[Brin]

LAH,
Many thanks for the information, it is fully appreciated, along with any more you are able to uncover.
Mostly agree with the concept regarding the issue of new tanks within a company. The only exception being for an individual tank commander who prefers his 'trusted' earlier tank model, over a new 'unproven' and ‘upgraded’ design. In this I’m referring to the newer exhaust arrangement on the Ausf. M for deeper wading, affecting the engine performance and perceived reliability. Additionally the Ausf. M variant had no hull escape hatches for the driver or the radio operator/MG gunner, which would not endear it to an experienced crew already having used previous variants inclusive of these. Given the lack of any major performance advances between the Ausf. M to the L, I'm not sure if the R.H.I.P. top-down approach to distribution is fully appropiate in this instance. Which is why I had guessed on an Ausf. L, plus the relatively very small quantities of Ausf. Ms that were ever produced to completion before Feb. 1943, irrespective of the time taken (in weeks) by train to deliver these to the frontline in Russia. But fully agree with your point of direct replacement for damaged in-operable units, and happy to have my guess proved incorrect by substantiated evidence.

Did have a browse of Osprey’s New Vanguard Issue 27 ‘Panzerkampfwagen III Medium Tank 1936-44, which shows an artist’s impression of #555 having red numerals to the sides of the turret and white outlined numbers with open ends on the stowage box. Fully appreciate that this is only an artist’s impression, and so not a credible source of evidence. Yellow is a very good choice, and appears very similar to white in B&W photos.

Do you know who the tank commander of #061 at Kharkov was?
Do you have an order of battle for the abteilung stab and the aufklaerung zug?

Geek44
If only I was an expert….. I’m not, it is more of a case that I tend to closely read information of interest, but when authors publish material without a reference it is difficult to ascertain what is interpretation of fact over bias/fiction. As a result I tend to cross-reference a lot to confirm validity, in the hope of eliminating any myths or errors. An aspect much easier in the case of WW2 material given the proliferation of photography. Even though the camera can be made to produce altered/bias data, it is still in most instances a valid primary source.