10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#1

Post by ClintHardware » 06 Mar 2014, 21:11

Hi All

I was looking again at 2nd Support Group's War Diary and found the following about panzers destroyed but could not check against what the 11th Hussars did or saw in this respect. I suspect that 2nd Support Group were told of the two burning panzers by the 11th Hussars. Does anyone have any extra detail?

Here is a rough of what I have please feel free to amend/correct:

2nd Support Group H.Q. recorded the time of the Gruppe Prittwitz attack and then what followed next:

2nd Support Group Intelligence Summary 10th April
1137 - 1247. Activity in the ACROMA area: eventually a party of AFVs, 3 heavy tanks and 20 MET moved to the SOUTH.

1425 Our patrols withdrew in front of the AFVs and 3 heavy tanks.

1430 Enemy column halted at 387420. 11H reported the loss of one car and the destruction of two enemy vehicles. The column was engaged by F Bty.

1440 Column dispersed to SW.

1450 Column now proceeded WEST.

1500 Tac R reported enemy MET packed all the way along the road GAZALA – ACROMA and large concentration of MET and AFVs at SGGNALIS [sic] [Segnali ?].

1628 The dispersed columns joined at 377420 and were heavily shelled: they moved of SOUTH and SW. Tow [sic] [Two] light tanks were left in the original position and were reported to have been burnt. They were larger than our light tanks and can carry W T. At 1730 11 H reported the strength of the column as 2 possibly 4 large tanks, 20 lorries with infantry, a number of light armoured cars, 5 light tanks (of which two were destroyed).

1700 Australians engaged near the coast WEST of TOBRUK (WO 169/1159)

2nd Support Group H.Q. and 1st K.R.R.C. recorded different quantities of MET within their sight and within the range of ‘F’ Battery, 4th R.H.A.:

1st King’s Royal Rifle Corps
1700 Right Column (D Coy under comd) [of 2nd Support Group] engaged 150 MET with Arty at 380411 and halted coln. Considerable enemy force reported to WEST. (WO 169/1732)

2nd Support Group Intelligence Summary 10th April
1740 Enemy column of 50 vehicles halted on cross tracks 371412 and then moved to high ground (pt 166, 376413)

1800 Column moved EAST along the track.

1810 Column which consisted of 150 enemy MET now headed by AFVs halted one mile WEST to cross track 380412 and was attacked at 1825 by HURRICANES.

1915 F Bty engaged this target. After 20 minutes heavy shelling column split moving N and SW. A staff car with 3 German officers was captured.

2010 12 unidentified vehicles came from the WEST and turned NORTH into dead ground at 392405.

2015 Hurricane reported that at this time 3 Columns each about 200 MET were moving EAST along TRIGH GADD EL AHMAR towards EL ADEM: the head of the first column was some seven miles off.

The only report of activity in the SOUTH was at 1210 when 5 vehicles were reported moving EAST at 390368. (WO 169/1159)

It seems likely that the details of the two burning tanks were reported to 2nd Support Group by the 11th Hussars – sadly their War Diary is missing between the 8th– 30th April. The 4th R.H.A. recorded very few details of the same action:

4th Regiment Royal Horse Artillery
10/4 Both Troops [‘F’ and ‘G’ of ‘F’ Battery] were in action at first light. F Tp have one OP in the ACROMA area and one at the X tracks* Trigh Capuzzo – Acroma/Bir Hacheim. An enemy column south of the escarpment was engaged [time not given] and dispersed. (WO 169/1429)
* A junction of tracks.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#2

Post by nmao » 07 Mar 2014, 14:08

Thank you for all your great posts!!

I think we have to be careful about those descriptions of AFVs, ACs and METs.
In the distance and with all the fog of war things get pretty confused, it's easy to mistake numbers and to mistake an AC for an AFV, etc.
Just an example, on 9th April 11th Hussars says: "A Sqn reported an enemy column had crossed the wire at EGYPTIAN SIDI OMAR consisting of 6 ACs, 11 AFVs, 1 lorry, 1 MC and 1 staff car." As far as i know there were no tanks in this area (at least not 11).

