German Wündertanks vs Shermans

Maybe, maybe not.

As I understand it, a great deal of the 'fighting to the end' which made such a bloodbath of Berlin, didn't involve native-born Hermans, rather it was Reichsdeutsch or Volksdeutsch troops enlisted in Wehrmacht or SS units, who were either (a) Dyed-in-the-wool Fascist traitors to their own motherlands, or (b) Certain that capture and repatriation would inevitably result in execution, or (c) A combination of both.

That said, I can't recall ever reading anything that made an attempt to quantify the scale of this Auslander component of the Berlin defence.
I can't give you a headcount, but the following non-German units were involved in the defence of Berlin:

11 SS Panzergrenadier Division (Nordland) with
23 Panzergrenadier Regiment (Norge)
24 Panzergrenadier Regiment (Danmark) under command

Sturmbataillon Charlemagne (French SS unit). The battered remnants of 33 SS Panzergrenadier Division Charlemagne. At the end of February 1945 the division was surrounded and nearly wiped out during the defence of Pomerania. During March, the unit was reorganised in Neustrelitz with approx 1000 men, who then took part in the defence of Berlin. Several companies of this unit were the last defenders of the Reich Chancellery.

Bataillon Fantasma (Spanish SS unit). This unit consisted of several hundred men who remained when the Blue Division was withdrawn back to Spain in April 1944. After anti-partisan duties in Ukraine and the Balkans, they were reinforced with a number of Spaniards who had crossed the Pyrenees, and in a strength of two companies assigned to the Berlin garrison.

SS-Fusilier Bataillon 15 (Latvian SS unit). this unit was the remnants of 15 SS Waffen-Grenadier-Division which was captured by the Americans in the Schwerin area

In addition
23 SS Panzergrenadier Division (Nederland) [heavily reinforced with Rumanian Volksdeutsche] and
28 SS Grenadier Division (Wallonien) [these were Leon Degrelle's boys]
were under command of Heeresgruppe Vistula

map of central Berlin 30 April 1945

de_ausl_freiwillige_0001.jpg


The map and the collaboration listing above were handouts during a seminar on the end of the war in Berlin organised by the Berliner Unterwelt organisation which I attended several years ago.

SOURCES:

Hamilton, A Stephan. Bloody Streets: The Soviet Assault on Berlin, April 1945. Helion, Solihull (GB), 2008. ISBN 978-1-906033-12-5
Müller, Rolf-Dieter. An der Seite der Wehrmacht: Hitlers ausländische Helfer beim "Kreuzzug gegen den Bolschewismus" 1941-1945. Christoph Links Verlag, Berlin, 2007. ISBN 978-3-86153-448-8
 
Last edited:
That's not my understanding. From memory the Admiralty had been studying amphibious operations in some depth since the late 20's/early 30's. Certainly that's where the necessity of the various classes of landing ship, C2 ships etc comes from. When you look at the various classes the designs all stem from pre- very early in the war.

I don't recall a lot of the detail now, scotch has been taken. But Barnett goes into detail in Engage The Enemy More Closely. I'll try to dig out the relevant bumph tomorrow, SWMBO permitting.
(Typically for a pongo) I don't think I've ever read a single book on naval history, so my remarks were distinctly framed around us brown jobs, who - as far as Im aware - had no motivation to do anything likewise. I'd speculate that only the post-Zeebrugge RM might have felt the need.?
 
I can't give you a headcount, but the following non-German units were involved in the defence of Berlin:

11 SS Panzergrenadier Division (Nordland) with
23 Panzergrenadier Regiment (Norge)
24 Panzergrenadier Regiment (Danmark) under command

Sturmbataillon Charlemagne (French SS unit). The battered remnants of 33 SS Panzergrenadier Division Charlemagne. At the end of February 1945 the division was surrounded and nearly wiped out during the defence of Pomerania. During March, the unit was reorganised in Neustrelitz with approx 1000 men, who then took part in the defence of Berlin. Several companies of this unit were the last defenders of the Reich Chancellery.

Bataillon Fantasma (Spanish SS unit). This unit consisted of several hundred men who remained when the Blue Division was withdrawn back to Spain in April 1944. After anti-partisan duties in Ukraine and the Balkans, they were reinforced with a number of Spaniards who had crossed the Pyrenees, and in a strength of two companies assigned to the Berlin garrison.

