Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 819
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#16

Post by ClintHardware » 17 Apr 2014, 13:00

David W wrote:I would be interested in your book. :thumbsup:
THANK GOD......one reader - Four years of my life writing/finishing 16 volumes of 8000 pages of detailed stuff not wasted.

It all began in 1976 when Corporal Lacey told me about Tiger hunting in Villers Bocage 13th June 1944 - been investigating fragments of fire-fights, armour plate technology, ammunition, ballistics, AFV design, unit histories and legend testing ever since.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 819
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#17

Post by ClintHardware » 31 May 2014, 09:26

Hi All

I was looking again at CAB 146/356 and found a list of dates and panzer numbers for 20th June - December 1941. The heading of the three pages is German tank strengths in N Africa July - December 1941. It has a list of numbers of dead and wounded too corresponding to the end of Crusader.

If you want the data I will add it - let me know.

I am interested in the German term einsatzbereite . The report states it means the equivalent of "Runners". Google translate gives me "Ready to use" and when the words are separated it produces "a set ready". 21st Century American is not always very helpful.

Jentz does not list it in his glossary for Tank Combat N Africa.

I just wondered if English 20th Century "Runners" was a good or bad interpretation of the contemporary German meaning behind the word.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !


User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4918
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#18

Post by Urmel » 31 May 2014, 15:19

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

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

nmao
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Mar 2005, 17:42
Location: Portugal

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#19

Post by nmao » 31 May 2014, 18:05

I for sure would be very interested in that data! :)
And a big thank you for all the info you have shared here.

regards,

-Nuno

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 819
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#20

Post by ClintHardware » 06 Jun 2014, 21:34

I must apologise for my long delay in responding.

These are pages from CAB 146/356. The Panzer Regiment 5 data has fitted well into what we have previously said about numbers.
Panzer Regiments 5 and 8 Data.pdf
hese
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

Brevity
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Mar 2007, 03:58
Location: chicago

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#21

Post by Brevity » 11 Jun 2014, 05:57

Interesting. Your returns "slightly" disagree with the ones I have:

Image

Note that 15 June return is impossible for PR5, they never had that many IIIs and IVs in Africa in 1941. On the other hand, it perfectly matches the expected PR8 numbers for that date. I consider July and August numbers correct. The total numbers seem about right. As far I can tell 14/IV total for July-August 1941 is entirely correct.

Here is couple more:
29 April pm
Panzer-Abteilung Hochman:
Stab - 2/Bef. 3/I 5/II 1/III
5. coy (Sandrock) - 7/II 11/III
6. coy (Gruen) - 7/II 13/III
7. coy (v.Oertzen) - 5/I 4/II 11/III
8. coy (Mueller) - 2/I 3/II 8/IV

1 May 4:20 am
9/I 26/II 36/III 8/IV 2/Bef.



Couple more for II. Battalion only

3 May am
4/I 12/II 17/III 2/IV 2/Bef.

9 May pm
4/I 11/II 24/III 5/IV (incl. 2 from 4. coy) 1/Bef.

12 May pm
5/I 3/II 14/III 4/IV 1/Bef.

17 May
3/I 6/II 18/III 0/IV 1/Bef.

20 May
4/I 1/II 10/III 0/IV 0/Bef.

25 May pm
4/I 10/II 25/III 3/IV 1/Bef.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4918
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#22

Post by Urmel » 11 Jun 2014, 11:16

Brevity wrote:Note that 15 June return is impossible for PR5, they never had that many IIIs and IVs in Africa in 1941.
Huh?

They report 45/70/20 on 15 June. On 17 November they report 35/68/17 ready for action

So the June number does not seem improbably high, especially since there were two write-off IIIs during Sommernachtstraum, and they only received small numbers of replacements in June/July.

Please also see here - the data is from shipping manifests, so as good as it gets:

http://rommelsriposte.com/2013/03/07/ge ... th-africa/

By the end of June 1941, PR 5 had received 25/45/71/20/3/4 tanks and command tanks, and had lost 0/0/10/3/0/0 in the fire on Leverkusen.
Attachments
pr5tanks.JPG
pr5tanks.JPG (21.16 KiB) Viewed 3013 times
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Brevity
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Mar 2007, 03:58
Location: chicago

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#23

Post by Brevity » 12 Jun 2014, 02:02

Urmel wrote:
Brevity wrote:Note that 15 June return is impossible for PR5, they never had that many IIIs and IVs in Africa in 1941.
Huh?
I meant, they never had that many at any point. 45/70/20 in June is impossible because of losses from various battles

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4918
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#24

Post by Urmel » 12 Jun 2014, 07:30

Brevity wrote:
Urmel wrote:
Brevity wrote:Note that 15 June return is impossible for PR5, they never had that many IIIs and IVs in Africa in 1941.
Huh?
I meant, they never had that many at any point. 45/70/20 in June is impossible because of losses from various battles
Fair enough, my point was more about them nver having as much in 1941. I do think that with the replacements sent between July and August, they could have gotten back up to that number, and they were very close to it on 17 November.

