Soldbuch to a Hetzer crew member

[F L Clemens]

The fire damage to page 19/20 jumped out at me - perfectly at the spot where a faker would attempt to add more entries and no damage to the other pages! The only alternative explanation would be the owner's censoring of a "Bandenkampfabzeichen"

"schwartz" is a common enough misspelling for "schwarz", but "shwarz"??? The faker must be a non-German.

No one has commented on the "sachlich richtig" stamp on the upper right hand corner of page 1. It's new to me - anyone seen it before? I can't picture the German military applying such a stamp without the a signature or seal.

[Hundestaffel]

No one has commented on the "sachlich richtig" stamp on the upper right hand corner of page 1. It's new to me - anyone seen it before? I can't picture the German military applying such a stamp without the a signature or seal.

Essentially, "sachlich richtig" equates to "All is in Order" / "All is Correct" in regards to the Soldbuchs entries.

While not commenting on this piece directly, I have seen (and owned) KL Wehrpasses with a wording varient of "sachlich richtig", also on page one (top left or right corners). These stampings would have been the last entry in a Wehrpass before it's official closing out due to the death of the owner or the termination of his military career (i.e. completion of service time, etc).

I'm just enjoying sitting back and watching the Fireworks on this one ....some interesting points / views / opinions have been raised....I'll let the masses decide whether this "sachlich richtig" entry is an appropriate "fit" for this Soldbuch or not....

"Hundestaffel"

[Panzer Rob]

Whats that on the shoulder boards?

FP Nr 23899

(24.8.1943-5.4.1944) 24.2.1944 Stab u. Stabskompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 (Sf).

Yes, however notice that date is only valid through Feb.1944 though, and if he's wearing the EKII ribbon in the photo, it had to have been added on/after 10.August 1944, several months later (provided this is the date the EKII was actually awarded and not just entered into the Soldbuch of course!)

For all we know, the FPN could have changed to something else. I searched the entire FPN database and could not find another FPN for Pz.Jg.Abt.731

Also there are a few differences in the thickness of the outer ring of the stamp on the photo and on the inside cover.
Ian

Well, I took the bottom corner of the photograph with the supposedly bad stamp and simply dropped it over the top portion... looks as though it lines up pretty well - matter of fact, the line thickness on the outer ring match up 'exactly'

Mind you, this would be the "bad" or "faked" portion of the stamp on the lower right hand corner of the photo which - if done by a "different" stamp - should NOT line up with the portion of the original stamp on the inside front cover - but it clearly does

[Panzer Rob]

Also, I made a photoshop file of all the stamps in the book with the omitted FPN stacked on top of one another and they all line up wint one another, however there is one detail that is quite apparent when this is done - the area that is omitted varies from stamp to stamp. This could mean that a piece of paper was used to "block" that portion of the stamp from making contact with the document when it was struck as Daniele suggested....... Or, there were multiples of the same stamp with the FPN portion physically removed.........

Or........ ????

As Trevor said - I too am really enjoying this thread! This is what I love about document and ID collecting and it's great to hear so many opinions with reasons/explanations to back them up! It's been a while since we've had a good, in-depth discussion like this!

Rob

[Panzer Rob]

Could we also see a scan of page 17, Rob?
Because somehow he moved units in 1944 from Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 to a 212.I.D. unit(?) and later got back to Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 ?? (snip) so how does that 212.I.D. entry came in?

It's quite possible that the EKII was awarded through the 212.I.D. Maybe someone can check to see if Pz.Jg.Abt.731 was ever subordinated to the 212.I.D.? Were the two fighting in the same area around July/August 1944?

Dennis – this is not my Soldbuch and I only have the scans that were sent to me, but I’ll ask for a scan of page 17, although I’m going to guess that it is blank – otherwise a scan would have been included.

Last question: How is it possible that all stamps have the same gap and don't show there Feldpostnummer. The stamps you see on the photo, are the same as as these on page 15 and 21.

I agree that it is possible that the stamp did not get as nice as it supposed to be(you see that alot) but all these stamps have the same gap and that's where the Feldpostnummer should be.

Ah, but they DON'T (see my post above )

I hope you have some answers Rob!

As for “answers” – no, I don’t have any, that is why it’s being posted here, to get the opinions of some of the experts and see what they have to say.

Combat companies also had softskins in HQ...you're right he did serve in combat companies and yet didn't get an assault badge or wound badge. I'm afraid those award entries look pretty bad.

