Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

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: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#31

Post by MarkN » 07 Sep 2016, 12:58

Michael Kenny wrote:I am not familiar with the NA numbers but what I did (for NWE) is get a start number and then total up all losses over an extended period. Once you struggle through the 'non combat loss/abandoned' get-outs you find that admitted losses were always well below the actual shrinkage. Also concentrate of the 'fit' tank total rather than all tanks still with the unit. The norm was a Panzer unit entered combat and in the first few days had a huge drop in fit tanks. This gave a pool of damaged tanks that were repairable and their return to service over the next week or so tended to mask the daily losses. The chaos of the eventual German flight meant this discrepancy could be attributed to all manner of reasons other than the mythical 'fair fight'. For example damaged tanks in overrun workshops could be classed as abandoned whilst the original action that rendered them beyond repair can be forgotten.
The very same story can be said of the British in the ME.
ClintHardware wrote: And do we really know every shipment of panzers to Libya including those lost at sea ? I hope we do.
Are you trying to find traction in the idea that the Germans managed to send reinforcement tanks undocumented to Libya on invisible ships so that they could hide the losses you seem to think they incurred?
Don Juan wrote: The 2 pounder was effective at 1000 yards against Panzer III's that still had 30mm frontal armour. Once that armour was augmented to 60mm, the effective range of the 2 pounder was reduced to 200 yards at best.

If during Battleaxe there were still Panzer III's with 30mm frontal armour, then they would have been very vulnerable to 2 pounder fire.
Off the top of my head, read the document a few days ago, tests done by Col Drew in Tobruk mid-April with an A13 tank firing at captured German tanks had 5 out of 6 rounds of the 2-pdr go straight through 60mm frontal armour at 600yds.
Don Juan wrote: Well, the deep problem with the British is that they were basically operating a "spare tanks" rather than a "spare parts" system i.e. instead of overhauling tanks they were attempting as much as possible to directly replace them with new ones shipped in, I think in the mistaken belief that this was more efficient. It all fell to pieces because after two months at sea going round the Cape the new tanks were in almost as bad a state as the ones that had been in action. The British should really have been sending new engines and gearboxes in sealed crates instead.
You are probably onto something there. However, when you look at the the orders of the Liberty engine for the A13 etc, they only ordered and produced a handful over and above those ordered for fitting into tanks. Probably the same with other parts too.

There is also plenty of evidence that tanks in workshops became spares central to support the running of others. Immediatly prior to Op Battleaxe, tracks were taken off all A9s and A10s in workshop in Egypt and sent forward to 7 Armd Division. This meant that 7 Hussars couldn't be reequiped with tanks. Earlier 9 of the A13s that 2RTR had brought out to the ME were stripped of their engines which were then sent to Tobruk to replace the dead ones there.
Don Juan wrote:While I tend to agree that the British during this period were not the sharpest tools in the box, my own interest in this period is on the equipment, especially the tanks, rather than the tactics. This is why I am interested in the damage inflicted by both sides, and how they dealt with it. While this is probably, as you say, "irrelevant" in terms of battle outcomes it is interesting to me how comparative equipment performed, even if one set of equipment was being used by serial bunglers.
It is not irrelevant to you. But, potentially mission impossible. Those sort of records were just not kept it seems. Pz.Regt.5 workshop was overrun during Op Crusader and masses of their documentation captured. Some of it was translated over the weeks and months and pished out in Int Summaries. But what happened to the original documentation?????

