Crusader OOB

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4002
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Urmel » 20 Jan 2014 11:47

dor1941 wrote:David W

Thanks for the input.
David W wrote: 617th Heeres Fla (M.g) Bataillon. I can't place the 3rd Ko in N.A before 12/03/42.
Bender and Law (Uniforms, Organization and History of the Afrikakorps, p. 114) state the "3./Flak-Abteilung 617" was part of Kampfgruppe Menny, an all-arms battlegroup formed for the defensive battles near Gazala, December 13-16, 1941. Source in footnote is Microfilm Publication T315, roll 666, frame 001272. However, no mention here of 1. and 2./Flak-Abt. 617 :( .
David, the other David is probably right, and Bender & Law are wrong. Frame 001272 shows the organisation of KG Menny on 22 April 1942, not December 1941, so that would be a serious error in their book.

I haven't got a formal OOB for KG Menny for mid-Dec 41 that would exclude the presence of 3./Fla 617, but the statements I have seen only mention I./Fla 33.

I'll put an errata together and publish it this week.
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
David W
Member
Posts: 3403
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 01:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by David W » 21 Jan 2014 01:02

duplicate
Last edited by David W on 21 Jan 2014 01:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3403
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 01:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by David W » 21 Jan 2014 01:06

Re Reserve Luftwaffe FlaK Abteilung 114 (Gem)

Yes, I understand that its fifth battery contained 9x 37mm.

Urmel. I'll look forward to seeing the errata.

dor1941
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 22 Oct 2007 18:44
Location: Texas, USA

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by dor1941 » 22 Jan 2014 12:28

Urmel wrote:
dor1941 wrote:David W

Thanks for the input.
David W wrote: 617th Heeres Fla (M.g) Bataillon. I can't place the 3rd Ko in N.A before 12/03/42.
Bender and Law (Uniforms, Organization and History of the Afrikakorps, p. 114) state the "3./Flak-Abteilung 617" was part of Kampfgruppe Menny, an all-arms battlegroup formed for the defensive battles near Gazala, December 13-16, 1941. Source in footnote is Microfilm Publication T315, roll 666, frame 001272. However, no mention here of 1. and 2./Flak-Abt. 617 :( .
David, the other David is probably right, and Bender & Law are wrong. Frame 001272 shows the organisation of KG Menny on 22 April 1942, not December 1941, so that would be a serious error in their book.
Bender & Law wrote the following:

"KAMPFGRUPPE MENNY
"Kampfgruppe Menny" was formed prior to, or shortly after the opening phases of the assault on the Gazala Line (December 13-16, 1941). A second "Kampfgruppe Menny" was formed around April 2, 1943 (47)
2./Panzer-Regiment 8 (one zug of Pzkw IVs)
3./Panzerjager-Abteilung 33
Panzer-Aufklarungs-Abteilung 33
Teile Panzer-Nachrichten-Abteilung 78
II./Schutzen-Regiment 115
I./Artillerie-Regiment 33
III./Artillerie-Regiment 33
1./Flak-Abteilung 18 (Luftwaffe)
3./Flak-Abteilung 617
one Panzer-Abteilung von Division Ariete
one Batterie Sfl. von Division Ariete
one Kr. K.W.-Zug
one Horch-Zug

Commander: Oberst Erwin Menny

Engagements: German assault on the Gazala Line (Libya, December of 1941)"

All that is verbatim from p. 114. The footnote (47) above states:
"Microfilm Publication T315, roll 666, frame 001272, and The Relief of Tobruk, pp. 499-500".

The reference in the New Zealand OH above does not mention any of the German units of Kampfgruppe Menny other than "the
composite battalion of 115 Infantry Regiment". It is merely a two page account of the destruction of 1st Bn, The Buffs at Point 204 on December 15th. Is the german document in "frame 001272" just dated April 1942 or does it explicitly state KG Menny had that organization on April 22nd? If the latter, then it would be logical that Bender and Law are in error.

David R

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4002
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Urmel » 22 Jan 2014 12:44

Hi David

It does explicitly state that. But reading what you have there, I think it is not so much an error, but rather unclear writing, with the OOB referring to the second KG Menny, and muddling up the footnote.
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

dor1941
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 22 Oct 2007 18:44
Location: Texas, USA

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by dor1941 » 22 Jan 2014 15:14

Thanks for your explanation. I am inclined to agree with your analysis.

Please continue with your good work.

David R

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4002
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Urmel » 22 Jan 2014 15:48

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: 4002
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Urmel » 22 Jan 2014 20:53

On Fla.Btl. 617, I have it's 3rd company registered as reinforcement of 15. Pz.Div., arriving between 20 and 30 April 1942 with a strength of:

4/25/175 and 12 SP 2cm AA guns.
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
David W
Member
Posts: 3403
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 01:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by David W » 23 Jan 2014 00:59

Thanks for that guys.

Were any of those SdKfz 7/1? Or all SdKfz 10/4?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4002
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Urmel » 22 Feb 2014 16:05

Bwwwwwwwww...

I fixed the formatting error in the Bender & Law errata post, by the way.
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

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 1722
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 23 Mar 2014 20:08

Further to David R's information about the anti-tank artillery in Tobruk in Nov 41:
The WO 169/949 HQ RA GHQ ME mentioned in my post of 05 Aug 2012 (in the Topic "18-pdr anti-tank guns 1941...") shows the guns of 149th Anti-Tank Regt. R.A. as forty 2-pdrs and nine 18-pdrs on November 4th. It also lists 26 37mm Bofors atk guns and 42 captured Italian 47/32 guns in the Tobruk Garrison without identifying any units equipped with them, which I construed as an indication that all those guns were deployed in the perimeter posts on "the Red Line".
I found some details of weapons in the war diary of 14 Infantry Brigade Anti-Tank Company. Again this is probably subject to change, and if it is recorded I'll let you know:
WO169/1289 – 14 Infantry Brigade Anti-Tank Company – 1941

22 October 1941 TOBRUK
Position and arms of Plns.
No.1 3 Vickers-Terni 37mm in dug in Tanks.
No.2 3 Bofors 37/40mm Portee.
No.3 3 Vickers 2-pdr.
I'll aim to get the other two Brigade AT Coys next time.

Cheers

Tom

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3403
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 01:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by David W » 19 Jul 2015 07:18

Would it be possible to get the two original posts (The one showing the Axis O.o.B And the one showing the Commonwealth O.o.B) updated to reflect the findings of the following 12 pages of research and discussion? It would tidy things up a treat.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4002
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Urmel » 28 Aug 2015 19:07

Knock yourself out :)
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

Tom Gale
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Feb 2017 18:33
Location: Hampshire

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by Tom Gale » 19 Feb 2017 10:22

There seems to be no reference to the 4thSAAC or the Royal Dragoons in this topic. I thought they were present.

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3403
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 01:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Crusader OOB

Post by David W » 20 Feb 2017 03:26

4th SAAC were in theatre, but I don't know if they participated.

If memory serves, the Royal Dragoons were not, at least not in November.

I am prepared to be corrected though.....

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”