Kursk (by popular demand!)

That B IV was originally built on the chassis of Pz I, later on changes being made so that it could do its job better. The Goliath was its little brother. The B IV had place for one man, who would drive it to the edge of the mine field, after which he would go away and the B IV would be driven by radio control a bit deeper into the mine field ( the weight not blowing the mines 4.5 tons vs 57 tons of Tiger ) and also made to explode by radio control. I read that they used StuG III as the place to watch the B IV move into the mine field, but later on Tiger I was required as the russians kept shooting hard ( maybe some StuG´s were lost and they couldn´t send the radio messages to explode the B IV ). OK, but after this a new B IV was driven to further expand the mine free track, and usually it took three B IV´s to make a track for heavier tanks. the story of 12 B IV´s was telling of one single very large mine field!!!! Quite interesting stuff.

Indeed, the mines were deadly, and it seems that the russian mines were involved strongly in either destruction or immobilization of the german tanks ( panthers, ferdinands, own mines in tiger immobilization ) as well as loads of pioneers were killed as they were clearing the fields.
That flamethrower mine was kinda wicked thing...

There´s plenty of stuff to go through, and it feels like leading the northern pincer (!). I saw a book covering the Ferdinands in Kursk on Amazon. com, might have to think about getting it one day.

But now there´s a new problem. Brumbaers?? What the heck...never saw that one coming until now.

 

I wish I had more time at the moment...
Good stuff on the remote-control vehicle, Kai. So there were two... Were both used at Kursk?

I'd generally tend to agree on the 90 Ferdinands. That's the number I've seen most often. The main book I have on the, Rarities of the Tiger Family, goes through the same story you mention about the early testing and developement, and also cite 90 as the number, I think. It does make me wonder though that Glantz cites such a higher number. I've been (in the little time I've had this week) trying to put together something of a comprehensive day-byday report on the Ferdinands... how many deployed, where, how many lost.
And yes, the Ferdinand battalions used PzIII munition carriers for ammo supply. Good idea- maybe in some estimates these PzIIIs are counted in the wrong group....
Flamethrower mine? Never heard of that one! But I may try and put together something on the success rates of the different anti-tank tactics... seems liek mines were the best, but I'd be inetersted to see some comparison...

HISTORY OF THE 653 HEAVY TANK HUNTER BATTALION, 
Karl Heinz, C, O
Was that the book you saw? I've been thinking about that one, but I think it's 60$. Adn I just bought a PS2, so...

Brummbaers were similar to the Ferdinands- an ad-hoc gun carrier. Brummbaers were meant for infantry support though- they mounted the 15cm SiG33 howitzer in a fully enclosed, armored vehicle. I can get more info on these tonight. I think 45 or so served at Kursk in one heavy assault gun battalion.

 

Well, I think that 15 Ferdinands are quite a big difference... I rather go with the 90.

Beside I think they were very bad employed at Kursk. Making Panzer units equipped with only Ferdinands is pretty dumb... Wouldn't be better more balanced units with the same amount of fast tanks (Pz III and IV), tank destroyers, self propelled guns and heavy tanks? I think that 40 Ferdinands together are a slow and awkward formation, not very mobile...

There was a Pantherbrigade within Panzerdivision "Großdeutschland" and also another Pantherbrigade with 2. SS Panzerdivision "Das Reich". I read it in a site which I shall not name now... Damned my memory... Was it true?

 

Friedrich:

There were no Panthers with Das Reich or any of the three W-SS divisions at Kursk. 2nd SS received their Ausf D's after Kursk in Auygust of 43 and used them to good effect in the defence of the Mius. Slaughtered over 40 T-34's in their first engagement.

logging off now......good thread guys !

E

 

CrazyD88

Yes both Goliath and B IV were used during the first two days of attack. The latter for the minefields, bunkers and even one T34 as you noticed probably. The results were satisfactory. With Goliath the results were poor, as it was smaller and easy to destroy by russians. Greatname, not much success.

