3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#211

Post by MarkN » 04 Aug 2015, 12:34

Oh no! Not again....
ClintHardware wrote:Drew stated that he saw 50 - 60 panzers at about 1730 ....
Only yesterday you conceeded that you understand that it is Drew's statement not that it was his statement.

The 5RTR WD for March and early April is NOT the original. It is a reconstruction created afterwards due to the original being destroyed during the supposed planned and orderly withdrawal. It is likely that the reconstruction was created from a number of contributors using their combined notes and memories. It is likely to have been written in Tobruk towards the end of April. Lt.Col Drew may well have been one of the contributors.

However, if you read carefully the entry for 2 April to which you refer, there is a very strong indication that the contributor for that part was a member of C Squadron. Here it is...
Image
Note these words... "... of the 4 tanks remaining from this squadron...". The word "this" gives it away. As CO, Lt.Col Drew would not write "this squadron".
You will also notice the entry states the claim those 40-60 tanks are "mostly M.13" - which we all agree was not true.

My apologies to neutral readers of this tread. However, for the sake of historical accuracy, I think it right and proper to point out where some posters are passing off their own (poor) analysis and beliefs as historical fact - especially when it is not!

The Schorm diary appears very credible in its accuracy. It details which units were in the area, how they lined up in formation, and which actually took part in the engagement. We can even extrapolate from his words exactly how many tanks were in that engagement. Putting that alongside the 5RTR WD and Maj Lister's report, it should be clear to all objective readers interested in historical fact that 11 Cruiser IVAs of 5RTR were laying in ambush hull down awaiting the approaching pantser formation. They were engaged by elements of 6.Kp of II/PzRegt.5 consisting of 8 Pz.III and 5 Pz.II. In effect 11 v 13. The casualties in each side are also well described.

What is not entirely clear is the relevence of A/B Sqn 5RTR and 8.Kp of II/PzRegt.5 in this engagement if any. There is a possibility that the two had a minor clash to the right (as seen by the British, left if your visualising this from a pantser) of the main event. At the time, A/B Sqn 5RTR consised of 6 Cruiser IVAs and 8.Kp of II/PzRegt.5 would have had a maximum of 6 Pz.IV and 5 Pz.II. I say a maximum, because this assumes that not a single pantser had fallen out of the march mechanically up to this point. Again, considering armament, hardly a completely one-sided affair.

Additionally, the II Abt.HQ and PzRegt HQ were in the vicinity. Combined, this may have had a maximum (assuming not a single pantser had dropped out during the march) of 5/BefWg, 16/I, 13/II, 3/III and 0/IV. 37 tanks may look fearsome when blowing up a sandstrom, but 3 gun tanks amongst them is not such a fearsome opponent. But, the key point of this is that there is ZERO evidence that any of these were engaged at all. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary - they were not involved.

Similarly, and at an equivalent distance to the actual firefight, was 3H with their tanks. In particular A/6RTR with 7 M.13 could not have been more than about 2 miles distant from A/B Sqn 5RTR at the time. Their WD entry notes they watched the engagement and observed AFV casualties.

In the interests of historical accuracy, if you include II Abt.HQ and PzRegt HQ in the calculation, you should rightly include the 3H and attachments given the geographical separation. If one's interest is only in the firefight itself, then 11 Cruiser IVAs of 5RTR versus 8 Pz.III and 5 Pz.II pf 6.Kp of II/PzRegt.5 is your answer. 11 v 13. The relevance/non-relevance of A/B Sqn 5RTR and 8.Kp of II/PzRegt.5 is open to discussion.

nmao
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Mar 2005, 17:42
Location: Portugal

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#212

Post by nmao » 04 Aug 2015, 12:54

Hi guys!
Don't have anything relevant to contribute as i don't have access to primary sources, but i want to send a big THANK YOU ALL!
I love these kind of tactical analysis, even with some unknowns, now i f someone would make a sketch of positions and movements i would be in heaven :)
The main point is: discussion generates knowledge.

regards,

-Nuno


User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#213

Post by Don Juan » 04 Aug 2015, 16:04

MarkN wrote: The 5RTR WD for March and early April is NOT the original. It is a reconstruction created afterwards due to the original being destroyed during the supposed planned and orderly withdrawal.
Do you have a source to confirm that? It was common for war diaries to be written in pen or pencil, and then a typed copy produced later. Some files at Kew contain both versions, and the ones I have seen corroborate 100%.

