German flame thrower attacks

[stiletto_33853]

Not so sure I fully understand you Bob. To the best of my knowledge and according to Thomas Wictor in his excellent book "Flamethrower Troops of World War 1" there was only one attack on the British in 1915. This being by the 9th Company of the 3rd Guard Pioneer Battalion at Hooge on the 30th July 1915 against the 14th Division (8th rifle Brigade by the Crater and 7th Kings Royal Rifle Corps to their right) who had only taken the trenches over fully some 3 to 4 hours earlier. However the British were aware of the attacks on the French and exchanged correspondence with the French High Command on how the French had dealt with these attacks. The responses came from the French in the first few days of August 1915. Hardly just bending over and taking it.

The next attack seemingly was on 9th September at the Hartmannsweilkopf carried out by  the 9th and 10th Companies of the 3rd Guard Pioneer Battalion on French Troops.

British war diaries are seemingly far more full of details than you remember, or there are more available now than 12 years ago.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 April , 2017 by stiletto_33853

[MBrockway]

3 hours ago, bob lembke said:

 

 What Mark has been attributing to me is now beginning to form.

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

Mark

[bob lembke]

4 hours ago, stiletto_33853 said:

Not so sure I fully understand you Bob. To the best of my knowledge and according to Thomas Wictor in his excellent book "Flamethrower Troops of World War 1" there was only one attack on the British in 1915. This being by the 9th Company of the 3rd Guard Pioneer Battalion at Hooge on the 30th July 1915 against the 14th Division (8th rifle Brigade by the Crater and 7th Kings Royal Rifle Corps to their right) who had only taken the trenches over fully some 3 to 4 hours earlier. However the British were aware of the attacks on the French and exchanged correspondence with the French High Command on how the French had dealt with these attacks. The responses came from the French in the first few days of August 1915. Hardly just bending over and taking it.

The next attack seemingly was on 9th September at the Hartmannsweilkopf carried out by  the 9th and 10th Companies of the 3rd Guard Pioneer Battalion on French Troops.

British war diaries are seemingly far more full of details than you remember, or there are more available now than 12 years ago.

 

Andy

 

Andy;

 

Tom wrote that Hooge was the only flame attack on UK troops in all of 1915? I have never tried to calculate that, but my initial response is

to be careful with his assertions. He knows a great deal about FW, but I feel that there are reasons to be careful with some of his assertions

and conclusions. I worked with Tom for about a year on that book, and when we "parted company" he pleaded with me to not publicize the

events that led to our "parting of the ways". But I have been informed that he is now stating on his website that he worked with me on the

book in order to steal my material. I was recently approached by a former British commando, who does not know me from a heap of beans,

but was offended by what Tom was writing about me online. The former commando wrote Tom to protest what he was writing about me,

although he did not know me, and Tom, probably emboldened by 7000 miles of space between them, responded by insulting the commando's

wife, who I assume he has never met. (I have seen a photo of this ex-commando, and know a bit about his hobbies, and I would urge Tom

to actually go to some lengths to avoid the company of the former UK serviceman. He is not happy about Tom's insulting his wife, although I

do not know  the exact nature of those insults.)

 

But perhaps the Germans did only throw one flame attack against the British in all of 1915. After writing this I may look at my materials and

see what they say. On the face of it it seems curious.

 

I have clearly read British command advice to units that the potentially harmful effects of FW licking at your lapels could be minimized by 

bending over and allow the flames to roll over you. I hardly know if the British command actually believed such nonsense, or if they offered this

advice to give the field units some false assurance. It is possible that the (to me, the engineer) brain-dead use of compressed air and even

(shudder) oxygen as FW propellants led the command to this painfully erroneous idea, as using an accelerant as a propellant would lead to a

spectacular display of flame, probably well short of the enemy, a premature consumption of the fuel, and shortened range. The use of heavy

oil and inert nitrogen propellant would lead to the victims being splattered with burning heavy oil, not toasted with a brush of flame, or perhaps

not reached. Perhaps being toasted with a British FW might make that advice somewhat sensible, faced with the German FW design, it would

be useless advice. But I suspect that, not having a sensible answer, that suggestion was put out, to stroke the troops and field officers.

 

I now have completed reading the roughly 100 pages and 1000 separate entries in my FW timeline for 1917, and I have to observe that

I read entries from dozens and dozens of French war diaries and unit histories, and possibly over 100 mention being subjected to a serious

German FW attack, sometimes beaten off, sometimes devastating, and less, but still dozens, accounts of French FW being utilized. It seems

that, for 1917, I must have read 30 or 50 or more French unit histories and war diaries, many more than the number of UK documents.

