Battaglione a.a. e a.c.

[Webmaster]

by Andreas » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:56 am
Can someone tell me what kind of weapons such a battalion would have had in 1941 (let's say in the case of DVIII Bataglione of Trieste)? I am presuming 20mm Bredas? Or would it also have 47/32 and/or 88s?

Many thanks in advance!

All the best

Andreas

-------------------

by michele » Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:07 am
As far as I know, a "Battaglione di armi anticarro e di accompagnamento" (="antitank weapons and support weapons batalion") in theory had:

- 1 HQ-platoon
- 1 AA company (20 mm)
- 1 towed AT company
- 1 mortar company (81 mm)
- 1 MG company

Source: "Nozioni di organica per i corsi allievi ufficiali di complemento", S.M.R.E., Roma, Luglio 1941-XIX, page 50.

Not too much, but at least is from an official source of the time.

--------------------

by Andreas » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:06 pm
Molto bene, grazie!

Just to confirm, that is for the divisional battalion, not for the regimental one? Or are the two identical? Do you by any chance have the manpower allocation to these battalions?

Grazie in avanti!

Cordiali saluti

Andreas

-----------------

by David » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:28 pm
Andeas.

I don't know where you get "DVIII" from?

The only Armi Accompagnamento Battaglione I have with the Divisione Trieste in 1941 is in the 9th Reggimento Bersaglieri. And it is numbered XL.

I agree with Michele in that the theoretical composition would have been 1 x Batteria 20mm Breda mod35 L/65.
1 x Batteria 47mm c.c. 1 x Compagnia Mortai (81mm) & 1 x Compagnia M/G (8mm Breda).

Manpower would be about 600. But I don't have an exact figure. Nor can I answer the question regarding differences between Divisional & Regimental units. Sorry.

---------------

by jwsleser » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:53 pm
David

RE: DVIII or DVII? Seconda Offensiva Britannica in A.S. lists the DVIII btg. divisionale armi acc. e c.c in allegato 3 (page 178-179). Montanari (vol 2) lists the DVII btg. armi acc. e c.c on page 422. Both OBs are for Crusader. I would tend to trust Montanari, but I would need to cross-check to see if the point could be clarified.

Seconda states the btg. was in Tripolitania at the beginning of Crusader. I would need to read to see if the btg. rejoined the division during the battle.

Pista!

Jeff

 

[Webmaster]

by david » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:37 pm
Jeff.

Perhaps it was Independente & not part of Divisione Tieste?

---------------------

by Andreas » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:33 am

david wrote:Andeas.

I don't know where you get "DVIII" from?

The only Armi Accompagnamento Battaglione I have with the Divisione Trieste in 1941 is in the 9th Reggimento Bersaglieri. And it is numbered XL.

I agree with Michele in that the theoretical composition would have been 1 x Batteria 20mm Breda mod35 L/65.
1 x Batteria 47mm c.c. 1 x Compagnia Mortai (81mm) & 1 x Compagnia M/G (8mm Breda).

Manpower would be about 600. But I don't have an exact figure. Nor can I answer the question regarding differences between Divisional & Regimental units. Sorry.

No worries! DVIII is from Loi "Aggredisci e Vincerai".

Thanks for confirming that XL was an accompagnamento!

All the best

Andreas

-----------------------

by Andreas » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:58 am
Sorry, to add, according to Loi:

DVIII was "in reconstitution" in September, and it was dissolved after CRUSADER.

Both infantry regiments also had these battalions as the third battalion, and both of these were dissolved after CRUSADER, leaving only the 81mm mortar companies.

http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/20 ... -crusader/

All the best

Andreas

-----------------------

by jwsleser » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:04 pm
David

No, the btg. acc. e c.c. is organic to the division. Both Trento and Trieste were being reorganized as divisioni motorizzata tipo A.S. This was a binary structure, where each infantry regiment consisted of two infantry btgs. and one btg acc. e c.c. The third infantry btg in each regiment was used to form the btg. acc. e c.c. In addition, the divisional machine gun battalion was converted into a btg. acc. e c.c. It appears that the btg. acc. e c.c kept the number of the btg. mitraglieri.

