352. Division June 1944

[yantaylor]

Alan the mp40 question was really a joke, of course I knew that they would be either MG34s or MG42s.
With us both being English, I thought you would have picked up on that.
I suppose too that they would be mounted on lafetts, but I would guess that they still had their bi-pods too.

BTW; Wiki has improved somewhat of late, but you won't find anything as detailed as what we are discussing.

Regards
Yan.

[yantaylor]

Niels, you have vastly more knowledge on this subject then I, that post that you written in the link is excellent, but the part I was referring to was written by Martin Block and he gives this for the 206;

OoB dated 1.4.1944 also found in KTB AOK 7 shows

Stab
Stabskp. (3+2 Pz.Kpfw. Renault B 2, 1 Pz.Kpfw. Renault B 2 (Flamm), 2 Pz.Kpfw. Somua, 2 Pz.Kpfw. Renault R 35)
1.Kp. (1+3 Pz.Kpfw. Somua, 10+4 Pz.Kpfw. Hotchkiss)
2.Kp. (4 Pz.Kpfw. Somua, 10+4 Pz.Kpfw. Hotchkiss)
Instandsetzungsstaffel
Figures 3+2, 1+3, 10+4 mean tanks operational + tanks in repair

So really on the 6th June this unit could of had a tank strength of only;

Stabskp. (3 Pz.Kpfw. Renault B 2, 1 Pz.Kpfw. Renault B 2 (Flamm), 2 Pz.Kpfw. Somua, 2 Pz.Kpfw. Renault R 35)
1.Kp. (1 Pz.Kpfw. Somua, 10 Pz.Kpfw. Hotchkiss)
2.Kp. (4 Pz.Kpfw. Somua, 10 Pz.Kpfw. Hotchkiss)

So the question I was asking is, did this unit have an infantry component and any Mk IIIs, as I cannot find any in Martins description.

Yan.

[jpz4]

The answer is simple: no Pz.III and no infantry (if they had Martin would have mentioned them).

And regarding the strength of the battalion, it is not known how many operational tanks it had on D-Day. A lot can change in a few weeks.

[yantaylor]

Another thing of note is that Nafzeiger has the Panzer Kompanie 315. [Funklenk] as part of the 21st Panzer and it had 10 StuGs, but when I check other sites, this unit in not documented.

Yan.

[Richard Anderson]

Another thing of note is that Nafzeiger has the Panzer Kompanie 315. [Funklenk] as part of the 21st Panzer and it had 10 StuGs, but when I check other sites, this unit in not documented.

Yan.

No he doesn't.

Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 302. at Vouziers was intended to comprise 4./Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301, Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 315 and 317. On 2 July the decision was made to replace 4./Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301 with Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 316, but in the event neither joined the battalion since they were already engaged with Pz.-Lehr and 2. Pz.-Div. It appears that Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 315 and 317 had a strength of four Stu.G.-III between them on 10 June. Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 315 was engaged with 21. Pz.-Div. sometime in June (see: http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1226235232/)

[yantaylor]

Well I have the book Panzers and Artillery of WW2 by Nafzeiger and on page 141 he has the Pz.Kp.315 [FKL] as part of the Panzer Regiment 22. dated June 1944.

I am not saying the book is right or wrong, just saying what I have in front of me, I can scan the page if you like, that way I may not get any silly faces in reply.

[Richard Anderson]

Well I have the book Panzers and Artillery of WW2 by Nafzeiger and on page 141 he has the Pz.Kp.315 [FKL] as part of the Panzer Regiment 22. dated June 1944.

Yes, they were engaged with Panzer Regiment 22., but they were not part of it and it was sometime after the invasion. Vouziers is just north of Falaise and was in the bivouac area of the regiment, but there is no indication it was ever considered part of the regiment.

I am not saying the book is right or wrong, just saying what I have in front of me, I can scan the page if you like, that way I may not get any silly faces in reply.

Perhaps you'd prefer to get no replies at all?

[yantaylor]

So the book was correct, but because he gave no specific dates it means you are also correct.
I only asked a question and that was all, but if the source of that information is flawed or vague in some way, then that is not my fault.

Mr Anderson, if you look at my posts you will see that they are written in polite manner, I am nearly sixty and that is the way I was brought up, to treat every one with respect and I have tried to do this on this board over the last six plus years.
Its up to you if you reply to me or not, but please try not to be disrespectful, because you get respect from me and have received respect all the way through our discussions.

Yan.