 

Again, I know that the Germans launched more FW attacks against the French than against UK troops, but I am struck by seeing dozens

and dozens of French mentions of FW attacks, but then still (almost) utter silence from the still many, if less, British sources.

 

Some more significant FW attacks against UK troops in 1917. God will three-fold bless anyone looking up the relevant war diaries.

 

August 24-26, 1917 - Herenthage Castle Park - Turns out that I have a major German source, volume 4 of the history of IR Nr. 30. On page

120 is the destruction of a tank, or seemingly destruction, by a FW. Pages of description of a major FW attack. 11 FW troopers killed, a very

high number, indicating intense flame attacks. At least 5-6 pages of description of that fighting on those days.

 

December 30, 1917  -  Marcoing  -  16 FW part of an attack in which an "English strong point" 1200 meters wide, 400 meters deep was

captured, and 250 POWs taken.  

 

[stiletto_33853]

Bob,

 

In his timeline there are no further attacks lets put it that way. I am unaware of further attacks in 1915 on British troops, but my sphere of interest regarding these attacks is limited to certain areas, of particular interest to me is July 1915 at Hooge and August 1917 with the attack by the 14th Division.

 

I am sorry that you seem to have differences with Tom, not speaking German I have too use what resources are available to me and anything that comes from these resources has to be checked. I regret not being able to speak German as I am sure there are vast resources out there, my languages are limited to English and Gulf Arabic from spending a lot of time there with work, or did. 

 

Andy

Edited 5 April , 2017 by stiletto_33853

[MBrockway]

Bob,

It is always prudent to avoid putting into print statements that could draw down legal action on our beloved Forum.

 

Thomas Wiktor's site does contain controversial political material, that many will find offensive, and a wider reading of his website beyond the flamethrower material does not make me warm to the man, but there was nothing I could find explicitly about yourself. 

 

Your father's thoughts on what he saw on the Italian Front are covered and there is photograph of him at Verdun from 1916.

 

You are not mentioned by name as far as I could find, but there is this oblique reference to you in describing his sources:

Quote

Additional material for German Flamethrower Pioneers of World War I was gleaned from the German national archives and patent office, the British and American national archives, museums, contemporary newspapers, unit histories of both the Central and Allied powers, soldiers’ memoirs, and the author’s conversations with the son of a former flamethrower operator.

 

Mark

 

[MBrockway]

7 hours ago, bob lembke said:

I have clearly read British command advice to units that the potentially harmful effects of FW licking at your lapels could be minimized by 

bending over and allow the flames to roll over you. I hardly know if the British command actually believed such nonsense, or if they offered this

advice to give the field units some false assurance. It is possible that the (to me, the engineer) brain-dead use of compressed air and even

(shudder) oxygen as FW propellants led the command to this painfully erroneous idea, as using an accelerant as a propellant would lead to a

spectacular display of flame, probably well short of the enemy, a premature consumption of the fuel, and shortened range. The use of heavy

oil and inert nitrogen propellant would lead to the victims being splattered with burning heavy oil, not toasted with a brush of flame, or perhaps

not reached. Perhaps being toasted with a British FW might make that advice somewhat sensible, faced with the German FW design, it would

be useless advice. But I suspect that, not having a sensible answer, that suggestion was put out, to stroke the troops and field officers.

 

 

 

Bob,

Did you make a note of your source for this British command advice?

 

That's exactly the material we're seeking.

 

 

[MBrockway]

7 hours ago, bob lembke said:

Again, I know that the Germans launched more FW attacks against the French than against UK troops, but I am struck by seeing dozens

and dozens of French mentions of FW attacks, but then still (almost) utter silence from the still many, if less, British sources.

 

Some more significant FW attacks against UK troops in 1917. God will three-fold bless anyone looking up the relevant war diaries.

 

August 24-26, 1917 - Herenthage Castle Park - Turns out that I have a major German source, volume 4 of the history of IR Nr. 30. On page

120 is the destruction of a tank, or seemingly destruction, by a FW. Pages of description of a major FW attack. 11 FW troopers killed, a very

high number, indicating intense flame attacks. At least 5-6 pages of description of that fighting on those days.

 

Bob,

Are you saying that  ...