Info is from La prima controffensiva Italo-Tedesca; Seconda Offensiva Brtiannica (page 28); and Montanrari vol 2 (page 305).

Andreas

I was planning to look at these battalions post Crusader. The reorganization to the tipo A.S. 42 structure was likely the reason these units were disbanded.

Pista!

Jeff

--------------------

by Andreas » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:09 pm

jwsleser wrote:I was planning to look at these battalions post Crusader. The reorganization to the tipo A.S. 42 structure was likely the reason these unit were disbanded.

That brings back the question as to when Trento and Trieste were re-organized. In the 1 Feb 42 document I have it states that only... well anyway, one division that is neither of the two is stated to be an A.S.42 division.

Do you have the date when the conversion was ordered?

All the best

Andreas

---------------------

by jwsleser » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:45 pm
Andreas

The date was 2 January 1942 (Comando Superiore Forze Armata A.S. N. 01/1300 di prot. Op.). The complete order is provided in allegato 1 of Seconda controffensiva Italo-Tedesca in Africa settentrionale da El Agheila a El Elamein (pages 287-289)

Divisions Brescia, Bologna, Pavia, Trento, and Sabratha would assume the organization shown in example A (divisione di fanteria A.S. 42). The organization of the Sabratha would not incorporate the Giovani Fascisti regiment.

Division Trieste would assume the organization shown in example B.

Division Ariete would assume the organization shown in example C.

Pista!

Jeff

 

[Webmaster]

by Andreas » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:54 am
Many thanks!

All the best

Andreas

---------------

by david » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:38 pm
Andreas.

I followed your link to the Crusader project, and I would like to raise a few questions concerning that page.

Your first .B is dated September 1941. Can you be a little more precise?
The Division is still in Italy at that time, not beginning to arrive in Tripoli until Early in November. With the exception of the 9th Bersaglieri Regiment, who arrive in September.

You show both 65th & 66th Regiments with 2x fanteria Btg. (OK).
& each with 1x a.a Btg. ( I don't think that these Btg arrived at all).

9th Bersaglieri Regiment was A/P, not M/C, as the majority of it's Btg were A/P.

I have no record at all of 108 AT/AA Btg. The fact that it is in Arabic numerals, not Roman makes me think that it is a Compagnia. 24x 4.7cm guns were transferred to Divisione Trieste upon their arrival in N.A on 29/12/41.

I do not think that LII Battaglione Misto Genio arrived in N.A that early. But, LII Battaglione Misto Corrazato was part of the Divisione in November 1941.

Finally, should the date on the 2nd .B read "January 1942"?

David.

-------------

by david » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:41 pm
Jeff.

A.F.A.I.K Trento didn't get it's 3rd Btgs in 61st & 62nd Regiments until the latter half of 1942.
And I have no evidence to support the theory that Trieste ever got then in 1942 for the 65th & 66th regiments.
But I am happy to be proved wrong.
Interestingly, neither Divisione had a Battaglione Mitraglieri to convert either!

David.

------------------

by jwsleser » Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:56 am
David

I will never try to ‘prove’ anything at this stage of the research

. I have not worked as hard as you to make sense from all the conflicting information, nor do I have access to many of the secondary sources beyond the official histories. I can only offer the information I find in response to questions.

On the issue of Trento and Trieste:

By the TO&E in 1940, each had two regiments of two battalions, one 81mm mortar cp. and one c.c. cp. They each had a divisional machinegun btg. (L’Esercito Italiano tra la 1° e la 2° Guerra mondiale pages 127-128 footnote 1b. and allegato 56).

Prima controffensiva Italo-Tedesca identifies one of the MG btgs. as the DLI (I will provide the page number when I am home tonight).

The reorganization ordered in Jan 42 changed Trieste to two regiments of two battalions (each with four infantry companies) and one 81mm mortar company (Seconda cited in the earlier post). The bersaglieri regiments were to become C.A. assets and were not part of the motorized divisions. This latter action was fully implemented by Oct 42.