I don't understand why a reconstructed war diary written weeks after an event would bother to differentiate between the times 1745 and 1750.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#214

Post by MarkN » 04 Aug 2015, 16:35

Don Juan wrote: Do you have a source to confirm that? It was common for war diaries to be written in pen or pencil, and then a typed copy produced later. Some files at Kew contain both versions, and the ones I have seen corroborate 100%.

I don't understand why a reconstructed war diary written weeks after an event would bother to differentiate between the times 1745 and 1750.
I admire your attention to detail. This is not the first time that you have queried the veracity of my posts based upon what you feel doesn't add up. I hope you continue to keep me on my toes and do the same with others too.

Does this sufffice:-
Image
Given that it was signed by Maj Lister, and not Lt.Col Drew, it could be that the reconstructed diary was created in Egypt at a later than I originally suggested and completely without Drew's input. However, the other poster thinks I'm being too harsh on him with my commentary, so I tried/am trying to be more concillatory.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#215

Post by Don Juan » 04 Aug 2015, 16:58

Yes that suffices.

Was Major Lister the Adjutant? As far as I am aware the adjutant (and occasionally the intelligence officer) was the normal author of regimental war diaries, with the CO giving the approval. If Lister was the Adjutant, it is likely that he wrote the entire diary. That is if 5 RTR did things the usual way, of course.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#216

Post by MarkN » 04 Aug 2015, 17:09

I cannot say definitively. In my experience, the adjutant of a battalion/regiment would be well-down the seniority pecking order and normally be a Captain or below. Maj Lister was a substansive Major and effectively 2i/c to Lt.Col Drew. I think that that places him as OC HQ Sqn. Does that also mean he doubled up as the unit adjutant?

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#217

Post by Don Juan » 04 Aug 2015, 17:23

The Adjutant was invariably a Captain. In most war diaries he will sign the last page of every month in the bottom right hand corner. Occasionally he will sign the bottom right hand corner of every page. Sometimes he does not sign at all. Usually the CO will be declared on the top right hand corner of every page, but it is very unlikely that he will have written the diary. It might be worth checking previous and/or subsequent months to see who was signing the last page of every month.

It might be the case that the Adjutant proper was destroyed with the missing section of diary, and Lister was adopting the role prior to receiving a replacement adjutant.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#218

Post by MarkN » 04 Aug 2015, 17:34

Maj Lister was acting CO when the bulk of 5RTR was in Egypt with Drew on duty in Tobruk. In that sense, Lister was signing it as the CO.

The WDs indeed showed Drew as the CO top right. He also stamped and signed the last page of each month's entry. This includes the WD for the 5RTR elements inside Tobruk in April.

The WD for March, and the first part of April, which was reconstructed, are both signed by Maj Lister.

The May WD is a bit of an oddity and I give it to you for your own perusal...
Image
As expected, it was signed at the end by Maj Lister in his capacity as officiating CO!!!!

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#219

Post by MarkN » 04 Aug 2015, 17:57

To muddy the waters yet deeper, a second version of an April WD exists in the file at Kew. This is a typed document with handwritten note on top right: "ORIGINAL". It is signed by Lt.Col Drew after the entry for 7 April.

[Edited to add: the reconstructed WD also have the word ORIGINAL written in pencil on the top right of the paper!!!]

The entries are pretty different to those of the reconstructed WD signed by Maj Lister.

The entries for 2 April make NO mention of the engagement nor the sighting - let alone the numbers of tanks - of the approaching Germans. However, the last line of the entry for 2 April reads: "See further action South-east of AGEDABIA APPENDIX 'B'" Appendix B, you will disappointed to learn, is not in the file. Or, at least, it wasn't a few weeks ago. Perhaps somebody has seen it before it went astray.

Earlier, I told some little white lies in an attempt to be more concilliatory to a poster who thinks he's being bullied when I bluntly suggest that his statements, analysis, commentary and summaries do not accord with historical fact. This exchange with Don Juan compels me to say that I do not believe Drew had anything to do with the words written in the reconstructed WD and that there is no written record of what Lt.Col Drew did or did not see.

I hope for that posters sake, he hasn't written in his book and had published that they were Drew's words.

[2nd Edit: in the 3rd Armoured Bde WD, there is also an Appendix B which describes the engagement on 2 April. It is the report written by Maj Lister.]

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#220

Post by Don Juan » 04 Aug 2015, 18:12

I think "Original" just means that that is the item written or typed by the author, as these diaries were often reproduced, or, if hand-written, typed up and reproduced.

