Flesquieres, 1917

[The Prussian]

Hello!

In the book "Die Tankschlacht bei Cambrai 1917" is mentioned, that a single prussian artillery-officer destroyed 16 british tanks alone.

A.C. Doyle writes:

It is said that a single Prussian artillery
officer, who stood by his gun to the death and is
chivalrously immortalised in the British bulletin,
destroyed no less than sixteen tanks by direct hits.

In the german book this is mentioned in the chapter "Flesqieres".

So this event is known in Bovington, where a gun is showed by the name "The Graincourt gun".

Well, I don´t believe, that this is the original gun, but I´d like to check who this german officer was.

The german division was the 54th. The artillery in that sector (Flesquieres/La Vacquiere) was the Fieldart.Rgt.108, III./Fieldart.Rgt.213 and 9./Fieldart.Rgt.282

Unfortunately I only have the regimentgal history of 108. The only officer, who was killed nov 20, 1917 in that regiment was Res.Lt. Eberhart.

Jack Horsfall and Nigel Cave showed in their book "Flesquieres" a map, where the position is the same than Rgt.108.

Am I right, that the british opponent was the 20th division?

Maybe that event ist mentioned in any bataillon diary?

http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/order-of-battle-of-divisions/20th-light-division/

Edited 18 March , 2017 by The Prussian

[johntaylor]

Good evening Prussian - this is one of the most enduring and intriguing stories of the Great War, and to cut a long story short, it was extensively investigated by both Britain and Germany in the 1930s and no evidence could be found to support the story, or to identify the officer.

 

In my book 'Deborah and the War of the Tanks' (published last year by Pen & Sword), I explored the story thoroughly and concluded (with some regret) that "The story of the lone artillery officer seems to have started as a ‘trench myth’ based on the flimsiest of evidence. It was then seized on by the British General Staff as an excuse for failure, and sustained by German nationalists as a beacon for hero-worship, before being ultimately discredited."

 

At risk of plugging my own book, I have set out the available evidence there in some detail, and was able to discount the candidate who was identified at the time by the historian of 108 Feld-Artillerie Regiment, and whose name has often been put forward since (ignoring the fact that he was not an officer!)  This was Unteroffizier Theodor Krüger, who I discovered was not even killed in the battle, but was wounded and captured and died in captivity three weeks later.

 

To quote the book again: "In the end, all we can be reasonably sure about is that the body of a dead German officer was found near a field gun on the first day of the Battle of Cambrai, and the field gun was found near some destroyed tanks, but who he was, or where he was, or what he had been doing, no-one can say. He was unlikely to have been an artillery officer, since extensive searches have failed to find a suitable candidate. Even if he was, there is no evidence that he manned the gun alone, since the rest of his crew might simply have run away, as Haig was originally told. Even if they did knock out some tanks, there is no reason to think this was decisive, since there were many other gun batteries in action that day. The only thing we can say for certain is that the body was not that of Unteroffizier Theodor Krüger, since he was not an officer, and more importantly, not dead."

 

Sorry to throw cold water on such a fascinating story, but I hope this is helpful.

 

All the best, John

[The Prussian]

Hello John!

Thank you very much for your response!

Well, I had a  few doubts about that history. Checking the maps of the landship-site, I saw, the 20th division attacked the german positions near La Vacquiere.

But i couldn´t find a bataillon, that  lost 16 tanks in one battle.

The other thing is, could a single man turn a canon into different positions and fire at 16 moving tanks?

Another thing is, why does Bovington talk about 18 tanks?

And... why is the story published by british sources, and no german records talked about it? The german staff knew, that there was only one officer (regiment 108) killed in november 1917.

Anohter fact is, that Lt.d.Res. Eberhart was observer-officer of III./108, anf the 6th comp. had 10,5cm howitzers, NOT a 7,7cm canon.

Did an observer-officer of the bataillon-staff work with a gun in front-line?

So I agree, that this story could be an excuse for failure.

Donald would say "Fake news"...?

Edited 18 March , 2017 by The Prussian

[johntaylor]

Hi Prussian, I'm glad to be of some help.  This story has generated an enormous amount of speculation over the past century, but I don't think anyone takes it seriously nowadays.  The unique feature was that General Haig included it in his official despatch on Cambrai, which obviously gave it great credibility, though it seems he elevated a widely believed 'trench myth' and used this to explain the setback at Flesquières, in which the 51st (Highland) Division and tanks of D and E Battalions failed to take the village on the first day of the battle.

