Hello everybody,
It’s already 6 months after my latest update on Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung 100. Since then I’ve been doing some more research and some the results will be presented here. In contrast to the earlier posts this one will be less focussed on PzAbt100 and shifts attention towards other German units on the Cotentin peninsula as well. Last post already started with a first exploration of those units and more will be laid out here. In all I guess about 70% is completely new and the other 30% are add-ons or corrections of the earlier articles. What you will see below are, apart from La Fière and PzAbt100, FT-17’s, StuG3’s, StuG4’s, Marder1’s, Marder3’s and a heavier “surprise”.
This article is probably a bit less “in-dept” because it addresses a lot more different subjects and information is limited (and so is my knowledge) Hopefully more will surface in the future. Any comment or suggestions are very welcome.
Before I start I’d like to thank everybody again who has been helping me out with pictures and information. In fact I was almost ready to post this update when I received some more pictures that I just had to include. Thank you guys. You are the best!
And to everybody: Enjoy.
La Fière and Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung 100
Like before, let’s start with PzAbt100. To keep this article from getting overly long, I’ll address only some topics. As you will see this post is long enough already. For more information look back at:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1174669606 and
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1165343863
One of the most puzzling problems was the order in which the German tanks were used in the different attacks. Information was conflictive and difficult to interpret. Since last post I had to chance to talk to Bob Murphy who was at La Fière during the battles. He’s also the author of “No Better Place to Die”. At the bridge we discussed what happened there and based on his information the following order of events can be constructed.
Bob is very specific about the use of the PanzerIII. According to him this vehicle was knocked out in the 2nd tank attack (D+1) and not involved in the fighting the earlier day. While he is not very specific on this vehicle in his book, he states that “by then the tank was already beyond the firing angle of the bazooka teams.” The location of the vehicle closest to the bridge would support this claim.
This automatically leaves the two R35’s and the H39 for the first battle. According to Bob the vehicles were destroyed in the same order as the vehicles can be seen from the bridge: R35; R35; H39. This order of events would seem to contradict some statements about the battle, especially those of Marcus Heim, however it seems to depend (again) on the way you interpret those accounts. According to Heim “we hit the tank in the tracks”. If true this would seem to suggest track damage, but none can be seen in the pictures. When I asked Bob what to make of this statement he replied “It didn’t move anymore”, meaning that what Heim probably saw, was that vehicle was disabled but what happened exactly was very difficult to judge in the middle of the battle. (The holes in front of the vehicle seem to be pretty conclusive prove the 57mm was involved in disabling it. Both shot would probably have destroyed the transmission.) In fact there are more indications that this interpretation might be correct. If you look at the picture below there seems to be damage to the fender above the tracks. Could this be where Heim and Peterson hit the tank? After all they don’t specify where they hit the tracks.
Accepting the foremost vehicle was indeed the first one destroyed would leave us with a second problem. Heim states the first tank fired at him and Peterson, knocking down the telegraph pole they were taking cover behind. As every source claims the commander of the leading tank was killed in the first seconds of the battle, the question is who shot at them? Because with a death commander there was nobody left to fire the tank’s gun. According to accounts the first vehicle moved to the side of the road after being hit and the other vehicle tried to push it away. Could it be that it was in fact the second tank that got a clean shot at the bazooka team when the other tank moved to the side of the road? It wouldn’t be too difficult to misjudge the situation.
Looking at the 2nd tank, unfortunately very little can be said about it. The available pictures are too poor to say anything on its exact condition.
The third vehicle also poses some problems because Heim states “The third tank was almost upon us”. If this was relative (because it was some distance behind the first two tanks at the start of the battle) or if it was really close to their position is difficult to say. The location of the rearmost tank would suggest the first option. However this is not necessary, because according to some accounts it backed away before finally breaking down. Dolan states this (“the last”) vehicle was knocked out by the 57mm gun, and considering the place where it ended up, with broken tracks, he might very well have been right.
Now this order of events is in my opinion the most likely scenario, based on the available information. Admittedly it’s based on how you interpret the accounts, but so was my earlier scenario. To look back at some more statements, Dolan’s account on the “Pz4’s or possibly a little lighter” was questionable from the start. However it’s still possible he mistook the Pz3 from the 2nd attack for a Pz4. After all it did get closest to the bridge (though on the second day) and who knows how he interpreted the events. Mixing up small details from the two attacks would be understandable. This doesn’t weaken the overall credibility of his account.
What scenario you prefer is up to you. From what I can see now, the second has the least loose ends and has my vote for now.
