I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#16

Post by MarkN » 02 Oct 2017, 17:23

Brevity wrote: The number of Pz. III runners is surprisingly low. Do you have info about any other detached tanks?
Had a read of the days before and after the 13 May einsatzbereit.

12 May: 3 Pz (unspecified type) detached to Italian Btn at Bir bu Assaten as they were being bothered by English armd cars.
15 May: 2 Pz.II detached to 'ein Unternehmen auf Bir el Gubi'.
15 May: 3 Pz.III detached to Pz.Abt from Ariete Div that was coming under command 5.le-Div once I./Pz.Regt.5 was sent forward to Sollum.
16 May: I./Pz.Regt.5 sent forward to Sollum
20 May: 5 Pz (unspecified type) of 'verbliebenen Komp. Oblt.Sandrock' goes forward to join I./Pz.Regt.5 near Sollum. It does not state whether these 5 pantsers are separate from those mentionned above or the very same. However, wasn't Sandrock OC 4.kp with Pz.IV? I can't remember.

And, off the top of my head (sorry in a rush so unable to go back and check exact date) it mentions around this time that stab/Pz.Regt.5 also had a few pantsers undercommand as part of Gp Kircheim.

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#17

Post by MarkN » 03 Oct 2017, 14:25

Here is the entry concerning Stab/Pz.Regt.5. It is rthe last entry for 9 May.

Image


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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#18

Post by MarkN » 06 Oct 2017, 15:56

Further reference to both Stab/Pz.Regt.5 and I./Pz.Regt.5 operating separately to one another and II./Pz.Regt.5 post 1 May assault can be found in the draft KTB for II./Pz.Regt.5.

The excerpts detailing this have already been posted up on AHF - albeit misidentified as being extracts from the Regimental KTB. Here: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=211558

Tom Gale
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Feb 2017, 19:33
Location: Hampshire

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#19

Post by Tom Gale » 07 Oct 2017, 08:33

MarkN wrote:5.lei-Div KTB Ia notes I./PzRegt.5 ordered and moving forward to Sollum area 16 May 1941.

It also notes for 13 May 1941 the following Gefechtstärke for I./Pz.Rgt. 5: 1./I, 12./II, 17./III and 5./IV. It is not entirely clear whether this includes or excludes the various detatchments of small numbers of panzers that it had 'loaned' to various Italian units and formations.
MarkN can you give us the relevant KTB statement in its original text please. I am curious as to why others have not relied on it, including Taysen.

This would be in respect of the 15th/16th May.

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#20

Post by MarkN » 24 Dec 2017, 18:22

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.

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#21

Post by ClintHardware » 27 Dec 2017, 00:02

MarkN wrote:This discussion spans


I thank you for taking the time to answer this Mark even though your answer is in a different but related thread. To have proper credibility you should have answered Ton Gale's request for the original text of the KTB you are relying upon.

At the moment I stand by the lack of evidence that I./Pz.Regt.5 did move from Tobruk during Brevity and that there has probably been conflation of units in the DAK KTB due to names and nomenclature. In addition the Lexikon website page for Panzer Regiment 5 states that the regiment remained at Tobruk. We know Hohmann was at the frontier (with the magnificent 47 less at least one with its turret shot away on the 12th May) so I am not relying on the Lexikon's description.... but even the Lexikon is not with you.

Now please help Tom Gale with his patient request.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#22

Post by MarkN » 27 Dec 2017, 12:29

ClintHardware wrote: At the moment I stand by the lack of evidence that I./Pz.Regt.5 did move from Tobruk during Brevity ...
Lack of evidence???

1) DAK KTB states an abt./Pz.Regt.5 being sent forward on 16 May 1941. Since we know II./Pz.Regt.5 is already there, it must be refering to I./Pz.Regt.5.
2) 5.lei-Div KTB positively identifies I./Pz.Regt.5 being sent forward on 16 May 1941. There are several references in this document positively identifying I./Pz.Regt.5 in the Sollum area in this timeframe, but I am counting it as a single piece of evidence.
3) Draft II.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 KTB positively identifies I./Pz.Regt.5 in the Capuzzo area by 18 May 1941.

