French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Black Hornet Fri 22 Apr 2011 - 18:05

Stories, details etc.

French tanks got bogged on landing!

http://www.war-experience.org/history/keyaspects/norway1940/pagetwo.asp

Black Hornet Fri 22 Apr 2011 - 20:40

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15068801@N00/1084890507/

the French armor literally sank into the beach and only became useful much later, to the German occupation forces. However, this failed landing was also a lesson for the Allies. Later in the war the sand of possible invasion beaches was studied. (Lars Gyllenhaal)

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/a-luger-returns-to-narvik.htm?pid=1931

norwaynut Sun 24 Apr 2011 - 0:07

Little bit confused by this as the landings supported by the tanks at Bjervick were successful; I have heard other accounts saying that the French tanks did a great job "skipping about like happy puppies" dealing one by one with the German MG nests. So I guess not all of them got bogged down.

Good link that first post didn't know that site thanks.

Black Hornet Sun 24 Apr 2011 - 3:48

I would imagine even bogged ones could have tow cables attached to winches & pulled out.

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 3:50

"A failed landing"?

I wouldn't tell the Foreign Legion that....

Black Hornet Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 6:20

Again, poor wording, faulty "tank" landing perhaps more appropriate, & likely what was meant. But then, it depends on the view of the landers, if they only got a certain amount of supply-material ashore, they might not consider it a success. Crete was a success for German paras, but Dolpho thought it a disaster because of heavy JU 52 losses. A subjective thing it is & open to interpretation. Germans weren't dislodged, perhaps if a load of tanks got ashore, it would've been a different campaign for the Allies. Germans almost capitulated, a thing like that could've swung the balance.

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 13:49

Crete was a success for German paras, but Dolpho thought it a disaster because of heavy JU 52 losses. A subjective thing it is & open to interpretation.

Crete was a failure for the German airborne forces; a third of the force killed, and over a half incapacitated. The battle didn't turn until Ringel's mountain troops were flown in!

Hitler thought it was a failure because he'd been promised another airborne sucess and it didn't materialise - it was a failure of the tactic, not the transport...which was replaced by the end of the year...but coming after the failures at Rotterdam and the Hague Hitler ordered no more massed airborne operations.

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 16:46

OP, this is what it says in your source -

Wed. 29 May, 1940
At 0700 we left and proceeded half way up various awaiting further events. French tanks got bogged on landing!
1000 Still waiting up Narrows.

So you're relying on the word of a NAVAL officer, in a ship waiting many miles away, as proof of what happened to the French tanks on the 29th? You DO realise, don't you, that at best he was relying on chinese whispers and 3rd/4th-hand information???

P.S. Narvik was assaulted and taken ON THE 27TH.... Laughing

Black Hornet Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 20:08

wed 29, left went half way up, "on the jouney" to Narvik in other words, check your data before making these absurd vents. Not all ships arrive at the same time, often echelons occur.

& no not relying on any specific persona, just posted it as an open topic of conversation, haven't specified any specific point or data or persons view as being set in stone. Be sure to check these things before posting & assigning assumed things to other posters.

Cret was also a success for Germans paras, they took the island with smaller numbers. Be sure to check these things before posting.

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 20:23

wed 29, left went half way up, "on the jouney" to Narvik in other words, check your data before making these absurd vents. Not all ships arrive at the same time, often echelons occur.

It doesn't actually matter where his ship was - except that the diarist would have had no actual visibility of events....when the sentence pertaining to French tanks bogged down is clearly entered against the 29th, two days after the amphibious assault on Narvik. So as you've been told elsewhere by others, the five H-39s that came ashore with the FFL at Orneset beach on the 27th were actually very successful.

Cret was also a success for Germans paras, they took the island with smaller numbers

See Alan Clark "The Fall of Crete", or Callum MacDonald "The Lost Battle" (you should have read this by now as you were advised to, particularly pertaining to difficulties of operating Ju52s in unsuitable and badly-prepared airfields...) or Anthony Beevor "Crete: The Battle and the Resistance".

The attack at Maleme was bogged down with heavy losses and the Commonwealth forces sitting on Hill 107 until Ringel took command and flew his mountain troops in; the airborne assault on Heraklion had been defeated on the first day and its survivors pinned down; ditto the assault at Retimo, except they had agined more ground first before events there had bogged down into attack and counterattack by the third day. ONLY the turning of the tide by Julius Ringel at Maleme allowed the newly-arrived Germans to move East and relieve the other two forces. It was those forces and the remains of the amphibious forces eventually landing that "took" the island, not the FJ.

