Panzer Lehr on June 8th

[John McGillivray]

During the counter attack against the Winnipeg Rifles at Putot-en-Bessin, how deeply involved were the troops from Panzer Lehr? In Hubert Meyer”s book he states on page 49

“…,that the Panzer-Lehr Division was to assemble in the same area as Panzergrenadierregiment 26 of the ‘HJ’ Division.”

Also he quotes on page 50, the commander of 6th company II/26 Obersturmführer Schmolke as followers:

“An infantry platoon of the Panzer-Lehr-Division attacked together with us and put itself under my command. I also met a Hauptmann (capt.), a battery commander, who supported the attack with his fire”


In Mark Zuehlhe’s book “Holding Juno” There are some references to actions by Panzer Lehr at la Bergerie Ferme, which is located North-East of Putot-en-Bessin.

Page 157
“To address the snipers pestering the 'D' Company platoon [Canadian Scottish] at la Bergerie Ferme, Cabeldu arranged some heavy support. The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa sent No. 5 Platoon with its Vickers machine guns and No. 13 Platoon with its heavy mortars, while the 62nd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery provided 'E' Battery [Troop?] and the 3rd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery contributed a troop from the 94th Battery. When Captain Harold Gonder of No. 5 Platoon reported to Canadian Scottish commander Cabeldu for instructions, he was told to "build up as strong a redoubt there as you can. Make it impregnable and ready for any attacks during the night or the morning.""

“Born in China to missionary parents, Gonder had lived overseas until his parents returned to Ontario when he was sixteen. He had entered the army during the Depression and worked his way up from the ranks. Prior to the invasion, he completed a stint as Major General Rod Keller's aide-de-camp. Normally, following such a posting an officer was appointed to headquarters staff, but Gonder had asked instead to return to the Camerons because he felt more at home in the ranks of a combat unit. The machine-gunner set to the task of fortifying the farm in close coordination with Lieutenant Gerry Blanchard of the 62nd's 'E' Battery [Troop?], whose 17-pounders provided the greatest weight of firepower. Gonder found Blanchard to be "a very easy going, friendly, debonair, Errol Flynn type of fellow. We managed to emplace our guns, so we were well concealed but had an unobstructed field of fire and view ahead of us." Digging their antitank guns and the Vickers machine guns into firing positions on the edge of a wood immediately west of the farm, the two men agreed that "if enemy tanks should appear [Blanchard] should give first order to fire. This was only logical because machine guns couldn't do much damage to tanks, whereas an antitank crew—properly trained and with the advantages we enjoyed—could create a great deal of havoc." The guns were positioned so that they had a clear field of fire along an arc swinging from the west to the south in order to cover all potential routes of approach likely to be used by the enemy.”

Page 162-165
“Unbeknown to Siebken, his flank was not threatened as feared, for a strong force of Panzer Lehr Division Panther tanks was already well north of his position grinding along a ridge paralleling the woods at la Bergerie Ferme. Captain Harold Gonder and Lieutenant Gerry Blanchard apprehensively watched this line of nine tanks cross the railroad west of Putot-en-Bessin and rattle towards their position. The 62nd Anti-Tank Regiment battery commander had only two 17-pound antitank guns and two 6-pounders from the 3rd Anti-Tank Regiment's 94th Battery capable of bringing sights to bear on the approaching Panthers.

“Gonder could hardly believe the cavalier manner of the German tank commanders. They were all sitting tall in their open turrets, looking straight ahead as if on a training manoeuvre. Glancing over at the antitank gunners quietly tracking the tanks with their guns, he thought it should be like shooting ducks in a row for them. The range was dosing fast, down to about 1,200 yards, with the tanks approaching the farm in a tightly regimented single line. Everything was developing into a perfect ambush until one of his sergeants suddenly shouted in a panicky voice, "Fire!" Before Gonder could countermand the order, every Vickers machine gun in the line ripped off a long burst of fire. "Oh, boy, here we go," Gonder thought, as "immediately down came the turrets and the German tanks got into action... fast."

“The jig up, the four antitank guns cracked out an opening salvo that left four Panthers wrecked, and hastened to reload. Even as they did so, the remaining five Panthers swung towards them with long-barrelled 75-millimetre guns barking out rapid fusillades. Gonder watched in helpless horror as the crew of one antitank gun or Vickers machine gun after another was "literally slaughtered" by shells "fused to burst on impact. The uncanny skill of those tankers in finding us and getting the range was ghastly."