Hotchkisses
Something of a completely different matter is the picture below. There has been some debate on what numbers are on this H39. In a reply to my previous post the suggestion was might the markings may in fact be two 2’s. Looking at a model from roughly the same angle, 22 is probably the most logic possibility indeed.
Let’s stay with Hotchkisses for now and look at some ‘new’ images. The picture below shows 2 more H39’s, the most obvious feature being the warnings that are painted on the first Hotchkiss and Sherman. However, if you look closer at the rearmost H39 more interesting details can be seen. It appears a vague turret number can be seen: “?23”, possibly “223” That would mean it belonged to the same company as “224”, we have seen before. There’s also a vague Balkenkreuz that appears to have dark outlines instead of the normal white outlines. Other images of Hotchkisses have shown the same feature.
Another picture shows even more French tanks, though not much details can be seen. The amount of Shermans and warning signs suggest this might very well have been the same collection point as above.
There is more evidence to suggest these two picture show the same vehicle park. The French turret on the picture above might very well have been fitted on a H39. When comparing the two shots the style of warnings are the same and there are a M4a1 (note the cast hull) and French tank located next to each other and facing the other way. While certainly not conclusive I think these are indeed the same vehicles. Also note that the other Shermans (and those to come in this article) are no M4a1’s. This shot is also interesting because together they show these pictures were probably taken near the edge of the field and they give a better impression of the area.
The following brilliant picture definitely shows a vehicle dump we have seen before. Several vehicles can be found as well in another collection of images. Of interest are the six Hotchkisses and the MarderIIIM in the background (also the halftrack in the distance has been captured on camera before).
This picture shows the same short barrelled H39 as we have seen before. Apart from this, this image again illustrates the different style of German crosses that has been pointed out before.
The picture below also shows this kind of ‘reversed’ Balkenkreuz, or rather a black outline only. Just like “?23” it has dark turret numbers as well, though it’s very difficult to see what comes after the “2”.
Somua
While Hotchkisses are of course very interesting, so are Somua’s. The location of this collection point below is not conclusively identified. It’s in my eyes probably the same vehicle dump as on the pictures shown before. The presence of Shermans and the style of the warning signs are indications for that.
It’s impossible to link the Somua on this picture to either PzAbt100 or 206, but at least it’s the first picture that actually shows a marking, on the rear hull.
A close up of the earlier picture of the M4a1 and the two Hotchkisses, shows the Somua and second Hotchkiss quite clearly. When looking closely a Balkenkreuz can be picked out on the left side. This Somua appears to have been burned out. Perhaps this is the same vehicle as the one captioned as Cherbourg (see earlier post) the way the turret burned out might be an indication for this, though this kind of indication is of course quite weak.
In an article of 39-45 magazine there are two more shots of Somua’s in Normandy. The following shot shows “200” captioned in 39-45 magazine as belonging to the Stabskp. of PzAbt206 at an unknown location, no date is given. Looking at the marking on the left mud flap, it actually appears to have belonged to 2nd Company, not to the Stabskp. The latest OoB of the Abteilung shows 4 Somua’s and 14 Hochkisses with 2nd Co, while an earlier report mentions 2 Somua’s and 10 Hochkisses. It’s in my opinion quite likely some of these Somua’s had a “command”function and were not numbered as “normal” tanks. Being part of 2nd Kp. would make more sense than belonging to the Stabskp.
Despite all this, the Somua is the first to give a possible indication on the style of the numbers used by PzAbt206 (All white, though hard to pick out on this copy). Unfortunately as a location and date are missing this picture is not as useful as it might have been.
In the same article the following image can be found as well. It’s captioned as showing the single Somua numbered “23” from 2./PzAbt100. What evidence this claim is based on I don’t know, but it would be great if it was indeed correct. For now I’m not sure.
While the markings are interesting and especially the white outline of the numbers, quite different from the R35’s of PzAbt100. Looking at the other numbers on those vehicles one would also expect a third digit. Making this vehicle either “?23” or “23?”. Both could be possible because there’s enough space on the turret size for both options. “23X” seems the best option in my eyes though, as there’s no indication there was/is a digit in front of the “23”.
If this assumption is correct, there could be a serious problem linking this vehicle to PzAbt100. The lone Somua with PzAbt100 was located in the 2nd Co and the numbers on “23?” fit in that sense. However the Somua is listed as being part of the 2nd platoon, so one would expect “22?”. Looking at the number it’s more likely it belonged to PzAbt206, if it was indeed taken in Normandy or at some of the training area’s.
