Flammenwerfer! Flames, skulls and stuff

[Thomas W]

You are assuming Rohr cared one way or the other... or even noticed that other people were wearing it differently.

I am assuming he had more pressing problems.

best

Chris

So, the Alpenkorps guys wore their badges wrong until somebody corrected them, but the Rohr guys wore their badges wrong and not only did nobody correct them, their boss didn't even notice. Okay.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Thomas W

[Chris Boonzaier]

So, the Alpenkorps guys wore their badges wrong until somebody corrected them, but the Rohr guys wore their badges wrong and not only did nobody correct them, their boss didn't even notice. Okay.

Because in the Alpenkorps the boss wore the same badge and would have noticed.

When I was in the army we had a new style of uniform issued, a Brevet that used to be on the shoulder of the older one could no longer be worn there. The Regt tailor said "I will just put it on a dark bit of cloth, and you can wear it on the right pocket, see if anyone says anything"... there were only a few of us with it in the comapany, no officers questioned it as they assumed it was official, and now in photos taken almost 20 years later I still see guys wearing it like that... simply because no officer has thought to question it.

Sometimes the answer is more simple than it seems.

[Thomas W]

Because in the Alpenkorps the boss wore the same badge and would have noticed.

When I was in the army we had a new style of uniform issued, a Brevet that used to be on the shoulder of the older one could no longer be worn there. The Regt tailor said "I will just put it on a dark bit of cloth, and you can wear it on the right pocket, see if anyone says anything"... there were only a few of us with it in the comapany, no officers questioned it as they assumed it was official, and now in photos taken almost 20 years later I still see guys wearing it like that... simply because no officer has thought to question it.

Sometimes the answer is more simple than it seems.

Yup. The simple answer is that Rohr's men wore their badges at their elbows to disntinguish themselves from Reddemann's men, since Rohr's men were not members of Reddemann's unit.

Rohr's men had as close a relationship with the Crown Prince as possible, being the Fifth Army assault battalion. The Crown Prince was the one who recommended the badge to the Kaiser, being the one who helped develop the flamethrower arm. You believe that he saw all of Reddemann's men wearing it in one psotion but either didn't notice Rohr's men wearing it in another, or else decided not to mention it and let them continue wearing this prestigious award in the wrong position for the duration of the war.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Thomas W

[Chris Boonzaier]

Yup. The simple answer is that Rohr's men wore their badges at their elbows to disntinguish themselves from Reddemann's men, since Rohr's men were not members of Reddemann's unit.

IMHO looking at Photos can establish that something WAS done, not WHY it was done.

[dond]

I would think the simple answer was that the badges arrived with vague wearing instructions and some officer made a call and said put them on like this. It was probably more important that they be uniform. And since they were uniform that was good enough and no one questioned it. Of course, my deduction is no better or worse than anyone elses.

[Thomas W]

I would think the simple answer was that the badges arrived with vague wearing instructions and some officer made a call and said put them on like this. It was probably more important that they be uniform. And since they were uniform that was good enough and no one questioned it. Of course, my deduction is no better or worse than anyone elses.

You would think the answer is simple, but the reality is much more complicated.

Rohr and Reddemann had an obvious rivalry during the war. My research has indicated that it was Reddemann who developed Stosstrupptaktik and then Willy Rohr was given the credit. Max Bauer said that Rohr and Reddemann developed the tactics jointly, but it's clear from the dates that Reddemann's men used shock-troop tactics long before Rohr was given command of the Assault Detachment.

Both Rohr and Reddemann competed for the attention of the Crown Prince, who called Rohr's unit his favorite, and Reddemann's unit his "body guard." The history of Rohr's unit by von Schwerin claims that during the first use of the Rohr flamethrower platoon in December of 1915, the flamethrower pioneers had no idea how to cooperate with infantry, due to lack of training. Either this is an out-and-out lie, a mistake, or the first flamethrower operators were not provided by Reddemann, because by December of 1915, Reddemann's men had carried out several successful attacks with infantry, and Reddemann's "Instructions for the Empoyment of Flamethrowers" had been issued in September of 1915. It describes in detail how infantry and flamethrower pioneers were to cooperate during an attack.

