"How did a Panzer Division fight?" Topic

It is not exactly clear to me how a Panzer Division fought. If one takes a typical OOB of a Panzer Division in 1941 with two infantry regiments of two battalions each and one panzer regiment of two battalions how did the armour and infantry interact? Did they form temporary kampfgruppes? Was each battalion of tanks assigned to a respective infantry regiment? Or did the three regiments basically work on their own? I am trying figure how the command and control worked between the infantry and the tanks.

The typical grouping was to pair the Panzer regiment with the armoured infantry battalion (if the division had one) and/or motorcycle battalion as they had similar mobility characteristics. Each of the three regimental HQs functioned as a KG headquarters. Divisional assets were allocated across the three KG depending on the mission but it was common to use the 105mm artillery battalions in direct support with the 150s in general support.

Recce battalion stays under divisional command. So typically the order of march would be recce, Panzer group, then the infantry regiments. Panzer do the breaking through, Infantry follow up and provide flank security and mop up. Each infantry regiment would normally be allocated a company from the Div AT battalion to fend off enemy armoured counterattacks (along with their integral AT guns).

It depends on the mission and location as well. In the desert you see the tank regiment go off without infantry, e.g. on 19 November 1941, when PR 5 was sent out with supporting guns but no infantry to destroy 4 Armoured Brigade.

link

All the best

Andreas

Good posts guys … As we see, they fought Combined Arms in most cases.

"As we see, they fought Combined Arms in most cases."

Yes, that was the real innovation – a mechanised combined arms force. As AT defences improved through the war, the cross attaching took place at lower levels in the organisation structure but typical task organisations were still centered around the battalion and regimental HQs.

If in fact the three HQs function as temporary KGs then how was force allocation done? That is the part I am curious about. I presume force allocation would be a divisional HQ responsibility. How common would it have been for a company of tanks to be detached from the Panzer Regiment and given to one of the infantry HQs for a mission?

I need to sit down and read AndreasB's paper for some clues.

Not an expert but normally the division would have one KG with most of the heavy assets, tanks etc. This was the spearhead formation, intended to make and exploit breakthroughs. One KG was intended to support the spearhead by protecting the flanks and covering the expanding front until infantry arrived, and a third represented the division reserve. This is unlike most allied tank formations which had tanks in every subformation for the simple reason that the Germans didn't have as many tanks as everyone else.

As Murvihill notes, the principle was of concentration of the superior hitting power. So the tank regiment should fight as a regiment and not be broken into sub-units. When this was done, they would normally go off as a company or Abteilung (battalion). You do however find cases where a few tanks are allocated here and there, but the principle generally held.

All the best

Andreas

Yes, that was the real innovation – a mechanised combined arms force.

Yes and everyone was taken to school and learned the hard way. As we see we fight like that today. We call it in our Air-Land Battle doctrine – Combined Arms.

If in fact the three HQs function as temporary KGs

And again we do the similar today with Bn TFs, Bde Cbt Grps, etc. Cross-attaching Infantry & tank formations with FA attached in direct support.

E.g. We'd have Mech Hvy formations with 2 Mech & 1 Tank unit(s), or vis versa. As a Mech Co Cdr I was frequently attached to a Tank Bn. So generally, it was a Tank Hvy Bn TF. 2 Tank + 1 Mech …

Is there any book that goes into real detail about this with respect to the German army in WWII. The idea of combined arms makes total sense but I am still not seeing very clearly how it worked in practice.

Would the Osprey Tactics books help?

Yes, sometimes tank companies were detached and assigned to individual battalions eg recce group 33 often had an attached tank company in the desert. Yes, the higher KG organisation was the responsibility of Div HQ. Obvs the KG commanders might do some local task forces of their own once assigned their missions.

A good general guide to WW2 German divisional operations is 'Truppenfuhrung', although it was originally published in 1934 so panzer divs are somewhat skated over! English translations are available ('The German Art of War'). It does cover armoured operations and includes very early panzer div organisations (up to 1938).

Len Deightens elderly 'Blitzkrieg' covers to organisation and operation of panzer divisions in battle quite well, including the task organisation for combat. Early War only mind.

