Jump to content
New Registrations Read more... ×
Research Assistance Donations Read more... ×
Apologies - Forum was down for several days Read more... ×

armored infantry

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by armored infantry

  1. :(:wacko: Of course




    I've found my information here:

    History of the 46th Tank Battalion

    For me it is not so clear whether the 67th Armored Infantry Battalion or the 46th Tank Battalion lost its A, B and D company and whether Task Force Sheffy and Task Force Feldman were parts of Taskforce Delnore or separate Taskforces. And I'm also not sure whether this is caused by the quality of the text or by my English.




    Hi Christoph,


    Thanks for the link. The History of the 46th Tank Bn. is typical of those written by units of armored divisions. Since we know CCB was busy, we are talking about CCA. The Order of Battle for CCA, as described in the History of the 46th Tank Bn. is as follows.


    The primary combat units of Combat Command A are the 67th AIB, 46th Tank, and apparently the 498th AFA Bn. Two task forces were created, each built around the headquarters of the 67th AIB and 46th Tank. CCA and its task forces also had Cavalry (Mechanized) Armored Engineers, AAA units, Medical Detachments, Trucking Companies, Service Companies, etc. which are not mentioned in the history.


    Task Force Satt was built around the headquarters of the 67th AIB, and consisted of A and B Companies of the 46th Tank along with A and B Companies of the 67th AIB.


    Task Force Delinore was built around the headquarters of the 46th Tank and included: C Company 67th AIB and C Company 46th Tank, along with additional units of the types listed above.


    D Company 46th Tank was probably not in CCA "Reserve," but were used as flanking units and security operations withing the combat command's interior line of communications. Why? Because D was a light tank company which was poorly suited to act as any sort of reserve, but perfectly capable of carrying out the types of missions I mentioned. Besides no commander worth his salt would keep a company of light tanks as the reserve for a combat command.


    The 498th AFA Bn. belonged to CCA headquarters, and Armored Force doctrine and tactics required batteries of the supporting AFA Bn. to travel far forward in each column with other batteries farther back.


    On 10 April, TF Delinore received A Company 124th Armored Engineer Bn. and a platoon of the 630th Tank Destroyer Bn. Task Force Delinore was then broken down into two sub-task forces, TF Sheffey and TF Feldman. A few days later we see TF Delinore augmented by the return of two tank companies, A and D, and A Company of the 67th AIB.


    These were combined arms units in the purest sense, and were tailored by higher headquarters to best fulfill the mission given them. So as you can see, it is not possible for any individual unit of CCA to honestly claim credit for liberating any camp they may have come across.


    Hope this helps.



  2. Do not praise too early...


    Looking at the dates, he was perhaps in the camp in Bonn-Hardthöhe/Hardtberg), which was freed on the 8th. This camp was much bigger with ten-thousands of POWs. The area was later (1955)used for the German Department of Defense. There is also a memorial stone:

    Secretary of defense inaugurating memorial stone


    The next POW camp to Siegburg was in Rösrath: Stalag VI G Arb-Kdo 281. Concededly this camp was freed not on 8 but on 12 April 1945, by taskforce Delnore of the 46th Tank Battalion,






    The camp at Bonn-Hardthöhe/Hardtberg was liberated by the 1st Infantry Division between 7 and 10 March 1945, not April. This action eliminated German resistance west of the Rhine in the First Army area of operations.


    The 46th Tank Battalion was organic to the 13th Armored Division. Any task force of an armored division was made up of the combined arms. To clairfy, this means the liberators of Rösrath: Stalag VI G Arb-Kdo 281 included units of the division other than the 46th Tank Battalion. Any attempt to determine the specifics of the liberation would require an examination of the reports and journals of those units, as well as the 46th Tank Battalion, and the combat command to which it was attached. Since CCB was refitting and reorganizing in the Dunnwald area on 11-12 April, the liberating parent unit was most likely CCA.

  3. Camp Washington might be "Camp Washington, DC", one of the "City Camps" located around the French city of Reims.

    Troops would pass through these camps on the way to the "Cigarette Camps" at Le Harve.

