"German armored recon battalion usage West front '44-45?" Topic

How was the panzer/panzer grenadier recon battalion used on the western front? To hold a sector of the line? To screen that sector (which I guess means 'lightly hold' while not getting killed). Screen for the heavy battalions?

The only example that pops to my mind was the SS panzer troops at Arnhem that tried to assault across the bridge.

Since the German High command had a do not retreat one step order, I am not sure normal recon tactics applied during the late war on the East front. The normal advance to combat recon operation of the early years no longer happened often. Now it was all static defenses. There was no delay so other unit could retreat. Yes there were some retreats on the East Front but more a meat grinder unit scattered activity.

Now on the Western Front, there were more delaying actions until the Germans were pushed back close to their border. Then it became static as well.

By this time replacements for lost vehicles was getting harder since the damaged vehicles were captured when left on the battlefield rather than being recovered as in early war actions. So the ability to move and react fast became a luxury rather than common.

Since the German High command had a do not retreat one step order, I am not sure normal recon tactics applied during the late war on the East front. The normal advance to combat recon operation of the early years no longer happened often. Now it was all static defenses.

I fear this simplification greatly distorts the nature of combat on the Eastern Front in the late war period.

First, the not-one-step order was not a blanket approach to the entire war on the eastern front. Mobile forces still conducted mobile defenses right up to the end of the war.

Perhaps more significantly, at no point in the war did the Germans have enough forces to establish a static defensive line to cover the entire frontage they held in the East. As the front moved westward (and so became smaller), so also the troops available to man that line became fewer. So the concept of a static defense was quite simply not possible. It would have been a sieve, and the Russians would have marched right through it.

It was always the case that large portions of the front where thinly held by disjointed outposts and strongpoint, with active patrolling between. Recon elements were often used for this patrolling.

Also, the German doctrine was to always maintain a reserve which could immediately counter-attack after any position was lost. This doctrine was present from tactical to operational levels, from the platoon and company all the way to the corps and army. So in those portions of the front that was well enough manned to establish a line, battalion or division commanders would often hold recon units as reserves. Dedicated recon units generally had good mobility and relatively high firepower, but low staying power. This made them well suited for quick-response counter attacks, but less useful for filling positions on the line.

Or so I understand.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

G Dog-
"The only example that pops to my mind was the SS panzer troops at Arnhem that tried to assault across the bridge."

Capt. Grabner's tactic in Normandy was to wait until after dawn. He had observed the British to be alerted and vigilant to receive dawn attacks. If none materialized, they would relax somewhat in place. It would be at this time that he mounted his assaults.

This was the tactic he used in the bridge assault you mention in your example. He led with the faster vehicles (armored cars, etc.) and followed with halftracks and trucks. Remember his force was a hodge-podge of vehicles with he himself in a captured British armored car.

Edit:
His force was split with part being sent to one or two other locations. This may have been somewhat normal in Western Europe. Many combat units were foot-infantry with little to no transport and many other were almost entirely static by construction. Recon units had mobility and were often used because they had some level of armor and or mobility.

They were used exactly the same as they were used elsewhere, for recce, as an ad-hoc panzer grenadier battalion, and occasionally as the core of one of the Armoured battlegroups. In the latter two roles the armored car companies would usually still be doing recce.

9th SS recce at Arnhem was unusual in that was pretty much they only Armoured element of 9th SS Panzer Div left, apart from the handful of jagd panzer IVs detached to KG Walter, so it was the divisions main striking element. Until it was reinforced later in the battle anyway.

One of the things that surprised me were how relatively few armored reconnaissance vehicles the Germans built during the war. If they were using the recon bn as a fire brigade they didn't commit the armored cars to it.

i think they were kept as counter attack forces as long as possible. good mobility and firepower. perhaps used as recon before they realized that american air supremecy, naval bombardment and artillsry would decimate large troop concentrations. basically whatever mark 1 says. i always seem to agree with his imput. may want to check out some of their campaigns against the beitish. i think there is at least one book on the subject as well.

Thank you for all the thoughtful replies! Lots of fodder for using my 250's and 234. I might need to invest in some of the older 231 and panzer II.