repurposed erkennungsmarken?

[josephc]

I purchased a pair of german ID. discs off eBay from seller who said they were from estate of us serviceman that served in Italy. They have markings on both sides and appear to be from same original group. The side with personnel numbers has lines through it while the opposite side does not have personnel numbers yet.

Any iinsight on these and has this been seen before or is this someone practicing reproduction.

[josephc]

If I am translating one side of disc correctly as 5th Res Flak Regiment 435 - I found the following - "5th Flak Division: Formed on 9/1/41, it was assigned service in the Balkans and norhtern Italy. In 1943/44 it was in Rumania and defended
Ploesti. In June 1944, assisted by Rumanian and Bulgarian Flak, it wasunder the General Command of the Luftwaffe Rumania. Id Defended" So lines up with the Italy story.

[BlackCat1982]

If I am translating one side of disc correctly as 5th Res Flak Regiment 435 - I found the following - "5th Flak Division: Formed on 9/1/41, it was assigned service in the Balkans and norhtern Italy. In 1943/44 it was in Rumania and defended
Ploesti. In June 1944, assisted by Rumanian and Bulgarian Flak, it wasunder the General Command of the Luftwaffe Rumania. Id Defended" So lines up with the Italy story.

Sorry, I only just saw this post. Actually the unit reads as 5th batterie of Res Flak Abt 435. Formed in August 1939 in Dessau. The unit moved to Frankfurt am Main eingesetzt. In July of 1942 the unit was renamed as Schwere Flak-Abteilung 435 (o). The other MG unit I have not located yet. But I see no reason to think that there is anything wrong with this. Both fine to me.

[Eike41]

I think the tag is fine. It is interesting that it was re-purposed then never issued the second time.