While individual platoons are not listed in the OoB of 2nd Kp. of PzAbt206 it’s quite likely the 18 tanks in that company were divided over several platoons. KStN1171c gives the theoretical composition of Co’s like PzAb206 had as: 5 Somua’s and twelve Hotchkisses. 2 Somua’s would form the Gruppeführer and the other 3 Somua’s would be divided over 3 platoons, each platoon having an additional 4 Hotchkiss. Perhaps “200” was in command and the other 3 Somua’s acted as platoon leaders (a bit like in PzAbt100). The 14 Hotchkisses could be used to form the rest of the platoons and the command zug. But what happened in reality, who knows?
For now let’s take a shot and guess how the companies may have looked. Taking into account the 2nd Kp. was short of 1 Somua and had 2 Hotchkisses more than the KStN allowed, the company might have looked like this (Yes, I know this is just guess work).
Somua 200, (201 for the missing Somua), Hotchkiss 202, 203
Somua 211, Hotchkiss 212, 213, 214, 215,
Somua 221, Hotchkiss 222, 223, 224, 225
Somua 231, Hotchkiss 232, 233, 234, 235
I’ve taken a look at some wintershots of French tanks somewhere in France. On the website of the Bundes Archive more pictures of the same serie can be found, apparently from the same film. This picture of Hotchkiss “203” is sometimes said to show PzAbt100. But this is unlikely. A Somua “23?” can be seen as well and other pictures show “001” of the same unit:
H39 (203) and Somua (231).
Somua (100)
As PzAbt100 only had one Somua (at least in the last two OoB’s) and at least 2 different Somua’s are visible on this footage (often identified as Normandy), this unit can’t be PzAbt100. The caption of PzAbt206 would seem more likely, though no conclusive evidence is available for now and I don’t know where and when (early 1944?) these shots were taken. The Cotentin wouldn’t seem logical considering the terrain, but a training area might be. In each case June 1944 seems to be a wrong caption because the trees don’t have any leafs. It should be noted as well that I do not know how the composition of both units was from the moment they were raised until their last OoB. I’ve read some information that most of the units equipped with French tanks (in Northern France) got their material from the same source and handed the vehicles back when they were send to other units or got other material. Perhaps this could explain the different numbering styles. This leaves some other options but considering the lack of evidence I will ignore those for now.
Considering the KStN “001” might have been the tank of the battalion commander (unit still not clear). And what better vehicle to be on when observing exercises as a camera man?
Considering the markings (All white and the position) Somua “200” did not belong to the same unit, but again dates and locations are missing. The unit of all these vehicles remains a question for now. To end the discussion on the identification, also note the lack of trench-tails on all the Hotchkisses. Perhaps this could be another clue to distinguish this unit from others, though a lot might have happened before they ended up at a vehicle dump.
FT-17
I had promised myself not to go back to FT17’s for now but unfortunately I was send another great image and it was too good to ignore. It’s too bad the camera moved when the picture was taken, but it’s nonetheless another good shot of the FT17 discussed in my previous article. It also provides some more details of the CharB1 and the railing on top of it. Also note someone moved the turret hatch of the Hotchkiss in the back. Again a good reminder that such details aren’t very useful in identifying a particular vehicle.
Vehicle dumps
In the part about the Somua’s I’ve already said something about vehicle dumps. There has been some debate about where the dumps were located and where what pictures had been taken.
The following post was an example of that:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1097452150/ It shows some of the confusion and the possibility of a vehicle dump at Baupte. Sources state that 1500 vehicles had been captured when the 508PIR overran it.
This summer I spoke to a veteran that was at Baupte. According to him the “vehicle park” captured was not a vehicle park, but a fairly large supply area. Some official sources claim 25-50 vehicles were captured while others talk about 700-1500. He laughed and according to him there were about 20 vehicles but the supplies made the biggest impression. There were some German tanks present as well, but it was not a “tank park” or repair area. The tanks appear to have been there to try to defend the supplies. He says there were Renault light tanks as well as lighter tanks. From talking to him and showing him pictures, I get the impression these were turretless (training) tanks. The Germans would stand inside them and throw grenades, while the paratroopers would throw theirs.
Apart from this I spoke to a someone who has been living in the area and studying the 82AB for years. He told me he has contact with a vet that says there was a vehicle collection point near Chef-du-Pont. He will ask the vet for further information and details. Perhaps this was the location were the material form PzAbt100 was collected? Let’s see what more comes up.
The same field today. As you can see a fairly large flat field just like on the images.
I’m not going deeper into vehicle dumps now, but in a following post I’ll take some room to show how different vehicles can be proven to have been at the same dump. Perhaps we might even conclude in the end if all the images I’ve used that show dumps are taken at the same location. Considering the lack of any heavy German equipment on these picture, a safe conclusion for now would be that these shots are probably not taken at the famous Isigny-sur-Mer collection point. Image’s known to have been taken there show much more heavy equipment.
