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

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

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

#151

Post by Knouterer » 24 Jun 2014, 10:02

Furthermore, we have already established that there were as many horses (about 4,800) as in a normal (non-reinforced) division of the 1. Welle. Correct?

We have also established that the number of riding horses (normally around 2,000) was drastically cut. Correct?

That means, as a matter of inescapable logic, that there must have been more draught horses than normal. Correct?

And that means, as a matter of equally inescapable logic, that there must have been something for them to draw, ie more horse-drawn vehicles than normal (mostly in the various additional units probably). Correct?

So my assumption that there must have been a number of such vehicles in the barges that Schenk omitted to list is not only reasonable in itself - because those two infantry regiments would certainly have needed some, if they were to advance at all, while awaiting the unloading of the transports - but fits very nicely with all the known facts and figures.
"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: Seelöwe: Lets discuss:- German barges, sunk by fighters?

#152

Post by RichTO90 » 24 Jun 2014, 22:51

phylo_roadking wrote: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.
I see, so now the dance isn't 17. Infanteriedivision/35.Infanteriedivision/A infantry battalion its "most of the German infantry divisions at that time". :roll: We know that neither the signals unit of 17. Infanteriedivision nor of 35. Infanteriedivision was exclusively horse-drawn - rather the opposite - one company was motorized as was its supply column and the other company was partly motorized. We also know what the situation was with the artillery - and you've already been told it.

Yet again, you have the information right in front of your eyes, but refuse to acknowledge it. :roll:


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

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

#153

Post by phylo_roadking » 25 Jun 2014, 02:22

It's REALLY reaching to make the assumption that Schenk just forgot something because you regard it as "missing"....THEN try to make up your OWN figures and stand on them...

There's something you don't seem to have taken on board (sic)...
We have also established that the number of riding horses (normally around 2,000) was drastically cut. Correct?

That means, as a matter of inescapable logic, that there must have been more draught horses than normal. Correct?

And that means, as a matter of equally inescapable logic, that there must have been something for them to draw, ie more horse-drawn vehicles than normal (mostly in the various additional units probably). Correct?
You've already BEEN SHOWN that there was...and Schenk DOES happen to list them - under the SECOND ECHELON.

That's what you've failed to take on board; Schenk DOES happen to account for a lot more horse-drawn transport -
46% MORE horesedrawn carriages/wagons ...
....and he does it under the Second Echelon.
So my assumption that there must have been a number of such vehicles in the barges that Schenk omitted to list is not only reasonable in itself - because those two infantry regiments would certainly have needed some, if they were to advance at all, while awaiting the unloading of the transports - but fits very nicely with all the known facts and figures.
You don't seem to be taking on board that the First Echelon of the 35th ID wasn't going to be advancing more than a couple of miles before the Second Echelon started unloading...and across very iffy terrain for heavy drayage; they're not going ashore on a route march, you know - or on a long march across France behind the racing panzergroups...
but fits very nicely with all the known facts and figures
Does it? Well, try Rich's idea then - find them on the 35th ID's First Echelon loading diagram...

But you still don't seem to have grasped that if the 35th ID (for example) got 46% more four-wheeled horsedrawn transport - and listed them under the Second Echelon - this IS Schenk listing it. You are the one assuming it's an ommission...

Perhaps you would care to explain what those 341 horses could have been for, in your considered opinion?
If the Germans reckoned they HAD to have 341 horses in the First Echelon....as opposed to the 4,427 they didn't - then they had a VERY good reason for that smaller number to be there, a reason that was SO important it overcame the obvious objections I've listed to having draught animals in the first assault wave...

Yes, I have a considered opinion on it - but you've already come up with the answer yourself...to an extent...
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?

#154

Post by RichTO90 » 25 Jun 2014, 23:21

phylo_roadking wrote:It's REALLY reaching to make the assumption that Schenk just forgot something because you regard it as "missing"....THEN try to make up your OWN figures and stand on them...
You're on to something for once, phylo. Knouterer actually missed it...
There's something you don't seem to have taken on board (sic)...
But then so did you in your eagerness to get wrapped around the axle...
You've already BEEN SHOWN that there was...and Schenk DOES happen to list them - under the SECOND ECHELON.

