Tschertkowo 1942/43

German unit histories, lineages, OoBs, ToEs, commanders, fieldpost numbers, organization, etc.

Moderator: Tom Houlihan

Marko
Enthusiast
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:23 am

Tschertkowo 1942/43

Post by Marko » Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:33 am

I'm looking for any information on the independent Pz.Jäg companies sent to the southern part of Eastern Front in December 1942.

So far I managed to find:

Pz.Jg.Kp 515 and 516 with Gruppe Kreysing;
Pz.Jg.Kp 517 with Gruppe Göller;
Pz.Jg.Kp 518 (Oblt. Wilde) with Brigade Schuldt (and KG Dietrich);

Pz.Jg.Kp 11 with 385. Inf.Div;.
Pz.Jg.Kp 12 and 13 with Gruppe Maempel.

Were there any others?

Thanks,
Marko
Last edited by Marko on Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Abel Ravasz
Contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:44 am
Location: Hungary/Slovakia

Post by Abel Ravasz » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:43 am

Hi Marko,

not much to add.

So far, I have encountered only the 4 units of the 500-series at this theatre of ops.

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 :wink: ).

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.

Best,

Abel

Marko
Enthusiast
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:23 am

Post by Marko » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:44 am

Thanks for your never ending interest in 1942/43 Ostfront, Abel :D .
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.


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.
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 ).
:D But of course, it was part of the first KG Schuldt which was later renamed in KG Dietrich.
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.


s.Pz.Jg.Abt. B, equipped with 7,6cm pak (sfl.).

cheers
Marko

Abel Ravasz
Contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:44 am
Location: Hungary/Slovakia

Post by Abel Ravasz » Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:21 am

Hi Marko,
Thanks for your never ending interest in 1942/43 Ostfront, Abel.
And thanks for Your constant support in my research.
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.
Thanks for correcting my typo. This makes things much clearer for me.

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.

(BTW seems that both Göller (sic Göhler) and Maempel (sic Memper) were mis-spelled in my sources)
s.Pz.Jg.Abt. B, equipped with 7,6cm pak (sfl.).
OK, so it was an Abteilung indeed!

In some documents kindly forwarded to me by Marco Ferliga, the following entries can be found.
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
Tippelskirch's war diary, 9-1-1943, Starobelsk

[...] 27th Pz.'s AT detachment, put together (sic!) with "Detachment B"?
That's all I have about this obscure unit.


Marko, do You think that these anti-tank companies would apply for the "schwere" cathegorization? In one source, I have seen them mentioned with the "s." prefix.

Best,

Abel

Marko
Enthusiast
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:23 am

Post by Marko » Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:56 am

Hi Abel,
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.
Thanks for correcting my typo. This makes things much clearer for me.

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.
Might be, but what's bothering me is that I have both KGs still listed (seperately) as of 11 January 1943 (Tieke).

Gr. Oberst Maempel listed as subordinated to 298.inf.Div. :!:

Gr.Oberst Maempel
Stug.Abt.201
Schn.Abt.127 (= Pz.Abt.127 :?: )
Total: 27 Panzers*
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.)

and

Gruppe 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

Would this mean there were two groups in Chertkovo or ?

Thanks
Marko

Abel Ravasz
Contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:44 am
Location: Hungary/Slovakia

Post by Abel Ravasz » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:15 am

Hi Marko,

this is the part I enjoy the most in this all :wink:
Might be, but what's bothering me is that I have both KGs still listed (seperately) as of 11 January 1943 (Tieke).
All I can tell is that according to my source (email),
"Kampfgruppe Göller
CO: Oberst Göller till 25th December 1942 later
Oberst Memper [sic!]"

I'd suppose Maempel took over command of the grouping. But were the two amalgamated? I just can't tell.
Gr.Oberst Maempel
Stug.Abt.201
Schn.Abt.127 (= Pz.Abt.127 )
Actually, only the 3. Kp of StuG Abt 201 was present at Chertkovo.

Schn.Abt 127 is the incorrect designation of the PzJg Abt 127 (renaming occured 2/12/42).
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.)
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?

I would say that this group is all of Blocco Nord minus the 298. Inf Div. I highly doubt the integrity of this grouping with Maempel's command.

I'd guess the units previously forming Maempel's group were directly attached to the Chertkovo garrison command = 298. Inf Div.

I thought that originally Maempel's group also had elements of his own unit (=PzGren Reg 140). Am I mistaken here?
Gruppe 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
most of 1.,4./SS Polsch Reg 1
5., parts of 4./F.B.B.
other fragments
Would this mean there were two groups in Chertkovo or ?
This is VERY hard to tell. I'd say no, but this is just my guess. Probably KG Göller, commanded by Maempel :wink: 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?