11th hussars war diary (http://www.warlinks.com/armour/11_hussars/11huss_41.php) doesn't seem to have much info about the fighting on the approaches to Tobruk.

regards,

-Nuno


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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#3

Post by ClintHardware » 07 Mar 2014, 19:45

Thanks nmao. Yes I completely agree with not necessarily accepting any description.

Sadly that 11th Hussars link misses the dates I need, and so does the 11th's War Diary at Kew.

I have some faith in the description of the two stationary panzers because they were seen burning. If ignition was due to 25-Pdr shells from 'F' Battery, 4th RHA then it is likely that they were externally carrying fuel. A burning panzer is not normally one that can be repaired although many parts could be re-used for repairs of other panzers.

I have added these two panzers to my damaged panzers list (attached to an earlier topic) in columns A and B but not column C without German corroboration. However, I do accept that without German evidence of total loss we are left with the possibility that the panzers were either NOT damaged in anyway but only appeared to be, OR damaged but later repaired. I compiled the panzers damaged list to show what might have contributed (in addition to desert wear and tear) towards so few panzers being fielded during the 11th, 14th and 1st - 2nd May attacks.
Last edited by ClintHardware on 08 Mar 2014, 16:31, edited 1 time in total.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#4

Post by Urmel » 08 Mar 2014, 10:00

Going through the D.A.K. war diary, there is no mention of tanks in this group. My guess would be mis-identified armoured cars, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

In the Acroma area there was M.G.8, while A.A.3 was in the EL Adem area, reporting a British heavy tank regiment there. Surprised the latter doesn't get a mention in the 2 Armoured Division intsum?
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: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#5

Post by ClintHardware » 08 Mar 2014, 16:26

Brigadier Gott and his newly acquired 2nd Support Group would have loved to have had their own heavy tanks somewhere to hand.

The detail of lorries and guns and types of panzers, seen/thought to have been seen, would have come from the 11th Hussars as the 1st KRRC have no depth of detail in their War Diary and were not so far forward. The 11th Hussars prided themselves on observation and surviving long enough to transmit the data back BUT without German data we have to accept that there may be an error in the report of two light panzers burning and the types of vehicles counted.

Looking at the DAK Kriegstagesbuch translations in CAB 146/10 the entries are very summary like and lacking detail. Urmel can you give us the original German entries for the 9th - 11th? What data do you have for operational and damaged panzers on those days?

I do trust the German data and German written off figures, but I don't feel that they give us the remaining operational panzer picture on any specific day.
Last edited by ClintHardware on 08 Mar 2014, 16:39, edited 1 time in total.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#6

Post by Urmel » 08 Mar 2014, 16:37

Unfortunately there is no real data for the day, since I don't have the war diary of 5. leichte, only the D.A.K. and 15. Panzer, which wasn't involved at that stage.

It's only a narrative, but it makes clear that there weren't any tanks. They were stuck behind at Mechili without supplies it appears, on that day.

What makes me think either armoured cars, or armoured command half-tracks, is the mention of WT sets. Maybe they noted the big antennas on the radio ACs. If they were 8-wheelers, at a distance they may have seemed like tanks.
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: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#7

Post by ClintHardware » 08 Mar 2014, 16:42

Yes agreed.

The Imperial War Museum does have the 5. leichte Division Kriegstagesbuch or did I dream that? I really ought to visit them - sadly they do not allow you to photo anything which makes referring to anything from there costly and tricky.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#8

Post by MarkN » 04 Oct 2017, 14:19

Urmel wrote:Unfortunately there is no real data for the day, since I don't have the war diary of 5. leichte, only the D.A.K. and 15. Panzer, which wasn't involved at that stage.

It's only a narrative, but it makes clear that there weren't any tanks. They were stuck behind at Mechili without supplies it appears, on that day.

What makes me think either armoured cars, or armoured command half-tracks, is the mention of WT sets. Maybe they noted the big antennas on the radio ACs. If they were 8-wheelers, at a distance they may have seemed like tanks.
The 10 April entries in the 5.le-Div KTB Ia indicate that the pantsers were still struggling forwards from el Mechili. An entry for the morning of 11 April describes an order by Rommel for them to head for Acroma and were to take up position after they arrive. Ie. they were not there on the 10th....

