|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > Western Front (1944-1945) > Lunca de Sus Sept. 1944 (Carpathians)|
|Posted by: paul panzer September 04, 2012 02:25 pm|
| Are there any detailed descriptions of the fights of the Romanian army in the area of LUNCA DE JOS and LUNCA DE SUS (Eastern Carpathians) in September 1944?
When were these vicinities first approached and then definitely taken?
What was the direction of the attacks?
I understand that the "Gheorghe Matei" armoured detachment participated.
I am grateful for any info (since I speak French I can more or less decipher romanian).
|Posted by: Dénes September 04, 2012 06:35 pm|
I checked a few sources, but could not find any reference to combat activity in these localities.
What I found were details of fights around Lunca and Lunca Muresului (in the former Turda county).
|Posted by: sebipatru September 04, 2012 08:22 pm|
| i live in a village Lunca Calnicului, between Brasov and Sf Gheorghe, in eastern Carpathians, but in area fought only blue batery,
there are a few more villages with similar names, Lunca Ozunului, Lunca Marcusului
.....but not Sus, Jos
maybe something more deep in Covasna country??????
|Posted by: Dénes September 05, 2012 05:58 am|
| Both villages are real, located in Harghita County, populated by Hungarians, close to the former Rumanian-Hungarian border. Only that I could not find references to combat there in Rumanian sources. I should check the Hungarian ones, as there was a large Hungarian Army barracks there.
|Posted by: paul panzer September 05, 2012 02:35 pm|
This is the place from where I have the (from my side unchecked) info
Immediately after 23 August 1944, very many Romanian units were disarmed by the Soviets and their men sent into captivity, although the Romanian and Soviet Armies had recently become allied. There escaped from this harsh fate the units which had succeeded in time to cross over to the side of the new allies, negotiating with the Soviets by offering to fight on their behalf. That was the case with the 103rd Mountain Division, the Detachment of Border Guards, the 7th Heavy Artillery Regiment and the "Gheorghe Matei" Armoured Division. All of them helped the Soviets to force the passes in the Eastern Carpathians through to Transylvania. The "Gheorghe Matei" Armoured Detachement was formed from the remnants of the Romanian 1st Armoured Division which had been almost destroyed prior to 23 August 1944. It had already come to an understanding with the Soviets on 25 August and helped them in the battles to force the Ghimes approaches into Transylvania. The offensive developed between 2 and 11 September, the Detachment being incorporated into the Soviet 24th Corps of the 7th Guards Army, being aided by the 6th Orlov Guards Division. On September 2, the Detachment occupied the locality of Lunca de Sus, enabling it to enter and occupy on September 9 the community of Frumoasa in the Ciuc Mountains. In the period from 20 to 28 September, it was in action between the Niraj and Mures rivers, advancing to the south of Reghin. It was regrouped on September 29 and placed at the disposition of the Romanian 4th Army, thus ending our story. Of the 1058 men originally in the Detachment it suffered 249 losses in dead, wounded and missing. It was the first Romanian unit to enter Northern Transylvania.
Developments of fights in the area are confusing and wondered whether Romanian sources could possibly clarify a bit
|Posted by: Dénes September 05, 2012 03:14 pm|
| This explains why I could not find any mention on these two localities in Rumanian combat reports: because those units you were referring to fought under Soviet command.
By the way, IIRC the first Rumanian army units crossed the Hungarian border in Transylvania on 29 August.
|Posted by: ANDREAS September 05, 2012 06:14 pm|
|From an old book (written in the communist era) borrowed from the County Library of Arad dedicated to the armoured troops battles after 30 august 1944 I have extracted some informations: the romanian armored detachment established at 27.08.1944 from the remainings of the 1st Armoured Division put under the command of lt.col. Gheorghe Matei, ex-commander of the 1st Tank Regiment of the Division, had over 1000 combat troops and 200 vehicles. From 4/5 until 30 september 1944 the Detachment losses were 8 officers, 6 NCOs, 83 sergeants and soldiers dead, 12 officers, 18 NCOs, 118 sergeants and soldiers wounded, 2 T-IVH tanks and 2 TAs T-IIIG and 5 Resita ATGs destroyed in battle and other 3 T-IVH damaged. Losses caused to the ennemy: around 1800 prisoners, 8 tanks, 3 assault guns, 6 ATGs, 16 trucks and autotractors. I remember that in the book were detailed the combat actions of this detachment in the Szekler area, after crossing the mountains. I will seach for the book in the Library soon!|
|Posted by: Dénes September 06, 2012 06:04 am|
| That would be very interesting, particularly the tank vs. tank battles.