The russians had also pioneer groups that put new mines in the attack areas during the night, some 35 000 during the german attack phase. So after the first two days germans didn´t use those B IV systems as the new mine fields were usually found as a tank hit them. The german pioneers had to clear the fields by hand, as the area of Kursk is mentioned to be magnetic.Big men losses as russians hit them hard with artillery all the time.
Anyway, the mines slowed the attack enough so that new fresh russian troops poured in and stopped the attacks.
In some cases even the russians didn´t know about the mines set during the night and lost several T34´s in their attacks. Don´t have any values on this.

 

More information on ferdinands Panzerworld )
This is from the first attack in the northern pincer

It was assigned to the first wave of the assault with the radio-controlled demolition tanks (B IV) of Pz. Kp. (Fkl.) 314 to clear a path for the Ferdinands through the extensive Soviet minefields. This was only partly successful since the engineers that were to assist in clearing the minefields were unable to do much due to the extremely heavy Soviet artillery fire. This caused a number of Ferdinands to be immobilized by mines destroying roadwheels and sections of track. Some of these had to be destroyed by their own crews when they couldn't be recovered in a timely fashion by the Germans. The Soviets stopped the Germans after an advance of only a few miles and the Germans were forced to go to the defensive. The serviceable Ferdinands were broken up into small groups to act as long-range tank destroyers when the Soviets launched a counter-offensive intended to destroy the Orel Salient on 11 July. The 653rd was withdrawn from combat on 27 July, but their great weight caused many delays in actually transporting them to the rear as the bridges along their route to Briansk had to be reinforced to bear their weight.

During their time at Kursk only 13 Ferdinands were totally destroyed between 5 and 27 July although a number of others were knocked-out and repaired during the period. A report of a Porsche technical representative attached to the Abteilung on 26 July only lists three armor penetrations, one in the hull side and two in the superstructure, although a number of vehicles were set on fire by shrapnel through the engine deck grates. Most of the problems not caused by enemy action were related to the powertrain namely the engine and electrical systems, rather than the chassis. In exchange for all this frustration the 653rd claimed 320 tanks and numerous trucks and guns. In fact one crew claimed 22 tanks on 14 July, but even such heroics weren't enough to save the Germans from the Soviet onslaught.

Their sister battalion suffered more severely and turned over its 19 surviving Ferdinands during August before the 653rd was ordered to Dnepropetrovsk to refit on 25 August. At this time it had a strength of 50 Ferdinands, but all needed repairs to a greater or lesser degree. The successful Soviet counter-offensive after Kursk forced the 653. to withdraw to Nikopol on the other side of the Dnepr as Dnepropetrovsk was threatened by mid-September. On 19 September it was ordered to move all serviceable vehicles to the Zaporozhye Bridgehead on the eastern side of the Dnepr to defend the power dam there. No more than 14 vehicles at one time were able to help the defense in the bridgehead before the dam was destroyed on 15 October.

After the retreat across the Dnepr the serviceable Ferdinands were distributed in penny packets among the units defending the Nikopol-Krivoi Rog area. As of 5 November it claimed the destruction of:

582 tanks
344 anti-tank guns
133 artillery pieces
103 anti-tank rifles
3 aircraft
3 armored cars
3 assault guns

As of the 26th its claims had increased to 654 tanks and 610 guns (likely combining AT guns and artillery pieces). Three days later its maintenance status was only 4 combat-ready, 8 in short-term maintenance, 30 in long-term maintenance and 4 total losses. Its low serviceability rate and the very poor mobility of the Ferdinands in wet ground caused it to be transferred to Austria for a factory-level refit beginning in mid-December. The actual transfer was quite prolonged as the serviceable vehicles not yet rail-loaded were often called upon to support the hard-pressed German defenders. The last trainload didn't depart until 10 January.

 

Some info from Achtung Panzer...

First unit to be equipped with Brummbars began forming in April of 1943. This unit was to receive 50 out of 60 vehicles already produced, while the rest was to be put in reserve. Newly formed unit - Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 was moved to Amiens area in France for training. The unit began moving to the Eastern Front on June 10th of 1943. Sturmpanzer IV Brummbaers had their debut with Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 (part of 656 sPanzerjaeger Regiment commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Jungenfeld) as part of Army Group Mitte (Center) at Kursk (Summer of 1943). Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 took part in the first combat action on July 5th, but its elements continued arriving into battle as late as July 18th. Jungenfeld was awarded the Knight's Cross after Kursk and was promoted to full Colonel after battle of Charkov. After Kursk, unit was refitted and was back in action in September of 1943. Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 saw combat in Russia until mid December of 1943, when it was moved back to Germany for refitting. In February of 1944, unit was moved to Italy, to the area of Anzio and Nettuno. Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 remained in combat in Italy until April of 1945, when last Brummbars were destroyed by their crews at the area of Lake Garda.