[Richard Anderson]

So the book was correct, but because he gave no specific dates it means you are also correct.

Indeed, because that is sometimes the way it works. Please realize there is an extreme paucity of documentation for much of this information, so often when we say "June" or "D-Day" we actually meant "somewhere approximately around this time".

I only asked a question and that was all, but if the source of that information is flawed or vague in some way, then that is not my fault.

No, and it is not my fault that I thought you were talking about Leo's website...you gave no indication that you had switched to talking about a book.

Mr Anderson, if you look at my posts you will see that they are written in polite manner, I am nearly sixty and that is the way I was brought up, to treat every one with respect and I have tried to do this on this board over the last six plus years.

Mr Taylor, I am past sixty and was also brought up to treat those with respect who deserve respect. If you bother to look, you will notice the emoticon I used was "confused", because, well, I was confused by your response. If you believe that is disrespectful, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Its up to you if you reply to me or not, but please try not to be disrespectful, because you get respect from me and have received respect all the way through our discussions.

Ditto.

[yantaylor]

I suppose I should have made it more clearer, that I had changed from Niehorster to Nafzeiger, but I had two threads going at the same time and they seemed to blend somewhat.
Anyway today is a new day so let’s just put that behind us shall we, are you ok with that seeing that we are nearly the same age.

Yan.

[Richard Anderson]

I suppose I should have made it more clearer, that I had changed from Niehorster to Nafzeiger, but I had two threads going at the same time and they seemed to blend somewhat.

Yes, I missed entirely you went from reputable to iffy sources. I used to run into Nafziger hawking his wares at the cons when they were xeroxed and spiral-bound...I never had the heart to tell him he was confusing Grund, Soll, and Ist Gliederungen among other things.

Anyway today is a new day so let’s just put that behind us shall we, are you ok with that seeing that we are nearly the same age.

We're all the same age in the end whippersnapper.

[yantaylor]

Richard, I bought three Nafzeiger books over ten years ago, they look pretty neat in their black covers and I have used them extensively.
But there are some who question them and that made me think, that's why I run stuff on this site as the people on this board [yourself included] are the best in the business.

I have a soft spot for the Normandy Campaign as my late father took part in the landings, he was in a British LAA battery [Bofors Mounted on Crusader Tanks] and attached to the Canadian's, he landed at Juno beach.

Regards
Yan.

[Richard Anderson]

Richard, I bought three Nafzeiger books over ten years ago, they look pretty neat in their black covers and I have used them extensively.
But there are some who question them and that made me think, that's why I run stuff on this site as the people on this board [yourself included] are the best in the business.

George Nafziger (not Nafzeiger) has the same unholy fascination with order-of-battle data as I do. Unfortunately, his tendency was to hoover it all up translate it and then regurgitate it without much editing or understanding of the original terminology, which resulted in lots of typos and other errors, especially in the original xeroxed editions. The later printed and bound editions are better, but still have problems.

I have a soft spot for the Normandy Campaign as my late father took part in the landings, he was in a British LAA battery [Bofors Mounted on Crusader Tanks] and attached to the Canadian's, he landed at Juno beach.

Then your Dad was with one of these organizations?:

372d Battery (-1 troop), 114th Light Antiaircraft Regiment RA of ‘O’ Antiaircraft Assault Group, 80th AA Brigade or 375th Battery, 114th Light Antiaircraft Regiment RA of ‘P’ Antiaircraft Assault Group, 80th AA Brigade

See? Unholy fascination...

Mine landed 14 June on UTAH, as a battery officer in A Battery, 537th AAA (AW-mob) Battalion, commanding the ad hoc platoon of four M17A1 MGMC.

[yantaylor]

You are spot on Richard, 114th LAA Regt. and he landed in Nan Sector.

Those M17s were pretty dangerous vehicles, I bet your dad saw some action using those on ground targets.

I have this on the M17 on my web site;
https://www.quartermastersection.com/am ... 98/M17MGMC

[Richard Anderson]

You are spot on Richard, 114th LAA Regt. and he landed in Nan Sector.

Those M17s were pretty dangerous vehicles, I bet your dad saw some action using those on ground targets.

I have this on the M17 on my web site;
https://www.quartermastersection.com/am ... 98/M17MGMC

Indeed, but the M17A1 were not Lend-Lease, They were converted by the AA Command in Britian before the invasion by mounting 321 M45 Quad .50-caliber Trailers on spare M5 Halftracks and then distributing them to the Mobile AA AW battalions.