Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romania 1940 - the Possible War: Romanian Army, Romanian Army (land forces) in 1940
Agarici
Posted: August 18, 2005 09:31 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



Great piece of info, Victor! Thank you!

PMEmail Poster
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 18, 2005 10:02 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 18 2005, 09:12 AM)
QUOTE (Agarici)
What was the organization of the Moto-mechanized brigade (created in October 1939)? Was there a second unit of this type created until September 1940, as initially planned?


The 1st Mechanized Brigade, based at Turda, was made up of the:
-4th Motorized Vanatori Group
-11th Motorized Vanatori Group
-1st Motorized Artillery Regiment
-Special Tasks Battalion
-Recon Detachment
-Armored Car Company
-Motorized MG Platoon
-Motorcycle Platoon
-AT and AA Platoon

Each group was made of:
-2 vanatori battalions, each of 3 rifle companies, one machine-gun company, one heavy weapons company, one automobile company
-one tank battalion (31 tanks)

The artillery regiment had 3 battalions of 12 artillery pieces each.

There was a 2nd Brigade created in Targoviste for a short while.

QUOTE (Agarici)
   - What was the official doctrine of Romanian armoured&mechanized units? Even more specific, where were the young tank officers sent for specialization/studies abroad (if there was the case)?


Since October 1919, all the tank instructors were Romanians. The doctrine they taught was French as were the tanks (FT 17s).


Any additional info to what Victor has said?

Which was the relation between the two brigades and the two tank regiments? Were the tank battalions from the mechanized brigades belonging to them, or to the FT tank battalion (Victor mentioned something about the Renault FT 17 tanks being used from 1917 onwards…)? If the battalions mentioned by Victor (31 tanks per brigade) were part of the two tank regiments, how were used (envisaged to be used) the rest of the tanks from each tank regiment?

Were the “vanatori” motorized groups using trucks (what models) or other type of vehicles (half tracked maybe, if available by the time)?, And also, what type of armored cars were used?

Of what type/caliber were artillery pieces?
PMEmail Poster
Top
Victor
Posted: August 18, 2005 06:58 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Unfortunately the source doesn't mention what type of thanks they were. My guess is that they were R-2 tanks from the 1st Tank Regiment. My motives are:
1. it was basicly the most advanced tank available to the Romanian Army at that moment
2. the 1st Mechanized Brigade was later transformed into the 1st Mechanized Division and then into the 1st Armored Division, which operated R-2 tanks in the 1941 campaign

As for the trucks, they were probably Czech made: Tatra or Skoda. No half-tracks back then. Those were bought later from Germany.

The artillery pieces were probably the same that equipped the artilery regiment of the 1st Armored Division in 1941.

Too many ifs though.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 18, 2005 07:32 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (Victor @ Aug 18 2005, 06:58 PM)
Unfortunately the source doesn't mention what type of thanks they were. My guess is that they were R-2 tanks from the 1st Tank Regiment. My motives are:
1. it was basicly the most advanced tank available to the Romanian Army at that moment
2. the 1st Mechanized Brigade was later transformed into the 1st Mechanized Division and then into the 1st Armored Division, which operated R-2 tanks in the 1941 campaign

As for the trucks, they were probably Czech made: Tatra or Skoda. No half-tracks back then. Those were bought later from Germany.

The artillery pieces were probably the same that equipped the artilery regiment of the 1st Armored Division in 1941.

Too many ifs though.


Perfectly plausible. Also if we add the number of tanks for each “vanatori” group (2x31, adding another 2x31 for the second brigade) the result is a total of 124 tanks, perfectly sustainable by the number of vehicles available for the 1st Tank regiment. And the armored cars could have been the Czech Skodas vz. 27 and Tatras vz.29, which took refuge in Romania (in what number?) after March 1939 (and also imported earlier?).

There’s still a question left: what was the role of the Renault R 35 tanks of the 2nd tank regiment? Were they included in a larger unit, like the R 2’s?

And a final question for this post: could the Relault UE/Malaxa chenilletes be used for troop transport? Were any other vehicles of that type in use until the imports of half-tracks from Germany in 1942? I remember that some time ago Denes posted a couple photos with some tractors under evaluation with the Romanian army in 1940… among them were two Czech models. Any info about that?
PMEmail Poster
Top
Victor
Posted: September 29, 2005 05:35 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



The armored cars are indeed a mistery. There were no armored cars in the Romanian 1st Armored Division in the 1941 campaign and in the first (and more important part) of the the 1942/43 campaign. This obviously was a major drawback.

There were obviously many other drawbacks, which reduced the combat capability of the 1st Armored in 1941. The lack of radios, of tacked tractors, of properly trained drivers etc, etc.

As for the Malaxa UE, these were used to tow 47 mm AT pieces of the divisional AT batteries IIRC. They were not used by the 1st Armored Division.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: October 28, 2005 04:38 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Updated information:
1. the two tank battalions were indeed from the 1st Tank Regiment, tyhus they were equipped with R-2 tanks.
2. the 2nd Brigade existed only on paper.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: November 03, 2005 12:13 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Agarici @ Jul 18 2005, 09:30 PM)
ROMANIAN ARMY 1940 - ORGANIZATION&ORDER OF BATTLE


  ORDER OF BATTLE:

- 4 armies

- 10-11 army corps

- 26-28 divisions + 6(12*)-10(16*) brigades + 2(5**) independent regiments; in case of general mobilization, another 9-10 divisions would have been added to this total

and

- 21-22 artillery brigades + 13-16 artillery groups + 8-10 artillery regiments; in case of general mobilization, another 9-10 brigades would have been added to this total (?)

