Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#76

Post by Don Juan » 20 Nov 2016, 13:20

MarkN wrote: There is more and more evidence I can produce to show you that the British had more tanks in workshop and for longer periods of time than the Germans - and those visits were down purely to mechanical failure having not even gone into battle. But, according to your 'theory', that number and timeframe is an indicator of significant battle damage.
Just dipping into this thread, but I don't think that it can be assumed that all tanks were in workshops due to mechanical failure. I think the most common reason would be mileage overhaul. I would seriously doubt that any tanks sent from the UK to the Middle East had zero miles on the clock - from what I've seen, in the early days these tanks had accrued serious mileage before they arrived in Egypt. Modification would also be another reason for the accumulation of tanks in workshops, including modifications for desert conditions, standard modifications, upgrades etc. All these could be delayed by lack of spares, personnel, transport etc. so it would be possible for workshops to accumulate a great many tanks without any serious epidemic of mechanical failure.

Again, I'm no expert on this particular period, but my sense is that the British were basically trying to operate more tanks than they had the resources to manage.
"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
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#77

Post by Don Juan » 20 Nov 2016, 13:21

Michael Kenny wrote:On a tangent the recent Plowman book on tanks in Greece must have a photo of nearly every tank lost there!

https://www.amazon.com/Camouflage-Marki ... 836067227X
Does he confirm how many A13's were sent to Greece, by any chance?

Also, am I correct to believe that not a single Cruiser tank was evacuated?
"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: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#78

Post by MarkN » 20 Nov 2016, 16:51

Don Juan wrote:
Michael Kenny wrote:On a tangent the recent Plowman book on tanks in Greece must have a photo of nearly every tank lost there!

https://www.amazon.com/Camouflage-Marki ... 836067227X
Does he confirm how many A13's were sent to Greece, by any chance?

Also, am I correct to believe that not a single Cruiser tank was evacuated?
I have no idea what Plowman has written or identified. Nor have I perused shipping lists and manifests, nor army movement logs - if they even exist.

However, the WDs of the various units and formations indicate the following tanks despatched to the Greek mainland (ie. not including subsequent tanks sent to Crete) of which none returned.
7 x A13IIA
46 x A10II
6 x A10CS
59 x Light tank VI (No indication of which sub-type of LT.VI, but likely all VIB.)

For a short while, HQ 1 Armoured Brigade also took charge of 3 (I think - since I write this off the top of my head) ex Yugoslav FT-17s or R-35s. The information on this is fragmentory and contradictory.

Almost all of the 59 cruisers can be confirmed and identified at the individual T.number level.
Last edited by MarkN on 20 Nov 2016, 17:01, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#79

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Nov 2016, 16:52

Ym,..............jpg
There are photos of all except T18152 & T18147
You Mio.jpg
yuiwqa.jpg

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#80

Post by MarkN » 20 Nov 2016, 17:38

Michael Kenny wrote:Ym,..............jpg

There are photos of all except T18152 & T18147
Is this pic in the book?

Image

It comes from the Military Archives in Freiburg. The caption claims it is quite a bit further south than Molos. Almost as far as Athens. A claim which seems to be confirmed by this modern day image of the place...

Image

Could this be one of 18147 or 18152?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#81

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Nov 2016, 17:51

Same tank different views. The bridge in the colour pic is not the same bridge. One is single diagonal bracing the other 'X' shaped.
You Must Re152.jpg
You Must Re152.jpg (24.72 KiB) Viewed 1233 times
You Muuop.jpg
You Muuop.jpg (50 KiB) Viewed 1233 times

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#82

Post by MarkN » 20 Nov 2016, 18:06

Michael Kenny wrote:Same tank different views. The bridge in the colour pic is not the same bridge. One is single diagonal bracing the other 'X' shaped.
You may well be right. If you look at the first girder 'box' in the colour picture, there is only 1 brace too. I didn't put it past the realm of possibility that the additional bracing in the other boxes was a later addition to strengthen the bridge after it had been re-erected post-1941.

