1942 5cm Pak in 90. leichte Division (mot.) ?

[Dili]

I'm not aware that the pre-CRUSADER organisation was for three armoured battalions.

After CRUSADER they had a manpower problem, given the very substantial losses they suffered (e.g. the whole of I./104 going in the bag, SR 115 left with three companies of effectives), and they realised that infantry wasn't what wins you a battle in the desert.

Are you including the MG bn's as "armoured battalion"?

I prefer to use motorized , 3 bn in schutzen regiment only appeared after Crusader afaik , i don't think the MG bn were put inside the schutzen, still afaik . The losses of Crusader forced the disbanding of both MG bn and the motorcycle bn but made possible to have 3 bn in Schützen-Regiment of both Pz.divisions.

[Dili]

i think the schutzen regiment as it arrived should be like this:

taken from table 16 from here http://www.panzergrenadier.org/regiment1f.html

[Urmel]

I'm not aware that the pre-CRUSADER organisation was for three armoured battalions.

After CRUSADER they had a manpower problem, given the very substantial losses they suffered (e.g. the whole of I./104 going in the bag, SR 115 left with three companies of effectives), and they realised that infantry wasn't what wins you a battle in the desert.

Are you including the MG bn's as "armoured battalion"?

I prefer to use motorized , 3 bn in schutzen regiment only appeared after Crusader afaik , i don't think the MG bn were put inside the schutzen, still afaik . The losses of Crusader forced the disbanding of both MG bn and the motorcycle bn but made possible to have 3 bn in Schützen-Regiment of both Pz.divisions.

No. You missed the major change. They added another tank battalion to make it three. So the ratio of tank to infantry goes up.

[Dili]

Okay you into tanks, i have only 1 more company to each tank battalion ordered by August 41 but only effective in January 1942, it is what i have in my notes.
I have no third battalion into any of Panzer divisions. The end result is like you said more tanks but no third battalion.
You talking about third battalion also made me think you were still in infantry subject.

[Alanmccoubrey]

No. You missed the major change. They added another tank battalion to make it three. So the ratio of tank to infantry goes up.

You have confused me here, just who added another tank battalion ? The Germans never had any three tank battalion regiments in North Africa.

[Urmel]

No. You missed the major change. They added another tank battalion to make it three. So the ratio of tank to infantry goes up.

You have confused me here, just who added another tank battalion ? The Germans never had any three tank battalion regiments in North Africa.

They added another thank battalion in the proposal for a reorg made by 15.PD after CRUSADER. This was never instituted. My point was that the German conclusion from CRUSADER was that rather than having a balanced armoured formation, they were weak on tanks.

[Gary Kennedy]

I had a minor revisit of the subject of available Afrika-Korps organisation details and remembered why I'd never looked into them too deeply; they can be summed up as consistently contradictory.

The Gliederung charts on Sturmpanzer for late 1942 would normally give an outline of the support weapons available to the infantry units, from which you can try and match it to an appropriate KStN, unless you have the raising or reorganisation orders for the unit involved. A lot of these are blank in respect of that detail, but there are a few for 90. le. Div.

One of these credits the Div with three Regts (155, 200 and 361), each with two Mot Bns, each of HQ and four Coys. The Mot Coys show 18 LMGs, 2 HMGs, 2 mortars (8-cm), 1 heavy atk rifle and 6 atk guns. These latter guns look to be of the 7,5cm type rather than 5cm calibre, or their equivalent from captured stocks. Note that this does not tally precisely with KStN 1114 (Afrika) of Apr42, which authorised 18 LMG, 2 HMG, 3 mortars (8cm), 3 heavy atk rifles (SPzB41) and 6 atk guns (7,62-cm K r). I cannot offer any suggestion for the difference.

Rich mentioned 164 Div as bearing similarity to the alternative Mot Inf Coy I described (138f of Dec42). Their Gliederung shows Mot Bns of four Coys, each with 18 LMG, 2 HMG, 2 mortars (8cm), 3 heavy atk rifles and 6 atk guns (which again look to be in the 7.5-cm bracket). So again close, but no cigar, in terms of getting a match with a KStN. (As an aside I recalled seeing a note for the KStN for a modified Regtl Staff Coy, which looks to relate to Bns on 138f. This refers to Inf Regt 47, which has a Gliederung entry that actually matches the 138f KStN details. Whoo-hoo.).

Now my passion for unit organisation research aside, I am well aware that what units were authorised and what they actually had, even before attrition of men and equipment begins, could and did vary considerably. When it comes to the DAK I think I long ago formed the opinion that their divergence from any KStN they were supposed to be on was extreme.