Black Hornet Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 21:36

Kompanie of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 1, and a third company (under the command of Oberleutnant Klein) made up of members of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 2. III. Battalion finally overran the airfield defences, aided by the day's new arrivals. With the airfield still under artillery fire, the first Ju52 carrying mountain troop reinforcements landed at Maleme about 4:00 p.m

http://www.gebirgsjaeger.4mg.com/kreta.htm

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 21:46

That is indeed an interesting source regarding events at Maleme...

None of the prime objectives assigned to the first wave had been secured by mid-day May 20. Hill 107 and Maleme airfield had not been taken by Luftlande-Sturmregiment and Fallschirm-Jaeger-Regiment 3. was hemmed-in around Agia in what was termed 'Prison Valley' with high casualties and numerous commanders dead. Communications with headquarters on the Creek mainland had been practically non-existent; headquarters under the impression that the operation was going to plan.

"Kompanie of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 1, and a third company (under the command of Oberleutnant Klein) made up of members of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 2. III. Battalion finally overran the airfield defences, aided by the day's new arrivals"

Overran the airfield defences? Again, there's a blatant bit of peek-a-boo referencing - did you happen to miss THIS regarding the defences - the "confused defences, that is...?

After the mistake of ordering back companies A and B from Hill 107 by Lieutenant-Colonel L. W. Andrew (commander 22nd New Zealand Infantry battalion), the weary paratroops were able to overcome the confused defence and take control of the hill. This left the way open for German control of Maleme airfield.
German air strikes began around 2:30 p.m. against New Zealand positions east of the airfield, preceding the air-drop of the reserves 4. And 12. Kompanie of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 1, and a third company (under the command of Oberleutnant Klein) made up of members of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 2. III. Battalion finally overran the airfield defences, aided by the day's new arrivals.

Remember - Always make sure your source says what you think it says...

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 21:46

SecondFront wrote:That is indeed an interesting source regarding events at Maleme...

None of the prime objectives assigned to the first wave had been secured by mid-day May 20. Hill 107 and Maleme airfield had not been taken by Luftlande-Sturmregiment and Fallschirm-Jaeger-Regiment 3. was hemmed-in around Agia in what was termed 'Prison Valley' with high casualties and numerous commanders dead. Communications with headquarters on the Creek mainland had been practically non-existent; headquarters under the impression that the operation was going to plan.

"Kompanie of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 1, and a third company (under the command of Oberleutnant Klein) made up of members of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 2. III. Battalion finally overran the airfield defences, aided by the day's new arrivals"

Overran the airfield defences? Again, there's a blatant bit of peek-a-boo referencing - did you happen to miss THIS regarding the defences - the "confused" defences, that is...?

After the mistake of ordering back companies A and B from Hill 107 by Lieutenant-Colonel L. W. Andrew (commander 22nd New Zealand Infantry battalion), the weary paratroops were able to overcome the confused defence and take control of the hill. This left the way open for German control of Maleme airfield.
German air strikes began around 2:30 p.m. against New Zealand positions east of the airfield, preceding the air-drop of the reserves 4. And 12. Kompanie of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 1, and a third company (under the command of Oberleutnant Klein) made up of members of Fallschirm-Jäger-Regiment 2. III. Battalion finally overran the airfield defences, aided by the day's new arrivals.

Remember - Always make sure your source says what you think it says...

Black Hornet Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 22:23

Ok, here's what you posted. Which entirely slots your assertion re FJ not being essential or relevant to the taking of Crete, only Mtn troops did it. Be careful what you post, it will blow up in yer face as it has here yet again.

the weary paratroops were able to overcome the confused defence and take control of the hill. This left the way open for German control of Maleme airfield.

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 22:42

Not at all - for the FJ were then too exhausted to exploit the driving of the remains of Andrews' Command away; they were stuck there until the first of the Mountain troops began flying in at 4pm and immediately heading east to link up with the beleagured forces at Retimo.

Try reading the books recommened.

Black Hornet Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 22:52

Yet at all, they were decisive in attaining the airfield which allowed the Mtn troops to arrive. Do re-read the data you posted & as well the books you mention.

SecondFront Tue 13 Sep 2011 - 22:58

they were decisive in attaining the airfield which allowed the Mtn troops to arrive.