That's what you've failed to take on board; Schenk DOES happen to account for a lot more horse-drawn transport -
Not really...since the Gliederung actually notes that the second echelon includes the divisional rear services. And the wagons of the two attached Pionier Batallionen, which were not motorized as I initially thought they would be.
46% MORE horesedrawn carriages/wagons ...
No. 46% more carts (horse and man draft - or draught if you prefer) AND horse drawn limbers and wagons. The Germans weren't mad enough to attempt to land the heavy wagons and field kitchens with two and four-horse teams and such in the first echelon. So they augmented (it wasn't a "reorganization") the first echelon with additional single-horse carts/limbers and hand-drawn carts/limbers, along with motorized elements. So the first echelon was all motorized, bicyclized, on foot...or drawn in single-horse vehicles or handcarts.
You don't seem to be taking on board that the First Echelon of the 35th ID wasn't going to be advancing more than a couple of miles before the Second Echelon started unloading...and across very iffy terrain for heavy drayage; they're not going ashore on a route march, you know - or on a long march across France behind the racing panzergroups...
Yeah, exactly, which is why they weren't allocated additional motor vehicles except for the Karetten, which were useful for hauling supplies off the beaches - similar to the Allied use of bulldozers.
Does it? Well, try Rich's idea then - find them on the 35th ID's First Echelon loading diagram...
If it's such a good idea - and I agree it is - then why don't YOU follow the advice TOO?
But you still don't seem to have grasped that if the 35th ID (for example) got 46% more four-wheeled horsedrawn transport - and listed them under the Second Echelon - this IS Schenk listing it. You are the one assuming it's an ommission...
Your assumption that it was "46% more four-wheeled horsedrawn transport" is about as shaky as the rest of your arguments.
If the Germans reckoned they HAD to have 341 horses in the First Echelon....as opposed to the 4,427 they didn't - then they had a VERY good reason for that smaller number to be there, a reason that was SO important it overcame the obvious objections I've listed to having draught animals in the first assault wave...
Um, 4,427 horses and the Tross they were drawing would NEVER have been in the "First Echelon" of any OPERATION the Germans executed...let alone an amphibious one. It's a pretty nutso notion to think that they would have. OTOH 341 horses to draw limbers and carts - and a few remaining for officers to ride of course :milwink: - would have been a simpler matter.

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

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

#155

Post by phylo_roadking » 28 Jun 2014, 00:09

The Germans weren't mad enough to attempt to land the heavy wagons and field kitchens with two and four-horse teams and such in the first echelon. So they augmented (it wasn't a "reorganization") the first echelon with additional single-horse carts/limbers and hand-drawn carts/limbers, along with motorized elements. So the first echelon was all motorized, bicyclized, on foot...or drawn in single-horse vehicles or handcarts.
Well, getting a lot closer...although our more modern term "optimized" would be more suitable than "augmented", given some of the other changes Schenk discusses regarding the fighting abilities of the First Wave infantry divisions....and then lumps under the "reorganised" term.
No. 46% more carts (horse and man draft - or draught if you prefer) AND horse drawn limbers and wagons.
Rich, if you look back a few pages there were actually separate percentage increases given for "cars"/carts and horsedrawen wagons/limbers.
You don't seem to be taking on board that the First Echelon of the 35th ID wasn't going to be advancing more than a couple of miles before the Second Echelon started unloading...and across very iffy terrain for heavy drayage; they're not going ashore on a route march, you know - or on a long march across France behind the racing panzergroups...
Yeah, exactly, which is why they weren't allocated additional motor vehicles except for the Karetten, which were useful for hauling supplies off the beaches - similar to the Allied use of bulldozers.
Rich, if you look back Schenk accounts in two different places for the use of the Renault UEs for two different purposes; his p.183 discussion of them would indicate the "karetten" being used as munitions schleppers....his discussion elsewhere of the distribution of some by 16th Army refers to their use as tracked trators on the beaches but doesn't use the "karetten" term used on pages 183 and 188.

The p.188 lists also don't mention the "old German tracked vehicles" also issued by 16th Army along with the UEs for the same purpose as beach tractors...