Best,

Abel

Abel Ravasz
Contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:44 am
Location: Hungary/Slovakia

Post by Abel Ravasz » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:46 pm

Hi,

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

[...]
Best,

Abel

Marko
Enthusiast
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:23 am

Post by Marko » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:57 am

Thanks again, for the very informative reply!
this is the part I enjoy the most in this all
What a surprise :wink: !
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.
I can confirm that Maempel took over the command in late December.
Schn.Abt 127 is the incorrect designation of the PzJg Abt 127 (renaming occured 2/12/42).
Thanks. How could I've missed this one? How do you mean incorrect?
I thought that originally Maempel's group also had elements of his own unit (=PzGren Reg 140). Am I mistaken here?
Nah, it would be too obvious :D .
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)
most of 1.,4./SS Polsch Reg 1
5., parts of 4./F.B.B.
other fragments
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).
This 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?
I'm just trying to find out the situation in Chertkovo (Oops, I meant I was looking for info on the anti-tank companies :wink: ). 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?).
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

[...]
Interesting, maybe the battalion (or at least part of it) did find its way to Chertkovo.

BR
Marko

Abel Ravasz
Contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:44 am
Location: Hungary/Slovakia

Post by Abel Ravasz » Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:35 pm

Hi Marko,

let me answer the point raised by You first, then give You some extra data on the units involved.
Schn.Abt 127 is the incorrect designation of the PzJg Abt 127 (renaming occured 2/12/42).
Thanks. How could I've missed this one? How do you mean incorrect?
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.
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)
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).
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).
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.
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?).
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.

About the commander - there was a sudden replacement in the command chain of the division on 27/12/42 - Genm Herbert Michaelis replaced Arnold Szelinski as the CO of the unit. As the division fought its way to Chertkovo only a few days before, it is fairly logical to assume that Szelinski was trapped outside and was replaced by the acting commander in field (Führer, if You please), Michaelis. Someone could prove my point here if You can.
Interesting, maybe the battalion (or at least part of it) did find its way to Chertkovo.
The answer was in front of our eyes, but my emphasis was at a wrong place.
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

[...]
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.

This was part one, and now let's move on to part 2 - data on the units involved.

298. Infanterie Division
- commander Genl Arnold Szelinski replaced 27/12/42 by Genm Herbert Michaelis
- full division deployed with XXXV. Ita AK (CHIR)
- was part of Blocco Nord
- made its way to Chertkovo, and took on garrison duties there

Blocco Nord
- composite name for units retreating in the "298. Inf Div column"
- had elements of Torino, Ravenna, Pasubio, 298. Inf Divs plus subdivisional units
- there was no real central command to lead grouping, seems unofficial

Kampfgruppe Maempel
- commanded by Obst Rolf Maempel, CO PzGren Reg 140
- had his own HQ, Begleit Coy and elements of PzJg Abt 127
- was cut off from parent division 27. Pz Div during Russian offensive
- arrived at Chertkovo with Blocco Nord, and HQ assumed command of KG Göller's units

Kampfgruppe Göller
- commanded by Obst Göller replaced 25/12/42 by Obst Maempel
- formed ad-hoc 22/12/42 from local units at Chertkovo
- had garrison command duties before the arrival of the 298. Inf Div

Grenadier Regiment 538
- was deployed at AOK 18 until 11/42
- transferred to join division at the southern front but got stuck at Chertkovo
- II. bn was disbanded during the autumn of 1942
- was made part of KG Göller with the remaining two bns

Torino Division
- full division retreated to Chertkovo with Blocco Nord

Ravenna Division
- just fragments were with Blocco Nord
- main body of division was rejected to the west and later joined Fretter-Pico's group

Pasubio Division
- just fragments were with Blocco Nord
- main body of division was engaged to the east with Blocco Sud

CCNN Brigade 23 Marzo
- just very small parts were with Blocco Nord
- bulk of unit was grouped with the Ravenna Div

CCNN Brigade 3 Gennaio
- full unit was attached to Blocco Nord
- was involved in heavy fighting (Arbusov) and had heavy casualties
- highly praised by the Germans as rearguard unit at breakthrough

Gruppe Huffmann
- commander Major Heinz Huffmann of StuG Abt 201
- composite battalion formed around HQ and 3./StuG Abt 201
- was attached to the Blocco Nord and later fought at Chertkovo

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

Panzerjäger Abteilung 654
- 2. and 3., freshly equipped with Marder IIs, was present at Kantemirovka 19/12/42
- elements (most probably 1. coy) were trapped at Chertkovo
- attachment to KG Maempel highly probable

1.,4./SS Polizei-Schützen Regiment 1
- unit sent via rail from Debica to join KG Schuldt
- 19/12/42 second transport of bataillon got cut off at Chertkovo with 1. and 4. coys
- unit organized ad hoc town defenses immediately
- detachment joined KG Göller

4.,5./Führer Begleit Bataillon
- unit sent via rail from Germany to strenghten Italian lines
- 23/12/42 second transport of unit got cut off at Chertkovo with 5. (Pz) Kp and parts of 4. coy
- detachment joined KG Göller

schwere Panzerjäger Kompanie 517
- present at Chertkovo 22/12/42
- was made part of KG Göller

Panzerjäger Kompanie 12
- affiliation with KG Maempel possible

Panzerjäger Kompanie 13
- affiliation with KG Maempel possible

SS Batterie Krause
- was part of KG Göller

Bau Pionier Bataillon 3
- was part of KG Göller

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

---------

So, that's where I stand today.