Jentz's 'Panzertruppen' Volume 1 has various translations from manuals including company, battalion and regimental panzer operations with some references to divisional operations.

Somewhere in one of my books are some nice diagrams showing panzer divisions organised for breakthrough ops with the various phases and subunit tasks, but I can't for the life of me remember which one and I can't find it.

'Panzers on the Eastern Front' by Raus has lots of examples of real panzer operations and KG organisations, if you don't mind his Staff College military science style.

FWIW, the book "Uniforms, Organization and History of the Afrikakorps" by Bender and Law devotes about 35-odd pages to Kampfgruppen organized during the campaign in North Africa.

The term "Kampfgruppe" appears to have encompassed a very wide range if formation sizes and life spans. For example "Sonderverband 288" was considered a kampfgruppe throughout its existence.

B

Arrggh, NO! This changed radically over time. Up through 1940, the armor and infantry were not "kampfgrupped" and there were lots of criticisms of non-existent coordination. Many attacks failed in Poland because tanks attacked with no infantry support.

In France, the French army had by far the best combined arms tactics at the battalion/brigade/regimental level.
Mutual support was almost exactly what you'd want. However, the French forces often didn't have enough training and experience to pull it off in practice, the two-man crews and lack of radios in French tanks were a real problem at the lower tactical levels, and the French were often unable to get forces where needed to combine and coordinate them because of the speed of the operational situation.

If you look at the reorganization of much of the French forces into "combat groups" by Case Red, it's far tighter tactical integration than the Germans ever achieved. (Or bothered with.)

The Battle of Mokra, on 1 September 1939, is still perfect illustration of of the problems the Germans had at the beginning of the war. link Obviously, the Germans don't have anywhere near enough Pz III, Pz IV, and Pz 38t, but you can see the lack of mutual support.

In Mokra 1939, the Germans have counters for 9 tank companies (1 counter each), while the Poles have 21 counters for *single* anti-tank guns. Obviously both sides have infantry companies, including motorized and cavalry. Still, that's a lot of tanks for each anti-tank gun. link

emckinney, all true. You adapt to the battlefield as it evolves. And many of the forces did. Experience is as important as training. Poland influenced the Germans how to fight more effectively when they got to France. However, like any mobile fluid situation organized confusion is present.

⭐ Marcus – this scene from the Movie A Bridge Too Far, gives you a bit of an idea how Combined Arms works. Would be a good teaching tool/aid if I was still on active duty. link

I am an ROTC Grad '75-'79, not West Point, was not good enough … '79-'90 I lead a Rifle Plt and 81mm Mortar Plt in the 101, then served in 3 M113 Mech Bns. And commanded an M113 Mech Co. My fellow officers & I were grads of both Infantry or Armor Officer Basic & Advance Courses and of course Combined Arms School. As a Mech Co Cdr was frequently cross attached to a Tank Bn. Cross attaching is the basis of modern mobile combined arms. I did it in Korea, [West]Germany and the Mojave Desert. The Blitzkrieg was the start of this concept.

Legion 4, That is a great link. We allow screening by HE but that even with a bit of Holywood shows the effect.

Shame a lot of rule writers did not look at the Artillery bit, roll for a battery my a**** it comes pre-planmed and marching much of the time.

FA is critical to the Combined Arms Team. FA can be pre-planned, a rolling barrage or on call, etc. We were all trained to call it in as needed. Bns or even smaller elements can have FA or Mortars in direct support. As a Plt Ldr or Co Cdr, one of the first guys I turned to is my FO/FIST Tm.

Hi Legion,
I think a worthwhile argument might be made to the effect that combined arms tactics originated with the introduction of Stosstruppen in mid-WW1.

FWIW.

B

Possibly but those were dismounted Infantry heavy infiltration attacks support by FA. And possibly aircraft.
IIRC, they looked for a weakness in the enemies' lines.

Started infiltration after a short heavy barrage.

Moving quickly … By-pass strong enemy positions and head for the rear. To cut off the enemies' positions, attack C3, supply, etc.

It can be considered a form of "maneuver war" as well. Albeit at the speed of dismounted Infantry.

