This discussion spans a number of threads but this thread seems to be the most appropriate topic-wise.
ClintHardware wrote:MarkN wrote: Bollbrinker's I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5.
Ernst Bolbrinker's I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 did not leave the Tobruk area and is not mentioned by Taysen as doing so. Why would Taysen have missed this? Other statements made post war are unclear on this point and appear to be conflating units and their nomenclature.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 9#p2114789
The DAK KTB Ia states I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 motored forward in 16 May.
The 5.lei-Div KTB Ia states I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 motored forward in 16 May.
The draft II.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 implies I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 motored forward in 16 or 17 May.
You'd have to ask Taysen why he chose not to mention this.
The only conflation I have seen of units and nomenclature is by you.
****
It all started here (my bold and underline)...
ClintHardware wrote:I have just re-consulted Panzertruppen Vol 1 for data about Brevity Skorpian and Battleaxe and the data is even bleaker for Panzer Regiment 5:
1) Panzer Abteilung Hohmann had 27 operational panzers to face Operation BREVITY.
2) I. Panzer Regiment 5 did not join Hohmann (panzer numbers unknown at this point for this I. Abteilung) for BREVITY.
3) I. Panzer Regiment 8 (not 5) did join the battle to some extent by 0300 hours 16/5/41.
4) 26/5/41 I. Panzer Regiment 5 was available for Operation SKORPIAN numbers unstated.
5) Panzer Regiment 5 had arrived in Libya less the 10 Pz III and 3 Pz IV lost in the Leverkusen incident but replacements arrive in April.
6) Another 15 Pz III and 5 Pz IV arrive for Panzer Regiment 5 by 4th June.
7) 15th June Panzer Regiment 5 has only 96 operational panzers.
So if you take away all 33 replacements by 4th June this indicates that by the
15th June Panzer Regiment 5 was down to 63 original panzers from those landed at Tripoli and engaged in the advance on Tobruk.
I do not know if any panzers were lent to the Panzer Regiment 5 from Panzer Regiment 8 (probably not) but if so the constructive total loss is even greater for Panzer Regiment 5 than I had calculated.
My next book will be on BREVITY, SKORPIAN AND BATTLEAXE and there seems to be a whole wealth of things not said about those three battles when you read between the lines of Panzertruppen Vol 1.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 5#p1807215
...and continues because of your determination not to accept you've got it wrong and that your claims of Pz.Regt.5 'losses' do not add up.
This thread (
I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen) was started by you to try and prove the unproveable.
ClintHardware wrote:If the panzers on the 17th were from Pz.Regt.8 the situation for I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 at Tobruk looks grimmer still unless it was another regiment's turn.
Nonsense!
ClintHardware wrote: Only about nine panzers were seen to attack on the 17th ...
1) Rommel's orders (or his staff's handiwork) for Unternehmen Landau (the effort on and around 15-17 May) show a zug Pz.III and a single, specially converted "
Gr. Pioniere" - a Pz.I with a flame thrower in place of a machine-gun. That latter tank was from stab/Pz.Regt.5. The zug's pantsers could have been from I. or II./Pz.Regt.5 or Pz.Regt.8. Or they could have been an
adhoc collection of pantsers out of werkstatt. Does it matter? Nevertheless, that's 6 pantsers not 9.
The 5.lei-Div KTB Ia states the following "
Gefechtsstarke" for Bollbrinker's I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 on 13 May : 1./I, 12./II, 17./III and 5./IV. That's 36 pantsers in total a few days before.
ClintHardware wrote:... and yet they were supporting some significant German counter attacks in terms of infantry during the 16th/17th and during the day of the 17th. The Australian attacks were a golden opportunity for the Axis troops to either break through and take Tobruk or eliminate significant numbers of the attackers/defenders to set up a later attempt - and yet they failed to do so.
Unternehmen Landau was based around 3 Stosstruppe causing a bit of bother and trying to grab a stongpoint or two. The 3 Strosstruppe combined totalled less than 150 troops. Hardly going to take Tobruk with that force!!!
ClintHardware wrote:The panzers within the Australian infantry positions (S8, S9, S10, S7 and S6 etc) had very little effect according to the Australians and it was the schutzen who played the key role in attacking them.
Mostly it was
pioniere not
schutzen.
ClintHardware wrote: There had been at least 14 days to make repairs with what had been left by Hohmann with I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5. Hohmann had a massive 47 panzers out of the possible 155 in a firefight on the 12th May on the frontier. Numbers were around that number for the 15th May at the frontier.
Hohmann went forward with the fit pantsers of II.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 and a single (or was it a pair) of Pz.IV borrowed from I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5. The einsatzbereit of II.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 fluctuated as tanks broke down, got repaired and motored forward out of werkstatt (see Schorm).
On 12 May, Bollbrinker's I.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 was still by Tobruk (he had 36 pantsers on 13th May) as was stab/Pz.Regt.5 with an unknown number of pantsers to their credit. Several other pantsers had been loaned out to Italian units (see my notes above). Many pantsers were still in werkstatt have work done on them.
Hohmann may well have had 47 fit pantsers on the 12th. But 47 pantsers is NOT the total number of pantsers credited to the entire Pz.Regt.5 on 12 May.
63 pantsers is NOT the total number of 'original' pantsers remaining with Pz.Regt.5 on June.
I do not expect, or even ask, you to accept any of the above. Over the past couple of years, you have demonstrated on numerous occasion your determination not to accept any historical facts that do not suit your personal ahistorical narrative. I don't see why that will change now. I post this for the benefit of others and historical accuracy.