Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#121

Post by MarkN » 12 Jun 2015, 14:21

ClintHardware wrote:I am happy to let the data talk as well as the eye witnesses to the fighting ...

Because 5th RTR was an under resourced but highly trained regular armoured unit and the way in which they dealt with II.PR5 on the 2nd April warrants appreciation of their skills and organisation in fighting some seven times their own numbers - and then getting out less five of their A13s.
Eyewitness report...
Image

So, hold tactical advantage and lose 5 tanks against the enemy's 3 losses.

"...fighting some seven times their own numbers" :lol:

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#122

Post by ClintHardware » 13 Jun 2015, 20:05

The eye witness corroborates the superiority in numbers. The II. Abteilung was in reach of the 5th RTR and yet they failed to eliminate the few of them remaining.

Well done 5 RTR. Bad show Pz Rgt 5 - and they also failed to eliminate 2nd Sp Gp a while earlier.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !


User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#123

Post by ClintHardware » 13 Jun 2015, 20:15

MarkN wrote:
ClintHardware wrote: Now where is the report of the 15+5 arriving after the 4th June?
2 posts above this question. On my screen, about 6".
No could not find it - can someone give the data please (dates and numbers).
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#124

Post by Urmel » 13 Jun 2015, 20:43

ClintHardware wrote:
MarkN wrote:
ClintHardware wrote: Now where is the report of the 15+5 arriving after the 4th June?
2 posts above this question. On my screen, about 6".
No could not find it - can someone give the data please (dates and numbers).
ClintHardware wrote:I have just re-consulted Panzertruppen Vol 1 for data about Brevity Skorpian and Battleaxe and the data is even bleaker for Panzer Regiment 5:

1) Panzer Abteilung Hohmann had 27 operational panzers to face Operation BREVITY.
2) I. Panzer Regiment 5 did not join Hohmann (panzer numbers unknown at this point for this I. Abteilung) for BREVITY.
3) I. Panzer Regiment 8 (not 5) did join the battle to some extent by 0300 hours 16/5/41.
4) 26/5/41 I. Panzer Regiment 5 was available for Operation SKORPIAN numbers unstated.
5) Panzer Regiment 5 had arrived in Libya less the 10 Pz III and 3 Pz IV lost in the Leverkusen incident but replacements arrive in April.
6) Another 15 Pz III and 5 Pz IV arrive for Panzer Regiment 5 by 4th June.
7) 15th June Panzer Regiment 5 has only 96 operational panzers.

So if you take away all 33 replacements by 4th June this indicates that by the 15th June Panzer Regiment 5 was down to 63 original panzers from those landed at Tripoli and engaged in the advance on Tobruk.

I do not know if any panzers were lent to the Panzer Regiment 5 from Panzer Regiment 8 (probably not) but if so the constructive total loss is even greater for Panzer Regiment 5 than I had calculated.

My next book will be on BREVITY, SKORPIAN AND BATTLEAXE and there seems to be a whole wealth of things not said about those three battles when you read between the lines of Panzertruppen Vol 1.
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

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#125

Post by MarkN » 13 Jun 2015, 22:40

You wrote...
ClintHardware wrote:Jentz Page 167 Panzertruppen Vol 1 states that the 15 Panzer IIIs and 5 Panzer IVs for PzRgt 5 were issued 4th June for the April losses so surely they were part of the 96 operational on the 15th June. Do you have another source placing them later? This is important point because it may reflect upon the damage suffered on the 1st May.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1888861
The very next post, you received an answer. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1888865
Not only did you receive the answer, but the poster, nmao, was kind enough to embolden and underline the relevant text so you couldn't miss it.

However, somehow you contrived to do just that, and thus you demanded once again - just 2 posts later and 6" on my screen. And the only post in between the two was one of yours...
ClintHardware wrote: Now where is the report of the 15+5 arriving after the 4th June?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1888896
And here we are a year later ...
ClintHardware wrote:
MarkN wrote:
ClintHardware wrote: Now where is the report of the 15+5 arriving after the 4th June?
2 posts above this question. On my screen, about 6".
No could not find it - can someone give the data please (dates and numbers).
... which is somewhat of a surprise since it is a mere 6 or 7 lines of text after the information you present....

Clearly, you only read and digest the words and information that suit your position.

Since I'm feeling charitable, I'll post the actual extract for you to read.

Image
Image

And to just provide a little further assistance, I'll write the relevant words:-
... so these replacement tanks didn't actually arrive in Libya until August through October.

