Moderator: Tom Houlihan
Could it be that Your "Gruppe Maempel" is a typo for the Gruppe Memper? Oberst Memper replaced Oberst Göller as CO of his Kampfgruppe 25/12/42.
Which KG Schuldt was the PzJg Kp 518 assigned to? Because Brig Schuldt is not equivalent with the KG Dietrich = Schuldt (but You know this better than I do ).
I have one more PzJg unit available - a s.PzJg B (without any further designation, should be company?) attached to the KG Fegelein during early January.
And thanks for Your constant support in my research.Thanks for your never ending interest in 1942/43 Ostfront, Abel.
Thanks for correcting my typo. This makes things much clearer for me.That's the same person, but Maempel is the correct spelling, Oberst Rolf Maempel - Kdr. Pz.Gren.Rgt.140 (DKiG, later KC), his KG was cutt off from the rest of 27.Pz.Div. and together with the remains of 298.Inf.Div. and some italian units it fought its way towards Chertkowo and he became the garisson commander.
OK, so it was an Abteilung indeed!s.Pz.Jg.Abt. B, equipped with 7,6cm pak (sfl.).
KG Fegelein; Kriegsgliederung 8-1-1943:
[...]
Unterstellt:
-(mot) 3./H.Pz.Jg. B
with : 4 75 mm AT Guns dsch
1 75mm At Gun f
That's all I have about this obscure unit.Tippelskirch's war diary, 9-1-1943, Starobelsk
[...] 27th Pz.'s AT detachment, put together (sic!) with "Detachment B"?
Might be, but what's bothering me is that I have both KGs still listed (seperately) as of 11 January 1943 (Tieke).Thanks for correcting my typo. This makes things much clearer for me.That's the same person, but Maempel is the correct spelling, Oberst Rolf Maempel - Kdr. Pz.Gren.Rgt.140 (DKiG, later KC), his KG was cutt off from the rest of 27.Pz.Div. and together with the remains of 298.Inf.Div. and some italian units it fought its way towards Chertkowo and he became the garisson commander.
That means, that the later KG Göller (with the adjoined KG Maempel - it wasn't renamed to KG Maempel after the change in command as proved by the OKH map for 1/1/43) finally controlled three of these PzJg Kps.
All I can tell is that according to my source (email),Might be, but what's bothering me is that I have both KGs still listed (seperately) as of 11 January 1943 (Tieke).
Actually, only the 3. Kp of StuG Abt 201 was present at Chertkovo.Gr.Oberst Maempel
Stug.Abt.201
Schn.Abt.127 (= Pz.Abt.127 )
This is the so called "Blocco Nord". Parts of Ravenna were also present. The Torino division was almost fully present. Only very small parts of 23 Marzo made it to Chertkovo. I'm in doubts about the PzJg Abt 654, since this unit was reported being present at Kantemirovka (to the W) 19/12/42. Probably fragments of this unit?Tle.Pz.Jäg.Abt.B
Tle.Brig."23.März" (Ital.)
Pz.Jäg.Kp.13
Tle."Pasubio" (Ital.)
Brig."3.Januar" (Ital.)
Pz.Jäg.Abt.654
Pz.Jäg.Kp.12
Tle."Torino" (Ital.)
most of 1.,4./SS Polsch Reg 1Gruppe Oberst Göller
2 Btle. Gr.Rgt.538 (385.)
1/2 I./SS-Pol.Sch.Rgt.1
Pz.Kp. K.Gr. Füh.Begl.Btl.5
Pz.Jäg.Kp. 517
This is VERY hard to tell. I'd say no, but this is just my guess. Probably KG Göller, commanded by MaempelWould this mean there were two groups in Chertkovo or ?
Best,Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 (mot.)
[...]
6 Nov 42 9 Pak 40 and 1 Pak 97/38 (f) serviceable, 1 Pak 97/38 (f) unserviceable in 1./, two companies entirely without AT guns
Dec 42 elements attached to 298th Infantry Division, II Italian Corps, 8th Italian Army
12 Dec 42 2./ issued 9 Marder IIs at Kantemirovka, guns turned over to 3./
19 Dec 42 16 more Marder IIs arrive at Kantemirovka and are almost overrun by the Soviets
mid-Feb 43 battalion ordered to Hamburg to reform
1 Apr 43 schwere-Panzerjäger-Kompanie 518 and 1./Pz.Jg.Abt. 168 incorporated
[...]
