Panzer Lehr brings no Tiger Is to normandy?

Darrin · #1

It appears panzer lehr did not bring any tigers of any sort to normandy. The first tigers that appeared were the sSS101 bat which proabably saw combat for the first time around 13 jun 44.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00028.html

TiKi · #2

Zetterling have written that he is not sure if Tigers were in Normandy!
If you have read the posts...

Please read the 2nd post of Jeff Duquette!

Regards,
TiKi

Darrin · #3

TiKi wrote:Zetterling have written that he is not sure if Tigers were in Normandy!
If you have read the posts...

Please read the 2nd post of Jeff Duquette!

Regards,
TiKi

No one can be 100% sure about anything but if you read the whole topic the evidence seems to lean the other way. In ritgens history of the unit he says no tiger Is were brought to normandy. No tiger Is are found in the str reports of the unit in normandy. PL had over 6 weeks to return the tigers after the request. I think the evidence points against it. Ask Zetterling yourself if you wish.

Michael Kenny · #4

Hello again Darrin, just to clarify things SS sPzAbt 101 did indeed first see action on 13/6/44. This 'action' at Villers Bocage is a very well known engagement. Returns for Pz Lehr on June 1st say that 6 out of 8 Tigers were operational and returns on July 1st mention 3 operational Tigers. As Lehr only had 8 Tigers in total at the very least 1 of the Tiger 1s was operational on July 1st. So again whilst paperwork exists to say the were told to give them up other documents say the opposite!. This issue is not yet decided.

Darrin · #5

Michael Kenny wrote:Hello again Darrin, just to clarify things SS sPzAbt 101 did indeed first see action on 13/6/44. This 'action' at Villers Bocage is a very well known engagement. Returns for Pz Lehr on June 1st say that 6 out of 8 Tigers were operational and returns on July 1st mention 3 operational Tigers. As Lehr only had 8 Tigers in total at the very least 1 of the Tiger 1s was operational on July 1st. So again whilst paperwork exists to say the were told to give them up other documents say the opposite!. This issue is not yet decided.

Zetterling said he found NO reports of the PL having Tigers after the 1 june. So your 3 op on the 1 july is wrong. Give me a book and pg quote or better yet a ger report reference.

Zetterling posts

11-10-2001

I have found no strength report showing Tigers with the Pz.Lehr after 1 June. On the other hand, I have found no source explicitly stating that they did not go to Normandy, except Ritgen.
Possibly it was regarded as impractical, for maintenance purposes, to have only three vehicles of this type with the division in Normandy. But if so, why did not that idea occur when the unit was formed (possibly it could have been assumed that it should have more than three Tiger I). On the other hand, the Pz.Lehr was intended to be part of I. SS-Pz.Korps, which had the 101. s.SS-Pz.Abt., with maintenance capabilities.
In any case, I have nothing indicating what happened to the three Tigers. Possibly they were sent to Mailliy-le-Camp to be used by other units forming.

1-28-2002

The report Jentz has used is most likely the Pz-Lehr report to the Inspector-General of Panzer Troops for 1 June 1944, file BA-MA RH 10/172. At least there is a report there giving exactly those figures. As seen from other sources there had been deliveries of 5 Tiger II and 3 Tiger I to the unit. As various sources indicate, the Tiger II were defective and remained at Chateudun. I was at Freiburg two weeks ago and found a report ordering the Pz-Lehr division to give up the three Tiger I. I have ordered a copy of this order, but not yet recieved it. Hence it seems that no Tigers followed the division to Normandy.

4-7-2002

On 26 april Pz.Tr. Schule Bergen at Fallingbostel sent a paper to the Pz.Lehr.Regiment asking it to return the tanks and other vehicles it had brought along when leaving Pz.Tr. Schule Bergen.
This included ten Panthers and three Tiger I (chassis numbers were included in the document). Exactly when this took place (or if the Pz.Lehr Regiment actually complied) is not known to me.