“In seconds, both 17-pounders were out of action, with many gunners dead or wounded. Blanchard rushed to the rear to bring up another 17-pounder and 6-pounder that had been covering the farm's northern flank, while Gonder shifted his machine guns to new positions not yet zeroed in by the tankers, who were now being supported by German mortar fire that was hammering the wood. "Fearing that the tanks were accompanied by infantry, [Gonder] exhorted his men to keep the guns in action," wrote the Camerons' regimental historian. "Sergeant Stanley and Private A.W. Bond picked up a gun whose crew had been disabled, and moving to an exposed bit of ground continued to fire at and around the tanks until the situation had been restored." The two men were subsequently awarded Military Medals and Gonder the Military Cross for their behaviour in this action.

“The company's casualties, however, were heavy. Although all his Vickers remained operational, Gonder lacked soldiers to man most of them. Having had their mortars wrecked by the opening salvo of German mortar fire, the surviving members of the Camerons' No. 13 Platoon jumped in, but were still too few to bring all the guns back on line. Fortunately, a number of the Canadian Scottish troops were "old 2nd Battalion men." This prewar battalion of the Canadian Scottish Regiment had been briefly reorganized in 1936 into a machine-gun battalion similar to the Camerons. Harkening back to their long unused training, the soldiers reacquainted themselves with the powerful, little-modified, -3O3-calibre workhorse that had served Commonwealth forces since before the Boer War.

“Smothered by artillery and mortar fire and raked from a distance by the Panthers, casualties among 'E' Troop grew to the point where Blanchard ended up "laying and firing one of the guns himself." The rapid fire the British and Canadian antitank gunners kept throwing at the Panthers served to keep them at their distance, so the two sides engaged in a standoff from mid-morning to about 1630 hours. Then the tanks, undoubtedly low on ammunition, turned about and waddled home. The battle for la Bergerie Ferme was over. 'E' Troop's casualties were four dead, seven wounded, and two missing. Blanchard's cool bravery under fire earned a Military Cross.

“When Canadian Scottish Major G.T. "Tony" MacEwan visited his 'D' Company platoon positioned in the wood, he was "surprised to find no casualties... although they were all shaken up. The mortars [No. 13 Platoon] were in a bad way [with] their transport—about four trucks—in all... hit and brewing. The MGS had many casualties." MacEwan's visit was in the mid-afternoon, and he thought the worst of the fight at the farm finished for the moment. The major reported the attack against la Bergerie as part of the offensive by 12th SS (Hitlerjugend) Panzer Division, not realizing that his men had faced down a probe by Panzer Lehr Division—just beginning to establish a presence on the battlefield. He was little worried about the situation at the farm, but greatly concerned by the ever increasing intensity of fire coming from Putot-en-Bessin. It seemed that the main focus of German attention was shifting inexorably to focus directly on that village."”

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by John McGillivray
During the counter attack against the Winnipeg Rifles at Putot-en-Bessin, how deeply involved were the troops from Panzer Lehr?

Hi John;

Some points I found:

Source: The Western Front 1944: Memoirs of a Panzer Lehr Officer, by Helmut Ritgen.

Originally posted by John McGillivray
“An infantry platoon of the Panzer-Lehr-Division attacked together with us and put itself under my command.

- this platoon from the Pz Lehr Div was probably from the II/902 PzGren Lehr Regt - the II/902 had attacked Brouay at approx 0430hrs that morning with them becoming more or less trapped there, being not only counter-attacked, but also being attacked by elements of the III/26 SS PzGren Regt, by mistake. The II/902 was left leaderless and having suffered heavy casualties in both officers and men, were pretty disorganized.

Originally posted by John McGillivray
Unbeknown to Siebken, his flank was not threatened as feared, for a strong force of Panzer Lehr Division Panther tanks

The Pz Lehr Div's Panther battalion (I/6 Pz Regt) were still in transit to Normandy, returning from the ordered transfer of the Pz Lehr Div to the Eastern Front, so played no part on 8 June.

The only other part of the Pz Lehr Div to be involved on 8 June, was a recce party from the 130 Arty Regt who were jumped by Canadians near Christot.

Cheers

[John McGillivray]

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your answer.

