sdkfz 250/9

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Kelvin
Member
Posts: 3117
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 15:49

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#31

Post by Kelvin » 07 Feb 2019, 11:55

Hi, Bam, thank for your data.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#32

Post by Yoozername » 07 Feb 2019, 20:14

Some good information regarding the TO&E.

https://blog.sturmpanzer.com/grenadier-escort-platoon/


bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#33

Post by bam » 08 Feb 2019, 13:25

Aah, I think you're right, I've miss remembered which 2cm gun armed halftrack was involved... It was the 251/17 not 250/9. Humbly Oops, thanks for correction.
The use of the pz. II was in one of the new Stug books, "Sturmartillerie. Spearhead of the Infantry",page 237. It says that from May 44, Begleit Panzer Batterie according to KStN 447 (13 X pz. II) were created for stuG Brig 239 & 667. They also each received a StuG Begleit Batterie, which was composed of grenadiers and engineers. These were the first troop trials.
The results were very positive. "support fire from the 2cm and 7.92 mg of th e pz. II makes a significant contribution to the fire from the StuG... The all round fire of the begleitpanzer was used to maximum effect. The hi-trajectory fire of the SturmHaubitze, supported by the MG fire of the Begleitpanzer allows the StuG leader a greater number of tactical options."

So the Germans really missed an opportunity. They couldn't create more pz.II begleit units in 44 cos the tank was out of production. In 1941 & 42 tho, there were 100s of pzII still on the front lines of the Ostfront, where they were used in pz. Divs that didn't really need them. They already had APCs and recon vehicles. The could have transferred some PzII to the StuG units and created really balanced all round battlegroups. This was the era before the StuGs had a fixed MG, and they largely relied on Schmeissers and grenades for self defence. Great Missed Opportunity.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#34

Post by Yoozername » 08 Feb 2019, 22:12

If they did field them in attack roles, they may have come to the same conclusion as the Tiger Battalions with the Panzer IIIs.

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#35

Post by bam » 08 Feb 2019, 22:32

Which conclusion , in your opinion, was what?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#36

Post by Yoozername » 08 Feb 2019, 23:00

To maintain the operational capacity according to the Tiger's great operational and manufacturing value, these must be grouped in a way that ensures the accomplishment of its mission in a closed and convenient manner, its maintenance and repair as well as its support. For this reason the General of the Rapid Troops has advised on numerous occasions the creation of Tiger battalions with 3 companies (meanwhile this is an order) and the structural subordination of these Tiger battalions within armored divisions . This has been carried out for the first time with the Panzer-Abteilung 501 (entered into the 10. Panzer-Division ). Since January Panzer III no longer fit inside Tiger units.

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#37

Post by bam » 09 Feb 2019, 14:58

So you mean mixed vehicles in Battle groups was inadvisable?
It complicated supply and repair. But there were benefits. As my info about the Pz. II begleit in use with StuGs shows, they appreciated the diversity of firepower it gave. And I recall reading that some of the early Tiger abteilung really appreciated their pz. IIIs. I think the decision to go for All tiger units was primarily to increase the number of tigers in the unit while still keeping it reasonably compact. There were only 20 tigers in the first type abteilung.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#38

Post by Yoozername » 09 Feb 2019, 15:39

The Tiger battalions dropped the Panzer III N since it had inferior armor even compared to earlier Panzer III. Having mixed vehicles complicated the supply and maintenance since they vehicles shared very little besides fuel and machine-gun ammunition. 'Battle groups' you speak about seems to ignore that Tiger Battalions, and Sturmartillerie units, were assets that were assigned to combat formations that would integrate them them into a battle plan. But maybe it means something else to you?

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#39

Post by bam » 09 Feb 2019, 23:19

I agree that the tiger and stug abteilung were supposed to be "assigned to combat formations that would integrate them them into a battle plan.". The trouble was that they often weren't. They were thrown into battles without proper coordination with the existing units. Or where there were no units. They often weren't on the same radio nets. They might be fighting with troops who've never worked with armor before. This was the whole reasoning behind the StuGs begleit formations: the sturmartillerists were tired of being left unprotected and decided they needed their own dedicated escorts that were ordered never to be used for other tasks.
And I do recall reading that the early tiger units in action did like their pz. IIIs, for scouting, flank protection, getting places tigers couldn't, etc. . The General of Schnell troops order to forgoe the pz. IIIs was more to do with logistics, which was a good consideration. But it reduced fighting capacity and flexibility.
Any independent unit that is shuffled around like a fire fighter from one hot-spot to another, almost daily, should be self contained and have all round capabilities. It can't rely on the units it supports, who have self interests not yours, may be gone tomorrow, and probably won't know how to use armor properly.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#40

Post by Yoozername » 10 Feb 2019, 01:58

Actually, the sturmartillerie had radios that were the same as the artillery (they actually were part of the artillerie branch), and shared the same with the infantry also. A sturmartillerie officer was often the shot-caller when it came to the attack or defense. The essential function of the sturmartillerie was to support the infantry and coordinate with artillery. Generally, in a Sturmartillerie unit, they had more 30W powerful radios and could coordinate better than panzers.