Just as FYI - D.A.K. war diary has the following as runners for 20 June:

PR5 19/8/33/8 + 5 Matilda II
PR8 n.a./28/26/13 + 7 Matilda II
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 819
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#25

Post by ClintHardware » 18 Jun 2014, 08:29

Very Interesting data and finally we see numbers in workshops and references to spares delaying repairs.

The origin of Brevity's data appears to be February/March 1942 decryption of Heer Enigma from mid 1941. Heer Enigma was not broken until late 1941 and then, IIRC, was only intermittently broken for quite a few more months.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4918
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#26

Post by Urmel » 18 Jun 2014, 10:48

Not sure about that. They captured the whole workshop in December, lock stock and 38 smoking Panzers under repair, my guess is that they simply sifted through the paperwork and it took them a few weeks to get to the lower priority stuff. Feb 42 fits with that.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

nmao
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Mar 2005, 17:42
Location: Portugal

Re: Panzer Regiment 5 Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#27

Post by nmao » 18 Jun 2014, 13:36

Brevity wrote:
Note that 15 June return is impossible for PR5, they never had that many IIIs and IVs in Africa in 1941.
Hello.
About the number of III and IV in PR5, they arrived with 61 and 17 respectively, but according to Jentz TCiNA, page 37:
"Replacements for the ten Pz.Kpfw.III and three Pz.Kpfw.IV were immediately issued.
The ten replacements were Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.F and G with 5cm Kw.K.L/42 requisitioned from those previously issued to Panzer-Regiment 6. The three replacement Pz.Kpfw.IV were new production Ausf.E that were issued directly from the ordnance shop.
Shipped to Tripoli with 18th or 19th convoy, the replacements did not catch up to the unit at the front until 29 April 1941."
and Page 157:
"Panzer-Regiment 5 with 5.Leichte Division were back by Tobruk. Panzer-Regiment 5 reported 39 Pz.Kpfw.II, 38 Pz.Kpfw.III and 19 Pz.Kpfw.IV as operational on 15 June 1941; some of these belonged to Panzer-Regiment 8."
I know Jentz isn't an original source, but usually is reliable...so it think the reported numbers seem possible.

regards,
-nuno

Brevity
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Mar 2007, 03:58
Location: chicago

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#28

Post by Brevity » 23 Jun 2014, 02:45

nmao wrote: and Page 157:
"Panzer-Regiment 5 with 5. Leichte Division were back by Tobruk. Panzer-Regiment 5 reported 39 Pz.Kpfw. II, 38 Pz.Kpfw. III and 19 Pz.Kpfw. IV as operational on 15 June 1941; some of these belonged to Panzer-Regiment 8."
I know Jentz isn't an original source, but usually is reliable...so it think the reported numbers seem possible.

Hey nmao



Jentz used the same source I posted and he assumed it is correct... but it's only possible if PR 5 was replenished and brought up to full strength by requisitioning PR 8 tanks.

Unfortunately Jentz was wrong, which I show using Panzer IVs as example.

In early June PR 5 had ca. 14 of them, PR 8 still had 20. If they switched their tanks around and PR 5 now had 20, PR 8 would have had about 14 left.



He is a brief story of how Panzer IVs from PR 8 fared in Battleaxe:

15 June
Oblt. Schubert [3. company commander] recorded:
Sunday 15 June at 0400 hrs the early alarm. Heavy fire along the front. At 0500 hrs the Regiment is ready. At 1000 hrs follow the deployment in the direction of Capuzzo. The whole day there is heavy combat. In the evening we managed to win back the rest place of the Regiment. The panzer of Schneider is destroyed. Uffz. Schmidt falls. [Kevin Fish, Panzer Regiment 8 in World War II, p. 90]


