Mitraglieri battalions

[jwsleser]

Posted 08 April 2005 - 09:04 AM by antonio

I am a little bit confused with the difference between the Battaglione Mitraglieri (MG Battalions) and the Armi d'accompagnamento (maybe weapons battalion).

In Spanish army at the time of Spanish Civil War there were units called "armas de acompañamiento" the same expression as in italian but these were mostly MG and mortars. In Italian TOE I see that the normal infantry division in Europe had a mortar battalion but not in Africa.

My questions are:

what were exactly those battaglioni di armi d'accompagnamento AC/CA.?
Were different from Mitraglieri battaglioni.?
How many (mitraglieri and armi d'accomp)of them were in North Africa?
Were organic to divisions or attached to army corps?
In some web pages I see that some divisions in Africa had MG battalions but AFAIK that is no correct.

Cheers

Posted 08 April 2005 - 11:26 AM by david

Antonio.

I can't be a great deal of help I'm afraid.
But I am as keen as you, to hear the answers.

In some web pages I see that some divisions in Africa had MG battalions but AFAIK that is no correct

This seems to have been common practice in N.Africa in 1940. But very few examples (if any) of it ocurring after the disasters of Jan 1941.

Posted 08 April 2005 - 05:10 PM by Lupo Solitario

try to make a bit of order...

In WWII italian army MG battalions were Corps assets, they were equipped only with HMG

Mortar battalions are included in standard infantry division 1940 TO&E; but not in North Africa Autotrasportabile division 1940 TO&E;

I ignore exact composition of support weapon battalions but they were formed only after 1941 and included 47mm and 20mm gun. I believe they had to be attached to infantry regiments but it's always difficult finding general rules in WWII italian army in NA

Posted 09 April 2005 - 08:27 AM by antonio

Thanks a lot Lupo.

From your answer it seems that it is a long distance between the theory and the reality in Italian Army.

I have found a CLV battaglione mitraglieri in 55th Bologna Division, so I assume it was an attached unit and not organic. right?.

I have also found DVIII battaglioni AA.AC in Trieste division and DLI batg AA.AC in Trento Division in december 1941. Could you tell me when they arrived to North Africa?

Best regards
Antonio

Posted 09 April 2005 - 10:15 AM by david

I have found a CLV battaglione mitraglieri in 55th Bologna Division, so I assume it was an attached unit and not organic. right?.

It's 25th Divisione Bologna. But I have no record of a CLV Battaglione, so I will be interested in what Lupo has to say.

I have also found DVIII battaglioni AA.AC in Trieste division and DLI batg AA.AC in Trento Division in december 1941. Could you tell me when they arrived to North Africa?

The only AA.AC Gruppos in N. Africa were.....................

XXIX in III Gruppo 1st Celere Regiment. Which spent most of their time in Tripoli from about Dec 1940, until being co-opted into Divisione Littorio in about 09/42.

XVIII also from 1st Celere Regiment. Arrived Tripoli somewhen in 1940. Co-opted into Divisione Ariete in 05/42, where it was sometimes known as V Gruppo.

DII C.A/C.C Gruppo. Arrived Spring 1942.

DI C.A/C.C Gruppo. (aka IV Gruppo) Divisione Ariete in May 1942.

I am not aware of either CLV or DLI Battaglione/Gruppo & doubt their authenticity. But I am always glad to be proved wrong in such matters if it promotes the truth.

Posted 09 April 2005 - 11:06 AM by antonio

Hi david, thanks for your reply.

It's 25th Divisione Bologna. But I have no record of a CLV Battaglione, so I will be interested in what Lupohas to say.

I made a mistake. I was referring to 55th Savona not 25th Bologna.

Regarding DVII or DVIII Battaglione and DLI my sources are:

http://digilander.libero.it/lacorsainfi ... anovra.htm

http://utenti.lycos....amius/Militaria

(La campagna in Cirenaica de 1941)

Maybe there are some errorr or typos.