However, your final picture shows a background which is completely out of sorts with the locality relevant to the coloured picture.

I guess that means the Wehrmacht caption is wrong. Strange coincidence though....

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#83

Post by Don Juan » 20 Nov 2016, 20:11

Thanks Mike and Mark for the info.
"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: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#84

Post by MarkN » 20 Nov 2016, 20:17

Don Juan wrote:
MarkN wrote:There is more and more evidence I can produce to show you that the British had more tanks in workshop and for longer periods of time than the Germans - and those visits were down purely to mechanical failure having not even gone into battle. But, according to your 'theory', that number and timeframe is an indicator of significant battle damage.
Just dipping into this thread, but I don't think that it can be assumed that all tanks were in workshops due to mechanical failure. I think the most common reason would be mileage overhaul. I would seriously doubt that any tanks sent from the UK to the Middle East had zero miles on the clock - from what I've seen, in the early days these tanks had accrued serious mileage before they arrived in Egypt. Modification would also be another reason for the accumulation of tanks in workshops, including modifications for desert conditions, standard modifications, upgrades etc. All these could be delayed by lack of spares, personnel, transport etc. so it would be possible for workshops to accumulate a great many tanks without any serious epidemic of mechanical failure.

Again, I'm no expert on this particular period, but my sense is that the British were basically trying to operate more tanks than they had the resources to manage.
Thank you for strengthening my point.

Whilst it is true that many British tanks were in workshops for routine maintenance or overhaul, rather than mechanical failure, neither have anything to do with battle damage. And that was/is the point that was being promoted by the other poster: tanks suffering battle damage have long workshop stays, tanks in for mechanical failure or routine maintenance get turned around sharpish. He has a complete lack of understanding of the realities.

As regards new or old tanks arriving in theatre.

An AFV ME document gives the tank state for 6 December 1940 (opening of Op COMPASS) - Document reference CRME/4157/AFV dated 8/12/40. It lists a total of 137 cruiser tanks in the inventory from the 138 so far delivered. In other words, just one written off since the commencement of hostilities - presumably the one captured by the Italians. Of those 137, 41 are listed as in workshops - a little under a third.

At the outbreak of hostilies, ME Command had 68 A9 cruiser tanks. All of them had been delivered direct to theatre from production - or, at least, from COD. They had not previously been operational in the UK. Ie. they were new on arrival.

The next 52 cruisers to arrive, 18 A13s, 28 A10s and 6 A9cs came out with 2RTR on WS2. WS2 sailed from the UK at the very beginning of August. All of the A10s and A13s were mint out of the factory when delivered to 2RTR in late June and early July. In other words, they were hardly old and tired when they arrived. Of the 6 A9s, 4 or 5 were also brand new. 1, possibly 2, had been to France and back.

The remaining 18 cruiser tanks, all A10s, were also brand new direct from the factory. They arrived in theatre in late November and were in the process of going through local modification. Some had been issued to units, whilst some were still in workshops.

Of the 50 infantry tanks that came out with 7RTR on the same WS2 convoy, all their tanks had only been issued from the factory to 7RTR in the preceeding 4-5 weeks post-BEF.

Whilst it is true that many of the tanks coming out with 2nd Armoured Division (arriving late December) had another 2 months of mileage on them (those belonging to 3RTR and 5RTR), some of them were barely out of the box. For example, of the 7 A13s mentionned in the previous posts as going to Greece, 2 left the factory mid to late September, the other 5 during October. WS4 sailed in late October.

However, replacement A13 cruiser tanks arriving during 1941 tended to be well worn examples.

In otherwords, its a bit of a myth that all the tanks arriving in the Middle East were clapped out on arrival. They weren't. And, as regards "the early days", the gun tanks arrived with effectively zero mileage or barely any on the clock.