Von Schwerin said that the first flamethrower operators assigned to the Assault Detachment in October of 1915 were from "Flammenwerfer-Regiment Pionier-Bataillon 36," a unit that obviously didn't exist. He may have meant Pionier-Ersatz-Bataillon 36, which provided replacements for Pionier Regiments 35 and 36, the gas regiments. Records indicate that replacements for the Rohr flamethrower platoon came from Reddemann's 3rd Guard Pioneer Battalion, but the origins of the first flamethrower operators in Rohr's unit remain unclear.

Reddemann never mentioned Rohr once in anything he wrote, and von Schwerin never mentioned Reddemann. Ludwig Charles Theune, author of Sturmtruppen and Flammenwerfer, said that Rohr used Reddemann's tactics to create the Assault Detachment. He unequivocally states that Reddemann was the originator of the tactics.

So, we have obvious bad blood between Rohr and Reddemann; we have Reddemann the clear inventor of the tactics that made Rohr a national celebrity during the war, while Reddemann was referred to only as "Major R." in the newspapers; we have Reddemann never mentioning Rohr or Sturmbataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr) in his comprehensive history of the flamethrower arm; we have Rohr's adjutant not mentioning Reddemann and then possbly lying about the state of training of Reddemann's men; we have the possibility of Rohr's first flamethrower operators not even being Reddemann's men, maybe because Reddemann refused to provide them, which resulted in gas pioneers having to be used instead; we have the death book of the flamethrower regiment not mentioning the names of the 14 Rohr flamethrower pioneers killed during the war; we have Reddemann's history of the flamethrower arm lising the name of every Offizier-Stellvertreter except one named May, who was the commander of Rohr's flamethrower platoon; and we have the Rohr flamethrower pioneers wearing special Guard Pioneer uniforms not worn by any other flamethrower pioneers attached to assault battalions.

Given all that, along with the photographic evidence, I deduce that Rohr's men wore their badges in a different position than Reddemann's because Rohr and Reddemann hated each other and did whatever they could to differentiate their men.

I predict that with the exception of a tiny handful, most people will read everything I just wrote and still say, "I don't believe it," because that's how most people are in the military-history field, I've discovered to my disappointment. That's why it's a bad fit for me and why I'm done with it. People are too blinkered, too close minded, and too apt to shoot from the hip without having any actual knowledge on the topic. The first reaction to any different idea is "I don't believe it" instead of "Wow! What an interesting thought!" I probably just wrote a lot of things you'd never even heard before, but you still won't accept it. It's the same in music journalism. Different ideas are anathema. If things don't fit into a preconceived notion, they must be insantly rejected or denigrated, without any thought whatsoever. It's that knee-jerk reaction and instinct to get into a fight under the guise of "lively discussions" that I can no longer tolerate. I can't tolerate the rampant, thoughtless disrespect shown for different ideas, right off the bat. Reactions are entirely predictable in this field, and I'm done with predictability. It bores me to death.

And just to freak everybody out even more and upset their apple carts, here's a photo of a Guard Pioneer Unteroffizier wearing a Brunswick Totenkopf on his cap. The photo was taken July 7, 1916. My deduction is that he's member of the flamethrower platoon of Assault Battalion No. 5, which was authorized to wear a Guard Pioneer Pickelhaube with a Brunswick Totenkopf on June 6, 1916. I deduce that Rohr's flamethrower men then began wearing the Brunswick Totenkopf on their caps. My deduction is that Rohr Pickelhaube is what prompted Reddemann to ask the Crown Prince to award his unit a Totenkopf badge, too, but through a more official A.K.O. I have photographic evidence that Reddemann associated the Totenkopf with his flamethrower operators before the badge was officially awarded in July of 1916, so I deduce that when Reddemann learned of Rohr's men being authorized to wear a Totenkopf, he demanded that his men get a Totenkopf insignia, too, but as an official award sanctioned by the Kaiser, to make it more prestigious than Rohr's Totenkopf.

The letter by the Crown Prince announcing the Totenkopf sleeve badge says it was to be worn by the flamethrower regiment, not the flamethrower platoon of Sturmbataillon Nr. 5. Both the history of the assault batallion and the death book of the flamethrower regiment show that men serving in Rohr's battalion were not considered men of the flamethrower regiment. Therefore, they shouldn't have been awarded the sleeve badge at all. But they did wear it, in a different position.