    There were more camps around Antwerp as well as camps north of Marsailles in Southern France but i havent found anything on those yet.




    The U. S. Army's redeployment camps (repo-depos) around the French city of Reims were all named after American cities. Reims itself became the headquarters of the Assembly Area Command, which was the central organizing entity for these camps. (Information on these "'tent" camps is sparse,



    Atlanta — —

    Baltimore 25 miles SE of Reims —

    Boston — —

    Brooklyn — —

    Chicago —

    Cleveland — —

    Des Moines — —

    Detroit Northwest of Reims

    Miami — —

    New Orleans — —

    New York Suippes Sub-Area, 40 km SE of Reims —

    Norfolk — —

    Oklahoma City — —

    Philadelphia — —

    Pittsburgh — —

    San Antonio — —

    St. Louis near Verzenay, approx. 15 km south of Reims —

    Washington, D. C. —





    The Cigarette Camps

    Most of the camps were located between Le Havre and Rouen.

    Camp Herbert Tareyton, located in the Forest of Montgeon within the city limits, with a capacity of 16,400 men.

    Camp Wings, capacity of 2,250 men, was situated on the grounds of the Blaville Aerodrome.

    Camp Home Run, at Sanvic, capacity 2,000 men;

    Camp Philip Morris, at Gainneville, held 35,000 men;

    Camp Pall Mall, at Etretat, provided rather soggy billets for 7,700 men.

    Camp Lucky Strike, located between Cany and Saint-Valery (capacity 58,000);

    Camp Old Gold, at Ourville (capacity 35,000); and

    Camp Twenty Grand, at Duclair (capacity 20,000).

    Camp Chesterfield (Information about Camp Chesterfield is very sparse)

    Camp Tophat, on the outskirts of Antwerp, Belgium, also qualified (technically) as a Cigarette Camp since it was named after Belgian Tophat cigarettes.




    Sissonne is about 25 miles north of Reims. This fits with the information you provided.





  4. Marion, while you're looking for Roosevelt Camp if you happen across a

    Washington Camp would you let me know? Also My dad went in with the 359th Engineers, but on his papers it said Movement RE 7410 160th C Company, he was shipping out to the South Pacific from La Harve. The war ended and instead they went home. I have some of the Japanese money and French money they were given. Very colorful






    Camp Washington was near Sissonne, France. The USAMHI collection has a photograph of Quartermaster Truck Companies taken at Camp Washington in 1945.


    Given the camp's location, I suspect it was an assembly area for units that were waiting their turn to ship out.


    Undoubtedly there is more information about Camp Washington at NARA, although it is probably buried in the masses of COMZ materials that to date have been largely unexplored.



  5. I'll just say one thing, we got our supplies up in the mtns. by mule train. Yes everyone did their share and some of them paid the price. War was and still is HELL.......Rocky


    I appreciate your comments, but have to say I'm of the opinion that not everyone always did their share. If that were the case there would have been fewer court martials, no black market in the rear areas, and more senior commanders who would have been up in the front lines where the shooting was more often than they were. To me, at least, this makes the CIB all the more important since it signifies (for the most part) that the man who really earned it did his share without any doubt whatsoever.


    Here is one of the best descriptions I've seen of what the CIB means to those who really earned it.


    In his widely acclaimed book War In A Time Of Peace, David Halberstam comments on the Combat Infantry Badge as follows:


    What the military in its codes valued more than anything else was honor; serious military men always knew which of their colleagues had served their time in combat and could be counted on. That was why in private, when they were in uniform among each other, army men often did not display all their ribbons but instead wore the Combat Infantry Badge. It was the army’s true badge of honor, and wearing the CIB without other ribbons—even the Silver or Bronze Star—was part of the culture’s secret language, the way real army men spoke to each other, deliberately understated. It said in effect that the recipient had been there and done it, and for anyone else who had also been there, that was all you needed to know. And if you hadn’t been there, it didn’t matter what you thought.


    Of course, this description rightly places me among those whose thoughts on the subject simply do not matter. However, I am more than satisfied (and honored) with just having known such men.