Yes, and Stabs/HQs (such as Panzer, StuG, Panzerjäger Stabs) also had armored vehicles that required crews, yet might not have seen as much combat as the line platoons, which could explain the lack of a GAB.

I’ve seen several war-time photos of StuG and Panzer crew members wearing drivers badges on their sleeves, so while the award may not officially have been for AFV crew members (is this a fact?) we can be 100% certain that drivers of AFVs received the award. It would seem likely that – should a driver be needed for a AFV – one would select a soldier with driving experience, no?

[F L Clemens]

Essentially, "sachlich richtig" equates to "All is in Order" / "All is Correct" in regards to the Wehrpasses entries.

While not commenting on this piece directly, I have seen (and owned) KL Wehrpasses with a wording varient of "sachlich richtig", also on page one (top left or right corners). These stampings would have been the last entry in a Wehrpass before it's official closing out due to the death of the owner or the termination of his military career (i.e. completion of service time, etc).

"Hundestaffel"

Thanks, Hundestaffel - you say you have seen it in Wehrpaesse before, but how about a Soldbuch? The Soldbuch was not meant to be an official permanent record (for example, it didn't have erasure-resistant paper like the Wehrpass), and although it was accepted as such after the war, I'd be surprised if there was a change during the war according to Wehrmacht practice. So, is this the case of a faker using the "sachlich richtig" stamp as to make the alterations look "certified"?

[Hundestaffel]

Thanks, Hundestaffel - you say you have seen it in Wehrpaesse before, but how about a Soldbuch? The Soldbuch was not meant to be an official permanent record (for example, it didn't have erasure-resistant paper like the Wehrpass), and although it was accepted as such after the war, I'd be surprised if there was a change during the war according to Wehrmacht practice. So, is this the case of a faker using the "sachlich richtig" stamp as to make the alterations look "certified"?

Have I seen this wording (or a varient of) in a Soldbuch ??? Nein. But I have seen (although admittedly very rarely) short explanations in full sentence form on page one of (Wehrmacht and SS) Soldbuchs detailing why the Soldbuch was closed out / filed and the reasons for the issuance of a second Soldbuch, eg. "Original issue [i.e. Soldbuch] water damaged - Soldbuch replaced on Jan. 12 , 1944", etc (although these "Explanations" are, as we all know, much more common in replacement Wehrpasses, eg. "Original destroyed in air raid", "Original lost in transit" etc).

That said, a rough equivalent of this "sachlich richtig" wording in Soldbuchs is / was the quarterly "Validation Boxes" found mainly in Luftwaffe Soldbuchs, but also (although less frequently) found in Wehrmacht and SS Soldbuchs. "Checking off" of one of these boxes "Cerfified" that up until that point "All was (is) Correct" in regards to the "completeness and correctness" of the Soldbuchs entries (but don't confuse these "Validation Boxes" as being "Unit Security Checks" - they were not. Soldbuch Security Checks had their own section and own style of entry / validation...)

Again, great (and actually civil for once) discussion here....

"Hundestaffel"

[Panzer Rob]

The fire damage to page 19/20 jumped out at me - perfectly at the spot where a faker would attempt to add more entries and no damage to the other pages! The only alternative explanation would be the owner's censoring of a "Bandenkampfabzeichen"

"schwartz" is a common enough misspelling for "schwarz", but "shwarz"??? The faker must be a non-German.

I agree on the burnt page - this, along with the misspelling of the word "Schwarz" has me skeptical of those award entries, but of course there could be a legitimate reason (however far fetched it may be.)

Now, the GAB and Kurland cuff band entries are very debatable- either you believe in them or you don't. As I just said to Herr Hundestaffel in a email, these look like so many of the questionable "late-war" entries you see in 100% original IDs; poor handwriting, no authorization stamps, super late-war dates... We have all have seen (and some own) examples of very similar award entries in both WPs and SBs that lack signatures and stamps, and even though not "textbook" they're completely legitimate.

Pz.Jg.Abt.731 did end the war fighting in the Kurland, which could explain the entry...


Like I said - either you believe they're real or you don't; There are those who will think they're fine, and those who will 'never' accept these types of entries - no matter how many original examples or rock-solid proof you can give.

Again, the beauty, excitement and challenge to collecting IDs..........

Rob

[Hundestaffel]

*** I, along with Robert, have just received a very interesting e-mail in regards to this piece, although a little more time may / will be needed before anything associated with that e-mail can be posted....since Robert is a much better writer then I, I'll leave it to him to fill everyone in if / when the time comes...(how's that for "passing the buck", eh Robster ??? !!!)