I recalled seeing something from the old Nafziger lists on the subject of DAK Panzer Divs. There is this description from late 1942 particular to 90. le. Div. Note I always get a certificate expired warning when trying to pull up pages from the CARL website, who host the Nafziger lists, but I don't think it's an issue.

https://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/ ... 42GJMF.pdf

This is again at total variance with not only the narrow focus of a KStN, but also the outline Div org shown in the Gliederung. I certainly getting to a point where even I shook my head at the complexity of DAK unit organisation and just walked away from the subject. There was clearly a gulf between what they thought they needed and what they actually fielded.

Gary

[Dili]

Well i found that Nafziger link not much credible. Schützen-Regiment 155 with 3 battalions? the 3rd went to form the Rgt. 200. Was another raised in perennial infantry short Afrikakorps? Pz.Jg. 605 still with Pzjg IB in October 42?

[MarkN]

The Gliederung charts on Sturmpanzer for late 1942 would normally give an outline of the support weapons available to the infantry units, from which you can try and match it to an appropriate KStN, unless you have the raising or reorganisation orders for the unit involved. A lot of these are blank in respect of that detail, but there are a few for 90. le. Div.

Are you looking at the periodic OKH Kriegsgliederung des Feldheeres? Not always the most helpful - as I'm sure you've already come to understand.

Now my passion for unit organisation research aside, I am well aware that what units were authorised and what they actually had, even before attrition of men and equipment begins, could and did vary considerably. When it comes to the DAK I think I long ago formed the opinion that their divergence from any KStN they were supposed to be on was extreme.

Of all the formation records I've ever leafed through, 90.lei-Div has to have the most formation Kriegesgliederung extant. Which, no doubt, was a product of their experiences in the front line and constant changes to organisation. For example, just leafing through a couple of files covering 17Nov41 to 16Feb42, I came across 9 separate schematics for the division. I may have missed some as I clicked through the images. Various others existed for sub-formations and units. These were dated: 8Dec, 9Dec, 23Dec, 29Dec, 13Jan, 17Jan, 28Jan, 2Feb and 5Feb. Between these schematics were all sorts of documents describing authority to reorganise with what forces and what equipment etc etc.

This is again at total variance with not only the narrow focus of a KStN, but also the outline Div org shown in the Gliederung.

My simple/simplistic understanding is that KStN represent the theoretical organisation to deliver the most effective outcome. The OKH Kriegesgliederung represent the organisation of the formation that they have authorised to be built - and thus what they in Berlin thinks exists on the ground. Unit & formation level Kriegesgliederung represent either what the local commander has authorised or what they themselves were trying to build from resources available or the stand - how they actually looked.

Is your passion strong enough to go down to actuals or is directed principally at the theory?

For example, here is 23 December 1941




Edited to add
Hmmmm!
It seems AHF is no longer allowing us to embed images from a 3rd party imagehost. Click these links.
https://postimg.cc/image/xvr4coitn/
https://postimg.cc/image/bjtbjaz57/

[Dili]

For me i vote for Kriegsgliederung

[Dili]

Is it possible to get a bigger size, i was trying to list all weapons but the numbers are difficult to see.

III/347 seems to be something like this:

HQ? Co:
HMG : 4? 50AT :3
1st Inf coy:
-12 lmg(how many lmg per squads, any other paper that says it? or how many men?) , 4 leATR, 1 sATR, 6 M81, 3 37AT
2nd Inf coy:
-7 lmg ,2 leATR, 1 sATR, 3 37AT
3rd Inf. coy:
-7 lmg, 2 leATR, 1 sATR, 2 M81, 3 37AT

edit: i mixed up 37AT for HMG and some 37AT for 50AT , it is fixed now.

[Dili]

So number of AT(work in progress)

37 AT: 9 III/347, 10? 361IR(excluding Italian AT), 15? 155IR(including Daumiller?) , 4 in 900 Pio so 38 3,7cm PAK

50AT: 3 III/347, 3 361IR, 1 155IR

Are the image below for another period because it repeats the 155IR?

[Urmel]

Well i found that Nafziger link not much credible. Schützen-Regiment 155 with 3 battalions? the 3rd went to form the Rgt. 200. Was another raised in perennial infantry short Afrikakorps? Pz.Jg. 605 still with Pzjg IB in October 42?

Nafziger is completely unreliable in my view.

[Urmel]

Are the image below for another period because it repeats the 155IR?

Who knows. It's impossible to tell. It's got the same date. Maybe they lost some elements that day (note that PzJgr 605 goes from two to one coy).

I just went through the war diary, and it seems that during the day they were asked to detach some elements. So maybe they just issued this as an update.

[Dili]

---edit--