Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Here is the reverse of the dog tag from when I owned it.  No assumptions at all I'm afraid.

Flamenwerfer dogtag rear.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the reverse of the dog tag from when I owned it.  No assumptions at all I'm afraid.

Flamenwerfer dogtag rear.jpg

thanks, I had "Assumed" that a second unit would be on it as is so often found on WW1 tags ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now show me the evidence that he was issued two sleeve badges. Otherwise it's just a working theory, like everything I write.

Show us the evidence he was not?

What is more likely, he was issued 2 Badges, or these things are so comman that it is more likely there just happened to be these 3 items together in a drawer somewhere.

It is sometimes easier to develop an opinion or theory based on what we find, instead of dismissing what we find because it does not fit an opinion.

 

Is there any serious thoughts as to who actually wore the badge? When did a guy recieve one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show us the evidence he was not?

What is more likely, he was issued 2 Badges, or these things are so comman that it is more likely there just happened to be these 3 items together in a drawer somewhere.

It is sometimes easier to develop an opinion or theory based on what we find, instead of dismissing what we find because it does not fit an opinion.

 

Is there any serious thoughts as to who actually wore the badge? When did a guy recieve one?

What would constitute evidence that a person was not given something? A film of every second of their entire life?

"What's more likely"? Hey, now you're arguing what I used to argue. You always used to shoot it down. I guess it's different when you do it.

"It is sometimes easier to develop an opinion or theory based on what we find, instead of dismissing what we find because it does not fit an opinion."

That's what I used to argue too! Son of a gun!

Looks like you now agree with everything I once wrote, back when I tried to talk to you about it.

Better late than never.

Jäger_Sturmabatillon_Nr. 3..jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two bizarre anomalies in one photo. Note the medic on the right.

1. He's got his Totenkopf on his OVERCOAT sleeve. Each man was issued only one badge. Maybe he was so proud of the death's head that he didn't mind tearing it off and resewing it on, depending on the season. I've never seen one on an overcoat before.

2. He's a medic. Normally medics were attached from the Medical Companies. A medic wouldn't have been trained on flamethrowers. It's possible that he's wearing the red cross brassard because he's simply been DEEMED a medic by the unit, but I've never seen medical personnel with a flamethrower badge.

 

medic.jpg

Thomas,

a seldom view indeed! The picture is from the Revolution time, when soldiers started to take liberties with uniform regulations.

If they were only given one example, maybe they were given the possibility to buy another one?

Regards

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas,

a seldom view indeed! The picture is from the Revolution time, when soldiers started to take liberties with uniform regulations.

If they were only given one example, maybe they were given the possibility to buy another one?

Regards

 

It's possible. In my entire collection, I have no other image of the Totenkopf on a greatcoat sleeve. The badge was so prized that men rarely wore it into combat. I have a handful of genuine combat photos of flamethrower pioneers, and only one shows some men wearing the badge.

This photo was taken on December 28, 1916, as a platoon of the 2nd Company was about to assault the Dead Man in Verdun. The majority of the men in the photo wear uniforms without the sleeve badge.

The red arrow shows Georg Lembke, Bob Lembke's father. This was his last battle as a flamethrower operator. He was wounded so severely that he was declared unfit for flamethrower duty and became a hand-grenade thrower. As Bob said, his father hated the steel helmet and wore his soft cap into combat instead.

Character.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could one reason be the badge wasn't worn because they were hated even by comrades, much as MGSs gunners? When these troops turned up regulars knew they were in for a hard time. It seems to me there was much more wearing of specialist badges postwar up to 1925/6 than during actual W1 battles.

Interesting remark on helmets I'd had the same response from a German W2 vet recently. They couldn't wait to dump the steel helmet on the Eastern front he called it heavy uncomfortable froze your head in winter and fried it during the summer, they fought in wool caps.

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could one reason be the badge wasn't worn because they were hated even by comrades, much as MGSs gunners? When these troops turned up regulars knew they were in for a hard time. It seems to me there was much more wearing of specialist badges postwar up to 1925/6 than during actual W1 battles.

Interesting remark on helmets I'd had the same response from a German W2 vet recently. They couldn't wait to dump the steel helmet on the Eastern front he called it heavy uncomfortable froze your head in winter and fried it during the summer, they fought in wool caps.

Eric

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that the Allies summarily killed flamethrower operators, and I have one account of German infantrymen taken prisoner along with flamethrower pioneers.

