|
Post by quincannon on Dec 22, 2015 18:52:33 GMT
As a follow on to Dave.
The structure of U S Army units during WWII is a whole study unto itself. If you have a specific question I will try to answer it, but I am afraid that if I try to give you a quick and dirty, you would be very confused, as these things changed at least four time across the board from 39-45, and almost every unit had a variation in organization shared with no others.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 22, 2015 19:52:35 GMT
Dave, the German guns were big hitters mate, but that being said then if we stick to battle tanks only (not SPGs and stuff) then the average M4 Sherman or 57mm anti-tank gun would probably face a Pz Mk IV then either a Panther or a Tiger, people always go on about allied tanks getting shot up by Tigers that they seem to forget that the Germans only produced about 1.350 of them, and the vast majority of these were probably on the eastern front.
The main 88 was the Flak 36 which was a great tank killer but had a high silhouette, they tried to remedy this by making an anti-tank version called the Pak 43, but it was as heavy as hell.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 22, 2015 20:19:36 GMT
QC Thank you for all the information and suggestions you have posted. I will look into the books you mentioned. What was the average size of the squad, platoon, company, battalion, regiment and division of the 101st at Bastogne? Also a section, platoon, company, regiment of armored vehicles and the size of a battery of field artillery? Regards Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 22, 2015 20:25:08 GMT
Dave, the German guns were big hitters mate, but that being said then if we stick to battle tanks only (not SPGs and stuff) then the average M4 Sherman or 57mm anti-tank gun would probably face a Pz Mk IV then either a Panther or a Tiger, people always go on about allied tanks getting shot up by Tigers that they seem to forget that the Germans only produced about 1.350 of them, and the vast majority of these were probably on the eastern front. The main 88 was the Flak 36 which was a great tank killer but had a high silhouette, they tried to remedy this by making an anti-tank version called the Pak 43, but it was as heavy as hell. Yan. Yan Which German tank was used at Bastogne? The PznMk IV or Panther? The 75 mm cannon on the German tanks any different or better than the Americans 75 mm and 76 mm? Thank you for sharing with me. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 22, 2015 21:54:45 GMT
The problem with the 82nd and 101st is that neither one was "average" They had both been informally reconstructed in anticipation of the March 1945 revision in tables, plus both had an additional parachute (airborne) Infantry Regiment attached.
The typical airborne division had a strength of 8556. Neither were at that strength though, probably each down about a thousand. With the extra regiment attached the structured strength was about 10,000
The 101st was structured thusly
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 101st Airborne Division 326 Airborne Engineer Battalion 327th Glider Infantry Regiment (structured at 2 battalions, reinforced with 1st Battalion, 401st Gilder Infantry Regiment 1626 for two Bn Regt, so with 1/401 attached the327 was about 2200 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment (attached to the division prior to the Normandy invasion and remained attached until the cessation of hostilities. 2122 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment 2122 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment 2122 Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, Division Artillery 321st Glider Field Artillery Battalion (75mm Pack How) 366 12 guns 4 each in the 3 batteries 377th Glider Field Artillery Battalion (75mm Pack How) 366 ditto 907th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (75mm Pack How)536 ditto 81st Airborne Antiaircraft Battalion 326th Airborne Medical Company 101st Airborne Signal Company 801st Airborne Ordnance Light Maintenance Company 426th Airborne Quartermaster Company
The typical Infantry Division of the time was a little over 14,000 and with its usual attachments addred, somewhere just under 20,000
A combat command of an armored division of which there were two in Bastogne consisted of:
Headquarters and Headquarters Company 1 Tank Battalion 1 Armored Infantry Battalion 1 Self Propelled FA Battalion (18 105mm How) 1 Tank Destroyer Company 1 Cavalry Troop 1 Armored Engineer Combat Company About one third of the parent divisions logistics (repair, quartermaster, medical etc.
Note each combat command was tailored for the mission, and each division tailored them differently, especially the 4th Armored. What I gave you is the one you see most frequently. Figure on about 9 per A/B Infantry squad, 30-35 for an A/B Infantry platoon, and an A/B Rifle Company at 120 or so. There was only a Hqs Co and 3 rifle companies per battalion 1st Bn A-B-C, 2nd Bn D-E-F, 3rd Bn G-H-I
Much the same for the glider regiment except the only had two battalions A-B-C - D-E-F and 1st Bn 401st A-B-C
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 22, 2015 23:04:40 GMT
There probably needs a little more on this so you can truly understand.