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#32

Post by Don Juan » 07 Sep 2016, 13:19

MarkN wrote: Off the top of my head, read the document a few days ago, tests done by Col Drew in Tobruk mid-April with an A13 tank firing at captured German tanks had 5 out of 6 rounds of the 2-pdr go straight through 60mm frontal armour at 600yds.
Is this in the 5 RTR War diary? I'd need to check this, as 600 yards sounds implausible. Subsequent tests by the AFV Branch in Cairo, and, most convincingly, controlled Armour Trials by the Ministry of Supply suggest much smaller distances e.g. 0-200 yards with AP solid shot.
MarkN wrote: You are probably onto something there. However, when you look at the the orders of the Liberty engine for the A13 etc, they only ordered and produced a handful over and above those ordered for fitting into tanks. Probably the same with other parts too.
Yes, there was a systemic problem here. The British laid too much emphasis on the output of whole tanks, which meant (i) poor build quality and (ii) insufficient spares. The message should have been going back from Middle East that they wanted spare engines and not tanks. The turn around time to take a Crusader from a unit to a Base Workshop to have its engine removed, reconditioned and refitted was 12 weeks, a process that also required the use off a precious transporter. Much better I think to have bunged a batch of new Libertys on a standard truck and sent them up to Brigade workshops for fitting. But those Libertys didn't exist.
MarkN wrote: There is also plenty of evidence that tanks in workshops became spares central to support the running of others. Immediatly prior to Op Battleaxe, tracks were taken off all A9s and A10s in workshop in Egypt and sent forward to 7 Armd Division. This meant that 7 Hussars couldn't be reequiped with tanks. Earlier 9 of the A13s that 2RTR had brought out to the ME were stripped of their engines which were then sent to Tobruk to replace the dead ones there.
There were instances of brand new Grants being totally broken down for spares. This was a time consuming process.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941


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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#33

Post by Urmel » 07 Sep 2016, 13:44

60mm armour per se wasn't an issue, it was the treatment of it. Face-hardening of spaced armour on the refurbed tanks (30+30) was. I also think it presented an issue on the tanks that arrived in late 1941.

During Battleaxe the 2-pdr was doing okay. During CRUSADER it wasn't. During the counteroffensive it wasn't doing anything.
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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#34

Post by Urmel » 07 Sep 2016, 13:46

Don Juan wrote:
Urmel wrote:I honestly don't think it matters in this case. Look at the 'ready for action tab', look at the replacement shipments (which we have in detail), and it tells you what you need to know.
Is there anywhere where this info is collated, Urmel?
Err, well no. Look at it as the Royal 'we'.

Just kidding.

https://rommelsriposte.com/2013/03/07/g ... th-africa/
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: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#35

Post by ClintHardware » 07 Sep 2016, 14:09

Urmel you are probably the world's leading expert on sources and data concerning the shipment of panzers to Libya so if you say 'Yes' to the fact that we do have the complete data, I can not challenge you. I remain hopeful that you are right.

Don Juan - in terms of 2-Pdr and the up armouring of panzers as the campaign unfolded - yes that is the case but this topic is Battleaxe centred in terms of the 4th Armd Bde report.

Mark I think you missed my post on page 2 about 7th RTR data.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#36

Post by MarkN » 07 Sep 2016, 14:49

Don Juan wrote:
MarkN wrote: Off the top of my head, read the document a few days ago, tests done by Col Drew in Tobruk mid-April with an A13 tank firing at captured German tanks had 5 out of 6 rounds of the 2-pdr go straight through 60mm frontal armour at 600yds.
Is this in the 5 RTR War diary? I'd need to check this, as 600 yards sounds implausible. Subsequent tests by the AFV Branch in Cairo, and, most convincingly, controlled Armour Trials by the Ministry of Supply suggest much smaller distances e.g. 0-200 yards with AP solid shot.
I read the original report along time ago. I don't recall too well the contents other than the broad outline of what tests were done.

What I read a few days ago was this from a WDF Int Sum early June 1941...
Image

My apologies, range was 500yds not 600. :(

However, what we cannot ignore is the mathmatics. If the German tank was not exactly face-on, then the armour thickness at impact is greater than 60mm and thus under battle conditions, effective range may will decrease from these test results.

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#37

Post by MarkN » 07 Sep 2016, 15:21

ClintHardware wrote: Mark I think you missed my post on page 2 about 7th RTR data.
I didn't. But I did have a good chuckle. I have that report on my HD too. Mine is dated 30 June .... a week after you said it was dated.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#38

Post by Don Juan » 07 Sep 2016, 16:01

MarkN wrote: My apologies, range was 500yds not 600. :(

However, what we cannot ignore is the mathmatics. If the German tank was not exactly face-on, then the armour thickness at impact is greater than 60mm and thus under battle conditions, effective range may will decrease from these test results.
The values given in the British tests was always at 30 degrees. I think the front plates on the Panzer III were all angled, with the most vulnerable being the nose plate which was iirc 20 degrees to the vertical. Of course when you start moving away from face-on you are in the realm of compound angles and effective range can diminish quite remarkably.