Which is a bit odd. There's not much point in putting tracked munition schleppers ashore THEN using them for up to four days as beach tractors...! Which is how long it was supposed to take to get the last of the Second Echelon ashore, and beach tractors would be needed to be kept handy until the last vehicles were ashore...
...which is why they weren't allocated additional motor vehicles...
...which is why the bulk of the lorries and field cars comes ashore starting with the Second Echelon.
But you still don't seem to have grasped that if the 35th ID (for example) got 46% more four-wheeled horsedrawn transport - and listed them under the Second Echelon - this IS Schenk listing it. You are the one assuming it's an ommission...
Your assumption that it was "46% more four-wheeled horsedrawn transport" is about as shaky as the rest of your arguments.
As before, it only applies to what we know about 35th ID.
If the Germans reckoned they HAD to have 341 horses in the First Echelon....as opposed to the 4,427 they didn't - then they had a VERY good reason for that smaller number to be there, a reason that was SO important it overcame the obvious objections I've listed to having draught animals in the first assault wave...
Um, 4,427 horses and the Tross they were drawing would NEVER have been in the "First Echelon" of any OPERATION the Germans executed...let alone an amphibious one. It's a pretty nutso notion to think that they would have. OTOH 341 horses to draw limbers and carts - .... - would have been a simpler matter

....and of course a far more essential matter - which is what I was hoping Knouterer would gather. Not only do the loaded carts etc. have to be got up the chert at the top of the beaches...they have to be got up the first and rather steeper ramps in the wells of the barges etc. FIRST 8O...

Given, apart from anything else, that the First Echelon (incl. the advance parties) of each division was only to put some 6,700 men ashore - they're some rather vital fighting to do, not hang around the beaches manhandling carts etc....Knouterer hasn't returned yet to answer this -
but you've already come up with the answer yourself...to an extent...
....but if he had looked back, the horses being led down the "early" type landing ramps in his picture were indeed in harness, not saddles :wink:

As for this...
and a few remaining for officers to ride of course
Any German officer stupid enough to do THAT in the first forces ashore in a contested shore landing deseves everything that's going to happen to him....once.
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?

#156

Post by RichTO90 » 28 Jun 2014, 11:23

phylo_roadking wrote:Any German officer stupid enough to do THAT in the first forces ashore in a contested shore landing deseves everything that's going to happen to him....once.
So the dance of irrelevancies continues. Is it the 17./35./reorganised divisions/A battalion being discussed now? Is it 21%/46%/99% being discussed now? :roll:

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

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

#157

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Jun 2014, 02:27

Any German officer stupid enough to do THAT in the first forces ashore in a contested shore landing deseves everything that's going to happen to him....once.
So the dance of irrelevancies continues.
Remind me again WHO posted up -
- and a few remaining for officers to ride of course :milwink: -
...in the first place?
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?

#158

Post by RichTO90 » 29 Jun 2014, 13:51

phylo_roadking wrote:Remind me again WHO posted up -
- and a few remaining for officers to ride of course :milwink: -
...in the first place?
I did. Did you miss the :milwink: ? Or are you just interested in goalpost shifting and irrelevancies?

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

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

#159

Post by RichTO90 » 29 Jun 2014, 22:34

phylo_roadking wrote:Well, getting a lot closer...although our more modern term "optimized" would be more suitable than "augmented", given some of the other changes Schenk discusses regarding the fighting abilities of the First Wave infantry divisions....and then lumps under the "reorganised" term.
Oh yes indeedy, a nineteenth century word is ever so much more modern than a fourteenth century one. However, in this case the more modern military term would be an MTOE, which is not a "reorganization". Schenk may use that term - or rather his translator did - but that still does not make it correct in this context.
Rich, if you look back a few pages there were actually separate percentage increases given for "cars"/carts and horsedrawen wagons/limbers.
Still trying to maintain the fiction that Schenk really was referring to PKW rather than carts?
Rich, if you look back Schenk accounts in two different places for the use of the Renault UEs for two different purposes; his p.183 discussion of them would indicate the "karetten" being used as munitions schleppers....his discussion elsewhere of the distribution of some by 16th Army refers to their use as tracked trators on the beaches but doesn't use the "karetten" term used on pages 183 and 188.

The p.188 lists also don't mention the "old German tracked vehicles" also issued by 16th Army along with the UEs for the same purpose as beach tractors...