  6. Oh you had to bring up mules, huh?! Here's some things we have had to say about them in the past!


    Army mules ... you got to love them. After all, despite our increasingly mechanized force, they had a job to fulfill during the war, and they did it biting, kicking, and being generally fractious all the way...... kinda like our combat infantrymen. :clappin:


    Perhaps Rocky can attest to the mulishness of your average combat infantryman. :armata_PDT_37:


    One wonders if immediately following the successful charge of Grant's Mule Brigade the Confederates did not hurriedly set about forming a Mule Brigade of their own. I can see it now. Ol' Stonewall turns to an aide and says, send in the Mule Brigade against the enemy's left flank..... that should throw 'em back.



  7. Two other badges should be made that wold settle this confusion. C.E.B,(Engineers), C.T.B, (Tankers) that would leave the C.I.B.,(INFANTRY) ALONE. OH YEAH, I GOT ONE... Got it where Engineers or tanks could not go. Mountains of Italy. (justanoledogfacetalkin') Rocky





    You bet. It is a shame the powers that be (were?) did not come up with the CEB and CTB as you suggest. That way everybody who saw combat could have had their own badge, although the War Department would have had to add a Combat Artillery Badge (CAB) and probably some others I can't think of at the moment. Oh, .... a Combat Signals Badge (CSB) for those poor linemen who were always out fixing the broken lines to the front lines. I've yet to talk with one of these guys who wasn't out under enemy artillery fire splicing wires so the guys up front (not too far away I'm sure) could call back and get the artillery on target or ask where the he?? the tanks were.


    Speaking of infantry in the mountains. General Devers, short on infantry, ordered a couple of battalions of armored infantry into mountain top positions in the French Alps, and when SHAEF found out what he had done he had to write a justification for his decision. According to my sources the real fun began when these "mechanized" armored infantrymen had to pack their mules, and lead them into the mountains. Apparently the mules caused more damage and injuries than the Germans. (Maybe they were secret weapon German mules specially bred by Adolph himself just for this purpose?) :armata_PDT_23:


    On a more serious and less generous note, I have to wonder if the CIB would be less attractive to the non-infantry types if it did not carry the BSM with it. B)



  8. Robert,


    After some reflection on this matter of awarding the CIB to engineers, I came up with a few questions for you.


    Both Infantry and Armored divisions routinely created Task Forces to meet the changing demands of the battlefield. Often these task forces were built around an infantry battalion or infantry regiment, and were under the control of the battalion or regimental commanding officer. These task forces frequently included armor and engineers (organic and otherwise). These units supported the infantry's advances by direct fire. In other instances, the infantry might cross a waterway with tanks and engineers providing direct fire support and even crossing the waterway in the company of the infantry.


    According to your interpretation of the criteria for the CIB, the members of each of these supporting units, including the engineers, would be eligible for the award. So here is the question.


    Would the CIB be recommended only for the officers of the supporting units?


    Would it be necessary for a senior officer like Truscott to recommend the CIB before it could be awarded?


    Or would the members of each of these supporting units automatically be eligible for the CIB because they were engaged in combat alongside of and while attached to an infantry unit?


    If this is the case, in part or in full, then every soldier (assuming that you are wrong about the officers being eligible when the NCOs and enlisted men are not) who engaged in combat while in direct support of an infantry unit to which they were attached at the time in question, would be eligible for the CIB.


    Would you limit the CIB to just engineers or would the artillery FO be eligible? What about the tankers whose tank was knocked out and were forced to take refuge with (and fight alongside) the infantry they were supporting? Would the Forward Air Liaison be eligible if he opened fire on the enemy with his personal weapon? Once you start handing out the CIB to men in non-infantry units, where does it stop? In other words, what is the cut-off point, assuming there is one to be found within the model you have constructed?


    I look forward to reading your answers to these perfectly legitimate questions.



  9. I may not have the same WD Circular 186 as you, because I do not find the requirement for MOS of an infantryman. The requirement to be assigned to an infantry unit is valid, but has been wavered numerous times during WWII.






