I wonder if there are any KTB's or other documents mentioning Seelöwe exercises of this unit . Of course I would also be very interested in pics. According to Peter Schenk (Landung in England) three LWS were attached to Pz.Abt.100 because its commander Hauptmann von Zezschwitz was such a fervent advocate of Unternehmen Seelöwe. I know the well-known LWS pics taken at de Haan (near Ostend). I also know one pic of an LWS (probably LWS 299) in Terneuzen (September 1940).
Peter Schenk also mentions exercises involving the British Beutepanzer that were in the 4.Kompanie. I only know one pic showing a landing/loading exercise with an A13 cruiser tank in Dunkirk. There are also pics of an A 13 cruiser tank and a Matilda with Kriegsmarine personnel in Antwerp. I'm not sure though if these pics show vehicles of the unit in question. I wonder if anyone has seen other pics of Seelöwe exercises involving British Beutepanzer.
From the info in Peter Schenk's book I get the impression that Hauptmann von Zezschwitz was a rather colourful character (if perhaps slightly foolhardy :-)). On the internet I discovered he had also contributed to some Panzer books before the war. Unfortunately I haven't managed to find much else about him (apart from the fact that he was killed in Russia).
Some pics of the Beutepanzer can be found in the following two threads :
http://www.twenot-forums.nl/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=31218
http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/58212-panzer-beute-kompanie-e/
Arjan
Hi Arjan,
the Pz.Abt.100 had only 3 Companies in Autum 1940. In a Document of the AOK 16 dated 5.8.1940 is a TOE of this Abteilung. I have also some loading lists of the Transport ships which should ferry the mass of the Abteilung over the channel. No 4. Coy and no british tanks mentioned in this list.
The problem with the exercises is, that the tanks which took part were named in the stile 20-to tank, 22-to tank, 10-to tank.
In another post I mentioned some curious story about Hptm. v. Zezschwitz: http://www.forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php/topic,21817.msg244491.html#msg244491
Cheers
Dirk
P.S.: there exists a "Erfahrungsbericht" of the Pz.Abt with the LWS-stuff etc. I have to search it in my archive...
Zitat von: Bergedorf am 17 November 2015, 02:21:55
P.S.: there exists a "Erfahrungsbericht" of the Pz.Abt with the LWS-stuff etc. I have to search it in my archive...
Thanks a lot for your reply Dirk, I'm interested in anything you can find about Pz.Abt.(F)100 and the various Landwasserschlepper in particular. I also wonder if there is any information about LWS 1071. There is a photo of this vehicle taken off Vlissingen (with the Oranjemolen in the background) and there are several pics of this vehicle taken in the port of Le Havre and in front of Hotel Frascati (also in Le Havre). Unfortunately, I have no idea if these pics were taken in 1940 or later.
From what I have been able to find it would appear that Pz.Abt. (F)100 arrived in Terneuzen in September 1940. Part of the unit stayed in Zaamslag, a village near Terneuzen. Some years ago I interviewed a local who was 15 years old when the Abteilung was in Zaamslag. He told me that his father (who was a plumber) had been asked to repair the frost-damaged radiators of some Flammpanzer. Unfortunately, there is only one pic showing two A13 cruisers in the steets of Zaamslag. There are quite a few pics of Flammpanzer in Terneuzen and Zaamslag though. I even have a photo of a Fahrschule Panzer (Flammpanzer without the turret) in my home town Hulst :-). Judging from the various photos, the Abteilung moved from the Terneuzen area to Murowana Goslina in Poland in the first months/ early spring of 1941.
Gruss,
Arjan
Hello Arjan and Dirk,
Well, I wrote the mentioned book. I only have handwritten notes from the files in Freiburg. 3 pages on Pz. Abtl. 100. On 2.Feb 41 Aok 16 ordered to remove the coy E of this detachment which has been established with captured tanks. The coy E was thought to reinforce the gun protection of the detachment which otherwise had only flame thrower tanks and a few Pz III. A " landing column" was formed with Bren Carriers, the 4 coy had a platoon Mark II and 2 platoons Cruiser Tanks, the supply vehicles were Bredford trucks.