Did they fight at the epic battle of Turda/Torda? IF they did, did they use Pz.IVs? The Hungarian tankers reported the nasty surprise to face the same Pz.IVs they also used...
|Posted by: paul panzer September 07, 2012 08:43 am|
|The Axworthy book does also (very briefly) mention the engagement in the Ghimes valley / pass region, i.e. first half of Sept. This is the bit that I am the most interest in (I can hardly imagine this is not documented in a Romanian book / archive).|
|Posted by: paul panzer September 10, 2012 12:37 pm|
| I did a bit of (further) bibliographical research:
- (so far unidentified) soviet units showed up in the area of Lunca de Sus on 1st Sept. 44;
- 1st lieut. Ervin BAKOS from (Hungarian) 32nd Frontier Guards Bat. killed in action on that day in the area;
- axis troops counter attacked in the area on 2 Sept. 44 (no details known).
Unfortunately, I have not found any new information regarding Romanian involvement. Thus, my request remains unanswered...
|Posted by: luciang September 17, 2012 09:37 am|
| The following translations that I made, are taken from the "165 years of Romanian Artillery existence" essay, available on the Internet on http://www.rft.forter.ro/17_bibvirt/pdf/001-165_de_ani_de_existenta_a_artileriei.pdf
The paragraphs describe actions of the 7th Heavy Artillery Regiment:
extract from page 160:
"The merit of colonel Vasile Danacu and the regiment's staff was that between 25-28 August 1944 they refused to surrender the regiment's armament and fighting material to soviet troops. We hereby quote colonel's Vasile Danacu account, which points out the dignity of their behaviour in that situation:
"In the morning of 24th of August the regiment was set in motion in the general direction of Roznov (...) where it became intercepted by the units of the 7th Soviet Guard Army and challenged to surrender all guns and vehicles, with free passage being granted only to staff and troops. (...) I ordered the whole regiment to take up firing positions on the spot where we've been stopped. One cavalry battalion also took up defensive positions. Then, they proposed that only the ammunition should be surrendered which was also not acceptable. Consequently, we were able to carry on our march".
Afterwards, according to order number 113 from the 28th of August 1944 - when the armistice had been settled, the regiment was attached to the soviet 24 Guard Corps, following Romania's declaration of war against Germany. After being stationed two days in Blagesti and other two days of reorganization, ressuply, the regiment entered the fightings from the Trotus river valley towards Palanca. Starting on the 1st of September 1944, the regiment occupied firing positions at Ghimes-Palanca in support of the 6th Orlovskaia Division, and further on till the gorge's exit."
extract from page 175:
"Between the 28th of August and the 28th of September 1944, the 7th Heavy Artillery Regiment operated under the orders of the soviet 24th Guard Corps, which was part of the soviet 7th Guard Army. In the fightings for opening the Ghimes passage, during the operation Ghimes-Palanca, this regiment distinguished itself by the way in which it supported the soviet 6th infantry division "Orlovskaja". On the 10th of September 1944 the regiment performed an artillery preparation with all batteries against enemy positions around hill 1106, which was closing the gorge completely, for 20 minutes. After this preparation, the soviet 24th Corps started the attack, breaking through enemy positions which were destabilized by the regiment's accurate fire.
Upon entering Ghimes village the regiment's artillery men were met with cheers by soviet infantry men. The regiment received verbal thanks from soviet commanders, who described it's action as astounding. This was the starting point for the artillery men's buzzword "As in Palanca" which was carried on until Czechoslovakia."
Now, if we take a look on the map, we may see that Lunca de Jos is some 5 km further to the west from Ghimes.
|Posted by: paul panzer September 17, 2012 01:10 pm|
|Many thans for that. Thus, it seems that, aside from the "Gheorghe Matei" Armoured Detachement, the 7th Heavy Artillery Regiment also took part in the relevant fights in the Ghimes valley.|
|Posted by: Florin September 18, 2012 04:13 am|
How many Tiger I obtained the Hungarian army in the autumn of 1944? I read various numbers, between 3 and 25. Where they involved in defensive actions in Transylvania ?
