Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

German flame thrower attacks


Terry_Reeves

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MBrockway said:

Bob - I love your posts!  Great to see you back and hope the storms - meteorological and administrative - all blow over soon!  :thumbsup:

Mark

 

Sorry but I asked a specific question and with a couple of exceptions most of the responses have had nothing to do with the subject. If you wish to gossip, do it privately and not on my thread, because that is just plain rude!

 

Thank you

 

TR (really pissed off)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bob lembke said:

Jan; my work is conservative and careful. FW attacks succeded perhaps 60% of the time. Often modest results. But sometimes spectacular. I am working from memory several years back. In one case at Verdun a flame attack swallowed a French brigade, the brigade and two regiment HQ captured in their dugouts, Brigade only managed to get out a one sentence warning phone call before flame troops occupied the HQ. French command suspected treachery (Reg. CO an ethnic German). French histories barely mentioned this, brigade erased from the rolls of the Army. The brigade had been in line too long, probably. What was the box score? Maybe three flame troopers lost, maybe 4000 French POWs. How many MGs and Field pieces? Big actions in Russia, also. 

 

Got out to run and pay a shoveler. 

 

Jan, I will give you the figures in confidence, and sources. But the "box score" was spectacular. However, if you had lots and lots of FW, the Allies would have worked harder on countermeasures. Part of the success was due to FW attacks being infrequent. 

Bob

 

Stop this please, I have asked a specific question to which you clearly have no knowledge. Come back again when and if you have some pertinent information. 

 

I am really getting fed up with this rudeness now.

 

TR

Edited by Terry_Reeves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry;

 

if if you hear of a flame attack, give me the date and sector, and I can give you what I have. I have a timeline of the flame attacks that may be 1000 pages long. I might only have a few details, in others a lot, even possibly from Brit war diaries, as well as from German sources. 

 

Please understand, the flame regiment was personally supported out of the purse of the Kaiser and Crown Prince, before the High Command believed in the weapon. When the Crown Prince chatted with the men, he (from his memoire) had an officer of his staff detailed to carry a supply of cigarettes for the men. My father told me that he often caged cigarettes from Wilhelm. The men noticed that if one OR told the Crown Prince of a personal problem, he might see him two months later, and Wilhelm would remember the conversation and pick up the topic, the problem, that they had discussed. As I said, the men wore Wilhelm's personal insignia; the Totenkopf, from his stint in the Death Heads' Hussars. (I believe that two of the Kaiser's sons were wounded in combat, my maternal grandmother, a communist, spoke to one in the Royal Gardens when he was recuperating.)

 

To to say that that unit was some sort of trick murder unit to kill men the Command wanted dead without a trial is disgusting and hardly the statement of a gentleman. I know it is not a favorite topic, but the four German Armies, over the four and a third years of the war, shot 12 men for military offenses. The much smaller British Army scentenced about 3300 to death, but I know actually shot only a fraction.  I asked a current colonel in the German General Staff (also a diplomat) about the matter, and he said that the Prussian Army generally ended corporal punishment about 1843, and if something like it was inflicted it had to be done in private to spare the punished man embarrassment. My father (quite happily) killed his company commander, an awful officer, the officers knew it, and his only punishment was that the only award he got during the war was his wound badge (he got his Iron Cross in 1921), and he was not promoted to NCO, although he commanded a small unit. And the men who killed him were given barrels of beer three days after the murder. 

 

If Foulkes were in front of me today (alive) I would bitch-slap him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

 

Bearing in mind that the French suffered flame attack some months earlier than the Hooge episode, it might be relevant to mention that their medical records cite 951 casualties due to liquid fire. This is for the entire war.

 

If that's the total number of recorded French cases, then it's hard to see how the British total for the Hooge attack could have been more than a fraction of that.

 

Of course, the difference between the recorded number of cases admitted to medical care, and the actual number of men who were burnt, is moot.

 

The fate of the victims must have been - in the main - unrecorded ; their bodies were probably not recovered, let alone identified.

 

Phil

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry; 

 

 I wrote the last before I saw what you wrote. 