What a surprisethis is the part I enjoy the most in this all
I can confirm that Maempel took over the command in late December.All I can tell is that according to my source (email),
"Kampfgruppe Göller
CO: Oberst Göller till 25th December 1942 later
Oberst Memper [sic!]"
Maempel took over command of the grouping.
Thanks. How could I've missed this one? How do you mean incorrect?Schn.Abt 127 is the incorrect designation of the PzJg Abt 127 (renaming occured 2/12/42).
Nah, it would be too obviousI thought that originally Maempel's group also had elements of his own unit (=PzGren Reg 140). Am I mistaken here?
Do you have a date for this OoB? It seems like the composition of KG Göller remained virtually the same throughout the siege (another one dated in late December is identical).most of 1.,4./SS Polsch Reg 1
5., parts of 4./F.B.B.
other fragments
I'm just trying to find out the situation in Chertkovo (Oops, I meant I was looking for info on the anti-tank companiesThis is VERY hard to tell. I'd say no, but this is just my guess. Probably KG Göller, commanded by Maempel remained independent, and KG Maempel was disbanded. Got nothing to prove this, though.
What do You think about this stuff? Am I missing something here?
Interesting, maybe the battalion (or at least part of it) did find its way to Chertkovo.have just found an extra bit on Panzerkeil.
Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 (mot.)
[...]
6 Nov 42 9 Pak 40 and 1 Pak 97/38 (f) serviceable, 1 Pak 97/38 (f) unserviceable in 1./, two companies entirely without AT guns
Dec 42 elements attached to 298th Infantry Division, II Italian Corps, 8th Italian Army
12 Dec 42 2./ issued 9 Marder IIs at Kantemirovka, guns turned over to 3./
19 Dec 42 16 more Marder IIs arrive at Kantemirovka and are almost overrun by the Soviets
mid-Feb 43 battalion ordered to Hamburg to reform
1 Apr 43 schwere-Panzerjäger-Kompanie 518 and 1./Pz.Jg.Abt. 168 incorporated
[...]
I mean that in fact, the Schn Abt was renamed into the PzJg Abt 127, and not the other way round. So, by the given timeframe, the correct designation was already PzJg Abt 127.Thanks. How could I've missed this one? How do you mean incorrect?Schn.Abt 127 is the incorrect designation of the PzJg Abt 127 (renaming occured 2/12/42).
So, in fact, KG Maempel was of sub-battalional dimensions, but with a regimental command. An ideal replacement for the ad-hoc HQ of KG Göller (BTW, do You have any clue who this Oberst Göller / Göhler was? I couldn't find any single info on him yet).Nah, it would be too obvious .
Maempel only had one rifle company to accompany his Rgt.Stab and as it seems some elements of Schn.Abt 127 (Abt.Stab of which plus some further elements managed to reach Millerowo)
No specific date on this one, at least not after 22/12/42. But as You will see below, it is quite reasonable to assume that in fact these units were part of the Kgr throughout the siege.Do you have a date for this OoB? It seems like the composition of KG Göller remained virtually the same throughout the siege (another one dated in late December is identical).
Do You have any source to say that only a KGr from the 298. Inf Div was involved in Tschertkowo? AFAIK the whole division, plus attached sub-units made its way to the city. All my data has the full 298. Inf Div present inside the Chertkovo pocket during the breakout attempt. So, I assume that not only a KG of the division was involved.I'm just trying to find out the situation in Chertkovo (Oops, I meant I was looking for info on the anti-tank companies ). Maempel definately one way or the other found its way to Chertkovo. The question now remains what units did he have under his command during the long journey. As an afternote there appears to had been two battle groups in the town, Göller and a KG from 298.Inf.Div., but who was its CO (Oberst Michaelis, Schulte or Maempel?).
The answer was in front of our eyes, but my emphasis was at a wrong place.Interesting, maybe the battalion (or at least part of it) did find its way to Chertkovo.
