Lightbob wrote:I would like to answer some of your general criticism.
Thank you.
The Burma comment was in reply to Rich’s remark that the east was not country that the eastern sector of Normandy was. That’s not quite true as tanks can fight in most places providing they have infantry and artillery support.
You completely misunderstood my comment then. The point was that the terrain to the west was relativly more confined than in the east, conditions that made it
more suitable to the American tanks and
less suitable to the German. And in any case, I think that rather than comparing part of France to Burman, you might do better comparing the one part of France to the other, and addressing what my argument was.
I never gave any strengths of the composition of the 21st panzer only that it was made up approximately of 30% Desert veterans 30% from Russia and the east and the rest recruits of various nationalities and suppose quality. However Rich as not produced any evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, but 60% of a known strength is a strength. Give the divisional strength was 16,297, your putative figures indicate that you believe that 4,889 were "Desert veterans" and 4,889 were "from Russia and the east [Manchuko?]". But you have never provided a single source to back up either those percentages or numbers that those percentages could be derived from. Furthermore, you consistantly have ignored that I
have given you contrary figures
and sources that you have chosen to ignore, along with the requests for your sources. Now you appear unaware that when I make a declaritive statement in this forum I am usually able to back it up - given that I have about a seven-year history now here of doing so I may get a bit more slack than some from the moderators when I do that, but you are fully free to question them about that if you wish.
But if you require more... “The division was reorganized after the African campaign with undesirable personnel from a large number of divisions. Even very thorough and experienced training could never overcome this basic fault.” (General der Panzertruppen Leo, Freiherr Geyr von Schweppenburg, commanding Panzergruppe West, Foreign Military Studies B-466, Panzer Group West, Headquarters USAEUR, 1947)
In regards to the personnel from the Panzerartilleriebrigade and Schnellbrigade West “The commanders and battery commanders were good, but the junior officers, NCOs, and enlisted men were not so suitable. The NCOs and Ems were taken from static batteries on the coast and on the Atlantic islands [i.e., the Channel Islands garrisons]. They were old and useless for and armored command… The original allocation of NCOs and men to the division was simi9alr to the formation of the brigade. The first elements came from surplus personnel from other divisions
. Obviously the replacements were not always satisfactory in those circumstances. Only in the course of many months did the division succeed in obtaining better personnel through the replacement and training units of its Ersatzwehrkreis VI (Günster) and getting rid of part of the unsuitable materiel. The order calling for the formation of the division stated that all members of the former 21st Africa Armored Division now in Germany were to be transferred to the division. In this way the division got a small but good cadre of experienced veterans (about 2,000 men). Naturally these men, many of whom only joined the division at a late date, were no full compensation. If, despite all this, a bearable standard of training had been reached by the time the invasion started, it is only thanks to the willingness of the division, its good spirit, the fairly good officers and there in particular the commanders.” (Generalleutnant Edgar Feuchtinger, Foreign Military Studies, B-441, History of the 21st Panzer Division from the Time of its Formation until the Beginning of the Invasion, Headquarters, USAEUR, 1947)
By my calculations according to the divisional commander and the director of training and organization for all Panzer units in the west, about 12% of the division were what could be described as veteran cadre, not 60%, which is your unsupported claim. Whether 12% or 60% results in a "veteran elite" Panzer division is yet another bit that remains unsupported, although the evidence for a number of similarly rebuilt Stalingrad divisions is uneven, certainly 3. Panzergrenadier Division in Italy isn't a poster child for the process.
BTW, earlier you also argued that 21. Panzerdivision was also built up from survivors of 15. Panzerdivision, which is also incorrect. They went to Division Sizilian, which became 15. Panzergrenadier Division.
By the way as an honoury member ( I arranged for them to use some of our facilities to hold social functions) of the Africa Korps association in the fifties in Germany. My greatest German friend was an officer in that division’s Panzer Grenadiers, commanding a Platoon that advanced between Sword and Juno beachheads, splitting (his words)the ground between them. He stopped just by a village on the coast I don’t know which one, but he did see the sea.
Then you were very lucky to have the opportunity, but, yet again, you seem confused about what and who you are arguing with. Waaaay back when I first questioned the "splitting bit" it was because another poster, Rifleman2113, had claimed that they had "fought" their way in, which is incorrect. KG Rauch did not fighting when they drove to Luc sur Mer since their approach route was via Mathieu and west of Plumetot and Cresserons...quite simply their were no British or Canadian troops there for them to split. 3 BID and the Commandos were fully engaged trying to take Lion sur Mer further east. They were engaged in a skirmish, probably by the East Riding Yeomanry, when they withdrew that night when Feuchtinger got the wind up over the the gliders of Operation MALLARD coming in, but that is rather a different thing.
Again another member said that why would the Germans move tanks east when they had Panzerfaust I pointed out that the panzerfaust could not replace A/Tank guns or Tanks.
I don't think that anyone, least of all me, ever actually argued that. What was argued was that the close confines of the bocage made the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck relatively more effective, which again is a different thing.
Throw away weapon actually and It was issued to Volksturm at the towards the end of the war instead of small arms a fact. So your remark was surplus to the point as usual.
Why yes, a disposable weapon, which was issued as a round of ammunition, just as the LAW was. And not just to Volsturm "at the towards the end of the war" as you imply above. The standard Erstes Muni Ausstattung (initial ammunition issue) for German divisional formations was 2,000 Schuss (rounds) per division, as opposed to the Panzerschreck, which was issued as 250 Waffen (weapons) with 2,000 Schuss. (see BAMA, RH3/V135, 255, 259, and 368)
This a rather stupid remark, are you saying that Firing the Panzerfaust did or did not have its problem and was in fact the perfect weapon.
Stupid? Yet you need me to parse that sentence for you? The Panzerfaust had its problems for the operator. That could just as easily be: The Bazooka had its problems for the operator or The LAW had its problems for the operator or the RPG had its problems for the operator. They are all relatively short-ranged, have distinctive firing signatures, require some skill and practice, and are not always that accurate, all which combine to create some problems for its operators. But, oddly enough, somehow they still managed to inflict a significant fraction of the losses incurred by Allied armor in Northwest Europe...yet something else you seem incapable of focusing on.
By the way you seem to have a fascination for alcoholic drinks, sending a Spanish wine list, accusing me of slurring my typing, constantly telling me to go back to my drink etc Now it’s a popular Belgian Beer. Linking all this to your swings of mood, yelling abuse, picking written fights. It would seem you have the classic drink problem. I hope not it would spoil an other wise nice bloke
Yes, you found out my secret vice, I'm an Internet Alky. Please don't tell my employers. :roll:
And you might be an otherwise nice bloke too if you focused a bit more on what you were trying to say, used some logic and coherence to your arguments, and provided some proof for your rather more outrageous claims, rather than spending your time trying to tell other posters what they think or what other posters are saying and arguing strawmen. It might make things a bit more interesting and less rambunctious.
Cheers! 