 

I I am offering to spare a bit of my remaining days and assist you with your work, from my 16 years of intense work on this, and you state that I am rude?

 

i will cease this discussion. You wanted aid on the topic of German flame attacks against British units, I have offered to put my work aside and help you (I could immodestly state that I probably one of the two people in the world that know the most about German Great War FW), and I am rude? To offer you help from sources probably inaccessible to you?

 

Words fail me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

Terry,

 

Bearing in mind that the French suffered flame attack some months earlier than the Hooge episode, it might be relevant to mention that their medical records cite 951 casualties due to liquid fire. This is for the entire war.

 

If that's the total number of recorded French cases, then it's hard to see how the British total for the Hooge attack could have been more than a fraction of that.

 

Of course, the difference between the recorded number of cases admitted to medical care, and the actual number of men who were burnt, is moot.

 

The fate of the victims must have been - in the main - unrecorded ; their bodies were probably not recovered, let alone identified.

 

Phil

 

 

phil

 

Thanks for your information, appreciated.

 

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bob lembke said:

Terry; 

 

 I wrote the last before I saw what you wrote. 

 

I I am offering to spare a bit of my remaining days and assist you with your work, from my 16 years of intense work on this, and you state that I am rude?

 

i will cease this discussion. You wanted aid on the topic of German flame attacks against British units, I have offered to put my work aside and help you (I could immodestly state that I probably one of the two people in the world that know the most about German Great War FW), and I am rude? To offer you help from sources probably inaccessible to you?

 

Words fail me. 

Bob

 

With respect,  you need to check what you have posted which has had nothing to do with my request. You will note that I have been prepared to listen to what you have said but you still persist in having what amounts to private conversations within the thread. Sorry, but that is out of order.

 

I would like to repeat my original request , I would like to hear from anyone who has come across reports in British battalion war diaries of such attacks and if there are any reports of casualties specifically caused by flame throwers. I have already said that I think that the latter may have been recorded in the general casualty state, but it is worth a try.  

 

Thank you

 

TR

 

TR

Edited by Terry_Reeves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

My knowledge about these flamethrower attacks is mainly limited to the Gheluvelt area during Third Ypres. At least from November 1917 on, I. Battalion Garde-Reserve-Pionier-Regiment (with No 6 and 12 Companies) was attached to the German 4th Army. This seems to have been the case since July/August, although I can't find the unit in the official orders of battle of the 4th Army.

 

Small scale (counter) attacks were regular, usually some flame throwers, some men of Sturm Bataillon 4 and some men of the front line units (usually supported by the regimental or divisional storm troops). The flame throwers never attacked on their own, but they tried making the gap in which other units could infiltrate and roll up the enemy lines. F.i. 24 August 1917 near Herenthage Wood (against 6/DCLI, also 10/KOYLI, 6/SLI and 10/DLI), 27 August 1917 (same area) against 41st Brigade, 9 September 1917 (same area) against 8/QORWK, 30 September 1917 north of the Menin Road against 13/RF and 9/Y&L and 8 December 1917 near Polderhoek Chateau against 2/Bedfordshire (this last attack is a disaster as both flame throwers are put out of action immediately) and 14 December near Polderhoek Chateau against 18/Manchester (one of the British POWs was wounded and died in Moorsele, where he was buried. He has an unknown grave, but the CWGC doesn't want to accept my identification of the grave).

(bear in mind that these are attacks near Gheluvelt from which I certainly know that flame throwers were used, there may have been more)

 

As the attacks were always supported by infantry, it is very difficult to establish the exact number of flame thrower casualties.

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, will repost this

 

If you input "liquid fire" into the British Newspaper Archive between dates 4/8/1914 and 31/12/1918 you get quite a number of results, including this one that mentions a flame attack against a Black Watch battalion (not sure which battalion, 8th or 9th?) at Monchy on 28/3/1918. Might be worth checking the diary of this date (if you can figure out which battalion referred to) or worth searching some of the other newspaper articles.