    The 56 officers assigned to 540th Engineer Regiment were awarded by mistake? How was Colonel Marvin able to order the awards with the Adjutant authorizing. Furthermore, the General Order Number 24, dated 13 October 1944 was accepted by the Adjutant General, Washington, D.C., Attention: Awards & Decorations Branch; the Commanding General NATOUSA, Personnel branch, AGO Section; and the Commanding General 7th Army, AGO Section. Were they all wrong?








    I believe I presented ample evidence that the CIB was awarded to hundreds of WWII combatants in accordance with. I can accept the recommendation by General Truscott. I gather between the lines you do not. Have you ever heard of wavers being applied? According to evidence they were.




    From previous correspondence with you, I only learned it is a waste of time. That was the reason I put a block on your email letters.


    Finally, I am waiting patiently for a response to my letter from an authority even you will not deter. It will settle the disagreement one way or another.






    We have always spoken via telephone so I do not understand your reference to blocking my emails. I think you have me confused with someone else.


    Please note there is a tremendous difference in being assigned to an infantry unit and being attached to one. They are not the same thing.


    Do you not find it odd in the extreme that only the officers of the 540th were awarded the CIB?


    Were there not more than a few NCOs and enlisted men enrolled in this regiment? Did they not fight too? Why only the officers? The answer is rather obvious.


    This would certainly not be the only time that someone managed to slip one over on the guys in the War Department, now would it. And this is a pretty clear instance in which the officers managed to get some extra points on their service records while giving the enlisted men and NCOs the shaft. Please check the "Ethics Papers" at the CGSC Library for some insight regarding the ongoing problems with unethical recommendations and awards of military decorations.


    As to the Truscott letter,... he may very well have had good reason to request an exemption in the case of the 36th Engineers. However, the very fact that he is requesting such an exemption is proof that non- infantrymen were prohibited by the existing regulations from receiving the CIB, and that such an award to non-infantrymen required said exemption, and was probably quite rare.


    I look forward to seeing the contents of the reply you are expecting to receive from what I assume is an authoritative source.



  10. Jim,


    "Here is what Circular 286-1944 says regarding the eligibility requirements for the CIB according to the US Army Board for Corrections of Military Records."


    This particular action by Company A, 803rd Engineer occurred early in 1942. WD Circular 186 does not apply to the unit. WD Circular 269, dated 27 October 1943 applies.

    3. Combat Infantryman badge.---Infantryman, including officers, establish

    eligibility to wear the Combat Infantryman badge by ---

    a. Exemplary conduct in action against the enemy, or

    b. By satisfactory performance of duty in action against the enemy in a

    major operation as determined and announced by the theater commander.


    “during World War II, the CIB was normally awarded only to enlisted

    individuals who served in the following positions: Light machine gunner

    (604); Heavy machine gunner (605); Platoon sergeant (651); Squad leader

    (653); Rifleman (745); Automatic rifleman (746); Heavy weapons NCO

    (812); and Gun crewman (864).”


    Your assumption may be accurate, but the requirement for MOS of an infantryman was not listed until the 1960’s. Records reveal even during the Vietnam War, there were personnel awarded the CIB without the MOS you identified.


    The time period of 65 years is irrelevant to WWII veterans that have finally “opened up” to share their hardships to those concerned of the injustice.


    Are you saying the Army Board for Correction of Military Record (Sole authority to award the CIB) made a mistake? The presentation described below represents hundreds [if not thousands] of like awards to WWII veterans.










    You are mistaken. The requirement for the Infantry MOS listed above was included in Army Circular 186-1944.



  11. Yes, people are either on one side of the other, but as you can tell, I amongst a vast majority who are forum members, including many veterans here, still feel that those combat engineers WHO SERVED AS INFANTRY, (and it was stated so in official army documention from the the war), that they should have been awarded the CIB. My father, amongst several other engineers, were awarded the CIB, and I feel they were duly decorated.


    But everyone here already knows how I feel, and there is no need to re-hash old threads.