I went back and checked in Niklas Zetterling’s book “Normandy 1944” and found the following (p.384-386):

“At the beginning of June the division was deployed-in the Chartres — Le Mans — Orleans area. Despite the threat of Allied invasion the Panther battalion — the I./Panzer-Regiment 6 which had been detached from the 3. Panzer-Division — was loaded on trains to be sent to the Eastern Front. On 5 June the first train had reached Magdeburg in Germany while the last one was at Paris. This meant that the strongest battalion of the division was missing when the Allies invaded France.
“On D-Day the division received orders to march to Normandy. The Panther battalion was ordered to move back to France to join the division in Normandy. The journey to Normandy by the division has been described as a costly and prolonged affair due to intervention of Allied air power. It has been stated the division lost 5 tanks, 84 SPW and prime movers and 90 wheeled vehicles. According to Ritgen, who was the commander of the repair and maintenance company of the Panzer IV battalion at the time, this initial report was exaggerated. The fact that the division lost 82 SPW and 10 prime movers during the entire month of June supports this judgement.
“Of greater importance than the losses were the delays. The Panzer IV battalion — the II/Panzer-Regiment 130 — had only reached a wooded area north of Alencon on the morning of 7 June and was short of fuel. The II./Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment 902 went into action on the morning of 8 June. The following day, the II./Panzer-Regiment 130, Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment 901, the I./Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment 902 and Panzerjager-Lehr-Abteilung 130 were committed. On 10 June the Panther battalion arrived, and it was sent into action the following day.”

So it would have being impossible to have had Panthers in action around la Bergerie Ferme on the 8th of June. So who were the British and Canadians fighting there? The sources that Zuehlke gives for his description of the battle are as followers:

-Tony Foulds, "In Support of the Canadians: A British Anti-Tank Regiment's First Five Weeks in Normandy," Canadian Military History, Spring 1998, vol. 7,74.

-Harold Bertrand Gonder, interview by Mark C. Hill, 23 July and 7, 8, 9 August 1985, University of Victoria Special Collections.

-Richard M. Ross, The History of the 1st Battalion Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa (M G), (n.p., n.d.), 44.

-Maj. G.T. MacEwan, "Battle Narrative: D-Day and the Counter-Attack on Putot-en-Bessin," 145.204013(03), Directorate of History, Department of National Defence, 5.

The incident at Cristot involved British troops and not Canadian. It was a recce patrol from the Inns of Court Regiment.

http://home.att.net/~SSPzHJ/WarCrimes.html

[John McGillivray]

I take back what I said in my last post. The following is from Georges Bernage’s book "The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy” (p76):

“1. These photographs were taken during the afternoon of 10 June near the farm known as Pallieres at Mondaye (8 km. south of Bayeux). This time scale is confirmed by the following evidence : the last elements of the division had to withdraw shortly afterwards from Mondaye as a result of British pressure. We see here the Panther tanks of the 1st. Battalion of the 130th Pz. Lehr Regt. which appear to contradict the fact that the battalion had already been loaded on trains for the Russian front and only reached the Normandy front several days later. In fact, recent studies have shown that a section of five Panthers from the battalion were present right from the beginning of the deployment of the division in Normandy. Those are the ones we see in these photos which were destined for a propaganda report designed to demonstrate to the public how powerful the panzers were in the face of the Allied landings - even though that elite division only had those five Panthers available on the front. They are "A" models.”

Note that in the battle at la Bergerie Ferme there were nine Panthers involved. Four were KOed, leaving five. The number of surviving Panthers equals the number of Panthers reported by Georges Bernage.

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by John McGillivray
I take back what I said in my last post. The following is from Georges Bernage’s book "The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy” (p76):

“1. These photographs were taken during the afternoon of 10 June near the farm known as Pallieres at Mondaye (8 km. south of Bayeux)........

Hi John;

Go to page 56 of Georges Bernage’s book "The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy”, left hand column, second paragraph, where it starts "Five Panthers from the 1st Battalion had arrived......"

Yes, five Panthers of the I/Pz Regt 6 were present at Mondaye on 10 June, they were an advanced guard of the main body of I/Pz Regt 6 which arrived in the sector on 15 June.

Cheers

[Waycool]

John and Mark kudos on the well researched posts, I enjoy reading them.

