Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
AdrianE
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Jun 2007 22:07
Location: Ottawa

Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by AdrianE » 13 Jun 2013 03:42

Does anyone have any details about the amount of shipping used to transport DAK to Africa between February and May 1941?

Vincent O'Hara's book "Struggle for the Middle Sea" says 60 freighter loads were required to move one German armored division.

Sadkovich's "Italian Navy in WWII" says 25 convoys were required while giving examples of 4 or 5 ship convoys.
These are the only two references I've run across (in English anyway).

Neither gives any details of the relative sizes of the merchant ships used. The Italians seem to have used every thing from 1000grt small freighters to 19,000grt cruise ships in the effort to supply Libya.

Alternatively if anyone has the similar details for moving 10th Panzer to Tunisia, that would help.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by mescal » 13 Jun 2013 11:03

I don't have a complete list (yet ... I'm currently gathering data on this topic).

Here is an incomplete listing of merchant ships which took part in the transfer of the DAK to Tripoli :
ADANA (4205grt)
AEGINA (2447grt)
ALICANTE (2140grt)
AMSTERDAM (8673grt)
ANDREA GRITTI (6338grt)
ANKARA (4768grt)
ARCTURUS (2596grt)
ARTA (2452grt)
CASTELLON (2086grt)
GALILEA (8040grt)
HERAKLEA (1927grt)
KYBFELS (7764grt)
MARBURG (7564grt)
MARTIZA (2910grt)
MENES (5609grt)
REICHENFELS (7744grt)
RIALTO (6099grt)
RUHR (5954grt)
SABAUDIA (1590grt)
SAMOS (2576grt)
SEBASTINO VENIER (6311grt)
WACHTFELS (8467grt)

You may find a lot of information on http://naval-history.net and http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/.
You won't find any list on those websites, but many ships are named in the narrative.
Olivier

AdrianE
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Jun 2007 22:07
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by AdrianE » 22 Jun 2013 20:30

mescal wrote:I don't have a complete list (yet ... I'm currently gathering data on this topic).


You may find a lot of information on http://naval-history.net and http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/.
You won't find any list on those websites, but many ships are named in the narrative.
Thank you very much. Seekreig is very useful.

I think you can add Leverkrusen (7386grt) to your list.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Urmel » 09 Jul 2013 16:00

Here the initial transports in February and March:

1. Staffel 8 Feb 41 (back in Naples 18 Feb, so 10-day roundtrip):
Ankara
Arcturus
Alicante

2. Staffel 12 Feb 41
Kybfels
Adana
Aegina
Ruhr

3. Staffel 17 Feb 41
Menes (torpedoed and damaged on return journey)
Arta
Maritza
Herakleia

4. Staffel 23 Feb 41:
Ankara
Marburg
Reichenfels
Kybfels

5. Staffel 25 Feb 41:
Leverkusen
Wachtfels
Alicante
Arcturus

6. Staffel 1 Mar 41:
Castellon
Ruhr
Maritza
Amsterdam (ital. not sure whether she carried German load)

7. Staffel
Adana
Aegina
Arta
Herakleia
Sabaudia (ital?) as supply ship attached

8. Staffel 5 Mar 41
Ankara
Marburg
Reichenfels
Kybfels

9. Staffel 7 Mar 41:
Alicante
Arcturus
Wachtfels

10. Staffel 12 Mar 41
Castelleon
Ruhr
Maritza
Leverkusen (this was after the famous fire which caused the loss of 13 tanks, according to WD CO Naval Transport)

11. Staffel 14 Mar 41
Adana
Aegina
Herakleia
Galilea
Arta (supply ship)

13. Staffel 19 Mar 41
Arcturus
Wachtfels
Santa Fe
Procida

14. Staffel 22 Mar 41
Alicante
Leverkusen
Castelleon
Maritza

15. Staffel 26 Mar 41:
Adana
Herakleia (sunk by submarine of Tunisian coast, 69 out of 206 soldiers on board lost)
Ruhr (damaged by submarine of Tunisian coast)
Galilea (damaged by submarine on return journey, beached in Tripoli)
Samos (supply ship)

16. Staffel
Ankara (30 Mar from Palermo)
Reichenfels (dto)
Marburg (29 March from Naples)
Kybfels (dto)
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

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Urmel » 10 Jul 2013 11:04

Corrected and expanded version of the above:

http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/20 ... th-africa/
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

AdrianE
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Jun 2007 22:07
Location: Ottawa

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by AdrianE » 23 Jul 2013 03:22

That's very interesting

It seems to me like that adds up to approximately 285,800 grt of shipping used to move a light division and DAK HQ and corps troops with another approximately 49,000 grt of shipping used to move supplies in February and March 1941.