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

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#85

Post by Don Juan » 21 Nov 2016, 01:17

MarkN wrote:In otherwords, its a bit of a myth that all the tanks arriving in the Middle East were clapped out on arrival. They weren't. And, as regards "the early days", the gun tanks arrived with effectively zero mileage or barely any on the clock.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
"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
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#86

Post by ClintHardware » 02 Dec 2016, 09:56

MarkN wrote: The 5 May werkstatt report does NOT, I repeat NOT, state how many were repaired by 5 May and returned to operational status.
Your claim Mark is wrong. It is an aggregate report and not a report of activity on/during the 5th May

In addition some of those repaired may have entered the werkstatt more than once - the report does not exclude that possibility. It is a report of types of repairs probably produced to explain the continuous repair work undertaken by the werkstatt by a certain date.

Why do you claim otherwise with any certainty?
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#87

Post by MarkN » 02 Dec 2016, 12:26

Oh dear! Here we go again....
ClintHardware wrote:
MarkN wrote: The 5 May werkstatt report does NOT, I repeat NOT, state how many were repaired by 5 May and returned to operational status.
Your claim Mark is wrong. It is an aggregate report and not a report of activity on/during the 5th May
I never claimed it was. You really do have problems reading and understanding English.
ClintHardware wrote: In addition some of those repaired may have entered the werkstatt more than once -
That is your invention to try and justify your claim that a significantly higher number were battle damaged than historically proven.
ClintHardware wrote: It is a report of types of repairs probably produced to explain the continuous repair work undertaken by the werkstatt by a certain date.

Why do you claim otherwise with any certainty?
Your claim was that the werkstatt report presents the number of tanks passing through the werkstatt by 5 May. My response is that it does not say that at all. It is a report dated 5 May explaining the scale of problems caused from the march forward across the desert. It does not say how many were returned back to operational status nor when.

Here it is again for you. Image

Where does it say how many were returned and when?
Where does it say that individual tanks came in more than once?
Where does it give any information on the scale of damage inflicted through combat?

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#88

Post by ClintHardware » 07 Dec 2016, 11:58

MarkN wrote:Oh dear! Here we go again....


Ah........hmmmm.....
MarkN wrote: Where does it say how many were returned and when?
Where does it say that individual tanks came in more than once?
Where does it give any information on the scale of damage inflicted through combat?
Agreed. It does not state how many were returned and when.

However, we also have several Incidents of the Dog not Barking in the Night because:

It does not exclude individual panzers being repaired more than once nor does it say they were.

It does not exclude combat damage - some of the suspension damage may also have been from combat damage or contributed to by combat damage.

It does not refer to or specifically identify internal damage repairs from spalling, partial penetrations and full penetrations.

It does not refer to or specifically identify damage from onboard fires.

It does not refer to or specifically identify damage to electrical systems.

It does not refer to armour plate patching.

It does not seem to include the "shattered" panzer on the 4th April - witnessed by Captain Constant 4th Field Squadron, R.E. - But this example would have had behind armour internal damage probably including every type of damage conceivable including at least one big plate patch. So if this panzer is not included you only have a partial report in terms of the whole situation in respect of Panzer Regiment 5.

Also it refers to 83 panzers out of 155 but it gives no operational status in respect of any of the 155. Were only 83 able to be repaired with what they had available?

Its not very comprehensive in terms of ruling out or ruling in.... is it?

This report is a pack of Dogs in the Night.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#89

Post by MarkN » 09 Dec 2016, 11:52

ClintHardware wrote:However, we also have several Incidents of the Dog not Barking in the Night because:

I have no idea what dogs have got to do with this - whether barking or not.
ClintHardware wrote: It does not exclude individual panzers being repaired more than once nor does it say they were.
It does not exclude combat damage - some of the suspension damage may also have been from combat damage or contributed to by combat damage.
It does not refer to or specifically identify internal damage repairs from spalling, partial penetrations and full penetrations.
It does not refer to or specifically identify damage from onboard fires.
It does not refer to or specifically identify damage to electrical systems.
It does not refer to armour plate patching.
It does not seem to include the "shattered" panzer on the 4th April - witnessed by Captain Constant 4th Field Squadron, R.E. - But this example would have had behind armour internal damage probably including every type of damage conceivable including at least one big plate patch. So if this panzer is not included you only have a partial report in terms of the whole situation in respect of Panzer Regiment 5.
I does not include any of those things nor an infinite number of other possibilities. And why should it? It is a document written, it seems, to explain the difficulties they were experiencing due to to desert conditions and to try to justify what appeared to be a poor showing of tanks on the front line.