Mike

[John McGillivray]

Hello Mark,

Sorry for the delay in replying, my younger daughter had a soccer game last night. They won 8 to 1.

It is not very clear in Georges Bernage’s book exactly when those Panthers arrived in Normandy. He states that they “were present right from the beginning of the deployment of the division in Normandy.” They arrived in Mondaye on the 10th of June, but were did they arrive from? Had they just arrived in Normandy or had they only relocated to Mondaye?

Panzer Lehr was made up of various training units. The Panther Battalion was I./Panzer-Regiment 6 which was actually part of the 3rd Panzer Division and was in France for re-fit. It had just started its return journey to rejoin its parent unit on the eastern front when the invasion occurred. On page 42 in Bernage’s book it is shown that I./Panzer-Regiment 6 had its full complement of 76 Panthers. Four companies of 17 Panthers plus a recce section of 5 Panthers and three Panthers in the Battalion HQ section. However, Panzer Lehr, on the 1st of June had a total of 89 Panthers (86 Combat ready and 3 short-term repair). Where were the other 13 Panthers on the 8th of June? Where they also being transferred to the East, or were they part of the training establishment in the Division? The five Panthers at Mondaye, were they from the 76 Panthers bound for the Eastern front or were they from the 13 surplus Panthers?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. When I did a search on the web I found that there is a new book about Panzer Lehr coming out this fall in the UK.

http://www.helion.co.uk/product.php?xProd=71515

Maybe some answers will be there.

John

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by John McGillivray
Hello Mark,

Sorry for the delay in replying, my younger daughter had a soccer game last night. They won 8 to 1.

It is not very clear in Georges Bernage’s book exactly when those Panthers arrived in Normandy. He states that they “were present right from the beginning of the deployment of the division in Normandy.” They arrived in Mondaye on the 10th of June, but were did they arrive from? Had they just arrived in Normandy or had they only relocated to Mondaye?

Panzer Lehr was made up of various training units. The Panther Battalion was I./Panzer-Regiment 6 which was actually part of the 3rd Panzer Division and was in France for re-fit. It had just started its return journey to rejoin its parent unit on the eastern front when the invasion occurred. On page 42 in Bernage’s book it is shown that I./Panzer-Regiment 6 had its full complement of 76 Panthers. Four companies of 17 Panthers plus a recce section of 5 Panthers and three Panthers in the Battalion HQ section. However, Panzer Lehr, on the 1st of June had a total of 89 Panthers (86 Combat ready and 3 short-term repair). Where were the other 13 Panthers on the 8th of June? Where they also being transferred to the East, or were they part of the training establishment in the Division? The five Panthers at Mondaye, were they from the 76 Panthers bound for the Eastern front or were they from the 13 surplus Panthers?

I don’t know the answers to these questions.

Hi John;

I have the answers to these questions, will post what I have tomorrow (Wed. 15 Jun), rather busy with something else at the moment.

Cheers

[Mark W. Tonner]

Hi John;

Some answers:

Originally posted by John McGillivray
It is not very clear in Georges Bernage’s book exactly when those Panthers arrived in Normandy. He states that they “were present right from the beginning of the deployment of the division in Normandy.” They arrived in Mondaye on the 10th of June, but were did they arrive from? Had they just arrived in Normandy or had they only relocated to Mondaye?

The five Panthers were a platoon from the 2 Kompanie I/Pz Regt 6, who arrived at approx. 1500 or 1600hrs (depending on which account) on 10 June at Mondaye, having been sent to fill a request for anti-tank support from the 130th Pz Recce Bn. In three different accounts it is not said from where they came, only that they arrived on 10 June. What is said though, is that these were the only five Panthers of the battalion in the sector until the rest of the I Battalion arrived on 15 June.

Regarding the deployment of the Pz Lehr Div and the I/Pz Regt 6, yes the I/Pz Regt 6 was present in France prior to the invasion, within the Pz Lehr divisional area: Chartres- Le Mans - Orleans. They were loaded on 4 June and on 5 June the first train was in Magdeburg Germany, while the last one was at Paris. It was on 6 June that these trains carrying the I/Pz Regt 6 were ordered back to France. This platoon that showed up at Mondaye on the 10th was more or less the vanguard of the returning battalion, whom it seems starting arriving in the sector, in greater numbers starting on 11 June and finally being ready for operations on 15 June.