Please add Your comments and any further data and (as You would say) sorry for the long post :D

Best,

Abel

Marko
Enthusiast
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:23 am

Post by Marko » Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:46 am

No need to be sorry :wink: , this must be one of the best contributions to the forum, lately 8) . Much appreciated!!
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.
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.
So, in fact, KG Maempel was of sub-battalional dimensions, but with a regimental command.
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).
An ideal replacement for the ad-hoc HQ of KG Göller
Seems logical, but usually this would also mean the change of KGr's name.
BTW, do You have any clue who this Oberst Göller / Göhler was? I couldn't find any single info on him yet).
Kdr. Festungs-Pionier-Stab 24.
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.
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«.

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.
Kampfgruppe Maempel
- commanded by Obst Rolf Maempel, CO PzGren Reg 140
- had his own HQ, Begleit Coy and elements of PzJg Abt 127
Only elements of Stabskp.
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
Probably only elements, most of the unit with 27.Pz.Div. in Dec/Jan.
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
In any case this was just a small group commanded by a Leutnant Busch.

BR
Marko

Abel Ravasz
Contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:44 am
Location: Hungary/Slovakia

Post by Abel Ravasz » Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:38 am

Hi Marko,

nice new name for this thread! Sorry 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.
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 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.
Seems logical, but usually this would also mean the change of KGr's name.
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.
Kdr. Festungs-Pionier-Stab 24.
Nice bit of info here. What is Your source, if I may ask?
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.
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.
Probably only elements /s.Pzjg Abt B/, most of the unit with 27.Pz.Div. in Dec/Jan.
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? :D OK, I don't expect an answer for that :D

I have also noted the numerous mistakes pointed out by You and will correct them as soons as possible.

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???

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'll get back with the Kantemirovka data as soon as I can,
Best,

Abel

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:01 am

My compliments to both Abel and Marko for a Superb Thread.

Abel, your detailed knowledge of this campaign never ceases to astonish me! :D
Marko, excellent, concise commentary!!! :D

Fantastic job gentlemen, I salute both of you!!! :D :D

Best Regards,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

Marko
Enthusiast
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:23 am

Post by Marko » Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:26 am

Sorry 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.
And I got far more info in return :D .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nice bit of info here. What is Your source, if I may ask?
Stoves, again.
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
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« 8) .
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???
Yes, it does look strange.
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.
Sorry, can't help you at least not momentarily.

Khm, I understand there is at least one forum member who has both 298.ID and 19.PD histories :idea: 8) .

David, thanks for the compliments :D :D .

Abel Ravasz
Contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:44 am
Location: Hungary/Slovakia

Post by Abel Ravasz » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:52 am

Hi Marko,
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 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.
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.
You've made a point here.
But then, what is the KG Göller on that map for 1/1/43? (OK, that map doesn't seem to be perfect anyways :wink: ). I don't think that Fest-Pi Stab 24 got to command another Kampfgruppe after being just deprived of one. But these are just guesses... no crucial data here yet.
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« .
Makes sense to me, thanks for clearing this issue. You deserve the 8) for this one :D

Now to Kantemirovka.
Unfortunately I have found just one note regarding the city, saying "19 Dec. Kharitonov's 6. Army captures Kantemirovka. Soviet forces reach Novaja Kalitva." But this equals to nothing considering the strength and composition of the garrison. But some points can be made:

- the city is captured immediately
- the PzJg Abt 654 is almost overrun

This would suggest a minimal strength of the defenders only - maybe the generic "most of PzJg Abt 654 plus stragglers and Alarm units :D " could be applied here too. Sorry for this stupid answer.


I have found an important note about the StuG Abt 201.

"27/12/42 3./StuG Abt 201 in attachment to 298. Inf Div, II. (ita) AK, AOK 8 (i)."

This could be a small hint about the fate of the Maempel group - dissolved and elements attached to 298. Inf Div direct? Guesses, guesses, guesses... And I am not convinced about the submission of the division to the II. (ita) AK.

I, too, am waiting for the one to tell us something about the unit histories of these two divisions.

David, thanks for the compliments. I really appreciate them :D

Best,

Abel

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:17 pm

Well--the Commissar will never be the one accused of holding up an offensive!!! (At least when it comes to 19th Panzer.) :D

Abel, please check your email.

Best Regards,
~D, the EviL
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

Post Reply