bob lembke

Hi,

I assume we are talking "Battalion" ?

I think a glance at most Pionier battalions will show them to be "a bureaucratic "home" " for the units of the battalion. Usually you have the companies of the battalion spread over a bunch of divisionsand the Batln. itself as a ghost admin office, so I dont see what is so ominous with the 32nd?

My reference to the battalion shows simply where the companies that served on Divisional level were on a certain date in 1918, not where they were before and not parts attached to higher formations.

many pionier formations are elusive, unless there is something a bit more concrete to prove otherwise, I would guess it was simply a unit in a Armeekorps supporting the Bulgarians or something along those lines as supposed to a secret unit.

Best

Chris

We are talking about both battalions and regiments. In 1914 and 1915 some pioneer regiments were formed from battalions, and later in the war they again were broken down to battalions. But I carefully checked my last post for accuracy in this.

The Militaer=Pass of this Pionier states: "Am 18. 11. 15. zur 4.(32.) Ers. Komp. versetzt." My friend on the German General Staff told me in an e-mail that this refers to the 4th Ersatz Company of the 32. Regiment, and Hardy also says that that is the meaning of the notation. (I have studied 30-40 Militaer=Paesse, and I can't recall seeing that notational form.) Certainly my friend in Germany is the "gold standard" for an opinion, and he studies WK I very seriously, and works in the archives.

Cron, who in its 20+ pages on the Pioniere, mentions most pioneer formations 5-10 times, does not seem to mention it once, although in a first quick read I thought that I had seen a mention.

I know a lot about the company, it was a very unusual unit, and a temporary formation that only existed a few months, and its deployment broke international law and had good reason to be kept "under cover".

Bob Lembke

Hi, guys;

I am sorry that I did not respond to your helpful input earlier; I was tangled up in a work/business mess, and wanted to think this thru and really read Cron carefully; unfortunately I only have it in translation.

Chris mentioned some information about Pionier Regiment Nr. 32, but added that it appeared in 1918. Any info on this mysterious unit is helpful, but the period I am interested in in particular is mid to late 1915, when this Pionier was sent to the Balkans.

Hardy added information showing the establishment of Reserve=Pionier=Bataillon Nr. 32 (and 33. and 34.) in early 1915.

I just poked thru my new copy of Cron, Imperial German Army 1914-1918; Organization, Structure, Orders-of-Battle, and, although I had thought I had seen a fleeting reference to Pion.=Regt. Nr. 32, several careful readings of the section on the Pioniere did not reveal this mention, which I had earlier mentioned. It does state how 10 Pionier Regiments were formed at mobilization, including Pion.=Regts. 29-31. P=R 31 seems to have been a bit different than the others, and was formed from one battalion each from Garde=Pionier=Bataillon and from Pionier=Bataillon (2. brandenburgerische) Nr. 28. (My Pionier was always a brandenburgerische Pionier, although he served in a variety of Pionier units, all were from Brandenburg.) So the suggestion from my friend the serving Bundeswehr officer (and serious student of WK I) that the Pionier=Regiment Nr. 32 was probably a "paper" unit that provided a bureaucratic "home" for the temporary and shadowy unit that this Pionier joined and went off to the Balkans with seems to be a good working hypothesis, although Pionier=Regiment Nr. 31 was clearly an actual unit. Apparently the next Pionier Regiment (numerically) that was formed was Fritz Haber's Pionier=Regiment Nr. 35 (Gas).

So, perhaps P=R Nr. 32 was a "paper" Brandenburg Pionier unit set up to cubby-hole special operations and/or formations, while P=R Nr. 31 was a real Brandenburg unit set up earlier. The numerical proximity might suggest this.

Thanks for your input. Chris, I am interested in where P=R Nr. 32 was mentioned in reference to 1918. Cron mentions that Hinderburg and Ludendorff made major changes to the Pionier establishment in 1917 after they took over the OHL.

Any other help, guys? I have been helped here quite a bit. Any comments?

Bob Lembke

Hi Bob extensive details on both MvM brothers can be found in other topics on this forum. I do not have anything else on Riepenhof then I state here.

David;

I had run a search on the entire forum and the only mention of "Muelnheim" is your post above. But, I also looked in the 1914 Rangliste, and realized that his "last" name is considered "Mueldner von Muelnheim"; I had assumed that Mueldner was the first name.