Andrews' troops withdrawing was decisive in the Germans picking themselves up and attaining the airfield Laughing

And the mountain troops were not "allowed" to arrive, they were forced to fly in with Andrews' artillery behind Hill107 still bombarding the airfield; dozens of Ju52s were hit and damaged/destroyed in the process, with Maleme littered with wreckage.

Black Hornet Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 0:09

And andrews troops withdrawing had nothing to do with German paras, my god yer a funny one.

SecondFront Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 0:40

And andrews troops withdrawing had nothing to do with German paras, my god yer a funny one..

Actually - no it wasn't, it was due to a misunderstanding between him and Brigadier Hargest; Andrews withdrew his two companies bto behind Hill 107, thinking that the other two companies of his command were gone, and after the failure of the 15:25 tank-supported counterattack on the airfield; Andrews asked Hargest for either permission to withdraw, OR for reinforcements to be sent - and Hargest gave him an ambiguous reply...THEN called abck to promise two companies of reinforcements.

Andrews intended to use them to reoccupy Hill 107....but only one showed up anything like on time, and when it did he sent it up Hill 107 - but when there was no sign of the second - which had encountered light resistance on the way and turned back! - Andrews recalled the company of reinforcements he HAD sent up the hill and pulled back.

Andrews hadn't realised that his C and D companies were still relatively intact - just out of contact with him.

Black Hornet Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 1:46

So the light resistance had no bearing on it, funny stuff. Keep em coming, good laughs.

SecondFront Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 2:04

No, the light resistance that turned his reinforcements from another command back had nothing to do with his mistake in thinking that his c and D companies had been eliminated. Feel free to read the histories.

Black Hornet Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 2:09

Nonetheless, the light resistance created the situation that made him think that according to your post. In any logical conclusion, the FJ did play a role.

SecondFront Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 3:07

Nonetheless, the light resistance created the situation that made him think that according to your post. In any logical conclusion, the FJ did play a role

No, the "light resistance" that the reinforcement company met was what decided him not to re-occupy the airfield-facing side of Hill 107...

It wasn't what made him withdraw in the first place.

Black Hornet Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 3:19

Ok, so the FJ light resistance made him not re-occupy the hill facing the airfield, therefore the FJ played a significant role in the airfields capture. You said it.

SecondFront Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 3:24

Ok, so the FJ light resistance made him not re-occupy the hill facing the airfield, therefore the FJ played a significant role in the airfields capture. You said it..

No, the exhausted remains of the initial FJ drop in the airfield were able to take it because he withdrew, not because he didn't come back! They did that BEFORE he was forced to make the final decision not to reoccupy his former positions I.E. BETWEEN him pulling out mistakenly and not going back again.

Black Hornet Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 3:27

Right, so he withdrew because of light FJ resistance to his backup units, therefore FJ still played a significant role in any intrepretation of events.

SecondFront Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 3:32

so he withdrew because of light FJ resistance to his backup units

That's you simply repeating what you said several posts ago - and it's STILL as wrong now as it was an hour or three ago.

He withdrew because he thought half his force had been eliminated, he didn't know they were simply out of touch.

He planned to go back after securing the promise of reinforcements - but they didn't all show up so he didn't go back. IN THE MEANTIME the surviving FJ on the airfield took possession of it.

In other words - the reason they could do so was because he left - NOT because he failed to go back...THEY didn't know that's what he planned!!!

Black Hornet Wed 14 Sep 2011 - 7:18

So you admit the FJ took the airfield which naturally assured Mtn troops could be flown in, therefore you admit the FJ played a significant role in securing Crete. glad we sorted that out. One can argue all day how lucky they were that so & so didn't return, & mix-up occurred with opposing forces etc, but take em out of the equation, & no secure airfield. No secure airfield, no Mtn troops. End of story.

Bjørn Thu 15 Sep 2011 - 18:17

Hello!
Originally, the Armoured Force was planned to be the French 342nd and 343rd ”Compagnie Autonome de Chars” (Independent Tank Company), equipped with 15 Hotchkiss H-39 light tanks (342rd, Capt. Dublineau) and 15 Renault FT-17 (343rd).
These vehicles are more "tankettes" than tanks, and never appeared in the numbers stated - in battle. So they must rather be regarded as one of many "could have been" scenarios.

B

Sponsored content

French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?

Re: French tanks at Narvik. Anyone got more data?