Originally posted by John McGillivray
On page 42 in Bernage’s book it is shown that I./Panzer-Regiment 6 had its full complement of 76 Panthers. Four companies of 17 Panthers plus a recce section of 5 Panthers and three Panthers in the Battalion HQ section. However, Panzer Lehr, on the 1st of June had a total of 89 Panthers (86 Combat ready and 3 short-term repair). Where were the other 13 Panthers on the 8th of June?

Yes, on 1 June the Panther strength of Pz Lehr Div was 89 (86 Battle Ready and 3 in workshop), but the Panther establishment for the I/Pz Regt 6 was 22 Panthers per company (4x22= 88) and 3 Panthers in the Bn HQ (88+3 = 91), so they were actually under strength.

I hope this answers your questions John. I, myself am also looking forward to this new book about Pz Lehr. It seems that in a lot of the current books about this time period, the I/Pz Regt 6's return to the field is overshadowed by Wittmann and Villers-Bocage.

Cheers

[John McGillivray]

The Panther Battalion organization you gave dates from 1943, with four platoons in each company. By the time of Normandy the companies were reduced to only three platoons. Therefore this reduced the size of the company from 22 down to 17 tanks, and the size of the battalion from 96 tanks down to 76 tanks. Georges Bernage gives the make up of I./Pz.Lehr-Regt. 6 on page 42 as followers:

“The 1st Battalion (l/Pz. Lehr-Rgt. 6) was commanded by Major Markowksi and equipped with Panther tanks. His staff had a signals section with three command Panthers, a reconnaissance section (five Panthers), a motorcycle reconnaissance section, an engineer section mounted on armoured cars, and a section of armoured anti-aircraft artillery (two Type « H » Flakpanzer IV's each mounting a four barrelled 20 mm canon). The four companies were each equipped with 17 Panzer V's (Panthers) to which should be added a workshop and a quartermaster supply company.”

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by John McGillivray
The Panther Battalion organization you gave dates from 1943, with four platoons in each company. By the time of Normandy the companies were reduced to only three platoons. Therefore this reduced the size of the company from 22 down to 17 tanks, and the size of the battalion from 96 tanks down to 76 tanks. Georges Bernage gives the make up of I./Pz.Lehr-Regt. 6 on page 42 as followers:

“The 1st Battalion (l/Pz. Lehr-Rgt. 6) was commanded by Major Markowksi and equipped with Panther tanks. His staff had a signals section with three command Panthers, a reconnaissance section (five Panthers), a motorcycle reconnaissance section, an engineer section mounted on armoured cars, and a section of armoured anti-aircraft artillery (two Type « H » Flakpanzer IV's each mounting a four barrelled 20 mm canon). The four companies were each equipped with 17 Panzer V's (Panthers) to which should be added a workshop and a quartermaster supply company.”

Hi John;

Reference the '22' per company, the sources I have state that the I/Pz Regt 6 retained the '22' per with the advent of the 'Type 44' Pz Div organization, will post references later, they are based on OKH records for June 1944, held by the U.S. Archives. I just don't have the time at the moment.

Cheers

[Mark W. Tonner]

Hi John;

Some notes on Panther equipped formations:

Organization of a Type '43' Panzer Division: 10 January 1943

from the notes for the Panzer division:

- for the Panther Mk V equipped battalion:

Panther Bn Staff Coy: - Signals Pl: 3x Pz Mk V PzBefWg; Recce Pl: 5x Pz Mk V
Panther Pz Coy: - Coy HQ: 2x Pz Mk V; 1st to 4th Platoons with 5x Pz Mk V each

and from notes for the Pz Mk IV equipped battalion of a Pz regiment (issued 1 Nov 43):

Pz Regt Staff Coy: - Signals Pl: 3x Pz Mk V PzBefWg; Recce Pl: 4x Pz Mk V

and from notes for the Panther Mk V equipped Pz Regt (issued 1 Nov 43):

Panther Pz Regt Staff Coy: - Signals Pl: 3x Pz Mk V PzBefWg; Recce Pl: 4x Pz Mk V
Panther Pz Bn Staff Coy: - Signals Pl: 3x Pz Mk V PzBefWg; Recce Pl: 5x Pz Mk V
Panther Pz Coy: - Coy HQ: 2x Pz Mk V; 1st to 4th Platoons with 5x Pz Mk V each

