Announcement

**Panzer Rob** · 08-02-2009, 04:49 PM

Here's a thought that just occurred to me.....

Maybe the stamp on the top right hand corner of the photo had the FPN portion stamped intentionally, in order to have an actual ink stamp over the photo, instead of not having any stamp at all.

I mean, to be considered "valid" there would need to be a stamp over the photo, right? Otherwise it would look "forged" - and omitting the FPN (by blocking out the FPN with a piece of paper, as it seems to have been done with the other stamps in the book) would basically prevent any ink from covering that corner of the photo...

So, the full stamp was used, then, per regulations, the FPN was inked over by hand???

Rob

**Panzer Rob** · 08-02-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Ian Jewison View Post

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".

So, unless a date is give 'outside' the brackets, the date 'inside' the brackets is the 'approximate date' the FPN was used by this unit, with no actual hard date (leaving us to estimate when it went into use???)

Originally posted by Ian Jewison View Post

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

Well then, I must have missed those threads. I don't have the discs... Just a MS word document given to me by a good friend which I was told contains all the information contained on the discs...

Rob

**Ian Jewison** · 08-02-2009, 04:54 PM

Regulations blanking out FP Nr. were from August or Septmber 1944....I forget when but Jeff will have the date.
If the photo was put in after that date, with the fact the EK II is in wear and awarded August 1944 then that would fall into place.
It also means that all awards were entered into the Soldbuch after August 1944.......but then that does not check out with security check marked 1.9.1943!!!!

**cpt1992** · 08-02-2009, 05:55 PM

Great thread!

Really enjoying the discusion here. I would only comment on the Driving Badge in Silver comments. I have quite a few document groups and a wehrpass to panzer/StuG crewmembers who ended up with the Driver's Badge in Silver while also having been awarded the PAB or GAB. In fact a nice Pz Abt 506 wehrpass I just received has the individual with both these awards while only being assigned to line units. Just throwing that in there for what its worth.....

**wiendolch** · 08-03-2009, 12:00 AM

Hetzer did someone say Hetzer...

Well i don't know much about soldbuch's but i do know a little about a certain Hetzer.

Attached Files

Hetzer.jpg (94.3 KB, 203 views)

**JUNGCO** · 08-03-2009, 09:02 AM

Boy, talk about confusing. Anyway, the earliest I have the FPN being eliminated or covered up was from a regulation in Luftwaffe Verordnungsblatt of 5.7.44. (The Luftwaffe did this more then any other branch of the services) Being old style, I still use the books for my FPN and there, the dates when a new series came out is listed on the top of the page (instead of in listings themselves) and the date FPN 23899 is first used is 24.2.1944.
As to the rest...debate on.
Jeff

**dennisb** · 08-03-2009, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Rob Johnson View Post

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

Rob,

Indeed in may 1944 both were under command of Heeresgruppe Nord.
But:

Heeresgruppe Nord

b) unterstellte Großverbände:

März 1944 Armee-Abteilung Narwa, 18. Armee, 16. Armee
Oktober 1944 16. Armee, Armee-Abteilung Grasser, 18. Armee

The 212.I.D. was under command of the 18.Armee and Heeres-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 was under command of the 16.Armee according to LDW.

So something out there is not right.

**Panzer Rob** · 08-03-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by dennisb View Post

Rob,

Indeed in may 1944 both were under command of Heeresgruppe Nord.
But:

Heeresgruppe Nord

b) unterstellte Großverbände:

März 1944 Armee-Abteilung Narwa, 18. Armee, 16. Armee
Oktober 1944 16. Armee, Armee-Abteilung Grasser, 18. Armee

The 212.I.D. was under command of the 18.Armee and Heeres-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 was under command of the 16.Armee according to LDW.

So something out there is not right.

Or, perhaps we don't have all the information or know the complete combat history of both units

Are you saying it's completely impossible that at some point between March and August of 1944 these two units came into contact with one another, could never have fought together - or near each other - and that Pz.Jg.Abt.731 - or a kampfgruppe - was never temporarily attached/subordinated to the 212.I.D.?

Dennis, If you're saying that the EKII award entry on page 22 is bogus (which is what I think you're getting at) then you will agree that all of the award entries on that page and any entry with that stamp that appears in the book should also be fake. Yes?

Thanks,
Rob

**dennisb** · 08-03-2009, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Rob Johnson View Post

Or, perhaps we don't have all the information or know the complete combat history of both units

Are you saying it's completely impossible that at some point between March and August of 1944 these two units came into contact with one another, could never have fought together - or near each other - and that Pz.Jg.Abt.731 - or a kampfgruppe - was never temporarily attached/subordinated to the 212.I.D.?

First of all Rob, I don't think anybody have all the information, so neither do we.
I am not saying these 2 units never came across or fought together/near each other because I simply do not know.

Originally posted by Rob Johnson View Post

Dennis, If you're saying that the EKII award entry on page 22 is bogus (which is what I think you're getting at) then you will agree that all of the award entries on that page and any entry with that stamp that appears in the book should also be fake. Yes?

Thanks,
Rob

Well Rob, I can not tell you all are fake but I can tell you only my opinion about the EKII which raises me some questions:

Take a look on the first two awards, these are signed by 'Oberleutnant und Kompaniechef' (I do not know his name) of the Pz.Jäg. Abt. (SF) 731. See his signature.