The detachment came in August to Belgium for the XIII Army. End of August to Terneuzen. It was to land at Rhey.
A platoon LWS was allocated to the staff coy as reinforcement. The crew was naval soldiers.
I never saw photos with British tanks in landing exercises.
Dirk, die Dokumente würden mich sehr interessieren.
Beste Grüße
Peter
Thanks a lot Peter for the info you've provided ! I do indeed have some pics of Bren carriers and one photo of a Bedford truck. Panzer Abteilung (F) 100 did also have some "normal" Panzerkampfwagen II though. Here you can find a pic of three Pz.II's, one happens to be a Befehlspanzer (equipped with a frame antenna). You can also see the French captured trailers that were frequently used by the Abteilung. Also a pic of a Flammpanzer and an LWS crossing the same lock. I think it's LWS 299 because it seems to be missing the bow rope bumper. The pics at the Zeepreventorium (De Haan) also show 299 without this bumper.
http://digitaal.dezb.nl/beeldbank/start/120?q_searchfield=Terneuzen+1940
Some interesting Kriegsmarine photos and LWS pics at the Zeepreventorium:
http://www.zeepreventorium.org/histo/1940-1945.htm
Thanks again.
Gruss,
Arjan
Hallo Peter,
ich suche das Dokument am Wochenende mal raus und schicke es Dir.
@Arjan: You can send me your email-account as PM and I will send the document to you too.
Gruß
Dirk
Hallo Arjan,
vielen Dank für die Fotos!
Hallo Dirk,
ebenfalls danke fürs raussuchen!
Beste Grüße
Peter
Hi,
I just read the document from 5.8.40 again. The PzAbt wanted to use french or british "Beutepanzer" as "Bugwaffe" for lighters. This plan was not adopted.
Cheers
Dirk
Hi Dirk,
Thanks a lot for the very interesting documents you've sent ! If I understand it correctly, Hauptmann von Zezschwitz was opposed to committing his Flammpanzer in the first or second landing wave and he stressed the need for sufficient fire support from a Panzer or Stug Abteilung. He also felt that a concentrated commitment of his Abteilung would be more effective than splitting it up in smaller units (companies/platoons). The loading illustrations are also very nice, I can understand why Peter wrote in his book that having the Panzer drive off the barges sideways wouldn't be a very good idea :-).
By the way, I think that the pic of the A13 cruiser in the loading exercise was probably made in Calais rather than in Dunkirk (both these towns have very similar Belfort towers).
Thanks again for all your trouble.
Gruss,
Arjan
Hi Ajran,
yes that´s also my understanding. He thought, that putting ashore the Flamm-Panzer piecemeal would cause their destruction before they could come to real effect.
Cheers
Dirk
Regarding von Zezschnitz's idea to load his Flammpanzer on the deck of barges, as Peter Schenk writes (p.223): "Diese Vorschläge zeigen natürlich wenig praktischen Sachverstand, denn seitliches be- und entladen bringt einen Prahm ebenso schnell zum Kentern wie schweres Gewicht auf dem Deck."
As this little video shows :-D:
https://www.facebook.com/btpnews247/videos/734021900031630/
Thanks a lot for this very instructive video :-D. In reality the exercises were less adventurous, some days ago I found a very rare photo on the Weitze Net of a Panzer Abteilung 100 Flammpanzer Flamingo during a landing exercise :
https://www.weitze.net/militaria/12/Pressefoto_Sicheres_Ausladen_eines_Panzer_ueber_ein_Spezial_Landestege_des_Truppentransporters_bei_Duenkirchen__196712.html
Another nice one showing an exercise of an unidentified unit in Antwerp :
https://www.weitze.net/militaria/10/Pressefoto_Panzer_II_wird_in_Antwerpen_an_Bord_eines_Transportschiffes_geladen__196710.html
Gruss,
Arjan
Hi Arjan,
intersting photo! The Flamingo should be unloaded on the Stern of a barge! So could it be a Typ-C-Prahm?
I think I have an Report about an exercise with a C-Prahm and a 10 to-tank. Could this be a photo for this exercise?