Even considering that it was great to have a Tiger I on your side, I understand that 3 tanks or something in the lower side of that range would not matter too much.
|Posted by: aidan zea September 19, 2012 01:53 pm|
|From what I remember reading (I will return with info very soon) Hungary actually received Tiger I heavy tanks in spring 1944 and only for the 2nd Armd Division who was fighting on the eastern front (somewhere in south western Ukraine if I remember well). No such tanks had been dislocated in Transylvania with the german or hungarian army, I am sure! If I remember well actually all the Tiger I tanks received from Germany were lost during the summer 1944 battles on the eastern front!|
|Posted by: aidan zea September 19, 2012 08:29 pm|
|The hungarian 3rd Tank Regiment /2nd Armored Division received in early mai 1944 10 heavy tanks Pz. VI Tiger E, 12 medium tanks Pz. IV H and 10 assault guns StuG. III G as a compensation for the heavy losses in the battles during april 1944 on the eastern front. In august 1944 the 2nd Armored Division 3rd Tank Regiment had only 3 remaining Pz. VI Tiger E operable, who were retreated back in Hungary. When the Regiment was send in Northern Transylvania in early september 1944 he received in Someseni 20 new Pz.IV H and 5 Pz.V Panther A. The regiment used this tanks together with hungarian produced Turan I and II medium tanks in the fightings with romanian forces in the offensive operation started at 05.09.1944. The regiment advanced on the road now known as Drumul judetean 151 from Sarmasel -Sarmasu -Balda -Mihesu de Campie -Zau de Campie -Taureni -Sanger -Ludus and from there after crossing the river Mures he forced the advance towards south in Tarnave plateau, where he was finally stopped by romanian troops. We can assume that the hungarian units from this division were trying to reach the Tarnave river for a strong resistance line but they were stopped before that.|
|Posted by: Agarici September 19, 2012 11:51 pm|
So the 3 running Tigers were sent in Transylvania too? What about the rest of the machines delivered in Spring 1944 (Pz IVs and Stugs), how many of those survived?
Do you have a total number for the Hungarian armor employed in that operation?
|Posted by: Dénes September 20, 2012 05:49 am|
These armour (and other heavy weapons) were originally intended to be delivered to the Rumanians, but following the 23 August about-face they were handed over to the Hungarians, who used them in combat in Transylvania.
|Posted by: aidan zea September 20, 2012 01:52 pm|
| Agarici, from what I have found in the book written by Számvéber Norbert and called Páncélosok a Tiszántúlon (Az alföldi páncéloscsata 1944 októberében) the 3 heavy tanks Pz.VI Tiger I were present in Turda area in early october 1944 where they took part in the heavy battles! But as I readed I can be almost sure that they arrive maybe in late september 1944 in Northern Transylvania after the soviet troops were present in large numbers.
Denes, I have no indication about this but I can bet you are right! What I surely know is that a number of Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer were intended for Romanian Army, but because of the "defection", they were given to the hungarian troops.
|Posted by: paul panzer September 20, 2012 03:27 pm|
|Well this is almost evolving to a new topic far away from Lunca de Sus|
|Posted by: mabadesc September 20, 2012 04:44 pm|
This is interesting information, Adrian! Could you please elaborate a little or reference your source? How many Hetzers were intended for delivery to Romania, what month(s) was the delivery scheduled for, were negotiations concluded, etc..?
Thanks in advance for any additional information you may have.
|Posted by: Florin September 20, 2012 05:40 pm|
Military equipment used by the opposing sides in Transylvania in Autumn 1944 is not a subject too "far away" from the topic opened by you. If people will be strictly focused on "Lunca de Sus" the thread will die soon...