I guess that you know about them. One was Adjutant of the 4. Garde=Infantrie=Brigade, seconded from the 4. Garde=Regiment z. F., date of rank 20. 7. 12.

The other was CO of 2. Kompagnie, Fuesilier=Regiment Nr. 39. Date of rank was 20. 3. 11. Of course the source does not give their first names. Brothers, I assume.

Also, in the 1914 Rangliste there is no Riepenhof. There are a couple of Riepenhausen's, they seem quite obscure.

So was he a reserve officer, or even an enlisted man or a civilian? My father caged cigarettes from the Crown Prince several times (he and his father were patrons of my father's unit, and he frequently dropped in on the company barracks), and reported that he was quite comfortable with and interested in the common soldier.

Bob Lembke

Hi

I am looking for details on Joseph Riepenhof. Here is what I have on him:

He was at Norm?e with then Hauptmann L. M?ldner von M?lnheim, who calls him his treue Bursche R. Later in the war he was Ordonnanz and driver? of the Crownprince (therefore I take it he was an officer on the staff of the 5AOK Deutsche Kronprinz. He lived to see the end of the war, as he is amongst the officers who accompany the german Crownprince into exile.

Hope it is possible to find out something about him.

regards and thanks

David

There is no one of that name in the 1914-1918 Ehrenrangliste, so I think he could not have been a regular (active, non-reserve) officer in May 1914.

Additionally, there is no von Muelnheim in the Ehrenrangliste. I believe that this reference covers all of the several German Armies. Can you clarify info about these guys? I would think that members of the Crown Prince's entourage would have been regular officers.

Bob Lembke

While I read a lot of (printed) Fraktur, and also read the script, and in fact have translated Czech and Slovene written in the script for a German dealer, I understood that there are two hand-writing systems, Suetterlin, and Kurrent, which are similar, but not the same. I have not seen the handwriting referred to as Fraktur. Is the term used for the superset of the two handwriting systems? I have never studied German in a formal class setting, and quite possibly have missed something here.

Bob Lembke

Found this:

"Die Nahkampf-Batterien Nr. 218 - Nr. 220 wurden ab Januar 1917 aufgestellt und dem Armee-Oberkommando 2 unterstellt. Sie wurden bereits am 23. Mai 1917 wieder aufgel?st."

the above were established from Baden Artillerie units

All in all fifty N.K.B numbering from 200 to 250 were build in Jan 1917

Hardy

One learns something every day! So I guess that these were in addition to I=G Nr. 1 thru I=G Nr. 50. As most infantry regiments in the front lines were assigned one or even two "accompanying batteries", and I am sure other close combat batteries were required for other duties, like the anti-tank role. In my recent readings the typical Field=Geschuetze=Abteilung had one of its 2-3 77 mm field gun batteries set on this duty. So in total it is clear that hundreds of infantry gun batteries were required at the end of the war, and the hundred I=G=B and N=K=B were not enough, by far.

The 105 mm light howitzer also could perform this role, and in fact that was the gun that the infantry gun battery of Storm Battallion Rohr finally settled on. (My father was detailed to S=B Rohr several times, and the clearest memory I have of him talking about S=B Rohr was about the effectiveness of this battery in taking out MG nests.)

Bob Lembke

PS: Anyone familiar with the Brit story about the single German officer who manned a 77 mm and supposedly knocked out 17 Brit tanks, and was remarkably mentioned in the British dispatches, and the story that this was actually a fabrication, issued to cover up the supposed fact that the Brits bungled their tank attack, and were fishing for an excuse? Was this Cambrai?

I have seen a great photo of the Kaiser attending a ceremony, perhaps a graduation, at what must be a training course for the new MP 18s. There is a double row of men armed with the weapon, about 30 in the field of view of the camera. You cannot actually see the weapon, as the barrel is so short, but you see the shoulder straps with no barrel poking up over the shoulder. What weapon could it be but the MP 18? Additionally, each man's two large Blouse pockets are bulging out, each pocket must have a "snail-shell" magazine stuffed in it. I think that it was planned to have one MP 18 in each infantry Gruppe, much like the MP 42 carried by each German squad leader in WK II, providing automatic fire at the squad level.

Bob Lembke

I agree with all of the above. At this time there was a great deal of training for the upcoming Spring Offensive. In the storm unit I study the closest, Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Bataillon (Flammenwerfer) , the unit not only trained for the coming offensive, it was significantly reorganized to be better suited for the anticipated more mobile warfare.