Cauquigny
Last time I presented the location of the following picture. There were some problems in the reports about the fighting at Cauquigny, because some publications suggest the attack came from the west and not from the road (from the southwest) you can see here. However, a 507PIR veteran who was in Cauquigny when the tanks were approaching and artillery started to hit the road junction, clearly indicates the attack came from the road to Picauville. He has no doubts about that and the pictures seem to confirm his story.
After 63 years, the situation has hardly changed. The big pine tree has gone, as well as the tree line on the left, but the buildings and the wall remain the same.
PanzerIII
Another issue is the question of the PanzerIII’s in the area. As I’ve shown in my earlier post there is good evidence to suggest there might have been more than the three PanzerIII’s PzAbt100 was supposed to have. Pictures of four different PanzerIII’s can be found, and three of those can be linked to PzAbt100 because of the presence of ex-French vehicles. The image below is this “fourth” PanzerIII.
Until now I’ve been unable to identify the unit it belonged to, though given the location PzAbt100 might be a good option. Recently I found the following image, and while conclusive evidence is missing I got a feeling it shows the same PanzerIII. If it doesn’t, we even got a fifth...... There are several indications. The angle of the turret is one of the clues. Apart from that there are early features on both vehicles, consistent with the other images of PanzerIII’s in the area. Damage to both vehicles also seems to be limited.
Now if we presume these are the same vehicles the question remains what unit this PanzerIII belongs to. The first image did not have any evidence on this, but luckily the second picture has. If we take a closer look at the picture a Hotchkiss tank can clearly be seen in the background. In my eyes this is a very powerful indication this PanzerIII belonged to PzAbt100.
For the record, go back to the other two PzIII’s that could have belonged to PzAbt100.
Now these pictures are of course very interesting, but there’s even more. The picture below is captioned as belonging to 17SS and having been destroyed at ”Bloody Gulch”. However, to the best of my knowledge, 17SS did not have any PzIII’s. Looking at the features of the vehicle it appears to be another Ausf. G, just like all the other PzIII’s in the same sector. PzAbt100 would be more logical.
Unfortunately there’s not much to identify the vehicle for sure. The dark stripe in front of the vision port on the turret could be a clue. The two image above this one also show a similar dark stripe on the same place (or on the other side of the turret). The images above have some more similar features. All have an intact left front mud-flap. Considering the terrain, it doesn’t seem to be the same vehicle on the images and I have some doubts about the location of the other tanks (both Hotchkisses and the PzIII) as well. Apart from this the camo/burn patterns appear to be different on all images. If the picture below does show one of the other vehicles, my bet would be the foremost PzIII on the picture above. Both images show a fender that has been bend down and would have the mud-flap pointing “outwards” and above the two drivers “vision holes” is a dark spot, while the third image has a light spot there. Furthermore the terrain is most similar on the last two images, though admittedly the evidence isn’t too strong. The quality of the images is too poor to be sure and they show different parts of the vehicles. For now the number of PzIII’s with PzAbt100 remains a mystery.
MarderIII Ausf.H
I’ve talked about some Marder pictures before in my last “article” and since then I’ve taken a closer look at them. So let’s go back to the Marder3H we’ve seen before. In a vehicle dump the following example can be found. It appears to have “03” on the superstructure. But it might also be “103”
The following pictures show the same vehicle. Take a look at the damage and “imperfect” Balkenkreuz. The damaged “bar” on the superstructure is another indication.
There has been some debate in the past years (
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/999862140/) about how the Marder ended up at the Carentan church. Looking at the picture below, it’s very well possible it got there on driving and was relieved of its tracks later on. Perhaps by some dedicated tank crews?
The other option of being fitted with tracks afterwards would be a bit stretched.
The question remains what unit this vehicle belonged to and there is little to go by. According to Zetterling the following units on or near the Cotentin had Marders, and while the types are most often not mentioned, most vehicles are probably Ausf.M.
243 I.D I./Pz.Jg.Abt.243 14 Marder, sent to the division in March.
352 I.D I./Pz.Jg.Abt.352 14 Marder, received in March.
353 I.D I./Pz.Jg.Abt.353 14 Marder, sent to the division in February and March (a batch of StuGs as well)
17SS Pz.Gren.Div. 3/SS Pz.Jg.Abt.17 3 Marder 7,62 cm and 9 Marder 7,5 cm.