In one of those places mentions DLI batt mitraglieri, but since in aprevious post was said that mitraglieri batt were numbered 100- I assumed it was an error and I supposed it was referring to AA.AC. (My fault).

If those numbers ever existed in Africa what could they be?
No mitraglieri, no AA.AC, no mortars

Regards
Antonio

Posted 10 April 2005 - 12:57 PM by Franco

The mg btln was standard for infantry division AS 1940 TOE.

Posted 11 April 2005 - 04:14 PM by antonio

Franco, you are right. According to Leo Niehorster in Pavia, Brescia Savona, and Bologna should be a MG battalion.

My question is what happened with them. Were they destroyed before Crusader during or after Crusader operation or were just dissolved.?

According to the Leo Niehorster Orbat for october 1942 there was a 25th MG battalion in Tripolitania. Was this the original battalion that belonged to 25th Bologna division?

Cheers
Antonio

 

[jwsleser]

Posted 11 April 2005 - 10:32 PM by Franco

The XXV mg btlns was in Bologna in 1940,
all the AS 1940 infantry division had the mg btlns, numbered with division number.
In italian royal army use number
arabic for army, division, regiment, coy
roman for army corps, brigate, btln
i don't know for plats and squads.

Posted 08 May 2005 - 04:36 PM by david

According to the Leo Niehorster Orbat for october 1942 there was a 25th MG battalion in Tripolitania. Was this the original battalion that belonged to 25th Bologna division?

The XXV mg btlns was in Bologna in 1940,

It appears to have survived, and ended up in the Homs sector in October of 1942.

I wonder what happened to it after that?

& how long it had been at Homs?

& what did it do after leaving Bologna in late 1940 / early 1941?

Posted 08 May 2005 - 07:40 PM by david

Also, what became of the LX Mitraglieri Battaglione?

Did it survive into 1941 & beyond? I have a feeling that it did.

Posted 13 May 2005 - 08:20 AM by david

Going back to the aforementioned DLI Battaglione Mitraglieri; I have it in Tripoli 03/41, but no actual arrival date in N.Africa, can any one help please?

Posted 12 July 2007 - 07:12 PM piero1971

how many HMG did that battalion have (and total number of other weapons)?

Posted 13 July 2007 - 06:42 AM by david

piero.

Tricky!

Define Heavy Machine Gun.
As I understand it, the Italaians only fielded Medium machine guns or lighter. So........

In answer to your question, none.

But each of the four Compagnia that comprised the Battaglione had 12 Medium machine guns each.

It's tricky because there is no clearly defined boundary between light & medium, and medium & heavy.

Hope the above helps a little.

Posted 13 July 2007 - 07:47 AM by FB

Usually Regio Esercito intended a heavy MG a weapon mounted on a tripod and as such capable of firing indirectly (i.e. the MG crew does NOT see the target).

A light MG is, instead, a wapon mounted on a bipod, and so without the capacity of firing indirectly.

Note that the same weapon (say for instance a german MG42, so everybody can picture this weapon in their mind since it is so famous) can be both light and heavy, depending on its mount. Note, also, that the weapon caliber is not an issue as far as classification as heavy or light MG is concerned.

Best regards

Posted 13 July 2007 - 10:25 PM by david

Note, also, that the weapon caliber is not an issue as far as classification as heavy or light MG is concerned.

This can only be true of Italian classification. Not withstanding your bipod/tripod analysis, which I assume is correct. The Germans & Commonwealth would have considered calibre as an important factor in classifying machine guns. But possibly not the only one, hence the confusion.

Posted 14 July 2007 - 05:21 AM by Davide Pastore

The Germans & Commonwealth would have considered calibre as an important factor in classifying machine guns.

AFAIK this is true only for aircraft MGs, where a line can be traced between rifle-calibre weapons and the 0.50" group.

As I understood it, the distinction HMG / LMG started in WW1, where "heavy " meant something water-cooled, belt-fed, tactically immoble (example: Vickers, Maxim, MG08, etc.) while "light" meant something air-cooled, magazine-fed, following the infantry (example: Lewis, Chaucaut, etc., later originating BAR, BREN, etc.). The Germans again followed a very personal path with the MG 08/15 which shared some of the characteristics of both families.