That does sound a bit like "bitzkrieg" and combined arms. But IMO it lacks the key element of the mobility of "Panzers" …

However, these Hutier tactics link may have given future German tacticians, etc., the concept of "Combined Arms" and maneuver warfare. But realized dismounted Infantry attacks don't move as fast as they may have wanted ?

But your argument is worth some thought.

Thanks everyone for the ideas and suggestions for further reading. I ordered a copy of Panzers on the Eastern Front to start my new journey of interest. I am currently reading David Glantz's book "From the Don to the Dneper." There are mentions of kampfgruppe activity in various Panzer divisions but never any detail about their activity or organization (of course Glantz is more interested in the Russians.) I will consider "Uniforms, Organization and History of the Afrikakorps" although I am not a big fan of the North Africa campaigns.

kampfgruppe activity in various Panzer divisions

The Kampfgruppe is nothing but a combined arms team with a mix of Infantry, Tanks, FA, plus possibly AT Guns, CEs, Air Defense Guns, etc. As I said we use a similar "Technique" today. And watch that scene from "A Bridge Too Far", I posted, if you have not already. That is basically combined arms in action.

I am not a big fan of the North Africa campaigns.

I like to study & game the North Afrika and the France '40 Campaigns/battles. The North Africa battles really are battles of maneuver & fire. IIRC Rommel said, "A tactician's dream … but a logician's nightmare." You literally had room to maneuver. Without rivers, forests, a lot of urban terrain to take into consideration, etc.

The France '40 Campaign really was beginning of "blitzkrieg"/Combined Arms Warfare. Based on lessons learned from Poland. With many tank battles supported by Infantry, FA, CE, etc. Interesting take aways:

The French & UK Forces had more and generally better MBTs/AFVs than the Germans.

But the Germans understood Combined Arms. Not only the concept, but how to actually use it on the battlefield.

They took the Allies to school, and they had to play "catch up".

Hope all that helps …

You can find a correction to Bender & Law here, which will show you the organisation of two KG Menny formations, four months apart.

link

All the best

Andreas

The North Africa battles really are battles of maneuver & fire.

I'd argue this wasn't the case in two of the most important battles, outside Tobruk during CRUSADER and three times at El Alamein, all of which were straightforward slogging matches conducted primarily by the infantry.

All the best

Andreas

Kampfgruppe were also remnant formations made up of what was left after the division was used up in combat. They'd send a cadre of officers home to rebuild the division then roll all the remaining soldiers into a kampfgruppe and fight on. Sad really, the only way off the Eastern Front was being badly injured or one of the lucky few in the cadre. Everyone else was buried somewhere in Russia.

I'd argue this wasn't the case in two of the most important battles, outside Tobruk during CRUSADER and three times at El Alamein, all of which were straightforward slogging matches conducted primarily by the infantry.

Yes but many other operations during the campaign were battles of maneuver … E.g. Even the UK at Beda Fomm, Rommel's first offensive in March of '41, [Sonderblume ?], etc.

Sonnenblume (sun flower) was the overall name of the placement of German forces in North Africa. As Rommel's first attack was never authorised, it did not have an operation name.

Yes, a number of ops were maneuver, but it wasn't exclusively so.

All the best

Andreas

Yes, now I remember, "Sun Flower" thanks !

Rommel's first attack was on his own initiative, which he did often. He routinely took the initiative in WWI as well.

The Desert War moved back and forth across Libya and Egypt for about the first 2 years of the campaign. Large maneuvers of formations of all sizes. With many locations changing hands.

The Kampfgruppe is nothing but a combined arms team ….

I would suggest that one of the prime novelties of German tactics is the combination of various components that are nominally independent. So I don't think that this is "nothing" at all. What I am interested in knowing more about is how this was done. The regiments of a Panzer Division are sometimes organized for battle different than they were from an administrative perspective. How was this was done in practice and what is the organizing principle that was used?

In practice this was done through cross-attachments. Not sure what you mean by 'organizing principle'?

All the best

Andreas

There must be organizing principles about which cross attachments are made for combat missions. Martin Rapier listed some above. Are there others?