Specifications
Weight: 28200kg
Crew: 5 men
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 300hp (early)
Maybach HL 120 TRM 112 / 12-cylinder / 300hp (late)
Speed: Road: 40km/h
Cross-Country: 24km/h
Range: Road: 210km
Cross-Country: 130km
Fuel Capacity: 470 litres
Lenght: 5.93m
Width: 2.88m w/o Schurzen
3.29m with Schurzen
Height: 2.52m
Armament: 150mm StuH 43 L/12 & 7.92mm MG34 (early)
150mm StuH 43/1 L/12 & 2x 7.92mm MG34 (late)
Ammo: 150mm - 38 rounds
7.92mm - 600 rounds
Armor (mm/angle): Front Superstructure: 100/40
Front Hull: 80/12
Side Superstructure: 50/15
Side Hull: 30/0
Rear Superstructure: 30/25+0
Rear Hull: 20/10
Top/Bottom Superstructure: 20/83 + 10/90
Top/Bottom Hull: 10/90


"We always were considered a 'fire brigade' unit, and always were used when the infantry was in trouble and lots of artillery had to be brought down at the enemy and fast. More than one infantry regiment blessed us after we had smashed a heavy attack of the enemy...Funny thing, though. As happy as the commanders of the supported units were when we smashed an enemy attack, the 'Landsers', the line infantry, were glad when we left, because enemy artillery fire was pounding them to hell while we were there. They could not change the locations of their fox holes, but we could move back and forth and sideways to escape enemy artillery at least to some extent" - Joseph Scharrer, 3rd Company of Sturmpanzerabteilung 216, from May of 1943 to October of 1944.

 

www.battlefield.ru has a pic of a brummbar knocked out at kursk.

 

"Most of the 60 initial Brummbars were lost during the vicious fighting for the Kursk salient and later during the battles for Karkov."

Does anyone know exactly how many were lost???

 

Glad to see you back Erich!!

Also, I will be posting an Orbat of German forces--large nad small--who were at Kursk, And I will be hoping for any additions I have left out--if you have them. I know my Orbat isnt as complete as I want it.

 

Carl......it will be a couple of days before I'm a regular visitor, but heading north tommorrow.
Will check the OOB, the W-SS book I ordered on Kursk is back ordered as that has always been my main interest in Kursk.....just how many victories and losses from the 3 units.

E

 

Well, Friedrich, they weren't panzer battalions- they were tank destroyer battalions. I think the question is, why weren't they deployed WITH the panzer battalions. Usually, assault gun or tank destroyer battalions would be deployed for infantry support, but at Kursk there were also plenty of tanks available as well. I think Model seperated them too much... he tried repeatedly to use all his armor against some of the stronger, more fortified locations, like Ponyri, while deploying the infatry and support battalions too thinly along the rest of his line. I would think it would work better to deploy the infantry and support against strongpoints, and try and get the tanks into open country and use their range more...

Kai, good stuff on the Ferdinands... those kill numbers seem rather high, but the russians did take extremely heavy losses...
Regardless of natural magnetism, imagine the amount of metal littering the battlefield within an hour of the battle's start!

RedBaron, Healy claims 66 of the Brummbars were finished for Kursk. They served in the 216th heavy assault gun battalion with Model's forces on the northern pincer. Unfortunately, while Healy makes repeated mention of the Elephants, he dosen't give any action history for the Brummbars... I don't have time at the moment (I really need hispeed at home!), but Achtungpanzer may give some. I'm still checking as well...

Carl, I have at least a couple OOBs (any other acronyms, anyone )...not sure how detailed or complete they are though- they could be somewhat cursory. I'll check them out.