On the otherhand, you have what exactly to positively identify I./Pz.Regt.5 remaining in the Tobruk area during this timeframe? Anything?
ClintHardware wrote: ... and that there has probably been conflation of units in the DAK KTB due to names and nomenclature.
There is no conflation in the DAK KTB. The DAK KTB tells it how it happened. The conflation is all of YOUR doing to try and dismiss the primary evidence that 'proves' your ahistorical narrative is nonsense.
ClintHardware wrote: In addition the Lexikon website page for Panzer Regiment 5 states that the regiment remained at Tobruk.
Despite the majority of its pantsers being in the forward area around Sollum-Capuzzo during Op Brevity, Lexikon website is technically correct as stab/Pz.Regt.5 remained in the Tobruk area throughout under command of Gruppe Kircheim. It returned to 5.lei-Div command on 22 May and remained in the Tobruk area.

However, with a closer examination of the 5.lei-Div KTB Ia, in addition to stab/Pz.Regt.5 remaining in the Tobruk area, "1 schwache Komp. unter Oblt. Sandrock" also stayed back "beweglich zur Verfuegung" to 5.lei-Div. As noted in an earlier post above, 5 pantsers (of unspecified type(s)) of this "verbliebenen Komp." were sent forward to join I./Pz.Regt.5 near Sollum. Yet again, I./Pz.Regt.5 is positively identified as being forward in the Sollum area.

The 5.lei-Div KTB Ia also clearly states when the two Abt. were ordered to return from the Sollum area, when this move happened and how they were subsequently redisposed. It even gives a Gef.Staerke for I./Pz.Regt.5 on its return.
ClintHardware wrote: We know Hohmann was at the frontier (with the magnificent 47 less at least one with its turret shot away on the 12th May) so I am not relying on the Lexikon's description.... but even the Lexikon is not with you.
As written above, Lexikon is with the DAK KTB, the 5.lei-Div KTB and the draft II.Abt/Pz.Regt.5 KTB. I am merely relaying onwards what is written in those primary documents.

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#23

Post by ClintHardware » 29 Dec 2017, 13:19

[quote="MarkN] The conflation is all of YOUR doing to try and dismiss the primary evidence that 'proves' your ahistorical narrative is nonsense.
[/quote]

Your comments are personal and seriously wild. I will always include two, three, four or more versions where there is doubt. All versions of events interest me and are welcomed with evidence.

I am not yet sure you have proved your point here in respect of the evidence. Tom Gale might have other ideas.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#24

Post by ClintHardware » 29 Dec 2017, 13:32

MarkN wrote: The conflation is all of YOUR doing to try and dismiss the primary evidence that 'proves' your ahistorical narrative is nonsense.
Your comments are personal and seriously wild. I will always include two, three, four or more versions where there is doubt. All versions of events interest me and are welcomed with evidence.

I am not yet sure you have proved your point here in respect of the evidence. Tom Gale might have other ideas.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

Tom Gale
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Feb 2017, 19:33
Location: Hampshire

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#25

Post by Tom Gale » 31 Dec 2017, 23:44

Hi MarkN

To clear this up properly can you give us (the 100 who seem to dip into this topic) the photos of the relevant KTB sections you are relying on please. The three relevant items and their KTBs seem to be:

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.

I have to say I can see why there is still doubt in this post, and you have the documents so please be helpful this time.

On another point I was surprised that you added some 90 links to photos in the new Kampfgruppe topic on this board when one link to the pdf would have done. I have just added that link to that topic.