Cheers
Dirk
Hallo Dirk,
As far as I know there are pics of exercises with Flammpanzer in Ostend and Dunkirk (see my other Seelöwe topic), does your report mention a location ?
Gruss,
Arjan
Hi Arjan,
I will check this (hopefully tonight).
Cheers
Dirk
Hi Arjan,
checked it. According to an report of KMD Dünkirchen there was on 12.10.1940" Erprobungsversuch über die Beladungsmöglichkeit eines Prahmes Typ C für Schwimmtanks am Strande."
On the backside of the picture it is dated Dünkirchen 11.10.40. But I think it could be the same exercise?
Cheers
Dirk
Hallo Dirk, I think you must be right :-), the dates are very close. Today I discovered a photo of a Stug that shows the same location as that of the first Flammpanzer pic I posted. If my information is correct (Nuts & Bolts 24) these photos must have been taken in Ostend. I once more posted the photo in my Stiwot thread :
http://www.stiwotforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15541
By the way, have you got any info on exercises at Calais? I think the A13 cruiser must have belonged to Pz.Abt. (F)100.
Gruss,
Arjan
Today I found a photo album of Sturmgeschütz Batterie 666 on the internet and it also contains the pic I thought had been made in Ostend. According to the caption the pic was taken in Dunkirk ..... :
http://www.hl-barbara.de/index.php/die-garnison/wehrmacht/sturmartillerie/fotoalbum-batterie-666
This would mean that all three Flammpanzer pics I posted were taken during an exercise/ exercises in Dunkirk. It also means the caption of the Seelöwe photos in the Nuts & Bolts book is wrong.
Gruss,
Arjan
Zitat von: Arjan am 07 Januar 2016, 13:14:20
Hallo Dirk, I think you must be right :-), the dates are very close. Today I discovered a photo of a Stug that shows the same location as that of the first Flammpanzer pic I posted. If my information is correct (Nuts & Bolts 24) these photos must have been taken in Ostend. I once more posted the photo in my Stiwot thread :
http://www.stiwotforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15541
By the way, have you got any info on exercises at Calais? I think the A13 cruiser must have belonged to Pz.Abt. (F)100.
Gruss,
Arjan
Hi Arjan,
sorry I had no time to check it yet. Hopfully I will answer you this weekend.
Regards
Dirk
A silly question perhaps but what does the initial letter "V" refer to on Seelöwe barges. Could this refer to Vlissingen ? I know "A" refers to Antwerp, "B" to Boulogne, "D" to Dunkirk, "O" to Ostend etc..
Arjan
Hi Arjan,
the letter "v" meens "Verschure & Co´s Scheepswerf en Maschinefabrik N.V., Amsterdam (vgl. DDK). Befor the Barges arrived at the "Einsatzhäfen" they had the letter of the conversion shipyard as ID.
Gruß
Dirk
Thanks Dirk, I didn't know that. I assume that "EM" stands for Emden but what does "NS" refer to ?
Gruss,
Arjan
I don´t know EM, but NS is "N.V. Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw Mij., Ansterdam.
Gruß
Dirk
Thanks again Dirk :-). I've got quite a few pics of barges marked EM, perhaps it's a Belgian shipbuilder. Here's a nice pic :
http://www.ebay.de/itm/BUYMUC-TOP-FOTO-ANLANDUNG-BEI-DUNKIRCHEN-31-7-15-/191749826742?hash=item2ca52e28b6:g:cT8AAOSwPcVVwQFt
Gruss,
Arjan
Zitat von: Arjan am 07 Januar 2016, 13:14:20
Hallo Dirk, I think you must be right :-), the dates are very close. Today I discovered a photo of a Stug that shows the same location as that of the first Flammpanzer pic I posted. If my information is correct (Nuts & Bolts 24) these photos must have been taken in Ostend. I once more posted the photo in my Stiwot thread :
http://www.stiwotforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15541
By the way, have you got any info on exercises at Calais? I think the A13 cruiser must have belonged to Pz.Abt. (F)100.