Nevertheless, despite it being of limited scope, it is an interesting report because it explains where more than half of the tanks were when 5.leichte reached Tobruk with just 25 'fit' tanks. It is the document that you should be using to explain why such a small number were present on 11 April. All you have to do now is research where the remaining 72 were.
ClintHardware wrote: Also it refers to 83 panzers out of 155 but it gives no operational status in respect of any of the 155. Were only 83 able to be repaired with what they had available?
The document states 83 pantsers were taken into workshop between 2-11 April due to serious damage caused by desert conditions. The seriousness of the problems would seem to indicate they were probably still all in workshop on 11th, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some had been turned-round.

It does not state how many were taken into workshops prior to 2 April and were still being held therein. We know from Schorm that his company was already down on a few tanks prior to starting the desert bashing.
It does not state how many were taken into workshops during the same period but reasons other than desert bashing. I have no doubt some were.
It does not state how many were inoperational due to the desert and which had still not made it to workshop by 11 April. Given the scale of the problem, some may still not have been recovered by the 11th from their desert parking. Also, when did the reinforced lei.kp that routed via Benghazi and er Regima rejoin the main force? Was it before or after 11 April?
...and on and on...

The first paragraph makes it clear that the 83 refers soley to those falling out because of the desert between 2-11 April.
The second paragraph indicates that 44 Pz.III suffered engine failure and probably all needed 'new' engines installed - as well as 14 other tanks.
The fourth paragraph gives details of suspension problems experienced on the very same tanks. It also contains one reference to non-desert damage.
ClintHardware wrote: Its not very comprehensive in terms of ruling out or ruling in.... is it?
Why should it? It was not written to help you understand the tank state and make money from your books. It was a basic report trying to explain just how severe the desert had taken a toll on the tanks.
ClintHardware wrote: This report is a pack of Dogs in the Night.
If this has any relevance, perhaps you could explain.

To summarise.
The document tells us with some certainty that of the 155 pantsers (inc. the 7 command tanks), 83 were not present infront of Tobruk's gates on 11 April due damage inflicted by the desert.

The difference is 72. If your objective is to ascertain the number of likely battle damage casualties, then you ought to be directing your effort into placing those 72 rather than trying to inflate the number by arguing that some of the 83 desert casualties were battle damaged or double entry bookeeping.

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

#90

Post by ClintHardware » 11 Dec 2016, 13:41

Your points are well made but:

The translation of the report is as limited as its contents, however, since Jentz's book came out in 1997 some have referred to it as indicating no battle damage.

It refers to the total of 155 panzers of all types that we know were landed in Tripoli but it does so in a way that can be understood as though none of those were destroyed or awaiting combat damage repair because it lacks any direct reference to those issues (the Dogs). One example is the shattered panzer from the 4th April at Er Regima, and another is that of Lentnant Zorn's Panzer IV which was penetrated through the belly plate at Mechili during the 8th April and only Zorn was able to bale out despite his broken leg. Both would seem to have internal damage at least.

In addition, although the translation of the report seems to refer to the period of the hurried advance to Tobruk as being when most of the mechanical damage (perhaps with some contributing combat damage to but not referred to) occurred to the point of needing the werkstatt's assistance, it does not state when those repairs were made during the days prior to, or including, the 5th May.

It is a factual and reliable report as far as it goes but it is a pack of dogs not barking.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”