----------

Now if you would like to argue that the ger records are still not 100% proof that the tigers did not go no one would argue. The perponderence of information including ger archive info is agianst you. A professional expert of the ger archives and normandy disageree with you. If your only interst is too say the ger archive was not 100% correct all the time then I agree. If you think the ger archives were wrong about so so much I, zetterling and many other people would disagree with you. In aug maybe but not in apr - jul.

If you would like to argue do it with zetterling on the other forum. I´m tired of your every other person is wrong attitude.

Michael Kenny · #6

Darrin dont be so negative, I dont intend to argue with you I firstly pointed out that your remark that 101 'probably' first saw action around the 13th should have been 'did see action on the 13th'. As you weren't too sure I confirmed the date for you. Now my reading of Zetterlings reply is that whilst he has found a request for fkl 316 to give up the Tiger 1s he can find nothing to say they did give them up. He also states that the Lehr returns used by Jentz to say the Tigers were on strength on June 1st were probably BA-MA RH 10/172 "as at least there is a report giving exactly those figures". That to me means that CONFLICTING paperwork exists, do we agree on that?. All I then say is it is not clear enough to state one way or the other. We do know Lehr listed them AFTER they should have returned them. Now I don't claim Zetterling is wrong in everything he writes but as he works from paperwork alone at the Unit level he can go slightly astray. As a small example issue data shows that fkl 316 was given 10 Tiger Is not 3 as Zetterling claims.In September 1943 they got 2 deliveries, 1 of 3 Tigers and a later issue of 7. This is no reflection on Zetterlings research he just cant be the only perfect researcher can he? WE ALL make mistakes. Now whilst I can't claim to be as competent a researcher as Zetterling I dont think he knows as much about the Tiger 1s that served in Normandy as I do. For a while now I have been collecting data on all these monsters and I found a lot of information not published in any books I have seen. I try through forums like this to pass on the result of my labours and when I see an error I try to correct it. If you could just take it in the spirit it which it was offered and if you think I am wrong help me to correct my mistakes. No name calling and no sarcastic remarks from me so try to respond in kind. Let us start again Darrin.

Michael Kenny · #7

And grudgingly I must admit Darrin has shown me some new info on these Tigers.

I feel like this French tank!

TiKi · #8

What new infos Michael????

Nicklas Fredriksson · #9

Hello!

Look at Zetterling's last posting under that thread.

Oh, and thanks a lot Darrin, that was very useful information!

Kind rgds
Nick

Michael Kenny · #10

Tiki the 'new' information I refered to was the request for Panzer Lehr to give up these tanks. In the book Funklenkpanzer by Marcus Jaugitz on page 390 there is a Telex (no.1436/44,19th May 1944) that requests that the Tiger IIs be sent to a garrison in Germany for further trials. It goes on to say that 9 Assault Guns have been assigned to the remote control company (fkl)316 TO SUPPLEMENT ITS 3 TIGER Is. Again it seems we have evidence the Tiger Is did not leave before that date. The June 1st mention means they were still on strength and if they didn't leave before the 6/6/44 they certainly weren't going to leave after. The confusion about 3 Tigers ready for action in mid June is are they talking about the Tiger IIs or the Tiger Is?. More research is needed. IF I had to make a choice I would say the only photographed candidate for one of these Tigers is this Tiger shown in various books as the' Tiger in Marle.' Although Restayn (Tigers/West/Front pages 113 and 115)describes this as an SSsPzAbt 101 Tiger it looks nothing like a Tiger from that unit and it isn't from 503 or 102 either. Where did it come from?. The blurred shot of this Tiger has never been identified as the 'Marle' tank before and is included to show that it really is in the streets of Marle(Yann Jouault has checked it with old postcard views of Marle)

Darrin · #11

On 1st of july the PL div reported 8 tigers present 5 TIIs and 3 TIs. The tiger IIs were not sent to normandy even though they were with the div right up to the 6th. Niether did the tiger Is have to be sent just because they may have been there just before Dday as well. The div was deployed in the le mans area previous to Dday. The str reports show ONLY stug IIIs, JP IVs, PzIVs, panthers and no Tigers of any sort Is or IIs. No tigers indicated in str reports no ammo sent without ammo even a king tiger is just a hunk of metal.