So, elements - and if I assume right, it could only have been the 1. coy (see the note for 12/12/42 above mentioning the other two coys at Kantemirovka) - were in fact with the 298. Inf Div column.Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 (mot.)
[...]
6 Nov 42 9 Pak 40 and 1 Pak 97/38 (f) serviceable, 1 Pak 97/38 (f) unserviceable in 1./, two companies entirely without AT guns
Dec 42 elements attached to 298th Infantry Division, II Italian Corps, 8th Italian Army
12 Dec 42 2./ issued 9 Marder IIs at Kantemirovka, guns turned over to 3./
19 Dec 42 16 more Marder IIs arrive at Kantemirovka and are almost overrun by the Soviets
mid-Feb 43 battalion ordered to Hamburg to reform
1 Apr 43 schwere-Panzerjäger-Kompanie 518 and 1./Pz.Jg.Abt. 168 incorporated
[...]
Interesting, do you have a source for this? My understanding (and according to Stoves) is that this was in fact the other way around and this designation wasn't used prior to December 1942. The reason for this unique designation (of a PJA) was in its composition - 1 pak (sfl.), 1 pak (mot.) and 1 le.(gp.)Sch. companies. 2 December marked the arrival of 3./PJA127.I mean that in fact, the Schn Abt was renamed into the PzJg Abt 127, and not the other way round. So, by the given timeframe, the correct designation was already PzJg Abt 127.
Yes, though the above mentioned composition was at the time the KGr lost communications with its division. So there's no way of knowing which units it had under its command during the retreat to Chertkovo (not to mention its composition on 11 Feb).So, in fact, KG Maempel was of sub-battalional dimensions, but with a regimental command.
Seems logical, but usually this would also mean the change of KGr's name.An ideal replacement for the ad-hoc HQ of KG Göller
Kdr. Festungs-Pionier-Stab 24.BTW, do You have any clue who this Oberst Göller / Göhler was? I couldn't find any single info on him yet).
Actually I lack sources for anything other then general info on Chertkovo. Basically all I could find on the fighting in the town is about Gruppe Göller thus probably, as you say, my »298.ID' KGr« was rather »KGr 298.ID«.Do You have any source to say that only a KGr from the 298. Inf Div was involved in Tschertkowo? AFAIK the whole division, plus attached sub-units made its way to the city. All my data has the full 298. Inf Div present inside the Chertkovo pocket during the breakout attempt. So, I assume that not only a KG of the division was involved.
Only elements of Stabskp.Kampfgruppe Maempel
- commanded by Obst Rolf Maempel, CO PzGren Reg 140
- had his own HQ, Begleit Coy and elements of PzJg Abt 127
Probably only elements, most of the unit with 27.Pz.Div. in Dec/Jan.schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung B
- was trapped at Chertkovo
- 3. coy with 75 mm guns avoided encirclement and ended up with KG Fegelein
- attachment to KG Maempel highly probable
In any case this was just a small group commanded by a Leutnant Busch.Panzergrenadier Regiment 63
- deployed at PzAOK 4 with 17. Pz Div
- elements of I. bn possibly present at Chertkovo with KG Göller
- could be typo for remnants of PzGren Reg 64's KG outside the pocket
I have had this info from the Lexikon der Wehrmacht website, saying "Am 31. Oktober 1942 wurde die Abteilung in Schnelle Abteilung 127 umbenannt. Am 2. Dezember 1942 wurde die Abteilung in Panzerjäger-Abteilung 127 zurück benannt." But I trust the Stoves' book, so this data should be dated badly at LDW.Interesting, do you have a source for this? My understanding (and according to Stoves) is that this was in fact the other way around and this designation wasn't used prior to December 1942. The reason for this unique designation (of a PJA) was in its composition - 1 pak (sfl.), 1 pak (mot.) and 1 le.(gp.)Sch. companies. 2 December marked the arrival of 3./PJA127.
Not necessarily - at the time, KG Schuldt was commanded by Dietrich, KG Fegelein by Dörfler and Liecke, KG Adam by Gablenz, KG Stahel by only God nows who (but not Stahel),... and KG Göller by Maempel, as I suppose.Seems logical, but usually this would also mean the change of KGr's name.
