5th RTR Major Lister, Lt-Col Drew and Edward Wilson

[Urmel]

Urmel yes I agree about Feldzug but it still exists and what do we have that directly counters it each time there is some element of conjecture? If the KTBs were more complete and answered every question we could ignore CAB 146/10.

I'm interested to know how you reconcile your repeated demands that everybody (other than yourself) is limited to "Field sources only", whilst you contentedly keep referring to an edited translation of excerpts of a post-war narrative.

Yes.

[Urmel]

MarkN,

Perhaps I'm thick but just as the DAK KTB reads 20 English light tanks, doesn't it also record the battle as being between II Battalion/Panzer Regiment 5 and those 20 tanks? So not just those from "6 Squadron" that Schorm claimed were "for all practical purposes" involved, whatever he meant by that?

You cannot conclude that on the basis of the entry.

[Brevity]

Perhaps I'm thick but just as the DAK KTB reads 20 English light tanks, doesn't it also record the battle as being between II Battalion/Panzer Regiment 5 and those 20 tanks? So not just those from "6 Squadron" that Schorm claimed were "for all practical purposes" involved, whatever he meant by that? After all, wouldn't the defeat of 20 tanks by less of their number of German tanks have elucidated a more triumphant entry?

Neither account (DAK KTB or Schorm) describes what the other German units which were attached to his Battalion were doing while the battle raged - the 88 mm gun he mentions or the field guns and 47 mm shells that the British talk about? Surely they would have joined in a firefight in accordance with their Commander's intention and in response to their superior training in combined arms manoeuvre warfare? If it is true that only a small fraction of the German force of tanks was engaged, and without any support from their accompanying artillery, then doesn't that suggest that they were incompetent as their superiority in numbers should have allowed them to fix the British in position and outflank them relatively safely without resorting to the cavalry charge that Schorm describes?

Hey Tom

No one claims only 6 coy was engaged. Major part of the II Bn was right behind. Yes, Schorm stated that "For all practical purposes only 6 Squadron was in action", but reading between lines, he seems jaded about insufficient support and as such his opinion is biased.

The possibility of extra artillery or Pak support etc. does exist. However, this should leave traces in available sources and so far we found nothing. For example, both Schorm and KTB II./5 agree the regimental HQ were present, even though they had nothing to contribute - 20 tanks and command vehicles, including 1 that had a gun. Attaching Flak to Panzer units was unusual before Battleaxe.

Regarding your criticism of tactics used, it's a fair point, however, the situation was quite puzzling from Rommel's point of view. The reconnaissance mission against Marsa Brega unexpectedly triggered rapid withdrawal, while no orders for any offensive were issued, no plans were ready and logistic support was not secured. The intentions of British were unknown and some notes left in KTBs suggest a counterattack was feared. Belatedly Rommel decided to at least take Agedabia (the determined advance only started before afternoon on 2 April). It would seem like the bulk of support weapons (artillery? self-propelled Panzerjaegers? ) might have been on Via Balbia escorting M.G.8, while II./Pz.Rgt.5 was initially in reserve, to be employed once enemy "Schwerpunkt" was established. Finally, the maneuvering with big formations in open terrain is actually harder than it seems, and maybe a certain level of experience was needed before they were comfortable with it?

Regards, Jerry

[MarkN]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps I'm thick but just as the DAK KTB reads 20 English light tanks, doesn't it also record the battle as being between II Battalion/Panzer Regiment 5 and those 20 tanks? So not just those from "6 Squadron" that Schorm claimed were "for all practical purposes" involved, whatever he meant by that? After all, wouldn't the defeat of 20 tanks by less of their number of German tanks have elucidated a more triumphant entry?

Neither account (DAK KTB or Schorm) describes what the other German units which were attached to his Battalion were doing while the battle raged - the 88 mm gun he mentions or the field guns and 47 mm shells that the British talk about? Surely they would have joined in a firefight in accordance with their Commander's intention and in response to their superior training in combined arms manoeuvre warfare? If it is true that only a small fraction of the German force of tanks was engaged, and without any support from their accompanying artillery, then doesn't that suggest that they were incompetent as their superiority in numbers should have allowed them to fix the British in position and outflank them relatively safely without resorting to the cavalry charge that Schorm describes?

The good thing is that both Lister's and Schorm's accounts describe the German formation as using circa 40 tanks and both record their being an arrowhead formation!

Whenever one puts pen to paper or fingers to keyboard, one has to decide which words to use. And everything can be told in an infinite number of ways. The author has to chose the words that provide the best way to disseminate the points the author wants to be understood. By writing that II./PzRegt.5 took part does NOT imply that all II./PzRegt.5 took part. When you read that England is playing Germany at football, I'm sure you don't think for one milisecond that the whole of Germany is taking part, do you?

When the DAK KTB writes II./PzRegt.5 it's passing on the information that it was II.Abt not I.Abt involved and that it was at Abt scale rather than Regt or Kp. A DAK KTB entry does not need to give the precise numbers of tanks involved as they have the larger picture to worry about.

All of the relevant accounts complement each other. The German force following 3 Armoured Brigade was about 50-60 pantsers strong. They were following about 50 tanks of 3 Armoured Brigade. However, only one source provides a more precise indiction of the numbers of pantsers engaged in the firefight itself: Schorm.

As a point of interest, the KTB of II./PzRegt.5 clearly states that 5.Kp with a mtlzug of 8.Kp was not present as they were attached to the VorausAbt. PONATH that was battling and taking Agedabia itself.

And finally, where you feel it would be good tactics for all of the 50-60 pantsers to pile into the fight, I would disagree entirely. In my opinion it would be a major tactical mistake to do that for many, many reasons. And it's for that reason that I feel quite comfortable in arguing that just 13 pantsers (8 Pz.III and 5 Pz.II) actually engaged in the kinetic effort.

[ClintHardware]

Tom and Mark have made some good points but the relevant records are German and British and they do not agree with each other even when on the same side. More laters