Either the DAK HQ was very bulky or the Germans were really inefficient at loading ships.

IIRC Overy wrote in "Why the Allies won" that an American division required 250,000 tons of shipping to move. I would have expected the smaller light division to require less shipping not more. Anyone have any thoughts on why it took so much shipping?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Urmel » 23 Jul 2013 09:33

From the information I have seen for autumn 41, ships were only about half loaded. This is commented upon in the Italian navy's OH. It may have been related to port capacity in Tripolis, and the need to ensure quick turn-around. I would guess it was similar earlier in the year.
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

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Urmel » 24 Jul 2013 15:33

Another point on the above. The Corps troops were of course not insubstantial.

Pz.Jg.Abt.605
Flak regiments 18 and 33 (or elements thereof)
Fla.M.G.Btl. 606
Res.Fla. 814
Supply columns

The convoys also carried Luftwaffe units and materials.
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

Dili
Member
Posts: 1966
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 22:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Dili » 27 Jul 2013 19:20

I don't think that ships half loaded had anything with port capacity.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Urmel » 27 Jul 2013 19:49

Why?
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

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 28 Jul 2013 04:23

mescal wrote:Here is an incomplete listing of merchant ships which took part in the transfer of the DAK to Tripoli :
ADANA (4,205 grt)
AEGINA (2,447 grt)
ALICANTE (2,140 grt)
AMSTERDAM (8,673 grt)
ANDREA GRITTI (6,338 grt)
ANKARA (4,768 grt)
ARCTURUS (2,596 grt)
ARTA (2,452 grt)
CASTELLON (2,086 grt)
GALILEA (8,040 grt)
HERAKLEA (1,927 grt)
KYBFELS (7,764 grt)
MARBURG (7,564 grt)
MARTIZA (2,910 grt)
MENES (5,609 grt)
REICHENFELS (7,744 grt)
RIALTO (6,099 grt)
RUHR (5,954 grt)
SABAUDIA (1,590 grt)
SAMOS (2,576 grt)
SEBASTINO VENIER (6,311 grt)
WACHTFELS (8,467 grt)
So, these ships carried the HQ of DAK with two panzer divisions, one motorized division plus corps troops...? Panzers, half-tracks, trucks, jeeps, trailers, mortars, towed guns (AT and AA), SP guns, ammunition and land mines (all kinds), infantry weapons including machine guns, supplies (spare parts, water, fuel, medical), tents, signals equipment and troops...

Dili
Member
Posts: 1966
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 22:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Dili » 08 Aug 2013 20:43

I don't think that ships half loaded had anything with port capacity.
It means you can send less ships, full with same cargo isn't it?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Urmel » 08 Aug 2013 21:05

nebelwerferXXX wrote:
mescal wrote:Here is an incomplete listing of merchant ships which took part in the transfer of the DAK to Tripoli :
ADANA (4,205 grt)
AEGINA (2,447 grt)
ALICANTE (2,140 grt)
AMSTERDAM (8,673 grt)
ANDREA GRITTI (6,338 grt)
ANKARA (4,768 grt)
ARCTURUS (2,596 grt)
ARTA (2,452 grt)
CASTELLON (2,086 grt)
GALILEA (8,040 grt)
HERAKLEA (1,927 grt)
KYBFELS (7,764 grt)
MARBURG (7,564 grt)
MARTIZA (2,910 grt)
MENES (5,609 grt)
REICHENFELS (7,744 grt)
RIALTO (6,099 grt)
RUHR (5,954 grt)
SABAUDIA (1,590 grt)
SAMOS (2,576 grt)
SEBASTINO VENIER (6,311 grt)
WACHTFELS (8,467 grt)
So, these ships carried the HQ of DAK with two panzer divisions, one motorized division plus corps troops...? Panzers, half-tracks, trucks, jeeps, trailers, mortars, towed guns (AT and AA), SP guns, ammunition and land mines (all kinds), infantry weapons including machine guns, supplies (spare parts, water, fuel, medical), tents, signals equipment and troops...
No, not really. They carried Corps HQ, Corps troops, one reduced Panzer division, and one Panzer division, as well as Luftwaffe equipment.
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

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by Urmel » 08 Aug 2013 21:06

Dili wrote:
I don't think that ships half loaded had anything with port capacity.
It means you can send less ships, full with same cargo isn't it?
I am wondering about discharge speed/port throughput.
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

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

Re: Shipping used to move DAK to Africa in 41

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 09 Aug 2013 13:13

Just a comparison: Before the start of the Second battle of El Alamein in 1942, six American ships delivered 300 Sherman tanks and 100 SP 105-mm guns to the British. Enough to equipped two Allied armored divisions.

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”