---

First half of Zetterlings first post which did not directly discuss tigers and I did not copy it over.

---

There are at least two documents that indicated that the 316. Pz.Kp. was with the Pz.Lehr up to the end of June. One of these is the strength report to the Inspector-General of Panzer Troops, 1 July 1944, which shows that the division had 38 JagdPz IV and StuG III. Since the division had 31 JagdPz IV and 10 StuG III of the 316. Pz.Kp. on 1 June, and no indication new shipments have been found for June, it seems most likely that the 316. Kp. brought its StuG III to Normandy.

Michael Kenny · #12

On 22/6/44(fkl)316 was ordered to be redesignated the 1st Coy. of (fkl)302 forming at Rhiems. It was detached from Lehr and went eventualy to the Eastern Front. No dispute that (fkl)316 took Stug.IIIs to Normandy. We know as of 1/6/44 they had the Tiger Is. Those are the facts. Using them Darrin you say they left the Tiger Is behind. Yes they could have but it is more likely is they took them with them. And I would say once the fighting started they would make sure they got the Tiger Is back and as only 5 days earlier they had them they couldn't be far away could they? I dont think Lehr returns for tank strengths would list (fkl)316 tanks as Lehr vehicles. They would be listed as (fkl)316 vehicles but under Lehr command. Not lumped in with Lehrs own organic tank units. No nearer solving this are we. I think this will have to wait a while longer for a conclusion.

Darrin · #13

5 days by train even in normandy could get you pretty far. No one goes around disobying orders from thier sup. Evidenced by the TIIs which the coy was ordered to leave behind and which it did. Or how do you get a tiger back from someone you jest gave it too. You better get out and let me have it OR I´LL... Plus the lehr would only gain 3 tanks a puny amount. I´m sure the off of the lehr relaized the futility of op 3 tigers at most. And the lehr unlike most other ger panzer div was bleased with quanity of tanks and other weapons such as halftracks.

Not 316 to 302 on the 22nd jun. I was hoping someone would read zetterlings post at least once.

The 316 funlunk was with the div until the end of jun at least. As zetterling explains in my last quote. The div had 31 JP IVs and 10 stug IIIs on 1st jun str report. On the 1st of july they had 38 tot but no new rep had been delivered which means the STUGs and 316 were present. p 390 normandy 44.

A second source that confirms the first one is on p189 Pz-bat 302 funklenk. Origionally the 4/301 coy was supposed to be part of this new bat. But it was already fighting with 2nd Pz div. By the 2nd of JULY it was decided to allow 2nd Pz div to keep the 4/301 and use the funk 316 coy from PL instead. The 302 bat never fought in normandy in any way manner of form. The 302 bat was already forming when the allies invaded normandy and had 10 stugs on the 10 jun. Which isn´t too bad considering it only had 2 coy at this point.

If anyone is still confused go ask zetterling. He´s the expert on more than just tigers and a bit better than a self declared one. No one has posted a follow up on this thread or any other thread to him. He still checks this place on an almost daily basis it seems. No challege to him so his view stands.