Montanari vol III pages 257, 458, and schizzo 21 shows three battalions in the 61°e 62° regiments before Gazala. Schizzo 21 is dated 20 May (the earliest reference I can find). Page 681 (23 Oct 42) shows the 65° Infantry with three battalions (and Trento's regiments with three battalions).

I am still checking some items. The number and types of companies is not as clear as I like.

Pista!

Jeff

---------------------

by david » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:34 am
Jeff.

Don't get me wrong, the prospect of me discovering "new" Italian Battalions for North Africa is like gold dust!
I love it, it's what I live for (research wise!).
But I have to try to prove everything to avoid being disappointed later on.

Trento & Trieste's Mitraglieri battaglione. I think that they must have been disbanded prior to shipping to North Africa.
Can we confirm?

I wonder if Montanari Vol III shows the intended, or actual T.o&E of 3x battaglione in both 61st & 62nd Regs before Gazala, as I was under the impression that the change did not actually take place until 6th June 1942 at the very earliest. More problems to solve!

-----------------------

by Andreas » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:13 pm
Hi David

Many thanks for taking the time and for your informed comments. I am afraid that they are almost completely at odds with the source I have, which is Loi. Loi says that the documents he produces in the appendix are from the Ufficio Storico archives. I am not wedded to what he says, but I think it needs to be taken seriously considering the claim he is making for the origin of the information, and the fact that the head of the Ufficio Storico wrote the introduction to the book.

david wrote:Andreas.

I followed your link to the Crusader project, and I would like to raise a few questions concerning that page.

Your first .B is dated September 1941. Can you be a little more precise?

I am afraid not.

david wrote:The Division is still in Italy at that time, not beginning to arrive in Tripoli until Early in November. With the exception of the 9th Bersaglieri Regiment, who arrive in the September.

That's not possible I am afraid David. Nobody arrived in Tripoli in early November, at least no organized formation in division strength. The only big convoy was Beta/Duisburg which was completely destroyed, and even that was kit and not men. The division arrived on the big liner convoys in August and September, and suffered 450 killed when Gritti, Oceania and Neptunia were sunk. Loi states that the CO of IX Gruppo of 21 Artigliera died when the latter two were sunk by HMS Upholder. Montanari (p.347) states that the division was around Homs in early September. On 25 October small elements of the division already undertook recce towards Segnali and Mechili. On 8 November the division was in the sector Bir Hakeim-Bel Harmat-Mteifel el Chebir (also confirmed by Montanari p. 367 for 10 November)

See also this link with the diary entry from a subaltern in 66 Fanteria, which confirms a crossing in August of the whole regiment. http://www.regiamarina.net/others/esperia/diary_us.htm ( BTW, the officer writing the diary was posted missing after CRUSADER, he is in the 66 Fanteria casualty list in Loi).

david wrote:You show both 65th & 66th Regiments with 2x fanteria Btg. (OK).
& each with 1x a.a Btg. ( I don't think that these Btg arrived at all).

See the link above, it states that the 3rd battalion of 66 Fanteria arrived with the 1st and 2nd in August. Loi gives the commanders as Maggiores Emanuele Rossi (III/65) and Franco Taddei (III/66). Also Loi states that the organisation of infantry regiments in Tipo A.S. Motorrizata was based on 3 battalions, and this is confirmed by Montanari (p. 309) in his diagram for the organisation of the Divisione Tipo Trento.

david wrote:9th Bersaglieri Regiment was A/P, not M/C, as the majority of it's Btg were A/P.

Loi reproduces a document with the header 9 Reggimento Bersaglieri Motociclisti of 5 January 1942. They may have kept the designation even though they were primarily A/P?

david wrote:I have no record at all of 108 AT/AA Btg. The fact that it is in Arabic numerals, not Roman makes me think that it is a Compagnia. 24x 4.7cm guns were transferred to Divisione Trieste upon their arrival in N.A on 29/12/41.