I deduce that Reddemann bitched to the Crown Prince that he didn't want that b*stard Rohr's men wearing his badge, and Rohr demanded that his men be allowed to wear the badge, since they were flamethrower pioneers, too, so a compromise was reached: Rohr's men got to wear the badge, but in a different positon than Reddemann's men. I have two photos of a flamethrower pioneer wearing his sleeve badge first in the higher Rohr position and then later in the lower Reddemann position. Why did he have to change it, if the positon didn't matter, as everyone here says? If the position didn't matter, it wouldn't matter. But he changed it wihin a matter of weeks. I deduce that men from Rohr's batalion were transferred into Reddemann's regiment and told to put that damn badge where it belongs, solder!

Yes, yes, I know. Sheer insanity on my part to think this. But it's what I think, and it's what the director of the German Firefighting Museum thinks, having come to all the same conclusions that I had, independently of me. His deduction--based on Reddemann's behavior after the war, the fact that he became an ardent Nazi, his failures in the firefighting industry, and the fact that his widow never once spoke of her husband in the 20 years that she outlived him--is that Reddeman went crazy from anger and resentment and being robbed of the credit for developing all the tactics that Rohr used to become a famous German hero who was even mentioned in British, French, and American newspaper during the war. Reddemann was never promoted above the rank of major, even though he commanded a regiment. I deduce that since he was the son of a carpenter and became steadily angrier throughout the war as he saw himself eclipsed by the more famous assault battalions, he became more difficult and uncooperative. I deduce--based on the correspondence I've read--that this bacon was saved by direct intervention by the Crown Prince, but Reddemann's behavior kept him from acheiving the promotion he thought he deserved, adding to his anger and making him even more difficult.

Thus endeth the lecture. This will be the last time I discuss this here, because it's truly a waste of my time, I'm sorry to say, and it just upsets me too much to encounter this impenetrable, utterly predictable, implacable hostility over anything new and different.

Don't ask me about this anymore, because I'm done talking about it. This is my evidence, and when you reject it because it's in your nature to do so, I don't need to hear about it anymore. Reject it proudly, but don't bother me again with this question. It's a waste of everybody's time, because only one or two people here are open to new ideas.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Thomas W

[Robin Lumsden]

Indeed... that is why my sister would be yours any time you wanted, if I had had one :-)

Now you're talking! :)

[dond]

You would think the answer is simple, but the reality is much more complicated.

Rohr and Reddemann had an obvious rivalry during the war. My research has indicated that it was Reddemann who developed Stosstrupptaktik and then Willy Rohr was given the credit. Max Bauer said that Rohr and Reddemann developed the tactics jointly, but it's clear from the dates that Reddemann's men used shock-troop tactics long before Rohr was given command of the Assault Detachment.

Both Rohr and Reddemann competed for the attention of the Crown Prince, who called Rohr's unit his favorite, and Reddemann's unit his "body guard." The history of Rohr's unit by von Schwerin claims that during the first use of the Rohr flamethrower platoon in December of 1915, the flamethrower pioneers had no idea how to cooperate with infantry, due to lack of training. Either this is an out-and-out lie, a mistake, or the first flamethrower operators were not provided by Reddemann, because by December of 1915, Reddemann's men had carried out several successful attacks with infantry, and Reddemann's "Instructions for the Empoyment of Flamethrowers" had been issued in September of 1915. It describes in detail how infantry and flamethrower pioneers were to cooperate during an attack.

Von Schwerin said that the first flamethrower operators assigned to the Assault Detachment in October of 1915 were from "Flammenwerfer-Regiment Pionier-Bataillon 36," a unit that obviously didn't exist. He may have meant Pionier-Ersatz-Bataillon 36, which provided replacements for Pionier Regiments 35 and 36, the gas regiments. Records indicate that replacements for the Rohr flamethrower platoon came from Reddemann's 3rd Guard Pioneer Battalion, but the origins of the first flamethrower operators in Rohr's unit remain unclear.

Reddemann never mentioned Rohr once in anything he wrote, and von Schwerin never mentioned Reddemann. Ludwig Charles Theune, author of Sturmtruppen and Flammenwerfer, said that Rohr used Reddemann's tactics to create the Assault Detachment. He unequivocally states that Reddemann was the originator of the tactics.

