21st anti-tank regiment Operation Goodwood

While reading a history of the Guards Armoured Division I came across this regiments encounters with Panther tanks in July 1944. In a number of engagements they were successful but apart from a few details the descriptions are quite short. I am especially interested in the events of a day in July when two nco's, one of them L/Sgt Mitchell, the other Sgt Harris when their guns destroyed a Panther and four MkIIIS. Can anyone shed any light on this action. I assume the MkIIII were Ausf Gs, Ls and Ms rather than MkIV types which were still in use around with 9 and 10 SS-Pz-Div Arnhem in late 1944?

regards

Keith

 

I have the regiment and battery diaries for this unit. If you can give me a day I'll post the pages up for you.

 

Cheers Drew,

Unfortunately I only noted that it happened in July 1944. They appear to have gained several victories over Panthers in that month.

regards

Keith

 

I think you may have the wrong month, and possible one wrong name

The citations to LSgt Harris and Bdr Cambell's' MMs gives an action at 0100 hrs on 5 Aug near Maisoncelle (7139), when Harris heard the rumble of a tank approaching his position.

LSgt Harris WO373

Bdr Cambell WO373

These two NCOs were from G troop of Z Battery. Their BC was rather critical of the roles they were assigned and their equipment. . There is a long note in the July WD for 21 Atkj Regt which includes what might be described as a rant. He complained about the size, vulnerability and performance of the Field Artillery Tractor and how no one seems to care. He complained about how he had three bosses: CO 21 Atk Regt; the CRA and CO of whatever infantry battalion he was supporting. How his troops operated the largest pieces of equipment in an infantry battalion area - larger even than the 25 Pdr and how battalion areas were over anti tank gunned and infantry battalion 6 Pdrs should be able to do the job....

Within a week two of his boys were heroes of the hour fighting off the kinds of tank which could not be knocked out from the front with a 6 pdr! Their citations were signed by the CO 3 Irish Guards and endorsed by the brigade, division and corps commander.

 

Superb, thanks ! This is brilliant. I assumed the 21st had Achilles or Wolverines rather than towed 17pdrs. I can't explain why the GAD history has used the wrong name, unless L/Sgt Mitchell an observer or something. Sgt Henry W Mitchell is awarded an MM in January 1945 but It looks like the details I have are a bit sketchy and maybe this was for another action completely. The book was written by the Earl of Rosse and the former commander of 5th Coldstreams and published in 1956.

Many thanks again.

 

dbf posted th eairish F=Gurds War Diary in this forum and this is the relevant entry

5 August 1944
Today we laid on a “full dress” fire plan. No 4 Coy gained COURTEIL. Then a combat group, consisting of X Coy, one troop of tanks of 2 Armd COLDM GDS, two 6-pr guns, two 17-pr guns, and two 3” Mortars (later reinforced by a platoon of No. 2 Coy) was pushed through COURTEIL to gain the village of MAISONCELLE, 600 metres S.E. They had a great fight, gained their objectives and although in immediate contact with at least 10 German tanks and a coy of infantry, held their positions for 48 hours, and, ably assisted by the two 17-prs, destroyed four MK 3 S.F. guns, one PANTHER tank, one lorry, and captured a Mk 3 S.F. gun intact.

Any idea what an S.F. tank is? Could it be a schwere flak tank? Interesting that they captured one.

 

it is a sturmgeshutz, Stug III. . The Panzer III was obsolete as a tank, but its chassis was used for the Stug which mounted a long barrelled 75mm gun. These were used by some of the panzer units in Normandy in lieu of tanks, as well as by some of the panzer jaeger units..

 

Possible but there are mentions of S.P.Guns elsewhere in the text which surely are StuG IIIs. I think these could be Hummels (Geschuetzwagen III/IV fuer sFH18/1 (Sf) Hummel)? Which could explain their proximity, perhaps moving as a battery?

 

The context of the medal citations is of an a counter attack at night. I suspect the "SF" is a misprint for "SP.". The German situation maps for 4 & 5 August show the defenders as the 276t th 277 infantry division in 74 Corps. According to pst war interviews with General Eberbach these formations had 10 stug's each and were faced with overwhelming amounts of British armour.

 

I assumed the attack was made by the Hohenstaufen division supported by their StuG III kompanie. I am convinced however then s.f. is "schwere Feldhaubitze" and that they had that information from the captured MkIII but without the evidence of the German units it's just an informed guess. The SS division both had Hummel batteries.

 

Initially I made the assumption that the attack was by a KG of one of the II SS Corps divisions.. Even though the German situation maps show II SS Corps 10 km further west around Vire, it is hard to explain the presence of a Panther otherwise. However, I could not find a mention of the action of the KG in "Sons of the Reich", the English language history of the II SS Corps by Michael Reynolds

Stg III were a lot more common than Hummel, with only six in each division compared to 30+ in 9 & 10 SS Pz Div, which had StugIII in place of panthers and Pz IV. While both the StuG and Hummel were both self propelled artillery pieces, the former was designed for close support in the front line while the latter provided medium indirect fire from some way behind the lines If a hummel battery was leading an advance , someone must have blundered!

I'd be interested to find out more about this action though. I am missing the relevant pages from the CAB 44 historic summary and will check on my next visit to Kew.