|Posted by: aidan zea September 20, 2012 07:05 pm|
|mabadesc, in a book I have dedicated to Hetzer light tank destroyer, it is written that aware of growing problems of the series production of Maresal tank destroyer the romanians and germans agreed on import of an unknown number of Hetzers for romanian army! It's written that the first delivery should start in 25 august 1944 with 15 Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzers for an romanian unit from the Moldavian front. This delivery was not a problem for the germans as from the beginning of august five infantry divisions (german of course) from the moldavian front received 72 Hetzers (each division 14 tank destroyers) before the start of Iasi-Chisinau operation. These 15 Hetzers intended for romanian army were used by the germans and hungarians in their operations in Northern Transylvania.|
|Posted by: ANDREAS September 20, 2012 11:28 pm|
|In the battle of Lunca de Sus on the hungarian-german side were the hungarian 32. Border Hunter Battalion and various small armored and motorized units from the german LVII. Panzer-Korps command (elements of the Battle Group of the 20. Panzer Division). The german-hungarian troops were using a small number of tanks (including few Pz.IIIM and Pz.IVH), assault guns (some StuG.IIIG), trucks and tractors and few heavy antitank guns fought by soviet forces including our Armored Detachment Lt.col. Gh.Matei.|
|Posted by: Agarici September 21, 2012 05:48 pm|
|After all, which were the number and composition of the Soviet-Romanian armoured forces in Lunca de Sus battle?|
|Posted by: ANDREAS November 10, 2012 11:39 pm|
|The romanian Armored Detachment "Lieutenant colonel Gh. Matei" supported the soviet 6th Rifle (Infantry) Division "Orlovskaya" in the battle for the forcing of the pass Ghimes Palanca and penetration into Transylvania. These were the forces who confronted the hungarian 32. Border Hunter Battalion and german armored elements of the LVII. Panzer-Korps command. The latter had (source: Hitze, Frost und Pulverdampf - Der Schicksalsweg der 20. Panzer-Division - Rolf Hinze, Verlag Hinze, Meerbusch 1991- in german) 1 Pz.III K, 5 Pz.IV H, 9 StuG.III G and 1 StuH.42 G so they confronted similar type of armor of the romanian Armored Detachment. The book mentions that the german armor was soon retreated from the area to be used in central Transylvania where it was much needed!|
|Posted by: Dénes November 11, 2012 08:03 am|
| Very good information. Thanks.
|Posted by: Agarici November 11, 2012 08:10 pm|
To those, according to this site, Armored Detachment "Lieutenant colonel Gh. Matei" opposed two companies of similar 9 T 4 (Pz IV H) and 7 Tas (Stug III G). What about the Hungarian armour, was it present in the area?
Thank you for your help, Andreeas!
|Posted by: ANDREAS November 11, 2012 10:41 pm|
| Sorry Agarici I posted only what I have found! So I have no ideea if hungarian armor was present there or not! What I do know is that in autumn 1944 several companies of light tanks Toldi-II/A were given to strengthening the attack forces of the 8th SS Cavalry Division "Florian Geyer" just as the germans send the surviving Jagdpz 38(t) Hetzer assault gun companies to support some hungarian units!
Welcome Denes, I'm glad that the information is useful! I would be interested to read or hear how this tank battle would have held with same type of armor on both sides...
|Posted by: mabadesc November 12, 2012 03:15 pm|
Thanks, for the info, Aidan! I know I'm going into details, but does your book specify which German divisions received the 72 Hetzers? Were they delivered to divisions which remained assigned to the Moldova Front through Aug. 23?
On a separate note, does the book draw any parallels between the Hetzer and the Maresal? Does it imply one design was influenced by another? When and how did Hetzer design commence? I am asking because there is an old but ongoing Hetzer/Maresal discussion on this forum.
Sorry for going slightly off-topic.
|Posted by: aidan zea November 13, 2012 05:40 pm|
| mabadesc in the book is mentioned that besides the 5 divisions who actually received the 72 Jagdpanzer 38 (Hetzer) which were: the 15th, 76th, 335th, 79th, 257th Infantry Divisions other two german and one (unknown) romanian Infantry Divisions must receive 43 Jpz. 38 (14 Jpz. 38 to the german 306th Infantry Division, 14 Jpz. 38 to the german 376th Infantry Division and 15 Jpz. 38 to one unknown romanian Infantry Division) until the late august 1944. The german 306th and 376th Divisions were both destroyed in august and the materiel send in Transylvania in early september 1944 was used by the new formed StuG Abt 1219 (Sturmgeschutz Abteilung -Assault Gun Battalion). Other surviving Jagdpanzer 38 (Hetzer) from the moldavian front were redeployed in Transylvania and entered into composition of 1335, 1179 and 1257 StuG Abt present there. But the author of the book expresses his doubts that these units (1335, 1179 and 1257 StuG Abt) were present and actually took part in the battles from late august 1944 on the moldavian front, considering the fact that their parent divisions (335th, 79th, 257th Infantry Divisions) were completely destroyed there so... he assumed that these units were stationed behind the front line, in the rear, for crew training! What is sure is that some of these formations actively participated in battles in early and mid-september 1944 in the composition of both german and hungarian units from Transylvania, supporting them!