Organization of a Type '44' Panzer Division: 1 August 1944

from the notes for the Panzer regiment:

Regimental Staff Coy: 3x Pz Mk V PzBefWg

I Battalion:

Bn Staff Coy: 5x Pz Mk V and 3x Pz Mk V PzBefWg
4x Pz Coy: each 17 or 22 Panther Mk V

organizational change issued on 1 November 1944:

Regimental Staff Coy: 3x Pz Mk V
Panther Pz Bn Staff Coy: 3x Pz Mk V
Panther Pz Bn Recce Pl: 5x Pz Mk V
Panther Pz Coy: - Coy HQ: 2x Pz Mk V; 1st to 4th Platoons with 5x Pz Mk V each

Notes on I/Pz Regt 6:

10 January 1944: 3x Coys with 22x Mk V each
22 March 1944: 4x Coys with 22x Mk V each
June 1944: 4x Coys with 22x Mk V each
5 June 1944: orders issued to reorganize as part of a Type '44' Panzer Division
15 October 1944: reorganized into 2x Coys with 14x Mk V each

The 'Panther' strength of the Pz Lehr Div in June 1944 (pre-invasion) from OKH records was 89

Source: The German Order of Battle Panzers and Artillery in World War II, by G. F. Nafziger, based on OKH records held by the U.S. National Archives.

Cheers

[Jon Skagfeld]

Hey, Granddaddy Tonner:

Notice how prevalent are Signals within the command structure of a Panzer Div?

Signals: an Arm and a Service.

[John McGillivray]

Thank you Mark,

I think that you have confirmed my suspicions.

5 June 1944: orders issued to reorganize as part of a Type '44' Panzer Division

It appears that the Panther Battalion was reorganized for its move to the Eastern Front, with the companies reduced from 22 to 17 tanks. The organization shown in the Bernage’s book is probably what was being sent to the Eastern Front to rejoin the 3rd Panzer Division. If 76 or 79 (with three Panthers in the Regt. HQ) were in fact being transferred, then Panzer Lehr would still be holding ten or thirteen surplus Panthers.

That leaves the door open for nine Panthers being in action at le Bergerie Ferme on the 8th of June. These tanks may have being crewed by the training staff; because, Captain Gonder of the Camerom Highlanders, is quoted as saying “The uncanny skill of those tankers in finding us and getting the range was ghastly.”

Another source of German tanks that could have being in action around Putot-en-Bessin on the 8th of June, was Artillerie-Regiment 12 of the 12th SS Panzer Division. This unit was equipped with a small number of Panzer III’s and 38t’s. These were for use by the Forward Observation Officers of the SP Hummel and Wespe batteries. In fact a Panzer III was KOed by 3rd A/T Regt early on June 8th at the railway bridge, while a 38t was KOed by the Regina Rifles in Bretteville-l’Orgueilleuse during the night of 8/9 June.

[RichTO90]

Originally posted by John McGillivray
I think that you have confirmed my suspicions.


It appears that the Panther Battalion was reorganized for its move to the Eastern Front, with the companies reduced from 22 to 17 tanks. The organization shown in the Bernage’s book is probably what was being sent to the Eastern Front to rejoin the 3rd Panzer Division. If 76 or 79 (with three Panthers in the Regt. HQ) were in fact being transferred, then Panzer Lehr would still be holding ten or thirteen surplus Panthers.

Actually no. The whole process in which the Panzer divisions changed over to the Freigliederung is rather complex and especially so for Lehr. The original 20 January 1944 organization for I/Panzer-Lehr-Regiment included three companies of 22 Panthers and one company of 22 Jagdpanthers, with Panzer-Kompanie (FKL) 316 incorporated with the regimental staff. But the Jagdpanthers were never actually available and on 21 January the battalion was ordered to be organized under the Freigliederung (dated 1 March and modified 1 April) with 17 Panthers per company.

But all that is moot to the discussion, because I/Panzer-Regiment 6 was a completely different unit that was attached to Panzer Lehr, while I/Panzer-Lehr-Regiment was being organized, and it was still organized under KSTN 1177 dated 1 November 1943, with 22 tanks per company. It wasn't until 7 August 1944 that the I/Panzer-Lehr-Regiment was actually activated and on 8 November 1944 the two battalions exchanged designations. And it wasn't until 20 August 1944 that orders were cut to withdraw Lehr for refitting, at which time it was planned to actually execute the conversion to the 17-tank Freigliederung organization for I/Pz.-Regt. 6 that had been ordered on 5 June. Of course by that time there were insufficent replacement tanks to accomplish that, so a temporary organization consisting of two 17-tank Panther and two 17-tank Panzer IV companies was substituted.