For 10 April, the 5.le-Div KTB Ia describes 'A.A.3 reinforced with 2 companies from Pz.Jg.39 (less 1 zug) to move round the south of Tobruk on the Via Balbia to Bardia.' Also 'one company from M.G.2 reinforced by elements from Div Brescia to make for and hold Acroma'. M.G.8 sit astride the main Derna-Tobruk road infront of the Australian perimeter. It later mentions A.A.3 being reinforced with various flak elements but make no mention of any engagments.

There is no mention of Pz.Jg.605 on 10 April. However, according to 5.le-Div KTB Ia, it was assigned to Gruppe Prittwitz on 8 April at el Mechili for the push up to, and then from, Derna. The next mention is 11 April when it with Pz.Regt.5 in the 'first' pantser assault on the Tobruk defences (this event has its own AHF thread lurking somewhere).

Whilst the 5.le-Div KTB Ia has Pz.Jg.605 added to Gp Prittwitz on 8 April, this makes no mention of it in the forces assigned to the Gruppe.
Image

In the round, the 5.le-Div KTB Ia and the Prittwitz Bericht tell us little new that has not already been discussed based upon DAK KTB, Olbricht and Schorm accounts and so forth: no German pantsers at or near Acroma or el Adem on 10 April. What the British saw and misidentified is unknown. There are reports - seen them here on AHF and elsewhere - that Fabris' motorcyclysists were the first to Acroma. However, the 5.le-Div KTB Ia has Kol. Fabris ordered from el Mechili to Derna at 6am on 9 April...

As regards:
... while A.A.3 was in the EL Adem area, reporting a British heavy tank regiment there. Surprised the latter doesn't get a mention in the 2 Armoured Division intsum?
Perhaps A.A.3 has found a collection of abandoned 7th ArmdDiv cruisers. :lol: Remember our previous discussion... :D

Tom Gale
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Feb 2017, 19:33
Location: Hampshire

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#9

Post by Tom Gale » 07 Oct 2017, 09:22

Prittwitz Bericht ? Who wrote that for him and on what date? Can you let us see it? You can PM me.

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#10

Post by MarkN » 07 Oct 2017, 19:27

It is also worth noting the following CYRCOM sitrep for the engagement. My bold and underline highlighting to a post kindly put up by another poster in another thread...
ClintHardware wrote:And the whole of the signal probably from Major-General Lavarack (commanding CYRCOM inside Tobruk) via his BGS to General Wavell and the other H.Q.s. is below from WO 169/1240 (sorry about the layout):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To MIDEAST rptd Stalex for C-in-C Med. BTE RAF Cyrcom SNOIS
BARDIA-SOLLUM Sub Area MATRUH Sub Area

From :- CYRCOM 0.237 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SITREP (.) Estimated 700 MT advanced along rd GAZALA – TOBRUK during day (.) This coln was attacked low flying (.) Fwd elements enemy made contact with Western face TOBRUK perimeter this morning (.) 7 – 12 AFVs and 22 MT carrying inf were reported and fire fight ensued (.) Enemy two Armd Cars and 7 MT destroyed (.) Own [losses] two guns two carriers destroyed by MG and mortar fire (.) 70 enemy MT probably supply lorries located GADD EL AHMAR bombed and MGd (.) RAF estimate 75 MT destroyed today (.) Tac/R 1615 hrs reports 2000 MT MECHILI of which large proportion probably own captured MT (.) Two air raids TOBRUK today (.) Casualties so far reported 11 killed some wounded (.) Two hospitals dive-bombed (.) Homecoming fighters report 2015 hrs 3 enemy colns each 200 MT moving East on track GADD EL AHMAR – EL ADEM head [of columns] 7 miles West EL ADEM (.) Pending confirmation believe this same coln 700 MT mentioned above diverted South via ACROMA (.) Party consisting of M Bty 3 RHA 3 Aust A.Tk Regt less two btys and elements 3 Ind Motor Bde arrived today having fought way back from MECHILI under leadership Major EDEN M Bty bringing 4 German and about 100 Italian P.W. with them.
......................................................Originators Instrs..............................T.O.O.
(sd) R T Priest, Major for BGS..................IMMEDIATE......................................2330
.......................................................IN CIPHER
(WO 169/1240)
viewtopic.php?p=1976359#p1976359
Noted as "Armd Cars" not tanks. Alos, by definition, 7-12 AFVs means Armd Cars as well as tanks.

