WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
I like Mark's use of "pantsers" as it is the correct pronunciation, if not the correct spelling.
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
DO they swing them? ;O))
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Just out of interest, has anyone here been in a retreat? How much organising does it take to leg it?
I'm curious because I couldn't find much about losses during Sonnenblume from the secondary sources I've seen (apart from the 1,760 pow at Mechili). Until Crusader, neither side seemed to make much impression on fixed defences that couldn't be outflanked.
I'm curious because I couldn't find much about losses during Sonnenblume from the secondary sources I've seen (apart from the 1,760 pow at Mechili). Until Crusader, neither side seemed to make much impression on fixed defences that couldn't be outflanked.
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Never. Retreating is what Her Majesties enemies do, as exhorted by the lyrics of the National Anthem they "fall", "scatter" and in the case of rebellious Scots are "crushed."Attrition wrote:Just out of interest, has anyone here been in a retreat? How much organising does it take to leg it?
I'm curious because I couldn't find much about losses during Sonnenblume from the secondary sources I've seen (apart from the 1,760 pow at Mechili). Until Crusader, neither side seemed to make much impression on fixed defences that couldn't be outflanked.
The British Army only understands "the withdrawal" as an operation of war, a similarity it shares with the Vatican as regards operations of the opposite nature.
A successful withdrawal takes a lot of organising, planning and leadership if it is not to turn into a rout. There is much to admire in the withdrawal from Mons in 1914 and to Dunkirk in 1940 and from Burma in 1942, and with the German withdrawal from Sicily and up the Italian boot.
.
Last edited by Sheldrake on 31 Oct 2015, 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
- John Hilly
- Member
- Posts: 2618
- Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
- Location: Tampere, Finland, EU
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Do you gentlemen agree that delaying battle is the most difficult form of tactics to operate?
With best, J-P
With best, J-P
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 819
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
No...they lift and separate.Attrition wrote:DO they swing them? ;O))
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 819
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Yes. Having the RASC RIASC and AASC made it possible to advance or retreat but the lack of other resources required CYRCOM's retreat and caused the subsequent reduction of combat effectiveness of Rommel's troops.John Hilly wrote:Do you gentlemen agree that delaying battle is the most difficult form of tactics to operate?
With best, J-P
The personnel losses at Mechili seem really bad but by the 14th April they had been roughly equalled to a large extent by German personnel losses since the 31st March where M2 losses were considerable according the Leutnant Schorm - and this is without even counting the Italian losses at Mechili (a battery bayonetted and shot dead) and then at Tobruk after the 14th. An example of missing German reporting is that of 5. Kompanie MGB 8 that got into a storm of Vickers MG fire alongside von Prittwitz on the 10th. He died but apparently no one from 5. Kompanie got hit - amazing that....They had eight Vickers hosing them beginning at 3500 yards and yet no casualties and yet at Mons 23rd August 1914 Godley and Dease and another Vickers crew killed and wounded probably hundreds - its been on the telly so it must be true.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
If you think that this attitude establishes you as a serious researcher, you are quite wrong.
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
As for 5./MG8, the evidence is there in the German records that it was severely damaged by 14 April:
http://rommelsriposte.com/2013/07/29/ho ... -the-tail/
I am not sure what the point of the rant above is. It should be clear to the most novice researcher of German records that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, in this case of losses.
http://rommelsriposte.com/2013/07/29/ho ... -the-tail/
I am not sure what the point of the rant above is. It should be clear to the most novice researcher of German records that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, in this case of losses.
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Seriousness isn't the same as pomposity.Urmel wrote:If you think that this attitude establishes you as a serious researcher, you are quite wrong.
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Shrug.
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
These threads are not about YOU.ClintHardware wrote: If you could convince me with raw data I would be happy to agree with you and tell you so.
Self-indulged rant snipped for bevity
I do not desire, or attempt, to convince YOU of anything. I have no issue with you choosing to believe fantasies and falsehoods.
These threads are for like-minded souls to share information or learn from others if they so choose. If you share some of the fantastic original documentation that you have found, you can expect to be thanked. If you post your abysmal analysis, commentary or historical falsehoods, you can expect to be challenged, corrected or ridiculed. Whether you choose to accept those corrections is entirely up to you.
I have no interest in helping you write, promote or sell your books. When I challenge you it is not to convince you of anything; it is to posit an alternative to your post for others to read, absorb and make up their own mind. I post with the notion of advancing knowledge and determining historical fact. I do not post with the notion of changing your beliefs and opinions.
Major General Prittwitz and his travelling companions were killed by an anti-tank shell not a spray of machine gun rounds. This information is contained in many sources. On this occasion, I read the M.G.Btl.8 published history.
For your, and others information, the KTBs for both M.G.Btl.2 and M.G.Btl.8 have survived and still exist. I suspect in private collections. Both are quoted in the post-war published histories of the two units. This contrasts with the published history of Pz.Regt.5 which does not quote the Pz.Regt.5 KTB. However, part of the II./Pz.Regt.5 KTB is held publically in the UK and an English translation of it is available on the internet.
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Almost. 'Puntsers' would probably be closer. Although that could lead to a pundemic of bad jokes.David W wrote:I like Mark's use of "pantsers" as it is the correct pronunciation, if not the correct spelling.
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
Pantser is the correct spelling in the country where I first heard and used the word. Up till then, I always knew a tank by the word tank. Later, I found out that the Germans spell it differently. As I posted earlier, old habits - and spellings - die hard. Whenever I write about a specific unit, I have to correct the ts to z to produce the correct name.
Re: WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1
No. Not at all.John Hilly wrote:Do you gentlemen agree that delaying battle is the most difficult form of tactics to operate?