What did soldier numbers (Erkennungsmarke) tell?

German uniforms, clothing, and awards 1919-1945.

Moderator: John W. Howard

Post Reply
Ove Kronborg
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:01 am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

What did soldier numbers (Erkennungsmarke) tell?

Post by Ove Kronborg »

What did German soldier numbers on their "Erkennungsmarke" tell? I am making history research, and I have 2 soldier numbers. I search for their Wehrmacht units. Can I see this from the numbers?

1. 163-5./I.R.220 (Can this number means - soldier no. – company no. – Infantry Regiment no. 220?

2. 146-2./Vet.E.A.9 – and what can this number means?

Regards
Ove Kronborg
User avatar
Matt L
Contributor
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by Matt L »

Hi Ove,

First, the Erkennungsmarke bore the unit, usually a replacement unit, a soldier joined when he entered the Wehrmacht, his personal number (Stammrollennummer) and, after some time in 1941, his blood group letter(s).

You are right about your first disc:

1) 5. Kompanie/ Infanterie Regiment 220, Stammrollennummer 163.

The second one is:

2) 2. Kompanie/ Veterenaer Ersatz Abteilung 9, Stammrollennummer 146 (this was a veteranary unit that would have cared for the Wehrmacht's horses, for example). This particular unit was located in Friedberg, WK IX.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate- "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'' William of Ockham
Ove Kronborg
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:01 am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Erkennungsmarke

Post by Ove Kronborg »

Hi Matt

Thank you very much for your answer. You have cleared my doubt about the numbers.

Regards
Ove
User avatar
Matt L
Contributor
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by Matt L »

Any time Ove- glad I could help.

Matt
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate- "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'' William of Ockham
Post Reply