Panzer-Regiment 5; Panzers Damaged/Destroyed

[Urmel]

By 11 April.

[David W]

Thanks.

Was there a 4/6/0 that was either sent, or arrived right at the end of June 1941?

[Brevity]

10/3 delivery, April 1941

[Urmel]

Thanks.

Was there a 4/6/0 that was either sent, or arrived right at the end of June 1941?

I have one unassigned replacement Panzer III on Preussen, 30th convoy, left Naples 19 June

[David W]

Or an 0/4/0 in mid July?

[Urmel]

Or an 0/4/0 in mid July?

Only those on Rialto that arrive on 1 August. Where is this coming from?

Word of caution regarding equating replacement tanks with actual losses, i) even if the Heereszeugamt was willing to assign one tank replacement for each tank lost, we don't know if they did so, and ii) we don't know if the D.A.K. didn't engage in overclaiming losses, either intentionally or unintentionally (e.g. a tank was shot up and considered lost in BATTLEAXE, but with some spares and a lot of time over the summer made operational again by November).

[ClintHardware]

Urmel your figures are good and I am confident in them.

There is something very odd about the 15th June totals in the document Brevity has shown us which includes those in workshops. The numbers are representing nearly 100% recovery and yet some panzers on 14th were along way inside the perimeter and one surrendered to the 107th RHA near the gun line. I don't recall the 107th handing that panzer back.

This indicates (only indicates) that PR5 did receive more than just the replacement 0/0/10/3 (29th April IIRC) before the 15th June. There are various other such examples to account for in the eye witness statements I have collected.

[nmao]

Does anyone have a report from the allied side, detailing the number&type of panzers captured (not disabled) on 14 April 1941?
Jentz has some photos of them, but i don't think he details numbers...
From what i understand those lost on other days were not on allied controlled terrain.

regards,

-Nuno

[Urmel]

I have no explanation for this, and see how this is puzzling.

[Urmel]

This indicates (only indicates) that PR5 did receive more than just the replacement 0/0/10/3 (29th April IIRC) before the 15th June. There are various other such examples to account for in the eye witness statements I have collected.

Or it indicates that the document is wrong? There are errors in British intel, see e.g. CAB146/10 where they say Fla.Btl.606 was equipped with 3.7cm guns.

[ClintHardware]

Or it indicates that the document is wrong? There are errors in British intel, see e.g. CAB146/10 where they say Fla.Btl.606 was equipped with 3.7cm guns.

Agreed, but raw numbers are usually picked out in signals and these numbers add up within the document itself.... They could be wrong but unlikely.

There is another really odd thing. Olbrich states 17 panzers destroyed on the 14th of which Schorm gives us 0/0/10/5 for II.PR5 alone. Then nothing happens 15th - 30th April in terms of panzers in action but Hohmann begins his attack with only 9/24/36/8 which indicates that Olbrich's 17 probably were out of reach for recovery. One Panzer II and one Panzer III at Sollum at this time.

However, the Werkstatt-Kompanie gives us regimental totals for each type on the 5/5/41 of 25/45/65/17. These do not necessarily represent the strength of PR5 on the 5/5/41.

However, then we have the 15th June totals of 0/45/70/20. which look similar by type to 5/5/41 totals despite more small losses during May.

So Olbrich's 17 were probably not collected within two weeks of the 1/5/41 AND no replacements were received until July-August according to known manifests etc - and yet totals look like zero damage between 24th March - 15th June. Amazing.

PR5 must have employed Mr Jasper Maskelyne's techniques in night-time recovery and replacement with cardboard KO'd panzers OR perhaps they received some given/loaned to PR5 from PR8. What is the best PR8 strength fielded (not their arrival figures) by at the 5/5/41 I wonder? Also, what was the best strength fielded of PR5 and PR8 together at about this time. Kramer/Cramer was out and about with one abteilung initially until more kompanien arrived.

And the 0/0/10/3 replacements were received by PR5 on the 29th April so if they are included in Hohmann's 1/5/41 panzer numbers the amount actually lost/destroyed/not reachable by PR5 is that much worse. I can't imagine they were left out of the 1/5/41 attack.

[ClintHardware]

Jentz states in TCinNA that I.PR8 on 26th May had 26 operational Panzer III and IV out of the 45 it had begun with. The regimental total eventually landed but not present or concentrated by the 26th was 71 Panzer III and 20 Panzer IV. This does not prove or disprove sharing with PR5.

[ClintHardware]

Taking Jentz figures for what seems to be operational on the 17th and 18th November for PR5 and PR8 for Panzers II - IV:
...........................................Pz II ........Pz III.........Pz IV
PR5 17/11/41...........................35............68............17
PR8 18/11/41...........................42............77............21
Less all panzer replacements for those three types April - August
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Operational Total PR5 & PR8....73...........99............29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR5 March still Operational17/11....31...........22.............8 (Net Operational Total less PR8)

PR5 March not present 17/11.........14...........39.............9

[Brevity]

There is another really odd thing. Olbrich states 17 panzers destroyed on the 14th of which Schorm gives us 0/0/10/5 for II.PR5 alone. Then nothing happens 15th - 30th April in terms of panzers in action but Hohmann begins his attack with only 9/24/36/8 which indicates that Olbrich's 17 probably were out of reach for recovery. One Panzer II and one Panzer III at Sollum at this time.

17 Panzers from 14 April were not recovered. Well, maybe one was, because Paulus later corrected this to 16.

However, the Werkstatt-Kompanie gives us regimental totals for each type on the 5/5/41 of 25/45/65/17. These do not necessarily represent the strength of PR5 on the 5/5/41.

Workshop report means strength on arrival. 65 Panzer III's actually includes 4 Befehlspanzers.

However, then we have the 15th June totals of 0/45/70/20. which look similar by type to 5/5/41 totals despite more small losses during May.

I believe 15 June return is either entirely wrong or, more likely, was misunderstood and was supposed to show PR8 strength. This theory has legs, because 45/70/20 means authorized strength less 1/III. According to Kevin Fish' book about PR8, a Panzer III of Leutnant Boenisch (5 coy) broke down and was later set on fire by British on 16 May.

And the 0/0/10/3 replacements were received by PR5 on the 29th April so if they are included in Hohmann's 1/5/41 panzer numbers the amount actually lost/destroyed/not reachable by PR5 is that much worse. I can't imagine they were left out of the 1/5/41 attack.

10/3 should have been there on 1 May but what do you mean when you say about "lost/destroyed/not reachable" ?

Jentz states in TCinNA that I.PR8 on 26th May had 26 operational Panzer III and IV out of the 45 it had begun with.

You're twisting Jentz' words all the time. He meant 15 June.

[Brevity]

Taking Jentz figures for what seems to be operational on the 17th and 18th November for PR5 and PR8 for Panzers II - IV:
...........................................Pz II ........Pz III.........Pz IV
PR5 17/11/41...........................35............68............17
PR8 18/11/41...........................42............77............21
Less all panzer replacements for those three types April - August
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Operational Total PR5 & PR8....73...........99............29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR5 March still Operational17/11....31...........22.............8 (Net Operational Total less PR8)

PR5 March not present 17/11.........14...........39.............9

I see what you did there. You counted replacements to PR8 twice, just to artificially inflate PR5 losses