In the original document it is in Roman numerals and it is clearly referred to as a bataglione commanded by Teniente Colonello Francesco Paolo Francese. Loi also states that the battalion was almost completely lost, but had been rebuilt by 20 October.

david wrote:I do not think that LII Battaglione Misto Genio arrived in N.A that early. But, LII Battaglione Misto Corrazato was part of the Divisione in November 1941.

Loi does not mention anything corrazato, neither does Montanari for the Tipo Trento organisation. In early September no L3 tanks were reported in either Trento or Trieste (Montanari p.322), even though there were quite a few in the infantry divisions. Commander was apparently Maggiore Vittorino Tarsia.

david wrote:Finally, should the date on the 2nd .B read "January 1942"?

Yes, well spotted!

Interesting discussion, I hope this helps!

All the best

Andreas

 

[Webmaster]

by david » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:24 pm
Great help!

I will post more later.

thanks.

------------------

by jwsleser » Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:50 pm
All

I am using Montanari 1° editions. I have discovered a consistent four page difference between my volumes and the pages given by Andreas (although the information matches). I am assuming that Andreas is using 2° edition copies of Montanari.

Just to clarify a few points in Andreas' post.

RE: Trento. The diagram is in vol II, page 305 in my copy. This is the two infantry (autopr), one btg. acc. e c.c. structure (total of three btgs, but not all infantry).

Vol II, page 29 (33 for Andreas), 214-216 (218-220), and 262-264 (266-268) discusses the changes in divisional structure, the decision to do so, and the problems in doing so. The decision was apparently made in late May-mid June 41.

RE: Mitragliatieri. Yes, Trento’s DLI btg mitr. had not arrived before the decision to reorganize was made. I still believe the new divisional-level btg. acc. e c.c took the mitr. btg. number. It appears that the btg. arrived already reorganized or was done shortly afterwards.

RE: Trieste. On 1 November, III/65° had already been transformed into a btg. acc. e c.c. . The III/66° had not and was still organized as an autopr. btg. (Seconda offensiva Britannica page 179 footnote 1). The DVIII (as I have mentioned earlier) was already a btg. acc. e c.c (or being organized as one) but was still at Tripoli (I beleive this is this is the 108° c.a. e c.c. under discussion, Andreas, what are the Roman numerals?).

More to follow once I sort through a few more things.

Pista!

Jeff

--------------------

by david » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:31 pm
Andreas.

Thank you again. Now I have a little time!

That's not possible I am afraid David. Nobody arrived in Tripoli in early November, at least no organised formation in division strength. The only big convoy was Beta/Duisburg which was completely destroyed, and even that was kit and not men. The division arrived on the big liner convoys in August and September, and suffered 450 killed when Gritti, Oceania and Neptunia were sunk. Loi states that the CO of IX Gruppo of 21 Artigliera died when the latter two were sunk by HMS Upholder. Montanari (p.347) states that the division was around Homs in early September. On 25 October small elements of the division already undertook recce towards Segnali and Mechili. On 8 November the division was in the sector Bir Hakeim-Bel Harmat-Mteifel el Chebir (also confirmed by Montanari p. 367 for 10 November)

That's great. I could never positively place the Divisione in N.A before November. The lack of convoys in that month should have been a clue.

---------------------

by david » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:34 pm
Andreas.

See the link above, it states that the 3rd battalion of 66 Fanteria arrived with the 1st and 2nd in August. Loi gives the commanders as Maggiores Emanuele Rossi (III/65) and Franco Taddei (III/66). Also Loi states that the organisation of infantry regiments in Tipo A.S. Motorrizata was based on 3 battalions, and this is confirmed by Montanari (p. 309) in his diagram for the organisation of the Divisione Tipo Trento.

Again I am indebted to you. Everything I have seen has 65 & 66 as 2x battaglione.
The third battaglione are each a.a?

----------------------

by david » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:39 pm
Andreas.

Loi reproduces a document with the header 9 Reggimento Bersaglieri Motociclisti of 5 January 1942. They may have kept the designation even though they were primarily A/P?