SS-Fusilier Bataillon 15 (Latvian SS unit). this unit was the remnants of 15 SS Waffen-Grenadier-Division which was captured by the Americans in the Schwerin area

In addition
23 SS Panzergrenadier Division (Nederland) [heavily reinforced with Rumanian Volksdeutsche] and
28 SS Grenadier Division (Wallonien) [these were Leon Degrelle's boys]
were under command of Heeresgruppe Vistula

map of central Berlin 30 April 1945

View attachment 339434

The map and the collaboration listing above were handouts during a seminar on the end of the war in Berlin organised by the Berliner Unterwelt organisation which I attended several years ago.

SOURCES:

Hamilton, A Stephan. Bloody Streets: The Soviet Assault on Berlin, April 1945. Helion, Solihull (GB), 2008. ISBN 978-1-906033-12-5
Müller, Rolf-Dieter. An der Seite der Wehrmacht: Hitlers ausländische Helfer beim "Kreuzzug gegen den Bolschewismus" 1941-1945. Christoph Links Verlag, Berlin, 2007. ISBN 978-3-86153-448-8
Gave you an 'informative'. Have an unofficial 'Like" too, in size XXL.
 
I've often wondered about the unique drive "sprocket" of the T-34 which used the track horns bearing on rollers instead of the traditional method. Crews complained about dodgy track pins but not the sprocket/drive wheel.
IIRC SdKfz 250/251 series had a similar sprocket design
 
[...] so my remarks were distinctly framed around us brown jobs, who - as far as Im aware - had no motivation to do anything likewise.[...]
The army put quite a bit of effort into amphibious tanks, studying all sorts of ideas. Many didn't get off the drawing board, all were foudn to have some flaw in their design.
 
The army put quite a bit of effort into amphibious tanks, studying all sorts of ideas. Many didn't get off the drawing board, all were foudn to have some flaw in their design.
I was thinking more about the kind of tactics, techniques and procedures needed to get ashore (and get off again, in the case of the commando raiders), much of which - so it seems to me - was being invented for the first time at Achnacarry from 1940 onwards, was only tried on a large-scale at Dieppe (with disastrous losses, and few tactical objectives attained) in 1942, with the first real effort to get ashore and stay ashore only coming in Sicily, 1943.
 
The British were alway dab hands at landing on their people’s beaches and stealing them, Empire and all that, see Canada and the Battle of Quebec in 1859.

It’s not widely known the the design of the iconic LCA abd LCM predate WWII.
 
I was thinking more about the kind of tactics, techniques and procedures needed to get ashore (and get off again, in the case of the commando raiders), much of which - so it seems to me - was being invented for the first time at Achnacarry from 1940 onwards, was only tried on a large-scale at Dieppe (with disastrous losses, and few tactical objectives attained) in 1942, with the first real effort to get ashore and stay ashore only coming in Sicily, 1943.
1940:
 
The British were alway dab hands at landing on their people’s beaches and stealing them, Empire and all that, see Canada and the Battle of Quebec in 1859.

It’s not widely known the the design of the iconic LCA abd LCM predate WWII.
Also dab hands at forgetting the lessons learned by earlier generations

And I'd lay good money that those vessels were designed on orders originating from Admiralty Arch, not Horse Guards.
 
Also dab hands at forgetting the lessons learned by earlier generations

And I'd lay good money that those vessels were designed on orders originating from Admiralty Arch, not Horse Guards.

Not really fair. We did do a lot of higher level thinking between the wars after Gallipoli

And the landing craft? You’ll have to blame The pre war Inter-Service Training and Development Centre for them

Inter-Service Training and Development Centre | Revolvy
 
Last edited:
The British were alway dab hands at landing on their people’s beaches and stealing them, Empire and all that, see Canada and the Battle of Quebec in 1859.
Ahem. 1759. I assume fat fingers and not appalling lack of historical knowledge. :-D
 
Also dab hands at forgetting the lessons learned by earlier generations

And I'd lay good money that those vessels were designed on orders originating from Admiralty Arch, not Horse Guards.
Didn't Haig suggest using flat bottomed boats to land tanks as part of the proposed amphibious landings for Third Ypres in 1917?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top