 

It's not quite correct to say the story doesn't appear in any German accounts - it's true that Leutnant Erwin Zindler didn't mention it in his official history of 108 FAR, but he suddenly 'remembered' it later when he wrote a more personal memoir called Auf Biegen und Brechen. He identified the hero officer as Unteroffizier Theodor Krüger, even though he must have known Krüger wasn't actually killed at that time.  In fact the old comrades' association of 108 FAR wrote pointing this out, and saying the officer concerned must have been Leutnant Karl Müller - though he was in 9 Batterie which as in Marcoing, i.e. nowhere near Flesquières, so he can also be ruled out.

 

The fact is that the story was valuable for propaganda purposes, and the biography of Zindler on Google.de will shed a little more light on his political leanings.

 

Incidentally the Graincourt gun has no connection with this incident - the gun is certainly not a myth, as it was captured by G Battalion tanks in Graincourt and kept as a trophy.  I'm not sure about the Bovington reference to 18 tanks being destroyed.

 

Finally, I love your concluding point - this is indeed a very good example of "Fake news", long before certain people started trumpeting the phrase around.

 

All the best,

 

John 

[phil andrade]

It makes such a good story : the man who stands up to the machines.

 

The more mechanised warfare becomes, the more we need to extol the prowess of the individual in combat.

 

A form of reassurance.

 

Phil

 

 

[The Prussian]

Hello John and Phil!

Ah, well, I didn´t know the recording of Lt. Zindler, but I saw that is quiete a heorism book. I think, I won´t buy it.

It´s strange, that some people say, it was Krüger, some say, Müller. So, if the official recordings couldn´t find anything in the 20s, so the story will be a fake.

Like you said TRUMPeting (a nice Donaldinized word in this case...)

Anyway, the 108th were near La Vacquerie. Wasn´t it the 3rd Tank Brigade with C, F and I bataillon in that sector?

I´v got stil one question. In the maps of the landship site:

https://sites.google.com/site/landships/home/narratives/1917/cambrainarratives/cambrai-20-nov-3-brigade-map

I see different symbols on the map, but no index...

a) pink spots with a number

b ) red rhombic signs (like a tank) and a number

c) red rhombic sign with two black spots in it.

I know, all of them are tanks, but for what do the different symbols stand for? The rhombus with the black spots could be "hit", couldn´t it?

And I found Unteroffizier Theodor Krüger:

link 1: "missed" (from sept.24, 1917)

link 2: corrected to "died in prison" (from january 15, 1918)

http://des.genealogy.net/search/show/6785267

http://des.genealogy.net/search/show/7593439

Krüger, Theodor, Utffz., born 5.10. Wittmannsdorf, so far missed, died in prison. (A.N. means Auslands-Nachricht - foreign-message, still not proofed by officials)

Another good source is Generalleutnant Max Schwarte (Der Weltkampf um Ehre und Recht, 10 volumes):

Vol.3, page 149: "Hervorragende Verdienste um die Hemmung des Feindes hatte eine deutsche Batterie bei Flesquières, die etwa zehn Tanks zur Strecke brachte und tatkräftig wirkte, bis als letzter Kämpfer ihr Führer fiel."

(Outstanding merits in stopping the enemy had a german battery near Flesquéres, who destroyed approx. ten tanks and worked energetically, until the last warrior, the leader, fell."

In that sector, the "Untergruppe III" (Sub-Group III), consisted of staff III./108, 6th and 9th battery and two foot-artillery-batteries.

The observer-officer of III./108 was Lt.d.R. Eberhart (was killed nov.20)

6th battery (12 destroyed tanks, leader Hauptmann d.Res.Lorenzen)

9th battery (8 destroyed tanks, leader Leutnant d.Res. Karl Müller)

Karl Müller is mentioned as "missed"

John, you said, Lt.Müller was in Marcoing. The 6th battery was in La Vacquiéres. Do you think the 9th battery (belong to the same sub-group of 108), was so far away from the 6th?

by the way, we see in the attachements, that I-Bataillon was near La Vacquérie.

The landship site notes the casualties from I-Bataillon:

25.comp.: 2 tanks hit and knocked-out

26.comp.: 3 tanks hit and knocked-out

27.comp.: 1 tank hit and knocked-out

Around La Vacquiére also were tanks from A and F bataillons

Edited 19 March , 2017 by The Prussian

[johntaylor]

Hi Prussian, I'm afraid this isn't the right Krüger.  The one in question is Unteroffizier Johannes Joachim Theodor Krüger, born 4/11/87 in Garwitz.  108 FAR was the field artillery regiment in 54 Infanterie Division so its batteries were widely distributed along the front from Flesquières to Marcoing and beyond, though sadly there is no map in the regimental history so the locations are somewhat speculative.