1. Flammenwerfer are not mentioned in the British war diaries covering the 22-29 Aug 1917 actions around Herenthage Castle Park and Inverness Copse
2. We have not already posted extracts of the British battalion and Brigade war diaries covering the same higher up this Topic

I'm a bit confused.

 

Mark

 

[MBrockway]

On 17/03/2017 at 19:36, bob lembke said:

 

I am trying to get away from this. 

 

Since 2000, when I found my father's and grandfathers letters, I estimate I have read material in German for near to 10,000 hours. I have worked in 11 languages in this WW I study, most of them only a bit, like reading and translating half a book by an Italian FW sergeant. (I have no Italian.)

 

i I have bought 110 German Official Histories, 60 Rangelisten, hundreds of other books. Few are in English.  I have produced two highly condensed timelines that total about 1200 pages, enough for five or more books. 

 

I have about 100 pages written by Reddemann. But he did publish in those 100 pages a list of almost every flame attack, and a list of each man who died in his regiment. So it was frequently consulted. 

 

A a friend published a book on heavy German guns, and I went thru about 50 books and book-length reports and documents and took pertinent notes. One book was in English. (By a Luxembourgisch professor.) The rest in German, French, and Flemish. 

 

Only 100 pages of source material for my work?

 

i may not have read a secondary source in ten years. 

 

On 04/04/2017 at 09:52, MBrockway said:

A digital copy if Bernhard Reddemann's Geschichte der deutschen Flammenwerfer-Truppe is available here:

Bernhard Reddemann: Geschichte der deutschen Flammenwerfer-Truppe

 

 ... but frustratingly, only the first 14 pages

 

Here at least is the Contents page ...

 

From the descriptions of its detailed analyses of the 650 or so FW attacks by these units, I was expecting a very large volume and was quite surprised to see it only has 50 odd pages.  That includes a Roll of Honour, which must take 5-10 of those.

 

Does anyone have this book and could they comment on the research value of Reddemann's tables that Bob has described?

 

Does anyone know of a full digital copy anywhere?

 

I tried the Bod catalogue, but it's offline just now.

 

Mark

 

 

Bob,

Are the 100 pages of material authored by Reddemann you mention above solely his 50-60 page Geschichte der deutschen Flammenwerfer-Truppe, or do you have other Reddemann source material as well?

[MBrockway]

8 hours ago, bob lembke said:

August 24-26, 1917 - Herenthage Castle Park - Turns out that I have a major German source, volume 4 of the history of IR Nr. 30. On page

120 is the destruction of a tank, or seemingly destruction, by a FW. Pages of description of a major FW attack. 11 FW troopers killed, a very

high number, indicating intense flame attacks. At least 5-6 pages of description of that fighting on those days.

 

 

Is that ..

Band 4 of Die Geschichte des Infanterie-Regiments Graf Werder (4. rhein.) Nr. 30 im Weltkriege 1914 - 18, by Ernst Schmidt ?

 

Looks like there's a copy in the IWM library Andy:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1504003487

 

 ... but not only is it German, it's in Fraktur!   If you photographed 5 pages either side of p.120, I could certainly give a partial translation good enough for our 14th (Light) Div purposes.

 

Mark

[bob lembke]

I do not want to discuss Thomas Wiktor any more in public, I was just warning you that, based on working with him

for probably a bit short of a year on the FW book cited, he has some intellectual quirks that made me increasingly

uncomfortable with the collaboration and anticipated joint publication. I have seen similar, parallel curious mental

processing in his writings on-line on the Middle East mess. I did consider his reaction if he would read that post,

both from the perspective of my liability and that of the Forum. I know that UK libel laws are such that they encourage

claimants to sue people in the UK, but the Forum has no way to screen what I posted, of my free will. If the moderators

think it prudent to take down my comment, they certainly could do so. I was just trying to warn you, based on many

months' working with him on this topic, he has intellectual quirks that might lead to curious conclusions, despite him

having a great deal of FW material at hand. I have not looked at his site in 18 months, or more.

 

I was approached by this British gentleman, the ex-commando, who saw material on his on-line site that so offended

him, despite him not knowing me, that he wrote TW protesting the offensive material; TW supposedly responded by

insulting the ex-commando's wife. Then the gentleman contacted me to alert me to the fact that TW was slandering me,

or otherwise was writing offensive material about me. (I have purposefully not given more information about this gentleman,

if I did I suspect that you might know who he is.) I should go back and print off my exchange with this gentleman. TW's

comments must have specifically identified me, as I could not otherwise see how the British gentleman could reach out to

me. So I assume that TW took down that material, which I gather was boasting how he got FW historical material from me,

from his site. (I have not looked at his site for 18 months or more, as I said above, I did not bother to do so when the Brit

alerted me to the material.)  I think we should drop this topic.