Hardy, when was Sturm=Bataillon Nr. 16 formed?

It also might be possible that this course was not for the storm battalion, but by the storm battalion, teaching the storm techniques to infantry units stated for attack roles in the upcoming offensive.

(I realize that some of my comments repeat some of the above perceptive comments.)

Bob Lembke

Hi, Hardy;

I have been looking at the question of German "infantry guns" for a while. There were 50 "Infanterie=Geschuetz Batterien" set up and called that, and they were numbered Nr. 1 to Nr. 50. Later in the war most infantry regiments seemed to have an infantry gun battery attached to them, perhaps one of the I=G=B s, but, more usually, a battery from a field artillery Abteilung, probably from divisional artillery. Additionally, often a field gun battery on the usual deployment and missions was asked to detail one of their four 77 mm field guns to be rolled out of the battery's emplacements and carefully concealed forward, with orders to not undertake a fire mission unless it was an urgent situation, which I think generally meant a serious tank attack. A single well-emplaced and served field gun, unanticipated, could wreak havoc on a tank attack of the era.

I have read a lot of histories lately, including a bunch of the Schlachten des Weltkrieges series, which have a lot of specific detail, and I can not recall the use of the term "Nahkampf Batterie" for field guns in this role. I now routinely take notes when I encounter mention of these guns and their employment, so I would probably remember it. I would think that it was a local designation, possibly for the infantry gun of IR 218 or possibly one assigned to this duty by ID 218.

Bob Lembke

Thanks, everyone!

I also ran this question past an e-friend who is a Bundeswehr General Staff officer at a fairly high pay grade. He said that Harvy is quite correct; that he would be in the 4. Ersatz Kompagnie von 32. Pionier Bataillon, according to standard German military nomenclature.

The problem is that no one has come up with a direct reference to the battalion itself. Most are to the Reserve Pionier Bataillon Nr. 32, which did seem to exist. (It is curious that there seems to have been a RPB Nr. 32, but no PB Nr. 32.) Someone came up with a reference of some company attached to this unit, and in Cron I found a mention of this sort.

The Pionier I am studying was on detached, clandestine, and in a sense on illegal duty, and his detachment was one pulled together for a particular task, and was not going to be maintained after their job was done. My German e-friend suggested that this "unit" might have been a organizational "home" for this clandestine formation, sort of giving this formation a bureacratic "pigeon-hole" for paperwork, etc. Going over wide-ranging presentation of the range of WW I Pionier units one is struck by the gap in these lists at Bataillon Nr. 32. This all makes sense; it is hard to imagine the German Army of the period having a unit without a name.

This is an interesting business. I have been a bit cryptic; this is a matter that I am writing a book on, now in an active fashion, and unfortunately I have become aware that some of my posts are probably being "vacumned up" by a third party.

Anyone running across a reference to this unit please share it. I will carefully collect your hints. This is sort of like looking for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Bob Lembke

There not Dutch in my opinion!

Hi, Herr General!

I must clarify that I mentioned "dogs wearing top-hats, mayors pulling MG carts", as a (possibly) humorous comment on the wild profusion of Belgian uniforms, which seem curious to most non-Belgians, I think. I just meant that Dutch uniforms also might seem a bit different to outsiders, but not so much as the Belgian uniforms. Of course every nation has their own traditions, that might seem odd to others. One only has to think of the elite Greek guards at their Parliament (sp?), who wear tu-tus, panty hose, wooden shoes with pom-poms, and cute little jackets and caps. A good argument for peace with Turkey.

Bob Lembke

Dug thru Cron, and Pionier=Bataillon Nr. 32 is still a mystery. Not at all mentioned, except in a curious left-handed sort of way. Could this have been a temporary unit for service in the Balkans?

Bob Lembke

Bob, he was transferred to the 4.Ersatz-Kompanie/Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 32

Thanks, Hardy; I have never seen such a unit notation. I guess that might have been a war-time unit, with a number that high. I just got my copy of Cron in the mail yesterday; I will look in it and see what he says.

Anyone know of this unit, and what it was doing in late 1915. In the Balkans?

Bob Lembke

Hi;

I am studying a Pionier. He was inducted into Pionier=Bataillon Nr. 3 "von Rausch" in Brandenburg in early 1915, sent off on some detached duty, where he seems to have become seriously ill, and then a document states, in partial translation: "Transferred to 4.(32.) Ersatz Kompagnie" in mid-November 1915. He then seems to have dropped from view for several months.