    As you know I represent veterans who served in engineers, signal, armored, infantry, artillery, supply and so on. This responsibility requires me to take a broader view of things than those who focus on only a single branch or corps or service. This provides me with an entirely different, and more balanced, perspective than might otherwise be the case.


    I think it dangerous to attempt to censor legitimate historical discussion on the award of the CIB to engineers, especially since you have "pinned" the thread at the top of the page to call attention to it.


    If your father met the requirements for the CIB, then he has a right to wear it. Is it listed on his DD214?





  12. Corrected URL's






    Although I respect your efforts to honor WWII veterans and to make certain they receive the awards and decorations they earned under Army Regulations I cannot agree with your contention that engineers be retroactively awarded combat infantry badges when they did not meet the contemporaneous official requirements for the award. The requirements for the CIB were rather straight forward, and attempts to revise them some 65 years after the fact do a disservice to those who actually met those requirements.


    Here is what Circular 286-1944 says regarding the eligibility requirements for the CIB according to the US Army Board for Corrections of Military Records.


    10. War Department Circular 186-1944 provided that the CIB was to be

    awarded only to infantrymen serving with infantry units of brigade,

    regimental or smaller size. Additionally, World War II holders of the

    CIB received a monthly pay supplement known as combat infantry pay and

    holders of the EIB were entitled to expert infantry pay. Therefore,

    soldiers had economic as well as intangible reasons to ensure that their

    records were correct. Thus, pay records are frequently the best

    available source to verify entitlement to this award. The Awards

    Branch, Total Army Personnel Command, has advised in similar cases that,

    during World War II, the CIB was normally awarded only to enlisted

    individuals who served in the following positions: Light machine gunner

    (604); Heavy machine gunner (605); Platoon sergeant (651); Squad leader

    (653); Rifleman (745); Automatic rifleman (746); Heavy weapons NCO

    (812); and Gun crewman (864).


    This is pretty clear cut. It would, in my opinion, be better to stop trying to bend/stretch the regulations at such a late date, and consider obtaining recognition of the combat engineers in a different and more appropriate manner. Perhaps you might begin a campaign to have the US House of Representatives honor these combat engineer units in a House Resolution. That way the units in question receive the credit they are due without having to "go after" something they were not entitled to 65 years ago.


    Best Regards,



  13. Members of Company A, 803rd Engineers awarded the CIB.








    The letter is unsigned, undated, and carries no official letterhead. It would be very helpful if you could supply this information.


    As someone who deals with non-infantry veterans wanting a CIB, I can attest to the controversy such requests raise among infantry veterans who earned the award. As Gen. Marshall said, it was the only special thing the infantryman could hold up and say was his, so I am not generally in favor of handing out the award to men who fought as infantrymen for a few days, or in some cases, weeks. For example, on my bulletin board is a photo of an infantryman who first entered combat in N. Africa, and was fortunate enought to have survived Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, S. France, Nordwind, and so on with only a couple of Purple Hearts to show for his troubles. He told me his CIB means more to him than anything else the army gave him, and I think he earned it fair and square.


    I am equally certain there are special exceptions that should be honored by the Army, but sincerely hope they are kept to the bare minimum in order not to dilute Gen. Marshall's original intent.


    Robert, How goes your campaign to obtain Purple Hearts for former POWs who became ill or were injured during captivity?



  14. Here is a little holiday gift for our friends and veterans of the VI Corps Engineers. (I don’t know if this is new information for most of you, or not, but thought to share it just in case.)


    Seventh Army Operations Instructions 24 November 1944

    Number 19


    Effective 0600A, 25 November 1944, the units listed below will be prepared to move on six (6) hours notice to an area or areas designated by CG VI Corps:


    540th Engr Regt © with the following attached units:

    85th Engr Bn (Hvy Ponton)

    424 Engr Dump Truck Co

    Co “A”, 84th Engr Bn (Cam)(-Det)

    69th Chem Smoke Gen Co


    40th Engr Regt ©, with the following attached units:

    1553rd Engr Bn (Hvy Ponton)

    Co “D”, 378th Engr Bn (Sep)(DT)