So can I/we have just three or more photos to resolve this topic please. I shall watch with interest.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#26

Post by Urmel » 08 Jan 2018, 13:06

90 links to photos? Where?
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#27

Post by MarkN » 08 Jan 2018, 15:06

Tom Gale wrote: To clear this up properly can you give us ...
To "clear this up properly" you would first need to have the poster using the login clinthardware provide a reference to I./Pz.Regt.5 being anywhere other than where the various KTBs say they were. Perhaps you could have a quiet word in his shell-like. It is rather telling as to your motives and standards that you have not already done this.
Tom Gale wrote:I have to say I can see why there is still doubt in this post, ...
In the absence of any evidence at all from the poster using the login clinthardware to contradict the KTBs, you cannot be doubting the 'balance' of evidence presented.

It seems you have decided that 'his' assumptions and conclusions are correct and your "doubt" is whether I am making up and inventing what I am reading in the KTBs. Well, carry on doubting. I will not be losing any sleep over the matter.

Given your apparent conviction that my evidence is faulty, perhaps you could produce the evidence that you have that contradicts the KTBs. I mean, it would save us having to wait for the poster using the login clinthardware, wouldn't it?
Tom Gale wrote:I shall watch with interest.
Interest and ever increasing frustration I suspect.

As I said, to "clear this up properly" you would first need to present evidence that contradicts the KTBs. Evidence that explicitly or implicitly places I./Pz.Regt.5 other than where the KTBs state. Eyewitness accounts of 'tanks' here and there do not evidence in any way where I./Pz.Regt.5 was.

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#28

Post by ClintHardware » 10 Jan 2018, 12:00

Mark
Page 162 of Playfair also only mentions a battalion from Panzer Regiment 8.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#29

Post by MarkN » 10 Jan 2018, 14:44

ClintHardware wrote:Page 162 of Playfair also only mentions a battalion from Panzer Regiment 8.
Not true.

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

Re: I. Panzer-Regiment 5 nicht vollständig rollen

#30

Post by nmao » 10 Jan 2018, 15:51

Hello.
From the online version at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/U ... d-2-8.html
page 160
"Colonel Herff prepared to give ground on the frontier, but first ordered a counter-attack by 2nd Battalion 5th Panzer Regiment."
[...]
"But General Rommel soon gauged the British strength more shrewdly and ordered Herff to make an early counter-attack; a reinforcement of one battalion of tanks would reach him by dawn."

page 161
"The first of the German tank reinforcements—1st Battalion 8th Panzer Regiment—reached Sidi Azeiz at about 3 a.m. on the 16th. It then ran out of petrol and was unable to move until 5 p.m. Colonel Herff began his advance from Capuzzo in the early afternoon."

page 162
"By this time the Germans had three battalions of tanks on the frontier—some 160 in all—but were unable to use them to any great distance owing to shortage of fuel. On 26th May Colonel Herff began an operation designed to bluff the British by a display of force into giving up the plateau above the escarpment."
and from Jentz:
page 139
"DAK KTB 16 May 1941"
[...]
"At 0630 hours, Capuzzo was occupied by a platoon of
light Panzers. Rommel decided to send a Kampfgruppe
under the command of General v. Esebeck as further rein-
forcements to the Sollum Front through Gasr el Abid-Gabr
Saleh. The Kampfgruppe was organized with a Schuetzen-
Bataillon, a mittlere Panzer-Kompanie (minus one Zug),
the l.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 5
, a Panzer-Jaeger-
Kompanie, and an ArtilIerie-Abteilung (minus one Batterie)."

page 146
"The forces assembled for Operation Skorpion to retake
Halfaya Pass were organized as:
• Panzergruppe Cramer: with the I. und II.AbteiIung/
Panzer-Regiment 5 and l.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment
8
• Gruppe Bach: l.Bataillon/Schuetzen-Regiment 104
• Stossgruppe Knabe: Kradschuetzen-Bataillon 15
and 1./Artillerie-Regiment 33
• Gruppe Wechmar: AufkIaerung-Abteilung 3 without
heavy weapons."
Regards,

-Nuno

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”