 

The only person to have actually seen a dead German officer near a field gun was Dugdale, as he recounts in 'Langemarck to Cambrai', but he was based at Villers-Plouich.  Most subsequent accounts placed the incident at Flesquières, where most tanks were destroyed.  I have never seen it linked to La Vacquerie, though it's now generally recognised that it never happened at all, so I guess that's as likely as anywhere else!

 

As regards the map symbols, the red rhombus obviously shows where a tank was knocked out, but I couldn't see any with two black spots.  Like you, I couldn't find any explanation for the ones shown by a pink dot.  Perhaps it marks their objectives?  I'm sure someone could explain this to us.

 

All the best,

 

John

[The Prussian]

Hello John!

Got ´em!

http://des.genealogy.net/search/show/7466306

Right now, me too, I thoink, this event never happened. Unfortunately. One hero less...

Here are the rhombuses with the two spots

 

[johntaylor]

Hmm... quite right, I'm not sure what that's about.  Life is full of mysteries!

 

All the best,

 

John

[The Prussian]

Hello John!

In another thread I was told, it should be the hit tanks

[johntaylor]

Hi, that may be the intention but it doesn't seem to be completely accurate - D28 was hit (in an unknown location), so was D47, and so was D51 (which is shown with only one black dot, and not in the correct place!)  

 

Despite this the Landships site is generally excellent and I'm a huge fan.

 

All the best,

 

John

[The Prussian]

Hello John!

Yes, I love it too! I think ´m going to ask him, what the symbols mean

[teabreak]

One quick postscript to the "myth of the lone gunner". This is unusual in the mythology of war, as it served the interests of both sides to believe in it - normally myths only suit the propaganda narrative of one side in a conflict, not both. It may be that 'dual use' aspect of the myth which made it so enduring. 

On the British side, as has pointed out above, it was useful as a way of explaining the lack of progress in this part of the battle, even on a day (20 Nov) which otherwise saw big advances. Haig's dispatch emphasises the heroic/chivalric character of the 'lone gunner' - somehow, it seemed more acceptable to be defeated by a 'noble' enemy.

On the German side, the myth was attractive to those in the inter-war years who subscribed to idea that "Germany was betrayed" - a 'lone warrior against the odds' had an obvious metaphorical force.     

[The Prussian]

Hello!

I´m not sure, if the British would accept a lost fight against one man more then against a "noble" enemy...

The problem for me is, that no german official recording (or regimental histories of the artillery) mentioned that event

 

[bob lembke]

The German field artillery, by this battle, had reorganized and issued orders so as to be more effective against tanks. One measure was, I understand, that one gun of each field gun battery was to remain hidden and not participate in normal fire missions. In this fashion it was hoped that that gun would not be observed and would survive counter-battery efforts and surprise advancing tanks. Often this gun would be hidden in a ruined house, only to

emerge and fire in a desperate situation.

 

Other batteries were designated "infantry guns" and I think that usually one was attached to every infantry regiment in combat. My father observed the infantry gun battery of the Storm Battalion Rohr, and he told me that they were extremely effective: He said: "One shot, two shots, three shots, and a MG post would be destroyed." Their favorite  gun was a rebuilt and modified Russian 76 mm parapet gun, for fortress defense, but they were asked to donate those guns to a fledgling storm unit of an Eastern Front ally; they also used 105 mm howitzers later in the war. They started with a new 37 mm gun, the unit was originally formed to test the new 37 mm gun, a traditional role of the German Pioniere.  (They did not like the newly-designed gun.) My father saw them in action at Verdun in the second half of 1916; he was attached to that unit several times to provide additional Flammenwerfer support.

[The Prussian]

Hello Bob !

First they were called Nahkampf-Batterien (Close-range-batteries) and were equipped with Feldkanone 96 n./A.

We had batteries:

201-203 (4th army)

204-209 (6th army)

210-219 (1st army)

220-227 (2nd army)

228-230 (7th army)

231-236 (3rd army)

237-242 (5th army)

243-244 (A.Abt. Strantz)

245-247 (A.Abt. A)

248-250 (A.Abt. b )

They existed from january 1917 until june 1917 (not a long live...)
A few of them built the Infanterie-Geschütz-Batterien or Züge (platoons). Som eof them existed since 1916. Most of them were not effective and got dissolved in november 1917. Only the N°.28 stil existed in the Sturm-Bataillon Rohr (N°5).

 

In may 1918 the new Infanterie-Geschütz-Batterien were set-up. Mostly they used austrian 7,5cm mountain guns.

The batteries were the numbers 29-36 and since june 1918 numbers 37-51. Additionaly there wre the numbers 701-703 for Palestine.

