A question for the thread: Bergström in his Ardennes book says that Kampfgruppe Stephan (based around the PzAA of 116th Pz Div) had ten Sdkfz 234/1, and two Sdkfz 234/2. Unfortunately he doesn’t give a footnote directly for that number telling where he got that number, but a few sentences before he cites Foreign Military Series available at NARA concerning the 116th Panzer Div. I can’t verify this myself since the latest gliederung I can find is from September. He notes in the same paragraph in his book that KG Stephan attacked separate from the rest of the division, crossing the Our at the Dasburg alongside the 2nd Pz Div, which definitely did have some Sdkfz 234/2’s in its reconnaissance battalion (KG Böhm). Possible mix up?
Hans Webers post here was helpful for me regarding what units for sure received them, but doesn’t give the definite answer I’m looking for.
https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=150
Is it probable that the 116th Pz’ recon battalion received a 50mm armed ‘Puma’ or two from the Ersatzheer?
Pz AA 116
-
- Member
- Posts: 131
- Joined: 07 Apr 2020 00:29
- Location: Montgomery, Texas
-
- Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: 04 May 2004 15:47
- Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Re: Pz AA 116
I don't think the PzAuf-Abt 116 received any 234/2 at all. Two sources list it being equipped with the 234/1 and 234/3. Dugdale does list two 234/2 in Kampfgruppe Stephan.. But I think it is a typo since in his two other sections, he lists two 234/3. Also, Nuts & Bolts #40 it says that four 234/1 and one 234/3 being shipped in November 1944 to bring Stabskompanie up to strength for the Ardennes Offensive. That would match the correct number and type of the Stab-Kompanie (K.S.t.N. 1109(gp.(f.G.) vom 01.04.1944 of thirteen 234/1 and three 234/3. Delivery documents confirm the delivery of five armored cars.Texas Jäger wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022 08:21Is it probable that the 116th Pz’ recon battalion received a 50mm armed ‘Puma’ or two from the Ersatzheer?
In the files of the Panzertruppe Inspector, there is a note about a 234/2 being delivered to the Ersatzheer with a handwritten mark "116. Pz.Div." but no idea what that really means.
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it."
— General Robert E. Lee
— General Robert E. Lee
-
- Member
- Posts: 131
- Joined: 07 Apr 2020 00:29
- Location: Montgomery, Texas
Re: Pz AA 116
This was immensely helpful Tanker Mike. It’s a very intriguing question to me, since so few of the 234/2’s seem to have been involved in the Ardennes offensive.Tanker Mike wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023 06:05I don't think the PzAuf-Abt 116 received any 234/2 at all. Two sources list it being equipped with the 234/1 and 234/3. Dugdale does list two 234/2 in Kampfgruppe Stephan.. But I think it is a typo since in his two other sections, he lists two 234/3. Also, Nuts & Bolts #40 it says that four 234/1 and one 234/3 being shipped in November 1944 to bring Stabskompanie up to strength for the Ardennes Offensive. That would match the correct number and type of the Stab-Kompanie (K.S.t.N. 1109(gp.(f.G.) vom 01.04.1944 of thirteen 234/1 and three 234/3. Delivery documents confirm the delivery of five armored cars.Texas Jäger wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022 08:21Is it probable that the 116th Pz’ recon battalion received a 50mm armed ‘Puma’ or two from the Ersatzheer?
In the files of the Panzertruppe Inspector, there is a note about a 234/2 being delivered to the Ersatzheer with a handwritten mark "116. Pz.Div." but no idea what that really means.
-
- Member
- Posts: 770
- Joined: 18 Apr 2002 21:07
- Location: Oudenbosch, Netherlands
Re: Pz AA 116
I dare to question the numbers by Dugdale. Why? He doesn't quote any sources. He could have written that the unit also had 25 At-At's.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004 21:18
- Location: Augusta, GA
Re: Pz AA 116
The lack of references in Dugdale also troubled me. What information I had for September 44 never quite matched most of what he was saying. Years ago I talked with the co-author but he wasnt able to provide any information.Piet Duits wrote: ↑12 Feb 2023 14:51I dare to question the numbers by Dugdale. Why? He doesn't quote any sources. He could have written that the unit also had 25 At-At's.
Mad Dog