This list might however shed some light on the possible owners. Production of the Ausf.H had stopped in 1943, Ausf.M continued until May 1944 and the Sdkfz139 was discontinued in 1943. Considering the fact 17SS did have the rather old Sdkfz139, they might have had other older types as well? If I understand Zetterling correctly, the SSPzjAbt17 was destined to receive Jpz4’s, but they hadn’t been delivered yet. Perhaps they had a mismatch of material (third platoon of the battalion) to compensate for the lack of the Jpz4’s? At least until those were finally delivered. The numbers at least show 17SS not get the normal batch of 14 Marders like most of the infantry division in the area did. Combined with the fact I’ve not seen any other Ausf.H in the area, it might have been a one off vehicle. 17SS seems to be strange enough to fit the bill. Apart from this it’s still unclear when this vehicle was actually captured. Some sources indicate the picture was taken on/before June 12th. In fact 17SS also reported losing a Marder before June 20th. Could this have been that vehicle?
Of course I’m the first to admit this line of argument is based on a lot of speculations, but for now it seems to be the most logical. Any thoughts are appreciated.
MarderIII Ausf.M
The Marder3M was much more common in Normandy than the Marder3H. And in fact there are quite some pictures available of such vehicles. (see this nice thread:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1070075669/) I’ll probably discuss more of those vehicles in an update.
The following shot was apparently taken by members of 82AB and to be more precise of the 508PIR. Unfortunately there isn’t much left to identify the original owners.
The following picture might shed some light on the unit the other vehicle belonged to. According to the caption this Marder3M was captured by elements of the 82AB and belonged to the 243ID. While the numbers on the superstructure are partially obscured by foliage, “1?2” can be seen. The second digit is difficult to see but it appears to be another 1. Making this vehicle probably “112”. This could be another indication that it belonged to 243ID. because only the first Co. of the Pzjabt243 was equipped with Marders, while the 2nd had 10 StuG’s and the 3rd was equipped with 12 20mm Flak guns. The numbering system therefore fits the composition of the unit.
(For now I do not know what the identification of being 243ID was based on so, for the record, it must be noted it might have belonged to 353ID as well. This unit was equipped with fourteen Marder and ten StuG III, send to them in February and March. The first elements of this division arrived in the St-Lô area on June 16th, and the slower units joined them around the 22nd. During the Normandy campaign 353ID rarely if at all operated as a complete unit. Several of her subunits were attached to 91ID, 243ID and 77ID.)
The image above also sheds new light on a couple of well known Marders in the Roncey pocket. In PINTAN they are captioned as probably belonging to 2SS PzDiv Das Reich. More recent research from Martin Block (see the link above) has shown that 2SS did not have Marders in Normandy. When comparing the numbers of 121 and 112 they both appear to have black and white numbers in similar style and the location of the Balkenkreuz, directly below the numbers is another indication.
In the earlier post on ML it was suggested these vehicles possibly belonged to 353ID or 243ID. And it seems there are now a bit more indications for that.
Cotentin MarderI and StuGIII
It might seem strange to address these two vehicle types together but in order to identify them this is the most convenient way. As you will see the history of these vehicles and their units on the Cotentin can shed more light on them, and those histories are highly connected, either direct or indirect.
While Sturmgeschütze were widely used in the German army, very few were available in the Utah sector on D-Day. In fact the only unit to be equipped with such vehicles on D-day on was the 243rd Infantry division. Her Panzerjäger Abteilung was located in near Saint-Jacques-de-Néhou. While the 243 Division was positioned along the western coast of the peninsula, it didn’t take long before elements went into action against the American forces.
On June 7th the Germans renewed their attempts to seize Sainte-Mere-Eglise. Several units were committed in this attack in southerly direction. Supported by the 456th and 457th Artillery Battalions, the 1st and 2nd battalion from 1058 attacked along the Cherbourg-Ste.-Mere-Eglise road, while further to the east Sturmabteilung AOK 7 also marched towards the town with support of the Panzerjäger Abteilung from 709ID. The 243ID was involved in the fighting with Kampfgruppe Müller. This improvised unit consisted of III/922, I/920 as well as the 243th Engineer Battalion and was supported by the guns of 456th and 457th Artillery regiment. During the day III/922 attacked most to the east in the direction of Saint-Marcouf but was eventually pushed back north.