Nice bit of info here. What is Your source, if I may ask?Kdr. Festungs-Pionier-Stab 24.
At the moment, I'm away from my notes (excluding my laptop), so give me a few hours and I'll see what do I have. Not much, probably, but still worth a try.2 follow-up questions:
Any info on the Kantemirowka garrison?
1./Pz.Abt.138 in Chertkovo? Apparently it arrived on the same transport as 4.,5./FBB and formed the spearhead during the breakout.
So, what do you think about the Tippelskirch diary excerpt I have quoted above? >>27th Pz.'s AT detachment, put together (sic!) with "Detachment B"?<< Should this be about the detachments inside, or outside of Chertkovo?Probably only elements /s.Pzjg Abt B/, most of the unit with 27.Pz.Div. in Dec/Jan.
And I got far more info in returnSorry for diverting the subject of this topic but it just seemed appropriate to talk about the battle at Chertkovo where three of these obscure units had fought.
Thanks, for the source. To be fair Stoves mentions this designation - Schn.Abt.127 - only once and uses Pz.Jäg.Abt.127 throughout the text. So it could be either way.I have had this info from the Lexikon der Wehrmacht website, saying "Am 31. Oktober 1942 wurde die Abteilung in Schnelle Abteilung 127 umbenannt. Am 2. Dezember 1942 wurde die Abteilung in Panzerjäger-Abteilung 127 zurück benannt." But I trust the Stoves' book, so this data should be dated badly at LDW.
You're absolutely right, there're dozens of similar examples. But probably I didn't make myself clear enough, my point was actually the situation when there is not only a change of KGr commanders but also of the whole staff in charge of the KGr. As this would be the case in Maempel's staff replacing Göller's.Not necessarily - at the time, KG Schuldt was commanded by Dietrich, KG Fegelein by Dörfler and Liecke, KG Adam by Gablenz, KG Stahel by only God nows who (but not Stahel),... and KG Göller by Maempel, as I suppose.
Stoves, again.Nice bit of info here. What is Your source, if I may ask?
One company, 3./PJA127 - this was the SPW kp., did manage to avoid the encirclement and in Dec/Jan the division was trying to build a new battalion around it to improve its anti-tank capabilities. It received plenty of support from HG B in paks and sPJA »B«So, what do you think about the Tippelskirch diary excerpt I have quoted above? >>27th Pz.'s AT detachment, put together (sic!) with "Detachment B"?<< Should this be about the detachments inside, or outside of Chertkovo? OK, I don't expect an answer for that
Yes, it does look strange.Can You remember the map posted by Christoph Awender at another forum regarding the battles around Woroshilovgrad? Here is a link. What is striking me here, that on 1/1/43, both KG Göller and 298. Inf Div are neatly placed in a continuous frontline reaching Chertkovo, and definitely not encircled! The 19. Pz Div behind their back is suspicious - but still, is this a mistake (of grand proportions) on the OKH map???
Sorry, can't help you at least not momentarily.Also, do You have any good data on the Chertkovo relief attempt by the 19. Pz Div? I was not even able to ascertain the date, nor the commanding HQ (corps? army? army group?) of this operation, let alone the composition of the Angriffsgruppe.
I have recieved a PM today noting that Tessin has it the way as the LDW website - I cannot countercheck this, for I don't own Tessin's book. But if Stoves doesn't explicitly say the other way round, I'd stick to the unit being redesignated PzJg Abt 127 on 2nd December.Thanks, for the source. To be fair Stoves mentions this designation - Schn.Abt.127 - only once and uses Pz.Jäg.Abt.127 throughout the text. So it could be either way.
You've made a point here.You're absolutely right, there're dozens of similar examples. But probably I didn't make myself clear enough, my point was actually the situation when there is not only a change of KGr commanders but also of the whole staff in charge of the KGr. As this would be the case in Maempel's staff replacing Göller's.
Makes sense to me, thanks for clearing this issue. You deserve theOne company, 3./PJA127 - this was the SPW kp., did manage to avoid the encirclement and in Dec/Jan the division was trying to build a new battalion around it to improve its anti-tank capabilities. It received plenty of support from HG B in paks and sPJA »B« .