Which is a bit odd. There's not much point in putting tracked munition schleppers ashore THEN using them for up to four days as beach tractors...! Which is how long it was supposed to take to get the last of the Second Echelon ashore, and beach tractors would be needed to be kept handy until the last vehicles were ashore...
Did you actually THINK about that before you wrote it? No, I didn't think so. There is no point in putting "beach tractors" ashore in order to use them as beach tractors in the first four days they are ashore? Nice... :lol:
...which is why the bulk of the lorries and field cars comes ashore starting with the Second Echelon.
Actually, the first motorized units were to come ashore in the second and third groups of the first echelon. However, if you have specifics on the allocation of LKW and PKW by group I would be pleased to see them.
As before, it only applies to what we know about 35th ID.
Yes...and now of course it is the 17. Infanteriedivision or a "reorganized" division we're concerned with... :roll:
....and of course a far more essential matter - which is what I was hoping Knouterer would gather. Not only do the loaded carts etc. have to be got up the chert at the top of the beaches...they have to be got up the first and rather steeper ramps in the wells of the barges etc. FIRST 8O...
If that is so much more essential that it requires bold, italics, AND underline...why did you claim the division motorization was augmented? When the only augmentation/optimization/MTOE change was Karetten?
Given, apart from anything else, that the First Echelon (incl. the advance parties) of each division was only to put some 6,700 men ashore - they're some rather vital fighting to do, not hang around the beaches manhandling carts etc....Knouterer hasn't returned yet to answer this -
Whatever is the point you think you are so cleverly making? The "first echelon" was two reinforced infantry regiments. It included motorized and mechanized elements organic and attached to the division, as well as horse and man-drawn carts. So what?
....but if he had looked back, the horses being led down the "early" type landing ramps in his picture were indeed in harness, not saddles :wink:

As for this...
and a few remaining for officers to ride of course
Any German officer stupid enough to do THAT in the first forces ashore in a contested shore landing deseves everything that's going to happen to him....once.
Why ever do you assume that the ENTIRE first echelon was expected to be part of the "first forces ashore"? :roll: There were three groups landing in the first echelon. The "first forces ashore" were just four reinforced infantry companies and the tanks.

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

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

#160

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Jun 2014, 02:40

Did you actually THINK about that before you wrote it? No, I didn't think so. There is no point in putting "beach tractors" ashore in order to use them as beach tractors in the first four days they are ashore? Nice...
You're putting words in my mouth again. What I was saying was that what is the point of putting munition schleppers ashore and using them as beach tractors for the first four (at least) days. Schenk indicates that the "karetten" were munition schleppers...but he elsewhere states that UEs and old German tracked vehicles were issued as beach tractors...

The p.188 list would hint at them being one and the same - but his two separate definitions of roles for Renault UEs would also hint at separate vehicles - after all, maybe its just me - but some time in the four days after landing the units those munition schleppers are supposed to be schlepping for are going to NEED them...
Oh yes indeedy, a nineteenth century word is ever so much more modern than a fourteenth century one. However, in this case the more modern military term would be an MTOE, which is not a "reorganization". Schenk may use that term - or rather his translator did - but that still does not make it correct in this context.
Perhaps if Knouterer ever comes back to this thread he can actually tell us what German word Schenk used originally at the bottom of p.187...

But notwithstanding that - I did say that Schenk actually spends the preceeding five pages discussing the various changes and optimizations that, WHATEVER the word is, it refers to. Whether it's a translator's flub or not - Schenk defines what he's talking about.
Rich, if you look back a few pages there were actually separate percentage increases given for "cars"/carts and horsedrawen wagons/limbers.
Still trying to maintain the fiction that Schenk really was referring to PKW rather than carts?
No, I'm attempting to bring to your attention the fact that we have two separate sets of figures and percentage increases for two separate classes of potentially horsedrawn vehicles.
...which is why the bulk of the lorries and field cars comes ashore starting with the Second Echelon.
Actually, the first motorized units were to come ashore in the second and third groups of the first echelon.
Suprisingly I DID notice that, you know - which is why I said "the bulk of the lorries and field cars comes ashore starting with the Second Echelon". I didn't say "all", and I didn't say "the first" - just the bulk.
As before, it only applies to what we know about 35th ID.
Yes...and now of course it is the 17. Infanteriedivision or a "reorganized" division we're concerned with...
Is it? You're the one insisting for the last three pages in discussing the 17th ID.
If that is so much more essential that it requires bold, italics, AND underline...why did you claim the division motorization was augmented? When the only augmentation/optimization/MTOE change was Karetten?
1/ "augmented" is YOUR term, not mine;