In these series of attack the German forces were supported by some armoured elements. Looking at the available literature, the only armoured formation mentioned is Panzerjägerabteilung 709. Apart from towed anti-tank guns this unit was also equipped with 14 self-propelled Pak40 75mm antitank guns. Official documents do not specify the exact type, but as Zetterlings research shows, apparently no deliveries were made after May 43. This might indicate these vehicles were in fact based on French chassis. The images of StuGs destroyed in the fighting around Ste-Mere-Eglise show early G’s. While this vehicle type was produced from December 1942 onwards it’s highly unlikely the vehicles in the area were send to the division before May 1943. The reason for this is simple. The vehicles around the town are equipped with Zimmerit paste, a practice not used by the Germans until later in 1943. Except for a field application of the stuff, what seems unlikely in my eyes, these vehicles can’t have been produced before August 1943. (And I suspect experts will see more details that can identify the production dates) For this reason, Zetterlings argues, some kind of French-German conversion is the most likely to have equipped Panzerjägerabteilung 709. Considering the production numbers and available images the most likely vehicle is probably the “MarderI” based on the Lorraine chassis.
While Hotchkiss based Marders were also used in France and FCM based vehicles were also build, these do not appear to have been used on the Peninsula. Only some 20 Hotchkiss based (75mm PAK) vehicles were build, with most, if not all, serving with 21PD. Of the 100 FCM’s build by the French, the Germans converted 96 into tank-destroyers, but none appear to have been used in Normandy. On the other hand, of the 170 converted Lorraine tractors, many showed up in Normandy, both in the OoB’s and on pictures.
MarderI
The following picture shows a MarderI on a Lorraine Chassis near Beuzeville-au-plain MarderI. This vehicle most probably belonged to PzjAbt709. It’s possible it was lost in when fighting in support of Sturmabteilung AOK 7, when both units were fighting near the village.
The Marder below can be found on the same Pathe movie as the vehicles around La Fière. It’s therefore likely this vehicles was also lost somewhere on the Cotentin, possibly not too far away from La Fière. Could this one have belonged to PzjAbt709 as well? On the other hand, it’s not clear when this picture was taken and in her reports from 27 June 91ID also reports having self-propelled 75mm guns. Where these come from is not clear. They might have come from 353ID that “lend” several units to 91ID. Nonetheless, reports from 353ID on June 29th show the Panzerjäger Abteilung was with 353th.
In each case the self-propelled guns reported by 91ID, were probably not Sturmgeschütze as those are reported separately. These Sturmgeschütze probably came from 902th Sturmgeschütz Abteilung that was supporting the division.
StuGIII
Now it has been made clear what units did and, especially, did not have Marders and StuGs it’s possible to take a closer look to the assault on Ste-Mere-Eglise on the 7th.
The following vehicle was knocked out in the German counterattack on that day. The 2/505PIR was engaged in fierce battles with the German forces, but in the end the arrival of Sherman tanks of the 2AD (C/746) tipped the battle in favor of the defenders of the town.
The vehicle is a StuGIII G early. The “square” mantlet is an indication for the production date as later types were fitted with a co called “Saukopf”. Of further interest is the zimmerit on this example. This zimmerit (in this case “square”) also helps to narrow down the production date. Considering the fact that no other units in the area had StuGs this early in the campaign, it only could have belonged to 243ID.
The shot below illustrates very well how close it actually came to the town and in the afternoon of the 7th some German troops actually made it to the edges of the villages before being driven off again.
The same vehicle can be seen here looking from the town.
This vehicle can again be seen in the shot below. The damage to the tracks, muzzle brake, upper hull and roof clearly identify it as the same vehicle. In the background another StuG can be seen as well.
The vehicle below shows the same features as the other StuG, knowing square zimmerit and an early mantlet. In “Panzers in Normandy, then and now” this vehicles is identified as belonging to 17SS near Carentan. As illustrated above that identification is incorrect. Apart from the location at Ste-Mere-Eglise, the telegraph poles along that road are very different and above all there is, as far as I know, no evidence 17SS had any other vehicles than StuG4’s. They did not have StuG3’s.
This picture shows the same vehicle. The missing roof, zimmerit and many other details show it’s the same vehicle. This vehicle is perhaps even a bit more interesting than the other StuGIII. This example shows at least some markings, in this case a fairly small Balkenkreuz. This might be helpful in further research to identify more vehicles from the same unit.
Now we’re talking about StuG’s any way, we can make a small side step. One of the few units to use StuGIII’s on the Peninsula was StuG.Abt.902. While this unit fought on the Cotentin, they weren’t there until several days after D-day. Zetterling has to say the following about this unit:
“When the allied forces landed the battalion was still at Tours. Two days later the 902. was subordinated to the 17. SS-Pz.Gren.Div. It seems however that the battalion was not committed in the sector of the 17. SS-Pz.Gren.Div. Hans Stöber, who has written a history of the 17. SS, states that the 902. StuG.Abt. was on its way but did not appear at the division. There is some support for this in the Gliederungen charts of 7. Army. On 11 June these show that the 17. SS-Pz.Gren.Div. was subordinated to 2. Fallschirm Korps, while 902. StuG.Abt. was with 84. Korps. Two days later it is indicated that the 902. was with forces committed on the Cotentin. This is also supported by an OB West document which indicates that the battalion was located in the Valognes area.