When they were originally conceived and organized the airborne divisions were to have two glider regiments and one parachute regiment. Prior to moving overseas the 82nd dropped one of its glider regiments and added another parachute regiment (the 505th). They operated that way in Sicily and Italy. When the division left Italy it left the 504th PIR in place, and went to England to prepare for Normandy. There they picked up the 508th to replace the 504, and had the 507th attached for the invasion.
The 101 organized the same way with the 327 and 401st GIR and the 502nd PIR. When they went to England for the invasion they took all they had with them, plus the then attached 506 PIR. One in England they picked up the 501st PIR also attached. The 401st GIR regimental headquarters was disbanded. 1/401 went to reinforce the 327, and 2/401 moved over to the 82 and attached to the 325 GIR. When the 401st Hqs was disbanded the 506 was relieved from attachment and made part of the division.
The end result of this is for the invasion the 82nd had twelve maneuver battalion (3 glider - 9 parachute) under four regimental headquarters. The 101 had the exact same.
After the invasion the 507th was detached, and awaited the arrival in England of the 17th ABD. The 504th returned from Italy and rejoined the 82nd
Combat experience told these commanders that the as originally structured airborne divisions were weak sisters incapable of sustained combat. Of course they had never been envisioned for sustained combat. The original doctrine was for a quick hit, then out.
The theater commander gave them permission to restructure as they did as a stopgap. Meanwhile new tables were being drawn up increasing strength in the division by about 5000. The new tables envisioned much stronger regiments, all with three strong battalions. One was to be glider, and two parachute. The supporting arms and services were to be strengthened as well.
While the changes that Ridgeway, Gavin and Taylor made in the alignment of units was in effect and had been since D Day, there was no authorization to increase the strength. Taylor was in DC ironing this out when the 101 went to Bastogne. The tables would be published in March 1945, and the personnel and equipment faucet turned on. No one does anything in the U S Army unless it is authorized by a MTO&E, which is your basis and authorization to draw personnel and equipment.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 23, 2015 0:24:29 GMT
Chuck Thank you so much for the detailed info. It is a lot clearer and I understand (shakily) the organizational structures and that really helps make sense of what I am reading. For someone who is just visiting this will be a great draw. Sharing knowledge without ridicule or snickering is really nice. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 23, 2015 0:51:17 GMT
Dave, It seems you have gotten in 2 days, what it took the Army 4 years to put together. I am still stuck at individual, company level, and squad level.
Nice work guys!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 4:27:47 GMT
Tom what is it specifically you wish to know?
I have the full MTO&E's for every type unit in an Infantry division, with detail down to the squad level. My other stuff is not as detailed, but all of it goes down to the company, battery, and troop level.
Weapons system characteristics though should be addressed to Ian. He has done considerable work in that area over a long period of time.
The Bulge battles are the prime arena for the study of the U S Army in Europe 44-45. It has a bit of everything including the good, the bad, and the downright ugly. Believe it or not there is a connection to Custer, the LBH, and that era in general at well. We see for instance what throwing a unit together at the last minute, largely untrained, does to their ability in combat. We see examples of very poor leadership that lead to disasters far greater than LBH. But we also see what good leadership can accomplish in the face of overwhelming odds. We see armor the way it is meant to be used and exploited. We see Infantry make movements that are so rapid they make us completely rethink the role of Infantry on the battlefield. The Bulge is a well documented test tube of ground combat operations
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 23, 2015 10:43:45 GMT
Chuck,
The melding of units, RA and NG, good and bad units, good and bad commanders affected everyone down to the squad. There seems to have been a good deal of dead wood that had to be removed or replaced between Normandy and the crossing into Germany. I will have other questions, but for example, at what level did the action at Anzio fail and bog down and how? Was there a window early on where a breakout could have shortened the taking of Rome? Would it have expedited the Italian campaign?
Leaving now, will be back later today.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 23, 2015 12:10:51 GMT
Dave I think that a few different German divisions took in the battles around Bastogne, including infantry and Fallschirmjäger units, but the two main Panzer divisions was the 2nd Panzer and Panzer Lehr, here is some data (Chuck if you add to this data then please do);
2nd Panzer division AFV strength on the 14th December 1944 was; 64 Panthers 28 Mk IVs 24 StuGs (I still have to find what type) I know that some tanks were involved in the battles around Bastogne but I don’t know if they were Panthers or Pz Mk IVs, the StuGs were used though in attacks around Mageret.
