In re-reading this and the various sources I realized that something is odd about Niklas' account. Check me on this, but this is what I have, based upon the records and some assumptions.
Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301. at Avesnes. Strength as of 31 May was 1,095, with 2 Pz.-III, 32 Stu.G.-III, and 146 B-IV, not including the 5 Tiger II and 3 Tiger I, with 4. Kp. 1.-3. Kp. were ordered to the Eastern Front on 3 June, but the order was cancelled upon the Allied invasion. 3. Kp. remained with 21. Pz.-Div. and fought with it in Normandy. 4. Kp. remained attached to Pz.-Lehr-Div. and fought with it in Normandy. It was intended to use 2., 3., and 4. Kp. in the formation of Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 302., but that plan was dropped on 2 July until late in July when they finally moved to join Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 302. Probably 2 B-IV held in reserve.
1. Kp. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 312.) Probably 7 Stu.G.-III, assuming 6 with 2. Kp., 10 with 3. Kp., and 9. with 4. Kp. Probably 36 B-IV like the other companies.
2. Kp. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 311.) The strength of 2. Kp. as of 1 June was given as 2 Pz.-III, 6 Stu.G.-III and 36 B-IV. The 2 Pz.-III were likely part of the Abteilung Stab reported with company. Niklas somehow figures this was the strength of 4. Kp., which is obviously incorrect.
3. Kp. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 315.) (ten Stu.G.-III) (attached to 21. Pz.-Div.) at Sassy, which fits attachment to 21. Panzer. Probably also 36 B-IV like the other companies.As of 22 June redesignated as 2./Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 302. AHA (Stab I (1) No. 2720/44 geheim, 22 Juni 44. Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 315. was engaged with 21. Pz.-Div. in June (see:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1226235232/
4. Kp. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 316.) (attached to Pz.-Lehr) The company was equipped with 5 Tiger II, 3 Tiger I, 9 Stu.G.-III, and 36 B-IV remote-controlled demolition vehicles. The Tiger II were left at Chateaudun where they were destroyed in August and it is unclear whether or not the Tiger I were taken to Normandy. As of 1 July still had 7 Stu.G.-III operational. It was withdrawn late in July to join Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 302.
Again, the 1 June strength report Niklas assumed was for 4. Kp. cannot be, since it in no way matches what 4. Kp., attached to Lehr, had.
The question is, was 301. minus its detachments actually attached to 2. Panzer as Niklas assumed? Or was only 2. Kp. (311.) and the two Stab Pz-III reported by 2. Panzer on 1 June actually attached? Was 1. Kp. (312.) actually attached somewhere else?
Otherwise, as I see it, Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 302 was at Vouziers, but did not begin organizing until 22 June and was intended to comprise 4./Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 316.), Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 315., and Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 317. viz.:
1. Kp. (4./Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 316.))
2. Kp. (3./Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 315.))
3. Kp. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 317.) (ten StuG-III)
4. Kp. (2./Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301. (Pz.-Kp. (Fkl.) 311.))
Or am I reading too much into scant data?