Sounds reasonable!

n the original document it is in Roman numerals and it is clearly referred to as a bataglione commanded by Teniente Colonello Francesco Paolo Francese. Loi also states that the battalion was almost completely lost, but had been rebuilt by 20 October.

Lost? Lost at sea? Destroyed in combat? 20th October 1941 or '42?

Loi does not mention anything corrazato, neither does Montanari for the Tipo Trento organisation. In early September no L3 tanks were reported in either Trento or Trieste (Montanari p.322), even though there were quite a few in the infantry divisions. Commander was apparently Maggiore Vittorino Tarsia.

Still not sure what to think about this one. Can we dig deeper?

 

[Webmaster]

by david » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:54 pm
Jeff.

RE: Trento. The diagram is in vol II, page 305 in my copy. This is the two infantry (autopr), one btg. acc. e c.c. structure (total of three btgs, but not all infantry).

Vol II, page 29 (33 for Andreas), 214-216 (218-220), and 262-264 (266-268) discusses the changes in divisional structure, the decision to do so, and the problems in doing so. The decision was apparently made in late May-mid June 41.

Can we confirm dates for the conversion of III/61. III/62. III/65. III/66?

RE: Mitragliatieri. Yes, Trento’s DLI btg mitr. had not arrived before the decision to reorganize was made. I still believe the new divisional-level btg. acc. e c.c took the mitr. btg. number. It appears that the btg. arrived already reorganized or was done shortly afterwards.

So are we talking about another seperate Battaglione here, or did it become III/61 or III/62?


108 = CVIII.
DVIII = 508.
C sounds like D & is close on the keyboard, so DVIII a typo?

--------------------

by Andreas » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:44 am

david wrote:Andreas.

Thank you again. Now I have a little time!

That's not possible I am afraid David. Nobody arrived in Tripoli in early November, at least no organised formation in division strength. The only big convoy was Beta/Duisburg which was completely destroyed, and even that was kit and not men. The division arrived on the big liner convoys in August and September, and suffered 450 killed when Gritti, Oceania and Neptunia were sunk. Loi states that the CO of IX Gruppo of 21 Artigliera died when the latter two were sunk by HMS Upholder. Montanari (p.347) states that the division was around Homs in early September. On 25 October small elements of the division already undertook recce towards Segnali and Mechili. On 8 November the division was in the sector Bir Hakeim-Bel Harmat-Mteifel el Chebir (also confirmed by Montanari p. 367 for 10 November)

That's great. I could never positively place the Divisione in N.A before November. The lack of convoys in that month should have been a clue.

Yes.

david wrote:Andreas.

In the original document it is in Roman numerals and it is clearly referred to as a bataglione commanded by Teniente Colonello Francesco Paolo Francese. Loi also states that the battalion was almost completely lost, but had been rebuilt by 20 October.

Lost? Lost at sea? Destroyed in combat? 20th October 1941 or '42?

Lost at sea. 20 Oct 41.

david wrote:

Loi does not mention anything corrazato, neither does Montanari for the Tipo Trento organisation. In early September no L3 tanks were reported in either Trento or Trieste (Montanari p.322), even though there were quite a few in the infantry divisions. Commander was apparently Maggiore Vittorino Tarsia.

Still not sure what to think about this one. Can we dig deeper?

Agree, maybe somebody else can jump in? E.g. do L3 tanks features in any of the combat reports?

david wrote:108 = CVIII.
DVIII = 508.
C sounds like D & is close on the keyboard, so DVIII a typo?

Brainfart - I was so focussed on other things, I mistook 'D' for 100. Idiot I am...

All the best

Andreas

---------------------

by Andreas » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:45 am
Ps. You need to go to bed more early.

All the best

Andreas

-----------------------

by jwsleser » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:53 am
David

I haven't been able to dig any deeper (too busy). I hope to get back into this tomorrow.

RE: Mitragliatieri. Yes, Trento’s DLI btg mitr. had not arrived before the decision to reorganize was made. I still believe the new divisional-level btg. acc. e c.c took the mitr. btg. number. It appears that the btg. arrived already reorganized or was done shortly afterwards.

