There was a huge catfight after Kursk as to
Pz Brig 10's notable lack of success. Everyone was screaming about how the
Panthers hadn't worked. Decker[1] blamed Strachwitz's tactics, because his own
rear end was very much on the line. Decker was not with his unit from 7-11
July, being called to account to Knobelsdorff (XXXXVII Pzkps) for the brigade
staff's lack of effectiveness, and thus had a fine opportunity to blame
Strachwitz and Hoernlein for all the problems. His letter drips
self-justification, conveniently ignoring a few facts, such as the loss of
about 150 of the 200 Panthers in the attacks on 5-6 July, when Decker was in
command. Most of the confusion regarding terrain, Pakfronts and minefields
resulted from the Panther units having arrived at the last minute and conducted
no reconnaissance, many of their officers' inexperience, and radio equipment
deficiencies. The "idiocy" of Strachwitz's tactics also may be judged
by the fact that at the end of 6 July, Pz Rgt GD, which had been out front both
days, had suffered far fewer losses than had Pz Brig 10. The reality was that
GD with Pz Brig 10 attached undertook its mission exactly in accordance with
its orders and current Panzer doctrine. The sad fact was that the panzerwaffe
had never encountered a defense in depth of the sort found in the Korps AO.
Doctrine until then had called for slashing tactics, ignoring flanks. The
changes to doctrine reflected lessons learned generally, not any fault in Pz
Rgt GD. Of course, doctrine for offensive operations of the Kursk sort wasn't
used much thereafter. Strachwitz was very much the aristocrat and could be
forbidding to deal with. He also remained adept at aggressive Panzer tactics,
leading to his repeated tasking to pocket-relief missions until the war's end.
Anyone wondering just how widely he was regarded as "idiotic" should
search (in vain) for other criticism of him like Decker's, and consider his and
his critic's respective career paths after Kursk. The confusion that's arisen
over this question is just another example of the deficiencies inherent in
Jentz's approach in Panzertruppen. Apparently uncomfortable with his analytical
abilities, he declines any analysis whatsoever. This would not present so many
problems if he weren't so selective in the primary sources he quotes and
paraphrases, and if his readers generally were a little more
historiographically sophisticated. By the way, I found the Decker letter at p
96 of Panzertruppen 2, and the info on Pz Brig 10's late arrival and the losses
on 5-6 July are at pp 114 et seq of Jung's Pzrgt GD book.
Both abteilungen [battalions] abtn retained
a cadre or kernel of very experienced crews. However, they were filled out with
inexperienced people, many with no panzer experience at all, and were subject
to some personnel "raiding" during their long sojourn in Germany
during the Panther teething period. Officer quality in the two abtn was very
uneven. Because the brigade's Panthers only were shipped at the eleventh hour,
many of the crews had very slim experience with the new vehicle; bear in mind
that a minimal number of Panthers had been issued for training, and they all
experienced very high downtime from teething problems. More important, perhaps,
there had been very little work at zug [platoon] level and none on a larger
scale. Many of the abtn personnel arrived in the kampfraum only a day or so
before the offensive began; the brigade staff showed up even later. Thus there
was very little of the usual foot recon, signals testing, etc. that doctrine
stated should precede a deliberate attack. While a veteran unit might have
improved on the brig's performance in the almost-hasty attack circumstances
faced on 5-7 July, and veteran crews doubtless maneuverered and fought well,
subject to mechanical problems and the unexpected defenses, the brigade as a
whole charitably could be said to have been still shaking down at Kursk. It
would be interesting to know how the brig's performance improved over the
campaign. Presumably experienced crews made fewer disabling errors (a major
reason for engine failure was said to be inexperienced driving, and presumably
green crews made more tactical mistakes and paid for them); I wonder to what
extent veteran crews that lost their rides ranked others out of their panzers.
These two factors likely shrank the brig into a much smaller but more effective
unit. The brigade's problems in training, equipping and transport, and the
resulting difficulties in their first engagements, are recounted in Jentz and
in the Spaeter and Jung GD books ( I recall that Feist and some other secondary
published sources selectively synopsize the information.) Of course, it's
necessary to read with the filters on, as all the first-hand reports were
written to assign or deflect blame for the brigade's problems, but many
assertions appear factual and unequivocal, and rough triangulation towards an
assessment is possible.
There were a three instances of German
Panzer brigades getting thrashed in Lorraine in the fall of 1944. And the
typical cry of "Jabos" doesn't begin to explain what happened. The
Germans were outmaneuvered and outfought, twice by American troops of Patton's
army; and in the third instance by the French 2nd AD.
In these three instances the common
denominator was the lack of experience of the Panzer troops. This charge can
even be made against their senior leadership -- for while they were experts in
armored warfare on the eastern front, they were ill-prepared to fight on the
western front of 1944.
Certainly tanks were abandoned by their
crews during these fights and certainly some of these were cases of panic. But,
a small set of instances like these is hardly justification to intimate on a
broad scale that Heer panzer crews were cowardly or untrained. All the actions
in this case prove is that less well trained and experienced troops will generally
not do well against a better trained and experienced enemy. This was proved
again in January 1945, when the shoe was on the other foot, and it was the
green U.S. 12th Armored Division learning harsh lessons in and around
Herrlisheim.
[1]Lauchert lead the 39th Panzer Regiment
(the Panthers). Decker lead the 10th Panzer Brigade, which was supposed to
consist of the 39th Panzer Regiment and the Gross Deutschland Panzer Regiment.
This arrangement lasted for two days in combat (5th and 6th), before Decker was
relieved and command of these two regiments were placed under command of the GD
Panzer Regiment commander (von Strachwitz). After von Strachwitz was injured on
the 10th, Decker took back over command of the two regiments.
I agree with your analysis Mitch. Decker and von Strachwitz's row was I think six of one and half a dozen of the other. Both had successful reputations to defend and sought scapegoats. Ego clash was I suspect the root of it all, plus as you say the unsuitability of previous doctrine when attacking deep and well prepared defenses. The SS divisions at Kursk were more successful by deploying infantry and pioneers to the front supported by Tigers and Stugs, opening gaps for the panzers to exploit.
ReplyDelete'Blood, Steel and Myth' by George Nipe is my favorite source on this, not Jentz. Nipe defends Decker and von Lauchert quite successfully against their alleged incompetence. GD's war diary claims that GD's advance on the first day was held up by 10 Pz. Brigade becoming mired in the flooded balka and minefields. This misreports the facts. The truth was that Pz.Rgt GD went first and got stuck there, not Decker. 10 Pz.Rgt didn't even reach the start line until about 9.30am, about two hours after GDs initial assault.
In short, crews, vehicles, command and communications were just not ready to be deployed. Recon was inadequate. Artillery observation was difficult. The vulnerability of the immobile Panther's flanks to AT fire when stuck in prepared tank killing zones became painfully clear.