2/ Schenk spends five pages discussing what was done to improve/optimize the First Wave infantry divisions. Have you actually read them?
Given, apart from anything else, that the First Echelon (incl. the advance parties) of each division was only to put some 6,700 men ashore - they're some rather vital fighting to do, not hang around the beaches manhandling carts etc....Knouterer hasn't returned yet to answer this -
Whatever is the point you think you are so cleverly making? The "first echelon" was two reinforced infantry regiments. It included motorized and mechanized elements organic and attached to the division, as well as horse and man-drawn carts. So what?
I'm trying to make the point that with two reinforced infantry regiments going ashore, plus engineers, in the first echelon - ashore on a defended coastline - said reinforced infantry regiments will have something FAR more important to do than hang around in numbers manhanding their stores on carts up a chert bank when there's horses there to do it. That's what.
Why ever do you assume that the ENTIRE first echelon was expected to be part of the "first forces ashore"? There were three groups landing in the first echelon. The "first forces ashore" were just four reinforced infantry companies and the tanks.
You do appreciate that the plans were for the bulk of the personnel in the first echelon of 35th ID to be ashore within two hours? 4-5,000 out of the c.6.700 in the first echelon by 8am? That's what *I* was referring to by "first forces ashore".
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?

#161

Post by RichTO90 » 30 Jun 2014, 16:02

phylo_roadking wrote:You're putting words in my mouth again.
Well, I guess I have been learning from the master after all... :roll:
What I was saying was that what is the point of putting munition schleppers ashore and using them as beach tractors for the first four (at least) days. Schenk indicates that the "karetten" were munition schleppers...but he elsewhere states that UEs and old German tracked vehicles were issued as beach tractors...
Thanks for clearing that up. So what you were actually saying was that the Karetten were to be used in the same way as bulldozers were in Operation NEPTUNE, which is what I said ages ago that you apparently objected to. :roll:
Perhaps if Knouterer ever comes back to this thread he can actually tell us what German word Schenk used originally at the bottom of p.187...

But notwithstanding that - I did say that Schenk actually spends the preceeding five pages discussing the various changes and optimizations that, WHATEVER the word is, it refers to. Whether it's a translator's flub or not - Schenk defines what he's talking about.
Yes, which is a discussion of how the division was organized for an operational task.
No, I'm attempting to bring to your attention the fact that we have two separate sets of figures and percentage increases for two separate classes of potentially horsedrawn vehicles.
Fine. Now do you have an actually point beyond spinning verbiage?
Suprisingly I DID notice that, you know - which is why I said "the bulk of the lorries and field cars comes ashore starting with the Second Echelon". I didn't say "all", and I didn't say "the first" - just the bulk.
So then, again, what is your actual point? That the division was organized for a specific operational task and was not reorganized with additional motorization assets beyond the Karetten, which were to be used for specific beach clearing tasks? IOW what I originally said that you objected to?
Is it? You're the one insisting for the last three pages in discussing the 17th ID.
I'm not insisting on anything. You're the one arguing that somehow the 35. Infanteriedivision is significantly different from any of the other divisions of the first wave. So how is it?
1/ "augmented" is YOUR term, not mine;
Why yes, and it is a perfectly applicable term. Just as fitting a one as optimized or MTOEized. Why not try to argue the concept rather than the verbiage...oh, wait, right, sorry never mind. :roll:
Schenk spends five pages discussing what was done to improve/optimize the First Wave infantry divisions. Have you actually read them?
Yes, so why don't you argue how my conception that the divisions were organized for a specific operational task differs from that? Instead of, as you have been doing, claiming that they were "reorganized" to make them more mobile by adding motor vehicles beyond the Karetten intended for specific beach clearance tasks?
Given, apart from anything else, that the First Echelon (incl. the advance parties) of each division was only to put some 6,700 men ashore - they're some rather vital fighting to do, not hang around the beaches manhandling carts etc....Knouterer hasn't returned yet to answer this -
Perhaps because you were originally arguing that they had greater motorization than they did.
I'm trying to make the point that with two reinforced infantry regiments going ashore, plus engineers, in the first echelon - ashore on a defended coastline - said reinforced infantry regiments will have something FAR more important to do than hang around in numbers manhanding their stores on carts up a chert bank when there's horses there to do it. That's what.
I see, so you now agree that the Vorausabteilung were not motorized and neither were the following second and third landing groups. Thank goodness that is finally cleared up.
You do appreciate that the plans were for the bulk of the personnel in the first echelon of 35th ID to be ashore within two hours? 4-5,000 out of the c.6.700 in the first echelon by 8am? That's what *I* was referring to by "first forces ashore".
Yes indeed. So now are you saying that the expectation was that the first two hours would involve everyone milling about on the beach under fire from the beach defenses? How convenient for the British. :roll:

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

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

#162

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Jul 2014, 15:09

Thanks for clearing that up. So what you were actually saying was that the Karetten were to be used in the same way as bulldozers were in Operation NEPTUNE, which is what I said ages ago that you apparently objected to.
No - you're putting words in my mouth again. What I'm saying is that Schenk mentions TWO separate uses for Renault UEs, but only to ONE of those does he ascribe the term "Karetten"...and it's not the role as beach tractors.