With regard to the test on the Panzer IV I think that this type was uparmoured after the Panzer III, so I would be very surprised indeed if it was mounting 60mm frontal armour in June 1941. My guess is that the 60mm quoted is the result of the 2 pounder shot going through the 40mm (face hardened) frontal armour and then through the 20mm (rolled homogenous) rear armour, which I think would have been perfectly doable for a 2 pounder. As Urmel points out, it was the face hardening that was as important in stopping 2 pounder shot as much as the thickness.

ClintHardware wrote:Urmel you are probably the world's leading expert on sources and data concerning the shipment of panzers to Libya so if you say 'Yes' to the fact that we do have the complete data, I can not challenge you. I remain hopeful that you are right.

Don Juan - in terms of 2-Pdr and the up armouring of panzers as the campaign unfolded - yes that is the case but this topic is Battleaxe centred in terms of the 4th Armd Bde report.

Mark I think you missed my post on page 2 about 7th RTR data.
Well, my knowledge of all these apéritif battles is not great, but my understanding with regard to the uparmoured (60mm) Panzer III's is that none were present in the Mersa el Brega battles in April-May 1941, some were available during Battleaxe, while all the Panzer III's during Crusader were uparmoured.

If you or anyone else can confirm that there were no uparmoured Panzer III's during Battleaxe, I will consider that very significant information.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#39

Post by Don Juan » 07 Sep 2016, 16:01

Urmel wrote:
Don Juan wrote:
Urmel wrote:I honestly don't think it matters in this case. Look at the 'ready for action tab', look at the replacement shipments (which we have in detail), and it tells you what you need to know.
Is there anywhere where this info is collated, Urmel?
Err, well no. Look at it as the Royal 'we'.

Just kidding.

https://rommelsriposte.com/2013/03/07/g ... th-africa/
Thanks very much Urmel!
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#40

Post by ClintHardware » 08 Sep 2016, 07:01

MarkN wrote:
ClintHardware wrote: Mark I think you missed my post on page 2 about 7th RTR data.
I didn't. But I did have a good chuckle. I have that report on my HD too. Mine is dated 30 June .... a week after you said it was dated.
The date on my 7th RTR copy is 23rd but so long as a week later you have the same data that's fine. What file did your copy come from Chuckles ?
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#41

Post by Brevity » 08 Sep 2016, 07:35

Don Juan wrote:Well, my knowledge of all these apéritif battles is not great, but my understanding with regard to the uparmoured (60mm) Panzer III's is that none were present in the Mersa el Brega battles in April-May 1941, some were available during Battleaxe, while all the Panzer III's during Crusader were uparmoured.

If you or anyone else can confirm that there were no uparmoured Panzer III's during Battleaxe, I will consider that very significant information.
Don Juan

The stronger armor was present on Pz.III Ausf.H (30+30 hull, 35 or 50 turret) and Ausf.J (50 everywhere). Ausf.F and G had only 30 mm armor (35 mantlet).

The numbers below are all approximate, like +- 1 or 2

PR5 on arrival had 5 F, 50 G and 5 H
PR8 had 5 F, 15 G and 50 H

From the first batch of 10 replacements shipped in April, most were definitely G.

Only 25 Pz.III were shipped later in 1941, and most were quickly lost in Crusader, so their photos are rare but based on several examples it seems most were early Ausf.J with a few Ausf.H

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#42

Post by Brevity » 08 Sep 2016, 07:39

So the percentage of up-armored Pz.III was approximately like
for Brega there were only a few
for Battleaxe its 5 out of 60 for PR5, 50 out of 70 for PR8
for Crusader its 20 out of 68 for PR5, 60 out of 77 for PR8

Hope it helps!

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#43

Post by MarkN » 08 Sep 2016, 11:31

ClintHardware wrote: The date on my 7th RTR copy is 23rd but so long as a week later you have the same data that's fine. What file did your copy come from Chuckles ?
It came from my HD, in a folder with the title Op Battleaxe.

