How many 7.62 cm PaK 36 were sent to North Africa?

[Dili]

I agree, but that reflected the experience of CRUSADER when 90. Leichte units were overrun outside Tobruk by the Matildas of D Squadron 7 R.T.R. and 4 R.T.R..

Thanks.

[Gooner1]

Playfair states that the Axis only had 68 7.62cm guns before the battle of Alamein, if that's any use.

[Urmel]

Which battle of Alamein? July or November?

[Gooner1]

October. I should have been more specific though I'd usually refer to the July battles as the July battles.

I'll check what Vol.III has to say on them later.

[Urmel]

Thanks!

Jan has just dug up that there seem to have been no 7.62 on the big convoy in May (Operation Mira).

[ColinWright]

Playfair states that the Axis only had 68 7.62cm guns before the battle of Alamein, if that's any use.

It's of a great deal of use.

I find it distinctly improbable that the Germans could have had 300 of the things in that case.

In turn, I think this means we can treat the various TOE's showing such numbers as a pious hope -- obviously, the actual number on hand bore no relationship to those figures.

[ColinWright]

I wonder if those TOE's were merely some kind of device to buttress a demand for more of the 76.2's.

'You've got to send us more: we've only got 10% of our authorized strength!'

...just a thought.

[Urmel]

Well considering that the TO&E was based on actual bad experience, I don't think so. It was borne out of a real need for a powerful AT gun. Just look at the numbers of AT guns already present, and delivered in November 41 (at one point they got 70 3.7cm ATGs, for instance), to get an idea of what they thought they needed.

That the numbers were always pious hope is not surprising though. This was the case for a lot of equipment, and sending over troops without their heavy kit (e.g. Afrika-Rgt. 361 in October/November 41) didn't help, if said kit was then sent to the bottom by the Royal Navy or the RAF.

[peeved]

According to Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 by Fritz Hahn the number of write-offs on all fronts was 237 for 7,62 cm Pak in 1942 and 217 for 7,62 cm Pak 36 (r) [sic] in '43. Since the 7,62 cm Paks saw much action on the Eastern Front during the years of African use and there probably were significant Mediterranean transport losses it appears probable that the number of 7,62 cm Pak 36s that reached Africa was quite a bit lower than 454 even if one assumes that a few DAK Paks had recrossed the sea before the surrender for e.g. factory repairs.

Markus

[ColinWright]

Well considering that the TO&E was based on actual bad experience, I don't think so. It was borne out of a real need for a powerful AT gun. Just look at the numbers of AT guns already present, and delivered in November 41 (at one point they got 70 3.7cm ATGs, for instance), to get an idea of what they thought they needed...

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing here.

I'd just argue that no one ever actually expected to get thirty 76.2 mm AT guns for each battalion -- not that they would have minded if it had happened.

Rather, the disparity between the theoretical OOB and the apparent reality is so wide that the figure of thirty guns seems to have existed more as a device for getting as many of the things as possible than as an actual expectation.

Parenthetically, though, I can't resist pointing out that the twin facts that the 76.2 mm AT gun is a substantial piece of equipment and that the battalions in question were chronically understrength suggests that had the divisions ever actually got all these guns, they would have had difficulty manning them. After all, a straight AT battalion equipped with thirty 76.2's would probably muster a good four hundred men.

[ColinWright]

According to Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 by Fritz Hahn the number of write-offs on all fronts was 237 for 7,62 cm Pak in 1942 and 217 for 7,62 cm Pak 36 (r) [sic] in '43. Since the 7,62 cm Paks saw much action on the Eastern Front during the years of African use and there probably were significant Mediterranean transport losses it appears probable that the number of 7,62 cm Pak 36s that reached Africa was quite a bit lower than 454 even if one assumes that a few DAK Paks had recrossed the sea before the surrender for e.g. factory repairs.

Markus

Even we assume that half of all 7.62 PaK's lost were sent to Africa (and lost there), that still gives us an upper limit of [(237+217)/2] of 225 sent to Africa.

Since presumably considerably less than half were sent, it seems clear that the theoretical TO&E for these guns does little more than perhaps indicate the ratio in which they were intended to be assigned. It tells us nothing about the actual number.

[ColinWright]

Anyway, I've got the answer to one question: where did Colin get that figure of 117 7.62 cm AT guns by May 1942?

From Wikipedia!

"...The first employment of the FK36(r) was noted as early as March 1942 at Bir Hacheim in Libya, and by May 1942, 117 are recorded as being in use by the Afrika Korps..."

Regrettably, the figure is unsourced, and the reference to 'Bir Hacheim in March' doesn't exactly fill one with confidence, although I suppose it's possible some preliminary clash took place down there then.

[ColinWright]

...and worth noting, if only to help define the limits of possibility:

"...First guns were delivered in February 1942, and by the end of the yearGermans converted 358 pieces, 169 in 1943 and 33 in 1944.Additionally, 894 barrels were prepared for use in self-propelled guns.It is likely that these numbers include Pak 39(r), a similarly upgraded76-mm M1939 (up to 300 pieces)..."

Since the rate of conversions obviously dwindled after 1942, it seems reasonable to assume half of 1943's production would have been available to ship to North Africa before the final collapse. That means whatever North Africa got would have had to have been drawn from a total pool of (358 + 1/2*169) 443 pieces.

...that '117' figure starts to make sense -- if at some point 'May 1943' was mistyped as 'May 1942.' In other words, 117 pieces were delivered to North Africa in total. Obviously, that's hardly a definitive solution -- but it does have the virtue of more or less according with the specific deliveries mentioned and the total number of guns available.

[David W]

it seems clear that the theoretical TO&E for these guns does little more than perhaps indicate the ratio in which they were intended to be assigned. It tells us nothing about the actual number.

I think that you have got it in a nutshell.

...that '117' figure starts to make sense -- if at some point 'May 1943' was mistyped as 'May 1942.' In other words, 117 pieces were delivered to North Africa in total. Obviously, that's hardly a definitive solution -- but it does have the virtue of more or less according with the specific deliveries mentioned and the total number of guns available.

Sadly, it's almost impossible to prove a typo. But the concept is appealing, as the numbers appear to fit, don't they?

[Urmel]

Except the first guns were delivered in January 42, but that's just a minor issue. There's a picture of one being shown to the brass around that time here on the forum. There definitely weren't any in use in North Africa in mid-November 41.