In the book there can be found no positive appreciations towards the Romanian tank hunter program, even if the project and the prototypes were rated as very good! The problem was that a solid platform lacked (an armored vehicle that can be transformed into a tank hunter) and the production cost were very high involving special problems which could not be easily overcome!
|Posted by: aidan zea November 13, 2012 06:43 pm|
| In central Transylvania in early september 1944, the other major unit who received the Jagdpanzer 38 (Hetzer) was the 8. SS-Kavallerie Division 'Florian Geyer' with 29 vehicles shipped until the 7 September 1944. That number was significant for that time as it was close to the number of vehicles of a StuG Brigade (31 vehicles)! On the other hand it is not sure if these vehicles were actually used by this division alone or were send where they were needed most... I can give you the total number of StuG IIIG and StuG IV (both 75mm guns) StuH 42 (105mm howitzer) and JPz. 38 (Hetzer) in early september 1944 for the Heeresgruppe "Sud" (former SudUkraine): reste 6. Armee: 6 tanks, 24 assault guns; 8. Armee: 54 assault guns (no hungarian armor included).
About the birth of the german -czech armored vehicle it is written that in october 1943 a set of projects could already been presented to the Heereswaffenamt in Berlin (the organism charged with the war production of the german land army) which were a starting point for what would be born in early 1944 as Jagdpanzer 38. The prototype was tested in april 1944 but the production could be started the same month. This armored vehicle was born out of necessity, not by pleasure, as the germans saw it as a "crisis vehicle", that could not be compared to their Sturmgeschutze or Jagdpanzers!
Hope this is useful!
|Posted by: mabadesc November 14, 2012 05:34 pm|
| Aidan, this is indeed very useful information, thank you again!
I wonder if these 72 Hetzers received in August by German divisions on the Moldova front were included in the total number of armored vehicles attributed to the 6th and 8th Army.
It would also be interesting to pinpoint the location of these divisions on the map for the period Aug 17-23.
I am speaking without having done the research, but the question arises whether these 72 Hetzers were dispersed at divisional levels, and, if that being the case, whether it would have been wiser to concentrate them into an armored reserve "group". However, once again, this just comes to mind at first glance. I am sure there is an explanation for it.
Although, as you describe below, this is really fascinating:
Secondly, with regards to your interesting quote regarding the Romanian Tank Destroyer program, I don't know if you speak Romanian or not, but there is a valuable military archival report describing the visit of two German officers - experts on armored warfare - in which they witness and discuss the trials of the "Maresal", a Romanian improvised Tank Destroyer. They appear to give very good marks to the "Maresal" and compare it to some German tank destroyer models. It may be of interest to you, so I am attaching the link to the document, located on this very same forum:
Of particular interest is your mention that
This is relevant to the ongoing discussion of which design influenced the other (Hetzer vs. Maresal), if at all. I won't draw any conclusions as there are varying opinions. I have yet to lean towards on opinion or another myself, I think further info is needed.
Regardless of whether it happened by coincidence or design, both models share similar concepts and display remarkable similarities. Unfortunately, the Maresal was not tested in battle due to production delays, but the Hetzer had a good, reliable reputation in action. Therefore one could make the fair assumption that the Maresal would have performed in a somewhat comparable manner to the Hetzer.
I wonder what the track record of the Hetzers employed in Transylvania was during the September battles (both those employed in Abt. 1219/1335/1179/1257 as well as those assigned to the 8. SS Florian Geyer Division).
Anyway, thanks again for the valuable info you provided.