So, we have obvious bad blood between Rohr and Reddemann; we have Reddemann the clear inventor of the tactics that made Rohr a national celebrity during the war, while Reddemann was referred to only as "Major R." in the newspapers; we have Reddemann never mentioning Rohr or Sturmbataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr) in his comprehensive history of the flamethrower arm; we have Rohr's adjutant not mentioning Reddemann and then possbly lying about the state of training of Reddemann's men; we have the possibility of Rohr's first flamethrower operators not even being Reddemann's men, maybe because Reddemann refused to provide them, which resulted in gas pioneers having to be used instead; we have the death book of the flamethrower regiment not mentioning the names of the 14 Rohr flamethrower pioneers killed during the war; we have Reddemann's history of the flamethrower arm lising the name of every Offizier-Stellvertreter except one named May, who was the commander of Rohr's flamethrower platoon; and we have the Rohr flamethrower pioneers wearing special Guard Pioneer uniforms not worn by any other flamethrower pioneers attached to assault battalions.

Given all that, along with the photographic evidence, I deduce that Rohr's men wore their badges in a different position than Reddemann's because Rohr and Reddemann hated each other and did whatever they could to differentiate their men.

I predict that with the exception of a tiny handful, most people will read everything I just wrote and still say, "I don't believe it," because that's how most people are in the military-history field, I've discovered to my disappointment. That's why it's a bad fit for me and why I'm done with it. People are too blinkered, too close minded, and too apt to shoot from the hip without having any actual knowledge on the topic. The first reaction to any different idea is "I don't believe it" instead of "Wow! What an interesting thought!" I probably just wrote a lot of things you'd never even heard before, but you still won't accept it. It's the same in music journalism. Different ideas are anathema. If things don't fit into a preconceived notion, they must be insantly rejected or denigrated, without any thought whatsoever. It's that knee-jerk reaction and instinct to get into a fight under the guise of "lively discussions" that I can no longer tolerate. I can't tolerate the rampant, thoughtless disrespect shown for different ideas, right off the bat. Reactions are entirely predictable in this field, and I'm done with predictability. It bores me to death.

And just to freak everybody out even more and upset their apple carts, here's a photo of a Guard Pioneer Unteroffizier wearing a Brunswick Totenkopf on his cap. The photo was taken July 7, 1916. My deduction is that he's member of the flamethrower platoon of Assault Battalion No. 5, which was authorized to wear a Guard Pioneer Pickelhaube with a Brunswick Totenkopf on June 6, 1916. I deduce that Rohr's flamethrower men then began wearing the Brunswick Totenkopf on their caps. My deduction is that Rohr Pickelhaube is what prompted Reddemann to ask the Crown Prince to award his unit a Totenkopf badge, too, but through a more official A.K.O. I have photographic evidence that Reddemann associated the Totenkopf with his flamethrower operators before the badge was officially awarded in July of 1916, so I deduce that when Reddemann learned of Rohr's men being authorized to wear a Totenkopf, he demanded that his men get a Totenkopf insignia, too, but as an official award sanctioned by the Kaiser, to make it more prestigious than Rohr's Totenkopf.

The letter by the Crown Prince announcing the Totenkopf sleeve badge says it was to be worn by the flamethrower regiment, not the flamethrower platoon of Sturmbataillon Nr. 5. Both the history of the assault batallion and the death book of the flamethrower regiment show that men serving in Rohr's battalion were not considered men of the flamethrower regiment. Therefore, they shouldn't have been awarded the sleeve badge at all. But they did wear it, in a different position.

I deduce that Reddemann bitched to the Crown Prince that he didn't want that b*stard Rohr's men wearing his badge, and Rohr demanded that his men be allowed to wear the badge, since they were flamethrower pioneers, too, so a compromise was reached: Rohr's men got to wear the badge, but in a different positon than Reddemann's men. I have two photos of a flamethrower pioneer wearing his sleeve badge first in the higher Rohr position and then later in the lower Reddemann position. Why did he have to change it, if the positon didn't matter, as everyone here says? If the position didn't matter, it wouldn't matter. But he changed it wihin a matter of weeks. I deduce that men from Rohr's batalion were transferred into Reddemann's regiment and told to put that damn badge where it belongs, solder!