 

I guess that I will have to go thru my material and find the British command statement or statements that so struck me

when I read them. It is quite clear in my head. I of course forget things, but have a very good memory, generally, and drive

my wife crazy then I recall conversations at table in Jugoslavija 50 years ago, and recall the price of dishes to the cent;

at the restaurant of the Slovene Fish and Game Association, a block from my apartment, the roast wild boar dinner,

$1.23; at the Black Cat Cafe, dinner with Zora, our tri-lingual secretary, and police spy; the filet mignon dinner, two

filets and sides, $0.86. A large fruit and whipped cream filled dessert egg omelet, $0.31. 30 seconds after ordering it,

you could hear the beating of the fresh whipped cream, steel whisk against the bowl, coming from the kitchen. This was

February 1967. (Zora was the first of six "honeypot" agents, five female, one male, sent to me by the Jugoslav State

Security Service over a period of 13 years, attempting to "turn" me.) 

 

I was asked about something I was alluding to. Someone, Mike I think, was hinting (I thought) that I was hinting that 

there was some sort of mechanism by which UK war diaries were purposefully not mentioning FW attacks. My mind 

was not there, yet, but I am now very struck by the dozens and dozens, perhaps over 100, French mentions, with detail, 

of being struck by serious FW attacks in 1917. Mention is made of the activity of single FW operators, of effects of the

flames on men and blowing up stores of grenades or flares. These mentions being made in war diaries, and also in 

unit histories, which, curiously, are often only 16 or 20 pages long. (The full IR. 30 history I recently mentioned must 

run to 1200-1500 pages, in four or five volumes.) The French were acutely aware of people spraying 90' long streams

of fire into their trenches and dugouts, burning people and exploding things, did not like it,  and bothered to mention these

events in a 16 page unit history that covers the history of a regiment of four battalions across the whole Great War..

I hope we can find a single clear mention of a FW attack in a British war diary. (Have we, so far? Probably Hooge, the first.)

 

Last night I carefully read the section on the attack on Kemmel, which was about 15 pages long, in the recent (1995)

German/Austrian history of the Alpine Corps, really an elite mountain division. My quick first skim, done standing in

a corridor in a precarious position, was encouraging, many mentions of "fire". My careful reading found several specific

mentions of FW, but "fire" was generally more related to "rifle fire" or "fires set by an artillery barrage. The overall experience

re-enforces why I almost never read secondary sources. It does mention FW employment, but never specifically states where,

it does mention the concrete "English barracks", and that "most" of the prisoners were French, and the capture of a French

and an English "regimental commander".And the book mentions Rommel, and two pictures related to him. That's puzzling.  

[AOK4]

49 minutes ago, bob lembke said:

Last night I carefully read the section on the attack on Kemmel, which was about 15 pages long, in the recent (1995)

German/Austrian history of the Alpine Corps, really an elite mountain division. My quick first skim, done standing in

a corridor in a precarious position, was encouraging, many mentions of "fire". My careful reading found several specific

mentions of FW, but "fire" was generally more related to "rifle fire" or "fires set by an artillery barrage. The overall experience

re-enforces why I almost never read secondary sources. It does mention FW employment, but never specifically states where,

it does mention the concrete "English barracks", and that "most" of the prisoners were French, and the capture of a French

and an English "regimental commander".And the book mentions Rommel, and two pictures related to him. That's puzzling.  

 

That book just has some extracts from the regimental history of the Infanterie-Leib-Regiment. In the history of the ILR and the various Jäger histories the appointment of 4 Flammenwerfer to each attacking battalion is mentioned (two out of three battalions of each regiment were attacking, the third was in support). I checked the unit histories. Of course one can go to Munich and check the original war diaries as well (as they were Bavarian or under Bavarian command).

As I told before, only a few British units were attacked by the Alpenkorps since they were more towards the east of the attack. It was the French that had taken over the Kemmel sector at that point.

And the Württembergisches Gebirgsbataillon (with Rommel) belonged to the Alpenkorps at some point, but only during the Italian campaign in 1917. Nothing puzzling about Rommel being mentioned in the book about the Alpenkorps.