But what was the order of battle per se, in 1940? Were most divisions positioned "on the frontier" with USSR or with Hungary?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 03, 2005 12:13 pm
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: November 03, 2005 01:02 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



I don't know about 1940, but on 23 September 1939, the Romanian Army was deployed in the following manner:

Hungarian border: 6 infantry divisions, 1 cavarly divisions, 3 mountain brigades, 1 cavalry brigade
Bulgarian border: 5 infantry divisions, 1 cavalry brigade
Soviet border: 16 infantry divisions, 2 cavalry divisions, 1 mountain brigade
Reserve: 4 infantry divisions

from Romania in anii celui de al doilea Razboi Mondial (Bucharest 1989), pages 260-261
(info posted by sid guttridge on an old Feldgrau discussion)

In Romania in al doilea razboi mondial by Dinu C. Giurescu, ALL Istoric, 1999 19 large units (divisions and brigades) are mentioned as deployed on the Soviet fronteer on 23 September 1939.

The 1st Motorized Brigade, after its creation in 1939, it was concentrated in Transylvania, opposite Hungary.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: November 03, 2005 01:19 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



I found an older post of mine with the august 1940 OOB:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=38094

I should mention though that the source doesnt offer a clear number. For the divisions deployed towards Hungary it gaves a 8-10 number, while for those towards USSR, 22-24.
PM
Top
Pavel
Posted: January 15, 2006 12:29 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 660
Joined: September 02, 2005



Gentlemen,

Does anybody know about composition of Romanian Cavalry Divisions and Cavalry Brigades in 1939-1940? As far as I understand, there has to be 9 brigades (4x2+1) and 27 regiments (9x3).
What we have for sure is Div. 4 Cav, consisting of Bg. 4 Cav (3C, 10R, 11C) + Bg. 8 Cav. Also we have Div. 2 Cav with 7R (data from Dan Grecu site).
Some of my own speculations:
1) 6R was deployed in Balti in 27-39 (Dan Grecu), so it is probably connected with Div.2 Cav.
2) 3R was deployed in Chisinau in 1939, being integral to Bg. 9 Cav - it means it was integral either to Div.2 Cav or to Div.3 Cav. I would suppose the former, so to start something with, let's assume D2C included B9.
3) Combining "Third Axis, Fourth Ally" deployment map (p.12) along with 1940 deployment map from "Eliberarea Basarabiei si a Nordului Bucovinei" (p.53), we could assume that Div.1 Cav included B1C.
Combining this with 1941 OoB, let's summarize assumptions:

D1C: B1C (???,???,???), ??? (???,???,???)
D2C: ??? (R6R?,???,???), B9C? (R3R!, R5R?,R13C?)
D3C: ??? (???,???,???), ??? (???,???,???)
D4C: B4C (R3C!,R10R!,R11C!), B8C (R2C?,R4R?,???)
B7C: (R11R?, R12R?, R9C?)

Here the end of possible speculations. Corrections please? Or additions (most welcome)?

Best regards

This post has been edited by Pavel on January 15, 2006 12:43 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: July 29, 2008 12:44 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



Is there any information concerning the number of ZB rifles available for the Romanian army by June 1940, or at least what percentage of the troops which were using them? All I’ve read until now on the site and forum are simple estimates and speculations. Thank you!
PMEmail Poster
Top
dragos
Posted: August 02, 2008 08:35 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



I don't have the number for June 1940 but by January 1940 322,000 ZB rifles have been delivered from Czechoslovakia, while other 107,600 were to be delivered during 1940.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: January 20, 2009 01:04 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE
The doctrine they taught was French as were the tanks (FT 17s).

It is rather exagerated to call FT-17 tanks. Maybe cans...
As for the French doctrine, we have seen how that went on for them! Anyway, with the little number of tanks available to the Romanian Army, we couldn't do more than infantry support, right?
I've read in a book by Suvorov that at some point, the Red Army (incipient as it was) managed to capture at some point two FT's from the Romanians, and those were "baptised" as "Tank No.1, The fighter for freedom Comrade Lenin" and "Tank No.2, The fighter for freedom Comrade Trotsky". I found no further information on these "tanks", if I should call them so.
Have you?

This post has been edited by MMM on January 20, 2009 01:05 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: January 20, 2009 03:07 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Suvorov is hardly a reliable source. The Romanian FT's were never engaged in combat operations against the Red Army. The Red Army's captured tanks were taken from the Whites most likely.

At the time the FT-17s entered service with the Romanian Army, they were by far the most advanced tank in the world. Also, the French armored doctrine in 1919-1920 was the most advanced of the time. Ofcourse, by 1940 they were obsolete, but the sentence you quoted was made in a different context.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: January 20, 2009 05:07 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE
The Romanian FT's were never engaged in combat operations against the Red Army

That's what I knew, too... I am not sure, but I think the FT-17, as the doctrine, were way too old in the 1940's. Though Romanians still used FT-17 in 1942, while Wehrmacht were beginning to tame Tigers B)
Regarding the "misquote", you are right, but it was much too funny of an affirmation to be left unremarked. Right at this moment I try to compare the material basis of the armies in 1940, and it is useless to point out the fact that Romania was by far at the low end of the list; even the Hungarians had a better idea (as was seen afterwards, in practice they weren't better than us) of what mobility means. So I'm pretty nervous about the narrow-mindedness of almost all the leaders (civilian and military) in Bucharest. :angry:
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0241 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]