There were (and still are) three essential elements to cross-attaching:

1. What do you need to do?
2. What kind of opposition are you likely to encounter?
3. What forces do you have?

This is from "German Panzer Tactics in WWII" by Charles Sharp (from the Nafizger Collection). It includes a description of the armoured Battle Group credited to 3rd Panzer Division in June 1941. No unit/subunit titles, just types. There are a few that I have queries on.

1 tank company
1 'mechanised' company (in halftracks*) from the recce bn
1 towed artillery battery
1 infantry company (halftracks)

rest of the tank battalion
1 SP anti-tank company

HQ 6 Panzer Regiment
HQ 5 Panzer Brigade**

1 engineer company (halftracks)

rest of the artillery battalion
1 mortar platoon (8-cm)

1 battery 91 Flak Regiment
1 battery 59 Flak Regiment

My understanding is that at this time, June 1941, the Division had only one PzGren Coy in halftracks, with none in the Recce Bn. I would assume that the 'mechanised' company referred to was more likely the Armd Car Coy. I'm not sure where HQ 5th Panzer Brigade comes into things, it's still shown on the Gleiderung for 3rd Pz Div as of Feb 1941 at least.

Gary

I would suggest that one of the prime novelties of German tactics is the combination of various components that are nominally independent. So I don't think that this is "nothing" at all.

The German combined arms tactics was a major addition to tactics and techniques in the last century and even still in this century. I used the phrase "nothing but" as a combined arms force is a well known standard in many militaries in the world. It is not magic. Albeit in 1940 some may have thought so !

I listed how a combined arms force can be generally organized. I.e. a combined arms team with a mix of Infantry, Tanks, FA, plus possibly AT Guns, CEs, Air Defense Guns, etc. Maybe because I have studied and actually been involved in combined arms ops during training, etc. It seems fairly simple to me ? As I studied battles before e.g. WWI, during WWI, etc., etc. Even Napoleonics, the AWI, ACW, etc.

What I am interested in knowing more about is how this was done. The regiments of a Panzer Division are sometimes organized for battle different than they were from an administrative perspective. How was this was done in practice and what is the organizing principle that was used?

A combined arms team is generally "Task Organized" or organized to be prepared to engage the most likely force(s) they will/probably run into.

E.g. When engaging an enemy like the Russians you know generally what their units have, how they are organized, how they will fight, etc. So in this case you'll need Tank Hvy and Mech Hvy combined arms units. Also based on what your forces have as well. To accomplish the your mission.

I think Don put it well in this post. Kind of what I was trying say.

There were (and still are) three essential elements to cross-attaching:

1. What do you need to do?
2. What kind of opposition are you likely to encounter?
3. What forces do you have?

This is a very good example that Starfury posted :

1 tank company
1 'mechanised' company (in halftracks*) from the recce bn
1 towed artillery battery
1 infantry company (halftracks)

This would be a Mech Hvy Infantry Bn Task Force/Combined Arms unit. Similar to what we did when I was a Mech Co. Cdr.

Of course we didn't have the same equipment, e.g. We had M60A1 MBTs, the German at that time Panzer IIIs, etc.

There must be organizing principles about which cross attachments are made for combat missions. Martin Rapier listed some above. Are there others?

As I said I think Don, Starfury, [maybe me?] posts explain the answers to your questions.

Please give us more ideas of what you are looking for.

Starfury's example seems to have far too many halftracks for 1941.

I agree, I just copied the segment from the book as it was as I recalled an example from the early war period.

The 'halftrack' Pio Coy could be the one detailed on wwiidaybyday from March 1940.

link

I'm sure there was no halftrack mounted Coy in the Recce Bn until well into 1942, so will stick with it meaning the Armd Car Coy for the moment. Niehorster does show one halftrack Rifle Coy in 3 Schutzen Regt.

link

Gary

Albeit they could be transported by trucks ? Dismount in a covered and conceal position, before the assault, etc. ? Or ride on the rear decks of the Panzers ?

Regardless that was generally a good breakdown/example for displaying a combined arms unit(s), etc.

And I think we had discussed how combined arms work. With a number examples, etc., too.