;-)

"Hundestaffel"

[dennisb]

It's quite possible that the EKII was awarded through the 212.I.D. Maybe someone can check to see if Pz.Jg.Abt.731 was ever subordinated to the 212.I.D.? Were the two fighting in the same area around July/August 1944?

Dennis – this is not my Soldbuch and I only have the scans that were sent to me, but I’ll ask for a scan of page 17, although I’m going to guess that it is blank – otherwise a scan would have been included.

Well, if you are right, then it is fake IMHO.
Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 was part of the 16. Armee as Heerestruppe, and at last in Kurland.
The 212.I.D. was from November 1941 part of the 18. Armee up to june 1944, and after that part of the 3. Panzerarmee in Lithuania.
Until September 15 1944 it was in Lithuanian where it's manpower was reduced so low that it was regrouped two days later to the 212. Volks-Grenadier-Division.

[Ian Jewison]

Yes, however notice that date is only valid through Feb.1944 though, and if he's wearing the EKII ribbon in the photo, it had to have been added on/after 10.August 1944, several months later (provided this is the date the EKII was actually awarded and not just entered into the Soldbuch of course!)

For all we know, the FPN could have changed to something else. I searched the entire FPN database and could not find another FPN for Pz.Jg.Abt.731

FP Nr 23899

(24.8.1943-5.4.1944) 24.2.1944 Stab u. Stabskompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 (Sf).

The date is valid FROM 24.2.1944. That is why I mentioned the EK putting a date of August 1944 if it was him, however the FP Nr. does not appear to match his unit....like what I said.

In full:

FP Nr. 23899
(Mobilmachung-1.1.1940) Stab Panzerabwehr-Abteilung 255
(28.4.1940-14.9.1940) Stab Panzerjäger-Abteilung 255
(31.7.1942-9.2.1943) Stab Schnelle Abteilung 255,
(10.2.1943-23.8.1943) Stab Panzerjäger-Abteilung 255,
(24.8.1943-5.4.1944) 24.2.1944 Stab u. Stabskompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 (Sf).

The dates in brackets are within that time frame, an actual date outside of brackets is the date with effect from.

Heeres-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731

1. Aufstellung: 2.11.1943 bei der Heeresgruppe Nord aus Stab/Panzerjäger-Abteilung 255, die drei Kompanien aus 1./255, 1./188 und 2./175; Ausrüstung zuletzt mit Jagdpanzern 38.

2. Unterstellung: Heerestruppe: Lettland, Kurland (16. Arrnee)

3. Ersatz: 4 Borna, WK IV

However, this looks more promising!!!

FP Nr. 16423

(Mobilmachung-1.1.1940) 1. Kompanie Panzerabwehr-Abteilung 188
(28.4.1940-14.9.1940) 1. Kompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 188
(27.1.1942-14.7.1942) 1. Panzerjäger-Kompanie Jäger- u. Aufklärungs-Abteilung 188 d. 88. Infanterie-Division
(15.7.1942-24.1.1943) 1. Panzerjäger-Kompanie Schnelle Abteilung 188
(1.8.1943-23.3.1944) 24.2.1944 2. Kompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung (Sf) 731.

With that said there are other issues which I have no intention of looking at tonight.....

/Ian

[Panzer Rob]

Well, if you are right, then it is fake IMHO.
Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 was part of the 16. Armee as Heerestruppe, and at last in Kurland.
The 212.I.D. was from November 1941 part of the 18. Armee up to june 1944, and after that part of the 3. Panzerarmee in Lithuania.
Until September 15 1944 it was in Lithuanian where it's manpower was reduced so low that it was regrouped two days later to the 212. Volks-Grenadier-Division.

Dennis-

Sturmvogel lists this info:


Heeres-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731

2 Nov 43 formed in Russia by Army Group North with three companies from
Stab, 1./Pz.Jg.Abt. 255, 1./Pz.Jg.Abt. 188, 2./Pz.Jg.Abt. 175
Nov 43 5 Marder IIIs delivered
Dec 43 19 Marder IIIs delivered
May 44 Army Group North
[Hinze (1): 1 Jul 44 Gruppe Harteneck, 2nd Army, Army Group Center]
Jul 44 49 Hetzers issued
30 Aug 44 1. assigned to XXXXIII Corps, 16th Army, Army Group North
2 Sep 44 Gruppe Gen Kleffel, 16th Army, Army Group North, less 1./ with XXXXIII Corps
20 Sep 44 elements attached to 215th Infantry Division, 16th Army, Army Group North
Nov 44 20 Hetzers issued
7 May 45 18th Army, Army Group Kurland

May, 1944 - both were under command of Army Group North. Is it possible that somehow Pz.Jg.Abt.731 came under control of the 212.I.D.? I honestly do not know. Maybe someone else more versed in specific unit histories can comment?