Michael Kenny · #14

Darrin I have tried my hardest to be civil to you and you still respond with insults. I even sent you a private message but it seems you have no interest other than promoting 'The Book' you blindly follow as the one and only true record of the Campaign in Normandy. In all your postings on this Forum you always shrug off any effort to correct you with the boring repetitive chant of 'Zetterling says....' In a recent thread you even managed to make a very basic mistake of not knowing that Panzer Kp were numbered from 1 to 8 !. If this is the level of your understanding how on earth dare you try and keep up the illusion that you actualy know what it is you drone on and on about?. You have no true understanding of this Campaign and despite several recent examples of being shown clearly that Zetterling got some of his details wrong you come back with laughable reasons why this (to you) God like figure might have misread the situation. Despite being shown overwhelming evidence about Zetterlings failure to discover the existence of a 9th Kp. in II/SSPzRgt.12 you witter on about how he got the total of the tanks right so a minor detail like an extra Kp. wasn't a serious omission......! When confronted with clear photographic evidence of 6 Tiger losses on one day in a period when Zetterling says only 4 at most were lost you replied suggesting all sorts of idiotic reasons why the photos were wrong/faked/recovered later ect. When shown that Zetterlings claim of only 2 German Units caught by Heavy Bombers missed a third, SS101s bombing, you completely ignore it!. You have only ONE reference and you blindly use it as the only true record of any standing You claim it is superior to all other references EVEN THOUGH YOU DONT KNOW WHO ANY OF THE OTHER AUTHORS ARE !. You discover that Zetterling has found a document saying (fkl)316 is ordered to give up its Tigers and even though your mentor says he can find no evidence it was complied with(something other posters tried politely to bring to your attention but you took no notice again-what a suprise) you launch into this campaign to 'prove' these Tigers never went to Normandy. I pointed out that on June 1st they were with Lehr and you want us to believe that on June 2nd they were on a train out of the area! 7 weeks after this order they still have them and you say they MUST have returned them because they always followed orders! Then you suggest that these Tigers would be a puny addition to Lehrs effectiveness. This again exposes your complete lack of understanding of the function of these Tigers. They were specialist remote-control guidance tanks for the demolition charge carriers. They had a special radio fitted for this and as such could not be replaced by an ordinary tank,Tiger or otherwise. They were never intended to be gun tanks though they still had that option. Zetterling has 1 page about (fkl)302 and that is the SUM TOTAL OF ALL YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS UNIT. Unlike you, though I have Zetterlings Normandy book, I also have 'Funklenkpanzer by Marcus Jaugitz. This 610 page A4 size book is about nothing else but these Units(that is 110 pages more than Zetterlings book on the Entire German Army in Normandy) It has 12 pages on (fkl)316 alone and 54 pages on (fkl)302. On page 390 you will see "By order of the AHA(stab I(1) No. 27220/44 geheim, dated 22/6/44 )he company was redesignated as the 1/Panzer-Abteilung(fkl)302. After being detatched from the Division the company was sent to Rheims to join Panzer-Abteilung(fkl)302. No date is given for when it was carried out but (fkl)302 was more or less complete by August 1st. And as you seem to know little about real life actions by these Units you can also read on page 390 that (fkl)316 was ambushed on 19/6/44. Most of the companys Assault Guns were damaged and SEVERAL completely destroyed. The company commander(Oberlautnant Meinhardt) was killed as was the leader of the second platoon,Lt. Fischer. So you see your effort to use Zetterling has again backfired and only goes to show how little you really know about the 'facts' you blindly repeat. Do some reading other than this book which, despite your attempts to prove it,IS NOT THE ONLY TRUE RECORD OF THE NORMANDY CAMPAIGN. Although I have the Zetterling book I cant remember one time I have had to use it as a reference source. You Darrin seem to have no other source and will continue to make a fool of yourself quoting facts from its pages that you yourself dont really understand. Post as much of this rubbish as you want but every time I see it I will correct your mistakes. I am not trying to get you to change your mind, many before me have tried only to recieve insults for their pains and stop trying to weasel out by telling us to talk to Zetterling. You posted this crap and you should clean it up not him.

Nicklas Fredriksson · #15

Hello Michael!

Trying to understand what units and what number of tanks paricipated on the German side in Normandy has given me severe head-aches the last decade...

And most hated of all are the blasted Fkl units!!!

I do believe the Fkl attached to PzLD would be included in their sitreps on operational AFVs as this seems to have been the practise (keyword here is "seems") at least in the few unit histories I have (the SS ones). Do you have the one on PzLD? That might shed some light on Fkl 316? Any info on what sort of equipment they brought with them to Fkl 302?

Kind rgds
Nick