The half tracks were supposed to stop in cover or some distance from the objective.
Same for trucks.
The armour on half tracks was intended to stop shrapnel.

Thanks guys. I find the conversation helpful.

1 tank company
1 'mechanised' company (in halftracks*) from the recce bn
1 towed artillery battery
1 infantry company (halftracks)

What is or at least could be an HQ for essentially a battalion sized kampfgruppe like the above?

I am more thinking of kampfgruppe's that are on the size of an American combat command or so something on approximate to regiment or brigade.

The half tracks were supposed to stop in cover or some distance from the objective.
Same for trucks.
The armour on half tracks was intended to stop shrapnel.

Of course but if half-tracks are not available for whatever reasons. They may have to use trucks as I described or ride on the back deck of the Panzers … I'd think …

I am more thinking of kampfgruppe's that are on the size of an American combat command or so something on approximate to regiment or brigade.

That would 3-4 Bns/or Kampfgruppe. Each with organic plus attached assets.

What is or at least could be an HQ for essentially a battalion sized kampfgruppe like the above?

You'd use the battalion HQ of one of components other than the artillery, depending on what is available.

All the best

Andreas

Yes, a Bn HQ would command a Bn sized Kampfgruppe … And again a Bn/Kampfgruppe would be be 3 or 4 Companies. Plus attachments of non-organic assets. E.g. a Tank and/or CE Plt cross-attached to an Infantry Co. Or vis versa …

Every Bn size or larger would have a command element. That coordinate the organic and attached units' operations.

The same goes for Companies, Platoons, Squads and Fire Teams. Each has a leader or leadership element that coordinates, controls the units in its command.

All based on the commander's Op Ord, intent, etc.

One of the organizing principles is that a KG is formed around an HQ. Not the other way round.

All the best

Andreas

That is very true … You have to have C3.

In one of the above scenarios a battalion HQ assumes command of the following

1 tank company
1 'mechanized' company (in halftracks*) from the recce bn
1 towed artillery battery
1 infantry company (halftracks)

Let's assume the HQ question is the Panzer Grenadier battalion HQ (but it could be a Panzer HQ.) Who commands the rest of Panzer Grenadier battalion? What happens to the other battalion assets?

That's why you have the Brigade HQs floating around. They don't serve much of a purpose until the shooting starts. Also, some elements of the Panzergrenadier battalion would themselves be cross-attached to other KG or be part of the divisional reserve at this stage. Or they remain under the regimental HQ directly. Or they are attached to the other battalion HQ.

The possibilities are endless.

All the best

Andreas

The Bn HQ/Cdr commands all the Companies organic and/or assets attached from other units to his Bn. As well as any of separate Plts, Sections, etc,. attached to the Bn. This is the concept of cross-attaching.

A Tank Bn trades one of its Tank Companies for an Infantry Company.

That Tank Company is now attached to the Infantry Bn.

As the cross-attached Infantry Company is now part of the Tank Bn and is under the commanded of Tank Bn's Cdr.

The cross-attached Tank Co. is under the command of Infantry Bn's Cdr.

Any unit attached to an Infantry or Tank Bn is under the command of that Bn Cdr.

Does not matter if it is a Panzer Grenadier Bn or Panzer Bn. The Bn Cdr(s), their staff, etc., know how to fight combined arms warfare. They are trained to use Infantry and Tanks together, as well as the other organic & units attached to his Bn. Regardless of it being an Infantry or Tank Bn.

Been there … done that as Air Assault Rifle Plt Ldr and much more so as Mech Co. Cdr.

The Bn Cdrs tell the Co Cdrs, attached Plts or Sections, etc. what to do:

E.g. Seize and hold Objective Brutus by 08:00 hrs., etc., etc.

E.g. on a rare occasion as a Co. Cdr. I'd get a Stringer Tm attached to my Co. They were under my command just like my organic 3 Infantry Plts are. At that time, the US Mech Co. had an organic 2 M901 ITV Anti-Tank vehicles.

So now I command all my organic assets:

3 Mech Plts + 1 AT Sec. of 2 ITVs.

Plus I have the attached Stringer Tm.