The date listed for the EKII can be the date it was entered into the Soldbuch - we don't know if that was the date it was actually awarded (it could have been awarded earlier)


Rob

[SiPo]

What a great thread. Very interesting indeed.

Certainly some areas of concern already mentioned not at least the burnt page, the pencilled entry "slipped" between inked heading and cufftitle entry, and the apparent pencil alteration of the cuffband award date. I personally think the photo anomaly has been adequately explained, and yes, there may well be a legitimate reason for all of these anomalies.

I for one wait for further info with bated breath.

[Panzer Rob]

FP Nr 23899

(24.8.1943-5.4.1944) 24.2.1944 Stab u. Stabskompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 (Sf).

The date is valid FROM 24.2.1944. That is why I mentioned the EK putting a date of August 1944 if it was him, however the FP Nr. does not appear to match his unit....like what I said.

In full:

FP Nr. 23899
(Mobilmachung-1.1.1940) Stab Panzerabwehr-Abteilung 255
(28.4.1940-14.9.1940) Stab Panzerjäger-Abteilung 255
(31.7.1942-9.2.1943) Stab Schnelle Abteilung 255,
(10.2.1943-23.8.1943) Stab Panzerjäger-Abteilung 255,
(24.8.1943-5.4.1944) 24.2.1944 Stab u. Stabskompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 (Sf).

The dates in brackets are within that time frame, an actual date outside of brackets is the date with effect from.

That doesn't make much sense, then... (24.8.1943-5.4.1944) 24.2.1944 Stab u. Stabskompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 (Sf).

If the effective date is 24.2.1944, why is there an earlier date of 24.Aug.1943 in the brackets if those are dates supposedly within the time frame? I'd read this as: Effective 24.2.1944 but in use by this unit from 24.Aug.1943 through 05.Apr.1944 Was the FPN in use by Pz.Jg.Abt.731 from 24.Aug.1943 through 05.April 1944, but 'just' the Stab/Stabskompanie from 24.Feb.1944 on?

However, this looks more promising!!!

FP Nr. 16423

(Mobilmachung-1.1.1940) 1. Kompanie Panzerabwehr-Abteilung 188
(28.4.1940-14.9.1940) 1. Kompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 188
(27.1.1942-14.7.1942) 1. Panzerjäger-Kompanie Jäger- u. Aufklärungs-Abteilung 188 d. 88. Infanterie-Division
(15.7.1942-24.1.1943) 1. Panzerjäger-Kompanie Schnelle Abteilung 188
(1.8.1943-23.3.1944) 24.2.1944 2. Kompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung (Sf) 731.

Yes, it does It's hard to make out all the numbers on the scan I have, but the first is definitely a '1' and third a '4' - last two look like a '2' and a '3' to me...

I cannot make out what is on the shoulder straps...

With that said there are other issues which I have no intention of looking at tonight.....
/Ian

When your time permits...

Rob

[Ian Jewison]

That doesn't make much sense, then... (24.8.1943-5.4.1944) 24.2.1944 Stab u. Stabskompanie Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 (Sf).

If the effective date is 24.2.1944, why is there an earlier date of 24.Aug.1943 in the brackets if those are dates supposedly within the time frame? I'd read this as: Effective 24.2.1944 but in use by this unit from 24.Aug.1943 through 05.Apr.1944 Was the FPN in use by Pz.Jg.Abt.731 from 24.Aug.1943 through 05.April 1944, but 'just' the Stab/Stabskompanie from 24.Feb.1944 on?

As I said earlier the date effective was within that time from, so between 24.8.1943 and 5.4.1944 that FP Nr. was given to Abt. 731. In this case the actual date of issue is also given.
If you have the FP Nr. disks like most people do these days, you will see that all FP Nr. have a date in brackets before them.......if known the effective date is given, which is not known for all! However that does not appear to be explained why from what I can see.....the books however do explain this and further info which I put in a thread entitled "Please read before checking Feldpost numbers".

This has been explained before in numerous threads already...........