    78th Chem Smoke Gen Co

    Det, Co “A”, 84th Engr Bn (Cam)


    Hqs & Hqs Det, 147th QM Bn (Mb1) with the following attached units:

    829 Amphibious Trk Co

    830 Amphibious Trk Co

    831 Amphibious Trk Co

    832 Amphibious Trk Co

    3340 QM Trk Co (DUKW)


    Looks like these guys were getting ready to go somewhere. The date coincides with 6th Army Groups plans for VI Corps to cross the Rhine north of Strasbourg. Too bad Eisenhower stopped them since it is readily apparent that the German offensives in the Ardennes and Alsace would have been short-circuited by an entire American army group

    conducting a major offensive into the German heartland.




  15. I will more than happy to pass along your information to Mr Horton. My husband states he may be incorrect, but was going on the information he had acquired 30 years ago.


    Thanks Marion. I sent Mr. Horton a message, but since he doesn't know me I was worried he might not take it seriously.


    As you probably noticed the link I provided takes you to the official webpage about the CIB on the US Army Insitute of Heraldry website. This is the official source of information regarding awards, decorations, and other devices worn by members of the US Army.


    Best Regards,



  16. Marion,


    Thank you for the brief synopsis regarding firearms used in the early days of our country's history. It is very interesting. However, I don't quite understand what this has to do with the 1795 Springfield Arsenal musket which is the basis for the weapon portrayed on the Combat Infantry Badge.


    I suppose my concern is that Mr. Horton went away with the impression that the weapon in question is actually a representation of a long rifle. Correcting this seems all the more important especially when the question involves the creation of a monument devoted to the CIB.


    Is there some way you can reach him to make sure he has the correct information?





  17. Hey Guys,


    Listen, let's not jump to conclusions about the CIB. The "rifle" on the CIB is not a rifle per se. It is a musket. Here is the official description...




    The bar is blue, the color associated with the Infantry branch. The musket is adapted from the Infantry insignia of branch and represents the first official U.S. shoulder arm, the 1795 model Springfield Arsenal musket. It was adopted as the official Infantry branch insignia in 1924. The oak symbolizes steadfastness, strength and loyalty.


    Combat Infantry Badge


    Here's another tid bit about the CIB. It is first in order of precedence of awards and decorations worn on the left chest. This means it is worn above all other awards and decorations other than the Medal of Honor.



  18. For the record, the US Army Military History Insitutue (USAMHI) / Army Historical Education Center (AHEC) at Carlisle Barracks, PA is the main US Army repository for documents and records. USAMHI is one of the top research facilities in the Army History Program, and as such, is an appropriate facility for donating any documents and records, personal or otherwise, dealing with any aspect of US Army History. If a person wishes for his or her donated materials to be available to the widest possible audience of future historians and researchers, USAMHI is the best place. Donations to other Army historical facilities such as that operated by the Engineers is fine too, but rest assured items donated to these facilities will not be available to as wide a specturm of historians and researchers as those housed at USAMHI. Thus, a person conducting serious research on Operation Nordwind will almost certainly go to USAMHI, but not the Engineer's repository. As a result, important material regarding the Engineers' contributions to defeating Operation Nordwind might be missed.


    USAMHI Website


    Hope this helps.



  19. 19 December 1944.


    VI Corps units assualting the German West Wall continue to encounter fierce resistance all along the front.


    The 103d Infantry Division, northwest of Wissembourg, is taking very heavy casualties, but making excellent progress in penetrating the formidable German defenses in its sector.


    On the corps' left flank the 45th Infantry Division is making slow, but steady progress against the German fortifications.


    The 14th Armored Division has been stopped cold in front of the extensive fortifications north of Wissembourg, and is reorganizing its units in order to concentrate more firepower against these defenses.


    On the right flank all three regiments of the 79th Infantry Division are attacking into the area including the dense Bien Wald, and are encountering very heavy enemy resistance.


    Poor flying weather limits XII Tactical Air Force to only 60 sorties against enemy strongpoints directly in front of VI Corps lines along the West Wall.


