"German Funklenk Remote controlled Borgward. Control Vehilce" Topic

Trying to set this up for Kursk with the 656. Funklenk 313 und 314 were with the abteilug of the 656th. The Control vehicles of the Funklenk companies were Stug IIIGs.

Question is this: while the crew were priority tasked to the control and operation of the 3 Borgward B IVs could they operate the 75mm gun of the Stug?

Since the Borgward would be manually driven to to within 1000 meters of the target was this driver a Stug crewman? Or was he an attached engineer? My research has not told of exact usage. I would assume another engineer would assist. Making a Stug and the 3 Borgward a team of 7 total(4 in Stug 3 as drivers.)

Setting this up with my Elephants. Pretty cool that I was able to find the names of the commanders for many of these tank destroyers and which number they were(well for the 653rd at least)

JH

In Normandy there were assigned drivers for the B IVs. IIRC, there were normally three B IVs for every StuG, so they couldn't have crewed them all from the StuG crews.

The 75mm guns were certainly usable. In fact, the units in Normandy generally simply abandoned the idea of using the B IVs and instead used the StuGs as StuGs. However, I can't imagine that it would be normal or even possibe for a crew to use the gun while simultaneously controlling a B IV remotely.

Thank you Jemima F. Any info is great. I think about it some more and I feel that they would have really planned this out. That a member of the Stug crew would be watching over the Borgward while the Stug supports the Borgward to achieve the task assigned.

Taken as a specialist unit to try and treatt the use of the main gun as secondary. meaning if you are using this then something has gone wrong. Not saying that there would not be circumstances.

Examples:
New targets that were not known at the planning stage
An enemy counter attack.

Focus should be on the Borgward. Seems like the targets could even be something the Stug could target and destroy. So this would mean that the Borgward target was something that the normal use of the supported abteilung could not effectively destroy.

Borgward targets at Orel area were minefields and heavy bunkers and Pak front nests in high density.

This has given me more to think of and any additional responses would be great.

I was getting my info fro the following link: link

JH

Oh and if anyone else would like to contribute if you could share a source even if a book in your collection.

JF-- could you share the source please?

Everyone is stuck on the Prokhorovka battle. There you get your Tigers and the SS against plenty of T34 in a straight on fight. I am interesting at this stage of my life in the 9th ary and the 656th and the 216th Sturmpanzer abteilung. I get Elephants and Brumbar this way.

JH

Jonathan,

If you want more information on the use of BIVs at Kursk then you should try to get a copy of ‘Funklenkpanzer' by Marcus Jaugitz. Thankfully, some time ago I invested in both this book and the one you link to, the ‘Combat History of s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 by Munch. Being dedicated to the Funklenkpanzer Jaugitz's book is head and shoulders above Munch's in this area.

Funklenk Company 313 operated with II/s.Pz.Jg.Rgt. 656 and 314 with I/s.Pz.Jg.Rgt 656. 313 had 10 Pz III command & control tanks. The company commander, 2IC, and the two platoon leaders had Pz IIIN, whilst the remainder were Pz IIIJ or L with the 5.0cm L/60 gun. The radio control equipment replaced the usual turret stowage bin. All the tanks had a large ‘F' in front of the turret numeral, this being the initial letter of the company commander's surname. From the organisational chart it appears that each tank controlled 4 BIVs.

314 initially had Pz IIIs but converted to StuG IIIGs in mid March 1943. Their organisational chart is identical to 313's, giving them 4 BIVs per StuG. The radio control gear was housed on the left hand side of the fighting compartment so I wonder if anything had to go to make room, or if it just got more cramped in there?

Jaugitz prints a report on the operation of the Funklenk units at Kursk written by a Major Reinel. In it Reinel states that the Funklenk units should be equipped with "fast, heavy tanks (Tiger)" so that penetrations can be exploited without having to wait for the armour of the unit they are attached to to come up. The Ferdinands were a bit of a disappointment in this respect. Indeed, all the control tanks of one unit ended up fighting in the front-line as their BIVs were expended/destroyed.

Reinel goes on to criticise the use of StuGs as control vehicles. The enemy recognises them as such and targets them. The StuG is not suited to this "double purpose" (fighting vehicle and control vehicle) because it has no rotating turret, a cramped fighting compartment (the loader is also the radio operator), and the inadequate view from the cupola periscope.

As to who crewed the BIVs I'm afraid that the book gives little clue. But something to bear in mind is that there were a number of reserve BIVs which were to be brought up as the leading ones were lost for whatever reason. The crews for these clearly could not come from the Pz IIIs/StuGs and so I favour RMD's assertion that they had dedicated drivers that were not part of the command and control vehicle's crew.

I hope that this has been of some help.

The Jan1943 KStN for the FKL Coy (le Pz Kp f)was based around two large Pls, each with 1 officer and 50 men, plus four AFVs (KStN specified PzIIIs, but as noted Stugs were subbed), 12 SdKfz 301s and three SdKfz11 unarmoured halftracks.

Pl HQ included a PzIII/Stug (five crewmen allowed for), with Pl CO acting as AFV commander, plus Pl NCO, messenger, medic and driver in a light car, and m/c messenger with combination.

There were three Groups, each twelve strong, with a PzIII/Stug, four SdKfz 301s and an SdKfz11. The AFV was slated for five crewmen (based on a PzIII), including the Gp Ldr, then there was a driver for the SdKfz11, a pioneer and a signal mechanic (these last two each responsible for an LMG, with a third looking to be a spare weapon). Then there were four drivers, one for each SdKfz301.

The Pl was completed by a small trains of five men in a 3-ton lorry.

The Jun1944 KStN changed things around a fair bit, shrinking the Pl to 1 officer and 30 men, still with four AFVs (slated now to be Stugs) and twelve SdKfz301s, each still with a dedicated driver. Allowing for 16 crew in the AFVs the remainder of the Pl was a pioneer, signal mechanic and driver for a single SdKfz 251/1. As before the halftrack was to transport the vehicles and equipment.

Thank You to everyone. i have a book to look for and some more ideas.

Once a Borgward deployed the explosive and retreated to return to German lines; what is the "reload" timeframe for the 120 and 220 loads. i assume it is not a in the heat of battle task for the engineers.

JH

J,

In the skim reading I did for my post above I don't recall any mention of the BIV being brought back. In several cases the entire BIV was detonated. Of course I only read about the Kursk operation and the two companies mentioned. I'll have to go back and re-read that section.

It is a very large and thick book and covers all Funklenk units and operations. So there might be something on 'reloading' in there somewhere.

I understand that the Borgward was a delivery tool. The vehicle would drive up to and release the charge on the front. then fall back. Granted many were detonated without the release. In some of the cases they would release but the vehicle is taking fire from the target causing the operator to detonate wit the Borgward close causing it to be set on fire. The Borgward was reusable the Goliath was not. at Kursk most were lost. More practice was needed but the Goliat was taking over as it was not as costly. Now to find the Cost values that I had.

Again thank you for the help.

This is pretty fun and I just won a Bandai Elefant and I have a few Stug III G's. Have 3 Brumbar for the 216th. Tis as fun written all over it.

JH