 

Jan

[bob lembke]

1 hour ago, MBrockway said:

 

Is that ..

Band 4 of Die Geschichte des Infanterie-Regiments Graf Werder (4. rhein.) Nr. 30 im Weltkriege 1914 - 18, by Ernst Schmidt ?

 

Looks like there's a copy in the IWM library Andy:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1504003487

 

 ... but not only is it German, it's in Fraktur!   If you photographed 5 pages either side of p.120, I could certainly give a partial translation good enough for our 14th (Light) Div purposes.

 

Mark

 

I probably can't do it now, I still have several tax issues to resolve before April 15th, our Tax Day, but I could copy that and perhaps even 

translate it for you. But my German is entirely self-taught and a bit rocky, especially the difficult grammar.

 

I find it very odd to read German in modern script rather than in Fraktur. But at least 95% of my books in German are in Fraktur.

 

Someone recently asked me how many languages I have worked in in my Great War studies, and I mused, and came up with 11.

But mostly bits and pieces, I have only used German, French, and Flemish a lot. Found a book by an Italian FW sergeant, read 

and translated half of it. I have no Italian. My wife is astonishing, she only has 15 modern and ancient European languages down 

really well, but she assumes that she has worked in 80 languages. I have handed her a newspaper in a language she has never seen

(odd, she has been a foreign language librarian for 28 years), and she could easily read it. She has five languages, three modern,

and two ancient, that utterly surround it linguistically, but the killer was her good Old Norse. Yes, Viking-Speak. Who the Hell has Viking?

When she was 17, a Vermont high-school farm girl, she was auditing courses at Oxford!

 

I will try to find the history and photocopy the section, and perhaps take a shot at translating it., which would be useful for my own work.

Actually finding the book will be a challenge, possibly dangerous. My wife, 6' 1" and a weight-lifter, and much younger, refuses to enter

my library, due to the physical danger. 

 

My eyes are suffering from reading and using my lap-top but also my iPhone perhaps 15 hours a day, and have not been able to read

all of the posted diary copies, which I bless everyone for. However, when I have time I will go back and copy and paste them into my

files, and study them.

 

I found a long, detailed description by a renouned French literary figure, working as a war correspondent, of French soldiers,

capturing a fort almost without a fight, herding the German prisoners into a large room, and preparing to burn them alive, The German

soldiers, realizing their fate, all put on their gas masks, perhaps to lessen the pain. Then the FW were turned on. If I recall from before,

the writer had a world-wide reputation. This was late 1916. His writing and publishing the incident perhaps was a subtle protest.   

[MBrockway]

Bob,

If it's at all possible, a scan of the Herenthage Castle Park Aug 1917 pages from Schmidt's IR-30 History would be perfect for Andy & I.  We would be very grateful.  Don't worry about translating it, nor is Fraktur a problem.  You have our e-mail addresses already.

 

Much appreciated!

Mark

 

[MBrockway]

3 hours ago, bob lembke said:

My wife is astonishing, she only has 15 modern and ancient European languages down really well, but she assumes that she has worked in 80 languages. I have handed her a newspaper in a language she has never seen (odd, she has been a foreign language librarian for 28 years), and she could easily read it. She has five languages, three modern, and two ancient, that utterly surround it linguistically, but the killer was her good Old Norse. Yes, Viking-Speak. Who the Hell has Viking?

When she was 17, a Vermont high-school farm girl, she was auditing courses at Oxford!

 

 

Do I take it that your wife did Course II at Oxford around thirty years back then?  Several of us here would be very interested to hear that.  What was her college?

[trajan]

3 hours ago, bob lembke said:

... but the killer was her good Old Norse. Yes, Viking-Speak. Who the Hell has Viking?...

 

 

Time for a holiday in Iceland Bob! And good luck with the taxes, the self-reporitng thing being one of the bad imports we in GB (can't say UK any more!) took from your side of the pond...

[bob lembke]

I had to take my computer (one of) in for some work and I have it running but have to set up the devices like the scanner, printer, etc.  I should also translate it, or much of it. But I have at least two tax problems that each could cost me $50,000 if I don't get that shipshape. So I may put it off a bit. 