 

Mike

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike;

 

The attack at Monchy le Preux was led by Lt. Schade, of the 10th Company, GRPR, attacking trenches, MG nests, dugouts. No men lost on the 28th, but on the 29th Pionier Johann Haber fell in fighting at that place. Being led by a Lt. And not an Oberleutnant suggests that the attacking force was a platoon, with about eight light Wex flamethrowers. Each FW would have had a second tank that could be attached with quick change couplers in seconds. 

 

My my only source for above was Reddemann's history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry  I posted this earlier today but it seems to have been lost in the forum update.

 

14 Jul 1916 Bazentin Ridge - 8th Leics . Co Sjt Major Stafford reported they were met with heavy resistance and the enemy treated them severely with liquid fire , bombs and machine guns.

 

21 March 1918 Epehy - 7th Leics. The defence of Fir Support was conducted by 2 Lt Wright with about 20 men against numerous bombing attacks in one of which flame throwers were used but these were stopped on our own wire by rifle fire and the cylinders , catching light , the enemy were burnt with their own weapons.

 

From "The Tigers" Matthew Richardson and supported by War Diary entries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellis1918

 

Many thanks , it is very useful.  I did manage to record you information before the self-destruct came into play but thanks for taking the trouble to post again.

 

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reassuring - albeit frustrating - to read that there has been some stuff eradicated from the threads. I thought I was going mad.

 

There were a couple of posts that I made....it's as if some kind of flammenwerther has destroyed them !

 

Consider the story of the  August 1917  Battle of Lens, and the German counter attacks at Hill 70.

 

The Canadians were confronted by some fairly intense FW activity.

 

Might be worth looking into.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Skipman said:

For what it's worth, will repost this

 

If you input "liquid fire" into the British Newspaper Archive between dates 4/8/1914 and 31/12/1918 you get quite a number of results, including this one that mentions a flame attack against a Black Watch battalion (not sure which battalion, 8th or 9th?) at Monchy on 28/3/1918. Might be worth checking the diary of this date (if you can figure out which battalion referred to) or worth searching some of the other newspaper articles.
 

Mike


Of the 39 deaths listed on CWGC for the 28th of March, 28 are of the 9th Btn.

Cheers,
Derek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saved my posts before the self destruct, but unfortunately they were replying to posts made by Andy and his pictures did not get saved.  I know you have the 14th Div 22-27 Aug 1917 material anyway, but I'll try and reconstruct the posts properly tomorrow.

 

Thanks to Bob, we have some additional material about a tank being destroyed by Flammenwerfer on the north edge of Inverness Copse on 24 Aug 1917, not by artillery fire as in the British war diary.  We're just confirming some of the detail.

 

Mark

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phil andrade said:

 

Consider the story of the  August 1917  Battle of Lens, and the German counter attacks at Hill 70.

 

The Canadians were confronted by some fairly intense FW activity.

 

Might be worth looking into.

 

Phil

 

Again from memory from perhaps five years ago, but I believe my FW timeline has a good deal on this.

 

I just got into my FW timeline for the first time in about four years and dug out some info on the German FW attack on a day cited by two Pals, and I dug out the name of the Leutnant leading the attack, the size of the flame unit, the name and rank of the one dead flame trooper, and the day he died. As happened often, the one dead Pionier was killed the next day; often it seems that Allied shelling of captured positions on the next day killed more FW troops that in the actual attack. 

 

On on the day of attack, often one or two FW would open up, Allied artillery would be trained on that site, and once they opened up the real FW attack happened perhaps 600 meters down the line, and the FW teams at the point of the demonstration were in a dugout. By the time the artillery could re-aim, the defenders at the point of attack had run away, and the FW troops were in the first and perhaps the second line. My father told me that the French usually ran off; I don't think that he ever fought the British, except at Gallipoli. 

 

Give me me a date for the attack on Hill 70 at Lens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father was trained to fight tanks, but not with the FW, but with the geballtne Ladnung, a device made by wiring six more warheads around the warhead of a "potato masher" grenade. (Sometimes 12 additional warheads were wired to the central one and its fuse, but that device was quite heavy.)

