Been trying to ID a French family that included a couple around 30 years old with a small child about 2. The family aided Don Rich when he was hit by MG fire on the west bank of the Canal a Flot. The family was in their home and the home was getting hit by enemy fire. There apparently was enemy sniper fire coming from the west, but Don seemed to think it was more than that. Most of the enemy fire was coming from MG positions along the Canal near the marina area on the east bank. There may have been a couple of Mark II's near the base of the Canal. In the pic, there is a farm house near where today I think there is some sort of racetrack. That is one possible location and fits Don's descriptions better of crawling through open areas. The other is the house near the north end of the canal near where the Douve River is. However, that doesn't really fit Don's description of later getting to the River. Another soldier with a calf wound like Don's (opposite leg) walked back arm in arm with Don (three legged) to get to a boat to row across where they were further patched up before going back to England. Anyone have contacts to see who that family might have been?
Not able to help with your quest, but would like to point out there is not a shred of evidence to support the presence of any Pz.II in any German unit in the area. Of course most period identification attempts of enemy armor are poor if not completely incorrect. Determining what really was encountered is difficult since it would depend on what the claim was based on. Rate of (canon) fire encountered? Actual observations of armored vehicles? The answers to such questions could help understand why 'Mark II' were mentioned, but it could have been a complete guess just as easily.
It's in two different 327 reports I have. Going on memory, one reports mentions a Mark II and the other a Mark III. It does not say whether or not it was visually confirmed. The position was placed near the base of the Marina. [hr] Stand alone. Isolated.
First rule when it comes to identifying enemy armor: ignore all the friendly reports Unless there is a very, very, very good reason to trust one, any claim of a "Mark X" should be considered 90% unreliable and 20% useful (to get some sort of impression of what kind of armor they faced). A simple report mentioning encountering "Mark X" is not one of those in the 'very, very, very good reason' catagorie. "Mark III" however does make sense however. I'd be interested in reading the exact phrasing and context. PS: As for refering to equipment I always prefer to use the name given by the builder/user (German if German, US when US). So not Mark II but Panzer II, e.g. in a photo caption. If it is not clear what they actually encountered staying close to the reports is important, which in this case would be "Mark II" not Mark II, since the latter gives a falls impression of accuracy. It's similar to reports of being under "88 fire". Claims can be correct, but without evidence it is better to simply quote the orignal claims. If you're sure: Panzer II If you're quoting: "Mark II" If you're not sure, quote: "Mark II" The latter is by far the most useful when working from reports or accounts without photographic evidence. And it saves you a lot of time researching and explaining what you write. Hey, I was just quoting!
It will take me some time to find the 2 references. I have about 1/3 of the records from National Archives II and that is a bunch. I also never found where they actually encountered it but were going off intelligence. The 2nd BN experts on German vehicles were S2 Tom Niland and Don Rich of G Co. Tom chose Don, not his scout squad. I also know at Ophuesden 2 different reports call the same tanks Mark II and Mark III. I do find this interesting and hope I can get it for you soon. Hey no offense taken. I don't pretend to be an expert but am trying to rebuild the memory of the 327. Input appreciated! You are also welcome to contact me offline. With 6 kids, a full time job and a part time job, this isn't a great priority at the moment.