16 June
The Panzer Striking Force
Panzer-Regiment 8 was ordered to attack Capuzzo once more on 16 June, this time with both Abteilungen combined. The I.Abteilung now had only 6 Pz.Kpfw. IV out of 8 with which it started the battle. The British tanks struck out of the morning mist, and once more there were heavy casualties in 3. Kompanie. The I.Abteilung had to withdraw with only 4 operational tanks (no Pz. IVs)
By the evening of the second day, 13 tanks (2 Pz. IVs) had been repaired and stood ready to defend Bardia. [Jentz, TCiNA p. 178]

The attack of the 3rd Company under Oblt Schubert experienced significant losses; the panzer of Uffz. Olsberg was hit and exploded into flames, trapping the crew inside, and there were no survivors. [Fish, p.91]

Ofw. Kruck of the 3rd company destroyed one of the British tanks (...) Kruck returned to action, where his panzer quickly drew the attention of three British tanks. These tanks, covering the retreat of 7 RTR, were in excellent position to engage Kruck, setting the panzer alight. [Fish, p.92]

Oblt. Schubert:
Monday 16 June. Heavy attack against Capuzzo from 0400 hrs. At first we do not advance at all. The company attacks from the east of Capuzzo. The company commander's vehicle is destroyed. Irmisch is wounded. The panzer of Kertscher has the cannon broken. The panzer of Goeb is on fire. The panzer of Treuenfels is destroyed. Danner is burnt out. The remains of the company were brought back in the Regiment formation. [Fish, p. 93]

Klaus Hubbuch, loader in a Mk IV from the 7th company
I was wounded as the Ladeschutze (gun loader), the 40 mm solid shot went through between my body and my right arm. The round was later lying in the engine compartment but fragments from the big hole in our plating went into my face and chest and I was bleeding like a pig. I didn't even notice it in the heat of battle, but a second Pak hit penetrated our fog gadgets (fire extinguishers) and infantry explosives loosened our 4 return rollers. Our vehicle was only good for limited use! [Fish p. 92-93]


17 June
The Panzer Striking Force
The I. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment 8 suffered losses from two British air attacks. 1 Pz.IV was a total loss (knocked out). The Abteilung turned back from this rendezvous. [Jentz, TCiNA p. 185-186]

Oblt. Schubert, 3. coy
The new company is constructed from repaired vehicles from the whole Regiment. At 1100 hrs we march in the direction of Hill 208. At 208 came an air force attack. There are heavy losses, especially in open transport vehicles. That evening we take hedgehog positions near Hill 206. [Fish, p.94]


18 June
Oblt. Schubert
March back towards Capuzzo, back to bivouac, The panzers of Fw. Doeweling and Goeb stay on the frontline. [Fish, p.95]

Pz.Rgt.8 has 12 Pz. IV operational [Jentz, TCiNA p. 186]


20 June
Pz.Rgt.8 has 13 Pz. IV operational [Fish, p. 95]



Overall impression is they had several of their Pz.IVs heavily damaged in Battleaxe, but then, why they still had 12-13 operational at the end?

They must have been at full strength at the beginning, so unfortunately, Jentz was wrong here

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4918
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#29

Post by Urmel » 24 Jun 2014, 19:15

Brevity wrote:Overall impression is they had several of their Pz.IVs heavily damaged in Battleaxe, but then, why they still had 12-13 operational at the end?

They must have been at full strength at the beginning, so unfortunately, Jentz was wrong here
20 June is not the end of the battle, the evening of 17 June is. So I don't think that based on the available data you can be certain about the conclusion that Jentz was wrong. It's possible, but not certain. Between the end of the battle and the evening report of 20 June the Germans had three full days to repair any damage to their tanks. Given the effectiveness of their battlefield recovery and repair services, it is quite likely that a number of tanks were returned to the units in those three days. Any short-term and 2-day repairs would have been concluded by then.
Attachments
sollum.JPG
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Brevity
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Mar 2007, 03:58
Location: chicago

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#30

Post by Brevity » 25 Jun 2014, 07:13

Urmel wrote:Between the end of the battle and the evening report of 20 June the Germans had three full days to repair any damage to their tanks. Given the effectiveness of their battlefield recovery and repair services, it is quite likely that a number of tanks were returned to the units in those three days. Any short-term and 2-day repairs would have been concluded by then.
Not at all, a lot of tanks were still in repair 2 months later or more, besides, heavily battle-damaged vehicles were meant to be repaired last, they would start with technical casualties that could be fixed within hours.

This should be one of Battleaxe casualties, might be even the written off one (rear superstructure side is gone)
Image
Image

Doesn't seem repairable within 2 days

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”