 

The batteries with the captured russian guns (8,69cm) were the Feldartillerie-Bataillone:

801-804 ; 806-813 ; 815-817 ; 819-821 ; 823-825 ; 827-829 ; 831-837 ; 839-841 ; 843-845 ; 847-849 ; 851-852 ; 854-856 ; 858-860 ; 862-864 ; 866-885 ; 887-904

The numbers 905-915 had russian 10,67cm

Edited 23 March , 2017 by The Prussian

[bob lembke]

Lots of good information. 

 

Much of the German artillery in the war was Beute=Artillerie. (Beute=Artillerie = "Captured Artillery". The Prussian and myself will cooperate until everyone on the Forum will be easily reading German.) The tables in the rear of issues of Schlachten des Weltkrieges ("Battles of the World War") histories describing the German units in the described major battle describe the origins of the artillery; much was Russian. At the capture of several large forts in 1915 (my grandfather had a role) they got a haul of say 1500 guns and say 1,500,000 shells for them, typically. Some guns were junk, some quite good. Read in the "Honorbook of the Explosive Officers" (my grandfather has an article in it) a memoire by a Feuerwerk=Offizier ("Explosives-Officer) who at one fort, he directed salvaging Russian shells. For one month each day he sent two trains each of 50 rail cars loaded with Russian shells headed for the Western Front. 3000 rail cars of shells from one captured fort.  The Russians rarely blew up their guns and ammo at the forts. 

Edited 23 March , 2017 by bob lembke
Small addition

[The Prussian]

Hello Bob !

Of course, i will! I´d like to help according to any questions about the good old army!

[Werner]

On 18/03/2017 at 18:55, The Prussian said:

A.C. Doyle writes:

It is said that a single Prussian artillery
officer, who stood by his gun to the death and is
chivalrously immortalised in the British bulletin,
destroyed no less than sixteen tanks by direct hits.

Hello ThePrussian,

"It is said that"!!!

After the release of the despatch 'The Cambrai Operations' there was wild speculation in the UK as to how many there might have been, at 16 the 'who names the highest number' contest ceased. Origin uncertain.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The British Campaign in France and Flanders, 1917, by Arthur Conan Doyle can be downloaded from the internet.

The spiritual father of Sherlock Holmes wrote about the attack on the German positions:

„Upon the right of Braithwaite's Yorkshiremen was the Fifty-first Highland Territorial Division. They also made a fine advance, but were held up by the strongly organised village of Flesquières. The approach to it was a long slope swept by machine-gun fire, and the co-operation of the tanks was made difficult by a number of advanced field-guns which destroyed the slow-moving machines as they approached up the hill. If the passage of the Hindenburg Line showed the strength of these machines, the check at Flesquières showed their weakness, for in their present state of development they were helpless before a well-served field-gun, and a shell striking them meant the destruction of the tank, and often the death of the crew. It is said that a single Prussian artillery officer, who stood by his gun to the death and is chivalrously immortalised in the British bulletin, destroyed no less than sixteen tanks by direct hits. At the same time the long and solid wall of the Château formed an obstacle to the infantry, as did the tangle of wire which surrounded the village. The fighting was very severe and the losses considerable, but before evening the Highlanders had secured the ground round the village and were close up to the village itself. The delay had, however, a sinister effect upon the British plans, as the defiant village, spitting out flames and lead from every cranny and window, swept the ground around and created a broad zone on either side, across which progress was difficult and dangerous. It was the resistance of this village, and the subsequent breaking of the bridges upon the canal, which prevented the cavalry from fulfilling their full rôle upon this first day of battle."

 

Shame on you for writing only about tanks and not remembering their wounded and killed crews and their families! In each Mark IV tank there were 8 British soldiers, young men who were son, husband, father, brother, nephew, cousin, colleague, neighbour and friend ; the death of each soldier meant suffering for many people. 16 x 8 = up to 128 soldiers killed, 5 x 8 = up to 40 soldiers killed, multiply the number killed by the number suffering. Rise from your seats and bow your heads in respect for the many wounded and fallen British soldiers, remember them with honour and solemnly promise: "We will rebember them!" - with this pledge, the British people in the UK and beyond remember their fallen soldiers on Remembrance Day. Take an example from the family of the lone gunner, who was and is not proud of the many hits, but always mourned them with the families of the fallen British soldiers. Remember also the German field artilleryman and his family, recognise at last the perversion of war: young men who had done nothing to each other were sent to war by their governments and shot at each other because their registrations wanted it that way, the lone gunner covered the retreat of his comrades and the British armoured troops paid a very high price for their attack on the German troops at Flesquières.

The fighting was very severe and the losses considerable!!!!