artillery fire from the defenders - problems that would have been very largely eliminated in the immediate vicinity by the time the SECOND echelon started to land?
If we further assume - just to get a rough idea - that half of the Karren were drawn by a single horse, and the other half pulled by the troops, that would leave 341-150 = 191 horses, enough to draw say 70-80 vehicles (the 75 mm infantry guns were normally drawn by 4 horses), which seems a very reasonable number.
And THAT is just plucking figures out of mid-air. That's not history - that's writing fiction.

:roll:
Perhaps you would care to explain what those 341 horses could have been for, in your considered opinion?
"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”