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#11

Post by ClintHardware » 23 Oct 2017, 12:23

MarkN wrote:It is also worth noting
Not quite. The eyewitnesses to the incident refer to tanks and armoured cars and the above quote you have given is at least second, if not third hand. Rommel was so desperate he threw in the only soldier present from 15. Panzer Division (that is fekking desperate) and therefore it is very possible some pantsers were forward despite earlier German reports of waiting for fuel and repairs. I don't think you can with certainty rule pantzers out or in. If they could assemble 25 pantsers for the 11th then its highly likely some of them were nearby on the 10th. 8-)
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#12

Post by MarkN » 02 Jan 2018, 15:28

Entry for 10th April 1941 from Liddell Hart's The Rommel Papers, 1953

Image
Image

Same details as indicated in other narratives and source documentation: A.A.3 advanced westwards through Acroma, skirmished at el Adem and continued further onwards to take Bardia. Not seeing any evidence that any pantsers were attached to A.A.3 at this point in time.

As noted by Urmel above, and repeated by Rommel here, British tanks were 'seen' at and/or near el Adem. Did they have any? Or was this just another example of unreliable eyewitness accounts?

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#13

Post by ClintHardware » 04 Jan 2018, 09:23

Liddell-Hart was in England on the 9th and 10th and 11th April 1941. You need closer eyewitnesses.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#14

Post by Urmel » 07 Jan 2018, 08:57

Umm. Those are Rommel's notes.

I think it's simple a false report by A.A.3, and maybe Rommel simply saw German vehicles milling about on that ridge.
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: 10th April 1941 Tobruk just after Prittwitz attack

#15

Post by MarkN » 08 Jan 2018, 14:49

Gott's force in and around el Adem on the 10 April consisted of:-

HQ 2 Spt Gp (reduced scale)
.. HQ 11H and 2 sqns
.. HQ 4RHA and F Bty
.. HQ 3RHA and D and M Btys
.. 37 LAA Bty with only 6 AA guns
.. HQ 1KRRC less 1 coy
.. HQ 1THR with a single composite coy
.. RE, RASC and RAOC de/attachments

No 'tank' units, just amoured cars.

Nevertheless, a recce patrol from Gruppe Schraepler reported "eine schwere englische Panzerabteilung fest" at el Adem on 9 April.

As noted above, Rommel claims seeing British tanks in the area and AA.3 reported encountering "100-850 Kfz, 2cm Flak und schwere Panzer" on the 10 April.

That's 3 eyewitness accounts of the British having tanks engaged in or near the skirmish. And yet, Gott had none under command. WD of 3ArmdBde, 3H 1RTR, 5RTR, 6RTR and 7RTR make no mention of their tanks leaving the Tobruk area - quite the opposite.

There were probably several abandoned and derelict pantsers in the area: Italian and perhaps British too. Are they part of the story?

Eyewitness accounts are unreliable. On both sides. The next afternoon, 11 April, when stab and II./Pz.Regt.5 finally reached Tobruk and launched their first assault with a grand total of 25 pantsers according to Olbricht, the Australian defenders claimed "having sighted 70 [pantsers] in all". They came in "three waves of 20, and one wave of 10". When you include the AFVs of Pz.Jag.605(sfl), the total number of AFVs in the assult was over 25 - but certainly not 70.

And finally, after skirmishing on the afternoon of the 10th and the morning of the 11th by firing their arty at various targets in the distance, Gott's force abandoned the entire position at 1430 at legged it back to Halfaya Pass without coming under serious attack - and thus leaving the Germans free to launch their first assault later in the afternoon without harrassing fire from their rear.

Here's an extract from a contemporary map for those wishing to plot the grid refs/positions mentionned in the initial post.

Image

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”