Heer Zugwache Set

[Gordon Williamson]

First purchase of the year.

Sadly, the photo has been cut out of the Wehrpass but as the price of the set was actually less than I've paid for another Zugwache Wound Badge Doc on its own, I wasn't complaining.

Here's the Wound Badge doc.

[Gordon Williamson]

His Zugwache service was all with the same Abteilung, Zugwache-Abteilung 513.

[Gordon Williamson]

Promotions Both while with 4 Staffel.

[Gordon Williamson]

Operating in areas under the administrative authority of the RKO (Reichskommisariat Ostland), and then Heeresgrupope Nord at Kurland.

[Gordon Williamson]

He was wounded in January 1944 and hospitalised from 18 January to 13 February 1944. The handwritten entry is a bit small and hard to read, but I think I can make out " Bei Minensprengung Verletzung xxx u. xxxxx . Kriegslazarett II/605. I believe this hospital was located in Hungary (Budapest).

So, I guess his train was probably blown up when it ran over explosive charges laid by Partisans.

Interesting that his death is recorded at 6 October 1945, after the war ended.

[Chris Boonzaier]

I think it is "verletzung der u. XXX"

I am wondering if this was not a controlled detonation carried out by the Germans and he was injured as opposed to wounded? For some reason I have always thought Verwundung was a wound, and Verletzung an Injury?

Best

Chris

[Gordon Williamson]

I thought about that but it was the "Minen" part which suggested to me enemy action. I can't imagine why a train guard would be involved in using demolition material - that would be the job of the pioniers. Even then, would they use "Mines" to clear an obstactle, surely just dynamite.

On the other hand, part of the whole raison d'être for the Zugwache was defending trains against Partisan attacks, which often involved blowing up the tracks with mines as the trains passed over them.

Not sure about the Verletzung issue, whether it was a cut and dried rule or whether it was a matter of interpretation by the clerk filling in the book. Maybe indirectly injured if the train crashed after a mine explosion, rather than wounded by shrapnel ?

[Chris Boonzaier]

Not sure about the Verletzung issue, whether it was a cut and dried rule or whether it was a matter of interpretation by the clerk filling in the book. Maybe indirectly injured if the train crashed after a mine explosion, rather than wounded by shrapnel ?

Thats possible, as I said, it is just a thought from the dusty backrooms of my memory. May also just be how the clerk entered it in the book.

best

Chris

[speedytop]

Hi,

Bei Minensprengung Verletzung des rechten Fußes. > injury of the right foot

Chris,

"Verletzung" could be both, civilian and military. "Er erlitt bei einem Verkehrsunfall eine schwere Verletzung" > serious injury

"Verwundung" is more military, but a "Wunde" (wound) is civilian and military.

See in Post 5 on page 34, Im Kriege: Verwundungen und ...

"Er hat sich verletzt und hat jetzt eine Wunde am Fuß"

"Er wurde verwundet und hat jetzt eine Wunde am Fuß."

There is a date difference, 17. Januar and 18. Januar, but that is not unusual.

Is there no other entry about his destination after May 1945?

Uwe

[Gordon Williamson]

Thanks Uwe !

Bad enough trying to decipher Sütterlin without having to take in to account handwriting of the person using it . Of course once someone points out what it is - it seems very clear !

As to the use of Verletzung rather than Verwundung, I think it probably depended on the actual form of the injury. By definition, a "Wound" involves the skin being punctured or torn or internal damage caused by blunt force trauma. An Injury is something lesser, possibly a broken leg, ankle etc.

The Wound Badge could only be awarded if the damage was directly caused by enemy action. In the kind of scenario Chris suggested where maybe the Germans were using a controlled explosion perhaps to clear a blockage on the railway line, any injury would be considered an accident, and the rules clearly stated "Illness and accidents , even if in the face of the enemy, but without intervention of enemy fire, are not eligible for the award".

So my guess is still that his injury was caused by an explosion likely due to the enemy having planted explosives and blown up the railway line when his train was passing.

[speedytop]

"In the kind of scenario Chris suggested where maybe the Germans were using a controlled explosion perhaps to clear a blockage on the railway line, any injury would be considered an accident, and the rules clearly stated "Illness and accidents , even if in the face of the enemy, but without intervention of enemy fire, are not eligible for the award"

Not correct. Please see here:

"Zusätze des Oberkommando des Heeres

...

IV. Durchführung der Verleihung

...

2. Verwundung beim Umgang mit Minen:

Die Voraussetzungen für die Verleihung des VA. sind als gegeben anzusehen, wenn Soldaten beim Umgang mit eigenen oder feindlichen Minen - Aufnehmen und Entschärfen eigener oder feindlicher Minen oder Blindgänger bzw. Legen oder Verlegen eigener oder fendlicher Minen gegen den Feind - ohne eigenes Verschulden verwundet worden sind.

...

OKH., 15.4.43"

The conditions for the award of the badge are given, when soldiers without own fault were wounded when dealing with their own or enemy mines.

Uwe

[Gordon Williamson]

Thanks Uwe. I didn't have that OKH Bulletin. For some reason I have the one on 11 March about the Wound Badge and then 25 May but not this one from 15 April.

Still, I think it is unlikely that somehow a Zugwache soldier would be involved in clearing German mines, so I still think that enemy action is the most likely.