If you look on the EKII award which is signed by a 'Hauptmann und Kompaniechef' of the 212.I.D. you see the exact same signature.

How is that possible??? Two different man with the exact same signature?

**Daniele C** · 08-03-2009, 01:06 PM

I dont see any problem in the awards...

**Panzer Rob** · 08-03-2009, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by dennisb View Post

First of all Rob, I don't think anybody have all the information, so neither do we.
I am not saying these 2 units never came across or fought together/near each other because I simply do not know.

Well Rob, I can not tell you all are fake but I can tell you only my opinion about the EKII which raises me some questions:

Take a look on the first two awards, these are signed by 'Oberleutnant und Kompaniechef' (I do not know his name) of the Pz.Jäg. Abt. (SF) 731. See his signature.

If you look on the EKII award which is signed by a 'Hauptmann und Kompaniechef' of the 212.I.D. you see the exact same signature.

How is that possible??? Two different man with the exact same signature?

It's rather easy to explain, actually! It's the same person... He received a promotion between the time the two entries were made.

Rob

**urbanczyk** · 08-03-2009, 01:21 PM

Hello,

Their is no problem with the EKII citation in the Soldbuch; Maüter earned his EKII fighting together with a unit of the 212ID.
Most likely he was caught up in a temporary ad hoc created combat unit that was commanded by the 212ID somewhere on the Eastern front; he or his company was never official a part of the 212ID. It was the commander of the 212ID that awarded him the EKII.
I personally have seen this before in Soldbucher, nothing to worry about, actually rather intresting.

I haven't changed my mind about the Soldbuch itself, I'am still convinced that someone messed with it: added a picture of Maüter that didn't belong to the Soldbuch and gave him Verw Abz's, a GAB and a Kurland cufftitle.

Regards,
U

**dennisb** · 08-03-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Rob Johnson View Post

It's rather easy to explain, actually... It's the same person(!) He received a promotion between the time the two entries were made.

Rob

That could be the only explanation Rob.
Looking to the information there is between the 212.I.D. and Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 it is almost impossible that these 2 came across.

So I think there is not enough information of both units.
I have not seen page 17 so maybe there is a 212.I.D. unit noted there.
So far I could only react to what I have seen.

**Panzer Rob** · 08-03-2009, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by dennisb View Post

That could be the only explanation Rob.
Looking to the information there is between the 212.I.D. and Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 it is almost impossible that these 2 came across.

So I think there is not enough information of both units.
I have not seen page 17 so maybe there is a 212.I.D. unit noted there.
So far I could only react to what I have seen.

That "IS" the explanation, Dennis

And a very simple one to figure out.

There are plenty of references both in print and online for the WWII German rank structure, you may want to familiarize yourself with it

Great discussion, guys!

Rob

**dennisb** · 08-04-2009, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Rob Johnson View Post

That "IS" the explanation, Dennis

And a very simple one to figure out.

There are plenty of references both in print and online for the WWII German rank structure, you may want to familiarize yourself with it

Great discussion, guys!

Rob

Rob, I think you misunderstand me. I did not say it was not possible because of the difference in rank, but in division.

He received his EKII on August 10 1944.

The 212.I.D. was at that time under the 3. Pz-Armee.
Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 was under command of the 16. Armee.

16. Armee:

13. Position Fighting in the Zone of Heeresgruppe Nord. 4.24.1944 - 7.12.1944
14. Defensive and Retreating Battles during the Russian Summer Offensive in the Baltic Countries thereby: Fighting for Modona and to the Duna River. 7.13.1944 - 10.4.1944
15. Fighting for Riga and Mitau. 10.5.1944 - 10.26.1944
16. Six Battles for Courland. 10.27.1944 - 3.30.1945
17. Position Fighting in Courland. 4.1.1945 - 5.10.1945

3.Panzerarmee:

12. Position Fighting in the Zone of Heeresgruppe Mitte. 4.20.1944 6.21.1944
13. Defensive and Withdrawal Battles from the Russian Summer Offensive.6.22.1944 - 7.12.1944
14. Fighting on the Lower Njeman and on the Dubissa. 7.17.1944 - 8.15.1944
a] Loss of Kovno. 7.31.1944 - 7.31.1944
15. Attack Fighting near Schaulen-Tukkum. 8.16.1944 - 8.28.1944
16. Defensive Fighting in Lithuania and Courland. 8.29.1944 - 10.10.1944
17. Defensive and Position Fighting Between Tauroggen and Memel. 10.11.1944 - 1.12.1945
18. Defensive Fighting near Tilsit and Insterburg and Withdrawal Fighting to Königsberg. 1.13.1945 - 2.8.1945
19. Defensive Fighting in Pomerania and on the Oder. 2.22.1945 - 4.23.1945
20. Withdrawal Fighting Through Pomerania and Mecklenburg. 4.24.1945 - 5.8.1945

To make it even more specified, on the end of july 1944 the Russians managed to exploit a breach between the 16.Armee and the 3.Panzerarmee.
With 'Operation Doppelkopf', which took place from August 16th until August 27th the 3.Panzerarmee managed to break the breach between them and the 16.Armee.

Keeping in mind that the EKII was not earned on exactly August 10, but probably in july, the only explanation can be that Armee-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 was attached to the 212.I.D. somewhere in july because they never had fought together.

Announcement

Soldbuch to a Hetzer crew member

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread