Talk:9th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tiger I allocation
editIn the Western front section, it is stated that at the end of septempber 1944 the 9th Panzer was rebuilt, receiving 'at least 22 Tiger I tanks'. I find this to be extremely unlikely. The Tiger I (or Tiger II) was only deployed in independent Heavy Tank Battalions with only a few 'elite' divisions (1st SS, 2nd SS, 3rd SS and GD) receiving them on a permanent basis. That they would be allocated to a division such as 9th Panzer is not in line with information provided in the Tiger I (or II) article, as well as all articles concerning the Heavy Tank Battalions and those concerning the few divisions receiving their own Tiger I tanks.
Is there any evidence, such as photographic evidence showing Tiger I's with 9th Panzer's divisional markings, to support this claim? 145.8.104.65 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any photos, though from the situation at the time, it seems to me that the greater concern at the time was resupplying the severely depleted division with equipment. It's possible Tigers were all that was available. —Ed!(talk) 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
http://gregpanzerblitz.com/Germans/9thPanzerDec44.pdf http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers-02.htm I looked into this further and it seems to me that sPzAbt 301 (using remote control Goliaths) was assigned to 9th Panzer, and then only at the start of the Ardennes Offensive. That makes much more sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.180.216 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Dnieper River Dam
editIh the section "operation barbarossa" it states "The 9th Panzer Division then captured the Dnieper River Dam at Dnepropetrosk" this is a false statement. Dnipro Dam is in Zaporizhzhya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.186.118 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
early campaign
editThis original bit [In the battle, the Germans inflicted 3,000 killed and 7,000 wounded, easily defeating the Dutch with assistance from the Luftwaffe despite the fact that the division was equipped with Czech tanks.] is a bunch of crap!
First of all, 9.Pz was only equipped with German tanks and had not a single Czech vehicle in its midst. Secondly the total Dutch losses in May 1940 were 2,300 KIA and 6,900 WIA. The 9.Pz only took part in a fraction of the tough fighting. Most losses that the Dutch suffered were from the X.Corps that battled the Dutch Field Army in the so called Grebbeline and the German Airborne Corps that landed around the major cities The Hague and Rotterdam.
I am editing the quoted bit so that it mentions genuine facts. Grebbegoos (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have added some more corrections. A strange assumption that Dutch are harder to kill with Czech tanks ;o).--MWAK (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
301st Tiger Battalion did not accompany division to the Ardennes
editThe battalion was theoretically attached, but did not arrive to participate in the fighting in the Ardennes. 184.88.155.243 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)