 

One guy in his class knocked out three tanks in two days. He lay in a shell hole and picked out a tank with an open hatch from the heat; when it passed he ran to the rear and grabbed the tread, which pulled him to the top. The geballtne Ladnung went in the hatch. The potato masher was an extremely powerful concussion grenade, seven exploding in a tank must have been frightful. I examined a Mark V on the floor of the IWM, and the "tread elevator " trick seems possible. More to this story, quite interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks; my German is entirely self-taught, not a day of classes, and I have been largely away from my WW I studies for 3-4 years, although I puttered about on the Forum a bit. However, that is a quirk that I also do in English, and the family lore says I did when I was two; I slip in additional syllables. I did it then, and I do it now. My mother and I almost got stuck in a camp in 1942 by Naval Intelligence, but we were saved by my father's boss, a US Navy Captain, so my mother made sure that I did not learn German when I was young, although my parents used it at home to some degree. 

 

So. Mike, l always appreciate your professional German. When I taught myself Serbo-Croatian I used books and studied the relatively simple grammar, with German and Flemish utterly without the structure of a text, and it shows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, phil andrade said:

Reassuring - albeit frustrating - to read that there has been some stuff eradicated from the threads. I thought I was going mad.

 

There were a couple of posts that I made....it's as if some kind of flammenwerther has destroyed them !

 

Consider the story of the  August 1917  Battle of Lens, and the German counter attacks at Hill 70.

 

The Canadians were confronted by some fairly intense FW activity.

 

Might be worth looking into.

 

Phil

 

Looked into my timeline, and for Lens and Hill 70 the only FW attack seems to have been on August 18, a counter-attack sort of early morning raid, and the only description was from a Canadian source!

Unless I missed something transposing Major Reddemann's history, he is silent, and as a FW and seemingly a FW soldier were captured in that attack by the Canadians, the attack probably was from some other unit that had FW. ( Towards the end of the war FW began to be distributed to other units than the G=R=P=R, and Reddemann barely or perhaps never discussed this measure.) In this period, from other sources, I began to see accounts of "half-assed" FW attacks, without mention in Reddemann-controlled sources. Probably a turf fight. Here it looks like the attack was done by some other unit with FW, perhaps a storm battalion other than Rohr. I have entered the Rohr flame attacks mentioned in its history. 

 

At at exactly the same time, at Riga at the Russian Front, the 3rd and 7th companies under Hauptmann Beck did two attacks, one with 84 FW, a second with 101 light Wex FW, and caved in the front, and 8900 prisoners and 325 cannon were captured, also a heap of MGs. One can imagine the impact of 101 FW against probably second-class troops, as most Russian troops probably were. I am sure that this battle also helped lead to the second, Bolshevik Revolution. 

 

"AOK4", battles like that helped lead to 60,000 POWs in 40 attacks, although I excluded from the sample about three battles that were just too large, although in them FW played an important role, and many prisoners were taken   If French troops would usually run when attacked by 8 FW, what would Russian troops do when hit by 101 or 154 FW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These large hauls of prisoners that Bob mentions suggest that the prospect of facing the flames induced men to surrender rather than be burnt alive.

 

There were such episodes recorded at Verdun , I think ....if memory serves, the best part of an entire French regiment surrendered in early July 1916 in a sector where the Germans deployed their FWs.

 

With this in mind, I am wondering if the Germans recorded significant captures of British soldiers in the Hooge attack that has become notorious as the first such ordeal faced by Tommy Atkins.

 

My earlier allusion to the statement of Lionel Sotheby  that Germans used petrol bombs against the British wounded at Aubers on 9 May 1915 was a casualty of the obliteration of posts yesterday.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Skipman said:

For what it's worth, will repost this

 

If you input "liquid fire" into the British Newspaper Archive between dates 4/8/1914 and 31/12/1918 you get quite a number of results, including this one that mentions a flame attack against a Black Watch battalion (not sure which battalion, 8th or 9th?) at Monchy on 28/3/1918. Might be worth checking the diary of this date (if you can figure out which battalion referred to) or worth searching some of the other newspaper articles.

 

Mike

 

Mike, thanks.

 

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43rd Infantry Brigade appendices for the attack on 24th August 1917, as it went missing thought you might like it back.

 

Andy

DSC01687.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...