Given its location, the battalion was among the units likely to be surrounded if the US forces succeeded in advancing to the western coast of the Cotentin peninsula. On 19 June the 7th Army Gliederung shows that the battalion was with Gruppe von Schlieben. However, two days later the 902. StuG.Abt. was located near La Haye du Puits and had 13 combat ready StuG. On 24 June it was in the area of 91. Division. Evidently the battalion managed to escape from encirclement.”
(
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/ghqpz/902stugabt.html)
But enough history, let’s go back to the pictures now. Very little is known about the following vehicle. Considering the source, it was probably encountered by 508PIR troops, however time and location are unknown. The type of telegraph pole is also inconsistent with other examples. It appears to be open, but not of the heavy type used at Ste-Mere-Eglise. If we look back at the Marder from 243ID that was captured by 508 members and given the fact the 243 vehicles at Ste-Mere-Eglise show similar features (zimmerit type and mantlet) this clearly suggests there was contact between the 508PIR and 243ID and this StuG might very well have belonged to this infantry division.
While it’s only a side note, it might also be of interest that on D-Day the only real counterattack on Ste-Mere-Eglise came from the south. Around 0930 a German force including elements from 91ID and 795th Georgian Battalion and supported by armour moved towards Ste-Mere-Eglise. After some time the attack was fought off by the 3/505PIR.
While most sources are not specific about the vehicles involved (tanks and/or assault-guns), the vehicles were probably tanks from PzAbt100, because none of the other units in the area, including 91ID, had any armour and the vehicles from JpzAbt709 appear to have been located further to the north. The 3rd Co. Of PzAbt100 was located at Auvers and might have been the source of the armour, although the Abteilungs repair unit was located at Carentan and the vehicles might have come from there as well.
At this time I’m unaware of any images showing these vehicles, but it might be a good lead to find more PzAbt100 armour.
StuGIV
Now, as the StuG3 often identified as belonging to 17SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen did not belong to that unit, what vehicles did belong to them and were used in the attack on Carentan? For this I’ll use, among other sources, the excellent ML photophile by Chris Leeman
http://missinglinks2.tripod.com/stugiv.pdf I must admit I don’t have copies of all the GvB vehicles discussed there, let alone the other StuG’s. So if I miss some details please let me know.
Back to 17SS now. GvB was mainly equipped with StuGIV’s. In fact she had 42 of such vehicles divided in 2 companies. With this GvB was one of the few if not only unit to have StuGIV’s in Normandy. The only other option would be 331ID with 10 more StuGs but this vehicle didn’t see action in Normandy until early August east of Argentan.
Anyway, let’s start with the famous picture below. This StuGIV was one of the vehicles destroyed during the attack on Carentan on June 13th. Unit markings are difficult to find, but this vehicle at least shows how a 1st co vehicle could look. According to the photophile both companies were involved in the attack on the city. Perhaps there were some differences between the companies.
The vehicle in the middle might very well be the vehicle pictured above. Both vehicles are missing their roof and there’s a telegraph pole just in front of them. On both pictures there appears to be a 57mm AT-gun present as well.
Here again three StuGIV’s, probably the same vehicles as the three we’ve seen above. Clearly the position of the vehicles is different from the first picture but the are still some good indications. In both picture the 1st and 3rd vehicle have their roof while the 2nd is missing its roof. On the front view of the ‘1st co’ vehicle a telegraph post can be seen to its right rear. At the same time the exact location of that image has been indentified and infact there’s another road coming from the right, behind the StuGIV. The rearmost StuG on the picture below might have been pushed on that road.
While it might be tempting to suggest the vehicle below was the foremost vehicle on the image above, it’s not. While it also has a hedgerow (with pine trees in it) to it’s left, it’s missing its roof and a wider version of this picture shows not a road but just a field. This vehicle also has no track damage while the rear of the right track of the other vehicle appears to have been damaged.
Nonetheless this image is interesting because it shows some features that are also present on the other GvB StuG’s. The spare track links on the side of the hull are a similar detail and also note the location of the German crosses.
This shot is often identified as 17SS in Normandy, but does not match the location of the Balkenkreuz as seen on the other vehicles. Presuming the caption is correct, it might show vehicles of another company than the vehicles shown before. Considering that at least one of the vehicles destroyed on June 13th belonged to 1st company, this style might belong to another co, though solid proof is missing. What seems to be a common sight is the absence of vehicle numbers. This might have to do with the Schürzen. The hull sides would of course be blocked by the skirts, so any numbers would probably have been painted on the skirts. Unfortunately the skirts are often missing, but where they are present they don’t seem to show any numbers either.
