russian 76,2 guns for 104th Infanterie reg.

[valentine III]

When did the 104th infanterie regiment get their 76'2cm fk 296(r) of Halm's fame and Valentine crews fate?

Many thanks

[David W]

Unless anyone knows any different, I have them as having nothing larger than 5cm Pak38 right up until November 1942.
I think perhaps the new Kstn that applied to them in the latter half of 1942 (They were PzGren Reg 104 by then) might have shown some as having been supposed to have been on strength, but I don't think they had them.

[Urmel]

After CRUSADER the proposal was for a complete re-organisation of the infantry units to increase their AT capability. 90th Light infantry companies were to get their own 7.62cm guns, while those of 15th and 21st Panzer were supposed to get 5cm.

http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/20 ... on-learnt/

[valentine III]

Well, maybe being the anti tank platoon, HQ kompanie, (Panzergrenadier Regiment 104, 21. Panzer Division) could chose equippement first if it was of limited availability.

At first I though the 76'2 FK296(r) would be the best (in fact maybe better) substitute for the light infantry guns of the infantry. Being able not only to provide HE support but also a perfect Anti tank gun when needed. Jointly with the pak 38's 50mm they formed a deadly combination for allied tanks in the desert in 1942 as history tell us they were.

[David W]

Well, maybe being the anti tank platoon, HQ kompanie, (Panzergrenadier Regiment 104, 21. Panzer Division) could chose equippement first if it was of limited availability.

But I've never seen any of the Russian guns on their inventory during 1942.

What makes you think that they did in fact have some?

[valentine III]

Well, Its known that Halm's Ritterkreutz was won using a russian gun to stop some Valentine tanks of the 23rd Armoured Brigade on July 1942. Probably from their own words and also the effectiveness of their shooting.

Guns don't last for ever in war, specially in combat. In Halm's action the gun was damaged, who knows if it was possible to repair it and don't remember if the other gun in the "zug" was also put out of action. Efimerous existence in a hostile environment. In that month of July men and weapons arrived and went really fast.

There exist some pictures of theses guns in DAk ownership so at least some of them were around and it has to be from 1942 on because they had been captured in russia in 1941 and you have not only to decide to reuse them but also move them around and collect enough ammunition for them, etc.

[David W]

Hi,

There is no question about the guns being present in North Africa in 1942. (Although I can not place any there before March of that year) It is a question of if they were ever present in 104th Reg (as per your original question).

They were present in some numbers in the 90th Leichte Division as Urmel pointed out in his post above.

But as far as I can tell, the only other unit (outside 90th Leichte) to receive any at all in 1942 was 6 sent to 33rd PzJg Btn (15th Pz Div) in March.

Best wishes,

David.

[Alanmccoubrey]

David, the question then has to be , why would the Germans in a medal citation call a gun Russian if it wasn't ?

[David W]

Alan.
I'm not with you?

[Urmel]

Halm got a Ritterkreuz for serving a 7.62cm Russian gun against a Valentine attack. He was in the AT platoon of 104 Rifle Regiment. It stands to reason that the regiment at the time he received the RK had at least one of these guns or that the RK citation is wrong.

I seriously doubt the platoon had a pick of anything. They would use what they were given, or captured. You would need to go into the regimental or DAK WuG records to see when these guns were issued.

[Alanmccoubrey]

Alan.
I'm not with you?

David, if you were correct and Halm didn't have a Russian gun then why would the Germans give "credit" to the Russian gun if they didn't have to.

[David W]

Halm got a Ritterkreuz for serving a 7.62cm Russian gun against a Valentine attack. He was in the AT platoon of 104 Rifle Regiment. It stands to reason that the regiment at the time he received the RK had at least one of these guns or that the RK citation is wrong.

I did not know that.

alan's comment now makes sense.

I see that my records are inaccurate. i do not mind being wrong, it brings me one step closer to the truth.

When did 104 get it's 76.2mm guns? And how many? Does anyone know?
(it was a gun & not a gun armed Marder?)

[Alanmccoubrey]

David, it was a towed gun. The action took place on the night of 21/22 July 1942 . I know that the first Marder III's arrived in July 1942, were they at the front by the 21st ?

[David W]

David, it was a towed gun.

Thanks.

re the Marders, I will have to check my (fallable) records!

[David W]

Re arrival of Marders I have.....

5th Pz Div. 27/07/42.

15th Pz Div. After 30/04/42 & Before 31/08/42 (no more accurate I'm afraid.

90th Leichte. None in 1942. (that I know of)

164th Leichte. 02/09/42.


I am ready to be shot down!