IMHO the main difference between H and L can be summed as:

HMG - always tripod mounted, to be employed in a fixed position and rarely moved during the firing action.
LMG - always bipod mounted, to be employed inside the infantry squad and able to freely move during the firing action.

Note that MG34 / MG42 could be both, depending upon their mounting.

Posted 14 July 2007 - 06:52 AM by david

FB & Davide.

I take your point, re bipods & tripods.

Davide. I thought that the WWI type distinctions you explained, were obsolete by WWII? I could of course be wrong.

I do think that it is fair to say that ignoring type of stand (bipod/tripod), that heavy machine guns are generally of a larger calibre than light, & vice versa. Would you not agree?

Posted 14 July 2007 - 09:39 AM by Davide Pastore

I thought that the WWI type distinctions you explained, were obsolete by WWII?

Actually I believe it is still used in some present day armies, between the squad-level support weapon (usually some sort of assault rifle with a heavier barrel) and the platoon/company support weapon (usually some progenitor of the MG42).

I do think that it is fair to say that ignoring type of stand (bipod/tripod), that heavy machine guns are generally of a larger calibre than light, & vice versa. Would you not agree?

Hence, a Vickers and a Bren are in the same category (both light, I suppose?) since both fired the same bullet.
Ditto for MG42 and FG42
Ditto for Browning M1917 and BAR
Ditto for Maxim M1910 and Degtyarev DP
Ditto for Fiat M14 and Breda M30
etc. etc.

 

[jwsleser]

This is an old thread but it touches on a current issue I am trying to resolve.

La prima offensiva britannica in Africa settentrionale states the btg. mitraglieri for the d.f « Brescia » was the XVII btg. mtr. (p.209 and schizzo 19). By the normal numbering system, the unit should be numbered the same as the division, the XXVII. On the same page, the btg. mtr. for the « Savona » is given as the LV btg. mtr., which is the same as the division (55º).

Here is my concern. The normal d.f. and d. at. had a mortar battalion and not a machine-gun battalion. When the RE decided to send metropolitan divisions to A.S., they modified the standard d. autotrasportabile and replaced the mortars btg. with a machine-gun btg. The logic was that the MGs would be more useful in the A.S. than the mortars.

Niehorster lists the XVII for « Pavia » and XXVII for « Brescia », both matching the divisional numbers. As there are no cites, I don't know the source of the information. Was this determined using the standard numbering system, or was an authoritative source used?

My thinking is that the XVII btg. mtr. could be correct if the XXVII already existed and was assigned to a different unit/role. The « Brescia » received a MG unit with a different number because it was available. This would be a very Italian solution. However that is speculation as I haven't found a list of MG battalions.

Any help out there? Grazie!

 

[FrancoFB]

i think that the 4 reinforcements division were never organized like metropolitan AT division, the ordinamenti never go over the 3 divisions of the AT corp, the 4 were supposed to go in Africa since the Pariani ordinamento.
unlucky i can not help you on the right number of the mg btlns

 

[jwsleser]

Yes, the divisione at tipo A.S. were different from the divisione at. Besides the substitution of a btg. mtr for a btg. m., there are differences in the number of fm and the amount of trucks. The two types of divisions were simular but not the same.

 

[jwsleser]

I have resolved this issue. The btg. mtr. were numbered by their division of assignment. The units are miss-identified in the official history (La prima offensiva britannica in Africa settentrionale). Schizzo 20 shows the XVII « Pavia » at Derna with the XXVII « Brescia » (mislabeled as the XVII) near Bengasi. Montanari in Sidi el Barrani states that the machine-gun battalions of the « Brescia » and « Bologna » were assigned to the raggruppamento « Bignami ». That ragg. was always near Bengasi and never travel as far as Derna. The two btg. mtr. at Derna must be the « Pavia » and « Savona » units.