So let's put my Co. in WWII German units/terms.

3 Panzer Grenadier Plts

2 Self-propelled AT Guns Section i.e. SPAT(s). Could be a Marder, Hetzer, etc.

The attached AA Tm could be one or two SPAA guns – 20mm AAA mounted on a Half-rack … forgot the designation. Or towed by truck …

Let's go to Bn level, on a field exercise in South Korea/ROK. I was part of a Mech Bn. It's organic combat assets were :

4 Mech Cos

1 AT Co.

1 Scout Plt

1 4.2 in Mortar Plt.

All these units are under the command of the Bn Cdr

The Bn Cdr cross-attached one of our Mech Cos. to a Tank Bn. And got a Tank Co. cross-attached to our Bn in exchange.

So now the Bn is :

3 Mech Cos.

1 AT Co.

1 Scout Plt

1 4.2 Mortar Plt.

PLUS a Tank Co.

All under the command of the Bn Cdr.

Later in the operation we had a USMC Co. They were flown in by helicopter and dismounted. So we had to let them ride on the back deck of the Tanks. As we were a Mech Bn and all combat assets were in vehicles/AFVs.

So now the Bn Cdr commands:

3 Mech Cos.

1 AT Co.

1 Scout Plt

1 4.2 Mortar Plt

Plus attached:

1 Tank Co

1 USMC Co

You could convert this Bn to WWII German TO&Es :

3 Panzer Grenadier Cos. mounted in half-tracks

1 AT Co – SPAT e.g.: Marders, Panzerjadger IVs, etc.

1 Scout Plt mounted in half-tracks

1 Hvy Mortar Plt towed by Trucks or Half-tracks

1 Panzer Co e.g. Pz IVF2s

1 Infantry Co. dismounted

All under command of the Bn Cdr.

Hope this helps ?

Thanks Legion 4. That does help a lot. So there would be a lot of cross trading between battalions at this level. Presumably the Regimental HQ is organizing the various trades based a mission assignment?

Yes, you got it. Cross-Attaching among Bns and Cos. was then and now the norm. So regardless of the type of HQ, Infantry or Armor. The Bn HQ was in command of their organic and attached units.

The Bde/Rgt'l Cdrs will organize what gets attached to their Bns. Based on his battle plans, etc. Then the Bn Cdrs organize their Bns to get the mission done, etc.

E.g. in Mech Bns,., the attached Tank Co may cross-attach Tank Plts to some of the Mech Cos. As I said, that frequently happened to my Mech Co. The Bn Cdr cross-attached a Tank Plt to my Mech Co. And I trade one of my Mech Plts to the Tank Co.

So in this case, my Mech Co. :

2 Mech Plts

1 ITV Sec.

Plus the Attached Tank Plt.

*This is a Mech Hvy Combined Arms Team

The Tank Co. that got my Mech Plt :

2 Tank Plts

Plus – my 1 Attached Mech Plt.

This is a Tank Hvy Combined Arm Tm

Tank Bns or Tank Cos. Don't have ITVs. Save for the Bn's Scout Plts in either the Mech or Tank Bn. With is organized/its TO&E – 3 M113 APCs & 3 M901 ITVs. The WWII Germans had mixed vehicles/units in many of their Recon elements. So again the US Army used that concept too.

One of the most unique combined arms Bde TF organizations was when I was in the ROK, '84-'85. The entire 2d Infantry Div. was going on a large Field Training Exercise [FTX].

Our Mech Bn from 3d Bde was attached to 2d Bde. Both 2d Bde's Infantry Bns were attached to 1st & 3d Bde.

So 2d Bde had none of its own combat Bns. It was Task Organized by the Div Cdr as …

2d Bde HQ commanded:

1 Tank Bn from 1st Bde

My Mech Bn from 3 Bde

1 ROK Infantry Bn from the Korean Army

So again none of 2 Bde's organic Infantry Bns were in it's Task Force organization. Which was again based on the Div Cdrs battle plans, etc.

Again I hope that helps …

How did they fight?
Really very well. Until every last one of them was dead or captured.

(sorry, you all did an excellent job answering, so I thought I'd bring some levity)