So are we talking about another seperate Battaglione here, or did it become III/61 or III/62?

Under the organization Tipo motorizzata A.S., a divisional acc. e c.c battalion was authorized. This replaced the divisonal btg. mitr. that was authorized under the standard motorizzata TO&E. The DVIII & DLI existed in Italy as motorized MG battalions. It appears the DLI was deployed to A.S. as a mitr. unit, only to be coverted when the decision was made to changed the two divisions to tipo A.S. TO&E.

The btg. acc. e c.c. in the regiments was to be created by changing the third battalion. The 1940 motorizzata TO&E already reflected this organization. The new question is when was the 1940 organization ordered, and whether Trieste and Trento had started or completed this reorganization prior to their deployment to A.S.? From what I am seeing, these units had not converted and still had the three infantry btg. structure. So it is likely that the personnel was shipped to A.S. and the conversion done when equipment became available. But this requires more research.

The Tipo A.S. 42 structure kept the two inf, one acc. e c.c. btg. structure. However, it appears this was modified in Feb 42 back to a three infantry battalion structure. See Montanari vol III pages 93-99 and footnote 7 and 8 (page 154). Footnote 7 states the Df tipo A.S. 42 had a three infantry battalion structure. I believe (still working through the translation) that the equipment needed simply wasn’t available (e.g seventy-two 47/32 c.c. per division). So the answer was to go back to three infantry battalions.

Page 99 states the reorganization was completed by 28 Feb 42. Note the Trieste was not reorganized as a Df tipo A.S., and doesn't come under this comment. Trieste was organized as a tipo motorizzata A.S. 42. This added the recce and carri btgs. No tanks or armored cars were part of the motorized divisions until the A.S. 42 structure. Because the unit was motorized, the lack of trucks (among everything else) delayed the creation of the third btgs.

Pista!

Jeff

-----------------

by david » Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:20 pm
Andreas. Thanks.

Jeff. All very complex. Let's see if we can draw any positive conclusions at the end of all this. In the meantime "Happy searching, one & all!"

----------------------

by jwsleser » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:46 am
I have been working on a list of all the different acc. e c.c. organizations to answer the original question. Last night I found a detailed breakdown of the A.S. 42 infantry company. It was not what I expected. It does allow me to now make sense of two charts where the totals given didn't match my own calculations. I am pretty busy today, but will try to get this posted sometime in the next day or two.

Pista!

Jeff

--------------------

by david » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:55 am
I look forward to that Jeff.

-------------------

by Dili » Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:53 am
Thanks i'll wait for it too.

 

[Webmaster]

by dor1941 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:49 pm
I thought it might be helpful to some readers to summarize what has been posted to date in this Forum regarding the battaglione armi di accompagnamento, include a few details provided by other sources and get some feedback about the accuracy of this information.

A number of the mixed heavy weapons battalions-known as battaglioni armi di accompagnamento-which were authorized for those Italian divisions in or operating with Panzergruppe Afrika at the start of Crusader did in fact exist and took part in the battles of November and December, 1941. Five of those seven divisions likely had one or more of these heavy weapons battalions at that time, including the following:
VIII/7 Bersaglieri (Trento)
III/61 fanteria (Trento)
III/62 fanteria (Trento)
DLI btg armi acc.to (Trento)
III/8 Bersaglieri (Ariete)
XL/9 Bersaglieri (Trieste)
III/65 fanteria (Trieste)
DVIII btg armi acc.to (Trieste)
III/39 fanteria (Bologna)
III/40 fanteria (Bologna)
XXV btg armi acc.to (Bologna)
III/28 fanteria (Pavia)
XVII btg armi acc.to (Pavia)

Divisioni Savona and Brescia were also mandated to create these regimental and divisional battaglioni armi di accompagnamento but had formed none by the end of the year.

