Panzer-Lehr-Division SdKfz 251 markings December 15 ... - PALA 130

Dugdale (Vol. I, Pg. 35) 2. Panzer reported 2 Hummels on hand on Sept. 5, 1944, so at least two made it
over the Seine. Ledwoch (Pg. 20 & 26) attributes two photos to 2. Panzer in Normandy but I highly doubt the
accuracy of these captions as the first one is a well-known photo that has always been attributed to the
Eastern front (per Allied-Axis it belongs to Großdeutschland).
9. Panzer Division:
===========
Zetterling (Pg. 329) places the Hummel batterie in the II Abteilung. Tessin (Vol. 6) states that the Hummels
were in the I Abteilung. Leonard Paul has graciously supplied a photo of a 9. Pz. Hummel. It is a "new "
Hummel which sports a very non-standard tactical number of 6313 and other views apparently show a
tactical letter (C in this case) also. The numbers, due to their eccentric nature, do not at first blush seem to
shed much light on the battery to which they belong. The first number, "6", could possibly indicate the 6.
Batterie of the II. Abteilung, while the second number, "3", could indicate the 3. Batterie of the the I.
Abteilung. However, 9. Panzer had a tendency to employ an initial number that was either arbitrary or had
some sort of internal meaning. The second number indicates the battery or company as the case may be;
therefore, this Hummel belongs to the 3. Batterie. These are the marking combinations as extrapolated by
Leonard Paul:
6311 gun A
6312 gun B
6313 gun C the Nouans/Saumur Hummel
6314 gun E
6315 gun F
6316 gun G
According to Dugdale (Vol. I, Pg. 41) 9th Panzer was actually allocated two batteries of Hummels. On Sept. 1,
1944 the Division reported 7 Hummels on hand, including two in short-term repair. Scherzer (Pg. 1) indicates
that originally (November 1943) the II. Abteilung was composed of 4. and 5. Batteries equipped with Wespes
and 6. Battery equipped with Hummels, but as of May 1944, the self-propelled battery was changed to the I.
Abteilung and the 1. and 2. Batteries were equipped with Hummels, the 3. with Wespes. According to
Zetterling (Pg. 330) on June 15, 1944 9. Pz had 6 Hummels on hand and was short 0. He cites "Pz.Gr. West
Ia Nr, 2592/44 g.Kdos., Meldung über Stand der Neuaufstellung (Stand 15.6), H.Qu, den 21. June 1944" as
the source for this information.
This is a very good example of how many (if not all in some cases) secondary sources incorrectly (some,
monumentally) present the incorrect organizational information for some German units. While Scherzer offers
a general bibliography, he does not give detailed sources, so I have no idea from where he extracted this