I read a lot about pioneer units, and have never even seen such a unit designation. The only places that he seemed to be in this period was Germany (Brandenburg) and the Balkans.

Perhaps this was a temporary unit for detached service.

Any ideas? Specifics, or a general idea as to what kind of designation that is?

Bob Lembke

There are people who know those things in spades, but it is not me. However, I would imagine that the EM/OR were provided with their sabre, while the officers had to provide their own equipment. My father specifically told me that in regards to the Guards Cuirassiers. It simply was very expensive to be a Prussian cavalry officer; you had to provide a lot of expensive equipment, and I think that my father said that the officer had to provide for his orderly and two horses. When he entered the regiment he had to provide a financial statement proving that he had the necessary means to the colonel of the regiment.

The engraving is the same wording that Prussian EM used on their memorabilia to their "graduation" out of active duty into the reserves, such as those Reserveistenbilden and the mugs that are found on e-Bay. (Did you know that cavalry EM had three years of active duty, not two, probably due to the additional skills that he had to acquire; riding, care of his horse, etc.?) But the wording does neccessarily indicate that the owner was a EM. Equipment was kept for a long time (when my father went into the army in 1915, at 19 1/2, his boots were older than he was. But perhaps the sword owner was a EM that also provided his own sword (many EM provided their own, better, privately tailored uniforms, if they had the money), or possibly he could buy it at the end of his active duty. He still was probably going to be in the reserves for 20-odd more years.

You might start a thread with a title that would catch the eyes of sword nuts.

Bob Lembke

Bob,

I have a saber hanging on my wall that reads, 3. Ulan=Regiment (1. brandenburgerische) "Emperor Alexander II. of Russia. "Zur Erinnering an meiner Dienstzeit".

That is tremendously neat!

I am angling to get copies of photos of a number of my ancestors in the uniform of the regiment. Due to the age, etc. of the possessors of the photos, it is a bit of a problem.

Is the sabre engraved with a name?

Bob Lembke

Traditionally 1. Ulan Regiment "Emperor Alexander III of Russia" was garrisoned in Militsch, and was in the 10. Cavalry Brigade of the 10. Infantry Division of the V. Armeekorps, HQed in Posen, West Prussia. That was the situation in 1900, and 96% sure that it was so in 1914.

If the guy was an officer before May 1914 we will have him located in a flash, given his name. Officers were sometimes posted to units other than their home-town unit, especially within the Prussian Kingdom.

On my father's side the traditional unit of service was 3. Ulan=Regiment (1. brandenburgerische) "Emperor Alexander II. of Russia". (My grandfather and father broke the tradition.) I once, in error, bought a "Reservistenbild" of the Alexander III. regiment, mistaking it for my family's Alexander II. regiment. The 1. Uhlan=Regiment was, I believe, Manfred von Richthofen's regiment.

Bob Lembke

Eduardo;

I think that Rick is right. I am not a uniform expert, some chaps have a wonderful grasp of them, but these uniforms seem "sort of German", but not quite there. There was a German upper class in the Baltics. I have not seen many photos of Dutch troops, but they seem to have had a bit of the "uniform madness" that the Belgians had; dogs wearing top-hats, mayors pulling MG carts, usw.

Bob Lembke

He held the rank of Major in 1916, Oberstleutnant in 1918 and retired as Oberst before 1926. Any help appreciated

I will show you pictures of the Herr Oberstleutnant von Ihlenfeld later.

Regards, Hardy

Hi, Hardy;

Do you have the info from the 1914-1918 Ehrenrangliste? Who was the Oberstleutnant? A brother?

Bob Lembke

Alexandria;

A few more observations. The IV. Armeekorps was from the Magdeburg area, central Germany. Does that jibe with your information?

As a Landsturmmann, he would have been between 35 and 45 years old, unless he was somewhat disabled and he was medically deemed unable, for example, to keep up with the marching tempo of units of units at a higher level of fitness, like reserve units, or line units. Landsturm units usually did not see combat, except possibly on the Eastern Front, but more likely guarded POWs in Germany or guarded lines of communication in occupied France or Poland.

Does the above jib with your information?

If there is handwriting on the reverse, or on other items (postcards are especially informative), there are people haunting this Forum who can read that stuff.

Bob Lembke

This is from the "tank side". - War diary of Sturm-Panzerkampfwagen-Abt. 1.