Several preliminary points should be made:
1. These weapons battalions were authorized by a mandate from Comando Supremo in mid 1941 for divisioni motorizzata, including the Bersaglieri regiments. As noted in jwsleser's post of 3-27-09 a reorganization initiated in February 1942 eliminated many of these btg. armi di accompagnamento.
2. A number of the authorized heavy weapons battalions were never formed, and possibly a large proportion of those that were created were still incomplete in some respects by November 1941. Also, some were in theater/A.S. but not present with their divisions during Crusader.
3. A mandated organization was stated previously, as follows:

michele wrote:As far as I know, a "Battaglione di armi anticarro e di accompagnamento" (="antitank weapons and support weapons batalion") in theory had:

- 1 HQ-platoon
- 1 AA company (20 mm)
- 1 towed AT company
- 1 mortar company (81 mm)
- 1 MG company

Source: "Nozioni di organica per i corsi allievi ufficiali di complemento", S.M.R.E., Roma, Luglio 1941-XIX, page 50.

Despite this authorized structure, it is immediately apparent that at least some of these battalions existed in other forms-deviations from this theoretical format seem to have been common. Examples of this are in the Organico Divisione Motorizzata Tipo "Trento" in Montanari, "Le Operazioni in Africa Settentrionale", Vol. II-Tobruk, p. 309 (2nd ed.):
each of the two reggimenti fanteria motorizzati had "un battaglione armi accompagnamento e controcarro su:
-compagnia comando;
-compagnia mortai da 81;
-compagnia cannoni da 47/32;
-compagnia da 20 mm c.a."
the reggimento bersaglieri had "un battaglione armi accompagnamento e controcarri su:
-compagnia comando;
-due compagnie mortai da 81;
-una compagnia da 20 mm c.a."
and the divisional "un battaglione armi di accompagnamento e controcarri su:
-compagnia comando
-due compagnie mitraglieri;
-una compagnia mortai da 81;
-una compagnia cannoni da 47/32"
Clearly this is the intended "establishment" for D. mot. Trento, but shows that the structure of these mixed heavy weapons battalions was not wedded to a fixed model. Logically, the types of weapons in these support battalions could depend on the equipment of the sister battalions within the regiment-for example, since each of the rifle battaglioni of the reggimento bersaglieri included a compagnia of 47/32 c.c., its support weapons battaglione did not contain one. Also, possibly because the divisional battaglione armi di accompagnamento of Trento was created from its former machine-gun battalion, the new unit had two compagnie mitraglieri instead of one.

Some sources and posts (other than in this thread) referencing these weapons battalions, by division:
D. mot. Trento
Montanari, A.S., Vol. II-Tobruk, p. 309 (as above)
D. cor. Ariete
Montanari, p. 321 (and many more-there is no index for battalion-sized units)
posts by jwsleser: 5-23-09 and 7-3-09, "OOBs for Bir el Gubi"
posts by dor1941: 6-24-09 and 7-4-09, "OOBs for Bir el Gubi"
post by jwsleser: 7-13-09, "37mm AA Gun in Esercito"
post by jwsleser: "2-23-10, "Ariete's Battalions"
D. mot. Trieste
Montanari, p. 426
Agar-Hamilton and Turner, p.476
post by voloire: 2-15-06, "XL Battaglione Armi Accompagnamento"
post by Granatiere: 4-1-08, "65th & 66th Reggimento Trieste"
D. f. Bologna
Montanari, p. 518 (endnote 3)
D. f. Pavia
Montanari, p. 518 (endnote 2)
post by Lupo Solitario: 5-3-05, "Divisione Pavia"

Additions, corrections and comments welcome.

David R

 

[David Wormell]

Hello David.

Thanks for re-visiting this topic.

I notice that in your list, you don't mention III/66 fanteria Trieste? Was this not also converted along with III/65?

I did not think that either III/39 or III/40 fanteria Bologna were converted? But am happy to be proven wrong.

XXV & XXVII were converted from XXV & XXVII Mitraglieri I think.

Wasn't III/27 fanteria Pavia converted along with III/28? Also happy to be proven wrong.


It is interesting to note that neither of Motorizatto Divisione units actual Tabelle Organiche was the same as the theoretical.