In the P.188 list he only mentions the "karetten" - the name given to them in their munitions schlepper role as he discusses elsewhere - and what I AM saying is that I can't see much point in putting munition schleppers ashore, with artillery to schlep for... and waste them for at least four days as beach tractors. One wold have thought they would have been of more use actually schlepping...

If there's a lack anywhere between the p.188 list and the lading diagrams its not the four-wheeled horse drayage as Knouterer thinks - what's lacking is clarity over what the "karetten" were to actually do, and where's the other vehicles that Schenk mentions were assigned as beach tractors - the old tanks etc.?
No, I'm attempting to bring to your attention the fact that we have two separate sets of figures and percentage increases for two separate classes of potentially horsedrawn vehicles.
Fine. Now do you have an actually point beyond spinning verbiage?
Yes.
Suprisingly I DID notice that, you know - which is why I said "the bulk of the lorries and field cars comes ashore starting with the Second Echelon". I didn't say "all", and I didn't say "the first" - just the bulk.
So then, again, what is your actual point? That the division was organized for a specific operational task and was not reorganized with additional motorization assets beyond the Karetten, which were to be used for specific beach clearing tasks? IOW what I originally said that you objected to?
??? We know from comparing Urmel's figures with the P.188 list of the September 1940 situation that 35th ID had recieved considerably more motorization assets. Do I really need to post up the figures and percentages again?
I'm not insisting on anything. You're the one arguing that somehow the 35. Infanteriedivision is significantly different from any of the other divisions of the first wave. So how is it?
Words in mouth again :roll: No I'm not - all I'm saying is that 35th ID was what we were discussing before you arrived and opened the discussion further, as 35th ID was identifiably the formation concerned in the p.188 lists.
I'm trying to make the point that with two reinforced infantry regiments going ashore, plus engineers, in the first echelon - ashore on a defended coastline - said reinforced infantry regiments will have something FAR more important to do than hang around in numbers manhanding their stores on carts up a chert bank when there's horses there to do it. That's what.
I see, so you now agree that the Vorausabteilung were not motorized and neither were the following second and third landing groups. Thank goodness that is finally cleared up.
More words in mouth :roll: Rich, stop applying one comment of mine to a COMPELTELY different point if you please. That's just being disingenuous for point scoring. Same as constantly referring to 17th ID when that wasn't what was originally being discussed.

See the bit in bold above; my comment ONLY applied to the question of what those 341 horse could possibly have been intended for if there were no FOUR-wheeled horse transport listed in the "first echelon" list for 35th ID....and why Knouterer saw that as a "gap" in Schenk's figures.
Schenk spends five pages discussing what was done to improve/optimize the First Wave infantry divisions. Have you actually read them?
Yes, so why don't you argue how my conception that the divisions were organized for a specific operational task differs from that? Instead of, as you have been doing, claiming that they were "reorganized" to make them more mobile by adding motor vehicles beyond the Karetten intended for specific beach clearance tasks?
1/ Given that "yes", anyone reading this could be forgiven for wondering WHY you demanded for two pages to be shown the organizational "reorganisation" - as opposed to the First Wave IDs being optimized for the assault phase as Schenk describes...

2/ Kindly look back - anywhere did I specifically say that the "reorganisation" referred to just increasing the number of motor vehicles? I said that the number of motor vehicles in the 35th ID clearly increased, we've got the figures to show it...AND Schenk says it was done from captured Allied stocks etc....but I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that in the rest of the five pages preceeding p.188 than simply the short note referring to THAT that Schenk says a lot more was done during that reorganisation than just providing extra MT to prepare the First Wave IDs for the initial assault.
You do appreciate that the plans were for the bulk of the personnel in the first echelon of 35th ID to be ashore within two hours? 4-5,000 out of the c.6.700 in the first echelon by 8am? That's what *I* was referring to by "first forces ashore".
Yes indeed. So now are you saying that the expectation was that the first two hours would involve everyone milling about on the beach under fire from the beach defenses? How convenient for the British.
More words in mouth :roll: I was only trying to tell you what I meant by my use of the term "first forces ashore"...as opposed to yours...
Why ever do you assume that the ENTIRE first echelon was expected to be part of the "first forces ashore"? There were three groups landing in the first echelon. The "first forces ashore" were just four reinforced infantry companies and the tanks.
...as apart from anything else I could hardly have been meaning the same thing as YOU meant by "first forces ashore" regarding horses...
The "first forces ashore" were just four reinforced infantry companies and the tanks.
...given that THOSE were to come ashore by assault boat...