 

Megan was in the area of Oxford, so she just started attending lectures. But she stood out, a 6' young girl. So after a while the professor said "You, in my office". There he said "Who are you?" She said " a American high school girl." He was impressed, and said that most of the people in his lecture didn't even want to be there, and told her to write him for a letter when she applied to university. He was one of the great scholars of physical anthropology in the world, when she took it in the US he wrote the text. She did that twice. She dug as an archeologist in the UK a number of times, hence her Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, and Latin. She worked a 4th century CE site. 

[MBrockway]

Bob - I've been looking into German Stoßtrupp tactics and how bombers worked with the Flammenwerfer troops.  How would you translate "Angel-Handgranate"?  Is it a different grenade type from the standard Stielhandgranate, or a description of the hand grenade once its pull cord is out and trailing behind it?

[bob lembke]

I can't recall ever hearing such a term. The bombers I think usually carried six stick grenades and four "egg grenades",

and as you probably know they had special assault stick grenades with a 3 1/2 second fuse, the different time was

stenciled on the handle. My father described a grenadier pulling the fuse knob and lofting one of these, a brave French

soldier counting the seconds and catching the grenade to throw it back, and the grenade exploding in his hands. They

of course did not carry rifles, or bayonets, unless the latter was preferred as a trench knife; many men carried a "razor

sharp spade", as my father described it, for close-up work. The special low shoes, instead of boots, made the men more

nimble and quick on their feet; as I said one reason my father and others killed their company commander was that he

wanted them to carry rifles, and was forcing them to do bayonet drill when they shot him. He was an awful officer and a

coward. 

[bob lembke]

15 hours ago, trajan said:

 

 

Time for a holiday in Iceland Bob! 

 

Megan has a bit of Old Icelandic, but had never seen Modern Icelandic when I handed her an Icelandic newspaper; her reading it easily mostly was due to her Old Norse, much better than her fragmentary Old Icelandic.  She had petitioned her university four times to hold a course in Old Icelandic, but if only one person asks for one, they refuse. She also has good Swedish, lesser Norwegian, but her Danish is her best foreign language. 

 

There has to be a FW somewhere in here. I corresponded for a while with a Norwegian Army officer who has a WW II German FW, which is more like a Klief, IMHO. He was wondering about fuel oil mixes, as he wants to fire it, and wanted advice. A friend of his had fired one, and reported that it had quite a kick. It is legal to privately own a workable  FW in Norway. The U.K.?

 

We actually are considering an Icelandic getaway. 

[7Y&LP]

Hello, not sure if I am helping or hindering the thread with this but the below is taken from official records (1st Queens Royal West Surrey Regt) and refered to the Battle of The Menin Road, September 1917. There is mention (eventually) of flame thrower attacks, I believe Bob told me about the unit delivered them and that unusualy they received some casualties. On another note, when reading about Third Ypres I get the impression that this battle didn't happen or if it did it happened in a differing order to the one described below (and in my grandads diary). 

 

 

'The divisional history states that “by 12 midnight, September 24^th-25^th, both the 98^th and 100^th Brigades were concentrated for the attack …. In the 100^th Brigade the 9^th Highland Light Infantry and the 1^st The Queen’s were the leading battalions, concentrated on a line running from the south across the Tower Hamlets Ridge, thence across the Reutelbeeke, and to the east of Cameron Copse. These battalions were strongly supported by the machine-gun groups of their Brigade companies. …The attack of the Second Army, including the 33^rd Division, was ordered for dawn on September 26^th. At 3:30 on the morning of the 25^th the enemy opened a bombardment of hitherto unparalleled intensity. So vicious was this bombardment , and in such great depth upon our rear communications, that it was impossible to move transport or troops along the roads. Following up their bombardment, the enemy counter-attacked in massed formation upon our lines, no less than six divisions being used in this attack upon our divisional front. On the right, the posts of 1^st The Queens were overwhelmed, the enemy debouching from the village of Gheluvelt armed with flame-throwers; the stream of burning oil thrown from these devilish weapons reached a length and height of 100 yards and set fire to the trees, which being as dry as tinder, immediately took fire. In Inverness Copse was concentrated the 2^nd Worcestershire Regiment: two companies of this regiment had already been destroyed by the bombardment. The Glasgow Highlanders moved forward, and with great dash covered up the exposed flank of 1^st The Queens’ whilst the 2ns Worcesters consilodated their position…

Except for a lull of about twenty minutes, the intensity of the bombardment continue during the whole of the 25^th and the night of the 25^th-26^th. At 9 p.m. orders were received from the Higher Command that the original attack would be carried out according to plan on the morning of the 26^th. The Division by this time had suffered 5,000 casualties…At dawn on the 26^th the attack, which has been reinforced by the 19^th Brigade, swept forward along the whole 33^rd Divisional front with extreme bitterness. Very few prisoners were taken.'