To recap, the 34 tanks (4 II, 21 III and 9 IV) sent as replacement for PzRegt.5 AND PzRegt.8's combat losses didn't arrive before August; some as late as October. The fact that had been issued in June and July is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

One could argue that that is indicative of the total write-offs incurred by PzRegt.5 AND PzRegt.8 up to mid July 1941. That would include losses to enemy forces, losses to mines and any other incidents that would cause a total write-off.
ClintHardware wrote:I get the feeling that many here only want to take account of panzers written off.
Nobody is claiming that more were not hit. But it would seem PzRegt.5 AND PzRegt.8 may had lost just 34 tanks (II/III/IV) up to mid-July.

They only required 20 replacements issued before Op Brevity. This suggest only about 20 were lost by PzRegt.5 up to that point. 17 of which were lost on 14 April and 3 on 2 April. I for one can accept the numbers do not have to be exact, but the evidence that 2nd Armoured Division inflicted a massive toll on PzRegt.5 just doesn't add up. The desert did the damage to numbers - just like it did to the British tanks. How many did 2nd Armoured Division lose in combat and how many did they run into the ground through the desert: 10:120ish?
Last edited by MarkN on 13 Jun 2015, 23:09, edited 4 times in total.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#126

Post by MarkN » 13 Jun 2015, 22:58

Having written above, that it could be in the region of just 34 total write offs up to mid-July, there is another calculation (avenue of thought).

Jentz writes about the numbers operationally available on 17/18 November (after those 34 replacements have arrived).

Image

By my calculation, that's a total of 77 II, 145 III, 38 IV and 8 Bef operational (total 268).
This compares with 94 II, 163 III, 49 IV and 17 Bef delivered up to that point in time (total 323).
This leaves a difference of 17 II, 18 III, 11 IV and 9 Bef 'missing' (total 55).

So, a total of 55 unaccounted for which will include all those written off (by whatever means) as well as those under maintenance and thus not operational at that moment in time. If 34ish were written off, that's 20ish under maintenance. Less than 10% of the total. Not bad!

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#127

Post by Urmel » 13 Jun 2015, 23:35

Time for this table again:

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

It should be clear that if 15/5 are issued on 4 June, there is no way they can be in Libya before sometime in July. I believe I actually dug out the convoy earlier in this or the other thread by going through the loading lists.
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
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#128

Post by David W » 14 Jun 2015, 07:57

MarkN.

Thanks for the clarification over the word "issued".
I had previously incorrectly assumed that this meant issued to the unit from stocks within North Africa no matter how recently arrived.
Does this term always refer to stocks in Germany?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#129

Post by Urmel » 14 Jun 2015, 08:34

No, it is a question of who issues them. Later in 1941 some unassigned tanks (very small number) seem to have been sent to North Africa for the Nachschubstab (QM staff unit).
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
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#130

Post by David W » 14 Jun 2015, 10:50

Thanks.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#131

Post by MarkN » 14 Jun 2015, 12:13

David W wrote: Thanks for the clarification over the word "issued".
I had previously incorrectly assumed that this meant issued to the unit from stocks within North Africa no matter how recently arrived.
Does this term always refer to stocks in Germany?
Only Jentz himself knows what 'issued' means in this context. Does it mean that the replacement were 'authorized' by the appropriate body, that they were 'allocated' from the factory or 'received' by DAK logisticians in Germany? Jentz makes it clear that the delay in arrival on the front line was down to a lack of shipping space, so the tanks could well have be allocated to, and in the possession of, DAK rear areas, but sat in various dumps in Germany and Italy awaiting shipping space. In effect, they could well have been 'issued' to DAK on 4 June (etc), but they only arrived with PzRegt.5 (or PzRegt.8) over 2 months later.

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#132

Post by ClintHardware » 17 Jun 2015, 06:54

MarkN your comments and remarks are way over the top.

I welcome being corrected or reminded but your comments are heavily sarcastic. What did you wish to achieve with the comment "Clearly, you only read and digest the words and information that suit your position" ? You wanted to annoy.

Cut the sarcasm and be polite.

And when you provide material you need to provide information on the source not just paste in items.

Cut the sarcasm and cut the arrogance out of each of your attacks.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#133

Post by MarkN » 17 Jun 2015, 14:39

A few snippets I've found...

Image
Image
Image
Image

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#134

Post by MarkN » 23 Jun 2015, 12:35

Image

"Tanks after battle casualties not more than twenty medium 22 tonners."

Do you think Wavell is likely to over or understate enemy losses to London?

Also dovetails nicely with the same number sent out as replacements to PzRegt.5

More evidence, perhaps, that only about 3 were lost prior to reaching Tobruk. Unless, this is a report only concerning the Tobruk battle of the 14th. It's not that clear, unfortunately.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

#135

Post by Urmel » 23 Jun 2015, 13:28

Aren't you misreading this? Wavell appears to me to claim that the Germans only had 22 Mk III left, the remainder having been destroyed in battle.

If my reading is correct it's just another fantasy item out of Hogwarts, errr, Middle East H.Q.
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

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”