Image

Why - for the sake of YOUR definition of what I meant by "first forces ashore" - do you suppose I could have been assuming they were intending to get HORSES onto those??? :? :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?

#163

Post by RichTO90 » 07 Jul 2014, 00:38

phylo_roadking wrote:No - you're putting words in my mouth again. What I'm saying is that Schenk mentions TWO separate uses for Renault UEs, but only to ONE of those does he ascribe the term "Karetten"...and it's not the role as beach tractors.
So you're concerned about the possible intended use for tractors you're not sure were present? Whether or not they were Renault UE or obsolete tank chassis - which would those be for the Germans BTW - is somewhat moot.
??? We know from comparing Urmel's figures with the P.188 list of the September 1940 situation that 35th ID had recieved considerably more motorization assets. Do I really need to post up the figures and percentages again?
"WE" "know" nothing of the sort. YOU have reached a conclusion based on little or no evidence. To repeat - for what, the tenth time - the attached units easily explain any differences in the LOAD LISTS for whatever division you are wrapped around the axle on now.
Words in mouth again :roll: No I'm not - all I'm saying is that 35th ID was what we were discussing before you arrived and opened the discussion further, as 35th ID was identifiably the formation concerned in the p.188 lists.
Alleging dubious ad hominems while dodging the question still dodges the question.
More words in mouth :roll: Rich, stop applying one comment of mine to a COMPELTELY different point if you please. That's just being disingenuous for point scoring. Same as constantly referring to 17th ID when that wasn't what was originally being discussed.
Please then show me just how COMPLETELY different 35. ID was from 17. ID. I think since I've been asking you to do that for about two weeks now it would be nice of you to actually do so.
See the bit in bold above; my comment ONLY applied to the question of what those 341 horse could possibly have been intended for if there were no FOUR-wheeled horse transport listed in the "first echelon" list for 35th ID....and why Knouterer saw that as a "gap" in Schenk's figures.
So you are concerned about the number of horses that can dance on the head of a pin now? Cool!
1/ Given that "yes", anyone reading this could be forgiven for wondering WHY you demanded for two pages to be shown the organizational "reorganisation" - as opposed to the First Wave IDs being optimized for the assault phase as Schenk describes...
That is a tactical organization - it is not the "reorganisation" of anything. The divisional organization is unchanged.
2/ Kindly look back - anywhere did I specifically say that the "reorganisation" referred to just increasing the number of motor vehicles? I said that the number of motor vehicles in the 35th ID clearly increased, we've got the figures to show it...AND Schenk says it was done from captured Allied stocks etc....but I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that in the rest of the five pages preceeding p.188 than simply the short note referring to THAT that Schenk says a lot more was done during that reorganisation than just providing extra MT to prepare the First Wave IDs for the initial assault.
Schenk's loading lists and the Gliderungen show nothing of the sort - clearly or otherwise.
More words in mouth :roll: I was only trying to tell you what I meant by my use of the term "first forces ashore"...as opposed to yours...
Oh, sorry, but now I'm confused, since I never defined "first forces ashore". That was a phrase you used without defining what you meant.
...given that THOSE were to come ashore by assault boat...
Yes, you would rather suppose so given the presence of the Sturmboot company in the divisional engineer battalion...
Why - for the sake of YOUR definition of what I meant by "first forces ashore" - do you suppose I could have been assuming they were intending to get HORSES onto those??? :? :roll:
"MY" definition? Really? I gave no definition, I just stated a fact and awaited your clarification - you're the one getting your nickers in a twist over some supposed definition that you never provided until just now.

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

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

#164

Post by phylo_roadking » 07 Jul 2014, 02:24

No - you're putting words in my mouth again. What I'm saying is that Schenk mentions TWO separate uses for Renault UEs, but only to ONE of those does he ascribe the term "Karetten"...and it's not the role as beach tractors.
So you're concerned about the possible intended use for tractors you're not sure were present? Whether or not they were Renault UE or obsolete tank chassis - which would those be for the Germans BTW - is somewhat moot.
STILL not right....

I know they're listed in the P.188 list - but what's NOT clear is what use the ones on the P.188 list were to be put to; or rather, Schenk gives us A use for them on p.183 related to the term "karetten"...