Hey Erich... nice too see you back!
I don't have any specifics at the moment, but all my sources agree on the outstanding performance of the WSS units at Kursk. They definetely earned part of their comabt reputation in that operation. But likewise, I'd also be interested in more info on the specifics. I'll review what Healy has to say, but it won't have too much depth... (although I would have to go with him for my best source for general info on Kursk)

[ 22 August 2002, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

 

I´ve just been reading a book by a finnish colonel on the russian war machine, tanks especially. He also goes through some statistics no the partisan war. I can´t help but think that as well as the russian war tactics the partisans were very effective. At least by these numbers:

In 6/1943 all along the front 1114 attacks

8/43 1395 attacks

9/43 1256 attacks

during these 343 trains off the rails

This point is important considering our main subject here:

In july 1943 between Smolensk-Brjansk-Minsk 841 attacks, 298 steam engines destroyed, 1222 train wagons destroyed, 44 bridges blown up. Also one train carrying tiger tanks was destroyed (!), but no number of tanks shown.

SO, one more thing to have an effect on Kursk and the later counter attacks.I do think they made quite an impact on the course of the war...

Anybody having more details?

 

Back to the Ferdinand subject once more. I´ve done some investigation and here are the results:

To begin with, PzjagAbt 653 had 45 Ferdinands, under major Steinwachs. PzJagAbt 654 had 44 under major Noak, one being in Germany under repairs. Both Abts had 10 Pz III carriers for ammunition as one Ferdinand could carry 50 pieces of ammo only. Altogether 109 tanks ( with pz III´s ).

This is from Geocities.com, and according to this 44 were lost in Kursk battles ( incl Orel counterattacks )

According to members.tripod.com

the 653 lost totally destroyed Ferdinands 5.-27.7. 13 tanks. By August the 654 had only 19 left, that is loss of 25 tanks.the rest were put together with 653 and that made 50 ferdinands altogether to use in full force. They were used in the Dnepropetrovsk battle.

During 5.-27.7. the 653 destroyed 320 russian tanks, numerous trucks and at-guns. On 14 th july one ferdinand alone reported having destroyed 22 russian tanks alone!

 

Erich and Crazy--thanks I appreciate that. I will be finished looking in everything i have available on a Kursk Orbat and will make a posting about it. After I get it posted in the next few days--please post ant corrections and or additions in that topic--otherwise I will proabably forget to look in this one.

 

Hmmm- another new one...

Carl mentioned this unit in his OOB for Kursk. I hadn't noticed them in my readings. Interesting- I thought the recoiless guns entered service later than Kursk. I'm pretty sure the germans had two recoilless guns- a 7.5 cm and a 10.5 cm. Have to see about which one was in service, and how the units performed at Kursk...

 

OK, so they were in regular service before kursk... from feldgrau.com...

production numbers from feldgrau...(1st number for 1940, etc.)
Recoilless Rifles
75mm L.G. 184 9 91 132 237

105mm L.G. 184 82 104 158

So there were plenty in service of both calibers at the time of the Kursk battle... I wonder about their effectiveness...

 

Of course, right bleow that, I see...

Ooops... that would be the Ferdinand. The Grille was a 15cm howitzer carrier built on PzII chassis... (again, sorry- I'm an editor. I can't help it!)

 

I should think that both were very effective. Rather--they would have been especially effective against the T-70's and the M3 Lees that were used in the Battle. M3 Lees hulls were rivited together and even a glancing blow cause rivets to "pop" from their rivitholes. This in many cases caused casualties. Its a no-wonder why the Russians hated the M3 Lees.

 

Well, I had a big doubt about that Pantherbrigade in das Reich division. I know now that it was false. How could the nice new Panthers would have been given to the bloody SS! (For those WSS lovers...)

Welcome back, Erich!

Carl, indeed the Soviets hated almost all the armoured vehicles you sent them! But loved the jeeps and lorries, hand guns, aeroplanes and artillery pieces.

 

Indeed Freidrich the photos we have all seen of the Das Reich Panthers Ausf D's on manuevers was in august of 43 for familiarization trials.
As for hating US equipment, this maybe true, since the Soviets didn;t think of the B-25 Mitchell or the Sherman tank first. without the lend lease program from the UK and the US, the Soviets would have had a time trying to keep up with losses sustained in 42/43.

E