Perhaps the Panzer III N should have been integrated into StuG units. Good for parts.

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#41

Post by bam » 10 Feb 2019, 19:17

Totally agree with u, finally !! :thumbsup:
But just cos you have the radio doesn’t mean you can access the radio net, you need the freqs and codes too, which changed daily, and coordinating that was often the problem. StuGs were commonly split up into zuge, who had only 10w radios. Rarely fought as a whole batterie, which had the one 30w radio in the batterie chefs StuG. Communication was a constant issue for firebrigades.

Love that idea of putting the PZ.III N in with StuGs, that is a winning combination on so many levels. There were quite a few Ns in working order in 1944 in secondary theatres, Denmark, Yugoslavia etc. They weren’t clapped out like some of the PzII in the Bglt.Pz.Battr. But I’ve never heard of it happening, what a missed opportunity. Perfect for supply and maintenance. All you wargamers, that’s the way to go.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#42

Post by Yoozername » 11 Feb 2019, 18:10

One of the political issues is the power battle between the Panzer and Sturmartillerie factions. Clearly, any turreted weapon would fall in the Panzer control. I suppose a severely obsolete AFV like a Panzer I or Panzer II might be a non-issue...in fact they would be basically training or parts for Wespe, etc., but something like a Panzer III might still be 'on the books' as a viable tank for second echelon formations.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were not fighting over ammunition allocation since the major weapon systems shared 7,5 cm ammunition. The Sturmartillerie formations did want a FlaK vehicle based on the Panzer III chassis. IMO, they should have had the pull to get it since that chassis was dedicated to StuG III G at that time. And it appears there were trials and it was viable but never done.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#43

Post by Yoozername » 11 Feb 2019, 22:47

Report written on 03/27/1943 by the commander of the 13. Kompanie (Tiger-Kp.) / Pz.Reg. Großdeutschland,
Pz. III within the company Tiger
Operations have shown that Pz. III, originally designed as an escort for the Tiger, does not withstand the normal fire to which the vanguard units are confronted and are also usually taken as the first target by the anti-tank weapons. To ensure and improve its operability, the company should remain "pure race", as the transportation of spare parts for the Pz. III together with the important spare parts for the Tiger requires an important and complicated maintenance service ( I-Staffel ). In this case it should be reconsidered to limit the vehicles within a Tiger company to a single type, the Pz. SAW.

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 3117
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 15:49

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#44

Post by Kelvin » 12 Feb 2019, 05:43

One question about 250/9 unit : German Panzer division used Aufklarungpanzer to subsititue 250/9 & 250/5 unit but why the former is 25 x Aufklarungpanzer , not need any 250/5 and to some extent, full team had 2cm cannon, seemed much more powerful.

P.S. 3. Pz Division and Pz.Gren Div GroBdeutschland had Aufklaurngpanzer 38 while 4. and 9. Panzer division had Luchs Aufkluarungpanzer.

User avatar
Tanker Mike
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 04 May 2004, 16:47
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

Re: sdkfz 250/9

#45

Post by Tanker Mike » 13 Feb 2019, 01:22

Kelvin wrote:
12 Feb 2019, 05:43
One question about 250/9 unit : German Panzer division used Aufklarungpanzer to subsititue 250/9 & 250/5 unit but why the former is 25 x Aufklarungpanzer , not need any 250/5 and to some extent, full team had 2cm cannon, seemed much more powerful.

P.S. 3. Pz Division and Pz.Gren Div GroBdeutschland had Aufklaurngpanzer 38 while 4. and 9. Panzer division had Luchs Aufkluarungpanzer.
The 250/5 provided the long range radios needed to communicate, while the 250/9 provided some protection, i.e. firepower. In theory, a 250/5 and 250/9 always worked together. The book "Panzer Commander" by Otto Henning, gives a good insight into how that worked.

Remember, recon units are expected to observe and report. Not fight and expose themselves.

The 1st companies of the armored recon companies in 1944, could be equipped with any number of types simply due to the fact the Germans did not have enough of one type to go around and new models were becoming available. KStN 1162X could be filled using 222 & 223, 231 & 232 armored cars, or 234/1 & 234/3 armored cars, or 234/2 armored cars, or 250/9 half-tracks, or the Aufk.Pz. 38 tracked AFV or the Luchs panzer.

Mike
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it."
— General Robert E. Lee

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”