But Schenk mentions TWO uses for Renault UE "Cheniletten" in two completely separate places in his book....but only ONE of those uses has the term "Karetten" attached to it, the reference on p.183 - and it's not the beach tractor use. The beach tractor use reference is on p.132.

? We know from comparing Urmel's figures with the P.188 list of the September 1940 situation that 35th ID had recieved considerably more motorization assets. Do I really need to post up the figures and percentages again?
"WE" "know" nothing of the sort. YOU have reached a conclusion based on little or no evidence. To repeat - for what, the tenth time - the attached units easily explain any differences in the LOAD LISTS for whatever division you are wrapped around the axle on now.
YOU are assuming that; I'M assuming that Schenk is actually correct when he says -
All the divisions assigned to the landing, particularly those of the First Wave, had to be reinforced and better eqyuiped than the back-up support troops. Most of the German infantry divisions of that time, unlike those of today, were not fully motorised and were mostly foot soldiers in the true 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.
Rich, if your assumption is correct - then the units temporarily assigned to the First Wave divisions came with their motorised assets and those are what is accounted for by the "extra" lorries and fields cars etc. in the p.188 list for 35th ID...

But that's not what Schenk says; what HE'S describing above on p.183 is the motorising (whether pro tem or permanent is irrelevant) of certain existing divisional assets to reduce their dependence on horses.

Please then show me just how COMPLETELY different 35. ID was from 17. ID. I think since I've been asking you to do that for about two weeks now it would be nice of you to actually do so.
Rich, I have no intention of doing so, because I have no interest in doing so, as I was not discussing 17th ID at any point - just the First Wave infantry division that the p.188 list refers to, which is 35th ID.

YOU are the one with the mania about 17th ID, YOU address the differences or similarities.

So you are concerned about the number of horses that can dance on the head of a pin now? Cool!
Weren't YOU the one complaining about irrelevancies? :roll:

1/ Given that "yes", anyone reading this could be forgiven for wondering WHY you demanded for two pages to be shown the organizational "reorganisation" - as opposed to the First Wave IDs being optimized for the assault phase as Schenk describes...
That is a tactical organization - it is not the "reorganisation" of anything. The divisional organization is unchanged.
I KNOW.

What I'm saying is that - now that you say you've actually read pages 183 to 187 of Schenk - that given rather your two recent pages-worth of demanding I show you any changes of divisional organisation...one could be forgiven for thinking that...
That is a tactical organization - it is not the "reorganisation" of anything. The divisional organization is unchanged
...you didn't know. Now you say you did all along :lol: Funny, that...

2/ Kindly look back - anywhere did I specifically say that the "reorganisation" referred to just increasing the number of motor vehicles? I said that the number of motor vehicles in the 35th ID clearly increased, we've got the figures to show it...AND Schenk says it was done from captured Allied stocks etc....but I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that in the rest of the five pages preceeding p.188 than simply the short note referring to THAT that Schenk says a lot more was done during that reorganisation than just providing extra MT to prepare the First Wave IDs for the initial assault.
Schenk's loading lists and the Gliderungen show nothing of the sort - clearly or otherwise.
it might help if you were to be specific as to which statement/phrase in my paragraph above your answer actually applies to...

More words in mouth I was only trying to tell you what I meant by my use of the term "first forces ashore"...as opposed to yours...
Oh, sorry, but now I'm confused, since I never defined "first forces ashore". That was a phrase you used without defining what you meant.
"MY" definition? Really? I gave no definition, I just stated a fact ....
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1883386
Why ever do you assume that the ENTIRE first echelon was expected to be part of the "first forces ashore"? There were three groups landing in the first echelon. The "first forces ashore" were just four reinforced infantry companies and the tanks.
I suppose we're now going to spend four or five pages arguing when is a definition not a definition... :roll:

...and awaited your clarification - you're the one getting your nickers in a twist over some supposed definition that you never provided until just now
A few moments' intelligent consideration should have told you that when it came to German officers and their horses that I couldn't have been talking about the forces coming ashore by sturmboot... :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?

#165

Post by RichTO90 » 07 Jul 2014, 03:18

phylo_roadking wrote:A few moments' intelligent consideration should have told you that when it came to German officers and their horses that I couldn't have been talking about the forces coming ashore by sturmboot... :roll:
Since no questions ever addressed to you ever get answered it is evident you are only interested in your own navel gazing. At this point I am quite happy to let you spin on endlessly on your own.

Cheers!

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”