Let’s look at an artillery regiment
Staff, HQ battery, 4 battalions (each with a staff, HQ battery and 3 batteries)
Again, a square flag for a regiment. We have seen the box shape with the infantry. Here the stylized gun symbol identifies it as an artillery battery and ‘St’ means Stab (staff/HQ)
1st battalion or 1. Abt. in German
Same principle as with the regimental staff, but here we have 3 gun batteries
The arrow represents a cannon. Sometimes the vertical lines are heavy (like a company) sometimes (here) the are slim. The arrow shows this battery is armed with cannon. The type? Light (le) Czech (t) pieces. 4 pieces and 2 LMG.
2-4 battalion are differently armed
The symbol here represents a howitzer batteries (think of a gun with a wheel on each side)
Again they are light Czech pieces with 2 LMG
Here’s the same battalion in an actual strength report. Note the heavy bars and the addition of a new symbol: an arrow with a circle underneath. It represents an anti-aircraft gun. In this case a light piece (common with static divisions)
The presence of 4 light battalions is actually unusual. The New Type and Type 44 organization kept the traditional organization of 3 light and 1 heavy battalion (left).
Here the calibers are shown (15cm and 10,5cm) as well as MGs. As an example some batteries are listed with 3 art. pieces as there could be shortages. Hence the 'x)'
In German infantry division artillery was usually transported by horses. So fewer guns means fewer horses in the 'Grundgliederung. Typically batteries were nonetheless still equipped with 4 pieces, so more horses
Thread: German orbats
German document can be very interesting, even if you don’t speak German.
Their visual OOBs are prob the best example of that, if you know what the symbols mean.
Yes, you can look those up online, but how about a crash course in several threads?
Modern publications typically use NATO symbols. Useful, but also boring.
(Examples from Zetterling’s ‘Normandy 1944’ and Zaloga’s ‘Cherbourg 1944’)
German OOB charts are great, and a little confusing
Regard them as a unit assembled on an inspection ground: that they're seen from the perspective of a commander looking at his troops. So left on paper is actually right and right is left: So 4-3-2-1. Applies to all subunits!
Let's continue examining Cross-Channel Attack's (CCA) take on the German troops. For 1950/1951 it was admirable, but as we have seen yesterday not all of it holds up.
Now look at this sentence. The German use of stomach units has become (in)famous, but CCA correctly states that was just one division: the 70ID
The existence of ear and stomach units is a popular story, but it is seldom explored for what it really was.
On D-Day the 70ID did not really exist yet...
In the bigger picture it was very much an emergency formation in the summer (crisis) of 1944.
Thread: German static divisions in Normandy supposedly had very poor personnel. While true to some extend but as always it's a bit more complicated. Cross-Channel Attack (1951) made a serious attempt for a balanced view. Arguably better than much what has been written since!
The book seems to be key in spreading the message that 'the average age of the 709ID was 36'. This is commonly presented as fact when in fact it was based on anecdotal evidence: An officer explaining the failure of his division.
His claim made it into German records as well 🙄
Fact: the maximum average age of the combat elements in static divisions was set at 36.
And yes, support elements could raise that to over 36. But that’s just theory…
Are there reasons to believe that actually happened in the 709ID? Not really. 🧐
The number of horses for the artillery as show here is actually too low because it included some batteries with just 3 guns, instead of the actual 4
For Normandy such 'standard' divisions included the 271ID, 272ID, 275ID, 276ID, 277ID, 331ID, 352ID, 353ID, 363ID. Of course these were not identical in strength for various reasons