I think it is obvious that Lister's "reconstructed" diary is in fact a new creation, although 5 RTR must have been very egalitarian if the CO's were writing the war diaries!
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#221

Post by David W » 04 Aug 2015, 20:22

Great research guys, you've obviously put a lot of man hours into sorting the fact from the fiction. Fiction masquerading as fact must be hard to uncover.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#222

Post by MarkN » 04 Aug 2015, 20:45

Don Juan wrote:I think "Original" just means that that is the item written or typed by the author, as these diaries were often reproduced, or, if hand-written, typed up and reproduced.
I concur. I mentionned that to prevent others potentially embarrassing themselves by jumping to the wrong conclusions. :wink:
Don Juan wrote: I think it is obvious that Lister's "reconstructed" diary is in fact a new creation, although 5 RTR must have been very egalitarian if the CO's were writing the war diaries!
The 'Lister' WD is clearly a creation - it says so itself. But one that has the appearance of being a collective work of several contributors using personal notes as well as memory - hence the detail on times that you rightly jumped upon. Many WDs were recreations after originals were destroyed or lost on the battlefield. Often they come as a narrative rather than as, in this case, an attempt to reproduce a copy. I don't believe Lister wrote the reconstruction, he signed it in his capacity as 'officiating CO'. :wink: No doubt it was typed up by some 'other rank' whose name does not even deserve a mention on the monthly rolls under the 'guidance' of junior subultern who thinks this record keeping duty is beneath his status as an officer and public school education. :wink: :wink:
David W wrote:Great research guys, you've obviously put a lot of man hours into sorting the fact from the fiction. Fiction masquerading as fact must be hard to uncover.
If you have read the original documents (and not just relied on 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand accounts via the internet), and taken some time to understand the context objectively, fiction masquarading as fact stands out like the Sex Pistols performing at a BuckHouse cucumber sandwich party!!!
However, concerning the immediate topic at hand, the idea that a CO would be the author of a WD (unless the WD states it's a quotation from aforementionned) entry is immediately absurd to anybody who has any knowledge of British Army admin. Or it should be....
Remember, during WW2, many of the officers still had 'servents' to help them dress and shave in the morning, cook their food and clean their dirty undies. A number of the WD entries refer to officer XYZ being captured along with his 'servent'. Even I was a bit astounded the first time I read it as I thought they were officially titled 'batman'. You think a CO is going to write up the WDs to keep amateur historians entertained 75 years later? Dream on.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#223

Post by Don Juan » 04 Aug 2015, 21:40

Well, the (possibly) big news for me from this thread is that the A13's don't appear to have been prone to going up in flames, which they most certainly were during Crusader.

Which also means that the German APCBCHE (i.e. with burster charge) was a new addition to the German armoury during Crusader, and was in turn a huge tactical surprise. The history of this shell thus becomes of interest, as it may have been a direct response to inspections of British tanks captured earlier in the desert, or (more likely) in France.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#224

Post by MarkN » 04 Aug 2015, 23:30

Don Juan wrote:Well, the (possibly) big news for me from this thread is that the A13's don't appear to have been prone to going up in flames, which they most certainly were during Crusader.

Which also means that the German APCBCHE (i.e. with burster charge) was a new addition to the German armoury during Crusader, and was in turn a huge tactical surprise. The history of this shell thus becomes of interest, as it may have been a direct response to inspections of British tanks captured earlier in the desert, or (more likely) in France.
Have you seen this?
Image
...and...
Image
Image
Remember that Lt Miller's tank was set on fire due to the external fuel tank going up.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: 3rd Armourd Brigade Destroyed in the Desert

#225

Post by Don Juan » 04 Aug 2015, 23:48

The signature of being hit by an AP shell with bursting charge was an immediate fire with no time for the crew to escape. This was because the shrapnel projected from the burst would set off the cordite charge of the 2 pounder ammunition, causing an immediate catastrophic fire.

These documents tend to suggest tanks 1, 2, [edit: and 5] and possibly 3 were hit by APCBCHE shells, although Brevity mentioned earlier (from Jentz) that the 5 cm had a poor reputation for setting tanks on fire. German tanks carried an ammunition mix, so it is possible that the APCBCHE was being used in limited (but obviously very effective) numbers in this engagement, possibly for the first time in this theatre, or even the first time operationally.

I have not seen a picture of any British tank in France 1940 looking as though it has been catastrophically burnt out, although a lot of those were simply abandoned before the Germans posed with them for their snaps.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”