Yes, yes, I know. Sheer insanity on my part to think this. But it's what I think, and it's what the director of the German Firefighting Museum thinks, having come to all the same conclusions that I had, independently of me. His deduction--based on Reddemann's behavior after the war, the fact that he became an ardent Nazi, his failures in the firefighting industry, and the fact that his widow never once spoke of her husband in the 20 years that she outlived him--is that Reddeman went crazy from anger and resentment and being robbed of the credit for developing all the tactics that Rohr used to become a famous German hero who was even mentioned in British, French, and American newspaper during the war. Reddemann was never promoted above the rank of major, even though he commanded a regiment. I deduce that since he was the son of a carpenter and became steadily angrier throughout the war as he saw himself eclipsed by the more famous assault battalions, he became more difficult and uncooperative. I deduce--based on the correspondence I've read--that this bacon was saved by direct intervention by the Crown Prince, but Reddemann's behavior kept him from acheiving the promotion he thought he deserved, adding to his anger and making him even more difficult.

Thus endeth the lecture. This will be the last time I discuss this here, because it's truly a waste of my time, I'm sorry to say, and it just upsets me too much to encounter this impenetrable, utterly predictable, implacable hostility over anything new and different.

Don't ask me about this anymore, because I'm done talking about it. This is my evidence, and when you reject it because it's in your nature to do so, I don't need to hear about it anymore. Reject it proudly, but don't bother me again with this question. It's a waste of everybody's time, because only one or two people here are open to new ideas.

I guess this is not a discussion forum then. Its a "I've said it so it must be true" place. Fine. As for hostility, the only posts where I see it are yours. You don't like people questioning your work but that is how things are done in acadamia. If someone hadn't questioned the church's belief that the earth is flat where would wwe be now? Ironically, none of this has anything to do with the original purpose of this thread, the black skull.

My last thought before conceding the field to you is this, Rohr's men,by positioning their TK at a position superior to Reddeman's unit, that would be like saying "we are better than you." Unfortunately, still a supposition.

[Thomas W]

I guess this is not a discussion forum then. Its a "I've said it so it must be true" place. Fine. As for hostility, the only posts where I see it are yours. You don't like people questioning your work but that is how things are done in acadamia. If someone hadn't questioned the church's belief that the earth is flat where would wwe be now? Ironically, none of this has anything to do with the original purpose of this thread, the black skull.

My last thought before conceding the field to you is this, Rohr's men,by positioning their TK at a position superior to Reddeman's unit, that would be like saying "we are better than you." Unfortunately, still a supposition.

Excellent job of completely missing my point. I've never said, "I've said it, so it must be true." I've said we've gone over this many times in this very thread, and I'm tired of explaining my theory, which I've said is just a theory. However, I've laid out concrete curicmumstantial evidence for the theory, and not gotten any rebuttals except, "I don't believe it," or "Maybe they just put it on wrong." Not very impressive, I must say.

That tells me that there's an idée fixe at work here, and when we're dealing with that, there's nothing I can say to change anybody's mind, so there's no point in going on about it. "I don't believe it because I don't believe it" is just as inflexible and illogical as "I've said it, so it must be true."

Don't whine to me about hostility. I've had a boatload of it directed my way for no reason at all, along with derision and bizarre pretzel logic. I'm just giving back what I've been getting. I never said I don't like people questioning my work. But show me a thoughtful, detailed, non-snarky post where someone respectfully presents an opposing viewpoint along with their own factual evidence to back it up. I'll wait. Besides, this isn't even hostility; it's just a "lively discussion," remember? It's what we love, 'cause it's exciting!

And finally, you're getting the picture: Rohr's men put their badges in a higher position because they felt superior to Reddemann's men. Rohr was the superstar, while Reddemann was the carpenter's son and a member of the the reserves. Just a suppositon. No actual military documents stating "Rohr's men felt superior to Reddemann's men," so it's impossible. Impossible, I say!

I've presented tons of circumstantial evidence, and those who think my ideas are all wet have done no such thing. That's why I've finally lost patience. Who needs this? Seriously. If you can't understand my impatience, too bad. Besides, the post I wrote before this last series of exhanges was to Robin about a possibly black Totenkopf. Did anybody offer anything in the nature of a serious disussion about my photo? Of course not. It was just the usual mocking one-liners from Chris. Did anyone wonder why a pioneer was including in an infantry unit? He's not from an infantry-gun battery, because he has no exploding shell on his shoudler straps. He's a pioneer with what appears to be a skull-shaped sleeve badge, but he's not from the flamethrower regiment. I thought people would be genuninely interested. My mistake.