 

Edited 4 June , 2017 by 7Y&LP

[bob lembke]

Did I comment on this attack? My Flammenwerfer timeline is 600 pages long and it is a bit of a chore to get into it and find stuff.

 

The description of the FW having a range of 100 yards and reaching a height (?) of 100 yards is a bit over the top. The Wex, the light FW at that part of the war,

had a range of about 90 feet. That could vary depending on which of the about five flame oil mixes was being used, and also which nozzle the FW operator had

decided to mount on his flame lance. He carried several. The heavy FW might have a range of about 120 feet. At the end of the 90 foot stream of burning oil,

unignited oil, and smoke the stream might be about 15 foot wide. The flame stream of the Wex was about 10,000 cubic foot volume, I estimate. The heavy about

20,000 cu ft. The Wex, loaded, weighed about 43 lbs.

 

The nutty "heavy" Brit FW fired a ton of oil in 10 seconds, perhaps out to 90 or 100 yards. But it weighed 4000 lbs, and required 300 man-carries to bring it up.

On the Western Front the odds of carrying 300 man-carries up without dropping a part in the mud, or having a shell land nearby and bury or damage some part,

was very low. Foulkes had watched the demonstration of a FW that weighed 60 or maybe 80 lbs, decided that it was too heavy for the conditions in the trenches, 

and then decided on a 4000 lb FW? I know people get upset when I criticize Foulkes, but he made some very odd technical decisions, with gas as with flame.

 

7Y & LP, do you want me to look again to see what I can find re: the German description of this attack?  

[MBrockway]

1 hour ago, bob lembke said:

Did I comment on this attack? My Flammenwerfer timeline is 600 pages long and it is a bit of a chore to get into it and find stuff.

..

..

7Y & LP, do you want me to look again to see what I can find re: the German description of this attack?  

 

No Bob - your comments higher up were about the Aug 1917 actions in the Inverness Copse/Herenthage Chateau area.

 

I would certainly be interested in the German accounts of this 33rd Division action a month later, as this was my grandfather's division.

Mark

 

[bob lembke]

So Ghulivelt on Sept. 25 AM. 1917. Any other nearby  place-names?  Major Reddemann's history sometimes uses different placenames, rarely or never mentions the enemy unit, or even nationality. 

[bob lembke]

59 minutes ago, bob lembke said:

So Ghulivelt on Sept. 25 AM. 1917. Any other nearby  place-names?  Major Reddemann's history sometimes uses different placenames, rarely or never mentions the enemy unit, or even nationality. 

 

Well, Reddemann's comments were even briefer than usual. Only FW attack on the 25th, and only one till the 30th,

was an attack by the 12th Company. Commander not given. (Commander might indicate if a company-strength attack,

or a platoon, etc. One Gefreiter missing, one Pionier dead. Have their names.  No mention of results, how many FW, etc.

Place name given for the attack was Flanders. Probably it, Ghulivelt sounds Flemish.

 

The unit histories of German units involved might add something. I can also look in the relevant volume of Der Weltkrieg

1914 bis 1918 if it offers anything. But I can't look at this time.

 

[The Prussian]

Hello!

"Der Weltkrieg 1914-1918" in vol. 13 only mentiones for Sept. 25, that the 50.Res.Div. attacked north of the road Menin-Ypres to take back the trenches between the southwest corner of Polygon-wood and the area west of Gheluvelt. First they reached their targets, but they had to go back after heavy enemy artillery-fire. The division won 300-500m on 1600m width and took 260 prisoners.

Both ordre of battles of Sept. 26:

British first line: three divisions (5th army) and four divisions (2nd army)

German trench-divisions against brit. 5th army: 1/3 10.Ers.Div., 23.Res.Div., 3.Res.Div.,; task-forces: 234.Inf.Div., b.4.Inf.Div., 236.Inf.Div.

German trench-division against brit. 2nd army: 50.Res.Div.; task-force: 17.Inf.Div.

I couldn´t find a FW-attack for that date in Reddemann´s book. The closest entry was 24.8.17 (12th comp.) at Herenthage. (page 35)

Edited 5 June , 2017 by The Prussian