Need help with notations on gliederung

[Hans Weber]

Hello Leo

The realities did interfere with the planning of OKH, Org.Abt. a lot in 1944, as this example shows. In the end the reality was such that it had to be officially disbanded weeks after it had ceased to exist "due to preceeding battle action". However, to drop a "bo" was not a privilege distributed to anybody else than OKH, and wasn't done due to the impossibility to reform as as you seem to imply. It was not as a result of situation, but because the intention was to upgrade it during a short refitting period, very likely up to the 32. Welle standard as was the case with the five other units in the order dated Oct. 9th 1944 I mentioned above (159. Res. Div., 189 Res. Div., .Div. Nr. 462, 48. Inf. bo. and 338. Inf. Div. bo.). As the Gliederung dated Oct 1st 1944 already carries the designation 49. Inf. Div., the relevant order to reform (Umgliederung) must have been issued in September 1944 by OKH. Incidentally, the unit reports that it was undergoing a time of relative rest while on static defense (Stellungskrieg), trying hard to get all the Trosse, Sicherungs-Btl and Landesschützen fit for combat. That the order was not carried through due to other factors is another story.

Cheers
Hans

[richard hedrick]

Thanks guys, this is some great information, specifically the 49.ID stuff.

What is the reliability of the gliederung with regard to these designations? I suspect that at most they should just be used as a guide, as you can see below it seems to take some time for the .bo designation to be dropped.

Richard

[MadDog]

Piet, I might of mis-spoke. I cant find it on hand, but I have a vague recollection of the 84, 85 and 89 being short on transport. Furthermore, they all were short on support services and had the oddball 2 regiment (3 bn/each) structure. Nevertheless, I have to concede they were not formally bo. divisions.

Mad Dog

[Hans Weber]

Hello Richard

They are paperwork. The Schematische Kriegsgliederungen were a complicated compilation with a lot of data depending on an informed and exact input. These Gliederungen were not done by the same people making the changes. They were also documents adapted regularly. If a draft based on a previous Gliederung carried over an old designation, chances were that it was not noticed. Also allow for human error. To get at a correct designation one should get at the relevant orders by the competent command. That's a start. If you then see that the order was applied by the unit concerned, at least then you know that it was received and some effort to implement it was done, and that's sometimes more than you can expect. In short, the Gliederungen are usefull, mostly correct, but as they only serve to list and identify the units, which they still do with errors as seen, they are probably not the source for exact unit designations. And in the long run, well, most people then and today don't care about this "bo" anyway as long as they see which unit was meant. The reality on the battlefield was hardly changed by this.

Cheers
Hans

[Martin Block]

Re: Renaming of 48. and 49. Inf.Div.(bo) to 48. and 49. Inf.

If it helps (found in the BA-MA RH 2 files of Org.Abt.):


OKH/GenStdH/Org.Abt. Nr. I/19817/44 g.Kdos. v. 9.10.1944

Durch H.Gr. D ist entsprechend dem Antrag der Heeresgruppe die 48. Inf.Div.(bo) in 48. Inf.Div. umzugliedern. Gliederung und K.St.N. wie Div. 32. Welle .....


and


OKH/GenStdH/Org.Abt. Nr. I/20332/44 g.Kdos. v. 5.11.1944

Mit OKH/GenStdH/Org.Abt. Nr. I/20199/44 g.Kdos. v. 28.10.1944 ergangener Befehl zur Neuaufstellung der Division ist ungültig. Hiermit wird befohlen:

Neuaufstellung der 49. Inf.Div.(bo) als 49. Inf.Div. durch H.Gr. D, Gliederung 32. Welle .....


Martin Block

[MadDog]

I think the OKH files Martin refers to are T78 R412 H1/131 in NARA identity.

Richard: email me if you want the files for the divisions in question.

Mad Dog