So as of 6 June 1944 Panzer Lehr's tank regiment was still operating under the old 22-tank company organization. There were 5 Panzer IV and 3 Panther with the Regiment Stab und Stabskompanie, II Abteilung had 96 Panzer IV (8 with the Abteilungs Stab and four 22-tank Kompanien) and I Abteilung had 86 Panthers (8 with the Abteilung Stab, and 78 in the four Kompanien), leaving it 10 short. It appears that the shortfall was dealt with by leaving two Zuge unorganized, but I am unsure which. Note that Panzer IV strength of 101 is exactly correct for the earlier 22-tank organization.

As has already been noted, the first five to arrive, from 2. Kompanie, were at Mondaye onthe afternoon of 10 June. Apparently they were either waiting to load in Paris on 6 June or were hurriedly unloaded then, the rest of the battalion having already departed for points east. AFAIK the only Panthers to arrive in Normandy as early as 8 June were from
1. and 4./SS-Panzer-Regiment 12.

[John McGillivray]

Thank you for that information.

As shown in my original post Mark Zuehlke states the following in his book “Holding Juno”.

“Unbeknown to Siebken, his flank was not threatened as feared, for a strong force of Panzer Lehr Division Panther tanks was already well north of his position grinding along a ridge parallelling the woods at la Bergerie Ferme. Captain Harold Gonder and Lieutenant Gerry Blanchard apprehensively watched this line of nine tanks cross the railroad west of Putot-en-Bessin and rattle towards their position. The 62nd Anti-Tank Regiment battery commander had only two 17-pound antitank guns and two 6-pounders from the 3rd Anti-Tank Regiment's 94th Battery capable of bringing sights to bear on the approaching Panthers.5”

In end note “5” he gives the source for the above as being an article by Tony Foulds.

“5 Tony Foulds, "In Support of the Canadians: A British Anti-Tank Regiment's First Five Weeks in Normandy," Canadian Military History, Spring 1998, vol. 7,74.”

My daughter has photocopied the article for me at the McGill University Library. In it Tony Foulds writes the following:

“At about 0945 hours on the morning of D+2 an enemy force of nine tanks and supporting infantry appeared. They had crossed the railway line to the west of Putot and now, at a distance of about 1200 yards, they commenced plastering the wood with machine gun and mortar fire. Two of the 17-pounders and two 6-pounders soon had them in their sights and opened fire. In the ensuing fight four enemy tanks were destroyed but the defenders also suffered substantial losses. When the two 17-pounders that had opened the engagement had been knocked out "E" Troop commander, Lieutenant Gerry Blanchard, assisted by Lieutenant Ray of the 3rd Anti-Tank Regiment, collected one 17-pounder and one 6-pounder from the rear of the position under intense fire and brought them into action. After resiting various anti-tank and machine guns to improve their field of fire and taking steps to deal with the dead and wounded, the "E" Troop commander set about reorganising his own crews. Serious casualties had depleted their ranks and for a time he was laying and firing one of the guns himself. The position was heavily mortared and machine gunned throughout the morning and early afternoon but the remaining German tanks did not resume their attack. By 1630 hours the action had died down and the battle had been won. That night's war diary reported "E" Troop's casualties as four killed, seven wounded and two missing. Lieutenant Blanchard was subsequently awarded the Military Cross for his part in this affair.”

As can be seen from this Tony Foulds makes no reference to Panzer Lehr or to Panther tanks, but simply refers to “tanks”. So where did Mark Zuehlke find his Panther tanks?

Even without the Panther tanks, the Winnipeg Rifles and supporting troops, in and around Putot-en-Besson were badly outnumbered and outgunned.

According to Niklas Zetterling the Panzer-Grenadier battalions opposing the Canadian defenders had the following weapons at their disposal.

II./SS-Pz-Gn Regt 26 12th SS: 69 MGs, 12 8cm mortars, 4 7.5cm infantry guns, 3 7.5cm PaK 40 and 6 flamethrowers.