Like the 2nd Panzer, Panzer Lehr division sent the bulk of its armour west to continue the advance, but it left Kampfgruppe Hauser behind to support the Volks grenadiers around Bastogne, KG Hauser consisted of Panzer Grenadier regiment 901st and one tank company from the 130th Panzer regiment (10 x Mk IVs) plus two batteries from the 130th Panzer Artillery regiment.
So if we say that all of these types of AFVs were used then we would have;
Panther: 75mm L/70 KwK 42 Gun Pz Mk IV: 75mm L/48 KwK 40 Gun StuG: 75mm L/48 StuK 40 Gun
Armour penetration:
75mm L/70 KwK 42 Gun PzGr.40/42 APCBC Round (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap) 111mm @ 1000m @ 30° 99mm @ 1500m @ 30° 89mm @ 2000m @ 30°
75mm L/48 Gun (KwK 40 & StuK 40): PzGr.40 APCBC Round (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap) 81mm @ 1000m @ 30° 72mm @ 1500m @ 30° 63mm @ 2000m @ 30°
So seeing that on average your standard M4 Sherman had a frontal armour of between 51mm to 76mm, you can work out just how effective these German guns were.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 23, 2015 14:14:01 GMT
Chuck I wonder if the Airborne Regiments were re-enforced because of their size in comparison to their infantry cousins, see the totals below and their structure, it is very different.
INFANTRY COMPANY (193 All Ranks) Company HQ: Command Group: Admin Group: - Weapons Platoon: Platoon HQ: LMG Section: Mortar Section: - Three Rifle Platoons: PLT HQ & Three Rifle Sections.
PARATROOP COMPANY (130 All Ranks): Company HQ: - Three Rifle Platoons: PLT HQ, Mortar Squad & Two Rifle Sections.
GLIDER COMPANY (148 All Ranks): Company HQ: - Weapons Platoon: Platoon HQ: LMG Section: Mortar Section: - Two Rifle Platoons: PLT HQ & Three Rifle Sections.
P.S. I remember being told off for posting stuff like this, so I feel the shackles are off, unless I am boring anyone with this stuff?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 23, 2015 16:24:20 GMT
Yan I am sorry that you have had troubles in the past about posting the armor information you have shared with me and the others. It is too bad if some don't want to learn but not this group. We are like thirsty sponges (no Sponge Bob jokes Tom) soaking up information about events and activities we wish to learn more about. You and QC have been wonderful for sharing y'alls information and expertise with me and I know others have enjoyed this thread also. Merry/Happy Christmas Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 16:26:48 GMT
You are correct. The small size required the 82 and 101 be beefed up for D Day, based upon the experience in Sicily which was a similar mission. They stayed that way, beefed up until the end of the war. The implementation of the March 1945 tables of organization, brought the regiments, both parachute and glider up to nearly the size of the regular Infantry regiment still keeping lighter equipment. By the 1949 reorganization the U S Airborne division was just another Infantry Division that could fly. It even had two tank battalion assigned as organic parts.
We designed in a place for non Centennial Campaign discussions such as these on purpose when the site was set up, knowing full well that people have other interests. Personally if someone comes here and wants to discuss, any battle except LBH, I don't give a damn. This is their place too. LBH is what brought all of us here together, but saying that it is the only reason for our existence, as the other boards try to do limits us greatly, and I think eventually drives people away. It then becomes a board for one subject only commandoes. Hope we can avoid that here, with a variety of subject matter options.
Tom: The Anzio story has long been plagued with the road to Rome from the beach being wide open. Lucas made the safe and correct choice. We probably could have gotten to Rome but we would have been completely cut up, cut off, and destroyed had we done so. Kesselring was bringing stuff up much faster than we could get ashore. We did not have the logistics in place on the beach to permit such a drive, and we had to take our lumps while the logistical base of VI Corps was built. Supplying from the sea is no easy task. Lucas was a weak sister, but the saying that Lucas was a weak sister is the reason we did not go straight to Rome is a complete error, stuff and nonsense. Truscott took over from Lucas, and when he led the breakout he had all the things in place that Lucas did not.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 23, 2015 16:46:57 GMT
Chuck, Thanks, I probably should have opened another thread for the Italian campaign. There are pieces of the war and the commanders that sometimes perplex me, not only in Europe, but the Pacific as well.
Regards, Tom
|
|