Gruss,
Arjan
Hi Arjan,
I have only few notices about Calais exercises. An belonging to tanks only the notice that B- and C-Barges cant be loaded with the "Eisenbahnverladebrücke" and an exercise with an 21 to tank on 19.01.40.
Gruß
Dirk
Thanks a lot for your trouble Dirk ! The second Stug pic I posted was taken in Calais (according to the seller) and a Sturmgeschütz III Ausführung A must have weighed around 20 tons . An A13 Cruiser was about 15 tons.
Gruss,
Arjan
On ebay today a nice photo of an exercise involving a Stug, perhaps its location is also Calais :
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Sturmgeschutz-Abt-Stug-wird-auf-Marine-Fahre-Boot-verladen-/311539236421?hash=item48892f7e45:g:oiIAAOSwoydWr8Iv
By the way, I've posted some pics of Prähme converted by Verschure :
http://www.stiwotforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=15559
Arjan
Ich bin gerade über ein Paar Dokumente des A.R. 17 von mitte August 1940 gestolpert. Die zweite Abteilung wurde (nach der damaligen Planung) komplett umgegliedert und hatte dann zwei Batterien mit je vier Gebirgsgeschütze (75 mm Skoda Model 1915), eine Batterie mit acht 105 mm Nebelwerfer (Granatwerfer), und die Sturmgeschützbatterie 666 war auch (irgendwie) unterstellt.
Nach dieser Gliederung war letztgenannte Batterie bestens ausgerüstet, mit neben den 6 Stugs 9 gepanzerte Halbkettenfahrzeuge (SdKfz 252 und 253), und auch die Zuteilung von 17 Maschinenpistolen ist für 1940 eher grosszügig.
Gleichzeitig fällt auf wie viele Pferde die Invasoren mitbringen wollten: 54 für eine Batterie mit vier leichte Geschütze (613 kg), und das war noch nicht mal alles, im 2. Staffel (Geleitzug aus Rotterdam) waren pro Batterie noch mal 7 bespannte Fahrzeuge und 30 Pferde vorgesehen, mit 46 Mann die sich darum kümmern sollten; das Regiment meldete für diese zwei Batterien einen zusätzlichen Bedarf von 60 Mann an.
Moin Gerard,
Stand 18.09.40 war 4./AR 17 auf Gebirggeschütz umgerüstet.
Pferdeanzahl in der 1. Staffel ist nicht eindeutig bestimmbar, aber mindestens 52 Stück.
Gruß
Dirk
Danke Dirk,
Und die 2. Staffel von den genannten Batterien, nach diesem Dokument von 15.8, vollständigkeitshalber:
Ich muss mich da korrigieren, sehe ich - geplant war (zu diesem Zeitpunkt) nicht 30, sondern 77 Pferde im 2. Staffel mitzubringen. Macht insgesamt 131 für eine Batterie, nicht viel weniger als Sollstärke bei einer Batterie mit 10,5 cm lFH 18, nämlich 153.
Normalerweise wurden diese Gebirgsgeschütze von zwei Pferden (Haflinger) oder Maultieren in Tandem gezogen, aber hier war anscheinend vorgesehen Protzen/Vorwagen zu benützen (als "Karren" aufgelistet) und die vierspännig zu fahren. Ich nehme (vorläufig) mal an das hierzu das Infanterie-Teilfahrzeug (Itf. 14) benützt werden sollte, die Protze für das 7,5 cm lIG 18 (siehe Bild), welches im Laufe des Krieges auch Verwendung fand als Protze für Pak 38, Nebelwerfer 41, und andere Waffen in dieser Gewichtsklasse.
To return to the Flammpanzer: on page 222 of "Landung in England" it says that the platoon commanders' "gun tanks" were Pz III, but I am inclined to believe that is a typo, as other sources seem to agree that Pz II (Ausf. C) were used in this role?
That would make more sense, as the Pz III was in a different weight class which would have complicated the transport of the unit, both on land and at sea (in barges).
Hallo Gerard,
ja das mit dem Pz III ist ein "typo". Pz II ist richtig.
Viele Grüße
Dirk