So if you've got a problem about how this has devolved, take it up with the people who turned it into some weird, completely uncalled-for p*ssing contest, the way all military-history forums are. I originally got into the field of military histroy to share information. I've discovered that my approach is not welcome because people aren't interested in new ideas, so that's why I'm not going to waste any more time on it. This was just the last straw, that's all. It's been building for a long time.

I linked some of the responses here to another non-military forum, and people were utterly shocked at what they called the most amazing head-in-the-sand attitude they'd ever seen. It's endemic in military forums. That's fine. You don't see it because the culture has taken you over, apparently. But I can still think for myself. I've enjoyed some of my time in this field, but in the end it wasn't any more rewarding that of music journalism, so it's time for me to stop messing with it.

My three books are out there for anyone who wants to read my retarded theories and the many, many, many pieces of evidence I use to back them up. If anyone ever has a substantial argument against them, with their own counter-evidence, I'm willing to listen.

But I'm done with laughing emoticons and one-liners. Who needs it? It's a gigantic waste of time on my part, because there's no engagement. I dont mind engaging with people, but this adolescent, endless snark has taken all the pleasure out of it for me, so I'm moving on. Big deal. The forum will go on fine.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Thomas W

[Robin Lumsden]

The post I wrote before this last series of exhanges was to Robin about a possibly black Totenkopf.

And I thank you for that, Tom.

IMHO, your credentials in this particular field are impeccable and I will always welcome any further information you care to provide on the subject.

[Naxos]

... Photos can establish that something WAS done, not WHY it was done.

I have to agree with that.

[Robin Lumsden]

I have to agree with that.

Ich auch.

But the fact that something WAS done is good enough for me! ;)

[Robin Lumsden]

Another example of 'Never Say Never'.

The Black Dukes's original Napoleonic cap, with a very unusual TK.

Found today ................... the same style of TK on a later busby, from a period photo.

All things are possible !!

[Naxos]

All things are possible !!

Robin, as a fellow investigator I agree.

However, (as you know) mere possibility is not evidence - nor is conjecture.

Personally I think the scull patch that started this mega thread is a period worn original - but, and here I am with Chris, so far no convincing evidence has been presented to support my assumption.

.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Naxos

[Robin Lumsden]

Personally I think the scull patch that started this mega thread is a period worn original - but, and here I am with Chris, so far no convincing evidence has been presented to support my assumption.

I agree completely.

Thanks to all the contributions in this thread, however, the search for convincing evidence continues.

[Robin Lumsden]

Yet another odd one ........................

[Chris Boonzaier]

Well spotted Robin, that one I see....

[Robin Lumsden]

Here's a BRUNSWICK postcard from 1903 ...................... with a PRUSSIAN skull !! ;)

[Chip]

And just to freak everybody out even more and upset their apple carts, here's a photo of a Guard Pioneer Unteroffizier wearing a Brunswick Totenkopf on his cap. The photo was taken July 7, 1916.

I have a question about this "Guard Pioneer" photo. The man in question is wearing a Bluse and thus should have M15 pioneer straps, which for this model tunic are black with red piping. These appear to be normal Guard infantry straps, that is, feldgrau with colored piping and no unit number. Is there some explanation on the back of the photo or some other reason this would not just be a Guard infantryman?

Thanks,

Chip

[Robin Lumsden]

Just out of interest, here's the smaller 1843-pattern Prussian TK on a Fluegelmuetze. From the upcoming Thies auction.

[joerookery]

Here is the rest of that photo and a close up. What exactly is this device? This was taken in Spandau.

ps2030 by joerookery, on Flickr

ps2030b by joerookery, on Flickr

[Odulf]

Even the HJ used the Skull badge...

[Robin Lumsden]

Even the HJ used the Skull badge...

Korrekt!

[Robin Lumsden]

Here's a photo of the FW cuff badge being worn in conjunction with a 'Der Stahlhelmbund' helmet badge pinned on the collar.

As the Stahlhelmbund wasn't founded until December 1918, yet another example of the FW arm TK being worn after the end of the war, in violation of the Crown Prince's instructions.

[Robin Lumsden]

Another connection between Garde Pionier and Minenwerfer ...............