    Seventh Army Operating Instruction Number 34 relieves the 48th Combat Engineer Battalion from its attachment to VI Corps and replaces it with the 540th Combat Engineer Regiment.



  20. It is what the Campaign ribbon states too: Ardennes - Alsace.

    So I guess the US Army cut corners and did not make two separate Campaign credits but only one. :banghead:


    When I speak about the Battle of The Bulge, I do mean the area of the Belgian and Luxembourg Ardennes.

    The other operations is simply known to me as the Alsace Campaign.

    Just wanted to make this clear.


    For the "ordinary" soldier it didn't give a damm in what Campaign he was in.

    He just tried to survive the horrors of war and get it all over with so he could go home .... hopefully in one piece.

    Heck, if I was freezing my tail off, trying to avoid some Kraut putting a hole in me .... I wouldn't start wondering "now, in what glorious Campaign am I participating in now?" :pdt12::pdt20:

    I bet those guys "on the other side" thought the same thing (unless they were a brain-washed ardent nazi).


    Btw, I am not easily offended and did not take your replies the wrong way. :pdt34:




    Indeed. The Battles of the Ardennes and Alsace are entirely different. It is a shame the US Army chose to lump them together as a single campaign credit. Regardless, from a historical standpoint it is a mistake to treat these major two battles as connected. They were separated by territory and involved different American and German armies and army groups.


    The Battle of Alsace is in fact a misnomer. While it might correctly be referred to as the Second Battle of Alsace, the initial attacks and a fair share of the fighting occured in Eastern Lorraine.


    Although some tend think Operation Nordwind was over by the first week of January, the number of German units engaged with Seventh Army actually increased. At least one German source treats Operation Nordwind as lasting until 25 January 1945.


    Most importantly, Operation Nordwind, which precipitated the Battle of Alsace, was the last major German offensive of the war, not the Battle of the Ardennes. This is an important distinction that has been lost over the years due to the inaccurate reporting of, and continuing focus on the Battle of the Ardennes as the last major German offensive of the war. Hence the tendency for those veterans who stopped the last major German offensive of the war to identify with the Battle of the Ardennes/Bulge.


    From a military history perspective it seems a disservice to the veterans of Seventh Army, and in particular, VI Corps, to lump their sacrifices and accomplishments in under the Battle of the Ardennes/Bulge. Instead, we should be working to set the record straight at every possible opportunity.


    Well, that's my two cents on the subject.





  21. Hi all! I am hoping you can tell me about any labor camps you liberated that contained American GI's held as POWs. The attached document describes the camps where my father was held but I am unable to confirm where he was liberated from and by whom.


    My father didn't talk much about his captivity. I was born 10 years after my father was liberated, so the only reason I am here is because of my father's will to survive. My Dad, Walter Blair Brinegar, was in A Company of the 27th AIB/9th Armored Division. I have been researching his captivity in the hope of finding out where he was liberated from. I have been in contact with some WWII historians in Germany that suggested he may have been held in Ammunition Factory in Siegburg, or in the bordering town of Troisdorf. I believe your corp liberated that area on or around April 8, 1945 (that is the day my father said he was liberated).


    My Dad passed 30 years ago, when I was much younger and didn't realize the significance of his experience. Now, that I am older and wiser, I want to commerate his life and his will to survive by finding the places where he was held and taking my children and grandchildren to those places. I want to make sure they never forget why they are here and to also make sure they tell their children and grandchildren.


    If you have any information you believe may be relevant, please contact me. Thank you in advance for any assistance you provide. This is a quest and labor of love andhonor for my Dad.




    Your father was liberated by Combat Command A, 13th Armored Division, the "Black Cats." On 8 April 1945 CCA captured Siegberg and nearby Troisdorf after CCB had by-passed that latter. It is fitting that your father, an armored infantryman, was liberated by his comrades of the Armored Force. At the time the 13th AD was attached to XVIII Corps, First Army, and operating on the left flank of the 97th Infantry Division.