III./SS-Pz-Gn Regt 26(gp) 12th SS: 151 MGs, 6 8cm mortars, 2 7.5cm infantry guns, 3 7.5cm PaK 40, Armoured haft-tracks SPWs including 4 3.7cm PaK guns on SPW and 12 7.5cm KwK37 L24 guns on SPWs (Stummel), and 12 flamethrowers.

II./Pz-Gn Regt 902(gp) Pz Lehr: 108 MGs, 6 8cm mortars, Armoured SPWs including 9 3.7cm PaK guns on SPWs and 8 7.5cm KwK37 L24 gns on SPWs (Stummel)

The “tanks” that Tony Foulds refers to are most likely SPW armoured halftracks, either from III./26 or II./902. The photo below is of a Stummel (Sd Kfz 251/9 Ausf D)

[RichTO90]

Originally posted by John McGillivray
The “tanks” that Tony Foulds refers to are most likely SPW armoured halftracks, either from III./26 or II./902. The photo below is of a Stummel (Sd Kfz 251/9 Ausf D)

I think you are probably correct, although they could also be very well some of the Panzer IV of 12. SS or even possibly Lehr. II./SS-Panzer-Regiment 12 arrived with 50 Panzer IV operational at 1000 on 7 June and II./Panzer-Lehr-Regiment was assembling at Alencon about 0400 on 7 June, albeit they were short of fuel. So it is not inconceivable that "tanks" were engaged, it is only unlikely that they were Panthers.

[John McGillivray]

You can rule out the Panzer IVs from II./SS-Panzer Regt 12. This unit was fully engaged along with SS-Panzer-Grenadier Regiment 25, against Canadian and British troops in the area just north of Carpiquet and Caen on the 7th of June.

http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/sh...&threadid=2302

[John McGillivray]

Originally Posted by John McGillivray

When I did a search on the web I found that there is a new book about Panzer Lehr coming out this fall in the UK.

This book is finally out and I have a copy of it. (“Panzer Lehr Division 1944 – 1945” by Dr. Frederick P. Steinhardt). It is a bit of a disappointment. The documents that it is based on, and which are reproduced in the book are all American in origin. They are transcripts of interviews conducted by the Americans with German officers (mostly with Fritz Bayerlein) after the end of the war. There are also written answers in report form, from German officers in response to questions posed by the Americans.

As a result there is little material covering Panzer Lehr’s actions against the British. The main focus of the first part of the book is the time period after the Division’s move to St. Lo and Operation Cobra. However, there is confirmation that Panzer Lehr was in action in the area held by the 7th CIB on the 8th of June.

(p.63)
“25. Q: On what date did you first make contact with the British?
A: On the morning of 8 Jun 44. We were ordered to take Bretteville I'Orgueilleuse and break through to the coast at Courseulles-sur-Mer.”

(p.64)
“34. Q: What were Dietrich's plans? What instructions did he give you?
A: I don't believe he had any clear view. He ordered us to break through to Courseulles-sur-Mer. Owing to the air attacks, my troops just trickled through ('Tropfenweise') with the artillery lagging behind them. On the afternoon of 8 Jun 44 ,I was told not to attack toward Courseulles-sur-Mer, but to withdraw to Tilly-sur-Seulles and attack toward Bayeux. These orders show confused thinking. Had we actually gone through Bretteville 1'Orgueilleuse, I believe Pz Lehr and 12 SS Pz Divs could have cut through to the coast. Dietrich, however, was afraid the British would drive in behind us, and of course we would have suffered heavily from naval shelling and air attack. The British had advanced beyond Bayeux and our left flank would have been in danger.”

(p.74 – 75)
“69. Q: Was the situation in Normandy different in this respect than the fighting on the West Wall or in the retreat across France?
A: Rommel ordered an attack on 8 Jun 44, but OKW issued orders that we were to let the enemy in, assemble our forces farther south, and then attack; our forces were not to be expended in the meantime. I did not know which to do; it was a big decision to make. Dietrich had ordered me to attack toward Courseulles-sur-Mer, but Rommel decided we should first reduce Bayeux. On 8 Jun 44, I was already attacking Bretteville l'Orgeuilleuse and had to stop, withdraw my forces, and then attack through Tilly-sur-Seulles toward Bayeux. A lot of time was lost in this movement.”