|Posted by: Agarici November 14, 2012 08:52 pm|
|According to Wikipedia: Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer of the 8th SS Cavalry Division "Florian Geyer" in Hungary (Transylvania), 1944: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-715-0213A-25,_Ungarn,_Jagdpanzer_%22Hetzer%22.jpg|
|Posted by: ANDREAS November 25, 2012 07:55 pm|
|After I had read again parts of the book I talked about, from the public library of Arad, book dedicated to fighting actions of the tank troops on the western front from september 1944 to mai 1945, I am quite confused as on the one hand is mentioned that a german powerful armored detachment was positioned in Lunca de Sus area, on Trotus valley, in 4 september 1944, but in the battles in this area are not listed clashes with German tanks, but on the other hand is mentioned the withdrawal of the german armored detachment on 8 september 1944, day when the enemy lost 2 tanks and other 4 armored vehicles with 2 romanian tanks being hit (able to continue fighting) in Frumoasa valley area (north east of Miercurea Ciuc city)! More than that the next day 2 romanian Pz.IV are destroyed in battle while the germans lost other 2 tanks and are repelled from Herastrau village (can't find it on the map). From 11 september no ennemy armor is mentioned anymore, only antitank guns! From battle description there are no results of strong ennemy armor actions, only small group of tanks (3 to 4) in counterstrikes supporting hungarian infantry... In conclusion is inconceivable the presence of a strong german armor detachment in the area or better to say if the detachment was there the bulk of german tanks and assault guns were retrated before a large fight, and only few remained there to support the hungarians in battle.|
|Posted by: sebipatru January 01, 2013 09:57 am|
| i'm in lunca de sus wright now and this is the most awkard place were you can find a
tank battle even a small one
a narrow valley flanked by mountains covered with pine woods
i understand that soviets an romanians came from moldova but why would have germans and hungarian stationed an armored unit here it's no rom to deploy it
|Posted by: paul panzer January 01, 2013 09:08 pm|
(1) Could you please be more specific in the way the "german armoured detachment" in the area of Lunca de Sus in Sept. 1944 is referred to in your Romanian source (i.e. quote - as the case may be translate - accurately)?
(2) What are the dates + places of the support of counterstrikes of Hungarian infantry by 3-4 armoured vehicles you also referred to? Trotus valley?
(3) What is your source of information ?
Many thanks in advance for your help that is very appreciated. This is important. I think that we are finally on the right path to discover the historical facts.
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 03, 2013 01:35 pm|
| Happy New Year 2013 for all forum members!
Paul Panzer, there are many sources, from which I extract the informations posted:
1. "Hitze, Frost und Pulverdampf - Der Schicksalsweg der 20. Panzer-Division" - Rolf Hinze, Verlag Hinze, Meerbusch 1991 (in german) where it is written that the german LVII. Panzer-Korps command who included elements of the Battle Group of the 20. Panzer Division and a StuG Brigade covered the Ghimes pass to prevent a Soviet penetration into the Ciuc valley in early September 1944. They were positioned at Lunca de Sus, in the mountains, it is written.
2. "În primele linii de foc - Amintiri ale unor participanţi la războiul antihitlerist" -Memorii de război, Editura Militară, Bucureşti, 1981. Chapter 9 -Asalt cu blindatele din creastă în creastă de munte -Colonel (r.) Alexandru Mihailovici pag. 85-98.
I also quoted from the book "Atacă tancurile..." - Colonel Gheorghe Tudor, Editura Militară, Bucureşti, 1966, but I can not quote the pages as I handwritten them some time ago at the the county library of Arad. In none of these last two books large tank battles were described only fire engagements with small groups (3 or 4) of ennemy tanks, but the presence of a strong ennemy (german) armored group is mentioned before entering the battle by both books. This german armored detachment is said to have been placed in Lunca de Sus in the first days of September 1944.
About the counterattacks of the Hungarian troops from 8 September (3 actions led in the evening of that day) supported by German tanks and assault guns they took place from the Herastrau hamlet towards the 1230 height (hill) defended by the romanian tankers. The attack were unsuccessful and the germans lost 2 tanks and other 4 armored vehicles. Other encounters with ennemy armor happened in 9 September when the Romanians tried to advance towards Frumoasa valley. After heavy battles in which at least 2 romanian tanks were destroyed and other 2 damaged, from the ennemy 2 tanks were destroyed and other 2 forced to withdraw. The Herastrau hamlet was taken from the ennemy. In the 10 September other counterattacks happened but no ennemy armor involved...
|Posted by: paul panzer January 04, 2013 11:57 am|
| Many thanks for the answer.
I wonder which elements of 20. PzDiv. and which StugBrig might have been in the Lunca de Sus area during the relevant time period (Sept. 1944).
I will try to get some more information.
I could not find a vicinity called Herastrau on the map. Where is the closest bigger vicinity?
|Posted by: ANDREAS January 04, 2013 03:20 pm|
| Welcome Paul Panzer!
I am not sure if its correct but because in early September 1944 the 6th Army was given responsibility to defend the Eastern Carpathian Mountains and she has at his disposal the Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 905 (StuG-40/75 and StuH-42/105) and the Sturmgeschütz-Abteilungen 1015 and 1076 (Hetzer/75) is very likely that one of these units could be the one!
From the books I can't tell the location of Herastrau hamlet, as there was no map of the area. If you found something please please let us know!