Hi, rast;

Can I deduce that, since this very interesting account of Reddemann and the Mark IV is from the war diary of Sturm=Panzerkampfwagon=Abteilung Nr. 1, and the only surviving panzer war diary is that of Abteilung Nr. 13, that the description of Reddemann and the Mark IV was cited from the war diary before WK II, before the original diary was destroyed, and cited in another, probably secondary source? Possibly in Gruss?

Do you know if it is true that some of the documents from the Prussian State Archives actually survived and were carted off in 1945 and now have been returned? Wishful thinking?

Gruss aus Philadelphia,

Bob Lembke

Going by memory, and not having read the book in 30-40 years, the phrase "The German oak still stands!" was something that I think that von Luckner stated that he or someone else shouted after the tidal wave supposedly threw the Seeadler up on the coral reef. Without study, isn't the other phrase a request for the young ones to "hold fast", again possibly in dialect? I think von Luckner referred to the phrase: "One hand for yourself, one for the ship!" several times.

My father ran into von Luckner twice post-war; once at a party in Germany in the 1920's; and once he came upon von Luckner walking two poodles on Park Avenue in New York City in the late 1920's or the 1930's. Von Luckner was of course quite the "party animal", quite a character.

BobLembke

Hardy;

I will require a good while to digest and answer your many interesting points and accounts of FW actions.

The framed document is interesting but troubling. Gefreiter Wilhelm Schneider is not in my roster of Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Regiment men, which I estimate to presently include about 1200 men. As the full regiment comprised close to 3000 men at any one time, my roster to date of course includes a minority of the men of the regiment and predecessor units. I have a Pionier Wilhelm Schneider dying in Lazarett on March 10, 1916.

To the extent that my tired eyes can read the framed document, the document raises some troubling questions. It uses wording to describe the flame unit that I have never seen in my collection of authentic documents of the flame regiment (even a de-lousing certificate from when my father was about to leave for leave in Germany!), many of which come down directly from my father. I am not a document collector in general, I do not know the extent of the creation of false material, but in all of my work on the history of this unit, in my reading hundreds of pages written by officers of the flame regiment, in all of the other accounts that I have collected and read, I have never seen a descriptor such as "12 K. Garde Feld Pionier Flammenwerfer Abteilung", which I seem to read in the document, allowing for my completing a couple of abbreviations in the original. Every one of those words were at one time used in describing the succession of flame units commanded by Major Dr. Reddemann, but never together in that fashion, which is at varience with the terminology used to describe the flame units in about three or four different ways, and additionally with the unit stamp on the document.

I cannot make out a date on the certificate. The description used on the unit stamp, which appears authentic, was used over only a short period of time. One of the parts of the verbal description above was used prior to this brief window of time, another only after, while another term, although sometimes used as a descriptor, was never used as above. (For quite a while the name of Reddemann's flame unit changed every few months.)

The sleeve patch is consistant with photos of proven authenticity. (It has been counterfeited.) Regrettably, many years ago, my mother, who was mentally unstable, threw my father's patch away, perhaps being afraid of it, or thinking that it was Nazi material.

Can I assume that this item is currently on e-Bay? Could you aim me at the auction; it would be interesting to follow the action.

Bob Lembke

Hi, Glenn;

Might it be possible that General von Feldmann was Jewish?

I asked the question in part as I have been told (by a book) that the CO of my father's Freikorps, Major von Stephani, was of Jewish origin. He was a Guards officer, and his father was a Prussian general. Post Great War he was an extreme right-wing plotter, was a top leader of the Stahlhelm, and served, I understand, as a very right Reichstag deputy as an Ehrenayran ("Honorary Aryan").

The source of most of the above information is a former Chairman of History at Brandis University, the leading Jewish university in the United States, so the source is presumably one without sinister motivations.

Bob Lembke

Bob,

in the 1923 edition of the Brockhaus Lexikon I found a reference to this book:

Ch. Theune

Flammenwerfer und Sturmtruppen

Berlin; Landesverlag 1920. 251 Seiten

not sure if you know this book

Hardy

Hardy;

It is an important book. I was able to examine a copy in the British Library in London, and then the Deutsches Buecherei Leipzig kindly made a copy of their copy for me. But, many thanks for the lead, and please suggest any other leads that you may have. I will respond later to your very interesting material on the 1917 raid, which raises some interesting questions.

Bob Lembke