The vehicle below is said to have been destroyed in Normandy as well. Another example of a Balkenkreuz on the left side of the drivers compartment.
The picture below, again origin unknown, might also show a GvB StuG4. The area could very well be Normandy, the troops appear to be SS and there is a Balkenkreuz located on the rear hull. From what I’ve learned so far only two SS division had StuGIV’s during the summer of 1944 (the most likely time considering foliage and the early version) so GvB would be a good guess.
As far as I know the picture below has never been conclusively been identified. In the photophile it was suggested as either being taken in Normandy or possibly in Hungary as a part of 4SSPol.Pz.Gren.Div. Looking closely at the terrain it doesn’t look as much like bocage as my first impression was after all.
The only detail that seem very different from the identified 17SS vehicles, is a box like structure on the engine deck of both vehicles. Is this a fieldmod or just some stowage?
It might be a clue these vehicles might not be ordinary 17SS vehicles, though admittedly very weak.
There are some more indications that could support this “box-argument”. One of those is the following vehicle. While I have no idea on its ID, it doesn’t appear to have been taken during the Normandy campaign. Perhaps someone can identify this vehicle and link this feature to at least one unit.
This very interesting still shows a German Fallschirmjager, with the distinct ammo pouches, in front of a StuGIV. I’m not aware where this footage was shot, but the combination of a Fallschirmjäger, StuGIV and boccage landscape suggests GvB in Normandy might be a good option.
The vehicle below doesn’t show much details but according to the caption the picture was taking in the St-Lô area. Considering this location 17SS would be the most likely candidate.
The image below also comes from the Photophile.( Sorry about the poor quality, but I only have the photophile to work from) In the source used for the photphilet it’s captured as possibly belonging to StuG Brigade 394, but hat caption seems doubtful because this unit did not have StuGIV’s. I agree that 17SS would be more logical and 331ID is not a real option. In the background a Hotchkiss tank can be seen. PzAbt100 en 206 did not operate in the area of 331. All the images of vehicle dumps, I’ve seen do not show any French tanks next to heavier (than StuGIV) German equipment. Given the time frame one would expect to show 331 vehicles next to PzIV’s or Panthers because 2SS and PzLehr were also involved in the fighting with their tank. PzAbt206 and 100 were destroyed before that date and not even in the area, so a Hotchkiss is not what I would expect next to a 331 StuGIV. I don’t think these vehicle being next to each other. They probably operated more or less in the same area and time frame.
To finish the discussion on StuG4’s, one last picture. According to the caption also Normandy, though there’s nothing to pinpoint the location or unit. Nonetheless it is interesting enough, in my opinion, to be included in this list.
Panther
As some people know, I prefer less “mainstream” vehicles over Tigers and Panthers, but I’m not immune to those either. So let’s throw in a Panther picture for the guys who find all this old French stuff boring. Take a look at this interesting panther picture. It’s also from the 508PIR website, which at least suggests it was disabled by those guys as well.
http://www.508pir.org/odessey/france/normandy_06.htm
A close up from the website shows the following details:
The website says ´Note the track segment still in motion at the left of the tank after separating from the main drive wheel at the right front of the tank”. I’m absolutely unsure about their explanation of the right track. How can it move like that? In my opinion it’s probably just dust coming of that’s responsible for this effect. In fact I suspect this is a staged shot or at best target practice. You must feel really safe to stick your camera out of a cabbage field at the same time someone is shooting at an approaching Panther. In my opinion the tank has been dead for some time, note the missing muzzle brake and how did it end up in that position? And is there actually any armor on the left side of the hull left? In my opinion this is no combat shot, but interesting camera work.
Nonetheless it’s interesting to consider what unit this Panther (A?) belonged to. It comes from an album with combat shots from Normandy. If taken in Normandy by the 508, the only candidate would be 2SS. They were the only unit 508 encountered in Normandy that fielded Panthers. If so the shot probably would have been taken in the La Haye Du Puits area, where a 2SS Kampfgruppe operated early July. Any thoughts on the composition of that Kampfgruppe are greatly appreciated.
Well that’s all for now. I hope you enjoyed it and I’m looking forward to any remarks, corrections or additional information.
Grtz Niels
PS I’m planning to look deeper into the use of armor during the fighting around Cherbourg and La Haye Du Puits. I’m having trouble finding enough information so any suggestions for interesting sources are welcome.
http://groups.msn.com/dutchmodelbuilding