Here is the top and bottom of document. Is it the same as yours?

Image
Image

It's not impossible that the very same document also appears with an earlier date. However, You have previous for not copying the bottom of a document and then claiming it to be something that it isn't to the point of lecturing others that they have got it wrong. You also have previous for only reading the first half of a paragraph which has information to suit your narrative whilst ignoring the second half of the same paragraph which proves the nonsense of your narrative.

So, do my chuckles have any foundation? Let's see.
Last edited by MarkN on 08 Sep 2016, 12:27, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#44

Post by MarkN » 08 Sep 2016, 11:49

Most accept that historical evidence shows the German recovery and repair system to have been significantly more effective and efficient than the British one for, at least, the first half of WW2.

However, it was far from perfect. Here are a couple of excerpts translated by the British from captured German documents and individual diaries.
  • Report of the Workshop Company, 5th Panzer Regiment, May 5th 1941

    1. Panzers: When the panzers arrive in Africa, the average odometer reading was 500km. By May 1st, the average reading per vehicle had reached 1,800km, of which 1,100km had been done on roads and 700km in the desert.

    The journey by road when moving up was carried out without any particular damage, as long as the movement took place when it was cool, preferably by night, and as long as the speed limit of 18km/h was not exceeded...

    The average journey of 700km in the desert had a very adverse effect on the panzers. Until the moment when the regiment moved into position before Tobruk...155 panzers had been brought into the workshop because of severe motor and suspension damage...

    The regimental equipment with spare parts for operations in Africa was insufficient. The regiment asked for one spare engine, one spare set of bogies and one set of tracks per tank. This request was denied by ordnance. It has been fully justified after 1,500km travel. Further supplies of spare parts during operations were totally inadequate. Apart from difficulties in supply arising from enemy action, the response people at home did not quite understand the regiment's difficulties. As an example, the following case may be cited. Last week, a regimental request for spare parts was returned with the simple remark that the parts ordered were unavailable, and the regiment would have to request them again in two or three weeks. As the postal service is very slow, such treatment of regimental requests for spares means considerable hardship and delay.
As you can see, the state of Pz.Regt.5's panzers on arrival in Cyrenaica was no better than the A13 cruisers of 5RTR. It's how they dealt with the problem, and found workeable solutions, that made all the difference.

You will also note the lack of spares being a problem for them too. So, a panzer in workshop long term could be down due for the sake of an unavailable part that takes and hour or so to attach. A part that may have broken through desert conditions rather than enemy action.

For example,
  • Diary of Unteroffizier Kurt Martin

    April 7th 1941

    Wake up at 0500 hours. We took on additional water and petrol. The advance continues. We are on the enemy's heels. Suddenly, our engine fails. Every attempt to get it going again is in vain. We just have to stay where we are. For the first time, we realise how much stuff is moving forward. More and more troops pass us. Everything is trodden down, and we cannot go with them. We are seized with rage...

    April 10th 1941
    The fourth day in the desert. It is terribly boring. As guests we have two little birds, who have become quite tame. Otherwise nobody. Not very far off, we noticed some bright streaks that looked like water. But it wasn't...And all the time sandstorms and wind. We hope they will come soon and take us to the repair shop. We reach the stage where every movement is an effort. It's a good job we still have something to eat. In the evening, we have visitors. A ration tender stops not far from us. Tinned milk, potatoes and cigarettes are gratefully accepted.
Many panzers broke between Msus and Mechili. So many that I./Pz.Regt.5 attacked Mechili with a force of just 8 panzers after zero previous engagements!!! The number that broke were significantly greater than the number of 5RTR A13s going in the opposite direction a few weeks earlier. As you can see, some were still parked in the desert with their crews awaiting recovery several days later.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#45

Post by Don Juan » 08 Sep 2016, 12:19

Brevity wrote:So the percentage of up-armored Pz.III was approximately like
for Brega there were only a few
for Battleaxe its 5 out of 60 for PR5, 50 out of 70 for PR8
for Crusader its 20 out of 68 for PR5, 60 out of 77 for PR8

Hope it helps!
Thanks very much Brevity.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”