Number 3 is correct for Divisione Pistoia. However, we should note that in the same paragraph he also refers to Sabratha as "d'occupazione", which suggests that-to Montanari at least-a broader definition of the word (as applied in 1941) is appropriate.arturolorioli wrote:Possibly, even if I would be tempted to opt for #2, i.e. the use of term "da occupazione" in a generic term (i.e. something like "second-line", "not-mobile") and not with the intention to indicate a specific "regulation" TO&E. From what can I see the Pistoia in NA did have a normal artillery allocation, no blackshirts, no extra Carabinieri or MMG units, etc, so none of the "da occupazione" fittings. But at the beginning of its NA history, it was actually used for rear-area duties.jwsleser wrote: Number 3 is certainly correct.
I noted that on the previous page (p. 268) Montanari states:
"La divisione d'occupazione doveva resultare costituita da:
due reggimenti di fanteria, ciascuno su tre battaglioni;
un battaglione mitraglieri;
un battaglione controcarri;
un reggimento d'artiglieria, su due gruppi da 100/17, due da 75/27 ed uno contraerei;
un battaglione genio;
servizi"
Even by his own definition, this structure does not relate to Sabratha anytime in 1941 after Beda Fomm. Even in November it only had four btg fanteria, with no btg mitraglieri or controcarri and only two G.a.f. gruppi for its artillery. Yet Montanari uses the term for both divisions. Consequently your explanation #2 might more accurately describe his view of a "divisione d'occupazione" at that time.
David R