    Your father was probably on the roles of Stalag VIG as a POW although it appears from your comments he may have been one of those men who was out on a labor detail. Stalag VIG was closed out and moved several times during the war, and as near as I can tell was set up in or near the town of Bergeneustadt some miles to the east. You might want to follow up on the various locations of this POW camp, but it appears that at one time it was quite near Bonn, Germany.


    Hope this helps.

  22. Jim, went back and opened the original file you sent, and there are only three and a half pages. There are NO footnotes. Therefore the PDF transferred it exactly as it was.


    I double checked the email attachment I sent to you, and the endnotes are on the copy that went out. It is a mystery to me, although I suspect there was some sort of software glitch somewhere. Regardless, I apologize for the confusion.


    Here is the link to the my review of First to the Rhine.


    Complete Review of First to the Rhine



  23. Jim: Received the file and did convert to PDF. Thought it would be easier for our readers.


    Thank you for your thorough review.


    I believe we (vets, their families, etc.), were thrilled to get our hands on First to the Rhine, for it covered the territory the 36th and 540th Combat Engineers traversed and actually referenced them (a scarce source of information in released books). I too enjoyed the book, and recommended it to several people. So was disheartened to find it contained erroneous information, via your review.


    Dear Marion:


    I see you have uploaded my review to your website. However, the endnotes are missing, an omission that damages the integrity of the review. I am sure this is just an oversight, as I know you would not edit my work without permission. Will you please add the endnotes?




    Best Regards,





  24. Hello everyone.


    Since I had never seen the term "Adjutant" used to designate the G-1/S-1 in any of the primary source documents I've read over the years I decided to look a little further into the matter.


    Here is a little more information about the use of the term "Personnel" to refer to the G-1/S-1 staff position.


    338.3.1 Records of European Theater of Operations U.S. Army

    (ETOUSA)/U.S. Forces European Theater (USFET)

    Textual Records (reallocated to RG 498): Decimal correspondence, interrogation reports, personnel rosters, awards files, and other records, 1941-47, of the General Staff Secretary; the following general staff sections: G-1 (Personnel), G-2 (Intelligence), G-3 (Operations), and G-4 (Logistics); the following special staff sections for administrative matters: Adjutant General (including the Postal Division), Civil Affairs, Finance, Historical, Judge Advocate General, Provost Marshal, and Public Relations; the following special staff sections for technical matters: Engineer, Ordnance, Quartermaster, Signal, Surgeon General (Medical), and Transportation; the General Board; the General Purchasing Agency; Theater Service Forces European Theater; and Communications Zone ETOUSA. Escape and evasion reports of the MIS-X (Military Intelligence Service, Escape and Evasion Section) Detachment, 1943-45.




    A check of the glossaries contained in several US Army in WWII publications of the US Army Center of Military History ("Green Books") shows the use of the term "Personnel" for the G-1 staff position for divisional and higher headquarters.


    Of course, the S-1 term is the same as the G-1, but for units small than divisions.


    Hopefully this clarifies that "Personnel" was the standard term for G-1/S-1 rather than "Adjutant."





  25. Jim:


    It's a real shame when this happens. As far as I'm concerned, there's no excuse for this number of mistakes to occur in one book. With the internet, NARA, etc., at our disposal, this kind of sloppiness should not occur. Maybe it was rushed into publication, maybe not, but whatever the reasons, a real disappointment for many.




    Unfortunately, Yeide seems to stretch things a bit. In his book, Steel Victory, he makes the claim that Sherman tank crews routinely carried extra rounds of ammunition for their main guns inside the tank. This is not only next to impossible due to space limitations, but extraordinarilly dangerous. As more than one veteran tanker has said, where would we put these rounds, and who in their right minds would want them rolling around on the floor in the first place? When I challenged Yeide for his source on this he could come up with only a single memoir which was completely unvetted. Now I ask you, how does one take the claim of a single, unexamined source and extrapolate it to include all or most tankers?


    I documented my findings regarding the error in First To The Rhine into a formal, academic style review of the book. Perhaps you would like to have the review posted on your website. If so, let me know, and I can send it to you as a Word attachment.