This British officer who wrote the account said that the German infantrymen asked the British to kill the flamethrower pioneers, because the latter always broke up live-and-let live arrangements and then left, causing the infantrymen to be shelled in retaliation.

In this case, after the British refused to kill the flamethrower operators, the German infantrymen tried to do it, so the two groups were separated and brought back to the British trenches one at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could one reason be the badge wasn't worn because they were hated even by comrades, much as MGSs gunners? When these troops turned up regulars knew they were in for a hard time. It seems to me there was much more wearing of specialist badges postwar up to 1925/6 than during actual W1 battles.

Eric

MGSS men were issued with more than one badge. It was also meant for the Tunic and Greatcoat, but you seldom or ever see it on the greatcoat. Maybe simply because men seldom bothered to sew it on the greatcoat?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to divert the thread but where did you get the issue thing from? They get damaged broken even at play war so they probably requested or even purchased extras imo. The main point is the specialist training schooling they did if a soldiers tunic became rat he may or not have bothered with replacing the insignia. "At ease this is no parade ground" .

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to divert the thread but where did you get the issue thing from? They get damaged broken even at play war so they probably requested or even purchased extras imo. The main point is the specialist training schooling they did if a soldiers tunic became rat he may or not have bothered with replacing the insignia. "At ease this is no parade ground" .

Eric

The son of a German flamethrower pioneer said that his father told him he was issued only one badge, I have postcards that say, "Got my new badge. I need to take care of it because they gave me only one." And the book Sturmtruppen und Flammenwerfer by Ludwig Charles Theune says that each pioneer had one uniform with Garde Litzen and badge and one "plain" uniform with neither.

The badges were moved around a lot on the sleeve, depending on the unit. Each position signified a different unit. Photos show that the badges were often pinned in place rather than sewn, which indicates that they were taken off. If multiple badges WERE issued to the thousands of men who passed through the regiment, there would be a lot more in existence today.

In every group photo of flamethrower pioneers wearing the badge, there are men without it. It's clear to me that the badge was something they took care of.

Of the thousands of photos I own and have seen, so far I've come across only one on the greatcoat sleeve. In my desire to share this unique image, I forgot the ritual, that posting here requires that I run a gauntlet.

It's not worth the price of admission. I'll keep my images to myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of the thousands of photos I own and have seen, so far I've come across only one on the greatcoat sleeve. In my desire to share this unique image, I forgot the ritual, that posting here requires that I run a gauntlet.

It's not worth the price of admission. I'll keep my images to myself.

Hi, the same can be said for the MGSSA badge, have seen many, many, many photos, but can count the greatcoat photos on a couple of fingers.... yet the MGSSA book does stipulate it is for the waffenrock and Greatcoat...

There is a gauntlet, this gauntlet exists basically everywhere in life... and everyone runs it when they advance a theory.

Some people choose to throw their teddy in a corner when their opinions are questioned, some stay in place and take part in the discussion without taking it personally.

I am happy to see you posting, but like anyone else you have to be ready to defend opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity I wanted Thomas to explain something I saw in one of his photos not shown here, a piece attached to a helmet cover clip.

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another photo showing a badge placed ................... but not sewn !!

 

Dated this time ............... 1917.

 

TK looks very white !!

post-153-0-34911700-1425766546.jpg

post-153-0-40213700-1425766567.jpg

post-153-0-88550400-1425766583.jpg

Of all the pictures with the patch shown in this long thread, only the posts #1780 and #1785 do show the sleeve badge being just pinned or maybe lain on the sleeve (for the time of the picture?). Both have in common that they were shot in a studio, not in the field. Maybe they just show two pioneers that have been given the badge and were eager to show off and went to the photographs's, before having it properly sewn on. 

Regards

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His uniform looks brand new minty but his hands are filthy its a pity we can't see his boots, set up studio photos are weird that's why I like field photos.I wonder how many soldiers had two uniforms one for field duty one for walking out other than officers.

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another two unusual ones for the files.  One badge very low on the sleeve ................. the other apparently cut from the backing.

Gd Pnr TK 79.JPG

Gd Pnr TK 81.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin,

That barrel cuff us unusually shallow. I think the insignia is low because it is nearly the same height as the cuff. In order to keep it on the cuff, it had to be in that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a 21MGSs album I guess they were attached to them at some point.

Eric

PB293984.JPG

PB293985.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2015, 10:41:36, Stuka f said:

I am joining in (slowely!!) ;-)

 

doodskop 019.JPG

Is that a black skull I see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...